What nutrients are in whole grains that aren't in vegetables?

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
:: Noway2 wrote:
::
::: For starters, the FDA has been dead wrong so many times, why should
::: they be believed this time?
::
:: What does the FDA have to do with it? Absolutely nothing!!!
::
::: Now the FDA says, "Let there be whole grains in food, and it shall
::: be good" and it becomes everyones mantra? Thats up there with those
::: simpletons that say that you NEED to eat sugar for your brain to
::: function. Excuse me? I'm sory I didn't quite get that.
::
:: The FDA said no such thing on February 16th. Try reading the news
:: articles for a change. All they are doing is trying to keep
:: companies from lying to the consumer on their food lables and
:: product packaging.
::
::: Everything I am seeing tells me that it this whole grains thing is
::: just the latest gimmick for those that want to delude themselves
::: that their standard western processed diet is good for them. For
::: many thousands of years of human (and other animal) existance,
::: grains and even fruits and vegetables were a very rare commodity
::: and certainly not the staple of their diet. Quite frankly, if they
::: couldn't catch it and kill it, they didn't eat it. It wasn't until
::: more advanced settlements formed that agricuture even became
::: feasible. But I am supposed to believe that these natural items
::: that humasn have been eating for millenia are now inferior to a
::: "whole grain" product manufactured by some company who's "whole
::: intent" is to make a profit? Please.
::
:: Please, yourself! You must me one of TC's Droogies.
::
:: Ever try using your brain for something? I rather doubt it.
::
:: There are tons of favorable articles on whole grains, such as:
::
:: Whole Grains Contain More Fiber
::
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...t_ id=226965&
::

From this site:

"Nutrition experts now recommend eating at least three servings of
whole-grain foods daily. What is a serving? One slice of bread, one- half of
an English muffin, bagel or croissant, one small roll, biscuit or muffin,
one ounce of a ready-to-eat breakfast cereal, or one-half cup of cooked
rice, cereal or pasta. "

So you measure what's best to eat by the number of favorable articles, huh?

:: And, there have been tons of research studies done on the health
:: benefits of whole grains. Why don't you try reading?
::
http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006...6380783904.txt
:: "Federal Dietary Guidelines issued last year recommend that Americans
:: eat at least three one-ounce servings of whole grains daily, as they
:: are proven to help cut heart disease and cancer risk. But until now,
:: there has been no official definition of whole grains."

Is this supposed to be a "research article"?

::
:: "Proven" might not be in the dictionary, but I know what it means.
:: Why don't you?
::
:: Micronutrients found in Grains
:: http://food.naturalhealthperspective...ilability.html
:: "1. insoluble fiber (such as cellulose) [6]
:: 2. sodium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and iodine [9],[10]
:: 3. B vitamins, vitamin E, selenium, zinc, copper, and magnesium. [8]
:: 4. protein [13]"
:: --

So? You can get this from fibrous veggies without all the processed,
carb-loaded crap.

:: John Gohde,
:: Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
::
:: The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
:: mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
:: Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now
:: with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

Yeah, an Art of Deception.

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
Noway2 wrote:

For starters, the FDA has been dead wrong so many times, why should
they be believed this time?

What does the FDA have to do with it? Absolutely nothing!!!

Wow, tell us what you really think.

The FDA actually *does* publish guidelines (in the form of the
current food pyramid) which does explicitly recommend people
"emphasize... whole grains" as part of a "healthy diet"
http://www.mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html).

This is really all that is being disagreed with here - I think
grains are fine if one is desperate to pack on more or less empty
calories in an efficient manner.


Now the FDA says, "Let there be whole grains in food, and it shall be
good" and it becomes everyones mantra? Thats up there with those
simpletons that say that you NEED to eat sugar for your brain to
function. Excuse me? I'm sory I didn't quite get that.

The FDA said no such thing on February 16th. Try reading the news
articles for a change. All they are doing is trying to keep companies
from lying to the consumer on their food lables and product packaging.

Hmmm.... I have no idea what the FDA has been up to lately, but it's
well-known to all that they are staffed frequently with industry
insiders and that the agricultural lobby is quite powerful in their
halls. For whatever that's worth.

"Whole Grain" Lucky Charms? Who are they kidding?


Everything I am seeing tells me that it this whole grains thing is just
the latest gimmick for those that want to delude themselves that their
standard western processed diet is good for them. For many thousands
of years of human (and other animal) existance, grains and even fruits
and vegetables were a very rare commodity and certainly not the staple
of their diet. Quite frankly, if they couldn't catch it and kill it,
they didn't eat it. It wasn't until more advanced settlements formed
that agricuture even became feasible. But I am supposed to believe
that these natural items that humasn have been eating for millenia are
now inferior to a "whole grain" product manufactured by some company
who's "whole intent" is to make a profit? Please.

Please, yourself! You must me one of TC's Droogies.

Ever try using your brain for something? I rather doubt it.

That's not very nice, Mr. Natural.


There are tons of favorable articles on whole grains, such as:

Whole Grains Contain More Fiber
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...t_ id=226965&

And, there have been tons of research studies done on the health
benefits of whole grains. Why don't you try reading?

That was a light read. They really excel in writing over at the
Albuquerque Journal. "Whole Grains Contain More Fiber".... than what,
exactly? More fiber than a piece of cheese (yes)? More fiber than
romaine lettuce (probably not)? And why should I care about fiber,
anyways, given current research?

Beyond that, the article seems to be just repeating the words of
"experts" without much of a critical overview of all the science out
there.

Here's a nice article from the Canada Free Press... check it out:
'Low Fat Diet Myth Busted,' (on
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/milloy021306.htm):

".... A 2005 analysis of 13 previous studies involving 725,000
individuals published in the Dec. 14 Journal of the American Medical
Association reported that high fiber diets did not reduce the risk of
colon cancer..."

So, why would I want to each whole grains again? Oh, because it's
healthier than refined grain products. RIght. So why would I want to
eat grain products of any sort? Oh, because the FDA says I should on
their "Food Pyramid" guidelines? Oh, OK.


http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006...6380783904.txt
"Federal Dietary Guidelines issued last year recommend that Americans
eat at least three one-ounce servings of whole grains daily, as they
are proven to help cut heart disease and cancer risk. But until now,
there has been no official definition of whole grains."

"Proven" might not be in the dictionary, but I know what it means. Why
don't you?

Actually, from my understanding, the latest research seems to be
demonstrating that previous associations (correlations) found between
high-fiber diets and reduced disease risk may be better explained by
the fact that nutritionally-dense foods (e.g., fruits like berries,
leafy green vegetables, etc.) also tend to be high in fiber. Also,
those who eat those kinds of foods (vegetables, fruits, etc.) are
likely to make decisions more based on 'health-consciousness' than
others... therefore, they may excercise and take better care of
themselves in other areas.

I personally think that while the health benefits off fiber have been
"hyped" over the years, it *is* true that whole grains have more fiber
than refined grains. Also, grains do have some vitamins (although
nothing compared to lots of different kinds of tasty veggies or fruits)
Also, I'm aware of research that shows consumption of whole grains
tends to produce a 'flatter' blood-glucose rise than refined grains.
That's a good thing.

The question is, what does eating grains add to your dietary life at
all?

For me, not much. I have a thing for burritos so I eat the low-carb
tortillas from time to time, but that's it. I briefly toyed with eating
high-fiber cereal again, but I got sick of it. I vaguely miss
sandwiches... not so much for the bread but for the convenience of it.
Aside from that, since I've gotten off grains I feel much healthier
than I ever have. No question.


Micronutrients found in Grains
http://food.naturalhealthperspective...ilability.html
"1. insoluble fiber (such as cellulose) [6]

To review: First, fiber's importance is overhyped, and besides,
there's plenty of fiber in fruits and veggies.

2. sodium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and iodine [9],[10]

Sodium? You mean salt? Is that what you mean?

3. B vitamins, vitamin E, selenium, zinc, copper, and magnesium. [8]

I take a multivitamin every day (along with several servings of
fruits and vegetables). Nothing here I can't get from my current diet
already.

4. protein [13]"

snip

Protein, huh? One thing low-carbers have no shortage of is protein.

I think the rather measly few grams of protein one might be able to
metabolize from a few cups of wheat flour is hardly worth the trouble.

260/205/200
04/27/2005

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:

Micronutrients found in Grains
http://food.naturalhealthperspective...ilability.html
"1. insoluble fiber (such as cellulose) [6]
2. sodium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and iodine [9],[10]
3. B vitamins, vitamin E, selenium, zinc, copper, and magnesium. [8]
4. protein [13]"

Which of these is not found in vegetables?

On 16 Feb 2006 18:52:37 -0800, "montygram"
wrote:

The problem with "whole grains," which the FDA has finally decided to
define in what they consider to be a precise way, is that they are more
anti-nutritive than nutritive.

uh huh

Because American diets usually contain
a great deal of unhealthy substances and too many calories,

Wow did not realize...

it is possible that a small amount of "whole grain" may be better than not,

Yeah maybe like a sandwich....

but there is no way to know at this point, and there is an easier way:

So it is unhealthy but it is still better to have some of this
unhealthy substance than none however it is not known when some of
this substance becomes unhealthy.

just avoid oxidized cholesterol and any major source of unsaturated
fatty acids, along with eating a mix of antioxidant-rich foods and you
should be fine.

Wow that was a really smooth transition into the usual pitch. I am
guessing you really had nothing to say about the original topic but
had to find some way to get this in.

There are other things that can "go wrong," for
example, in my case I was producing very little stomach acid and it
almost killed me, but for most people this is a good general guide.

Ok so as long as someone is not you this diet should not kill them.

If anyone needs help, feel free to contact me.

uh no

There is never any fee
charged or information given out to a third party (I don't even need to
know your name, and you can just begin a new thread with a title like
"montygram: I need your help"

I guess the old adage you get what you pay for still applies

and I will just respond to you on that thread).

thanks for the warning

Joe the Aroma wrote:
Whole wheat is a poor food compared to vegetables.

TC

I can't reach any other conclusion myself, yet the mainstream seems to hawk
"whole grains" like they're the singular key to good health (with not a lot
of proof, like our friend natural health). Don't get me wrong, plenty of
vegetables and (moderate) fruit are terrific for you, but whole grains are
questionable at best, although I'd say they are at least better for you than
refined grains.

I pretty much agree with you.

It seems to me the official food pyramid would be more health-producing
if it recommended vegetables as the thing you hould eat the most
"servings" of, assuming servings are measured by volume or mass, not
kilocalories. That should be the base of the pyramid.

*Actual* whole grains ought to be a separate category from refined
grains, given that refined grains are more similar nutritionally to
sugar than to whole grains.

Refined grains and sugar ought to be that little category on the very
top - stuff you ought to eat sparingly, if at all.

Roger Zoul wrote:

:: Please, yourself! You must me one of TC's Droogies.

:: And, there have been tons of research studies done on the health
:: benefits of whole grains. Why don't you try reading?
::
Is this supposed to be a "research article"?

A research article is supposed to be what you lazy ass is supposed to
look up.

Just thought that you might want to know.

:: "Proven" might not be in the dictionary, but I know what it means.
:: Why don't you?
::
:: Micronutrients found in Grains
:: http://food.naturalhealthperspective...ilability.html
:: "1. insoluble fiber (such as cellulose) [6]
:: 2. sodium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and iodine [9],[10]
:: 3. B vitamins, vitamin E, selenium, zinc, copper, and magnesium. [8]
:: 4. protein [13]"
:: --

So? You can get this from fibrous veggies without all the processed,
carb-loaded crap.

Whole Grains are NOT crap.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Roger Zoul wrote:

A research article is supposed to be what you lazy ass is supposed to
look up.

And too bad you're too stupid to ot know a research article if it slapped
your grain-eating ass in the face.

I ran a Yahoo group newsletter for over 2 years where I covered new
research studies. A new study on the value of eating grains comes out
at least once a month.

You are simply too stupid/lazy to go look for one. They are all over
the place. I already did my homework. Obviously, you don't even know
how to read what the FDA wrote let alone know anything about nutrition
that is worth a damn. And, I do not mind saying so.

YOU spend YOUR timing hunting them up.

Anybody remotely familiar with Google should be able to come up with a
bunch of them in under 5 minutes.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

"Mr-Natural-Health" wrote in
message oups.com...
Roger Zoul wrote:

A research article is supposed to be what you lazy ass is supposed to
look up.

And too bad you're too stupid to ot know a research article if it slapped
your grain-eating ass in the face.

I ran a Yahoo group newsletter for over 2 years where I covered new
research studies. A new study on the value of eating grains comes out
at least once a month.

You are simply too stupid/lazy to go look for one. They are all over
the place. I already did my homework. Obviously, you don't even know
how to read what the FDA wrote let alone know anything about nutrition
that is worth a damn. And, I do not mind saying so.

YOU spend YOUR timing hunting them up.

Anybody remotely familiar with Google should be able to come up with a
bunch of them in under 5 minutes.

Hey dumbass....what makes you think I (and others here) haven't done read
the literature on grains. You're such a mindless drone that you can't think
beyond the end of your pug nose.

It is YOU who needs to do more study. And any ****wit can run a Yahoo
newgroup. BFD.

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Mr-Natural-Health" wrote in
message oups.com...
Roger Zoul wrote:

A research article is supposed to be what you lazy ass is supposed to
look up.

And too bad you're too stupid to ot know a research article if it slapped
your grain-eating ass in the face.

I ran a Yahoo group newsletter for over 2 years where I covered new
research studies. A new study on the value of eating grains comes out
at least once a month.

You are simply too stupid/lazy to go look for one. They are all over
the place. I already did my homework. Obviously, you don't even know
how to read what the FDA wrote let alone know anything about nutrition
that is worth a damn. And, I do not mind saying so.

YOU spend YOUR timing hunting them up.

Anybody remotely familiar with Google should be able to come up with a
bunch of them in under 5 minutes.

Hey dumbass....what makes you think I (and others here) haven't done read
the literature on grains. You're such a mindless drone that you can't think
beyond the end of your pug nose.

It is YOU who needs to do more study. And any ****wit can run a Yahoo
newgroup. BFD.

I am waiting for a sound argument, from this hot head, why I just did
not prove that he is beyond a doubt an arse by citing several studies
that are over 2 years old on sci.med.nutrition.

On 17 Feb 2006 12:20:46 -0800, "Ernst Primer"
wrote:


Actually, from my understanding, the latest research seems to be
demonstrating that previous associations (correlations) found between
high-fiber diets and reduced disease risk may be better explained by
the fact that nutritionally-dense foods (e.g., fruits like berries,
leafy green vegetables, etc.) also tend to be high in fiber. Also,
those who eat those kinds of foods (vegetables, fruits, etc.) are
likely to make decisions more based on 'health-consciousness' than
others... therefore, they may excercise and take better care of
themselves in other areas.


Those who eat those kinds of food are often of a higher socio-economic
status. SES is still the best predictor of physical health, and
these studies don't contradict that. It's much easier to eat well,
and see a doctor when you can afford to.

brigid