Re: Gluten Problems
From: Dunne E. Dawe (never_at_never.again)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: How many calories is enough?"
- Previous message: GMCarter: "Re: "Lipid bilayer membranes" and your health."
- In reply to: tcomeau: "Re: Gluten Problems"
- Next in thread: Bill Clinton: "Re: Gluten Problems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:23:13 +0800
On 21 Oct 2004 09:05:17 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:
>Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message news:<bo8en0hrcm5grk4s6uue6r1eqgs1lfad8u@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Oct 2004 07:44:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:
>>
>> >Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message news:<urf6n01gf44if6ppsn881iosmse7hjccj4@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 15 Oct 2004 11:59:59 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:
>> >>
>> >> >Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message news:<h4nvm0pkgc1ptjqi97v0djgc22egiqi47t@4ax.com>...
>> >> >> On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, rangerhasten@yahoo.com (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.
>In fact refined
>grains deplete us of these essential vitamins.
You have again changed the subject. Refined grains are NOT whole
grains!
>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?
>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.
>> >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.
>> >> >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.
>> >> >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.
>> 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.
>> >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.
>> >> >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.
>>
>> >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.
>> > 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?
>> >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"?
>> >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.
>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.
>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?
>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.
>> > 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 <never@never.again> wrote in message
news:<h4nvm0pkgc1ptjqi97v0djgc22egiqi47t@4ax.com>...
> On 13 Oct 2004 12:51:06 -0700, rangerhasten@yahoo.com (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. 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
-----------------------------------------------------------
>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.
>> >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.
As I said, they are not often consumed by wild ruminants. Its posted
above, if you don't understand.
>They are built
>to digest fiber and other substances that are undigestable to humans.
Well, not really. They are able (with their gut bacteria) to digest
cellulose which is not a fibre for them. You really tie yourself in
semantic knots don't you. You really should determine what all the
terms mean first before you start laying down the law.
>Substances like gluten and grain germ and, of course, cellulose.
Gluten is a protein? Since when can't this be digested by humans?
Grain germ? That is an excellent source of many micronutrients. Easily
digested by humans. Cellulose is not a fibre for ruminants.
That's where they get much of their energy from. Cellulose is pure
glucose. Four calories per gram.
>> >> >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.
Well what is your point then? You have wasted hundreds of words saying
that they are bad and should not be eaten by humans.
>They are just not as nutritious and as healthy to
>human life as you would have us believe.
Not me. Consult the tables. They are excellent, nutritious foods.
>They are completely
>superflous to good health and create more health problems than they
>resolve.
All wholefoods are the same. Completely superfluous to good health.
All foods can cause problems in minorites of individuals. Thank
goodness we can get good nutrition from many combinatiosn of available
foods. Whole grains are fine nutritious foods, better than some and
not as good as others. They (wholefoods) are all good to eat in
moderation.
So you are wrong to characterise them (whole grains) as not nutritious
and bad for you. They may be bad for YOU personally, however, so you
might be well advised to avoid them, but normal humans will (and do)
thrive on them.
>> >> 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.
They were usually ground, weren't they, and baked? No-one knows what
was a preferred food by any particular group, and all groups would
have been quite different. They usually binged on what was available.
>> >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 vey small amounts that were gathered manually. They
>were not the first choice for food, but were used when necessary.
How do you know this? Until a few decades ago, all grain (grass seeds)
was gathered by hand (manually). The only thing that happened 10,000
years ago was that man planted some grass plants. Many anthropologists
reckon that in some places, wild grains were a valuable staple. Been
so for thousands of years in the Mekong Delta.
>> >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.
They ate anything they could gather. Often grass seeds were much
easier to get than game. That's the point. All food was labour
intensive to obtain. It would have taken hours per day to just get
enough food to stay alive. And modern decadent western man gorges
himself with fatty, sugary, calorie-dense foods with no effort
involved at all. That has caused all our "diseases of affluence".
>> >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.
>>
>>
>> Again, you've changed the subject, but do you notice the phrase "over
>> consumption" that you used? Does that give you a clue?
>>
>
>You advocate eating plenty of grains.
Do I? I thought I said that whole grains were a fine nutritious food
when you were claiming that they were somehow evil and nutrient
deficient. You even claimed they cause colon cancer.
> My point is that any grains in
>the diet is unnecessary.
But any particular food in the diet is unnecessary. What is so special
about whole grains that makes you single them out with such zealotry?
>Therefore from my pov you advocate over
>consumption of a food that is not necessary for good health.
I have never advocated the overconsumption of anything. Where have I
done this? This is the problem with modern westerners.
Overconsumption!
>In fact,
>eating any grains causes more health problems than it resolves.
Don't be so ridiculous! Billions of people have whole grains as their
staple diet and have been healthy on it for thousands of years.
Can you justify this ridiculous assertion?
>> >The staff of life is killing us.
>>
>> Hallaluja! Praise the Lord and pass the greasy cheese sausages :-)
>>
>
>Absolutely. Fresh sausages made from healthy, well-fed beef and pork,
>is absolutely delicious on a grill, slathered with my own low-carb bbq
>sauce. Along with a fresh summer salad of lettuce, finely chopped
>shallots, diced vine ripened tomatoes, radish slices, grated carrot,
>chopped pine nuts, with olive-oil-based savory vinaigrette. Tomato
>slices on the side. What a dish.
Yep, the anti-oxidants in the salad will hopefully counteract the
nasty carcinogens in the grilled meat.The ones that cause colon
cancer!
>Pork fat rules. :-)
>
>I'm eating like a king and feeling like one. Lost twenty pounds, met
>my goal weight. Blood lipids are bang on. No high blood pressure
>either. Never been healthier. Haven't had a cold or flu in four years.
>IBS is gone. Haven't needed a single prescription in four years.
Totally irrelevant. How do we know you are telling the truth, and how
do we know what your health status is? You could have intolerances to
various foods that would make you an unsuitable model for normal
diets.
>Enjoy your grains.
>
>> Atkins Shill!
>
>I have never been on the atkins diet and I have never advocated the
>atkins diet.
Near enough, though. What you seem to be advocating is very close to
Atkins.
>Your agenda is to save the animals.
Huh? Where have I ever advocated anything like that?
> Who's the shill?
You appear to be with your illogical advocating of high-fat/ low-carb
eating for everyone..
Can't you tolerate carbohydrates?
>Are you a member
>of PETA?
What gave you that idea? Are peta members in favour of eating whole
grains in their diets? I eat plenty of meat, if that helps.
- Next message: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: How many calories is enough?"
- Previous message: GMCarter: "Re: "Lipid bilayer membranes" and your health."
- In reply to: tcomeau: "Re: Gluten Problems"
- Next in thread: Bill Clinton: "Re: Gluten Problems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
