Foods to Avoid

[rocketdog]

- Grains are full of phytates, lectins and toxins and fiber that tends to be harsh on the gut.

Rather than throw a dry medical study link at you, this site does a really nice job of summing up in layman's terms how grains are being bashed by their critics who are sadly misinformed (and in some cases, outright disingenuous):

Dissecting the Myth: Why Grains and Gluten Aren’t Bad for You

Most of the anti-grain resources you'll find online are either proponents of the paleo diet or else proponents of so-called "alternative medicine" (such as chiropractic and homeopathy).  Unless you are particularly sensitive to grains (such as a gluten allergy or celiac disease) they should pose no problem to you if eaten in moderation (just like everything else you eat). 

Grains can be stored, measured, and transported far more readily than nearly any other food crop. The advent of grain agriculture allowed excess food to be produced and stored easily which in all likelihood led to the creation of the first permanent settlements and the division of society into classes.  The pyramids were built by workers for whom grains formed a substantial portion of the carbohydrate fuel their bodies needed. 

In sum, to be anti-grain is to be anti-civilization, not to mention anti-humanity.  Much of mankind relies on grains for a large portion of their sustenance, and a goodly percentage of them would starve to death without grains.  To dismiss grains as somehow harmful and something to be avoided is, in a word, shameful. 

[doodle]

Rocketdog,

Given all the convoluted theories and disagreements on this topic, wouldn't it make the most sense to just hedge one's bets and eat a diversified diet? A little of this and that might not be optimal, but it wont kill you either. I also think it is important to just listen to one's body. If you are tuned in to its needs, it will oftentimes tell you what it wants. Depending on your genetic lineage it is probably impossible to tell anyways what the ideal diet is as there could be a wide degree of variance from person to person. That is my 2 cents....

[Pointedstick]

In sum, to be anti-grain is to be anti-civilization, not to mention anti-humanity.  Much of mankind relies on grains for a large portion of their sustenance, and a goodly percentage of them would starve to death without grains.  To dismiss grains as somehow harmful and something to be avoided is, in a word, shameful.

If this is how you debated gun control with your fellow atheists, I'm not surprised that none of them were convinced. 

[rocketdog]

- Phytates and anti-nutrients in mineral-rich grains and brown rice appear to rob the body of minerals — causing diseases related to nutrient deficiencies.

And yet somehow once humanity mastered the agriculture of grains we not only did not succumb to disease and nutritional deficiencies, but instead flourished! 

If phytates or phytic acid are a concern, they are easily reduced by soaking the grains before cooking.  Voila, problem solved (assuming phytates are a legitimate problem to begin with).

Polishing  brown rice to create white rice removes most of the vitamins and minerals vital to one’s health. Some of the missing nutrients, such as vitamin B1, vitamin B3, and iron must be added back into the white rice, making it an “enriched”? food (a misnomer if ever there was one). This is because white rice is so utterly devoid of nutrients that it does not even offer the minimum nutritional requirements of the FDA!  Talk about "empty calories"!

The synthetic vitamins and iron that are added to white rice are not only in much smaller quantities than what exists naturally in brown rice, but are of little or no use to the human body.  One very important mineral that is not added back into white rice is magnesium. When the bran layer is removed to make white rice, the oil in the bran is also removed. Some experts say that rice bran oil may help lower LDL cholesterol.  Other key nutrients, such as fiber and small amounts of fatty acids, are also lost in the refining process.

Many health experts have now linked the polished white rice that most people are accustomed to eating to a distinct rise in adverse health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity. Unlike polished rice, brown rice can help keep blood sugar stabilized, as it releases sugars slowly and in a sustained fashion. This makes it a better option for diabetics and those who are trying to lose or maintain their weight. Studies in Asia have also shown a link between the consumption of white rice and risk of type 2 diabetes.

Bottom line: because white rice is so lacking in nutitional value, if it is not "enriched" in a misguided attempt to partially return it to its natural state, it is not even permitted to be sold in your local supermarket!

[rocketdog]

- Grains are full of phytates, lectins and toxins and fiber that tends to be harsh on the gut.

- Phytates and anti-nutrients in mineral-rich grains and brown rice appear to rob the body of minerals — causing diseases related to nutrient deficiencies.

I'll let Professor Joanne Slavin, Ph.D., R.D. in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota have the last word on grains by linking to an exhaustively referenced study she performed:

Whole grains and human health

For those of you who are short on time, here is the executive summary:

Epidemiological studies find that whole-grain intake is protective against cancer, CVD, diabetes, and obesity. Despite recommendations to consume three servings of whole grains daily, usual intake in Western countries is only about one serving/d. Whole grains are rich in nutrients and phytochemicals with known health benefits. Whole grains have high concentrations of dietary fibre, resistant starch, and oligosaccharides. Whole grains are rich in antioxidants including trace minerals and phenolic compounds and these compounds have been linked to disease prevention. Other protective compounds in whole grains include phytate, phyto-oestrogens such as lignan, plant stanols and sterols, and vitamins and minerals. Published whole-grain feeding studies report improvements in biomarkers with whole-grain consumption, such as weight loss, blood-lipid improvement, and antioxidant protection. Although it is difficult to separate the protective properties of whole grains from dietary fibre and other components, the disease protection seen from whole grains in prospective epidemiological studies far exceeds the protection from isolated nutrients and phytochemicals in whole grains.

And here is the paper's conclusion:

Whole grains are rich in many components, including dietary fibre, starch, fat, antioxidant nutrients, minerals, vitamin, lignans, and phenolic compounds that have been linked to the reduced risk of CHD, cancer, DM, obesity and other chronic diseases. Most of the protective components are found in the germ and bran, which are reduced in the grain-refining process. Based on epidemiological studies and biologically plausible mechanisms, the scientific evidence shows that the regular consumption of wholegrain foods provides health benefits in terms of reduced rates of CHD and several forms of cancer. It may also help regulate blood glucose levels. More research is needed on the mechanisms for this protection. Also, some components in whole grains may be most important in this protection and should be retained in food processing. Dietary intakes of whole grains fall short of current recommendations to eat at least three servings daily. The whole-grain health claim should increase the consumption of wholegrain foods in the American population (Marquart et al. 2003). This is in keeping with the Food Pyramid educational materials, which recommend that a minimum of six servings of grain foods be eaten daily, with at least one half or three of those servings as whole grains. Efforts to develop health claims for whole grains in Europe are also underway (Richardson, 2003). The successful implementation implementation of these recommendations will require the cooperative efforts of industry, government, academia, non-profit health organisations, and the media. Additional work is needed to confirm the health benefits of whole grains, develop processing techniques that will improve the palatability of wholegrain products, and educate consumers about the benefits of whole-grain consumption.

[Gumby]

I'll let Professor Joanne Slavin, Ph.D., R.D. in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota have the last word on grains by linking to an exhaustively referenced study she performed.

Hah. What a joke! Professor Slavin lives in the "grain capital of America" (her words, not mine). and she receives all of her grants from the grain-based food industry:

http://experts.umn.edu/expertGrants.asp ... &u_id=2625

Her grant money comes from Kellogg's, General Mills, The Rice Foundation, The Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council, Nestlé, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals (makers of "Benefiber®").

She also received a grant from the "International Life Sciences Institute," which receives nearly all of its funding from the world's largest corporations: Bayer AG, Coca-Cola, Dow Agrosciences/Dow Chemical, DuPont, ExxonMobil, General Mills, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Kraft, McDonald's, Merck & Co., Monsanto, Nestle, Novartis, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble (Source).

In other words, her entire career depends on her praising grain consumption.

Wow. You really hit a home run with that one.

Rocketdog, why not try reading some science that isn't sponsored by the grain industry for a change? It might broaden your horizons a bit. Newsflash...All of these studies with glowing praise for grains were paid for by industrial food giants.

But, anyway, thank you for proving my own point.

[Pointedstick]

Gumby and Rocketdog seem to be arguing at different levels of science. Gumby is using cell biochemistry to logically deduce information and verify existing claims, while Rocketdog is citing sources that use observational studies to make claims. So there's a lot of talking-past-one-another.

I find the biochemical stuff to be fascinating and my own efforts to refute it and find opposing views have mostly failed because it seems like a lot of the basic information about how fats are processed and what a molecule's shape means aren't very controversial among scientists who study those subjects. But most of the nutritional studies I've been presented with that argue that grains are good and meat is bad seem wholly ignorant of these biochemical realities and therefore make obvious errors--lumping trans fats with saturated fats, for example. If you don't know the biological details of this stuff, it seems really hard to put together a study that isn't a hopeless mess.

Rocketdog, if you could attempt to refute some of the biochemistry that Gumby has brought up, that would be a lot more convincing than endlessly citing observational studies. As we both know, you can find a study that claims anything. Gumby's done an excellent job of pointing out severe methodological problems with just about every study you've posted, Rocketdog. They really just aren't that convincing. IMHO you have to go deeper, or find a study that was done by someone who does know how to go deeper.

[Gumby]

Ultimately as cliche as it might sound, moderation and diversification seem to work best in most aspects of life whether that be investing or diet and exercise.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I have personally decided to add grassfed red meat in limited quantities back into my diet as well as to continue to eat meat in general for the time being...I have found a couple farms online that address this issue and take care of their animals in a respectful way and I will try to live with that for now.

I started out with grass-fed meat that way. It was pretty expensive and, of course, everything came frozen — which tends to cause the muscle and fat cells to burst and leak out too much moisture when you thaw and cook it. Not the best-tasting meat IMO. (Incidentally refreezing previously frozen meat isn't unhealthy, it just causes more water to burst out of the cells and taste worse from the lost moisture.)

Ideally you want to find locally raised grass-fed meat from a farm that actually cares about its animals. Luckily, there's a website for that...

http://www.eatwild.com/products/index.html

It's a great website and it gives you the opportunity to visit the farms in person and see for yourself how the animals are raised. Now, keep in mind buying directly from the farm has its pros and cons. For instance, farmers may sell to individuals frozen and butchers fresh. Or you may have to buy into a "share" of a cow. Personally, I've had better luck by reverse-engineering the puzzle to find local butchers near me who source from the best farms. You can literally call up some of the best farms and ask them if they sell to any butchers near you. Quite often the best butchers, who care about grass-fed meats, will go out of their way to get high quality meats from long distances if the meat is good enough. So, you may find yourself talking to farms 100 miles away or so and be surprised to learn that you can buy their meats right down the street or at a local farmer's market. And your butcher will often get it fresh (not frozen) and get you just the right cuts you want.

Of course, it can be better to get it right from the farmer, directly, sometimes. But, that's something to work up to one day — after you learn to cure your own meats.

Secondly, I have cut the vegetable oils way back in my diet.

Probably the single-best change to your diet that you can make. Vegetable oils are downright terrible (surprise, surprise... they come from grains!).

[moda0306]

In sum, to be anti-grain is to be anti-civilization, not to mention anti-humanity.  Much of mankind relies on grains for a large portion of their sustenance, and a goodly percentage of them would starve to death without grains.  To dismiss grains as somehow harmful and something to be avoided is, in a word, shameful.

If this is how you debated gun control with your fellow atheists, I'm not surprised that none of them were convinced. 

Yes... this is a bit facepalm-worthy.

Talk about melodrama.


Rocketdog,

Stick to arguments about phytates, lectins, gluten and fiber... let's leave the heavy-handed righteousness out of a debate about whether grains are good for us.

Even when talking to anarchists, I've avoided the term "anti-civilization," similar with "anti-humanity" against war hawks.  I think we can leave those terms out of dietary debates.

Though I'll grant you that cheap, easy, quasi-nonperishable food that is only bad for us over the long term very well contributed to the advancement of society in the scale we've seen.  Just like burning fossil fuels has, though I'm not about to start sucking from the tail pipe of a Toyota Camry.

[Benko]

On a related note to grains;

Modern wheat is apparently very different:

According to Wheat Belly author Dr. William Davis [cardiologist], “this thing being sold to us called wheat—it ain’t wheat. It’s this stocky little high-yield plant, a distant relative of the wheat our mothers used to bake muffins, genetically and biochemically lightyears removed from the wheat of just 40 years ago.”?

And a number of people, including Dr. Davis, who wouldn't agree with the general concepts being discussed here about grains, would agree that modern wheat is a problem for many people, far more than just the people who have celaic.

[Gumby]

If phytates or phytic acid are a concern, they are easily reduced by soaking the grains before cooking.  Voila, problem solved.

Please don't pretend like you discovered that knowledge. I'm the one who explained that to you. Secondly, I'm certain you've never soaked your grains overnight. If you did, you would have learned it from the Weston A. Price Foundation — since they are the only ones reviving and sharing this ancestral knowledge to the public. That's the whole point of the foundation — to promote that ancestral knowledge. But, again, thank you for proving yet another argument I made a few pages ago.

- Grains are full of phytates, lectins and toxins and fiber that tends to be harsh on the gut.

Rather than throw a dry medical study link at you, this site does a really nice job of summing up in layman's terms how grains are being bashed by their critics who are sadly misinformed (and in some cases, outright disingenuous):

Dissecting the Myth: Why Grains and Gluten Aren’t Bad for You

I think you meant to say, "rather than provide any science whatsoever, here's an unsubstantiated opinion." That article was useless in refuting any Paleo statements. Like most things you've shown us, the author provides no hard evidence to support his claims.

[moda0306]

Since when is soaking grains "easy."

The difference between this "properly prepared grains" and "properly fed/treated meat" argument is that I can easily buy organic beef, but soaking grains sounds like a royal pain, when I can just get my fiber, carbs, and nutrients elsewhere.

[Gumby]

The pyramids were built by workers for whom grains formed a substantial portion of the carbohydrate fuel their bodies needed.

I'm glad you mentioned ancient pyramid workers. Archaeological evidence shows that their grain-based diet made ancient workers severely malnourished. Skeletal remains shows that the children had stunted growth, and many of the bones were porous due to nutritional deficiencies:

http://www.livescience.com/27941-egypti ... -work.html

http://www.amarnaproject.com/documents/ ... report.pdf

The growth chart of the femur (Figure 4) shows the Amarna juveniles below the standard curve, and supports a positive association between poor juvenile health and nutrition and short adult stature.

There is other evidence of childhood stress at Amarna. Deficiencies in certain nutrients, like iron, Vitamin C, and Vitamin D, can leave very specific markers in the form of porosities (small holes) on the skull. Cribra orbitalia, fields of small and usually uniform pinholes in the eye orbits, is one such condition (Figure 5). Sixty-one percent of the 36 juvenile skulls observed exhibit cribra orbitalia, documenting dietary deficiencies and childhood disease, such as diarrhea. Adult skulls exhibit the healed lesions, reflecting their experience with childhood nutritional deficiency. Of the 73 complete adult skulls observed, 25% display cribra orbitalia. The total prevalence of cribra orbitalia at Amarna is 31%.

...Poor nutrition at Amarna is demonstrated through a number of evidential lines. Nutritional deficiencies of vitamins and protein are evidenced by high rates of cribra orbitalia, enamel hypoplasias, sub-normal long bone growth rates, and short adult statures. That adults who experienced growth before the Amarna Period are taller than those who grew up during the Amarna Period suggests childhood nutrition declined over time.

Source: http://www.amarnaproject.com/documents/ ... report.pdf

So much for grains being so nutritious. More like anti-nutritious.

Rocketdog, you keep proving my points for me. You're making this too easy!

[rocketdog]

Moderation in all things is the key.  Because too much Omega-3 can create its own set of health problems.

Correct. Remember, fish oil is a polyunsaturated oil (PUFA). And PUFAs are highly unstable (as I have been arguing). Therefore, I agree that is better to lower Omega-6 than to raise one's Omega-3 consumption in an attempt to even out one's Omega 3/6 ratio.

Omega-3 oils:  the good, the bad, and the ugly:

Hold the salmon: omega-3 fatty acids linked to higher risk of cancer