Re: Gluten Problems

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

If you are on a high protein and fat diet chances are you are depleted of
vital vitamins and minerals. I suggest you increase whole grains, fruits,
and viggies and use more fish in the balance and replace some sat fat
sources with the use of olive oil.

Now are you just saying that because you enjoy sounding like an
idiot? Or maybe you just like giving out dumb advice? No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them. Get
that through your head and stop making absurd suggestions to people.

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

I used to eat mainly legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds, with
small amounts of fruit and vegetables. I destroyed my body's ability
to produce stomach acid and almost killed me. Now I eat only
unbleached, white flour products, and almost no nuts, legumes, and
seeds, or anything else that is difficult to digest. I take a stomach
acid supplement, along with pepsin (to digest protein). I consume a
little nutritional yeast for the B vitamins. I'm posting this for
those who don't realize the damage whole grains and other "healthy"
food can do (do a web search for "resistant starch" and you'll find a
list - beans are really bad - then avoid these foods). While the
worst thing you can eat is large amounts of foods high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (due to oxidative stress), you can do
serious damage to your ability to digest food and absorb nutrients
with what most people think of as "health food."

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not. There
are much better sources for these vitamins that don't include the
gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
with most, if not all, grains.

And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12 and contain
no vitamin C among others.

TC

[email hidden] (montygram) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I used to eat mainly legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds, with
small amounts of fruit and vegetables. I destroyed my body's ability
to produce stomach acid and almost killed me. Now I eat only
unbleached, white flour products, and almost no nuts, legumes, and
seeds, or anything else that is difficult to digest. I take a stomach
acid supplement, along with pepsin (to digest protein). I consume a
little nutritional yeast for the B vitamins. I'm posting this for
those who don't realize the damage whole grains and other "healthy"
food can do (do a web search for "resistant starch" and you'll find a
list - beans are really bad - then avoid these foods). While the
worst thing you can eat is large amounts of foods high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (due to oxidative stress), you can do
serious damage to your ability to digest food and absorb nutrients
with what most people think of as "health food."

I do eat a lot of pecans but i soak them in water for 8-10 hours first
which makes them easier to digest. They also taste much better and do
not irritate my mouth or stomach when I eat a moderate amount. After
soaking I either dehydrate them or make them into a drink. Have you
ever tried soaking nuts or do you feel that even using that method it
is better to avoid them? Or do you avoid them because of your reduced
digestive capability.

[email hidden] (montygram) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I used to eat mainly legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds, with
small amounts of fruit and vegetables. I destroyed my body's ability
to produce stomach acid and almost killed me. Now I eat only
unbleached, white flour products, and almost no nuts, legumes, and
seeds, or anything else that is difficult to digest. I take a stomach
acid supplement, along with pepsin (to digest protein). I consume a
little nutritional yeast for the B vitamins. I'm posting this for
those who don't realize the damage whole grains and other "healthy"
food can do (do a web search for "resistant starch" and you'll find a
list - beans are really bad - then avoid these foods). While the
worst thing you can eat is large amounts of foods high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (due to oxidative stress), you can do
serious damage to your ability to digest food and absorb nutrients
with what most people think of as "health food."

Also I would be interested in knowing what you would consider to be a
healthy or optimal diet and what foods you think should be avoided and
to what degree.

[email hidden] (montygram) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I used to eat mainly legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds, with
small amounts of fruit and vegetables. I destroyed my body's ability
to produce stomach acid and almost killed me. Now I eat only
unbleached, white flour products, and almost no nuts, legumes, and
seeds, or anything else that is difficult to digest. I take a stomach
acid supplement, along with pepsin (to digest protein). I consume a
little nutritional yeast for the B vitamins. I'm posting this for
those who don't realize the damage whole grains and other "healthy"
food can do (do a web search for "resistant starch" and you'll find a
list - beans are really bad - then avoid these foods). While the
worst thing you can eat is large amounts of foods high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (due to oxidative stress), you can do
serious damage to your ability to digest food and absorb nutrients
with what most people think of as "health food."

The only sites I found on resistant starch said that it was probably a
good thing. Can you point us to info on its bad effects?
Also, what kind of quantities of legumes, nuts and seeds were you
eating daily?
What were the symptoms?
I've had the opposite - kind of. I've had two main "phases" in
dietary/digestion. First was chronic diarrhoea since I was very young
- probably dairy-related. Then, the immunologist's recommended diet
reduced my diarrhoea etc. a bit. It was a refined starch, low
salicylate, low amine dairy-free diet and was quite low in fibre. It
didn't fix things completely. Then after ten years on this my
digestive system went berserk and couldn't digest white rice or flour
of any description anymore. A visit to the quack led to some tests
which required me to eat high fibre foods. This reduced the pain and
paleness of stools. I've kept up high fibre ever since.
The safest high fibre carbohydrate sources I've found are brown rice,
lentils, split peas and adzuki beans. Now I only eat small quantities
of grains and starches other than the legumes listed above. I suspect
I sometimes have trouble with nuts - apparently these cause havoc if
you have diverticular disease. I still minimise fruit and high-sulphur
vegetables though, as they are also problematic.

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

On 15 Oct 2004 11:34:11 -0700, [email hidden] (montygram)
posted:

Quoted message said:

I used to eat mainly legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds, with
small amounts of fruit and vegetables. I destroyed my body's ability
to produce stomach acid and almost killed me. Now I eat only
unbleached, white flour products, and almost no nuts, legumes, and
seeds, or anything else that is difficult to digest. I take a stomach
acid supplement, along with pepsin (to digest protein). I consume a
little nutritional yeast for the B vitamins. I'm posting this for
those who don't realize the damage whole grains and other "healthy"
food can do (do a web search for "resistant starch" and you'll find a
list - beans are really bad - then avoid these foods). While the
worst thing you can eat is large amounts of foods high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (due to oxidative stress), you can do
serious damage to your ability to digest food and absorb nutrients
with what most people think of as "health food."

What exactly do you think stopped your stomach's ability to produce
hydrochloric acid?

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:59 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not.

You said there is nothing essential about whole grains. Now you say B
vitamins in them are essential.

Quoted message said:

There
are much better sources for these vitamins

There are "much better sources" for any essential nutrient. It's
surely what we injest in toto that counts.

Quoted message said:

that don't include the
gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
with most, if not all, grains.

Harsh fibre? Oats? Gluten is a probem in a minority of soft, overfed
Westerners. What problems are caused by the "harshness" of fibre?

Quoted message said:

And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12

Most vitamins? What is high in B12? You seem to be saying that
because you can't get all you need from whole grains, then you
shouldn't eat any of them? What foods couldn't have this said of them?

Quoted message said:

and contain
no vitamin C among others.

Is that all you are going to eat? What single food do you advocate to
get ALL your nutrients?

Grains are a staple for most of the world and have been for thousands
of years. ALL foods can give problems in minorities, thank heavens
that we can choose from a huge variety of available foods.

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:59 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

> No body NEEDS
>to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not.

You said there is nothing essential about whole grains. Now you say B
vitamins in them are essential.

What I said was that grains are most definitely not essential. You are
arguing false and nonsensical semantics. You want to debate, debate
the facts not the semantics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There
are much better sources for these vitamins

There are "much better sources" for any essential nutrient. It's
surely what we injest in toto that counts.

Yes. And the quality of the food that contains the "toto" makes a
difference "in toto".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that don't include the
gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
with most, if not all, grains.

Harsh fibre? Oats? Gluten is a probem in a minority of soft, overfed
Westerners. What problems are caused by the "harshness" of fibre?

They are abrasive, insoluble and unmetabolisable. They physically
scratch up our GI tracts like no other food does. Our one stomach was
not designed for that abuse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12

Most vitamins? What is high in B12? You seem to be saying that
because you can't get all you need from whole grains, then you
shouldn't eat any of them? What foods couldn't have this said of them?

Again, semantics. The relative low content of most nutrients, the
complete absence of others, the high incidence of gluten related
complications, the abrasiveness of the fiber, the high-carb
obesity-causing nature of refined grains, all contibute to the
conclusion that grains are good for four-stomached ruminants and not
so good for humans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and contain
no vitamin C among others.

Is that all you are going to eat? What single food do you advocate to
get ALL your nutrients?

A good variety of fruits, vegetables and healthy meats. Variety is the
key. And grains are not necessary for good health. In fact my argument
is that we are healthier without grains.

Quoted message said:

Grains are a staple for most of the world and have been for thousands
of years. ALL foods can give problems in minorities, thank heavens
that we can choose from a huge variety of available foods.

We've been exposed to grains for about 10,000 years. We evolved
millions of years without appreciable amounts of grains. 10,000 years
is not a long time, evolutionarily speaking. It is still a very new
food for our species.

Grains do not just create problems for a minority. It has created
problems for the majority. Obesity, diabetes, cvds, these are all
associated with our over consumption of grains and grain products,
especially refined grain products.

The staff of life is killing us.

TC

On 18 Oct 2004 07:44:46 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:59 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
> posted:
>
> > No body NEEDS
> >to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.
>
> So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not.

You said there is nothing essential about whole grains. Now you say B
vitamins in them are essential.

What I said was that grains are most definitely not essential.

No, you said "There is nothing essential about them. [whole grains]
Feel free to change what you said.

Quoted message said:

You are
arguing false and nonsensical semantics. You want to debate, debate
the facts not the semantics.

And the fact are that there is nothing in grains that is essential?
I think you are wrong and said so. Get over it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There
are much better sources for these vitamins

There are "much better sources" for any essential nutrient. It's
surely what we injest in toto that counts.

Yes. And the quality of the food that contains the "toto" makes a
difference "in toto".

Yep, and whole grains along with many other foods are top quality, and
why you seem to have some irrational set against whole grains makes me
think that you are an Atkins "true believer" and we all know that you
can't argue with these folk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that don't include the
gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
with most, if not all, grains.

Harsh fibre? Oats? Gluten is a probem in a minority of soft, overfed
Westerners. What problems are caused by the "harshness" of fibre?

They are abrasive, insoluble and unmetabolisable.

All fibre is unmetabolisable. That's the definition of "fibre".

Do you have any evidence of this "abrasiveness that causes problems in
normal folk?

Quoted message said:

They physically
scratch up our GI tracts like no other food does. Our one stomach was
not designed for that abuse.

Huh? Do you have any evidence for this novel assertion? Or do you just
think it must be so?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12

Most vitamins? What is high in B12? You seem to be saying that
because you can't get all you need from whole grains, then you
shouldn't eat any of them? What foods couldn't have this said of them?

Again, semantics.

Well yes, you seem to be getting them rather wrong.

Quoted message said:

The relative low content of most nutrients,

In whole grains? Please look up your food tables. You are wrong!

Quoted message said:

the
complete absence of others,

All foods are deficient in some micronutrient. Please get real. That's
why we should eat a lot of different foods in our diets.

Quoted message said:

the high incidence of gluten related
complications,

What is the incidence of this in the billions of South, Southeast and
East Asians?

Quoted message said:

the abrasiveness of the fiber,

again, please tell us what problems the abrasiveness of foods causes
normal folk? Humans need bulk in their diets. Atkins causes
constipation. Go figure.

Quoted message said:

the high-carb
obesity-causing nature of refined grains,

Whoa ,you were talking about whole grains, remember? Semantics are
important 🙂

Quoted message said:

all contibute to the
conclusion that grains are good for four-stomached ruminants and not
so good for humans.

Funny then that grains are not often consumed by wild ruminants.

Ruminants are built to digest cellulose. Whole grains don't have much
cellulose , so are ideal for humans on that basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and contain
no vitamin C among others.

Is that all you are going to eat? What single food do you advocate to
get ALL your nutrients?

A good variety of fruits, vegetables and healthy meats. Variety is the
key. And grains are not necessary for good health. In fact my argument
is that we are healthier without grains.

None of them is necessary for good health. Your argument seems to be
based on some mantra, and not the evidence. Just because there are
some foods that need to be avoided by some folk, does not mean that
that food is bad and should be avoided by all. There are plenty of
grains without gluten if that is what you have developed a problem
with. Just saying that whole grains are bad is plain stupid, on the
evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grains are a staple for most of the world and have been for thousands
of years. ALL foods can give problems in minorities, thank heavens
that we can choose from a huge variety of available foods.

We've been exposed to grains for about 10,000 years.

and what did we do before this? Our aborigines in Australia have been
exposed to grains for at least 50,000 years while they were here. I
guess they also got grains from where they came from, but perhaps not.

Quoted message said:

We evolved
millions of years without appreciable amounts of grains.

Who did? We had grains in our diets. What was different was that we
didn't eat much and got plenty of exercise. Are you perhaps looking
for some scapegoat for the modern overfed underexercised condition
many of us find ourselves in?

Quoted message said:

10,000 years
is not a long time, evolutionarily speaking. It is still a very new
food for our species.

I disagree that it is new. We would have eaten whatever was available
and whatever didn't kill us. Grass seeds available, we'll eat them.

Quoted message said:

Grains do not just create problems for a minority.

Quoted message said:

It has created
problems for the majority. Obesity, diabetes, cvds, these are all
associated with our over consumption of grains and grain products,
especially refined grain products.

Again, you've changed the subject, but do you notice the phrase "over
consumption" that you used? Does that give you a clue?

Quoted message said:

The staff of life is killing us.

Hallaluja! Praise the Lord and pass the greasy cheese sausages :-)

Atkins Shill!

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 18 Oct 2004 07:44:46 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:59 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

>Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
>> On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
>> posted:
>>
>> > No body NEEDS
>> >to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.
>>
>> So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?
>
>The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not.

You said there is nothing essential about whole grains. Now you say B
vitamins in them are essential.

What I said was that grains are most definitely not essential.

No, you said "There is nothing essential about them. [whole grains]
Feel free to change what you said.

There is nothing essential about grains. They may contain relatively
small amounts of what are essential nutritients but we do not need
grains in our diets to get these essential nutrients. In fact refined
grains deplete us of these essential vitamins. Graisn are a poor
source of nutrients and when refined they deplete us of nutrients.

Go ahead and do all the semantical gymnastics you want, knock yourself
out. It will not change the reality that grains are poor nutrition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are
arguing false and nonsensical semantics. You want to debate, debate
the facts not the semantics.

And the fact are that there is nothing in grains that is essential?
I think you are wrong and said so. Get over it.

semantics. you still lose the argument.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>There
>are much better sources for these vitamins

There are "much better sources" for any essential nutrient. It's
surely what we injest in toto that counts.

Yes. And the quality of the food that contains the "toto" makes a
difference "in toto".

Yep, and whole grains along with many other foods are top quality, and
why you seem to have some irrational set against whole grains makes me
think that you are an Atkins "true believer" and we all know that you
can't argue with these folk.

Grains are nothing more than grass seed that has been genetically
modified over 10000 years to produce larger seeds. Evolutionarily
speaking, we have no need for grass seed in our diets.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>that don't include the
>gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
>with most, if not all, grains.

Harsh fibre? Oats? Gluten is a probem in a minority of soft, overfed
Westerners. What problems are caused by the "harshness" of fibre?

They are abrasive, insoluble and unmetabolisable.

All fibre is unmetabolisable. That's the definition of "fibre".

See, this is where you show pure ignorance on the topic of nutrition.
There is such a thing as metabolisable fiber and non-metabolisable
fibre. Grain fiber is mostly non-metabolisable.

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence of this "abrasiveness that causes problems in
normal folk?

Colon cancer among grains eaters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They physically
scratch up our GI tracts like no other food does. Our one stomach was
not designed for that abuse.

Huh? Do you have any evidence for this novel assertion? Or do you just
think it must be so?

Colon cancer among grains eaters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12

Most vitamins? What is high in B12? You seem to be saying that
because you can't get all you need from whole grains, then you
shouldn't eat any of them? What foods couldn't have this said of them?

Again, semantics.

Well yes, you seem to be getting them rather wrong.

Quoted message said:

The relative low content of most nutrients,

In whole grains? Please look up your food tables. You are wrong!

Compare it to any fruit, vegetable or animal source food. Graisn are
relatively low in nutrients. And do not contain any vitamins b12 or C,
and is very deficient in many other vitamins. The staff of life is not
even close to being a good all around source of nutrients.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the
complete absence of others,

All foods are deficient in some micronutrient. Please get real. That's
why we should eat a lot of different foods in our diets.

Some more than others. Refined grains is not only low in nutrients,
but they deplete you of nutrients as it is metabolised.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the high incidence of gluten related
complications,

What is the incidence of this in the billions of South, Southeast and
East Asians?

You tell me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the abrasiveness of the fiber,

again, please tell us what problems the abrasiveness of foods causes
normal folk? Humans need bulk in their diets. Atkins causes
constipation. Go figure.

Some grain husks are used by woodworkers to abrade and finish wood on
wood lathes. This is the same stuff you want to pass thru your GI
tract. Go for it.

Atkins diet restricts grains and replaces them with healthy low-gi
fruits and veggies. Take any fruit or veggie and puree it with a
blender and feel, with your hand, the texture of the resulting puree.
Then take a handful of any whole-grain and do the same. The texture of
the grain is very harsh and abrasive, especially in comparison with
the fruit or veggie puree. You want to put the grains thru your GI
tract, go for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the high-carb
obesity-causing nature of refined grains,

Whoa ,you were talking about whole grains, remember? Semantics are
important 🙂

That is why I specified refined grains when speaking of obesity. I was
using precise language and not abusing semantics like you like to do.
Glad you noticed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all contibute to the
conclusion that grains are good for four-stomached ruminants and not
so good for humans.

Funny then that grains are not often consumed by wild ruminants.

Ruminants are built to digest cellulose. Whole grains don't have much
cellulose , so are ideal for humans on that basis.

All ruminants eat grasses and their seeds aka grains. They are built
to digest fiber and other substances that are undigestable to humans.
Substances like gluten and grain germ and, of course, cellulose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>and contain
>no vitamin C among others.

Is that all you are going to eat? What single food do you advocate to
get ALL your nutrients?

A good variety of fruits, vegetables and healthy meats. Variety is the
key. And grains are not necessary for good health. In fact my argument
is that we are healthier without grains.

None of them is necessary for good health. Your argument seems to be
based on some mantra, and not the evidence. Just because there are
some foods that need to be avoided by some folk, does not mean that
that food is bad and should be avoided by all. There are plenty of
grains without gluten if that is what you have developed a problem
with. Just saying that whole grains are bad is plain stupid, on the
evidence.

Grains are not bad. They are just not as nutritious and as healthy to
human life as you would have us believe. They are completely
superflous to good health and create more health problems than they
resolve.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grains are a staple for most of the world and have been for thousands
of years. ALL foods can give problems in minorities, thank heavens
that we can choose from a huge variety of available foods.

We've been exposed to grains for about 10,000 years.

and what did we do before this? Our aborigines in Australia have been
exposed to grains for at least 50,000 years while they were here. I
guess they also got grains from where they came from, but perhaps not.

Meat, roots, berry, fruit, nuts, fish, etc. If grains were part of the
diet, they were in much smaller amounts than we eat today and they not
the preferred food, and they were specially prepared by extensive
boiling, fermentation and other methods to make them more digestible
and palatable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We evolved
millions of years without appreciable amounts of grains.

Who did? We had grains in our diets. What was different was that we
didn't eat much and got plenty of exercise. Are you perhaps looking
for some scapegoat for the modern overfed underexercised condition
many of us find ourselves in?

Northern Europeans were introduce to agricultural grains about 2,000
years ago by the Romans. The fertile crescent in the middle east began
culturing grains abotu 10,000 years ago. Before that, the only grains
consumed were in very small amounts that were gathered manually. They
were not the first choice for food, but were used when necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

10,000 years
is not a long time, evolutionarily speaking. It is still a very new
food for our species.

I disagree that it is new. We would have eaten whatever was available
and whatever didn't kill us. Grass seeds available, we'll eat them.

It was only physically possible to gather tiny amounts of grass seeds.
It was labour intensive and was not the preferred food.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Grains do not just create problems for a minority.

Quoted message said:

It has created
problems for the majority. Obesity, diabetes, cvds, these are all
associated with our over consumption of grains and grain products,
especially refined grain products.

On 21 Oct 2004 09:05:17 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 18 Oct 2004 07:44:46 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:59 -0700, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:
>
> >Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> >> On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
> >> posted:
> >>
> >> > No body NEEDS
> >> >to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.
> >>
> >> So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?
> >
> >The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not.
>
> You said there is nothing essential about whole grains. Now you say B
> vitamins in them are essential.
>

What I said was that grains are most definitely not essential.

No, you said "There is nothing essential about them. [whole grains]
Feel free to change what you said.

There is nothing essential about grains. They may contain relatively
small amounts of what are essential nutritients but we do not need
grains in our diets to get these essential nutrients.

I've already said that we don't need any single food in our diet.
My tables show that you are dead wrong in saying that whole grains are
poor in some of the nutrients that you claimed.

Quoted message said:

In fact refined
grains deplete us of these essential vitamins.

You have again changed the subject. Refined grains are NOT whole
grains!

Quoted message said:

Graisn are a poor
source of nutrients and when refined they deplete us of nutrients.

Again you are confusing yourself. We are talking about whole grains,
and can you cite their poor vitamin content as you have previously
claimed?

Quoted message said:

Go ahead and do all the semantical gymnastics you want, knock yourself
out. It will not change the reality that grains are poor nutrition.

So you keep claiming, with the need to change the topic to "refined
grains" from the "whole grains" that you made the claim with, and that
my tables disagree with you on.

Sorry, whole grains are an excellent food staple. Kept the vast
majority of the human animal healthy for many thousands of years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are
arguing false and nonsensical semantics. You want to debate, debate
the facts not the semantics.

And the fact are that there is nothing in grains that is essential?
I think you are wrong and said so. Get over it.

semantics. you still lose the argument.

But my point that whole grains are an excellent food is right, huh?
And your point was wrong? If you think you have won some schoolboy
"argument", then that's fine by me. You are just dead wrong in
claiming that whole grains are a nutrient-poor, damaging food.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >There
> >are much better sources for these vitamins
>
> There are "much better sources" for any essential nutrient. It's
> surely what we injest in toto that counts.
>

Yes. And the quality of the food that contains the "toto" makes a
difference "in toto".

Yep, and whole grains along with many other foods are top quality, and
why you seem to have some irrational set against whole grains makes me
think that you are an Atkins "true believer" and we all know that you
can't argue with these folk.

Grains are nothing more than grass seed that has been genetically
modified over 10000 years to produce larger seeds. Evolutionarily
speaking, we have no need for grass seed in our diets.

We have no need of any single food stuff in our diet. Nothing special
about grains. Seed of all types of plants are excellent food sources.
They contain excellent amounts of many micronutrients, as well as slow
release energy and essential fibre.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >that don't include the
> >gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
> >with most, if not all, grains.
>
> Harsh fibre? Oats? Gluten is a probem in a minority of soft, overfed
> Westerners. What problems are caused by the "harshness" of fibre?
>

They are abrasive, insoluble and unmetabolisable.

All fibre is unmetabolisable. That's the definition of "fibre".

See, this is where you show pure ignorance on the topic of nutrition.
There is such a thing as metabolisable fiber and non-metabolisable
fibre. Grain fiber is mostly non-metabolisable.

Can you name a metabolisable fibre?
Thought not. Look you have hung yourself up with semantics again. The
definition of fibre is indigestible stuff in your food.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence of this "abrasiveness that causes problems in
normal folk?

Colon cancer among grains eaters.

You what? Colon cancer is reduced from heavy meat eating when grains
are substituted. Please consult the literature. You are starting to
say silly things, now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They physically
scratch up our GI tracts like no other food does. Our one stomach was
not designed for that abuse.

Huh? Do you have any evidence for this novel assertion? Or do you just
think it must be so?

Colon cancer among grains eaters.

Repeating it does not make this silly asertion true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12
>
> Most vitamins? What is high in B12? You seem to be saying that
> because you can't get all you need from whole grains, then you
> shouldn't eat any of them? What foods couldn't have this said of them?
>

Again, semantics.

Well yes, you seem to be getting them rather wrong.

Quoted message said:

The relative low content of most nutrients,

In whole grains? Please look up your food tables. You are wrong!

Compare it to any fruit, vegetable or animal source food. Graisn are
relatively low in nutrients. And do not contain any vitamins b12 or C,
and is very deficient in many other vitamins. The staff of life is not
even close to being a good all around source of nutrients.

No food is any closer to being a good all round source of nutrients.
Name a fruit that cointains B12. Whole grains contain more B vits in
general than fruits and veges. Look up your tables.
Name a meat with a useful amount of vitamin C.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the
complete absence of others,

All foods are deficient in some micronutrient. Please get real. That's
why we should eat a lot of different foods in our diets.

Some more than others. Refined grains is not only low in nutrients,
but they deplete you of nutrients as it is metabolised.

And have you noticed how you have changed the subject again? Is this
deliberate , or are you genuinely confused?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the high incidence of gluten related
complications,

What is the incidence of this in the billions of South, Southeast and
East Asians?

You tell me.

None, effectively. What is your point, if you don't know that folk who
live on whole grains have no gluten problems?
You like lying to win your "argument"?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the abrasiveness of the fiber,

again, please tell us what problems the abrasiveness of foods causes
normal folk? Humans need bulk in their diets. Atkins causes
constipation. Go figure.

Some grain husks are used by woodworkers to abrade and finish wood on
wood lathes. This is the same stuff you want to pass thru your GI
tract. Go for it.

That is an ignorant statement. Have you ever heard of hydration? Try
picking up your groceries in a wet paper bag to see the difference
this makes.

Quoted message said:

Atkins diet restricts grains and replaces them with healthy low-gi
fruits and veggies.

Low GI fruit? What would these be? The only veges they allow are
often rather toxic in large amounts. But quite fine foods in
moderation and in amongst many other different foods.

Quoted message said:

Take any fruit or veggie and puree it with a
blender and feel, with your hand, the texture of the resulting puree.

You can do the same with whole grains and so what?

Quoted message said:

Then take a handful of any whole-grain and do the same. The texture of
the grain is very harsh and abrasive, especially in comparison with
the fruit or veggie puree. You want to put the grains thru your GI
tract, go for it.

Try a bowl of rolled oat porridge. Smoother than your vege blend.
And why not put that on your gi tract? I think you are catastophising
here, unless you have an axe to grind.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the high-carb
obesity-causing nature of refined grains,

Whoa ,you were talking about whole grains, remember? Semantics are
important 🙂

That is why I specified refined grains when speaking of obesity.

No, this is your original post on this topic:
-----------------------------------------------------
Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
posted:

Quoted message said:

No body NEEDS
to increase whole grains. There is nothing essential about them.

So all the B vitamins in whole grains are not essential? Huh?

The b vitamins are essential, the grain most definitely is not. There
are much better sources for these vitamins that don't include the
gluten-related problems and the harsh and abrasive fibre that comes
with most, if not all, grains.

And grains are rather poor in most vitamins especially B12 and contain
no vitamin C among others.

TC
-----------------------------------------------------------

Quoted message said:

I was
using precise language and not abusing semantics like you like to do.
Glad you noticed.

You have been shown to be dishonest, I think.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all contibute to the
conclusion that grains are good for four-stomached ruminants and not
so good for humans.

Funny then that grains are not often consumed by wild ruminants.

Ruminants are built to digest cellulose. Whole grains don't have much
cellulose , so are ideal for humans on that basis.

All ruminants eat grasses and their seeds aka grains.

http://www.ardice.com/Home/Cooking/Fruits_and_Vegetables/Beans_and_Legumes/Adzuki_Beans/