Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: Also, I tried to scour your Saturated Fats thread but I guess I'm lost on what exactly fatty food contributes for us in terms of micronutrients.  It seems like you guys feel like fatty foods are synonymous with nutrients... I've never thought of my ribeye steak, summer sausage, or bacon as very nutritious from a micro-nutrient point of view.

Me either.  And I still eat lean meat to keep calories under control and because I'm not fond of the grass-fed taste, either the flesh nor fat nor the cost.  There's enough saturated fat in the marbling not to worry about not getting enough.  Throw on some butter or coconut oil, and you're good.

But, I'm not of the belief you can get optimal quantities of anything but macronutrients from food, at least not on a continuous, every day basis.  I once remember reading about a man in UK that had food allergies to literally everything and could only eat a specific kind of white fish, each and every day.  I'm sure he got an optimal dose of Omega-3 every day, but imagine how suicidal he felt.

MachineGhost wrote:   I once remember reading about a man in UK that had food allergies to literally everything and could only eat a specific kind of white fish, each and every day.

Sounds like it should be a Kafka story.

The fiber phobia is silly since you may be eating the exact amounts of fiber on the perfect health diet as you would if you ate e.g. 1/2 cup (raw measure) of e.g. oatmeal once a day.

Eating what everyone agrees is good for you (the perfect health diet is 1/3 plant foods), avoiding what most agree is unhealthy i.e. junk, and being reasonable and not overdoing anything I suspect eliminates the need for e.g. fiber phobia, etc. 

I will add that avoiding wheat, or at least the huge amounts of wheat that much of the population consumes may be one specific thing that would be good for many people.

MachineGhost wrote: ...
  But the main point is to avoid the harsh grain/seed fibers that punches holes in or causes other trauma to the gut. 

I used to lightly crush caraway seed and put into potato vodka. Dangers of alcohol consumption aside, I used to swallow some of those caraway seeds instead of filtering them out. I know they're hard on the stomach but I assumed that they would pass through harmlessly. I wondering if I'm "punching holes in (my) gut." 

Benko wrote: The fiber phobia is silly since you may be eating the exact amounts of fiber on the perfect health diet as you would if you ate e.g. 1/2 cup (raw measure) of e.g. oatmeal once a day.

Jaminet doesn't have a "fiber phobia" — though, he does point out how (improperly prepared) grains can be damaging to the gut. Anyway, I was just explaining that the mainstream ideology is that we've been convinced that we need to consume lots of grains for fiber — and it's just not true. Monastyrsky could certainly be wrong about everything he's written about. But, the main point is that you can get your "fiber" from better sources (vegetables, starches, etc) if you want to.

Full disclosure... I still eat grains. I just eat less grains than I used to. (I used to eat a lot!)

The fiber phobia was because of the book I think it was you mentioned in this thread and MG asked me about, book being about the evils of fiber.

And if you read the post (dualstow) a few posts back--and I'm not picking on him, but it is very easy to read the posts here and conclude e.g. that fiber and grains are evil and you should never consume them.

And thanks for the full disclosure.  For awhile back (until you mentioned your fruit veggie intake) I remember wondering if you lived entirely on meat/satuirated fats (well and broth).

Benko wrote: The fiber phobia was because of the book I think it was you mentioned in this thread and MG asked me about, book being about the evils of fiber.

And if you read the post (dualstow) a few posts back--and I'm not picking on him, but it is very easy to read the posts here and conclude e.g. that fiber and grains are evil and you should never consume them.

And thanks for the full disclosure.  For awhile back (until you mentioned your fruit veggie intake) I remember wondering if you lived entirely on meat/satuirated fats (well and broth).

Right. It was just a different opinion on grains. I believe Jaminet alludes to gut damage from grains (I'll see if I can find that), but I'm OK with small amounts of gut damage. I still haven't seen any great evidence that grains are something we need to consume — in terms of a getting some kind of great benefit from them. Seems like people just want to sell us a lot of seeds and they happen to taste good.

I can reconcile that something isn't great for you and still eat it with regularity.  I still eat pizza and burritos takeout once a week. You've got to have your cheats. Otherwise you'll get orthorexic.

Regarding all of these problems with grains, how much of those problems work their way into beer?

moda0306 wrote: Regarding all of these problems with grains, how much of those problems work their way into beer?

Beer has gluten (unless it's a guten-free beer). So, for all we know, a "beer belly" may in fact be a "gluten/wheat belly". You'll also notice that people don't get "wine bellies". That should tell you something.

However, Jaminet says that despite its shortcomings, beer is safer than bread (provided you don't drink tons of it). In a sense, the fermentation of beer isn't too different from the rumen of a cow — which is how a cow is able to detoxify the effects of some grain in its diet (though, even a cow can't detoxify a 100% grain diet).

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote: We tend to neglect beer, because it is made from grains and therefore is presumptively non-Paleo. However, fermentation removes most of the toxins, and beer has some redeeming features:

* Various health benefits have been observed from consuming the bitter acids found in beer.

*Beer is among the best food sources of silicon in its most desirable form, orthosilicic acid. This is one of our optional daily supplement recommendations because many people are deficient in silicon, which supports bone health.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2013/02/happy-super-bowl/

And, in general, you should always try to avoid eating foods that are high in polyunsaturated fats while consuming beer/alcohol, as the combination tends to be toxic to the liver.

Btw, here's what Jaminet had to say about "Harmful Fiber":

Paul Jaminet, Ph.D. wrote:Some fiber, such as that in cereal grains, seems to be harmful. Grain fiber has two major problems. It contains toxic proteins such as gluten, which we will discuss in part III; and it contains roughage that can injure the intestinal wall.

Conventional medical opinion recommends whole grain fiber despite these issues. Dr. Paul L. McNeil explains:

D. Paul L. McNeil wrote:When you eat high-fiber foods, they bang up against the cells lining in the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering. What we are saying is this banging and tearing increases the level of lubricating mucus. It's a good thing.

It's a bit of a paradox, but what we are saying is an injury at the cell level can promote health of the GI tract as a whole. [Source], [Source]

This is one of those clever ideas that, as George Orwell said, "only an intellectual could believe."

Whole grain fiber has been tested in a clinical trial — the Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART), published in 1989. This study included 2,033 British men who had previously suffered a heart attack and compared a high-fiber group with a control group. The high-fiber group ate whole grains and doubled their grain fiber intake from 9 to 17 grams per day.

The result? The number of deaths in the high-fiber group was 22 percent higher over the two-year study — 9.9 percent of the control group died versus 12.1 percent of the high-fiber group [Source], [Source]

Source: Perfect Health Diet, page 160-161

Even the mainstream supporters of whole grains seem to acknowledge that grains cause damage to the gut — they just seem to think that the damage is a good thing. I suppose the occasional sloughing of a healthy intestine isn't so bad, but it's probably not something I'd want to do all the time. And I'm fairly sure that someone with a leaky gut wouldn't want to injure their gut even more.

"Properly prepared" grains (WAPF-style) would certainly reduce the abrasive effect of grains on the gut. (Full disclosure: I had some overnight-buttermilk-soaked oatmeal this morning).

So what of the talk about beef building up in our intestines causing cancer and other problems?

moda0306 wrote: So what of the talk about beef building up in our intestines causing cancer and other problems?

There is such thing as ammonia toxicity, but you would need to eat a LOT of meat each day to get to that point (well over 1 Lb/day depending on the individual and if the individual were lifting/muscle building they could probably eat above that, etc).

As for cancer, I believe the media (and vegetarians) picked that up from studies that jumped to unproven conclusions

See: http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/its-the-beef

And of course, The China Study (the book written by T. Colin Campbell) is full of misleading conclusions and huge flaws — as Denise Minger and Chris Masterjohn have written extensively about.

There is zero evidence that eating <1 lb of grass fed meats per day is cancerous/bad — and you have to consider that our species evolved well over 2 million years by eating such animals on a regular basis. More likely the introduction of toxins, such as BPA, into factory-farmed cattle feed might be linked to health issues...

Wikipedia.org wrote:Bisphenol A was discovered in 1891 by Russian chemist Aleksandr Dianin. In the early 1930s the British chemist Charles Edward Dodds recognized BPA as an artificial estrogen. During that time BPA had two initial uses. The first use of BPA was to enhance the growth of cattle and poultry.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#History

...but even that practice hasn't been studied thoroughly enough and probably never will be.

Good to hear on beer and steak... two of my favs!

I have always been a cereal guy and thought by eating things that were more like gravel and cardbard than sugar puffs that I was engaging in a super healthy diet.

This stuff is kind of mind blowing. Part of me still doesn't want to believe it.

moda0306 wrote:I have always been a cereal guy and thought by eating things that were more like gravel and cardbard than sugar puffs that I was engaging in a super healthy diet.

This stuff is kind of mind blowing. Part of me still doesn't want to believe it.

Well, nobody has eaten more cereal than me over the past few decades. So, I know where you are coming from. I lived off that stuff for years.

But, it seems that cereal is pretty toxic. All of the grains are heated to extremely high temperatures (+500º) in a process known as "extrusion." It's believed that it makes the grains more toxic than they already were.

Here's something to consider...

Sally Fallon Morell [of the Weston A. Price Foundation] tells us in Nourishing Traditions about an unpublished experiment performed at the University of Michigan in 1960. The experiment was actually in jest; however, the results are no laughing matter.

Three groups of six rats were observed: group one was fed cornflakes and water; group two the cardboard box that the cornflakes came in and water; and the control group received rat chow and water. The control group remained in good health through the testing period. However, the rats fed cornflakes and water died before those fed the cardboard box. From apparent outward behavior and autopsies, the cornflake-eating rats showed signs of severe insulin instability caused by dramatic insults to blood sugar and damage to the nervous system. Who knew that those consuming boxed cereals would be better off choking down the thirty-cent box instead!

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-h ... tive-ideas

Obviously the study wasn't very scientific, but I think it still is food for thought. You might be better off eating the cardboard box than the cereal inside the box

The book, Cereal Killer documents how the cereal industry came to rise — by spreading the lipid hypothesis theory — and the supposed detrimental effects of extruded cereal. I can't speak of the accuracy of the book (I haven't read it), but the point is that not everyone thinks cereal is that great for you.

Still, if you want to enjoy a Cap'n Crunch every once in a while, I say go for it. Remember the old Chinese proverb... it's better to eat the wrong food with the right attitude than the right food with the wrong attitude.

Gumby,

Well quit giving people such a, dare I say, "toxic" attitude to the foods we love!?

moda0306 wrote: Gumby,

Well quit giving people such a, dare I say, "toxic" attitude to the foods we love!?

Heh... Sorry. I really loved eating cereal every day. Loved it. But, I'm pretty sure giving it up is what improved my skin so much. I used to have really dry, flakey, irritated skin. Huge improvement now. Who knew that eating dried, flakey cereal led to dry, flakey skin?

Benko wrote: And if you read the post (dualstow) a few posts back--and I'm not picking on him, but it is very easy to read the posts here and conclude e.g. that fiber and grains are evil and you should never consume them.

I don't quite get that line. Did you mean that I have a confusing post a few posts back or that I should read a few posts back?

By the way, I'm still enjoying crushed aniseed and caraway, but now I strain it out before I drink.
I guess I consume a lot of flaxseed but it's all ground up and cooked in the wheat belly flax wrap recipe.

MachineGhost wrote:Do you know if they ate the skin from the tubers for the fiber?  My gut sure is relishing the idea but a lot of toxins seem to be concentrated in the skins, like potatoes.  Whats the dealio?

Jaminet was asked this....

Perfecthealthdiet.com wrote:Q: I assume that most of the toxins in potatoes are in the skin so we should not eat potato skins. Right?

Paul Jaminet: Yes, most of the toxins are in the 1 mm in and next to the skin.

It’s probably prudent to peel the potatoes. This also helps you see discolored flesh.

We usually get small potatoes, like fingerlings, which have thin skins. Prudent or not, we often eat them with the skins. I do prune away any places where the skin was broken, and if the flesh is visibly discolored I discard the potato.

Bigger potatoes we peel. But sweet potatoes we usually eat the skin.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/10/ev ... mment-2662

And here are some other comments from Jaminet on skins...

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:The skin of potatoes and sweet potatoes and the underlying millimeter or two of flesh is where toxins are most abundant. I think peeling potatoes is prudent for most varieties. Also, I would cut away any flesh near a discolored area. However, we do eat sweet potato skins often and potato skins occasionally. Small doses of potato toxin are cleared fairly easily I believe.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/03/pe ... ment-19954

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:[Eating the skins are] OK if the potatoes were well handled, but if they were exposed to light or high temperatures then the skin generates toxins.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2013/02/ha ... ent-125944

MachineGhost wrote:Speaking of guts, wasn't it Dr. Price who obeserved that the healthiest cultures had one bowel movement for each meal every day and the consistency was soft and like peanut butter?

Well, I've never heard that. And I can't find any mention of that in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. But, maybe if you can find the reference...

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Also, I tried to scour your Saturated Fats thread but I guess I'm lost on what exactly fatty food contributes for us in terms of micronutrients.  It seems like you guys feel like fatty foods are synonymous with nutrients... I've never thought of my ribeye steak, summer sausage, or bacon as very nutritious from a micro-nutrient point of view.

Me either.  And I still eat lean meat to keep calories under control and because I'm not fond of the grass-fed taste, either the flesh nor fat nor the cost.  There's enough saturated fat in the marbling not to worry about not getting enough.  Throw on some butter or coconut oil, and you're good.

So... All of the fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E & K) are only found in fat — and you can't absorb them without fat.

For instance, Butter and cheese are the highest sources of vitamin K2. Lard is one of the highest sources of vitamin D, etc. etc.

In a sense, the vitamins are useless to you without the presence of fat. Fat is required for your brain and all of your cells.

I already mentioned all this before, but here is some interesting data from Chris Masterjohn:

Chris Masterjohn wrote:Fat also increases the absorption of fat-soluble nutrients.  For example, a 2006 study found that a bagel with low-fat cream cheese containing 2.4 grams of fat (6% of calories) increased the absorption of vitamin E from fortified apples, while a bagel with regular-fat cream cheese containing 11 grams of fat (21% of calories) increased it even more.

[align=center][/align]

A 2004 study found similar results for carotene absorption from a salad using fat-free, low-fat, or regular-fat salad dressing.  The regular-fat dressing added 28 grams of fat to the salad, so the calories in the meal must have been mostly from fat.

[align=center]
Black triangles represent the fat-free salad, while white circles represent the low-fat salad and black circles represent the regular-fat salad.[/align]

These studies provide no evidence of a "ceiling" to the fat effect.  The highest fat meal in both studies provided the best absorption of fat-soluble nutrients.

An 2000 animal study found that carotene absorption was nearly two times higher with olive oil than with corn oil, suggesting perhaps that the polyunsaturated fatty acids in corn oil promote oxidative stress in the intestine and thereby decrease carotene absorption.

Source: Masterjohn: The 2010 USDA/HHS Guidelines — A Rather Bizarre Definition of "Nutrient Dense"

If you don't eat fat, your body will have a difficult time absorbing nutrients. I'm not saying you need to eat tons of fat. I'm just saying that our bodies evolved to utilize fat for nutrient absorption. If you think about it, dairy is nothing more than a liquid fat that mammals use to transport nutrients to infants. If breast milk is considered the "perfect food" it should noted that it is high in fat.

Gumby,

You should really teach economics and nutrition at your nearest university. What a wonderfully diverse day.

moda0306 wrote: Gumby,

You should really teach economics and nutrition at your nearest university. What a wonderfully diverse day.

Oh dear. I'm not qualified to do either. But, then again, who is? 

FWIW, I would suspect there are at least as many adults who don't do well with dairy as don't do well with e.g. wheat.

Benko wrote: FWIW, I would suspect there are at least as many adults who don't do well with dairy as don't do well with e.g. wheat.

I suppose you are talking about pasteurized dairy. Milk allergies — or at least people documenting milk allergies — were relatively uncommon before pasteurization.

See: Google Ngram Viewer: "Milk Allergy"

From what I can tell, when milk was raw, far more people were tolerant to it. It appears that the phrase "milk allergy" was rarely mentioned in the lexicon before 1920.

I have no idea.  But even if that is correct, I figured out a way to process grains* without much effort (I'm still skeptical, but thought a test might be worth a shot), but tracking down raw dairy is certainly more effort, and not what most people are consuming.

*  Most routines for "processing grains" include;
--warm water
--acid
--something with flora e.g. kefir (not sure what this is supposed to do).
They sometimes add other things e.g. for oat I think it is they add something else (another grain) for the phytase enzyme

MY SHORTCUT:
--warm water
--I have plant based digestive enzymes (which work in all pH ranges and don't need acid).  One of the varieties is for beans and it contains phytase. So I just open a capsule.
--I also added a sapsule of acidophilus/bifidus flora.
+ the grain and let sit overnight or however long.

This most certainly predigests the grains especially since the digestive enzyme caps contain proteases, etc with the phytase.

NOTE WELL: this will only work if you have plant based phytase  as in similase BV (no comercial interest).  Also I know that the flora (acidophilus/bifidus) I use is high quality.

Well, heat and time are also an important part of the process. Traditional soaking requires a warm place (I've heared around 80° is preferred). The idea is that the warmth neutralizes the enzyme inhibitors found in the seeds and activates specific enzymes. Keep in mind that this is how a seed works. You put it in the ground and a certain kind of warmth/acidity breaks down the hull and it germinates — releasing nutrients for the plant to grow. That's why "sprouting" grains also neutralizes a lot of the anti nutrients and activates beneficial nutrients. In a sense, the anti nutrients are there to protect the plant and to prevent the seed from germinating.

So, I'm not sure that the "shortcut" would work without warmth and time. Keep in mind that people used to make their porridge or gruel with some raw milk and leave the pot in the embers overnight so that it was ready for the next morning. That's just how it was done.