Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Not around here (Northern Virginia). I was quoted $2.40/pound for beef (and pork), and was told that the loss and processing fees would work the actual price up to about $3.00/pound. Well, by the time I got my stuff, the " loss " was more like 40% (and on one pig, a whopping 47%), which jacked the net prices to me up to $4.50/$4.75 per pound. I'd had a similar experience with lamb from a different supplier (loss of about 40%), so I thought that was average. Is it really supposed to average only 20%? Although I guess I can see where the total loss would be higher on a younger animal, like lamb. I'd had some suspicions about some of the practices of the guy I'd gotten the first beef and pork from, and the fact that he never bothered to answer my questions about that last pig pretty much sealed in my mind that it was him, not the butcher, that was responsible for all the things that were consistently, mysteriously missing from my orders. On the good side, I've found another, better supplier for those meats. At 05:49 PM 1/25/04 -0800, Heidi wrote: >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. MFJ Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 >? 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. I agree totally! There has been some discussion of that ... there was also a case in Africa where the tribes there had some corn they ate, and they had much lower rates of colon cancer than the local white people who did not eat that corn.. Rice got hybridized to make higher yeilds, and in the process lot it's iron content. A lot of the nutritionists are now saying you really have to look at the SOURCE of food, not just the macronutrient levels. >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. My Mom used to make ny Cakes, and I do too sometimes. They are kind of like frybread ... she used very coarse, solid corn meal and they had lots of fat on them from frying, and eggs, and yeah, they stuck to your ribs! Probably more so with Iroquois corn. But it brings up another point ... modern corn bread is made with very finely ground corn and sugar, and a lot of the older recipes used very coarsly ground corn (or other grains) and no sugar. I also find the Mc's experiment interesting. Technically, a person could live off fried potatoes, meat, and some bread for every meal for a month without having major health problems. Shoot, in the South some people DID eat like that their whole lives. But this guy got sick after a month. Which means there is something else going on ... the form of the food, chemicals, trans fats, high-gluten bread, corn syrup in the pop. But the blame will probably be put on the " high fat " diet at Mc's, because people tend just to look at the macronutrient levels, not at the quality of the food itself (and hey, aren't the burgers there made from old milk cows a lot?). -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 >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 I'm no molecular chemist, but the ones I know, like Dr Al Kapuler, say that the carbohydrates in traditional grains are more complex, in longer chains, etc. that's why they digest slowly and 'stick to your ribs.' Another example of this comes from the tenet that 'every form of life has its ow n form of food' and that 'insects eat sick plants not healthy plants' and yet, insects eat our food plants. By raising the brix of the produce, making nutritional elements readily available to the plant, more complex sugars are made by the plant, LONG molecules that insects cannot digest. When these long molecules are in the sap, the plant IS food for humans and the insects leave it alone. I got a good lecture from Phil Callahan's assistant at ACRES this year about this one. -Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Sorry I left out the link >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. http://www.mercola.com/2002/oct/5/dangerous_grains.htm 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 >Another example of this comes from the tenet that 'every form of life >has its ow n form of food' and that 'insects eat sick plants not >healthy plants' and yet, insects eat our food plants. By raising the >brix of the produce, making nutritional elements readily available to >the plant, more complex sugars are made by the plant, LONG molecules >that insects cannot digest. When these long molecules are in the sap, >the plant IS food for humans and the insects leave it alone. I got a >good lecture from Phil Callahan's assistant at ACRES this year about >this one. CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!! yay! i'm glad you mentioned the brix_index, which i'm beginning to think might be a crucial tool in returning nutrient-dense foods to our tables. michael's also mentioned it from time to time on this forum (and often to me privately - kudos!) and it's got me thinking! for example, just today he mentioned that the guy who runs the brix page website (http://www.brixpage.com/) was saying that non-organic plants growing on high fertility soil don't absorb pesticides nearly at the rate of organic plants on low fertility soil. (maybe the same principle applies to *us*?). it seems that high brix foods are also far more resistant to disease and pests as you mentioned (i think the same principle applies to *us* here to). clearly " grass-fed " is no guarantee of nutritional quality, " raw " is no guarantee of nutritional quality, *fermented* is no guarantee of nutritional quality and " organic " is no guarantee of nutritional quality. if grass-fed, raw, fermented and organic foods are grown (or eat foods grown) on *low* fertility soil, they are still not of the quality of foods that kept price's primitives disease-resistant, it seems. nor would such foods keep *us* disease resistant, i would think. the health of our soil is determinant in our own health. so it seems our first concern should be *soil fertility* and the brix index of our foods rather than whether they are organic, fermented, raw or grass-fed. the rest should follow... HIGH FERTILITY SOIL = HIGH BRIX INDEX = HIGH RESISTANCE TO DISEASE ne pas? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 >>>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. You know, I'm not so sure about that. Page 493 of the second edition of Nourishing Traditions says this: " Weston Price's studies convinced him that the best diet was one that combined nutrient-dense whole grains with animal products, particularly fish. The healthiest African tribe he studied was the Dinkas...They were physically better proportioned and had greater strength. Their diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. This is one of the most important lessons of Price's research--that a mixed diet of whole foods, one that avoids the extremes of the carnivorous Masai and the largely vegetarian Bantu, ensures optimum physical development " So it would seem the NT principle is stated the way it is because that was the conclusion Price himself reached. Doesn't mean Price couldn't have been wrong however. Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 >so it seems our first concern should be *soil fertility* and the brix index >of our foods rather than whether they are organic, fermented, raw or >grass-fed. the rest should follow... Suse - I loved your note, BUT, I don't think you can get truly hi-brix food outside of an organic management system. I know that many goose the brix with nutrient sprays, but if you are building brix from the ground up, then you are going to need living soils. You can't have living soils and poor poisons on them also, of course. Lots of compost and Albrecht soil balancing is what works well for 'real' brix. Just the same, I agree with everything you said, otherwise. And it comes down to this: YOU ARE WHAT YOU ATE ATE It's so easy to forget!! Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2004 Report Share Posted January 26, 2004 Very true, Suze. I have been measuring the brix of vegetables from my organic garden and so far have been disappointed. I will keep working at it until I figure out how to get it right. This is in spite of using volcanic rock dusts, all kinds of homemade compost, and kelp and now this year I'll try minerals of the sea and compost tea. Tain't easy! Peace, Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/ CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!! yay! i'm glad you mentioned the brix_index, which i'm beginning to think might be a crucial tool in returning nutrient-dense foods to our tables. michael's also mentioned it from time to time on this forum (and often to me privately - kudos!) and it's got me thinking! for example, just today he mentioned that the guy who runs the brix page website (http://www.brixpage.com/) was saying that non-organic plants growing on high fertility soil don't absorb pesticides nearly at the rate of organic plants on low fertility soil. (maybe the same principle applies to *us*?). it seems that high brix foods are also far more resistant to disease and pests as you mentioned (i think the same principle applies to *us* here to). clearly " grass-fed " is no guarantee of nutritional quality, " raw " is no guarantee of nutritional quality, *fermented* is no guarantee of nutritional quality and " organic " is no guarantee of nutritional quality. if grass-fed, raw, fermented and organic foods are grown (or eat foods grown) on *low* fertility soil, they are still not of the quality of foods that kept price's primitives disease-resistant, it seems. nor would such foods keep *us* disease resistant, i would think. the health of our soil is determinant in our own health. so it seems our first concern should be *soil fertility* and the brix index of our foods rather than whether they are organic, fermented, raw or grass-fed. the rest should follow... HIGH FERTILITY SOIL = HIGH BRIX INDEX = HIGH RESISTANCE TO DISEASE ne pas? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Ann, I did this experiment in science class with... I think it was Biurets reagant, might have been something else, but anyway, we were testing the sugar content of various foods and we heated the test tubes gently. We also did this with iodine, and were able to watch the starch turn to sugar. It was nice to see it outside my body, so no one could disagree with me. I've known so many other diabetics who were so good about soda/fruiit juice, but were still eating bread or bagels several times a day. It seems many people are told it is the amount of actual sugar that matters, not the source, and also that complex carbs are better. Cooked carbs have always been worse than sugar for me. I can pretty much eat fruit unlimited, though I do not eat more than a few peices a day (like 3 apples or so) out of habit. I can tell when my blood sugar is starting to become unstable when the fruit has an almost sour aftertaste, so thats when I whip out the glucose meter. I also use raw honey, which is ok, too. I can't use processed honey though. I've read that the processing by cooking of grains makes the calories/carbohydrates more bioavailable; though it was mentioned as a positive result, for us this is disastruous. I have eaten raw sprouted grain products which didn't bother me, but then again, how much of those can on eat, LOL. Maybe it was just the tiny serving size. With the regular stuff if I eat even a few tablespoons my blood sugar goes through the roof and I will gain like 3-5 pounds that day. I'm sorry you have to struggle with insulin dependence, but I'm glad you have it under control. I'm thankful I was able to catch myself before my diabetes became to severe. My grandmother was severely diabetic, and had to have shots and strict dietary restrictation. I remember her being very thin and hungry looking all the time. She also had convulsions pretty often. Anyway, off that dreary topic. best wishes, Michele _________________________________________________________________ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Kris - Essentially (if you have balanced you soil with good soil tests and ammendments), what your soil is lacking is the biology to convert the minerals into forms that are readily taken up by the plants. Until you get to that point, you're going to want to experiment with foliar sprays which WILL raise the brix in a few hours time, IF applied correctly. The compost tea route will probably bring about changes, particularly if your resident biota has been working on those rock dusts for a year now. Keep me posted . This is the stuff I love to talk about! -Allan >Very true, Suze. I have been measuring the brix of vegetables from >my organic garden and so far have been disappointed. I will keep >working at it until I figure out how to get it right. This is in >spite of using volcanic rock dusts, all kinds of homemade compost, >and kelp and now this year I'll try minerals of the sea and compost >tea. Tain't easy! > >Peace, >Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio >http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/ > CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!! yay! i'm glad you mentioned the brix_index, which > i'm beginning to think might be a crucial tool in returning nutrient-dense > foods to our tables. michael's also mentioned it from time to time on this > forum (and often to me privately - kudos!) and it's got me thinking! for > example, just today he mentioned that the guy who runs the brix page website > (http://www.brixpage.com/) was saying that non-organic plants growing on > high fertility soil don't absorb pesticides nearly at the rate of organic > plants on low fertility soil. (maybe the same principle applies to *us*?). > it seems that high brix foods are also far more resistant to disease and > pests as you mentioned (i think the same principle applies to *us* here to). > > clearly " grass-fed " is no guarantee of nutritional quality, " raw " is no > guarantee of nutritional quality, *fermented* is no guarantee of nutritional > quality and " organic " is no guarantee of nutritional quality. if grass-fed, > raw, fermented and organic foods are grown (or eat foods grown) on *low* > fertility soil, they are still not of the quality of foods that kept price's > primitives disease-resistant, it seems. nor would such foods keep *us* > disease resistant, i would think. the health of our soil is determinant in > our own health. > > so it seems our first concern should be *soil fertility* and the brix index > of our foods rather than whether they are organic, fermented, raw or > grass-fed. the rest should follow... > > > HIGH FERTILITY SOIL = HIGH BRIX INDEX = HIGH RESISTANCE TO DISEASE > > ne pas? > > > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg > Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine > http://www.westonaprice.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 In a message dated 1/26/04 6:06:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, igg@... writes: > Another example of this comes from the tenet that 'every form of life > has its ow n form of food' and that 'insects eat sick plants not > healthy plants' and yet, insects eat our food plants. By raising the > brix of the produce, making nutritional elements readily available to > the plant, more complex sugars are made by the plant, LONG molecules > that insects cannot digest. When these long molecules are in the sap, > the plant IS food for humans and the insects leave it alone. I got a > good lecture from Phil Callahan's assistant at ACRES this year about > this one. According to the USA Acres Primer, there are a variety of other mechanisms by which plants on high soil fertility defend themselves against insects, which includes natural insecticides, infared signaling, and I think hormones of some type. In any case, traditional methods of *eating* the foods break down the starches into simple sugars, so that really isn't any evidence that the complexity carbs are important. Especially when you consider that foods on high soil fertility have higher concentrations of nutrients, lower concentrations of anti-nutrients, and that some of the best carbs are simple sugars-- For example, compare raw honey to brown rice. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 >According to the USA Acres Primer, there are a variety of other mechanisms by >which plants on high soil fertility defend themselves against insects, which >includes natural insecticides, infared signaling, and I think hormones of some >type. - Plants have immune systems just like animals do. It's strange that science is only recently becoming familiar with that. Natural insecticides and other plant exudates are secondary defenses. The primary issue that I was referring to is that healthy plants are not food for insects. Insects remove trash from nature - insect prey on plants that are less than healthy, plants that have less complex sap than a truly healthy (high brix) plant. The Infared Signaling thing, I believe, is a reference to how some insects zero in on sick plants. At the ACRES conference this past year I got spend some time with Dr Dykstra, the protege of Phil Callahan, the man who discovered that insects use their antannae to find and home in on sick plants. Callahan and Dykstra have received some publicity recently for developing electronic pest lures that apparently use this knowledge to attract pests into traps. A major area of focus was in trapping pests of stored grain, grain which often does have a low food quality. I asked Dr Dyksra if he was developing a trap for cucumber bugs, a pest that drives a lot of us organic growers nuts. Dr Dykstra looked at me for a few minutes, measuring his words, and then said 'Allan, to be frank with you, if you will make sure you plants are healthy, you won't have those pests. As an organic grower, you are in a unique position to boost the brix of your plants. If you boost the brix, you won't see any pests.' So I asked him " Are you sure about his, or are you just saying this?' And he said, without reservations " I can say that in many years of research, I've never seen an insect eating a healthy plant. " And that's where we left it. The man who sells insect traps told me that my plants were actually the problem, not insects per se. All of this goes to prove another tenet and that is that the soil health and plant health that we normally are presented with in this century are so far below true 'health' that we cannot really conceive of what our real " health " goal is. It is hard to really understand how depleted several hundred years of extractive agriculture have left the soils of North America. (Look into the background of the land your garden is on and you will most likely discover that, in its recent history, once, or many times, it was a farm that was eventually abandoned for more productive land. Abandoned because with its natural fertility gone it would no longer produce crops for essentially unskilled farmers.) This is what we growers of nutritionally dense produce have to contend with. -Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Allan, I'm convinced this is true - healthy plants don't attract bugs. I just wish I could get there. Last year my green beans were a wash out - looked like lace, the leaves. I've been trying for some years, but last year was the first I did some serious soil testing - mucky high magnesium soil is my problem here in the Great Black Swamp. Have used lots of gypsum. Perhaps I need to get some low magnesium lime. I have a bag of dolomitic lime bought long ago before I knew any better, and hard as a rock now. Thanks for the offer to talk organic gardening. I was on the organic gardening mailing list, but gave it up because of the volume. I see I have some messages from you on that list that I saved. Peace, Kris , gardening in harmony with nature in northwest Ohio http://home.woh.rr.com/billkrisjohnson/ Re: " Grains Good as Gold " >According to the USA Acres Primer, there are a variety of other mechanisms by >which plants on high soil fertility defend themselves against insects, which >includes natural insecticides, infared signaling, and I think hormones of some >type. - Plants have immune systems just like animals do. It's strange that science is only recently becoming familiar with that. Natural insecticides and other plant exudates are secondary defenses. The primary issue that I was referring to is that healthy plants are not food for insects. Insects remove trash from nature - insect prey on plants that are less than healthy, plants that have less complex sap than a truly healthy (high brix) plant. The Infared Signaling thing, I believe, is a reference to how some insects zero in on sick plants. At the ACRES conference this past year I got spend some time with Dr Dykstra, the protege of Phil Callahan, the man who discovered that insects use their antannae to find and home in on sick plants. Callahan and Dykstra have received some publicity recently for developing electronic pest lures that apparently use this knowledge to attract pests into traps. A major area of focus was in trapping pests of stored grain, grain which often does have a low food quality. I asked Dr Dyksra if he was developing a trap for cucumber bugs, a pest that drives a lot of us organic growers nuts. Dr Dykstra looked at me for a few minutes, measuring his words, and then said 'Allan, to be frank with you, if you will make sure you plants are healthy, you won't have those pests. As an organic grower, you are in a unique position to boost the brix of your plants. If you boost the brix, you won't see any pests.' So I asked him " Are you sure about his, or are you just saying this?' And he said, without reservations " I can say that in many years of research, I've never seen an insect eating a healthy plant. " And that's where we left it. The man who sells insect traps told me that my plants were actually the problem, not insects per se. All of this goes to prove another tenet and that is that the soil health and plant health that we normally are presented with in this century are so far below true 'health' that we cannot really conceive of what our real " health " goal is. It is hard to really understand how depleted several hundred years of extractive agriculture have left the soils of North America. (Look into the background of the land your garden is on and you will most likely discover that, in its recent history, once, or many times, it was a farm that was eventually abandoned for more productive land. Abandoned because with its natural fertility gone it would no longer produce crops for essentially unskilled farmers.) This is what we growers of nutritionally dense produce have to contend with. -Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 > 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. What do all of you think about Dr. Mercola's book, " The No-Grain Diet " ? If I remember correctly, he says that grains were introduced into our diet six thousand years ago. He says that evidence shows that the remains of hunter/gatherer types indicates that they were much healthier than the remains of Egyptian mummies that began introducing grains into their diet. Yet, he says that if you are healthy and not overweight, brown rice, millet, amaranth, teff, oats, and quinoa can be good for you. This seems to be such a contradiction. My guess is that when grains were introduced into the human diet, they were healthy, unrefined grains. So, if evidence shows that the health of populations declined once healthy, unrefined grains were introduced, why would they be any healthier for us now? The main point of his diet is that we need to eat meat/fat, non-starchy vegetables, and fruit. Simple carbohydrates are out, which include grains (including corn), starches - potatoes and other starchy vegetables (beets, squash, carrots, etc.), and sweets, especially refined. It would seem to me that if grains and starchy vegetables really are bad for us, especially grains (I don't know that I agree about the starchy vegetables), a diet of meats/fat, non-starchy vegetables, and fruit would be an ideal diet; but is it? Also, are simple carbohydrates really bad for us? Aren't whole grains complex carbohydrates? I thought that only when grains were refined that they became simple carbohydrates. Aren't fruits simple carbohydrates? I'm slightly confused by all the conflicting information. What do you have to say about all of it? Peace and Love of Christ be with you, Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 > DANGEROUS GRAINS - Why Gluten Cereal Grains May Be Hazardous to Your Health, 2002, by Braly, M.D. and Ron Hoggan, M.A. Is it just glutenous grains that are considered to be bad for us? Why not all grains? Peace and Love of Christ be with you, Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 > 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. Is this all carbs, including vegetables and fruit, or just carbs from grains? Peace and Love of Christ be with you, Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 >> 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. > >What do all of you think about Dr. Mercola's book, " The No-Grain >Diet " ? If I remember correctly, he says that grains were introduced >into our diet six thousand years ago. He says that evidence shows >that the remains of hunter/gatherer types indicates that they were >much healthier than the remains of Egyptian mummies that began >introducing grains into their diet. Yet, he says that if you are >healthy and not overweight, brown rice, millet, amaranth, teff, >oats, and quinoa can be good for you. > >This seems to be such a contradiction. My guess is that when grains >were introduced into the human diet, they were healthy, unrefined >grains. So, if evidence shows that the health of populations >declined once healthy, unrefined grains were introduced, why would >they be any healthier for us now? The main point of his diet is >that we need to eat meat/fat, non-starchy vegetables, and fruit. >Simple carbohydrates are out, which include grains (including corn), >starches - potatoes and other starchy vegetables (beets, squash, >carrots, etc.), and sweets, especially refined. The thing about grains is that there are MULTIPLE aspects to them. Carbs are one issue, and the fact they displace nutrients, and they are difficult to digest unless fermented (as NT brings out). But Mercola also brings up another point, which is my big one: the proteins in grains do something they call " molecular mimicry " that MASSIVELY disrupt the immune system. And wheat/barley/rye (WBR grains) disrupt the villi in the upper intestine, cause malabsorption. The issues with grains are: 1. Carbs 2. Lectins (sticky) 3. Immune disruption 4. Phytates 5. Allergic (IgA) reaction 6. Opioid/nervous system reaction All grains and tubers have #1. Most grains have #4. The WBR grains, and to a lesser extent corn, have the rest. So the cultures that had " healthy " wheat still got the problems associated with 2-6, in the skeletal evidence -- folks like the Egyptians, who had lousy health. Items 3, 5, and 6 are genetically related, and folks who have been isolated and eating wheat for a long time don't have the problematic genes (like, in the Middle East). I don't know about #6 though, because the wheat eating countries certainly seem to be the most violent ones (and many parents report that wheat causes rage reactions in their kids), even when they are genetically adapted to it. However, cultures that eat tubers and non WBR grains, or that eat WBR grains and have the correct genetic makeup, seem to do OK (as per Price). So you CAN eat carbs and be ok, and a lot of people around the world do. In this country though, most carbs contain WBR grains in some amount, and so do most processed foods. If you have the wrong genes and you eat them, this increases your chance of getting cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a couple of hundred other diseases. But eating quinuoa probably won't hurt you at all. > >I'm slightly confused by all the conflicting information. What do >you have to say about all of it? Still figuring it out. So far I think following the WD is the best bet, with added kimchi and kefir. And figuring out your own reactions to food. We do eat a lot of potatoes, but we also eat a lot of meat. I keep a food diary and try to figure out what works for me. Most of my vegies seem to be kimchi at this point in time, but a lot of that is because kimchi just tastes better to me, and green salads, and raw fruit (easy). Some people seem to be VERY reactive to carbs, and if you are, then you should probably eat less of them. It's good to figure out though, if the reaction is immune related or blood sugar related ... if you are allergic to, say, wheat, (and about 10% or more of the population is) then eating it WILL affect your blood sugar in ways that aren't related to the carb content, probably because cortisol is released during a stress reaction (which causes the release of more insulin). I'm not clear on the exact hormonal reaction, but folks with food allergies get horrid " blood sugar problems " that go away when the allergen is removed. Other problems exist for fructose, which is found in most commercial foods nowadays. But potatoes might be just fine, and sweet potatoes are FULL of good stuff. And if you have only one carb meal a day (per the WD) it won't stress out your system unduly. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 brown rice, millet, amaranth, teff, > >oats, and quinoa can be good for you. > But Mercola also brings up another point, which is my big one: > the proteins in grains do something they call " molecular mimicry " > that MASSIVELY disrupt the immune system. And wheat/barley/rye > (WBR grains) disrupt the villi in the upper intestine, cause malabsorption. So, what do you think about the other grains - brown rice, millet, amaranth, teff, and oats? Do you only have concerns with WBR grains? Why do you think that quinoa is so safe? Also, I forgot to mention another point I've heard against grains...If they are used to " fatten up " cattle, what are they doing to us, especially being much smaller than a cow? Peace and Love of Christ be with you, Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 >amaranth, teff, and oats? Do you only have concerns with WBR grains? MY main concern is with WBR grains. If you have the wrong genes, they are definitely more dangerous than Soy, Nitrates, and Pasturized milk. Really. >Why do you think that quinoa is so safe? Quinua is from a very different family, and few people seem to react to it. And it tastes good ... your taste buds are pretty good indicators of healthiness, sometimes. >Also, I forgot to mention another point I've heard against >grains...If they are used to " fatten up " cattle, what are they doing >to us, especially being much smaller than a cow? That is the " carb " part of grains. First, cows are ruminants, not omnivores. They are REALLY BAD at processing grains, worst than us, even. Second, I DO think carbs " fatten you up " . For a lot of history, getting ENOUGH calories was the problem! Some people (like my DH) can eat grains, ice cream, sugar, and anything else (except wheat) and do fine. Me, I gain weight much more easily. When we stopped wheat, he dropped right back to his high school weight. I didn't. I don't think there IS a one-size-fits-all answer here. Price found a large variation in macronutrient levels between " HEALTHY " peoples. Some ate grain more, some ate fat more. I'm not sure the macronutrient levels matter so much as that those level work FOR YOU. I really like the WD approach for simplicity, which is: 1. Eat once a day. During the other hours, snack on raw fruit and vegies. 2. Eat salad first (get those greens in!). 3. Eat meat next, and vegies. 4. Then eat carbs. If you do better on protein, you will pig out on step 3, and feel full for step 4, and likely not eat too many carbs. This is mainly a theory though ... seems to work for a lot of folks, but not studied AFAIK. Works for me ... some days I crave carbs, some days I don't, but my weight has been going DOWN not up, with minimal effort. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 >> Also, are simple carbohydrates really bad for us? Aren't whole grains complex carbohydrates? I thought that only when grains were refined that they became simple carbohydrates. Aren't fruits simple carbohydrates? I'm slightly confused by all the conflicting information. What do you have to say about all of it? << I don't find that simple vs complex is in any way different to me and how I react to them. What seems to be the most important is where they rate on the glycemic index. Potatos are a complex carb, but are higher on the glycemic index than table sugar, a simple carb. I don't think that it's correct to say that " carbs are bad " or " carbs are good. " I myself can eat carbs fine as long as they aren't grains and are low on the glycemic index, and I don't eat too many, but if I eat high on the glycemic index, or eat grains, or eat SWEETS, I'm lost. But not everyone is like this. Dr. Atkins, and others, talk about weighing the glycemic index of a food against its nutritional payload, and discuss things like the " glycemic load " of a meal as opposed to individual food items. For me it's all about blood sugar and not triggering cravings/overeating. So for me, total carbs stay very low, and the ones I eat are low on the glycemic index (nutrient dense, higher fiber veggies and fruits such as berries), protein stays moderate, and fat stays high. Christie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 In a message dated 2/1/04 1:19:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, deweyli@... writes: > This seems to be such a contradiction. My guess is that when grains > were introduced into the human diet, they were healthy, unrefined > grains. Moreover, humans were likely eating grains *long* before they began domesticating grains, to some extent. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 In a message dated 2/2/04 12:16:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, christiekeith@... writes: > I don't find that simple vs complex is in any way different to me and how I > react to them. What seems to be the most important is where they rate on the > glycemic index. Potatos are a complex carb, but are higher on the glycemic > index than table sugar, a simple carb. That doesn't mean table sugar is better for you. Table sugar is much more likely to contribute to glucose intolerance than higher-glycemic glucose-based sugars and starches because it is half fructose. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 >> That doesn't mean table sugar is better for you. << I pretty much rank table sugar with heroin and cocaine for how good it is for you, so no worries about that, LOL. Even before Atkins I didn't eat sugar. Christie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > In a message dated 2/1/04 1:19:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, > deweyli@e... writes: > > > This seems to be such a contradiction. My guess is that when grains > > were introduced into the human diet, they were healthy, unrefined > > grains. > > Moreover, humans were likely eating grains *long* before they began > domesticating grains, to some extent. > > Chris Yes! Which provides another point to argue that grains are even unhealthier for us than they were for them. I forgot to ask, where do legumes/beans fit into all of this? I've gotten opinions from both sides on grains, nuts/seeds, starchy vegetables, and fruit, but what about legumes/beans? They are categorized differently, but technically they are seeds. What is the difference, and do you think they should/should not be in our diet? What's your opinion? Robin L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 My husband has been doing some extensive research on grains and the newest info is that paleo man (yes ) ate more than his share of wild grasses with only 20% of his diet being animal foods in . That sure throws a whole wrench into this paleo diet , doesn't it? If you want to take the time and do all the reasearch, I can recommend all the books that support this new evidence. Elainie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.