(rice and dairy)Re: no carb questions

[Guest guest]

>** Yes, that's right, Heidi. Let's call them starches and avoid

>confusion. Maybe this is annoying, but could you please elaborate on

>this kind of boredom? I could see boredom in something you do every

>day, although some people love routines. I know this may sound like a

>heresy, but aren't there so many ways for you to " enjoy " your

>starches? I for one could live on sweet potatoes and manioc for a

>long time, plus other things of course, but no other carbs. If I eat

>fish every day, I may get bored. Even beef can bore me sometimes.

Ummm ... I guess something is boring if it isn't pleasurable.

Most starches are about as pleasurable to me

as wallpaper paste. The only time I WANT starches is

if I'm crazy hungry, then I crave them. I ate them

for a long time out of duty to the Food Pyramid.

However, there are some foods, like tacos, which

really do NEED tortillas. But that's ok, becaues

they are crunchy. For me, foods really need to

be crunchy. When I was eating gluten, I usually

ate Wasa Brot or rye crisps or crackers, not bread!

Maybe your body wants starches more though. My

dh just loves a big bowl of rice and really does seem

to need the calories (he's thin, unlike me). He doesn't

digest fats well either, so the starches are likely easier

on his stomach.

>> My anti-wheat stance is based on *genetics* though,

>> which Price just didn't know about. He also didn't

>> know that gluten affects absorption of nutrients.

>

>** Oh, Heidi, you are incredible. That answers many of my questions.

>If he came back to life, Weston might draw (slightly) different

>conclusion this time around, mightn't he?

I'd love to see what he'd do this time

around. One thing for sure, he'd test every hypothesis!

He was quite willing to change his ideas when the

facts disagreed, unlike a lot of researchers.

> ** Is there a mistake here? Do you mean: " Why DO (not " don't " )

>Koreans...? I have often read about this connection, but more in

>relation to the Japanese. I don't much like to mention such things

>here, because there may be Japanese members or descendants on this

>list and they may be upset by what they find to be a racial innuendo.

No, it's not racial innuendo at all, and others have commented on

it. There are many races that, on their " old " diets, don't have

problems, then when they move to the US, they start getting

" Western " diseases. The Polish women who didn't get breast

cancer in Poland for instance: but they do get it here. The

researchers think it's because in Poland they ate lots of

sourkraut!

The Koreans are not rich people, and often they don't get

enough food. But they have round faces and don't have crooked

teeth, by and large. The Japanese tend to be healthier than

Americans too, though the lack of protein might make

them shorter. However, on the American diet both groups

start getting American problems, so the cause is NOT genetic.

The cause isn't starches either: because the white-rice low-meat

diet isn't terribly healthy, and likely a lot of the immigrants

are getting a " better " diet here as their living standard improves.

>But I know, Heidi, that you mean well: you are simply stating a fact

>with a rhetorical question. But does anyone know why the consumption

>of polished rice would cause this " anomaly " ?

Eating polished rice just isn't as harmful as eating white bread.

IMO. White flour interferes with absorption of nutrients:

white rice does not. Both starches have little or no nutritional

value. (Manioc doesn't have many nutrients either: it has

to be highly processed to remove toxins in the cassava root).

> I think Indians also eat

>polished rice as a staple (Pratick will mend me if I am wrong) and I

>don't see the same problem with them. Since we have started talking

>about this, I will go on hoping not to hurt anyone: what about the

>characteristic smell of French people who eat a lot of dairy?

??? Never heard that one!

I know we have a characteristic smell after lunch,

but that one is from garlic! (BTW the Japanese use a

derogatory term for the Koreans: " garlic eaters " because

they consume so much kimchi that is full of raw garlic.

But the Koreans did not get Sars, which some researchers

think is because they consume so much raw garlic,

which is an antiviral).

>> Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Re: (rice and dairy)Re: no carb questions

>

>

>

>Eating polished rice just isn't as harmful as eating white bread.

>IMO. White flour interferes with absorption of nutrients:

>white rice does not. Both starches have little or no nutritional

>value.

While white rice may not be as aggressively harmful as white bread (ie; no

gluten), I think it IS possible that it's harmful in that it may take more

nutrients to digest it than it itself provides. IOW, there could be a net

loss of nutrients to digest and process it (as with other low nutrient

foods). However, if the rest of the diet is very nutrient-dense, it might

not be a problem. But if the rest of the diet is poor, it could possibly be

a real problem, IMO.

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]

e:

>>Eating polished rice just isn't as harmful as eating white bread.

>>IMO. White flour interferes with absorption of nutrients:

>>white rice does not. Both starches have little or no nutritional

>>value.

>

>While white rice may not be as aggressively harmful as white bread (ie; no

>gluten), I think it IS possible that it's harmful in that it may take more

>nutrients to digest it than it itself provides. IOW, there could be a net

>loss of nutrients to digest and process it (as with other low nutrient

>foods). However, if the rest of the diet is very nutrient-dense, it might

>not be a problem. But if the rest of the diet is poor, it could possibly be

>a real problem, IMO.

>

>Suze Fisher

I agree, and in some countries it IS a real problem,

kids end up blind from lack of Vit. A, for instance.

But to the folks who feel " starches are causing the

problems of the Western World " there are plenty

of counterexamples in the rice-eating world. Most

of the rice-eating world eats VERY HIGH nutrient

" other foods " like kelp and whole anchovies, if

they can afford it, which would offset the

less nutritious rice.

I know people though, who have

major gut problems and seem to need

rice to help settle them. That wouldn't

work if rice was *causing* the gut problem.

Rice crackers don't work though: it has

to be cooked whole white rice. All of which

is just to say the issue is a lot more complex

that " carbs " vs " not carbs " .

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

--- José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

> But does anyone know why the consumption

> of polished rice would cause this " anomaly " ? I think Indians also eat

> polished rice as a staple (Pratick will mend me if I am wrong) and I

> don't see the same problem with them.

Yes, white rice is a staple in most parts of India.

In terms of health - first of all, Indians aren't exactly the last word in

health,

especially not in the modern times.

There are probably some isolated, traditional communities in the far eastern

part of

India and up in the Himalayas bordering with Tibet who are similar to Price's

natives in

terms of lack of dental decay, bone disease, obesity, etc. but the mainstream

population

is not.

Secondly, up until a few generations back, the majority of Indians consumed very

good

quality, nutrient dense dairy fat in the form of butter, ghee, full cream raw

milk,

yogurt and other types of fermented milk.

And HUGE amounts of fish, both fresh water as well as wild - I mean really HUGE

quantities of fish is consumed in India, even now.

Coconut oil and palm oil was used heavily as well, all along the southern coast.

Lacto fermented beverages were very common as well, such as lacto fermented

ginger,

beets, etc.

Add to that a whole host of herbs and roots such as tumeric, garlic, cilantro,

mint, etc.

If the rice did any damage to health, it was more than offset by the quality of

the other

food items.

The present day is quite a different matter altogether.

-Pratick

__________________________________

Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

> Yes, white rice is a staple in most parts of India.

> In terms of health - first of all, Indians aren't exactly the last word in

> health,

> especially not in the modern times.

>

> There are probably some isolated, traditional communities in the far

> eastern part of

> India and up in the Himalayas bordering with Tibet who are similar to

> Price's natives in

> terms of lack of dental decay, bone disease, obesity, etc. but the

> mainstream population

> is not.

>

> Secondly, up until a few generations back, the majority of Indians

> consumed very good

> quality, nutrient dense dairy fat in the form of butter, ghee, full cream

> raw milk,

> yogurt and other types of fermented milk.

>

> And HUGE amounts of fish, both fresh water as well as wild - I mean really

> HUGE

> quantities of fish is consumed in India, even now.

>

> Coconut oil and palm oil was used heavily as well, all along the southern

> coast.

>

> Lacto fermented beverages were very common as well, such as lacto

> fermented ginger,

> beets, etc.

>

> Add to that a whole host of herbs and roots such as tumeric, garlic,

> cilantro, mint, etc.

>

> If the rice did any damage to health, it was more than offset by the

> quality of the other

> food items.

>

> The present day is quite a different matter altogether.

>

> -Pratick

Pratick,

Diabetes, A Curse on the Indians

For reasons of genetics and lifestyles, Indians form the world's largest

diabetic population, writes Shobha Warrier.

Until the 1970s, it was widely believed that the prevalence of diabetes in

India was low compared to the western world. But recent statistics now show

that India has the world's largest diabetic population.

It is reported that in urban areas, 12 per cent of the adult population

suffers from diabetes, compared to six per cent in the United States and the

United Kingdom. Strangely, from India's vast rural population [comprising 70

per cent of India's one billion people], a mere two to three per cent suffer

from diabetes.

Today, India has 25 million diabetic patients, more than any other country,

and the number is expected to rise to 35 million by 2010 and to 57 million

by 2025!

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/05spec.htm

Is the fat source change of modernization more important than the processed

carbohydrate?

Our deadly Diabetes Deception

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/DiabetesDeception.html

Wanita

[Guest guest]

--- Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> Pratick,

>

> Diabetes, A Curse on the Indians

Yeah, this has been true for a couple of decades now.

In my own family, both my maternal uncle and aunt are severly diabetic.

My uncle's PP tests were in the 500 range at one time - thru the roof.

> For reasons of genetics and lifestyles, Indians form the world's largest

> diabetic population, writes Shobha Warrier.

Lifestlye, yes, genetics - not sure.

It has a lot to do with the massive consumption of refined white flour and

refined sugars

in the form of modern style fast foods, convenience foods, TV dinner, etc.

And of course huge amounts of soda pop.

Do you know that one of the biggest corporate battles of the last century was

fought

right here in India - between Coca Cola and Pepsico.

Pepsico eventually won out, and I remember the " cola wars " from the time I used

to live

in India.

Sports sponsorships, event management, TV/radio bombarded with adverts, and why

not.

With 1 bn. people and counting it is potentially the world's biggest market for

fast

foods.

> It is reported that in urban areas, 12 per cent of the adult population

> suffers from diabetes, compared to six per cent in the United States and the

> United Kingdom.

And keep in mind that it is 12% of 1 bn. vis-a-vis 6% of a " mere " 320 million.

> Strangely, from India's vast rural population [comprising 70

> per cent of India's one billion people], a mere two to three per cent suffer

> from diabetes.

That's a laugh, innit?

Fortunately, they don't care for the fast foods and the pops [yet].

-Pratick

____________________________________________________

Sports

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

http://football.fantasysports.

[Guest guest]

>Is the fat source change of modernization more important than the processed

>carbohydrate?

Wanita:

I don't know, but when I've gone to Indian restaurants there

is a very heavy reliance on vegies for the bulk of

the meal. I mean, by weight, MOST of the meal is

cooked vegies, covered by lots of sauce and some

meat thrown in (maybe: a lot of the dishes don't have

meat at all). Then there is a little side dish of rice,

and some bread if you order it.

I suspect that in rural India the dietary

situation is a lot like it was in rural Europe: if you have

to grow your own food, it's likely high in vegies (and

eggs, poultry, dairy, depending on the religion etc).

But in the cities there is a lot more bread and rice,

plus all those nice imported foods and lots of really,

really sweet tea! Not to mention soft drinks ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I suspect that in rural India the dietary

>situation is a lot like it was in rural Europe: if you have

>to grow your own food, it's likely high in vegies (and

>eggs, poultry, dairy, depending on the religion etc).

>But in the cities there is a lot more bread and rice,

>plus all those nice imported foods and lots of really,

>really sweet tea! Not to mention soft drinks ...

>

The only time I've been in truly rural India, the diet was rice, vegetables

and eggs, and they would kill a chicken for a special occasion. They

served us one meal of chicken while we were there, which was very kind of

them, but their chickens were so scrawny that there wasn't much flesh on it.

I don't recall eating bread while we were there, but we were only there

for four days.

[Guest guest]

--- rda <juliarda@...> wrote:

> The only time I've been in truly rural India, the diet was rice, vegetables

> and eggs, and they would kill a chicken for a special occasion. They

> served us one meal of chicken while we were there, which was very kind of

> them, but their chickens were so scrawny that there wasn't much flesh on it.

That's because the chickens are truly " free-range " and are not fed soy or corn.

They are not " fattened up " , but instead feed on whatever is there in the

countryside -

small insects, leftovers, etc.

> I don't recall eating bread while we were there, but we were only there

> for four days.

There is very little bread in rural India.

More common are the Indian " roti " (looks like pancakes - you would have seen

them in

Indian restuarants), made either of whole wheat or millet.

Most people in rural India (not the ultra rich landowners) still eat a diet high

in

seasonal fruits, vegetables, millet rotis, beans (black, chickpeas, etc.), and

lentils.

Eggs and dairy are also a big part of the diet, esp. butter and " ghee " .

__________________________________

Mobile

Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

[Guest guest]

>> Pratick,

>>

> Yeah, this has been true for a couple of decades now.

> In my own family, both my maternal uncle and aunt are severly diabetic.

> My uncle's PP tests were in the 500 range at one time - thru the roof.

My Mom's has been near 400. After the dr. tried forcing it down with more

insulin to no avail, was found to be infection reaction.

>

> Lifestlye, yes, genetics - not sure.

> It has a lot to do with the massive consumption of refined white flour and

> refined sugars

> in the form of modern style fast foods, convenience foods, TV dinner, etc.

> And of course huge amounts of soda pop.

Don't buy the genetics either. Geneticists recently found the Pima, with the

highest Native American diabetes have no feast-famine gene. Doesn't take too

much removal or replacement of traditional foods to bring out any culture's

biochemical individuality.

>

> Do you know that one of the biggest corporate battles of the last century

> was fought

> right here in India - between Coca Cola and Pepsico.

> Pepsico eventually won out, and I remember the " cola wars " from the time I

> used to live

> in India.

Arundhati Roy (sp.) has my respect. :-) Farmers are fighting Coca Cola for

their draining crop water supply. NPR said farmers are using Coca Cola on

crops, iirc to attract predator insects, much to the dismay of Monsanto and

pesticides.

> And keep in mind that it is 12% of 1 bn. vis-a-vis 6% of a " mere " 320

> million.

Hard to conceptualize that. Nutritional genocide isn't the consideration.

>> Strangely, from India's vast rural population [comprising 70

>> per cent of India's one billion people], a mere two to three per cent

>> suffer

>> from diabetes.

>

> That's a laugh, innit?

> Fortunately, they don't care for the fast foods and the pops [yet].

Kind of like the varying foods and development in childhood, some of us born

in the '50's were discussing. With my Dad's slaughterhouse/meat cutting work

before the chain grocer moved in it was upgrade to new health codes. Owner

couldn't afford ceramic tile floor to ceiling over concrete. Regulations

dispose of or replace the competition, choices, self sufficiency and

community interdependence.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Don't buy the genetics either. Geneticists recently found the Pima, with the

>highest Native American diabetes have no feast-famine gene. Doesn't take too

>much removal or replacement of traditional foods to bring out any culture's

>biochemical individuality.

And to make things more complicated, the Pima in Mexico

fare far better, tho they still have a high carb diet. I guess

the Pima have always had a high carb diet, being bean/corn

eaters. Which gets us into the KIND of carbs, resistant starches

(and of course the evils of " white flour and sugar " !). Like

the peasants in India too, I guess: those millet cakes and

rice didn't give them diabetes, but the city diet does.

I like the " resistant starch " theory, it makes a lot of

sense, and folks who eat RS corn do better gutwise

than other corn eaters. But the theory tends to fall

down when it comes to rice, unless maybe there is RS

rice too? I mean, there are a LOT of cultures who eat

a LOT of rice, which is one of those high-insulin-producing

foods. But maybe there is RS rice and they were eating

more of that?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> I like the " resistant starch " theory, it makes a lot of

> sense, and folks who eat RS corn do better gutwise

> than other corn eaters. But the theory tends to fall

> down when it comes to rice, unless maybe there is RS

> rice too? I mean, there are a LOT of cultures who eat

> a LOT of rice, which is one of those high-insulin-producing

> foods. But maybe there is RS rice and they were eating

> more of that?

>

>

> Heidi Jean

The open pollinated rice India's farmers are trying to keep to plant year to

year, instead of buying Monsanto's, could be a slow carb like Pima and open

pollinated corns or the Pima tepary bean, which has pectin as well, that

works more in the small intestine. If high carb cultures and individuals

can't adapt to hybridized grains and starches with longer intestines, what

does that mean for people who have little carb eating in their ancestry?

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>> By the way, what do you mean when you say rice for a family of four

> for a week? If this is not a hyperbole, then you have in mind a

> family on a very low-carb diet, no?

>

hi

It was exaggeration - it meant a LOT of rice! I.e the amount you might

typically expect a family of 4 to need in a week on a normal diet.

English humour you know....

Jo