Re: a few carb questions (Deanna, Heidi, Wanita)

[Guest guest]

Really, I am amazed. You and the others have convinced me that I am

here in the " company " - from Latin cum (with) + panis (bread), those

with whom one shares one's bread!!! - of highly knowledgeable people.

Just a few casual remarks, at random...

Yes, I believe that tubers are superior to grains as far as

digestibility is concerned. For those who have no problem with them,

grains can add variety to the diet, but they aren't strictly

necessary or at least not so vital as proteins, and more, if you give

them a very important place in your life without a few adjustments

(exercise and correct preparation), you certainly are asking for

trouble. One problem I see around food is people's mobility during

the three or four previous centuries: in other words, people moving

away from their original food niches in their own continents and

having to adapt to different cuisines. This is especially true in the

case of grains and dairy. Of course the evils of mass production and

farm factories can never be overlooked.

I am fairly interested in cuisine, anyway, and I think an intelligent

cuisine will make a reasonable use of all products we have ... on

earth. The magic of cuisine is turning the least palatable, including

grains and tubers, into the memorable (of course high quality

ingredients are a must), and the trick is moderation. Maybe even

certain " poisons " can be turned into food through the right method. I

for one am able to enjoy a simple dish of mashed potatoes with a

little butter as well as a most elaborate fish in shrimp sauce,

capers and mushrooms, or a cheesecake or a mixed raw salad of

radishes, cucumber, lettuce, if well-prepared and if I am in the mood

for it. I am not a gourmand, but not a gourmet, either. Call me

eclectic, if you want. I should say that most of you are as well.

As for socializing and eating out, it is not a really big problem

nowadays, because most eating places and parties offer a large

variety of foods, where anyone can find their way. Maybe those who

stick to a very restricted diet, possibly a rawfoodist, may have a

harder time. Whether we want it or not, it's mostly around food and

drink that socializing happens, and the extreme radical, whether out

of a real need or out of a whim, may find themselves in a bad fix.

I agree that paleo is the best approach, but of course we are all

aware that we are simply trying to mimic paleo, because we don't have

that original environment and lifestyle any more. I would, however,

allow for some modern foods (grains and dairy), if the circunstances

require them, in that people should not give up all the contact with

those foods. Even desserts shouldn't be banned, but they have a

definite place and role in a meal: never too much and never between

meals. Just as a final touch ...

As for addictions, I might agree that starches are the most

addictive. But frankly speaking, aren't most of us " addicted " to a

certain way of eating? I know people who can't have a meal without

meat or who will refuse breakfast if they don't get their coffee or

their orange juice or who can't finish a meal without a slice of

cheese, and so on. Most of the time, we don't follow our instincts or

real needs, but in-built patterns or ersatzes (substitutes). Just

think of the vegetarian hamburger etc... That's why I believe most of

us would make a profit if we fasted one day in the week, in order to

create detachment in relation to food. Besides, our stomachs will be

grateful for that day-off.

I definitively like the democratic ethos of this list.

Regards,

José

> ,

>

> Tubers seem the least processed of starches. A cup or less of

potato, sweet

> potato or winter squash a day satiates me and keeps me emotionally

level. If

> its a stew with carrots or peas too its quicker filling so I eat

the protein

> first. This article explains the satiation with the Pima Paradox

Heidi

> mentioned

> http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/giobesity.php

>

> Wanita

>

> > I have always wondered if potatoes are paleo or not. Personally I

> > think and sense that tubers are much less problematic than grains,

> > but some people can`t even tolerate them, especially the white

> > potato. I don`t know why.

> >

> > I find it perfectly possible to follow a non-grain diet, although

it

> > can be some a little more challenging in some environments. But

> > unless I am totally wrong, a non-carb diet, by which I mean not

even

> > tubers (potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, manioc), is for the few

brave

> > who are able to make long-standing sacrifices and maybe not for

good.

> >

> > Moreover, I don`t think that someone whose diet includes 15% to

25%

> > tubers will necessarily be less healthy for that. But of course we

> > should strive to get the organic sort.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>As for addictions, I might agree that starches are the most

>addictive. But frankly speaking, aren't most of us " addicted " to a

>certain way of eating?

Actually when we say " addictive " we are usually talking about the

biochemical kind of addiction. Right, we are all psychologically

addicted to certain kinds of food, and adapted to a certain

diet. But opiates are addictive in a very distinctive way

that messes up the brain big time.

Starches are addictive, sort of, in that the blood sugar starts

vacillating wildly and the person will eat ANYTHING that has

starch or cane/beet sugar in it (they are processed very similarly by

the body: fruit sugars are different). Also starchy foods cause

the release of serotonin, which is calming.

But opiate foods (wheat

and dairy, mainly) actually cause opiates to appear in the

blood, for some people, which attach to the opiate receptors

in the brain, and those are far worse than the simple starch

craving. These are addictive in the sense that, say, morphine or

heroin is.

In my experience, people who actually are totally gluten free

STOP craving starches of any kind after awhile. Starchy foods

are, at their base, kind of bland wallpaper-paste kinds of foods

( " edible napkins " !). Probably a lot of people who crave them

are like heroin addicts who love the sight of needles.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>

> In my experience, people who actually are totally gluten free

> STOP craving starches of any kind after awhile. Starchy foods

> are, at their base, kind of bland wallpaper-paste kinds of foods

> ( " edible napkins " !). Probably a lot of people who crave them

> are like heroin addicts who love the sight of needles.

>

>

> Heidi Jean

I am finding this to be true for me - the carbs have lost their

charm to the point that I can actually notice satiation, hunger,

fullness. I am noticing that I can choose NOT to eat when there is

food in front of me. Now most people would think that that is no

big deal, but as a gluten " addict " for all my life, it really is. I

never knew! I thought I was " bad " or " broken " or that the Weight

Watchers principals did not apply to me or something because I could

not say no to sweets and bread. I really do think it has to do with

the opioids in the wheat and some sort of accomodation to continual

disbyosis.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Re: a few carb questions (Deanna, Heidi, Wanita)

Starches are addictive, sort of, in that the blood sugar starts

vacillating wildly and the person will eat ANYTHING that has

starch or cane/beet sugar in it (they are processed very similarly by the body:

fruit sugars are different).

=============

Heidi

Thank you for a very enlightening post. However, I just want to add one small

point to the part of your post that I excerpted above: fruit sugar is not always

" safe. " Even though it has a reputation of being released slowly into the

bloodstream, which keeps blood sugar levels even, there is another, different

problem.

Glucose can be processed by all of the body cells, but fructose can be

metabolized only by the liver-where it is converted into triglycerides (a fat).

Even with just one glass of fruit juice, write Ann Louise and colleagues in Your

Body Knows Best, " the conversion process of fruit into glucose and then into fat

can be magnified. " [Ann Louise Gittleman et al., Your Body Knows Best (New York:

Pocket Books, 1996), 53-54.] Such " magnification " can eventually cause symptoms

similar to cirrhosis of the liver. Sally Fallon likewise cautions against high

amounts of fructose because it interferes with the formation of collagen, a

gelatinous substance found in connective tissue, bone and cartilage.

Best,

Nenah

[Guest guest]

Hello Heidi and all:

Much has been said about carbs and grains. I don't have the intention

to round it off now, to have the last word on this, but here are some

points I would like to stress:

That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other substances

that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on now

in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a question

of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is maybe a

the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony – of

any kind.

There is another aspect to this avoidance of grains and carbs:

elitism or aloofness - you may think you are above them. " I won't

touch this, because this is poison. " " Or I don't need this, I can't

do without it. " Like the green grapes in La Fontaine's fable. This is

technically called orthorexia, the syndrome of eating right. Some

people may go on into mysticism. Of course you can do without, but

should you? There's a Zen saying of which I am particularly fond. It

says: " Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are

rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains

and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment

mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers. " It is

almost the same thing with carbs and grains. Before you study

nutrition, carbs are carbs and grains are grains. While you're

studying it, you see a blur and want avoid them. In a later stage,

you will probably see that they are not that evil; again, it is

question of learning how to approach them. And unless you are an

instincto or paleo child, that is, someone who never ate carbs from

birth on, you can even avoid them for a period of your life, but I

think that in most cases, sooner or later, you will come back to

them – let's hope in a very different, much less addictive

relationship. I think this is possible. This is what we want.

However, I don't want to turn grains or carbs into celebrities. No,

they aren't, they aren't even specific to the human species. That is

not my hidden agenda anyway. But I don't think we can for ever deny

their role in modern human nutrition. A common mistake, when you

avoid them, is to place too much value on other food categories,

fats, protein, what do I know? as if they were miraculous – actually

there are no miracle foods. In most cases, it is just a temporary

effect. When you start following the rigid macrobiotic diet, you can

also feel elated, only to see your very serious error some time later.

Carbs and grains are intimately associated with civilization. Deny it

as we may, we are children of civilization, and even if we accept the

paleo pattern as the best approach (I do), to follow it strictly

implies a rupture and possibly an incurable longing that you may want

to rationalize by saying for instance: " Now I follow nature. Now I am

free from addictions. Let the others poison themselves. " How far can

we go on with such a parody?

Gee, I feel some people will " hate " me for these things I have been

saying. How dares he? Actually, I am not denying anyone nor am I

proposing a palliative nor accusing anyone, but just asking you, if

ever I have the right ask anything, to tread lightly on that ground.

Avoiding may be not the right choice for everybody.

José

PS. Someone said something about nuts. I think it was Deanna. Nuts

are good, they are human food, but paradoxically some people can't

digest it well. I think they are mainly fat and protein, and as such

not a real substitute for carbs.

>

> >As for addictions, I might agree that starches are the most

> >addictive. But frankly speaking, aren't most of us " addicted " to a

> >certain way of eating?

>

> Actually when we say " addictive " we are usually talking about the

> biochemical kind of addiction. Right, we are all psychologically

> addicted to certain kinds of food, and adapted to a certain

> diet. But opiates are addictive in a very distinctive way

> that messes up the brain big time.

>

> Starches are addictive, sort of, in that the blood sugar starts

> vacillating wildly and the person will eat ANYTHING that has

> starch or cane/beet sugar in it (they are processed very similarly

by

> the body: fruit sugars are different). Also starchy foods cause

> the release of serotonin, which is calming.

>

> But opiate foods (wheat

> and dairy, mainly) actually cause opiates to appear in the

> blood, for some people, which attach to the opiate receptors

> in the brain, and those are far worse than the simple starch

> craving. These are addictive in the sense that, say, morphine or

> heroin is.

>

> In my experience, people who actually are totally gluten free

> STOP craving starches of any kind after awhile. Starchy foods

> are, at their base, kind of bland wallpaper-paste kinds of foods

> ( " edible napkins " !). Probably a lot of people who crave them

> are like heroin addicts who love the sight of needles.

>

>

> Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Much has been said about carbs and grains. I don't have the intention

>to round it off now, to have the last word on this, but here are some

>points I would like to stress:

>

>That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other substances

>that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on now

>in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a question

>of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is maybe a

>the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

>problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony - of

>any kind.

>

>

Dear José ,

As the mother of an autistic son, I completely and respectfully disagree

with your assessment above. When my son eats gluten or dairy other than

butter, his behavior is exactly like someone whacked out on hard drugs.

He becomes a threat to himself and those around him. His absorption of

nutrients suffers and he loses weight. We HAVE educated ourselves over

the 5+ years he has eaten a gluten and casein free diet. Trust me, my

son is no glutton, even if he eats large quantities of food. He can eat

some rice and corn, but we ensure his diet is as nutrient dense as

possible by go liberally with the animal foods, properly prepared nuts,

lots of vegetables and some fruit.

So yes, I definitely live in paranoia of my son eating gluten, which is

by far much worse for him than dairy, as far as the opioid effects go.

Through this journey it has become very obvious to me that I also do

much better without grains, especially the glutenous ones. I am not

suffering orthorexia, trust me. I am not aloof and elitist. I am a

parent trying to help my entire family live up to our potentials as

human beings. It would be flat out abusive and cruel for me to

knowingly allow my son to eat gluten. Period. Having seen grains

influence my family in adverse ways beyond this, I do limit our

consumption of these foods.

There is no need for grains in the human diet for those of us Northern

European descendants for whom grains were most recently introduced some

2,000-5,000 years ago. Our genetics don't somehow begin with

civilization. We are children of a very long and varied past, most of

which falls into pre-civilized eras.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> As the mother of an autistic son, I completely and respectfully

disagree

> with your assessment above.

Deanna, my heart goes out to you, and i'm so glad you have found ways

to improve your son's autism.

i hope you don't mind my asking you...

vaccines and mercury poisoning (thimerisol) have been in the news,

and there has been a book out on the subject. one thing i heard was

that there definitely is a link between autism and vaccines, and that

the reason why most children get vaccinated but only a comparative

few become autistic, is because of a gene or the liver or something

of the autisitc child; somehow their bodies are not capable

of 'processing' or getting rid of the mercury causing their autism.

out of curiosity, i was wondering if most parents of autistic

children these days have them tested for mercury poisoning and then

follow some sort of regime, diet or otherwise, to get rid of the

mercury, and if any autistic children have been 'cured' by doing this.

this is such a heart breaking problem, and it is becoming so wide

spread now, and there but by the grace of God go I, and listening to

everything i've heard about the problem over the last 6 mo. or so, i

was wondering if this progress is being made.

Deanna, i wish you and your son and your family truly all the best.

laura

[Guest guest]

>Glucose can be processed by all of the body cells, but fructose can be

metabolized only by the liver-where it is converted into triglycerides (a fat).

Even with just one glass of fruit juice, write Ann Louise and colleagues in Your

Body Knows Best, " the conversion process of fruit into glucose and then into fat

can be magnified. " [Ann Louise Gittleman et al., Your Body Knows Best (New York:

Pocket Books, 1996), 53-54.] Such " magnification " can eventually cause symptoms

similar to cirrhosis of the liver. Sally Fallon likewise cautions against high

amounts of fructose because it interferes with the formation of collagen, a

gelatinous substance found in connective tissue, bone and cartilage.

>

>Best,

>Nenah

I agree, that's a good point to bring up. I think it's mainly a problem with the

high-fructose corn syrups, and the fact Americans tend to

snack all day long (on snacks with lots of fructose at that!).

You have to eat a LOT of fruit to get the same effect,

and usually you get full way before you eat so much, unless

it is dried fruit or fruit juice (both of which I avoid except

as additions to something else: like putting raisins in raisin

bread or making kefir beer from juice). Also fresh fruit

digests slower, it's full of fiber and much of the

sugar is inside cell walls which have to be broken down

to release the contents, I think. Anyway, the natives

in Hawaii ate a lot of fresh fruit and didn't really have

a lot of health problems 'til Cook came!

I think one of the big problems in all this too is

CONSTANT EATING. Your glycogen (and likely

triglyceride?) stores just get TOO FULL, but

people keep eating. At some point you have

to either really limit how much you eat or space

meals far apart, so they body can use what is

stored. If the body gets out of the habit of

using the stored stuff, people get insanely

hungry even when all the stores are overloaded.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Hello Heidi and all:

>

> Much has been said about carbs and grains. I don't have the

intention

> to round it off now, to have the last word on this, but here are

some

> points I would like to stress:

>

> That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other

substances

> that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on

now

> in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a

question

> of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is

maybe a

> the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

> problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony – of

> any kind.

>

> There is another aspect to this avoidance of grains and carbs:

> elitism or aloofness - you may think you are above them. " I won't

> touch this, because this is poison. " " Or I don't need this, I

can't

> do without it. " Like the green grapes in La Fontaine's fable. This

is

> technically called orthorexia, the syndrome of eating right. Some

> people may go on into mysticism. Of course you can do without, but

> should you? There's a Zen saying of which I am particularly fond.

It

> says: " Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers

are

> rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer

mountains

> and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had

enlightenment

> mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers. " It is

> almost the same thing with carbs and grains. Before you study

> nutrition, carbs are carbs and grains are grains. While you're

> studying it, you see a blur and want avoid them. In a later stage,

> you will probably see that they are not that evil; again, it is

> question of learning how to approach them. And unless you are an

> instincto or paleo child, that is, someone who never ate carbs

from

> birth on, you can even avoid them for a period of your life, but I

> think that in most cases, sooner or later, you will come back to

> them – let's hope in a very different, much less addictive

> relationship. I think this is possible. This is what we want.

>

> However, I don't want to turn grains or carbs into celebrities.

No,

> they aren't, they aren't even specific to the human species. That

is

> not my hidden agenda anyway. But I don't think we can for ever

deny

> their role in modern human nutrition. A common mistake, when you

> avoid them, is to place too much value on other food categories,

> fats, protein, what do I know? as if they were miraculous –

actually

> there are no miracle foods. In most cases, it is just a temporary

> effect. When you start following the rigid macrobiotic diet, you

can

> also feel elated, only to see your very serious error some time

later.

>

> Carbs and grains are intimately associated with civilization. Deny

it

> as we may, we are children of civilization, and even if we accept

the

> paleo pattern as the best approach (I do), to follow it strictly

> implies a rupture and possibly an incurable longing that you may

want

> to rationalize by saying for instance: " Now I follow nature. Now I

am

> free from addictions. Let the others poison themselves. " How far

can

> we go on with such a parody?

>

> Gee, I feel some people will " hate " me for these things I have

been

> saying. How dares he? Actually, I am not denying anyone nor am I

> proposing a palliative nor accusing anyone, but just asking you,

if

> ever I have the right ask anything, to tread lightly on that

ground.

> Avoiding may be not the right choice for everybody.

>

> José

>

,

Between 10 and 40% of humans have the HLA-DQ genes that code the

cover of white blood cells to attack any cells that have the gliadin

peptide on their surface. Since gliadin is the peptide in gluten

that no human digests and since it is " sticky " , the white blood

cells of the people with these genes attack the cells lining the

upper intestine, causing essentially " canker sores " . This means

that normal digestion will not occur for these folks. And imagine

if the gliadin gets into the blood stream and sticks to red blood

cells (anemia) or cartilage (rhumatoid arthitis) or the pancreas

(diabetes) or the thyroid (Hashimoto's thyroiditis). Now this

condition may be identified early or it may be that the bloated

belly, headaches, farting, etc are seen as " normal baby belly " or

just not taken very seriously in a small child. And our culture

just accepts these things as common. Since it may take up to 5 days

for the symptoms to show up in a noticably disabling way, how can

you connect it to the excess gluten you ate, especially if " bread is

the staff of life " ? And what about the sort of accommodation that

can occur - that " tiredness " of the system that just stops

responding or is just a continual state.

If you are one of the 60-90% of the population that does not have

these genes, then, although you too are not actually digesting the

gliadin and it is sticking to the lining of your gut, you are not at

risk for the problems caused by the autoimmune response of the white

blood cells. And then your argument completely applies.

But for me, never having gluten grains again is the only way I will

see a healthy old age. I just wish flour and wheat were not

sprinkled like fairy dust over so many other food items - why does

there need to be wheat in soy sauce (fermented as a flavoring) and

therefore in anything made with it (most recently I discovered

that " Korean style seaweed " has soy sauce) or in commercial salad

dressings, or many other seasonings (including some herbs).

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

José

>That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other substances

>that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on now

>in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a question

>of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is maybe a

>the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

>problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony ­ of

>any kind.

Right, for a lot of people, probably most people, paranoia isn't justified.

But for folks like me, where a little bit makes you crazy, yeah,

I have to be paranoid! Really! One little bit of gluten makes me

feel very, very lousy for a couple of days at least, and most of

that lousiness is that it messes up my brain. I had major depression

for 20 years or so, FROM GLUTEN. It comes back when I get

some accidentally, and it makes my life miserable, and the

lives of those who have to live with me.

There are a LOT of people like me, and yeah, we do talk

about gluten (and sometimes casein) like it is poison. In the

celiac groups, many people refer to gluten as " rat poison " .

That's because when we eat it we feel like we got

poisoned by some evil sprite who sticks toxic substances

in what should be an innocent food, like pork ribs.

I expect that if you ate pork ribs that had some invisible

substance in the sauce that made you ill for 3 days, you

would start calling that invisible substance " poison " too!

But it's not a syndrome or a psychological problem: there

has been 25 years of good research on it and it

is very, very real. It affects somewhere between 10-30%

of the population, most of whom have no idea what

is making them ill. That's a big hunk of the population,

so we can't just ignore the problem and say " gluten

is ok in small amounts: moderation in everything! " . If you

are NOT in that camp, yeah, be moderate. But

without good testing, no one really knows which camp

they are in.

So I think you may be confusing the hatred some of us

have toward " gluten and casein " with our attitude toward

" carbs " . I don't hate carbs at all: I've been arguing they

are not *required* (which I believe) but I certainly eat them.

There are some folks who are vehemently anti-carb, but

I haven't met any on this list. There are some folk here who stick

to a very low carb diet, mainly they say it's something THEY

need because of their metabolism, and who can argue

with that?

>Carbs and grains are intimately associated with civilization. Deny it

>as we may, we are children of civilization, and even if we accept the

>paleo pattern as the best approach (I do), to follow it strictly

>implies a rupture and possibly an incurable longing that you may want

>to rationalize by saying for instance: " Now I follow nature. Now I am

>free from addictions. Let the others poison themselves. " How far can

>we go on with such a parody?

Maybe some people have that attitude, but I haven't

seen it on this list. Most of us are like you: we think

our way of eating works best.

>Gee, I feel some people will " hate " me for these things I have been

>saying. How dares he? Actually, I am not denying anyone nor am I

>proposing a palliative nor accusing anyone, but just asking you, if

>ever I have the right ask anything, to tread lightly on that ground.

>Avoiding may be not the right choice for everybody.

I don't think anyone here has said there is one

right choice for everybody. Actually there is a lot

of metabolic diversity in this group, and while we

talk about what works for us, I have never heard

anyone get after someone else for their diet.

I try to stick to the science involved, and the

science involved says that for some people,

avoidance IS very necessary. I avoid some foods

that the rest of my family eats a lot, and that's

fine. (OTOH they just will NOT eat my favorite

canned anchovies! Which is fine with me too! I

get more!).

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>There is no need for grains in the human diet for those of us Northern

>European descendants for whom grains were most recently introduced some

>2,000-5,000 years ago. Our genetics don't somehow begin with

>civilization. We are children of a very long and varied past, most of

>which falls into pre-civilized eras.

>

>Deanna

And actually, for Northern Europeans, eating a large amount of grains

is even more recent. My grandad in Germany, for instance, wrote that he

didn't get wheat bread much. He craved it, but peasants like

him couldn't afford it, they mainly lived off oatmeal, which

doesn't have the allergen/opiate issue. So 100 years

or so ago, MY ancestors weren't eating much wheat. Ditto

in Ireland, especially: the nobility had wheat, but the peasants

ate cabbage and potatoes. Wheat is so recent there that

even the dogs don't have immunity: Irish Setters have

a major problem with celiac (they use them in celiac

research for that reason).

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Dear Deanna:

I am feeling quite embarrassed by your response, in the first place

as if I had forced you to talk about a very intimate and delicate

family issue. I apologize, but really I hadn't the slightest

intention to as it were drive you to the wall. I didn't even know

that you were the mother of an autistic son whose condition was

triggered by the consumption of gluten. Even if I had known it,

Deanna, I was merely talking in very general terms. I was not

addressing anyone in particular, let alone you. And I never defended

gluten or any other grain. My main point was: in most cases, it is

not a question of avoidance of CARBS, but of fine-tuning.

That we don't need grains is all right. That we may fall sick if we

rely heavily on them is all right. I didn't mean the opposite. My

point was that strict avoidance of carbs (not grains) CAN (not will)

lead to future problems.

Orthorexic, aloof, elitist - these are not words to apply to you or

to anyone else here. These are tentative descriptions. It is true I

have known people who would wear the cap, because it would fit them,

but again those were generic observations. Maybe I should have been

more careful with my wordage. It is not the first time that words

betray me, appearing to mean more than what they actually meant, if

you see what I mean.

Possibly, it is too late now to justify myself. I have made a

blunder, however unintentional it was, and nobody will come to

support me. All that is left for me to do is slink off and pray that

time will heal this situation.

But, Deanna, please read my post again, if you have the heart, and

you will see (at least I hope you will) that I was not trying to step

on your toes.

Anyway, your post has finally convinced me that you have guts, and

you have risen higher in my admiration, really.

Now I think I must go into the recovery room. I feel broken.

José

>

> >Much has been said about carbs and grains. I don't have the

intention

> >to round it off now, to have the last word on this, but here are

some

> >points I would like to stress:

> >

> >That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other

substances

> >that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on

now

> >in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a

question

> >of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is

maybe a

> >the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

> >problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony - of

> >any kind.

> >

> >

> Dear José ,

>

> As the mother of an autistic son, I completely and respectfully

disagree

> with your assessment above. When my son eats gluten or dairy other

than

> butter, his behavior is exactly like someone whacked out on hard

drugs.

> He becomes a threat to himself and those around him. His

absorption of

> nutrients suffers and he loses weight. We HAVE educated ourselves

over

> the 5+ years he has eaten a gluten and casein free diet. Trust me,

my

> son is no glutton, even if he eats large quantities of food. He

can eat

> some rice and corn, but we ensure his diet is as nutrient dense as

> possible by go liberally with the animal foods, properly prepared

nuts,

> lots of vegetables and some fruit.

>

> So yes, I definitely live in paranoia of my son eating gluten,

which is

> by far much worse for him than dairy, as far as the opioid effects

go.

> Through this journey it has become very obvious to me that I also

do

> much better without grains, especially the glutenous ones. I am

not

> suffering orthorexia, trust me. I am not aloof and elitist. I am

a

> parent trying to help my entire family live up to our potentials as

> human beings. It would be flat out abusive and cruel for me to

> knowingly allow my son to eat gluten. Period. Having seen grains

> influence my family in adverse ways beyond this, I do limit our

> consumption of these foods.

>

> There is no need for grains in the human diet for those of us

Northern

> European descendants for whom grains were most recently introduced

some

> 2,000-5,000 years ago. Our genetics don't somehow begin with

> civilization. We are children of a very long and varied past, most

of

> which falls into pre-civilized eras.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>i hope you don't mind my asking you...

>

>vaccines and mercury poisoning (thimerisol) have been in the news,

>and there has been a book out on the subject. one thing i heard was

>that there definitely is a link between autism and vaccines, and that

>the reason why most children get vaccinated but only a comparative

>few become autistic, is because of a gene or the liver or something

>of the autisitc child; somehow their bodies are not capable

>of 'processing' or getting rid of the mercury causing their autism.

>

>out of curiosity, i was wondering if most parents of autistic

>children these days have them tested for mercury poisoning and then

>follow some sort of regime, diet or otherwise, to get rid of the

>mercury, and if any autistic children have been 'cured' by doing this.

>

>this is such a heart breaking problem, and it is becoming so wide

>spread now, and there but by the grace of God go I, and listening to

>everything i've heard about the problem over the last 6 mo. or so, i

>was wondering if this progress is being made.

>

>Deanna, i wish you and your son and your family truly all the best.

>

>laura

>

Thank you, . Yes, I have heard of this connection of

thimerasol/MMR. I believe MMR vaccine given well over a decade ago is

responsible in our case. The only treatment we have ever done is

dietary, which has diminished the behavioral and dietary problems.

Cognition has improved with more marine foods (which can have mercury)

and lower carb eating. DS is high functioning in some areas and has a

more mild form of autism.

Since my boys are older, I am kind of out of the loop as far as current

testing for infants and such. Many parents do start these treatments

and avoid vaccination, now that the knowledge is more readily

available. You know, these autistic spectrum disorders are on the

increase in states like CA, TX and FL. Obviously, there exists at least

an environmental component to them.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> >There is no need for grains in the human diet for those of us

Northern

> >European descendants for whom grains were most recently introduced

some

> >2,000-5,000 years ago. Our genetics don't somehow begin with

> >civilization. We are children of a very long and varied past,

most of

> >which falls into pre-civilized eras.

> >

> >Deanna

>

> And actually, for Northern Europeans, eating a large amount of

grains

> is even more recent. My grandad in Germany, for instance, wrote

that he

> didn't get wheat bread much. He craved it, but peasants like

> him couldn't afford it, they mainly lived off oatmeal, which

> doesn't have the allergen/opiate issue. So 100 years

> or so ago, MY ancestors weren't eating much wheat.

## Hi Heidi:

## I had always thought that oatmeal a typical dish in Scotland, not

Germany. And not a very cherished one for that matter. Don't they

feed horses on oats? Have you ever been to Germany? If so, did you

have the chance to go into a baker's? Never in my life had I seen

such a profusion of different kinds of bread. Then I had no doubts

that Germany was the home for bread, whereas France may be the home

for cheese. I think the Germans nowdays eat a lot of bread. Their

evening meal is often called das Abendbrot (evening bread). But I

don't know to what extent they are having trouble with gluten. Are

there Germans on this list who would tell us about it? Now I

remember: I have a friend in Hamburg who found, at the age of 55 or

so, that he had gluten intolerance. He avoided bread, of course, but

he still ate potatoes and rice. That is all right.

## You say that for Northern Europeans eating a large amount of

grains is quite recent. It may be so, but it may be interesting to

observe on the other hand that the word for bread in all Germanic

languages is a domestic one, not one coming from Latin or Greek, such

as wine or rice. This might imply that bread is in use for a rather

long time there. This is pure speculation, and by no means I want to

seem to be defending wheat or bread again. Actually, I eat very

little bread, and after all this ongoing discussion I am really

thinking of giving it up at least for some time.

Ditto

> in Ireland, especially: the nobility had wheat, but the peasants

> ate cabbage and potatoes.

## But what about the time when there were no potatoes in Ireland?

When was the white potato introduced there? Certainly not before

1700? So what were the peasants eating before the arrival of the

potato? Only cabbage?

Wheat is so recent there that

> even the dogs don't have immunity: Irish Setters have

> a major problem with celiac (they use them in celiac

> research for that reason).

>

## But why should a dog be fed wheat? Aren't dogs essentially meat-

eaters? This looks like a very cruel experiment, like most other

experiments with animals.

José

> Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I am feeling quite embarrassed by your response, in the first place

>as if I had forced you to talk about a very intimate and delicate

>family issue. I apologize, but really I hadn't the slightest

>intention to as it were drive you to the wall. I didn't even know

>that you were the mother of an autistic son whose condition was

>triggered by the consumption of gluten. Even if I had known it,

>Deanna, I was merely talking in very general terms. I was not

>addressing anyone in particular, let alone you. And I never defended

>gluten or any other grain. My main point was: in most cases, it is

>not a question of avoidance of CARBS, but of fine-tuning.

>

>

I was not " driven to a wall " José . I have written of family

matters such as this is the past, as they are very diet related, and not

" delicate " from my point of view. You spoke generally, I spoke

specifically. My nearly adult son is thriving with lower carb gluten

free. In fact, a low carb diet has proven effective in preventing

seizures in autistics and other neurologically disabled folks. I share

this just as someone who wants to speak of diarrhea or breast size will

write as they see fit. I did not write for sympathy, I wrote to share a

real world example of what can happen when a segment of the population

eats gluten.

>That we don't need grains is all right. That we may fall sick if we

>rely heavily on them is all right. I didn't mean the opposite. My

>point was that strict avoidance of carbs (not grains) CAN (not will)

>lead to future problems.

>

>

Would you please explain how strict avoidance of carbs CAN lead to

future problems in people? Do you have information along these lines

that you will share in support of this argument, even anecdotally? You

see, much of the information I have read points to no long term problems

on a traditional style low carb diet. Perhaps the processed soy " low

carb " snack foods now on the market are the problem with such a diet.

However, a natural whole foods diet that supplies less than 60 grams of

carbohydrates a day has been shown to promote good blood lipids, blood

sugar, weight loss, and other such factors. I myself eat less than 100

grams of carbs everyday, usually under 50. My blood, body and life are

in excellent condition. I have total cholesterol of 187 and HDL of 76

(I forget LDL, but it was within a good range). I suffer no cravings

and eat about 1500-2000 kcalories a day, whilst burning at least 400

daily average on exercise.

>Orthorexic, aloof, elitist - these are not words to apply to you or

>to anyone else here. These are tentative descriptions. It is true I

>have known people who would wear the cap, because it would fit them,

>but again those were generic observations. Maybe I should have been

>more careful with my wordage. It is not the first time that words

>betray me, appearing to mean more than what they actually meant, if

>you see what I mean.

>

>

No worries. I have known dietary dogmatists as well. Maybe I am guilty

of it when I was vegan, but I think with the proper nutrition that I

have enjoyed recently, I see things from a practical standpoint, not

from a need to have dietary purity or something like it.

>Possibly, it is too late now to justify myself. I have made a

>blunder, however unintentional it was, and nobody will come to

>support me. All that is left for me to do is slink off and pray that

>time will heal this situation.

>

>

You made no blunder as far as I am concerned, you certainly have not

offended me. I am proud of my children and the son I spoke of may go on

to be an Olympic runner or famous cartographer. But I do I disagree

with your position that carbs are somehow necessary and ill health will

result without them in moderate quantities (which is what exactly?).

>But, Deanna, please read my post again, if you have the heart, and

>you will see (at least I hope you will) that I was not trying to step

>on your toes.

>

>

Oh, I know that. I only feel strongly that grains, and perhaps carbs in

themselves, are detrimental to my family's health. We have all noticed

the lethargy that comes from eating high carb foods at a given meal. So

I gave a personal account of what problems I have seen with them. I

hope that you will show how for you or certain groups of people, that

carbs are somehow needed for health. In the literature I have perused,

I have not seen such conclusive evidence of it.

>Anyway, your post has finally convinced me that you have guts, and

>you have risen higher in my admiration, really.

>

>Now I think I must go into the recovery room. I feel broken.

>

>José

>

This is nothing! And I certainly did not bring my family's situation

into the debate for emotional or dramatic effect. Yes, I have guts. I

am sorry you feel broken somehow. Please let's keep it to the facts.

You said:

" That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other substances

that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on now

in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a question

of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is maybe a

the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony - of

any kind. "

So I have shown that in some cases, it IS a problem with carbs and

grains, not with gluttonous consumption. We sometimes follow the

Specific Carbohydrate Diet. Are you familiar with the SCD, btw? It is

a diet meant to support people that have hurt their digestive tracts

mainly, and it focuses on ridding the body of all but very specific

carbohydrates. Some on this list have used it successfully. If you'd

like to read about it, here's a link:

http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/

From this site comes:

" The Specific Carbohydrate Diet^ is biologically correct because it

is species appropriate. The allowed foods are mainly those that early

man ate before agriculture began. The diet we evolved to eat over

millions of years was predominantly one of meat, fish, eggs, vegetables,

nuts, low-sugar fruits. Our modern diet including starches, grains,

pasta, legumes, and breads has only been consumed for a mere 10,000

years. In the last hundred years the increase in complex sugars and

chemical additives in the diet has led to a huge increase in health

problems ranging from severe bowel disorders to obesity and brain

function disorders. We have not adapted to eat this modern diet as there

has not been enough time for natural selection to operate. It therefore

makes sense to eat the diet we evolved with.

" The Specific Carbohydrate Diet^ was clinically tested for over 50

years by Dr Haas and biochemist Elaine Gottschall with convincing

results. From feedback from the various lists and other information at

least 75% of those who adhere rigidly to the diet gain significant

improvement. "

So there is more evidence that diets that tend towards pre agricultural

foodstuffs are helping to heal the problems plaguing us modern,

civilized folks.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>And actually, for Northern Europeans, eating a large amount of grains

>is even more recent. My grandad in Germany, for instance, wrote that he

>didn't get wheat bread much. He craved it, but peasants like

>him couldn't afford it, they mainly lived off oatmeal, which

>doesn't have the allergen/opiate issue. So 100 years

>or so ago, MY ancestors weren't eating much wheat. Ditto

>in Ireland, especially: the nobility had wheat, but the peasants

>ate cabbage and potatoes. Wheat is so recent there that

>even the dogs don't have immunity: Irish Setters have

>a major problem with celiac (they use them in celiac

>research for that reason).

>

>

>Heidi Jean

>

Fascinating. I didn't realize that one measly century ago Germans of a

particular social/regional status had not much wheat. Ya know, this is

where old cookbooks come in to play. I'm sure your grandad was

representative of many. The books are nice in that they are a written

record of it for all to read. What were the farmers of Northern Europe

eating 100 years ago in general?

We are Scot/Swede/Norwegian/German in our family. I suppose it is the

same case for these regions. I have been trying to determine dairy use

in Scandinavian countries; how recently it came on the scene. In the

then chic _Cuisines of the Western World_, by then editor of House

Beautiful Gordon, © 1965, the Northern European countries

( " World of Butter and Fat " section) have ample fats and meats

represented, but very little breads. The photos tell a story. For

instance, the Swedish cold table has rich beef tartar, sliced meats,

sausages, pate and the like without ANY breads or carbs at all. Swedish

smorgasbord has fish and shellfish, eggs and more fish, with a small

basket of crackers for the 10 other animal food dishes on display. The

" Peasant Dishes " section has more in the way of pasta, potatoes and

bread, but these are side dishes and in no way fill a central role in

the meal (probably the space saved for vegetables on the typical

American dinner table). It is vegetables that fill the larger place in

these photos than other foods. It is NOT USDA food pyramid stuff iow.

I am sure those of you with old regional books could tell even more

about what Europeans used to eat. I think, as usual, we tend to

fantasize or Americanize what we think people eat/ate in other regions,

based on current dietary dogma.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna:

Thank you for your additional clarifications. I hope we have made

friends again.

I knew you were writing specifically and I also know that you did not

bring your family's situation into the debate for emotional or

dramatic effect, but of course you were being very intense and you

touched me.

First thing, I never suggested that you should change your current

low-carb diet. Never had in mind to even hint that if someone thinks

he has a problem with wheat it is because he necessarily has a

problem with gluttony, though gluttony can be a tough problem

sometimes. I know that if you have gluten intolerance (Connie is a

good example, here) you would be better not to even smell flour.

Second, what I was saying from the beginning is that I am sceptical

of non-carb diets, of diets which only rely on veggies and fruit

(maybe nuts) as real carb substitutes. I am well aware of the dangers

of high-carb diets. Of course, I am: I have followed one and I know

very well that very soon you are going to be in a very tight corner.

How, then, would I light-heartedly promote such an aberration? I

first read about the evils of gluten and bread more than twenty years

ago. The author's name is [i am not sure about his given

name] Kunin [i didn't forget his surname, however]. I think he is an

American, maybe still living.

However, most of my reading in nutrition are from the French school.

I have never seen such a summary condemnation of carbs by these

French authors. Of course, none of them will tell you that carbs is

food number one, but all agree that we need them in moderation (less

than 30%) for a balanced meal and for optimal proteic assimilation.

Maybe it is the case that these authors need to be updated, I don't

know. Possibly we can live off less than 10% of carbs, but what I

have a hard time to accept is non-carb for everybody in the long run.

I think these experiences with non-carb diets are still in vitro. I

am not sure if they can sustain life and health for most people in

the real world. If I am wrong, then I will take off my hat.

Well it doesn't work for me, but I know someone can say I am an

addicto. Well? Actually, I have never met anyone eating no carbs at

all. I know people who don't eat bread but instead eat potatoes or

rice, or people who may have stopped eating carbs for a while until

they had lost excessive weight, but eventually they have introduced a

little carbs (not always bread) back into the diet. And they are

fine.

That is what I think and what I know. Maybe I don't know much,

however. Anyway, I also don't believe there is one formula for

everyone, but I feel that suppressive diets (diets suppressing one

food category: fat, protein or carb) are potentially dangerous in the

long run. Maybe you can resist longer on a non-carb diet than on a

non-protein diet, because protein turns into glucose, but how long

can you keep this going on?

I'd say that the only food categories that you can leave behind and

suffer from no physical consequences at all is dairy (for adults)

and " junk food " . But that is another story.

So I think we may have well closed the circle now, have we?

Best wishes.

José

>

> >I am feeling quite embarrassed by your response, in the first

place

> >as if I had forced you to talk about a very intimate and delicate

> >family issue. I apologize, but really I hadn't the slightest

> >intention to as it were drive you to the wall. I didn't even know

> >that you were the mother of an autistic son whose condition was

> >triggered by the consumption of gluten. Even if I had known it,

> >Deanna, I was merely talking in very general terms. I was not

> >addressing anyone in particular, let alone you. And I never

defended

> >gluten or any other grain. My main point was: in most cases, it is

> >not a question of avoidance of CARBS, but of fine-tuning.

> >

> >

> I was not " driven to a wall " José . I have written of family

> matters such as this is the past, as they are very diet related,

and not

> " delicate " from my point of view. You spoke generally, I spoke

> specifically. My nearly adult son is thriving with lower carb

gluten

> free. In fact, a low carb diet has proven effective in preventing

> seizures in autistics and other neurologically disabled folks. I

share

> this just as someone who wants to speak of diarrhea or breast size

will

> write as they see fit. I did not write for sympathy, I wrote to

share a

> real world example of what can happen when a segment of the

population

> eats gluten.

>

> >That we don't need grains is all right. That we may fall sick if

we

> >rely heavily on them is all right. I didn't mean the opposite. My

> >point was that strict avoidance of carbs (not grains) CAN (not

will)

> >lead to future problems.

> >

> >

> Would you please explain how strict avoidance of carbs CAN lead to

> future problems in people? Do you have information along these

lines

> that you will share in support of this argument, even anecdotally?

You

> see, much of the information I have read points to no long term

problems

> on a traditional style low carb diet. Perhaps the processed

soy " low

> carb " snack foods now on the market are the problem with such a

diet.

> However, a natural whole foods diet that supplies less than 60

grams of

> carbohydrates a day has been shown to promote good blood lipids,

blood

> sugar, weight loss, and other such factors. I myself eat less than

100

> grams of carbs everyday, usually under 50. My blood, body and life

are

> in excellent condition. I have total cholesterol of 187 and HDL of

76

> (I forget LDL, but it was within a good range). I suffer no

cravings

> and eat about 1500-2000 kcalories a day, whilst burning at least

400

> daily average on exercise.

>

> >Orthorexic, aloof, elitist - these are not words to apply to you

or

> >to anyone else here. These are tentative descriptions. It is true

I

> >have known people who would wear the cap, because it would fit

them,

> >but again those were generic observations. Maybe I should have

been

> >more careful with my wordage. It is not the first time that words

> >betray me, appearing to mean more than what they actually meant,

if

> >you see what I mean.

> >

> >

> No worries. I have known dietary dogmatists as well. Maybe I am

guilty

> of it when I was vegan, but I think with the proper nutrition that

I

> have enjoyed recently, I see things from a practical standpoint,

not

> from a need to have dietary purity or something like it.

>

> >Possibly, it is too late now to justify myself. I have made a

> >blunder, however unintentional it was, and nobody will come to

> >support me. All that is left for me to do is slink off and pray

that

> >time will heal this situation.

> >

> >

> You made no blunder as far as I am concerned, you certainly have

not

> offended me. I am proud of my children and the son I spoke of may

go on

> to be an Olympic runner or famous cartographer. But I do I

disagree

> with your position that carbs are somehow necessary and ill health

will

> result without them in moderate quantities (which is what exactly?).

>

> >But, Deanna, please read my post again, if you have the heart, and

> >you will see (at least I hope you will) that I was not trying to

step

> >on your toes.

> >

> >

> Oh, I know that. I only feel strongly that grains, and perhaps

carbs in

> themselves, are detrimental to my family's health. We have all

noticed

> the lethargy that comes from eating high carb foods at a given

meal. So

> I gave a personal account of what problems I have seen with them.

I

> hope that you will show how for you or certain groups of people,

that

> carbs are somehow needed for health. In the literature I have

perused,

> I have not seen such conclusive evidence of it.

>

> >Anyway, your post has finally convinced me that you have guts, and

> >you have risen higher in my admiration, really.

> >

> >Now I think I must go into the recovery room. I feel broken.

> >

> >José

> >

> This is nothing! And I certainly did not bring my family's

situation

> into the debate for emotional or dramatic effect. Yes, I have

guts. I

> am sorry you feel broken somehow. Please let's keep it to the

facts.

> You said:

>

> " That dairy and especially grains contain opiates and other

substances

> that operate like drugs is well-established, but shall we live on

now

> in paranoia with regard to them? In my opinion, it is much a

question

> of educating oneself rather than totally skipping them. It is maybe

a

> the case of eating the right amount or the right kind. The real

> problem is not so much with carbs and grains as with gluttony - of

> any kind. "

>

> So I have shown that in some cases, it IS a problem with carbs and

> grains, not with gluttonous consumption. We sometimes follow the

> Specific Carbohydrate Diet. Are you familiar with the SCD, btw?

It is

> a diet meant to support people that have hurt their digestive

tracts

> mainly, and it focuses on ridding the body of all but very specific

> carbohydrates. Some on this list have used it successfully. If

you'd

> like to read about it, here's a link:

> http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/

>

> From this site comes:

> " The Specific Carbohydrate Diet^ is biologically correct

because it

> is species appropriate. The allowed foods are mainly those that

early

> man ate before agriculture began. The diet we evolved to eat over

> millions of years was predominantly one of meat, fish, eggs,

vegetables,

> nuts, low-sugar fruits. Our modern diet including starches, grains,

> pasta, legumes, and breads has only been consumed for a mere 10,000

> years. In the last hundred years the increase in complex sugars and

> chemical additives in the diet has led to a huge increase in health

> problems ranging from severe bowel disorders to obesity and brain

> function disorders. We have not adapted to eat this modern diet as

there

> has not been enough time for natural selection to operate. It

therefore

> makes sense to eat the diet we evolved with.

>

> " The Specific Carbohydrate Diet^ was clinically tested for over

50

> years by Dr Haas and biochemist Elaine Gottschall with convincing

> results. From feedback from the various lists and other information

at

> least 75% of those who adhere rigidly to the diet gain significant

> improvement. "

>

> So there is more evidence that diets that tend towards pre

agricultural

> foodstuffs are helping to heal the problems plaguing us modern,

> civilized folks.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>## I had always thought that oatmeal a typical dish in Scotland, not

>Germany. And not a very cherished one for that matter. Don't they

>feed horses on oats? Have you ever been to Germany? If so, did you

>have the chance to go into a baker's? Never in my life had I seen

>such a profusion of different kinds of bread. Then I had no doubts

>that Germany was the home for bread, whereas France may be the home

>for cheese. I think the Germans nowdays eat a lot of bread. Their

>evening meal is often called das Abendbrot (evening bread). But I

>don't know to what extent they are having trouble with gluten. Are

>there Germans on this list who would tell us about it? Now I

>remember: I have a friend in Hamburg who found, at the age of 55 or

>so, that he had gluten intolerance. He avoided bread, of course, but

>he still ate potatoes and rice. That is all right.

Actually my grandad and his brother *started* a bakery

after WWI. Like I said, he loved wheat and craved it.

Gluten problems are very common in Germany though.

The age at which one gets introduced to it makes a

big difference: in his case he didn't get it much til

he was an adult and he did ok.

He always claimed oats were much better for

you than most foods, and I tend to agree. Oats

have stuff in them that is good for immunity

and they digest better than wheat. You are right though,

they aren't much cherished. Oats fill you

up, but they don't make you crave them (unless

you are a horse). I suspect people would feel

the same way about wheat if it weren't for

the opioids.

>## You say that for Northern Europeans eating a large amount of

>grains is quite recent. It may be so, but it may be interesting to

>observe on the other hand that the word for bread in all Germanic

>languages is a domestic one, not one coming from Latin or Greek, such

>as wine or rice.

The Germans were the " barbarians " that the Romans

conquered. They did have grain for some time

prior to the " modern era " but it was mainly barley, rye

and oats, which are far less problematic than wheat.

" Bread " can be made from any grain. Most cultures have

some kind of " bread " , but most of those breads didn't

involve wheat until more recently.

More to the point, a LOT of the grains were not

used to make bread per se, but to make *beer*. In

fact, they would bake bread as a preamble to

beer making. One would bake bread, then use

the bread to make beer. It wasn't just leftover bread

used to make beer: it was special bread baked for

beermaking. Some people think that humans started

growing grains more for alcohol FIRST, then later

got in the habit of eating the grains and bread. Grains are sort

of tasteless, esp. compared to something more

yummy, like steak. But beer makes you feel good,

and humans are all about feeling good! Actually

the beer is better for you too ... full of probiotics

and vitamins, and the " bad " factors in the grains

are reduced by the fermentation. Pretty much

every native culture has it's own version of beer!

However, when the wild game diminished and

the population got bigger, people started relying more

on the grains as a food. Esp. in cities, because it's

hard to keep fresh food without refrigerators.

Also, the wheat used in much of the world, like

China, was generally " soft " wheat: which is low

gluten. The high-gluten wheat is more recent,

and it is the " winter wheat " that grows in more

northern climes (like Canada).

>## But what about the time when there were no potatoes in Ireland?

>When was the white potato introduced there? Certainly not before

>1700? So what were the peasants eating before the arrival of the

>potato? Only cabbage?

Seafood, venison, roots, berries, nuts. The barbarians of the North ate

pretty much like the Native Americans: whatever you

could catch. The climate in England is a lot like the

climate in Seattle, and the Native Americans here did

fine but they never did have any grain to speak of.

They did get a lot of arrowroot, which grows wild in

waterways (we have lots of waterways) and is easily

harvested. Tastes like potatoes, I'm told.

>## But why should a dog be fed wheat? Aren't dogs essentially meat-

>eaters? This looks like a very cruel experiment, like most other

>experiments with animals.

I agree. Look at the ingredients on dogfood containers.

Most dogfood is mostly grain-based: it's cheaper.

However, dogs have been typically fed off table scraps

in the past, so any dog would have gotten some bread

or whatever the master was eating. Northern Europe

was very meat-based for a long time (Queen

purportedly started her day with a chunk of beef and

a bowl of beer) so the dogs would have gotten more

meat.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Fascinating. I didn't realize that one measly century ago Germans of a

>particular social/regional status had not much wheat. Ya know, this is

>where old cookbooks come in to play. I'm sure your grandad was

>representative of many. The books are nice in that they are a written

>record of it for all to read. What were the farmers of Northern Europe

>eating 100 years ago in general?

Well you see it's more of a problem because they didn't

actually write cookbooks back then. The few that do exist

were written, of course, by nobility! Common folk didn't

read or write. Europe didn't have a large middle class until

recently. There were a whole lot of peasants and servants,

so the bulk of the genes comes from that stock. But they

didn't leave much in the way of recipes!

My grandad wrote an autobiography because my Dad badgered

him into it, but he wrote it in German. My sister had it translated

recently. There are odd tidbits about diet in it. He hired himself

out as a servant when he was very young, because their family

was starving, due to his new stepdad basically being an incompetant

farmer. His real father was a good farmer, and he said they lived

off the stuff they grew, which would be cabbages, turnips, potatos,

oats, goat and chicken products. Probably ducks and geese too.

But he said cows were for rich people: " cows are expensive " .

I don't know if that meant buying a cow, or feeding one.

But when is dad died and they got a new dad, they starved and

half the kids were basically kicked out of the house so they

could feed the younger kids.

As a servant he " got meat every day " which he thought was neat.

When he went back to visit his family he said they had only

some " potatoes with fat " for dinner and he then thought he

was better off being a servant in the castle.

>The photos tell a story. For

>instance, the Swedish cold table has rich beef tartar, sliced meats,

>sausages, pate and the like without ANY breads or carbs at all. Swedish

>smorgasbord has fish and shellfish, eggs and more fish, with a small

>basket of crackers for the 10 other animal food dishes on display.

Yeah, I see the same when I read old accounts. Lots

of meats mentioned, and beer, not a lot about bread.

Unless you were in prison and fed " bread and water " .

Most breads were coarse whole grain breads though,

and like I said earlier, not generally wheat. The Finns

were into rye bread, I think (Can anyone say " Wasa " ?).

In English literature you hear a lot about barley

( " Oats and beans and barley grow ... " ). Gluten

intolerant folk can't eat barley, but barley probably

doesn't cause gluten intolerance to the degree

wheat does (there is very little gluten in barley).

Barley is really interesting:

http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch410.html

The Bible mentions barley frequently. Ezekiel paid penance to God by eating a

diet relying on barley. When three angels came to visit Abraham, he offered them

barley bread. Ruth was gathering barley from the field when Boaz first saw her.

Joab's fields of barley were set afire when Absalom ordered his servants to burn

Joab's grain. From the New Testament in the miracle of the loaves and the

fishes, the five loaves of bread that Christ fed to five thousand people were

made of barley.

To many Egyptian workers barley meant sustenance. The enslaved people who built

the pyramids endured intense desert heat, heavy labor lifting huge stones, and

dawn to dusk hours on a spartan diet. Their meals consisted of a mere three

loaves of barley bread a day and an allotment of beer--made from barley, of

course.

Before the Common Era, barley carried a great deal of importance since it was

the major staple grain throughout the entire Near East, Egypt and Greece. Spain

was introduced to this grain in the fifth century BCE before travelers brought

it to France and Germany. Historians believe barley reached Britain about 500

BCE, southern India about 300 BCE, and southern China in 200 BCE.

.....

As the Common Era was approaching, barley began to lose favor in Rome and

Greece. Cooks of that period learned that bread making with wheat could offer a

superior loaf that was lighter, more flavorful, and was able to keep longer.

Barley contains so little gluten, the protein that gives bread its ability to

rise, that breads were extremely dense and heavy. Gluten also helps breads

retain moisture, a quality lacking in barley, causing barley breads to become

stale rather quickly. Barley, however, still remained the grain of the poor,

while the rich were breaking bread with wheat.

No longer in existence, Eleusis, an ancient town in Greece, rewarded game

winners with sacks of barley. Barley mush was selected for training the athletes

because the Greeks considered it more strengthening than other grains. In Rome

the gladiators, often called hordearii or " barley men, " were consuming a staple

diet that relied on barley.

During the Common Era and up until the sixteenth century, European aristocracy

developed a resourceful use for barley. They only used the barley bread as

" trenchers, " an Old English word for plates. While the aristocracy derided

barley, the French peasants of this period were thriving on barley bread and

bean soup. Locke, a British philosopher, noted that in France " there was no

flesh in the countryside. "

In North America, Massachusetts grew its first crop of barley in 1602. The

pilgrims planted the barley seeds they brought with them but had little success;

however, the grain found the climate in Pennsylvania more favorable. The

Pennsylvanians then added limestone water to the barley and created something

they considered much more interesting and more enjoyable than bread. With a

little barley sprouting, a little fermenting, and a little distilling, their end

product was whiskey. Since wheat and corn were plentiful in North America,

barley was never used for baking bread. It gained its popularity as an important

ingredient for making beer.

While wheat was coming into popular use during the 18th and 19th centuries in

Britain, barley was still favored in the more remote areas of the north and

west. As wheat became more affordable throughout Europe, and the average person

discovered its merits in bread making, barley was relegated as fodder for the

animals.

Barley will grow in many areas of the world where wheat will not thrive. Because

barley is so adaptable to a variety of soils and can even grow in soil high in

salinity, such as along the Zuyder Zee in Holland, that it remains a popular

grain in diverse areas like Tibet, northern Germany, Finland, Israel, the

Italian Alps, the Sahara, and Ethiopia.

At present, barley is the world's fourth most important crop and an important

staple in many countries. Though the U.S. is the third largest producer of

barley, only a small portion reaches the dinner tables. Most of it is sold to

farmers for animal feed, while the remainder goes to the production of barley

malt for making beer.

In contrast to barley's importance as a food grain in the ancient world, it is

now grown in the United States mainly for animal fodder. The animals receive the

healthiest of barley's by-products: hay, straw, green fodder, bran and pearlings

(the outer layers of the barley that are removed to create pearl barley), barley

malt sprouts, the grains that are left after brewers and distillers finish their

process, and the hops and yeast left over after brewing beer.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

## Heidi:

## I am really astonished at the amount of information you are able

to convey. Are you a researcher, an author, or maybe a lecturer? I am

really impressed.

>

>

> He always claimed oats were much better for

> you than most foods, and I tend to agree. Oats

> have stuff in them that is good for immunity

> and they digest better than wheat. You are right though,

> they aren't much cherished. Oats fill you

> up, but they don't make you crave them (unless

> you are a horse).

## This is funny to read. Do animals crave, too, like humans? Perhaps

animals in the wild don't. At least this is the opinion of

instinctos. They say we should eat instinctively as animals do, and

then we wouldn't make mistakes. But if animals crave, then I guess

they also make mistakes.

I suspect people would feel

> the same way about wheat if it weren't for

> the opioids.

>

> The Germans were the " barbarians " that the Romans

> conquered.

## But later they had their revenge, didn't they? They destroyed the

whole Roman Empire. By the way, did you know the origin of the

word " barbarian " ? Actually it comes from Greek and it refers to those

who don't speak the Greek language, to those who stammer (that is why

you get the bar-bar in that word). So, maybe the Romans were also

barbarians in the mind of the Greeks.

They did have grain for some time

> prior to the " modern era " but it was mainly barley, rye

> and oats, which are far less problematic than wheat.

## I didn't know about that, but on second thoughts, that makes

sense. Wheat seems to be more common in Southern Europe.

> " Bread " can be made from any grain. Most cultures have

> some kind of " bread " , but most of those breads didn't

> involve wheat until more recently.

## This is also interesting. If you mean loaf, you can only make it

from wheat and rye, because the other grains lack gluten. I don't

think you can make real bread out of rice or millet flour, but I

suppose you can make pancakes.

>

> More to the point, a LOT of the grains were not

> used to make bread per se, but to make *beer*. In

> fact, they would bake bread as a preamble to

> beer making. One would bake bread, then use

> the bread to make beer. It wasn't just leftover bread

> used to make beer: it was special bread baked for

> beermaking. Some people think that humans started

> growing grains more for alcohol FIRST, then later

> got in the habit of eating the grains and bread. Grains are sort

> of tasteless, esp. compared to something more

> yummy, like steak. But beer makes you feel good,

> and humans are all about feeling good! Actually

> the beer is better for you too ... full of probiotics

> and vitamins, and the " bad " factors in the grains

> are reduced by the fermentation. Pretty much

> every native culture has it's own version of beer!

## I agree. In the macrobiotics circle, it isn't uncommon to find

people whose breath smells as if they had drunk beer or alcohol. In

fact they haven't drunk a single drop, but they have eaten too much

grain and there you have the grain fermentation in the body coming

out through the breath.

>

> Seafood, venison, roots, berries, nuts. The barbarians of the North

ate

> pretty much like the Native Americans: whatever you

> could catch.

## But were they still barbarians around 1700? That sounds like a

very healthy diet, anyway. How would we account, then, for the

usually short life expectancy of those times? I have read somewhere

that the level of health in the European towns of the Middle Ages was

very, very low: it might have to do with poor hygiene habits, but the

food was purer, wasn't it? Cases of madness and dwarfism were very

common.

>

> Northern Europe

> was very meat-based for a long time (Queen

> purportedly started her day with a chunk of beef and

> a bowl of beer) so the dogs would have gotten more

> meat.

## When I was in Sweden in the early eighties for a week, I didn't

notice a very high consumption of fresh meat. I saw they were eating

heaps of dairy and preserved meats (including fish). Most of the

fruit and veggies came from abroad. I wasn't very much impressed. It

is said that many people in Scandinavia suffer from osteoporosis

probably due to this high consumption of dairy.

José

>

> Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>## I am really astonished at the amount of information you are able

>to convey. Are you a researcher, an author, or maybe a lecturer? I am

>really impressed.

Well thanks, but it's worse ... I'm an Aspie! We tend to glom

onto one topic and research it to death and then talk about

it all the time. Which often leads to a career as a researcher, author,

or lecturer, but in my case I'm purely freelance. (I write software

and software books for a living).

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

> Well thanks, but it's worse ... I'm an Aspie! We tend to glom

> onto one topic and research it to death and then talk about

> it all the time. Which often leads to a career as a researcher,

author,

> or lecturer, but in my case I'm purely freelance. (I write software

> and software books for a living).

>

>

> Heidi Jean

heidi what the heck is an aspie??

laura

[Guest guest]

>heidi what the heck is an aspie??

>

>laura

Short for " Aspergers " ... also called " high functioning autism " .

Basically most of your computer geeks, engineers, and

scientists. Different kind of brain, different kind of

thinking. Whether it's a " good thing " or a " bad thing " I

have no idea: but it's decidedly a " different thing " .

Google on " Aspergers " or go to

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

Nick is building a universe on his computer. He's already mapped out his first

planet: an anvil-shaped world called Denthaim that is home to gnomes and gods,

along with a three-gendered race known as kiman. As he tells me about his

universe, Nick looks up at the ceiling, humming fragments of a melody over and

over. " I'm thinking of making magic a form of quantum physics, but I haven't

decided yet, actually, " he explains. The music of his speech is pitched high,

alternately poetic and pedantic - as if the soul of an Oxford don has been

awkwardly reincarnated in the body of a chubby, rosy-cheeked boy from Silicon

Valley. Nick is 11 years old.

Nick's father is a software engineer, and his mother is a computer programmer.

They've known that Nick was an unusual child for a long time. He's infatuated

with fantasy novels, but he has a hard time reading people. Clearly bright and

imaginative, he has no friends his own age. His inability to pick up on hidden

agendas makes him easy prey to certain cruelties, as when some kids paid him a

few dollars to wear a ridiculous outfit to school.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Thank you for your additional clarifications. I hope we have made

>friends again.

>

>

José , I think you must be reading more here than what exists for

me. I was never offended or feeling animosity towards you. Surely, we

are amicable list mates as always.

>Second, what I was saying from the beginning is that I am sceptical

>of non-carb diets, of diets which only rely on veggies and fruit

>(maybe nuts) as real carb substitutes.

>

>

And I am still wondering what exactly worries you about eating fruits,

vegetables and nuts as the only carb source? For me, I would do well to

give up legumes and live this way. However, I do enjoy the taste and

convenience of beans once or twice a week.

>However, most of my reading in nutrition are from the French school.

>I have never seen such a summary condemnation of carbs by these

>French authors. Of course, none of them will tell you that carbs is

>food number one, but all agree that we need them in moderation (less

>than 30%) for a balanced meal and for optimal proteic assimilation.

>Maybe it is the case that these authors need to be updated, I don't

>know. Possibly we can live off less than 10% of carbs, but what I

>have a hard time to accept is non-carb for everybody in the long run.

>I think these experiences with non-carb diets are still in vitro. I

>am not sure if they can sustain life and health for most people in

>the real world. If I am wrong, then I will take off my hat.

>

>

Okay, now I do see a clear reason behind the skepticism of low carb

diets. Thank you for that. Funny thing, the " low fat " diet prescribed

by the orthodoxy in the US is <30%. So accordingly, the 30% carbs of

the French authors might be considered low carb. Would you please

expand on the idea that we need certain carbs for " optimal proteic

assimilation?

I think when we get too bent on percentages of calories, we can get

stuck. By this I mean I need a certain amount of protein and fat to

function, but if I get a bit more of one, is it really detrimental to

me? Carbs I can live without indefinitely. The brain can live off of

ketones in lipolysis, just as it can live off of glucose in glucosis, we

have adapted to these duel metabolic systems. And I never said no carb

was for everybody in the long run. However, low carb diets have been

around for a long time, and are not in vitro. In modern times,

Banting popularized a low carb diet in Europe in the 1800s.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/banting.html

______________________________

For two decades 'healthy eating' propaganda has influenced the way we

eat. Over the same period there has been a consequent dramatic rise in

obesity and associated conditions. This has led to a backlash which has

seen a rash of diet books advocating high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets

described as 'new' and 'revolutionary'.

But in reality, they are not. The first low-carbohydrate diet book was

written in 1863 by Banting as a service to his fellow Man. His

name passed into the language as the verb 'to bant'.

That the 'Banting diet' works has been attested to by 140 years of

epidemiological studies and clinical trials.

For the sake of our health, it is time we started 'banting' again.

___________________________________________

>Well it doesn't work for me, but I know someone can say I am an

>addicto. Well? Actually, I have never met anyone eating no carbs at

>all. I know people who don't eat bread but instead eat potatoes or

>rice, or people who may have stopped eating carbs for a while until

>they had lost excessive weight, but eventually they have introduced a

>little carbs (not always bread) back into the diet. And they are

>fine.

>

>

When I mentioned the addiction, it was an attempt at humor at the time.

Forgive me if I did not include a smile or something to help with that

meaning :-) . It's true, though, you could be better off without the

gluten, but you will never know without doing the experiment without the

gluten grains and seeing, or have testing done.

>That is what I think and what I know. Maybe I don't know much,

>however. Anyway, I also don't believe there is one formula for

>everyone, but I feel that suppressive diets (diets suppressing one

>food category: fat, protein or carb) are potentially dangerous in the

>long run. Maybe you can resist longer on a non-carb diet than on a

>non-protein diet, because protein turns into glucose, but how long

>can you keep this going on?

>

>

If you don't believe there is one formula for all, then why do you think

suppressing carbohydrates is dangerous for some in the long run? If

diet is individual, which I too believe it is, then we will find

different levels of macronutrients that are optimal for our life. By

eating any plant foods at all, I will have some glucose for the brain

and body. But again, ketones from fat burning can provide fuel for

brain and body for a long time.

Our range as a species is global. That is unique among the animals. As

such, I believe, we have adapted, through our individual ancestry and

present environmental conditions, to particular diets. Mine happens to

be high in vegetables and animal foods. Yours will be something else

from your region and genetic makeup. Finding the best lifestyle for us

as individuals is the real challenge, I think. Sharing what we have

learned along the way may help others to at least think, " Perhaps I

should try this, " or, " Perhaps the orthodoxy hasn't all the answers in

their one size fits all diet paradigm. "

>I'd say that the only food categories that you can leave behind and

>suffer from no physical consequences at all is dairy (for adults)

>and " junk food " . But that is another story.

>

>So I think we may have well closed the circle now, have we?

>

>Best wishes.

>

>José

>

Best regards to you as well,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> From: Deanna <hl@...>

>Subject: Re: a few carb questions (Deanna, Heidi, Wanita)

>

>Fascinating. I didn't realize that one measly century ago Germans of a

>particular social/regional status had not much wheat. Ya know, this is

>where old cookbooks come in to play.

Well, yes, but...the people who couldn't afford wheat ALSO couldn't

afford cookbooks, even if they could read them. And if you don't

have a varied diet, you don't need them. If you want to find out what

the peasants were eating, you need to look at folklore, songs, fairy

tales. And the food that seems to come up the most is porridge.

We tend to look at diet through middle-class blinders. What do we make of this?

" For breakfast we have bulldog gravy

For dinner we have beans and bread

The miners don't have any supper

And a tick of straw they call a bed. "

This is the Appalachian working class in the 1930s...not very NT, is

it? Not everybody had equal access to the agricultural means of

production, esp. in the cities. And sometimes the means of production

didn't produce. It was basically the potato and modern transportation

that ended famine in Europe...grain crops periodically failed (or

were taken by marauding armies, while the potatoes were safe

underground).

>

>We are Scot/Swede/Norwegian/German in our family. I suppose it is the

>same case for these regions. I have been trying to determine dairy use

>in Scandinavian countries; how recently it came on the scene.

The Lapps have been living on reindeer milk for as long as anyone

remembers. I don't know about cows though.

> In the

>then chic _Cuisines of the Western World_, by then editor of House

>Beautiful Gordon, © 1965, the Northern European countries

>( " World of Butter and Fat " section) have ample fats and meats

>represented, but very little breads. The photos tell a story. For

>instance, the Swedish cold table has rich beef tartar, sliced meats,

>sausages, pate and the like without ANY breads or carbs at all. Swedish

>smorgasbord has fish and shellfish, eggs and more fish, with a small

>basket of crackers for the 10 other animal food dishes on display.

Right, but look at the etymology of the word: smörgas=bread and

butter + bord=table. It's like the Indonesian rijstafel...a zillion

dishes, but ultimately it's all about rice. I've read that

historically, smorgasbord as we know it is more an invention of

hotels for late-19th c train travellers than a traditional Swedish

meal, though certainly traditional dishes are included. It was the

same sort of tempting excess as 's " 31 flavors " , for

the same purpose.

In the Time-Life Scandinavian cookbook, so many of the Norwegian

dishes described seem so NT...the sour cream porridge drunk at

weddings, the fermented fish. And of course they don't include

recipes for any of the " weird stuff " :-(

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure. " --the

White Rose, leaflet #1