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

Our genetic potential "ceiling" is not to be obese, diabetic and have
heart disease before the age of thirty. Nor is it to be mentally
unstable and suffer from ADHD in our childhoods. Nor is it to
constantly suffer from chronic ear infections and colds and flus. Nor
is it to have crohn's disease and other serious GI problems all our
lives.

Cut out all the fake carbs including and especially refined grains from
the diet and remove the fake overly processed vegetable fats and the
horribly mis-used soy crap from the diet and replace it with real fresh
whole foods including whole produce and whole animals and you will see
us reach our genetic potential. Eat real foods.

What is keeping us from achieving our genetic potential is our poor
diet of processed crap along with modern mainstream medicine's utter
ignorance of nutrition and their complete and ignorant reliance on
drugs to "fix" everything.

TC

jt wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006 19:48:17 -0800, "TC" wrote:


It is true diet will only allow one to reach their genetic potential
but the ceiling is set. Life expectancy, attractiveness,
intelligence, athleticism upper limits are all predetermined. You
can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

You are a complete idiot if you actually believe that tripe.

TC

Pizzza Girl wrote:
Life expectancy is mostly genetic and not based on your
diet.

Call Me, Mr. Whole-Grain wrote:
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/...le-grains.html

Actually, zero of those studies say any such thing. None of them have
the slightest meaning when compared against the standard low carb food
- vegitables. And so none of these studies show any actual health
benefit to eating grain. They show that eating whole grain is better
than eating junk refined grain. Yeah, so what?

On low carb plans, folks switch from eating grains to eating veggies.
Sometimes grains are reintroduced later sometimes not depending on the
individual and the plan. As a result, any study posted to ASDLC tat
discusses how healthy whole grains are needs to compare them *against
veggies*.

Show me a study that has one group eating wheat, corn, rice and
occasional oats to the exclusion of veggies, and another group eating
asparagus, cauliflower, zucchini and occasional turnips to the
exclusion of grain. Then you will have shown me a study that actually
discusses if grains are really heatlhy. Show me a study that compared
whole grains against refined grains, and you may as well have shown me
a study that compares brocolli with hard candy. It says zero.

So, given that backgroupnd, I'll start going through some of these
studies and see if any of them have any meaning whatsoever about whole
grains being actually healthy:

References

1) Wolk A, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Long-term intake of dietary
fiber and decreased risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA
1999;281:1998-2004.[Online]

Discusses fiber intake. Since fiber can come from either veggies or
grain, this study fails to show that eating plenty of veggies and zero
grain is any sort of problem. Since most low carb plans are
high-veggie and low-or-no-grain, this study is utterly irrelevant to
demonstrating that grain is better than the alternative.

2) Liu S, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, et al. Whole-grain consumption and risk
of coronary heart disease: results from the Nurses' Health Study. Am J
Clin Nutr 1999;70:412-9.[Online]

This one is also from the nurses study. Since it compares whole grain
against refined grain it is irrelevant to the topic.

3) Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Vuksan V, et al. Effect of wheat bran on
serum lipids: influence of particle size and wheat protein. J Am Coll
Nutr 1999;18:159-65.[Online]

Compared high-fiber bread against low-fiber bread. Again utterly
ineffective in demonstrating that grain is healthy since neither group
actually stopped eating grain. Like anyone doubts that high-bran bread
beats wonder bread ...

4) Jacobs DR, Pereira MA, Meyer KA. Fiber from whole grains, but not
refined grains, is inversely associated with all-cause mortality in
older women: the Iowa Women's Health Study. J Am Coll Nutr
2000;19:326S-30S.[Online]

Yet another irrelevant comparison between high-fiber bread and wonder
bread.

5) Anderson JW, Hanna TJ, Peng X, Kryscio RJ. Whole grain foods and
heart disease risk. J Am Coll Nutr 2000;19:291S-9S.[Online]

This one actually shows that consumption of veggies is healthy.
Without a veggie-free group that eats whole grain it says nothing about
the health value of grains compared to veggies but the interesting part
of this study is it hints that veggies do beat grains. Duh, standard
issue low carb advice, but still no actual relevance.

I continued reading through the abstracts of studies 6-10 and they were
ALL about comparing whole grain against junk refined grain and hence
meaningless.

I read the titles of the rest and there isn't any sign that one of them
is a meaningfull study. Yeah, whole grains are less bad than junk
refined grains, so what? Try comparing grains against veggies and see
what the results are.

On 20 Feb 2006 08:04:13 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
roups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

Call Me, Mr. Whole-Grain wrote:
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/...le-grains.html

Actually, zero of those studies say any such thing. None of them have
the slightest meaning when compared against the standard low carb food
- vegitables. And so none of these studies show any actual health
benefit to eating grain. They show that eating whole grain is better
than eating junk refined grain. Yeah, so what?

So let's do it (if it's true).


On low carb plans, folks switch from eating grains to eating veggies.

Only veggies, never grains? What a bore! :-P


Sometimes grains are reintroduced later sometimes not depending on the
individual and the plan. As a result, any study posted to ASDLC tat
discusses how healthy whole grains are needs to compare them *against
veggies*.

Why? They are different foods, you can have both.


Show me a study that has one group eating wheat, corn, rice and
occasional oats to the exclusion of veggies, and another group eating
asparagus, cauliflower, zucchini and occasional turnips to the
exclusion of grain. Then you will have shown me a study that actually
discusses if grains are really heatlhy.

I doubt that there are "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods (provided we
consider real, natural, fresh foods, not toxic stuff).

I believe there are healthy and unhealthy *quantities*.

Eat more veggies and less grains, and be happy!



Show me a study that compared
whole grains against refined grains, and you may as well have shown me
a study that compares brocolli with hard candy. It says zero.

Hmmm...


So, given that backgroupnd, I'll start going through some of these
studies and see if any of them have any meaning whatsoever about whole
grains being actually healthy:

References

1) Wolk A, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Long-term intake of dietary
fiber and decreased risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA
1999;281:1998-2004.[Online]

Discusses fiber intake. Since fiber can come from either veggies or
grain, this study fails to show that eating plenty of veggies and zero
grain is any sort of problem.

A dull diet *is* a problem, for instance.


Since most low carb plans are
high-veggie and low-or-no-grain, this study is utterly irrelevant to
demonstrating that grain is better than the alternative.

Try and think the other way round....
Why should we restrict our diet to a few foods when we can enjoy many?


5) Anderson JW, Hanna TJ, Peng X, Kryscio RJ. Whole grain foods and
heart disease risk. J Am Coll Nutr 2000;19:291S-9S.[Online]

This one actually shows that consumption of veggies is healthy.
Without a veggie-free group that eats whole grain it says nothing about
the health value of grains compared to veggies but the interesting part
of this study is it hints that veggies do beat grains.

"Beat"? Do you think they are alternatives, only veggies or only
grains?



I continued reading through the abstracts of studies 6-10 and they were
ALL about comparing whole grain against junk refined grain and hence
meaningless.

Maybe they are meaningless to you, 'cause you don't eat grains.
They are meaningful to most people though, as most people do eat
grains.


I read the titles of the rest and there isn't any sign that one of them
is a meaningfull study. Yeah, whole grains are less bad than junk
refined grains, so what?

Are you saying that whole grains are "bad" for you (even if "less
bad")?

Why?

Try comparing grains against veggies and see
what the results are.

Why should we?
Grains are yummy.
Grains *and* veggies is a more varied, interesting diet than veggies
alone.
Large quantities of grains and no veggies is bad, of course.




X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition

--
Enrico C

* cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *

Enrico C wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Call Me, Mr. Whole-Grain wrote:

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/...le-grains.html

Actually, zero of those studies say any such thing. None of them have
the slightest meaning when compared against the standard low carb food
- vegitables. And so none of these studies show any actual health
benefit to eating grain. They show that eating whole grain is better
than eating junk refined grain. Yeah, so what?

On low carb plans, folks switch from eating grains to eating veggies.

Only veggies, never grains? What a bore! :-P

Sure. There are only a couple thousand types of veggies and
a couple hundred ways to prepare each. As opposed to a
couple dozen types of grain and a couple thousand ways to
prepare them. Chuckle.

Since most low carb plans are
high-veggie and low-or-no-grain, this study is utterly irrelevant to
demonstrating that grain is better than the alternative.

Try and think the other way round....
Why should we restrict our diet to a few foods when we can enjoy many?

Good point. Tiny variety of grains. Huge variety of veggies.

I read the titles of the rest and there isn't any sign that one of them
is a meaningfull study. Yeah, whole grains are less bad than junk
refined grains, so what?

Are you saying that whole grains are "bad" for you (even if "less
bad")?

No. I'm saying that any study that compares whole grain with
refined grain is a scientifically incompletel study. It says NOTHING
about the health value of grains, only about the difference between
two forms of grain. To tell if grain itself is healthy, the
experimental
groups need to be yes-grain and no-grain, not yes-grain and
yes-grain.

Why?

Because comparing a yes-grain and another yes-grain experimental
group is a scientifically dishonest justification for calling grains
healthy. Whether you like grains or not is irrelevant to the design
of the experiment.

The conclusion that the 19 cited studies show whole grains to be
healthy is dishonest. They showed that refined grains are worse
than whole grains. Just a relative comparison. No way of telling
if either of the two are beneficial when compared to an alternative.

Now if experimental groups where no-grain, all-whole-grain,
all-refined-grain, and the two mixtures, then the results would have
meaning in telling it grain itself was beneficial.

Is refined grain damaging, or is whole grain beneficial? A study
that only compares the two can't answer that, and that's the real
question at hand.

Enrico C wrote:

On low carb plans, folks switch from eating grains to eating veggies.

Only veggies, never grains? What a bore! :-P

Actually, there's a lot more variety in taste with veggies than grains.
Grains tend to be relatively bland and primarily used as fillers in
cooking.

Sometimes grains are reintroduced later sometimes not depending on the
individual and the plan. As a result, any study posted to ASDLC tat
discusses how healthy whole grains are needs to compare them *against
veggies*.

Why? They are different foods, you can have both.

Everyone can't have both. As noted previously in this thread, I am
diabetic and cannot tolerate grains (or even legumes except in tiny
servings). My bg will not remain stable and my health will deteriorate
if I eat grain.

On the other hand, my husband is not diabetic, and can and does eat
whole grains, as well as a lot more fruit than I do (I stick to small
servings of melon and berries only).

Other people do not tolerate grains because of gluten intolerance or
other allergies.

For those who can eat both, sure... eat both. But... the question of
whether there are nutrients missing in a diet without grain is relevant
to a lot of folks who cannot tolerate grain for one reason or another.

Show me a study that has one group eating wheat, corn, rice and
occasional oats to the exclusion of veggies, and another group eating
asparagus, cauliflower, zucchini and occasional turnips to the
exclusion of grain. Then you will have shown me a study that actually
discusses if grains are really heatlhy.

I doubt that there are "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods (provided we
consider real, natural, fresh foods, not toxic stuff).

Again, it depends on the individual. Peanuts are a "healthy" food for
me and my husband, but will kill other people.

Biochemistry is not "one-size-fits-all."

I believe there are healthy and unhealthy *quantities*.

Eat more veggies and less grains, and be happy!

Agreed.

1) Wolk A, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Long-term intake of dietary
fiber and decreased risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA
1999;281:1998-2004.[Online]

Discusses fiber intake. Since fiber can come from either veggies or
grain, this study fails to show that eating plenty of veggies and zero
grain is any sort of problem.

A dull diet *is* a problem, for instance.

I don't really think wheat berries or oats add much excitement though.
They're relatively bland foods.

When you want something flavorful... you think peppers, onions, garlic,
tomatoes, spinach, chard, kale, parsley, basil, shallots, leeks, etc.

Since most low carb plans are
high-veggie and low-or-no-grain, this study is utterly irrelevant to
demonstrating that grain is better than the alternative.

Try and think the other way round....
Why should we restrict our diet to a few foods when we can enjoy many?

Many can't though.

"Beat"? Do you think they are alternatives, only veggies or only
grains?

Well, the discussion began about which nutrients are found in grains
that are not in veggies. So far... the veggies *have* won.

I believe I can be healthy without whole grains in my diet.

I do *not* believe that my hubsand, who does eat grain, can be healthy
without vegetables though.


I read the titles of the rest and there isn't any sign that one of them
is a meaningfull study. Yeah, whole grains are less bad than junk
refined grains, so what?

Are you saying that whole grains are "bad" for you (even if "less
bad")?

Why?

From a nutrition standpoint, whole grains contain very little nutrients
for the kilocalorie. Hence, they are primarily a "filler" food.

Their primary "goodness" nutritionally is for those who are not getting
enough kilocalories from other foods.

As far as culinary use, what they add to cooking is primarily texture,
gluten being a particularly good example of that.

On 20 Feb 2006 22:35:43 -0800, wrote in
roups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

Enrico C wrote:

On low carb plans, folks switch from eating grains to eating veggies.

Only veggies, never grains? What a bore! :-P

Actually, there's a lot more variety in taste with veggies than grains.
Grains tend to be relatively bland and primarily used as fillers in
cooking.

Again, why should we chose one or the other when we can have both.
There's more variety in taste with veggies *and* grains than veggies
alone.


Sometimes grains are reintroduced later sometimes not depending on the
individual and the plan. As a result, any study posted to ASDLC tat
discusses how healthy whole grains are needs to compare them *against
veggies*.

Why? They are different foods, you can have both.

Everyone can't have both. As noted previously in this thread, I am
diabetic and cannot tolerate grains (or even legumes except in tiny
servings). My bg will not remain stable and my health will deteriorate
if I eat grain.


Fair enough. If you cannot tollerate grains, you have a very good
reason not to eat them!
But that doesn't apply to everyone.


On the other hand, my husband is not diabetic, and can and does eat
whole grains,

Do they affect him in some way?


as well as a lot more fruit than I do (I stick to small
servings of melon and berries only).

Other people do not tolerate grains because of gluten intolerance or
other allergies.


There are also people who avoid other foods for special reasons.


For those who can eat both, sure... eat both.

Agreed.

But... the question of
whether there are nutrients missing in a diet without grain is relevant
to a lot of folks who cannot tolerate grain for one reason or another.

I see your point.
I don't know whether there are nutrients missing in a diet without
grain.
I would tend to doubt that, provided the diet is varied enough.
I was not saying grains are "essential", though. I believe there is
hardly a truely "essential" food. Think of the vegetarians who can
live without meat, fish, cheese, eggs... Still, why should we?



Show me a study that has one group eating wheat, corn, rice and
occasional oats to the exclusion of veggies, and another group eating
asparagus, cauliflower, zucchini and occasional turnips to the
exclusion of grain. Then you will have shown me a study that actually
discusses if grains are really heatlhy.

I doubt that there are "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods (provided we
consider real, natural, fresh foods, not toxic stuff).

Again, it depends on the individual. Peanuts are a "healthy" food for
me and my husband, but will kill other people.

Biochemistry is not "one-size-fits-all."

And it also depends on what that individual does: his or her
life-style...


I believe there are healthy and unhealthy *quantities*.

Eat more veggies and less grains, and be happy!

Agreed.

1) Wolk A, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Long-term intake of dietary
fiber and decreased risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA
1999;281:1998-2004.[Online]

Discusses fiber intake. Since fiber can come from either veggies or
grain, this study fails to show that eating plenty of veggies and zero
grain is any sort of problem.

A dull diet *is* a problem, for instance.

I don't really think wheat berries or oats add much excitement though.
They're relatively bland foods.

True, but that's precisely why they always come in good company,
oats with milk and nuts in a muesli, for instance...
other grains with tomatoes, veggies, oil, olives, cheese, eggs, meat,
fish...


When you want something flavorful... you think peppers, onions, garlic,
tomatoes, spinach, chard, kale, parsley, basil, shallots, leeks, etc.

Since most low carb plans are
high-veggie and low-or-no-grain, this study is utterly irrelevant to
demonstrating that grain is better than the alternative.

Try and think the other way round....
Why should we restrict our diet to a few foods when we can enjoy many?

Many can't though.

"Beat"? Do you think they are alternatives, only veggies or only
grains?

Well, the discussion began about which nutrients are found in grains
that are not in veggies.

Ok, but then someone argued that grains are bad for everyone, and that
whole grains are just "less bad".


So far... the veggies *have* won.

For starters, why a competition?


I believe I can be healthy without whole grains in my diet.

I do *not* believe that my hubsand, who does eat grain, can be healthy
without vegetables though.

I read the titles of the rest and there isn't any sign that one of them
is a meaningfull study. Yeah, whole grains are less bad than junk
refined grains, so what?

Are you saying that whole grains are "bad" for you (even if "less
bad")?

Why?

From a nutrition standpoint, whole grains contain very little nutrients
for the kilocalorie.

Well, they have fiber, and some vitamins and minerals. When they come
with legumes, they even give some protein.

Veggies have fiber too (and vitamins and minerals of course), but I am
not sure whether it's the same kind of fiber.

Besides, I believe grains have a positive effect on mood.


Hence, they are primarily a "filler" food.

Yes, and a not so expensive one.

Whole grains are also rather satiating, by the way, more than some
other foods with the same caloric content.



Their primary "goodness" nutritionally is for those who are not getting
enough kilocalories from other foods.

And they are bad if you are a couch potato and you overeat...
[the same applies for other caloric foods, by the way]

But still, why are grains "bad" as such?


As far as culinary use, what they add to cooking is primarily texture,
gluten being a particularly good example of that.


Well, I can do without grains, if I want... but on the long run I get
fed up!


X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition

On 17 Feb 2006 16:09:45 -0800, wrote in
oups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

[...]
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.

That's the Harvard Pyramid.



X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition

--
Enrico C

* cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *

"Enrico C" wrote in message
...
On 20 Feb 2006 22:35:43 -0800, wrote in
roups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

Enrico C wrote:

On low carb plans, folks switch from eating grains to eating veggies.

Only veggies, never grains? What a bore! :-P

Actually, there's a lot more variety in taste with veggies than grains.
Grains tend to be relatively bland and primarily used as fillers in
cooking.

Again, why should we chose one or the other when we can have both.
There's more variety in taste with veggies *and* grains than veggies
alone.


Sometimes grains are reintroduced later sometimes not depending on the
individual and the plan. As a result, any study posted to ASDLC tat
discusses how healthy whole grains are needs to compare them *against
veggies*.

Why? They are different foods, you can have both.

Everyone can't have both. As noted previously in this thread, I am
diabetic and cannot tolerate grains (or even legumes except in tiny
servings). My bg will not remain stable and my health will deteriorate
if I eat grain.


Fair enough. If you cannot tollerate grains, you have a very good
reason not to eat them!
But that doesn't apply to everyone.


On the other hand, my husband is not diabetic, and can and does eat
whole grains,

Do they affect him in some way?


as well as a lot more fruit than I do (I stick to small
servings of melon and berries only).

Other people do not tolerate grains because of gluten intolerance or
other allergies.


There are also people who avoid other foods for special reasons.


For those who can eat both, sure... eat both.

Agreed.

But... the question of
whether there are nutrients missing in a diet without grain is relevant
to a lot of folks who cannot tolerate grain for one reason or another.

I see your point.
I don't know whether there are nutrients missing in a diet without
grain.
I would tend to doubt that, provided the diet is varied enough.
I was not saying grains are "essential", though. I believe there is
hardly a truely "essential" food. Think of the vegetarians who can
live without meat, fish, cheese, eggs... Still, why should we?



Show me a study that has one group eating wheat, corn, rice and
occasional oats to the exclusion of veggies, and another group eating
asparagus, cauliflower, zucchini and occasional turnips to the
exclusion of grain. Then you will have shown me a study that actually
discusses if grains are really heatlhy.

I doubt that there are "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods (provided we
consider real, natural, fresh foods, not toxic stuff).

Again, it depends on the individual. Peanuts are a "healthy" food for
me and my husband, but will kill other people.

Biochemistry is not "one-size-fits-all."

And it also depends on what that individual does: his or her
life-style...


I believe there are healthy and unhealthy *quantities*.

Eat more veggies and less grains, and be happy!

Agreed.

1) Wolk A, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Long-term intake of dietary
fiber and decreased risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA
1999;281:1998-2004.[Online]

Discusses fiber intake. Since fiber can come from either veggies or
grain, this study fails to show that eating plenty of veggies and zero
grain is any sort of problem.

A dull diet *is* a problem, for instance.

I don't really think wheat berries or oats add much excitement though.
They're relatively bland foods.

True, but that's precisely why they always come in good company,
oats with milk and nuts in a muesli, for instance...
other grains with tomatoes, veggies, oil, olives, cheese, eggs, meat,
fish...


When you want something flavorful... you think peppers, onions, garlic,
tomatoes, spinach, chard, kale, parsley, basil, shallots, leeks, etc.

Since most low carb plans are
high-veggie and low-or-no-grain, this study is utterly irrelevant to
demonstrating that grain is better than the alternative.

Try and think the other way round....
Why should we restrict our diet to a few foods when we can enjoy many?

Many can't though.

"Beat"? Do you think they are alternatives, only veggies or only
grains?

Well, the discussion began about which nutrients are found in grains
that are not in veggies.

Ok, but then someone argued that grains are bad for everyone, and that
whole grains are just "less bad".


So far... the veggies *have* won.

For starters, why a competition?


I believe I can be healthy without whole grains in my diet.

I do *not* believe that my hubsand, who does eat grain, can be healthy
without vegetables though.

I read the titles of the rest and there isn't any sign that one of them
is a meaningfull study. Yeah, whole grains are less bad than junk
refined grains, so what?

Are you saying that whole grains are "bad" for you (even if "less
bad")?

Why?

From a nutrition standpoint, whole grains contain very little nutrients
for the kilocalorie.

Well, they have fiber, and some vitamins and minerals. When they come
with legumes, they even give some protein.

Veggies have fiber too (and vitamins and minerals of course), but I am
not sure whether it's the same kind of fiber.

Well there's only two kinds and they're both good.

Besides, I believe grains have a positive effect on mood.

I"m sure that for you they do, but for many people they lead to blood sugar
spikes and bad moods.

Hence, they are primarily a "filler" food.

Yes, and a not so expensive one.

Whole grains are also rather satiating, by the way, more than some
other foods with the same caloric content.

Not from my experience. And fiber and protein are far more sating.

Their primary "goodness" nutritionally is for those who are not getting
enough kilocalories from other foods.

And they are bad if you are a couch potato and you overeat...
[the same applies for other caloric foods, by the way]

But still, why are grains "bad" as such?

Calorie to nutrient ratio. For some people who are insulin resistant and
'carb addicts" grains lead to trouble. Some people can eat them just fine.

As far as culinary use, what they add to cooking is primarily texture,
gluten being a particularly good example of that.


Well, I can do without grains, if I want... but on the long run I get
fed up!

Eat grains if you want to, but they aren't necessarily better for you than
another diet.

Enrico C wrote:

Again, why should we chose one or the other when we can have both.

Wouldn't you like to see a study that actually shows whether
eating grains is beneficial or harmfull? Without such a study
you're guessing. It would be nice to know rather than just
guess.

There's more variety in taste with veggies *and* grains than veggies
alone.

Correct.

Fair enough. If you cannot tollerate grains, you have a very good
reason not to eat them! But that doesn't apply to everyone.

There's a missing point in this: Plenty of people have mild
grain intolerance without knowing it. I was 40 by the time I
figured out what caused my chronic cough and assorted
other symptoms. I'd never gone a week wheat-free before
starting low carb. Then bingo my health level shot upward
like magic. I didn't even know I had all those symptoms
since they had been with me my entire life before trying a
week wheat-free. How many others might benefit from such
an experiment?

But still, why are grains "bad" as such?

My best reason is my own example. How many people have
ever gone two weeks grain-free, checked how their health
changed, reintroduced one type of grain, checked for a health
change, reintroduced another type, and so on? Until you've
done that you can say you don't have a problem with grain
but you don't actually know it. I never had any idea until I
did so.

For one thing, I've cured several friends of loud snoring by
getting them to go either wheat-free or corn-free. Who ever
mentions that something like half of chronic snoring can be
cured by going grain-free? Yet when I've suggested it to
friends it worked for more than half of them.

So it isn't that grains are certainly bad, it's that there's an
assumption that grains must automatically be good, and
it's a demonstrably false assumption that few folks ever test.
Folks simply assume that since grains are good, they can't
possibly have a problem with grains. It's a baseless
assertion.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:48:02 +0100, Enrico C wrote in
on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

Well, they have fiber, and some vitamins and minerals. When they come


According to a guy on a Italian newsgroup, whole grains cannot
replaced, not even by veggies.
I must say I have no idea whether he is right or he talks rubbish.
Here is what he wrote, more or less (I'll try and translate it):
Does this makes any sense?

"Whole grains cannot be replaced, not even by veggies. For starters,
for their content in soluble fiber, that helps prevent diabetes and
lower cholesterol, etc. Then, for their phytates, saponines,
agglutinins, some polysaccharides, protease inhibitors, thousands of
different polyphenols, and so on...".



X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition