Re: Grains Good as Gold

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/3/04 9:57:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> deweyli@e... writes:

> > So, are you saying that the grains they ate were most likely

> > domesticated grains?

>

> No, I'm saying that humans ate grains both before and after grain

> domestication, while people who pinpoint diseases to grain-eating

are assuming that

> humans ate grains only after domestication. Before humans

domesticated grain, they

> ate undomesticated grain; afterwards, they ate domesticated grain.

>

> Chris

Oh, okay. I see what you're saying.

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

>I agree that they would be eating much less, as pointed out, but you

>can't assume that lack of domestication is the same as " wild. " Domestication

is

>defined as influencing the gene pool. That doesn't mean they didn't modify

>the environment in any way. Hunter gatherers, for example, will root out

>certain plants to give more room for the proliferation of the ones they want,

which

>*isn't* domestication, but is certainly modifcation of the environment

>enabling them to more easily and reliably consume a given thing.

>

>Chris

Sure, and I think Loren Cordain argues that too. The route to

" domestication " was a gradual one (for dogs too, it is

theorized.).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> But FERMENTING grains makes lactic acid and alcohol, not sugar. Sourdough

>> bread should be less glycemic (plus lactic acid seems

>> to make the body handle high glycemic food better).

>

>It should have simpler carbs, since the bacteria will digest them. The acid

>might slow the glycemic index, so overall perhaps it's the same. But it's

>still simpler carbs. Anyway, do you have any basis to believe sourdough bread

is

>healthier than sprouted bread? I suspect sprouted bread is healthier, since

>it should be considerably more nutritious.

Lactic acid is a simple carb, but it doesn't seem to have a bad

effect on anyone's blood sugar. I have no idea which is healthier,

sprouted or sourdough ... my comment had to do with your original

one about NT practices producing simple carbs which may be

bad for the blood sugar ---

Carbs being " simple " doesn't necessarily make them " worse "

In the case of grains, grinding them finely seems to cause

problems for people (and cattle and pigs) -- fermenting them

to simpler sugars does not cause those problems. I don't think

it all has to do with glycemic index. I was saying that finely

ground grains are problematic ... which has to do with digesting

quickly but I'm not sure WHAT all the issues with it is. Epidemiologically,

people and animals that eat finely ground grains are more prone

to various problems. Usually people cite the glycemic index for

the reason (though, as I said, I think bacterial issues are part

of it too) -- fermented foods are not necessarily higher on the

glycemic index .

Also, it makes more sense to me that the reason finely ground flours are

>worse is because of this issue, rather than glycemic index. At some point your

>enzymes are going to reach a saturation point, and feeding them substrate

faster

>by increasing the surface area isn't going to quicken digestion. But it WILL

>make more surface area for *bacteria* to digest, if they are catching the

>overflow from what you're enzymes can't handle.

Which is pretty much what happens in cattle (and yeah, I know

they are ruminants, not omnivores ... but pigs don't

do well on finely ground grains either).

>

>Right. But you can find many more examples. Raw honey would certainly cause

>less bacterial overgrowth than table sugar, or starches, even though it's a

>simpler sugar than either. Fructose is more harmful to glucose tolerance than

>other sugars and starches, even though it has a *much* lower glycemic index.

>

>I really don't see a reason to emphasize glycemic index.

When it comes to T2 diabetes, there might be. It is pretty

clear in some studies that people who eat, say, whole

grain bread are less prone to T2 than folks who eat

white bread. Indians who switched from low-glycemic

carbs to high-glycemic are more prone to T2 and obesity.

However, the " low glycemic " carbs also may produce more

butyrate due to fiber, so it's rather unclear what is

going on.

Otherwise, I agree, all carbs are different

you have to analyze them individually.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Grains, grasses I have no clue historically to in New England pre contact.

For the nomadic hunter gatherers, non agricultural starches were ground

nuts, which are tiny in comparison to a potato, cattail and lily roots.

Acorns, some inner tree barks, Indian cucumber root (yummy) would be the

rest. Who knows the ecosystems that were destroyed in clearcutting the

forests for agriculture? My best guesstimate would be there wasn't enough

starches to do much more than eat it when it was found growing.

> Try " eating wild " for a bit and you'll see what I mean. It is darn hard

> to eat grains in any quantity, and even starches are difficult.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Robin,

Exactly! I was trying to point out what foods give the most problems due to

historical use and allergens. All boils down to what works for you. Only you

know how you feel with or without a specific food.

> As this conversation evolves, I'm coming to think that it boils down

> to each person eating the grains, etc. that work well for them.

> It's hard to know if you have a problem from eating a particular

> grain that you've eaten all your life because you would be used to

> how you feel. Feeling crummy would seem normal to you until you

> kept it out of your diet and then reintroduced it so that you could

> see and feel the difference between how you feel while off the grain

> and how you feel while eating the grain; you just wouldn't

> know/see/feel the difference otherwise. This is why I'm cutting out

> all grains, beans/legumes, nuts/seeds, and adding them slowly back

> (as I explained earlier) to see which ones I have any negative

> reactions to, and which ones I do well with. I do think that

> according to one's gene's and adaptation, grains, beans/legumes, and

> nuts/seeds can be a healthy addition to one's diet.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Isn't bacteria in honey the reason why children under 1 shouldn't eat it?

> Raw honey would certainly cause

> less bacterial overgrowth than table sugar, or starches, even though it's

a

> simpler sugar than either.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>

>Suze,

>Not sure about the first question and to answer the second question, their

>health is not so great.

that's what i would've thought. the question begs...do they have access to a

rich abundance of animal foods? if not, their current diet and health status

likely tells us nothing about their historical diet and health status.

>In fact none of the hunter gatherer's groups I've seen on video or read

>about are in great health.

have you read weston prices " nutrition and physical degeneration " ? if so,

you can see that those groups that do have plentiful animal foods available

(including insects) have exceptionally good health. their macronutrient

ratios vary, but apparently all had enough to maintain vibrant health.

apparently he wasn't able to find any vegetarian societies healthy enough to

fit his health criteria to study.

> Their diet is void of refined foods, yet their teeth are rotten,

>falling out

>etc.. and these are the ones that don't eat grain.

and probably not enough animal foods/fats.

What about traditional

>peoples who appear in better health, have beautiful teeth and eat grain?

they still get enough animal foods to maintain health. that is wha price

found, at least. it's not that grain per se is/was problematic, but rather,

in the case of price's groups, that they had enough body building factors in

animal foods to offset any health issues. he thought the grain was a

beneficial part of some of his groups' diets - i don't dispute that, but one

of his major findings was that all groups ate animal foods (often raw)

regularly, and actively sought them out. not all ate grains.

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:42:36 -0500

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>What about traditional

>>peoples who appear in better health, have beautiful teeth and eat grain?

>

>they still get enough animal foods to maintain health. that is wha price

>found, at least. it's not that grain per se is/was problematic, but rather,

>in the case of price's groups, that they had enough body building factors in

>animal foods to offset any health issues. he thought the grain was a

>beneficial part of some of his groups' diets - i don't dispute that, but one

>of his major findings was that all groups ate animal foods (often raw)

>regularly, and actively sought them out. not all ate grains.

However, Dr. Price did say that the ideal group he observed consumed

seafood *and* grains.

" 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...Their

diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. This is one of the most

important lesson's 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. "

Nasty, Brutish and Short

Quoted in Nourishing Traditions, page 493, second edition

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

--- What tasty seasonal fruits and vegetables do you have to chose

from these days. Nearly everything outdoors is frozen here. Dennis

In , Moppett@T... wrote:

> It's in West Germany! up the Rhine from Cologne.

>

> Neander is the name of the local river and tal in German means

valley. So

> Neandertal means the " valley of the river Neander " .

>

> in Germany

> Re: " Grains Good as Gold "

>

>

> >

> > > > >Elainie & Katja,

> > > > >

> > > > >Pretty sure Neanderthal is considered extinct. Whoever moved

> > into their

> > > area

> > > > >had better tools, better hunting abilities. Rather than

adapt to

> > other

> > > food,

> > > > >tools or move on they starved to death. Asian people with

higher

> > grain,

> > > > >carbohydrate diets have longer intestines than more

carniverous

> > peoples.

> > > > >

> > > > >Wanita

> > > > >

> > > > > > This a field which is constantly changing , being revised

and

> > updated

> > > with

> > > > > > new information but my understanding is that in the past 2

> > years it's

> > > been

> > > > >found

> > > > > > that neander man is not related to homo sapiens .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Elainie

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I'm not saying grains are even good for us.. domestication did increase the

nutrient profile however. I think grains are way overconsumed and a large % of

society would benefit from drastically reducing grains and then consuming more

non problematic ones like teff, amaranth, quinoa.

There are traditional people who do pretty good eating grains but their

systems haven't been impaired my modern refined foods.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

25 years ago Jack Harlan undertook a classic study of wild wheat yields.

Harvesting stands of wild einkorn in sotheastern Turkey, Harlan was able to show

that in only three weeks a small family group could have gathered enough

grain to sustain them for a full year.

Follow up studies have confirmed Harlan's conclusions that these wild grasses

grew in abundance and played a major role in the economy of hunter-

gatherers. This quote came from Bruce.D. 's book.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Their teeth looked horrible and so did their bodies. Certainly not a glowing

health example. I rented the videos from some University asnd as this was 8

years ago, I can't remember the name of it or the title to the video set.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Yes, that's true but from my understanding most of the hunter gatherers left

live closest to the equator. Which groups aside from the Inuit don't?

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Of course I've read N & PD or else I wouldn't be on this list LOL. In fact many

years ago when I first read it I set out to read as much as I could on

traditional modern day hunter gatherers and became dismayed at the poor

quality

health of these groups. None were vegetarian. These were not the same groups

Price studied though.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

Yes, and what about the Gailics? Weren't they the *ideal* according to Price?

And their diet was fish, fish liver and oats and I forget what else. Very

little vegetable matter.

Elainie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 12:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Lactic acid is a simple carb, but it doesn't seem to have a bad

> effect on anyone's blood sugar. I have no idea which is healthier,

> sprouted or sourdough ... my comment had to do with your original

> one about NT practices producing simple carbs which may be

> bad for the blood sugar ---

That was a miscommunication then. My point was that simple carbs *aren't*

inherently bad for blood sugar, and that I think glycemic index is relatively

unimportant in terms of overall health value.

> Carbs being " simple " doesn't necessarily make them " worse "

That's *exactly* my point.

>

> In the case of grains, grinding them finely seems to cause

> problems for people (and cattle and pigs) -- fermenting them

> to simpler sugars does not cause those problems.

Right. One idea I offered is that this increases surface area, which, beyond

the saturation point of the enzymes, produces more carbs for bacteria to

ferment.

I don't think > it all has to do with glycemic index.

Me neither-- my point exactly.

I was saying that finely > ground grains are problematic ... which has to do

> with digestingquickly but I'm not sure WHAT all the issues with it is.

> Epidemiologically,

> people and animals that eat finely ground grains are more prone

> to various problems. Usually people cite the glycemic index for

> the reason (though, as I said, I think bacterial issues are part

> of it too) -- fermented foods are not necessarily higher on the

> glycemic index .

True, but I suspect sprouted grains are, relative to a finely ground whole

flour. But white flours are missing the fiber, so would possibly be higher

glycemic than sprouted whole, I'm not sure.

> >I really don't see a reason to emphasize glycemic index.

>

> When it comes to T2 diabetes, there might be. It is pretty

> clear in some studies that people who eat, say, whole

> grain bread are less prone to T2 than folks who eat

> white bread.

That doesn't mean much to me, since white flour is a complex carb. I'm sure

it's higher-glycemic, but it can't *possibly* be higher glycemic than raw

honey, which reportedly doesn't cause blood sugar problems. It is, on the other

hand, devoid of nutrients, and I think nutrient-less diets play a role in T2.

Indians who switched from low-glycemic

> carbs to high-glycemic are more prone to T2 and obesity.

High-glycemic such as what? Sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup?

> Otherwise, I agree, all carbs are different

> you have to analyze them individually.

I don't think we disagree much.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 9:30:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> Yes, that's true but from my understanding most of the hunter gatherers

> left

> live closest to the equator. Which groups aside from the Inuit don't?

I don't know. I'm relying on my anthropology textbook and my anthropology

101 teacher to make this correlation, which is supposed to be standard

conventional wisdom in anthropology. But as I said, the !Kung ate 37% animal

products,

which is almost twice the figure you quoted. Also, if we accept this general

phenomenon, then it is silly to extrapolate from modern h & g's about

pre-modern h & g's when we know that h & g's used to cover all latitudes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 9:41:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, zumicat@...

writes:

> Their teeth looked horrible and so did their bodies. Certainly not a

> glowing

> health example. I rented the videos from some University asnd as this was 8

> years ago, I can't remember the name of it or the title to the video set.

Fine, but who knows how representative this was? Since the overall,

synthesized body of work on the !Kung, who have been studied extensively, finds

them

to be free of dental carries and to have 37% animal products, I'd believe those

figures over a possibly completely unrepresentative video of unknown source.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>Try " eating wild " for a bit and you'll see what I mean. It is darn hard

>>to eat grains in any quantity, and even starches are difficult.

as good ol' justin would point out, some primitives were pretty ingenious in

how they collected grains. when this discussion came up a couple years ago,

he pointed out that there is one tribe (in africa, i think) that would raid

ant hills because the ants collected the grain. so essentially the ants did

the work, and the tribe took the ants' collection.

of course that doesn't mean they ate massive quantities of grain, but it

points out that they weren't necessarily limited to just what they could

pick up off the ground themselves, and depending on the size of the colony

and ant hills, it could potentially be a *relatively* decent source of

grain.

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>>they still get enough animal foods to maintain health. that is wha price

>>found, at least. it's not that grain per se is/was problematic,

>but rather,

>>in the case of price's groups, that they had enough body building

>factors in

>>animal foods to offset any health issues. he thought the grain was a

>>beneficial part of some of his groups' diets - i don't dispute

>that, but one

>>of his major findings was that all groups ate animal foods (often raw)

>>regularly, and actively sought them out. not all ate grains.

>

>However, Dr. Price did say that the ideal group he observed consumed

>seafood *and* grains.

well, first i'm not disputing that some of the grain eating groups were

amazingly healthy. second, i recall having this conversation a few years

ago, and i don't remember if it was concluded that price himself said that,

or if that was sally's interpretation of what he said. more below...

>

> " 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...Their

>diet consisted mainly of fish and cereal grains. This is one of the most

>important lesson's 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. "

> Nasty, Brutish and Short

>

>Quoted in Nourishing Traditions, page 493, second edition

third, IIRC, he said, or sally said he said, that the dinkas were the

healthiest because they were of a sturdier stockier build than some of the

taller herding tribes or something of that nature. that seems like a pretty

subjective criteria. i'm not convinced based on that, that the dinka were

healthier than the masai or inuit or other non-grain eating groups.

fourth, as i mentioned, ALL of these robustly healthy peoples eagerly sought

out and consumed animal foods, while only some of them consumed grains.

indigenous grains may have worked well for the dinkas, the swiss and some

other groups, but that can't necessarily be extrapolated to mean they'd be

healthy for everyone (as is clearly the case with wheat). yet, i think you'd

agree, animal foods are not only healthy for everyone, but also *essential*

to maintain health. that was my point.

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 4:01:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> third, IIRC, he said, or sally said he said, that the dinkas were the

> healthiest because they were of a sturdier stockier build than some of the

> taller herding tribes or something of that nature. that seems like a pretty

> subjective criteria. i'm not convinced based on that, that the dinka were

> healthier than the masai or inuit or other non-grain eating groups.

Also, Price had no basis for the belief that their build had anything

whatsoever to do with their diet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

then consuming more

> non problematic ones like teff, amaranth, quinoa.

So, what are the non-problematic grains, aside from the ones you

mentioned? I haven't taken grains out of my children's diet; I

would like to cook with " better " ones though.

Robin L.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 9:53:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >True, but I suspect sprouted grains are, relative to a finely ground whole

>

> >flour. But white flours are missing the fiber, so would possibly be higher

>

> >glycemic than sprouted whole, I'm not sure.

>

> Sprouted grains might be more glycemic, or maybe malt just

> doesn't do the damage fructose does ... its complicated

> for sure.

Maltose wouldn't do the damage fructose does, because it doesn't contain any

fructose. But that's not an " or, " it's an " and. " If maltose is less

damaging, it can still be higher glycemic. I don't have data, but I think

maltose is

certainly considerably higher glycemic than fructose.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 11:26:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jzbozzi@... writes:

> can i ask where you got this info on raw honey. I have heard

> it but could never find evidence. Think i will try an experiment

> with my glucose meter.

Just anecdotal. Jordan Rubin, for example, has found that it doesn't seem to

cause problems in his patients like other sugars do.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> In the case of grains, grinding them finely seems to cause

>> problems for people (and cattle and pigs) -- fermenting them

>> to simpler sugars does not cause those problems.

>

>Right. One idea I offered is that this increases surface area, which, beyond

>the saturation point of the enzymes, produces more carbs for bacteria to

>ferment.

I think we basically agree. Here is how I look at it:

Take 3 jars with the same amount of water.

1. In the first, put 3 T of cracked grain.

2. In the second, put 3 T of flour

3. In the third, but 3 T of sprouted, dried, ground grain flour.

Add some kefir starter, if you want. Wait a few days.

Each of the three jars will have a completely

different set of bacteria/yeast after a few days.

In your stomach, you also have the issue that

a lot of the nutrients may or may not get absorbed

first, depending, and blood sugar, and allergies etc.

But the exact mix of microbes that is best

for a human stomach is likely #1 or #3 -- by

experience it very likely isn't #2. #3 makes great

beer though, and beer is generally healthy. But there

isn't a simple algorithm to say what is a healthy mix

of bacteria/yeast and what isn't.

>True, but I suspect sprouted grains are, relative to a finely ground whole

>flour. But white flours are missing the fiber, so would possibly be higher

>glycemic than sprouted whole, I'm not sure.

Sprouted grains might be more glycemic, or maybe malt just

doesn't do the damage fructose does ... its complicated

for sure.

That doesn't mean much to me, since white flour is a complex carb. I'm sure

>it's higher-glycemic, but it can't *possibly* be higher glycemic than raw

>honey, which reportedly doesn't cause blood sugar problems. It is, on the

other

>hand, devoid of nutrients, and I think nutrient-less diets play a role in T2.

Probably. Also I thing gluten intolerance is a BIG unrecognized

factor.

>

>I don't think we disagree much.

Agreed.

-- Heidi