Re: Raw Milk/Colds -

[Guest guest]

>

> >If you skip milk; if you try to eat with moderation the whole

> >spectrum of carbs (from grains to tubers and legumes, without

> >concentrating on any category) and if you avoid junk food, that is

in

> >my opinion a most respectable paleo approach.

> >

> >José

>

> The piece that you need to add to that approach though,

> is genetics. For some of us, " moderate " amounts of

> some foods are downright toxic. This shows up most

> impressively with folks with peanut allergies, when

> they die from 1/4 of a peanut. Those of us with IgA

> allergies die from allergens too, though we die

> more slowly and less impressively. So, whether we

> like it or not, we don't eat ANY grains of certain

> types (usually wheat/barley/rye) and often

> no milk, soy, corn either.

>

> This group isn't a small group ... a big hunk of

> the population has this problem (most don't

> know it yet, but they will soon, as the doctors

> start testing). I think a lot of the folks that so

> so well on the Paleo diet are the ones that

> have food allergies ... they may not KNOW it,

> but they do know they feel a lot better when

> they avoid these foods obsessively.

>

> I started out thinking the Paleo thing was

> really overboard and bogus, but the more

> I find out what works for *me* and my family,

> the more our diet starts looking Paleo!

> I don't go at it from an archeological perspective

> though, purely from what works for us.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Hello Heidi:

Thank you very much for your observation. That was very insightful.

Maybe the approach I presented here was too simplistic. I am really

aware of people who have a hard time eating for example shrimp, peas

and peanuts. And of others who don't feel exactly well with milk and

even fermented dairy. Such idiosyncrasies must be respected, of

course. I don't deny them.

Now I think carbs (starches) in general and grains in particular are

a rather complex subject. For some people, supressing them may be

beneficial in the beginning, but then later problems may arise, you

know. I don't much believe in substituting fats for carbs as most

paleos do. Other people (maybe few) will always resent not being

allowed to eat carbs as if they had a hole in their lives.

I think we may have to learn how to eat carbs and especially grains

again. They are l'enfant terrible in nutrition, if you see what I

mean.

I totally agree with you that we should look at and apply paleo not

from an archeological perspective, which may be silly and

anachronical after all, but rather from what works for each of us.

Indeed there is a lot of misusing and misunderstanding around carbs.

I am not trying to promote them as food number one, but again I am

concerned about the possible consequences (in the long run, to be

sure) from a lack of them in your diet.

While I agree that junk food or commercial carbs is obviously bad for

everybody, I would propose a modulation in the case of organic grains

and tubers rather than a simple elimination. Sometimes we simply need

the right combination, the right proportion or maybe a few

adjustements (in the case of gluten intolerance, the use of

alkyglycerols and chlorella may be helpful).

A few rules do apply here: a) don't eat carbs more than three times a

day; eat just one kind at a given meal; c) don't mix carbs with

fresh fruit; d) don't make carbs the most important item in your diet

(something between 20% and 30% is ok); e) try to eat leavened bread;

f) cook and chew well.

Some people may even discover to their surprise that they will have

no trouble with gluten after they take those measures. For a few

others, however, the problems with wheat, rye and barley will

persist, but in this case I don't see any reason why these people

should avoid rice, potatoes, chestnuts etc. Soy, in any case, is best

left aside, if you aren't Oriental.

I think that a total avoidance of carbs may not only lead to

gustative insatisfaction or frustration, but also to a faulty proteic

assimilation. In my opinion, the best approach is to follow the

middle way.

Regards,

José

PS. Heidi, are you a German? Just curious to know.

[Guest guest]

,

I'm not going to be talking " carbs " here, but grains. I do think they are

at best an inferior food and at worst a serious threat to health (even

soaked or fermented). With regard to the body eventually being able to

handle them, I would only say that the body can also be made to tolerate,

without showing symptoms for a very long time, all kinds of poisons. So,

the concepts of " moderate " and " the middle way " are, to my way of thinking,

not useful in this context.

Well, you asked if anyone on the list was paleo. I'm just raising my hand to

be counted. <g>

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

>Indeed there is a lot of misusing and misunderstanding around carbs.

>I am not trying to promote them as food number one, but again I am

>concerned about the possible consequences (in the long run, to be

>sure) from a lack of them in your diet.

I keep hearing people say this, esp. about grains, how they

are " needed " in the diet and there may be some bad

consequences if we don't eat them. Now, other than

the obvious consequence of " they are what my Mom

fed me so I'm used to them " , what consequences

ARE there from a grain free diet? What vitamins and

minerals do they have that cannot be replaced easily?

(grains in general have far fewer nutrients per calorie

than many other foods, plus they interfere with the

absorption of nutrients from other foods).

Now note I am NOT talking about " carbs " in general ...

our ancestors ate plenty of carbs. And I'm not on

a bandwagon to get rid of all grains, and each person

obviously is in charge of what they eat anyway. I'm not

the food police!

But if you want to talk about grains in particular, I'd challenge you

(or anyone) to come up with any scientific evidence

that there is some bad consequence from not

eating them.

On the contrary, cultures who switched from meat/vegie

diets to grain diets consistently show increased disease

rates and shorter height. Which makes it hard, IMO, to

make a case that we NEED grains. At best they are

an easy source of calories and a comfort food.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>

> But if you want to talk about grains in particular, I'd challenge

you

> (or anyone) to come up with any scientific evidence

> that there is some bad consequence from not

> eating them.

>

> On the contrary, cultures who switched from meat/vegie

> diets to grain diets consistently show increased disease

> rates and shorter height. Which makes it hard, IMO, to

> make a case that we NEED grains. At best they are

> an easy source of calories and a comfort food.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Hello Heidi:

I bet you will never hear that from me (that we NEED grains). I have

never advocated grains, you know. What I think (and I may be wrong)

is that most of us should maintain a certain amount of carbs in our

diets, not necessarily grains. By carbs I mean anything from carrots

to chestnuts to buckwheat etc, grains included. It is a question of

choice. Grains can be the most dangerous " kids " in this large family,

but you can learn how to handle them with minimal problems. What is

wrong about that?

I personally use grains myself, either because I like them or maybe

because I am addicted (as Deanna seems to believe) or because we have

traditions in this country and in our home that we like to keep. In

any case, I don't consider myself to be a granivore. I am an omnivore

par excellence.

Cheers,

José