Re: Grains Good as Gold

[Guest guest]

Me thinks I'd weigh 200 pounds if I ate that way!

Ridiculous IMO.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

If I see one more article boasting the merits of grains for diabetics...

over what? White sugar? Corn syrup? What are these people comparing it to? I

keep saying, I need a lab. My own experiments have shown rice, millet, baked

potato/yam, wheat/spelt bread to be, in that order, the worst for blood

sugar, with quinoa and amaranth at the other end being not as bad, but still

not good. Adding protein/fat slows the rise slightly. I would love to test

this out on other diabetics. I know quite a few people who have had similiar

results.

There is this idea presented to the public that grains are indespensible.

Without them, why, you have no basis for your pyramid, no foundation for

health. I guess this is why they recommend whole grains for diabetics. Since

you must have them, the comparison must be whole grains to white flour,

white rice, etc.

http://147.208.9.133/

Check out the link above to the USDA Healthy Eating Index. Especially

amusing are the HEI smiley/unhappy faces and " your pyramid " . Mine just kind

of floats in midair.

best wishes

Michele

_________________________________________________________________

Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.

http://wine.msn.com/

[Guest guest]

There should be a line in large red letters at the top of this site (every

page) stating: " The information on this site is not intended to diagnose,

treat, cure or prevent any disease. "

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: the scorpio [mailto:rawbabymama@...]

If I see one more article boasting the merits of grains for diabetics...

over what? White sugar? Corn syrup? What are these people comparing it to? I

keep saying, I need a lab. My own experiments have shown rice, millet, baked

potato/yam, wheat/spelt bread to be, in that order, the worst for blood

sugar, with quinoa and amaranth at the other end being not as bad, but still

not good. Adding protein/fat slows the rise slightly. I would love to test

this out on other diabetics. I know quite a few people who have had similiar

results.

There is this idea presented to the public that grains are indespensible.

Without them, why, you have no basis for your pyramid, no foundation for

health. I guess this is why they recommend whole grains for diabetics. Since

you must have them, the comparison must be whole grains to white flour,

white rice, etc.

http://147.208.9.133/

Check out the link above to the USDA Healthy Eating Index. Especially

amusing are the HEI smiley/unhappy faces and " your pyramid " . Mine just kind

of floats in midair.

best wishes

Michele

[Guest guest]

>If I see one more article boasting the merits of grains for diabetics...

>over what? White sugar? Corn syrup? What are these people comparing it to? I

>keep saying, I need a lab. My own experiments have shown rice, millet, baked

>potato/yam, wheat/spelt bread to be, in that order, the worst for blood

>sugar, with quinoa and amaranth at the other end being not as bad, but still

>not good. Adding protein/fat slows the rise slightly. I would love to test

>this out on other diabetics. I know quite a few people who have had similiar

>results.

Schwartzbein DID run that experiment! Wrote a book about it too. She

had very good results with diabetics on a " limited carb " diet.

>There is this idea presented to the public that grains are indespensible.

That is true, they are WAY overstressed. But the whole NT principle

is that most people CAN eat grains, esp. the whole ones, so I think it's

important not to totally backlash against them either. If you aren't

diabetic, whole quinoa and beans etc. can be good foods. The fact

a bunch of people are metabolically in trouble from the SAD doesn't

mean all grains are evil either.

I liked the part of the article:

----------------

Professor Tom , head of the department of nutrition and dietetics at

King’s College London, has reported, numerous studies show that a small group of

only 1-2 per cent suffer from a food intolerance to wheat and only 0.3 per cent

from coeliac disease, a serious allergic reaction to gluten (a protein within

wheat and some other grains).

One positive aspect of cutting down on conventional wheat has been an increasing

demand for alternatives. Tiny bead-shaped, pale- gold quinoa is becoming the

grain for food fashionistas, partly because it’s easy and quick to cook and has

a likeable, firm, slightly crunchy texture

-----------------

>Without them, why, you have no basis for your pyramid, no foundation for

>health. I guess this is why they recommend whole grains for diabetics. Since

>you must have them, the comparison must be whole grains to white flour,

>white rice, etc.

>

><http://147.208.9.133/>http://147.208.9.133/

>

>Check out the link above to the USDA Healthy Eating Index. Especially

>amusing are the HEI smiley/unhappy faces and " your pyramid " . Mine just kind

>of floats in midair.

Cute site. A person might not agree with the smiley faces, but you can use it

to chart your diet if you want!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>But the whole NT principle

>is that most people CAN eat grains, esp. the whole ones, so I think it's

>important not to totally backlash against them either

And what if the NT principle is wrong, or at least overly

optimistic? People with compromised digestion and/or generally compromised

health can almost certainly improve their health by going off grains

entirely, at least for a good long while, perhaps for the rest of their

lives. Of course it is true that for a lot of people, the degree of

improvement they can realize just by NT-ifying their diet (including

preparing their grains properly) will seem sufficient, but I'm not sure

what choices they'd make if they experienced both options.

Part of the reason the NT principle is stated the way it is is

economics. Poorer people simply can't afford to completely eschew cheap

carbohydrates.

-

[Guest guest]

And why, exactly, do you think that obesity is such a problem in this

country, and every other country that has been told the big white lie?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: zumicat@... [mailto:zumicat@...]

Me thinks I'd weigh 200 pounds if I ate that way!

Ridiculous IMO.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

One problem I have with this web site is that they do not tell you how many

of the nutrients are added fake ones.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>Without them, why, you have no basis for your pyramid, no foundation for

>health. I guess this is why they recommend whole grains for diabetics.

Since

>you must have them, the comparison must be whole grains to white flour,

>white rice, etc.

>

><http://147.208.9.133/>http://147.208.9.133/

>

>Check out the link above to the USDA Healthy Eating Index. Especially

>amusing are the HEI smiley/unhappy faces and " your pyramid " . Mine just kind

>of floats in midair.

Cute site. A person might not agree with the smiley faces, but you can use

it

to chart your diet if you want!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/04 8:58:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The phytates are never COMPLETELY

> gone either.

Why does this matter?

I've seen several times people refer to phytates as " toxic, " but I've never

seen anything in any literature indicating this is so. My understanding is

that phytate just happens to be a base that will bind with any minerals, which

means that it can reduce your absorption of them, and, more importantly, makes

an insoluble salt with certain minerals, such as zinc, which essentially

prevents you from using it.

But if you neutralize half the phytate, then you'll get twice the zinc out of

the food. Maybe half the phytate remains bound in insoluble salts with zinc

or another mineral, but so what? As long as you neutralize *some* of the

phytate, you're still increasing your net mineral gain by eating the food, over

not eating the food.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I'm back after months of being overwhelmed by the volume of posts on this list.

I just deleted 1000+ message I knew I would never read, so hope I don't cover

ffamiliar territory.

>If I see one more article boasting the merits of grains for diabetics...

Have you seen Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. He is a type 1 diabetic turned

MD who finally controlled his diabetes well with a careful carb restriction, and

in the process corrected most of the complications that had begun to plague him.

He's done just the kind of research you're talking about, doing multiple blood

sugar testings after meals, etc., and found a direct relationship between carb

content and affect on blood sugar, with glycemic index making little difference.

The book was a revelation to me, a retired dietitian, who had given the wrong

advice for years, until I started reading after I retired. I had worked as a

diabetes educator and with a diabetes specialist, but we didn't have a clue! The

book makes sense of the many things we struggled with in dealing with diabetes.

Now my husband has diabetes, Type II, and I'm working with careful carb

restriction for him, which would be very successful, I think, if he would just

get on the ball and get his exercise. He's reading the book now, so I hope he'll

get inspired. Exercise is the hardest part in this lousy winter weather and

living 6 miles away from exercise facilities.

The trouble with Bernstein is the book doesn't reflect a good understanding of

the importance of high quality fats, and makes use of soy, so you have to keep

your NT knowledge in mind. Interestingly, the full text of the book (I think) is

available on line at http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/ so he really is

trying to educate, and not just make money off his book. At almost 500 pages,

I'd much rather study the hard copy which includes recipes, and which I bought

after I read the library copy. The Web site does have articles by Sally Fallon

and Enig, so his understanding may have increased since the book came out.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/

On the Fallacy of our Cheap Food policies:

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/Kris/Justice.htm

[Guest guest]

>Professor Tom , head of the department of nutrition and dietetics at

KingÂ's College London, has reported, numerous studies show that a small group

of only 1-2 per cent suffer from a food intolerance to wheat and only 0.3 per

cent from coeliac disease, a serious allergic reaction to gluten (a protein

within wheat and some other grains).

I guess Prof isn't familiar with this book, or chooses to disregard it.

DANGEROUS GRAINS - Why Gluten Cereal Grains May Be Hazardous to Your Health,

2002, by Braly, M.D. and Ron Hoggan, M.A.

Click on the title for an extensive review.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/

Here's a whole list of books on carbs and some comments:

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/Kris/Carbs & Fats.htm#Carbs

[Guest guest]

i agree with the last sentiment about poorer people. my financial situation is

about to change to one where i will probably be forced to put more grain back

into my diet. it's really unfortunate but it's too expensive to eat meat daily

for our family. on an off topic note if any one has recipes for good ways to

stretch the meat (like good stir-fries or stews, etc) i would like some.

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Heidi-

>But the whole NT principle

>is that most people CAN eat grains, esp. the whole ones, so I think it's

>important not to totally backlash against them either

And what if the NT principle is wrong, or at least overly

optimistic? People with compromised digestion and/or generally compromised

health can almost certainly improve their health by going off grains

entirely, at least for a good long while, perhaps for the rest of their

lives. Of course it is true that for a lot of people, the degree of

improvement they can realize just by NT-ifying their diet (including

preparing their grains properly) will seem sufficient, but I'm not sure

what choices they'd make if they experienced both options.

Part of the reason the NT principle is stated the way it is is

economics. Poorer people simply can't afford to completely eschew cheap

carbohydrates.

-

[Guest guest]

i agree with the last sentiment about poorer people. my financial situation is

about to change to one where i will probably be forced to put more grain back

into my diet. it's really unfortunate but it's too expensive to eat meat daily

for our family. on an off topic note if any one has recipes for good ways to

stretch the meat (like good stir-fries or stews, etc) i would like some.

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Heidi-

>But the whole NT principle

>is that most people CAN eat grains, esp. the whole ones, so I think it's

>important not to totally backlash against them either

And what if the NT principle is wrong, or at least overly

optimistic? People with compromised digestion and/or generally compromised

health can almost certainly improve their health by going off grains

entirely, at least for a good long while, perhaps for the rest of their

lives. Of course it is true that for a lot of people, the degree of

improvement they can realize just by NT-ifying their diet (including

preparing their grains properly) will seem sufficient, but I'm not sure

what choices they'd make if they experienced both options.

Part of the reason the NT principle is stated the way it is is

economics. Poorer people simply can't afford to completely eschew cheap

carbohydrates.

-

[Guest guest]

Eggs are great substitutes for meat, and, even at today's prices are less

expensive. They can be scrambled with veggies or meats of most any kind.

They can be beaten and drizzled into any broth for egg drop soup.

A dozen eggs will go farther than a pound of hamburger, and at less cost.

I often saute fresh onions in beef tallow until they are clear, then add

veggies. If I want soup I also add water. Season to taste.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: heather coy [mailto:hjillcoy@...]

i agree with the last sentiment about poorer people. my financial situation

is about to change to one where i will probably be forced to put more grain

back into my diet. it's really unfortunate but it's too expensive to eat

meat daily for our family. on an off topic note if any one has recipes for

good ways to stretch the meat (like good stir-fries or stews, etc) i would

like some.

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

Heidi-

>But the whole NT principle

>is that most people CAN eat grains, esp. the whole ones, so I think it's

>important not to totally backlash against them either

And what if the NT principle is wrong, or at least overly

optimistic? People with compromised digestion and/or generally compromised

health can almost certainly improve their health by going off grains

entirely, at least for a good long while, perhaps for the rest of their

lives. Of course it is true that for a lot of people, the degree of

improvement they can realize just by NT-ifying their diet (including

preparing their grains properly) will seem sufficient, but I'm not sure

what choices they'd make if they experienced both options.

Part of the reason the NT principle is stated the way it is is

economics. Poorer people simply can't afford to completely eschew cheap

carbohydrates.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/25/04 10:30:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The phytates (and other stuff in grains) might make

> them harder to digest though too ... I know they

> go down a lot easier if properly treated. Masa

> is a LOT better than plain corn.

Maybe, but all the methods that neutralize phytates do a lot of other things

too-- like pre-digest starches and probably proteins-- so, without a

mechanism, there's no basis to attribute the phenomenon to phytate

neutralization.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

>on an off topic note if any one has recipes for good ways to stretch the

>meat (like good stir-fries or stews, etc) i would like some.

Sorry to hear about your worsened circumstances, but one thing you can do

is make stock. Just make sure to have _some_ kind of animal protein every day.

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>>But the whole NT principle

>>is that most people CAN eat grains, esp. the whole ones, so I think it's

>>important not to totally backlash against them either

>

>And what if the NT principle is wrong, or at least overly

>optimistic? People with compromised digestion and/or generally compromised

>health can almost certainly improve their health by going off grains

>entirely, at least for a good long while, perhaps for the rest of their

>lives. Of course it is true that for a lot of people, the degree of

>improvement they can realize just by NT-ifying their diet (including

>preparing their grains properly) will seem sufficient, but I'm not sure

>what choices they'd make if they experienced both options.

>

>Part of the reason the NT principle is stated the way it is is

>economics. Poorer people simply can't afford to completely eschew cheap

>carbohydrates.

>

>

>-

I think it's going to need more study, for sure! You can make

good arguments against grains (and lots of people have).

And a lot of people, once they get hold of good meat

and vegies, seem to just kind of drop grains, which is a good

argument against them too. The phytates are never COMPLETELY

gone either. Personally I like the " grain as a condiment " approach,

which seems to be where the consensus is heading anyway

(bread sales are down 30%).

But a lot of the reason

NT isn't against grains is that it is based on TRADITION and there IS

a long tradition of eating grains. I totally agree that a lot of people

don't do well with them ... but a lot of people do just fine with

tortillas, rice, and beans, for starters. Price's " healthy " groups

ate grains, and most of the world eats a lot of rice, or tubers

of one sort or another, and they just didn't have the diabetes/

overweight problems we are having now in America. The whole

reason the high grain/lowfat diet got scientific recognition in

the first place is that some groups actually do pretty well on that

kind of diet, epidemiologically (though I question that such

diets are actually as low fat as was claimed, there is no question

that they ate a lot of grain, albeit not wheat).

There is a danger of vilifying all carbs. For one thing the people

that just don't do well on a very low carb diet (for whatever

reason) then just give up and go back to SAD (as has happened

over and over in my circle of acquaintances). And yeah, there is

the cost issue too. And even if they DO discover that an

all-meat/fat diet is the " best " , the chances of converting

people to it is about nil. My family eats more meat now than

they used to, but there is no way they'd give up tacos!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>i agree with the last sentiment about poorer people. my financial situation is

about to change to one where i will probably be forced to put more grain back

into my diet. it's really unfortunate but it's too expensive to eat meat daily

for our family. on an off topic note if any one has recipes for good ways to

stretch the meat (like good stir-fries or stews, etc) i would like some.

I think some if this has to do with how you

get your food too. I've been working to

come up with a " cheap " diet -- partly because

my DH felt our food purchases were outrageous,

and partly because I felt the need to simplify,

and partly because it is a challenge.

I was inspired by a lady who was at one point

living on food stamps and has a severely limited

budget. First she bought chicks, and raised

them so she'd have " free " eggs. Then she got

a freezer, and got " freezer meat " . Anyway, you

can buy steer on the hoof for about $1.00 to $1.50 per

pound hanging weight. There is about 20% loss, so that

comes to $1.25 to $1.87 per lb, plus another .40/lb for butchering.

So, for 4 people you serve

about a lb of meat per meal, that is less than $2 per meal.

If you are there during slaughter, you can walk away

with the heart, hooves, liver, spleen, inner fat etc. for free.

Then, since I'm not against rice or tortillas, we eat

those too, and some vegies and kimchi (kimchi is REALLY

cheap to make).

Anyway, it IS a very cheap way to feed a family.

Another thing people do around here is buy about 50 baby

" roaster " chicks and raise them for a couple of months

(they grow fast). Then you stock the freezer for the year.

THAT is a lot of work, and chicken is usually cheap anyway,

but it's tempting.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>Part of the reason the NT principle is stated the way it is is

economics. Poorer people simply can't afford to completely eschew cheap

carbohydrates.

>i agree with the last sentiment about poorer people. my financial situation is

about to change to one where i will probably be forced to put more grain back

into my diet. it's really unfortunate but it's too expensive to eat meat daily

for our family. on an off topic note if any one has recipes for good ways to

stretch the meat (like good stir-fries or stews, etc) i would like some.

You might try some of the recipes on my Web site - soup recipes especially

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/Recipes/Cookbook.htm

Peace,

Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio

http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/

[Guest guest]

Another thing to remember is that the grains and tubers people used to eat

had not been through the commercial food mill and stripped of all their

nutrients. (And " fortifying " with a few fake ones doesn't count.)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

I think it's going to need more study, for sure! You can make

good arguments against grains (and lots of people have).

And a lot of people, once they get hold of good meat

and vegies, seem to just kind of drop grains, which is a good

argument against them too. The phytates are never COMPLETELY

gone either. Personally I like the " grain as a condiment " approach,

which seems to be where the consensus is heading anyway

(bread sales are down 30%).

But a lot of the reason

NT isn't against grains is that it is based on TRADITION and there IS

a long tradition of eating grains. I totally agree that a lot of people

don't do well with them ... but a lot of people do just fine with

tortillas, rice, and beans, for starters. Price's " healthy " groups

ate grains, and most of the world eats a lot of rice, or tubers

of one sort or another, and they just didn't have the diabetes/

overweight problems we are having now in America. The whole

reason the high grain/lowfat diet got scientific recognition in

the first place is that some groups actually do pretty well on that

kind of diet, epidemiologically (though I question that such

diets are actually as low fat as was claimed, there is no question

that they ate a lot of grain, albeit not wheat).

There is a danger of vilifying all carbs. For one thing the people

that just don't do well on a very low carb diet (for whatever

reason) then just give up and go back to SAD (as has happened

over and over in my circle of acquaintances). And yeah, there is

the cost issue too. And even if they DO discover that an

all-meat/fat diet is the " best " , the chances of converting

people to it is about nil. My family eats more meat now than

they used to, but there is no way they'd give up tacos!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> The phytates are never COMPLETELY

>> gone either.

>

>Why does this matter?

>

>I've seen several times people refer to phytates as " toxic, " but I've never

>seen anything in any literature indicating this is so. My understanding is

>that phytate just happens to be a base that will bind with any minerals, which

>means that it can reduce your absorption of them, and, more importantly, makes

>an insoluble salt with certain minerals, such as zinc, which essentially

>prevents you from using it.

Chris:

I think you are exactly right ... phytates aren't toxic, but they

reduce absorption, and when humans converted to being

grain eaters they started becoming malnourished in many

cases. Of course, gluten grains REALLY mess up absorption,

for other reasons, so it get complicated. The bran of grains

tends to bind with fats and take them out of the body too,

which nowadays is considered a good thing by some folks.

I think the problem with grains really comes in when

the grains make up the bulk of the diet ... like in Asia, where

the " new " rice is low in iron (The rice they used to use was

higher in iron) and no rice has Vit A. The Indians didn't do

well when they ate primarily corn either.

The phytates (and other stuff in grains) might make

them harder to digest though too ... I know they

go down a lot easier if properly treated. Masa

is a LOT better than plain corn.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Well, I doubt anyone's going to do that.

>There is a danger of vilifying all carbs.

-

[Guest guest]

>You might try some of the recipes on my Web site - soup recipes especially

><http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/Recipes/Cookbook.htm>http://home.woh.rr\

..com/billkrisjohnson/Recipes/Cookbook.htm

Nice set of recipes! It is kind of you to share!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>NT isn't against grains is that it is based on TRADITION and there IS

>a long tradition of eating grains.

When comparing traditional cultures to modern diet, it is easy to

overlook that the very content of the food has also been changed by

the industrialists. The carbs of traditional foods as available in

our markets and health food stores are no longer as complex as they

once were. Complex carbohydrates metabolize much differently that

simple carbohydrates. It is the simples carbs that readily affect

sugar issues.

Why is this so? Because of the massive hybridization that the green

revolution brought into agriculture. Most any food in the market

place is from hybrid sources and not from true, traditional plant

sources.

Example one:

The BIONEERS people have recently been involved in restoring the

traditional Iroquios white corn to the tribes. It is my understanding

that the germ plasm we re-located in some cached stores and for

several years has been the main crop of at least 5 Iroguois farmers.

This is the original 'maize' and has nothing to do with the white

man's 'sweet' corns. Iropuois corn does not cook by being boiled. It

needs to be roasted for hours, fermented (sometimes in pots of human

saliva! ;-) or ground to be prepared for the human table. The

Bioneers was working with one tribe that had a high percentage of

diabetes. They had been removed from white corn and their tribal bean

for generations. (A 'tribal bean' is a bean that was selectively bred

by the tribe down the generation and is the major one that they

commonly eat. This tribe lost theirs in the relocations of the 19th

century. The white man wouldn't let them take the bean they had

co-evolved with: food is food, right? Anyway, the re-introduction of

complex carb white corn and the native bean caused a reversal in

diabetes in the tribe. They now had slow burning staples,

non-hybridized foods that their metabolism resonated with. The

bioneers people call combinations of traditional plant foods 'true

slow food,' because it 'sticks to your ribs' because it metabolizes

slowly be releases a lot of energy.

Ever read those 19th century frontier novels like 's? There's

always some mention of 'grabbing a couple of johnny cakes' and

heading across the divide. Can you imagine doing any hiking - - or

any real work - - on a few pieces of modern cornbread (and I think

johnny cakes were more like polenta)? This has lways troubled me

because, as much as I like corn bread, I could never be satisfied

from a meal of it. Truth is: the settlers were still using Iroquois

white corn and it packed the energy to be a road food in the

wilderness.

I don't recall the name of the tribe cited above, but anyone who

wants to substantiate this story can contact www.bioneers.com

-Allan Balliett

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks! Story is at http://www.bioneers.org/rdi/iwc_page.html

> I don't recall the name of the tribe cited above, but anyone who

> wants to substantiate this story can contact www.bioneers.com

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/26/04 12:48:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >? Anyway, the re-introduction of

> >complex carb white corn and the native bean caused a reversal in

> >diabetes in the tribe. They now had slow burning staples,

> >non-hybridized foods that their metabolism resonated with.

I have doubts about this. Sprouting turns much or most of the starches into

sugars, and fermenting/soaking does a fair amount of the same. I suspect it's

more related to the nutrient value.

Chris