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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:27:34 -0500, Joe the Aroma wrote in
on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

"Enrico C" wrote in message
...


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,


For me and a few others


http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/html/...ec_summary.pdf

Complex carbohydrates as well as certain food components such as
folic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, selenium and tryptophan are thought
to decrease the symptoms of depression.
[...]

====


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...132&query_hl=4

1: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002 May;26(3):293-308.

Carbohydrate ingestion, blood glucose and mood.

Benton D.

Department of Psychology, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park,
Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.

A series of studies have reported that a high carbohydrate meal, or
diets high in carbohydrate, were associated with feeling less
energetic. However, after a drink containing pure sugar most studies
report no effect. Meals almost exclusively carbohydrate increase the
availability of tryptophan and hence serotonin synthesis in the brain,
however, a small amount of protein blocks this mechanism making it an
uncommon response. In many individuals, poor mood stimulates the
eating of palatable high carbohydrate/high fat foods that stimulate
the release of endorphins. There is a tendency for those with lower
blood glucose, when performing cognitively demanding tasks, to report
poorer mood. In a range of situations an association between a
tendency for blood glucose levels to fall rapidly, and irritability,
has been found. Differences in the ability to control blood glucose
levels influence the association between carbohydrate intake and mood.
There is a need in future research to contrast the impact of
carbohydrate on mood in those distinguished because of their
pre-existing psychological and physiological functioning.

Publication Types:
Review

PMID: 12034132 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


===


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...80&query_hl=50

1: Public Health Nutr. 1999 Sep;2(3A):403-9.


The effects of nutrients on mood.

Benton D, Donohoe RT.

Department of Psychology, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK.


A recent major theory was that a meal high in carbohydrate increased
the rate that tryptophan enters the brain, leading to an increase in
the level of the neurotransmitter serotonin that modulates mood.
Although such a mechanism may be important under laboratory conditions
it is unlikely to be of significance following the eating of any
typical meal. As little as 2-4% of the calories of a meal as protein
will prevent an increased availability of tryptophan. Arguably the
food with the greatest impact on mood is chocolate. Those who crave
chocolate tend to do so when they feel emotionally low. There have
been a series of suggestions that chocolate's mood elevating
properties reflect 'drug-like' constituents including anandamines,
caffeine, phenylethylamine and magnesium. However, the levels of these
substances are so low as to preclude such influences. As all palatable
foods stimulate endorphin release in the brain this is the most likely
mechanism to account for the elevation of mood. A deficiency of many
vitamins is associated with psychological symptoms. In some elderly
patients folate deficiency is associated with depression. In four
double-blind studies an improvement in thiamine status was associated
with improved mood. Iron deficiency anaemia is common, particularly in
women, and is associated with apathy, depression and rapid fatigue
when exercising.

Publication Types:
Review

PMID: 10610080 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


===


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...77&query_hl=38

1: Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2005;14 Suppl:S87.

Diet and mood state.

Worsley A, Nowson CA, Margerison C, Jorna MK.

School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood,
Victoria, Australia.

Background - There is some limited data indicating that dietary intake
may alter mood states, but most of this is anecdotal. A number of
dietary factors have been associated with reduction in blood pressure,
which could, in part be related to positive effects on general mood
states. Objective - To determine if urinary excretion of particular
minerals is associated with different mood states and if changing to
one of the test diets DASH type diet (high fruits, vegetables and low
fat dairy products) (OZDASH), a low salt, high fruit/vegetable diet
(LNAHK) or a high calcium diet (HC) has an effect on mood state.
Design - Subjects completed an abbreviated 37-item version of the
Profile of Mood States weekly throughout a 14-week dietary study. Each
person consumed two different types of diets for 4 weeks, preceded by
a 2 week control diet and performed 24-hr urine collections
fortnightly. Outcomes - For the 62 subjects who completed all tasks,
throughout the study, there was a significant inverse association with
24-urinary excretion of calcium and potassium with depression (r=
-0.26 P 0.05, r= -0.25 P 0.05), calcium and fatigue (r= -0.29 P
0.01) and a positive association for sodium and vigour (r=0.39 P
=0.01). When assessing the change in urinary electrolytes, moving from
the control diet to one of the test diets, there was a significant
reduction in tension and anger with all diets (OZDASH (n=93) P 0.05,
LNAHK (n=43) P 0.01 and HC (n=47) P 0.01), a reduction in fatigue on
the OZDASH and HC (P 0.01), a reduction in confusion on the OZDASH
and LNAHK (P 0.05) and a reduction in depression on the HC diet (P
0.05) there were no differences in the vigour scores on any diet. The
HC diet had the lowest anger and depression scores and both the OZDASH
and HC diet reported lower fatigue scores. Conclusion - These findings
strongly suggest that mood is related to mineral metabolism. Dietary
change may affect mood state, particularly the inverse association of
calcium and potassium to depression/fatigue. These findings should be
treated with caution but strongly suggest further replication studies
are warranted.

PMID: 16326577 [PubMed - in process]

===


but for many people they lead to blood sugar
spikes and bad moods.

Ok, then avoid carbs, if that happens even with low-GI foods such as
pumpernickel rye bread or pasta.


[...]

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

Well, whole grains do contain fiber.

and protein are far more sating.

Right. But lots of other foods are less satiating.
I mean, whole grains are "satiating calories" rather than not...


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

Calorie to nutrient ratio. [...]

As long as I get all the nutrients I need from my diet as a whole, I
guess I'll be fine...






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

--
Enrico C

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

It's really important to believe a guy on an Italian newsgroup. Yep.


"Enrico C" wrote in message
...
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

You must eat 5 helpings of spaghetti every month or malnutrition may
result.

"Joe the Aroma" wrote in message
...

"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.




*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:27:24 -0500, Pizzza Girl wrote in
. com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

You must eat 5 helpings of spaghetti every month or malnutrition may
result.

Even worse... serious emotional damage ;-D

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

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:47:29 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote in
on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

It's really important to believe a guy on an Italian newsgroup. Yep.

....on an Italian group... or on any newsgroup

BTW, whole grains ain't really popular in Italy, except for some
health concerned people.



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 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:47:29 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote in
on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

It's really important to believe a guy on an Italian newsgroup. Yep.

...on an Italian group... or on any newsgroup

BTW, whole grains ain't really popular in Italy, except for some
health concerned people.

Those must be the ones that believe everything that comes on US TV and sound
bites.



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

Do they affect him in some way?

No. He just likes banana nut bread.

He doesn't eat as much carb as most people, because I do most of the
cooking and can't eat it myself. But... I accomodate him. Heck, I
even bake bread from scratch (*really* from scratch, where step one is
hand-grinding the wheat berries).

A few days back, I made myself a big pot of soup, made with italian
sausage, which he doesn't care for. So... I made him a batch of
scalloped potatoes with ham.

But mostly, we eat the same emals... and since I restrict carbs, he
doesn't eat much carb either. For instance, he has discovered that
rice doesn't add anything to stirfry, just dilutes the flavors, so I
quit bothering to make some on the side for him..

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?

It seems to me that in comparison to the time that I ate grain
regularly, I eat a *lot* more veggies now. Course, that is how *I*
low-carb. You can low-carb in an unhealthy manner too.

For instance, my daughter was vegetarian for several years for ethical
reasons... and primarily ate starch. She just doesn't care for
vegetables much, which is an obvious disadvantage for a vegetarian.

You can do *any* diet in a healthy way or an unhealthy way.


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...

Because I have to limit grains, I find foods with them included taste
"diluted" to me now.

As noted, even my husband, whom had no problems with grains, is sorta
finding the same with a lot of dishes. Noodles don't actually add
anything to soup.

I had a bite of his scalloped potatoes, checking to see if they were
cooked through. Really... boring. I'd rather have had the same ham
cooked up with a mess of kale.


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".

I have not argued that, myself. I think grains are bad for a lot of
people, likely more folks than even know they have issues with grain,
but not *everybody.*

There are certainly individual differences in what is the best diet for
each individual, based on individual biochemistry.


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.

The protein tends to be the problem for a lot of folks. Grain proteins
are what cause allergic reactions in those prone to them.


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

They can raise serotonin levels in normal folks.

However, for those with problems metabolizing sugar, such as myself,
mood swings from unstable blood sugar are much more severe than a
potential lowering of serotonin.

So again, it depends on the individual.

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

Here, I would disagree, primarily based on personal experience.

I assume you are not diabetic, and therefore have never experienced
ravenous, uncontrollable hunger, within an hour of eating a full meal.


Grains, and other carb-heavy foods, do that to me. I'm almost
immediatly starving as soon as I eat them. Unstable bg is experienced
as severe hunger. There's lots of fuel in your blood, but it doesn't
get into your cells... so you are literally starving at a cellular
level.

A lot of folks whom are not yet frankly diabetic are eating themselves
towards the full-blown disease because of that specific reaction to
carbs. Some folks have likened it to an addiction, because it does
feel that uncontrollable.

The bulk of my diet by mass or volume is vegetables, but because
vegetables are very low calorie, most of my kilocalories are from fat.
I average around 1400-1600 kilocalories per day. That is *without*
limiting myself in any way, it's just what I eat if there are few carbs
in my diet.

But with carbs in my diet... I can go through that many kilocalories in
a few hours.


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?

Well, I find them "bad" the same way I find cat food "bad." It's
perfectly good food for others, but it's not food for *me*.

To me, grains are not edible. To me, grains equal high bg, mood
swings, lethargy and depression. Continuing on grains would lead to
blindness, amputation, organ failure and premature death. So, to me,
grain is poison.

Note... I am not saying grains are poison. I feed them to my husband
and I'm actually pretty fond of the guy.

But... they are poison to *me* same as peanuts are poison to those with
a severe allergy to peanuts.

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

Do they affect him in some way?

No. He just likes banana nut bread.

He doesn't eat as much carb as most people, because I do most of the
cooking and can't eat it myself. But... I accomodate him. Heck, I
even bake bread from scratch (*really* from scratch, where step one is
hand-grinding the wheat berries).

A few days back, I made myself a big pot of soup, made with italian
sausage, which he doesn't care for. So... I made him a batch of
scalloped potatoes with ham.

But mostly, we eat the same emals... and since I restrict carbs, he
doesn't eat much carb either. For instance, he has discovered that
rice doesn't add anything to stirfry, just dilutes the flavors, so I
quit bothering to make some on the side for him..

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?

It seems to me that in comparison to the time that I ate grain
regularly, I eat a *lot* more veggies now. Course, that is how *I*
low-carb. You can low-carb in an unhealthy manner too.

For instance, my daughter was vegetarian for several years for ethical
reasons... and primarily ate starch. She just doesn't care for
vegetables much, which is an obvious disadvantage for a vegetarian.

You can do *any* diet in a healthy way or an unhealthy way.


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...

Because I have to limit grains, I find foods with them included taste
"diluted" to me now.

As noted, even my husband, whom had no problems with grains, is sorta
finding the same with a lot of dishes. Noodles don't actually add
anything to soup.

I had a bite of his scalloped potatoes, checking to see if they were
cooked through. Really... boring. I'd rather have had the same ham
cooked up with a mess of kale.


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".

I have not argued that, myself. I think grains are bad for a lot of
people, likely more folks than even know they have issues with grain,
but not *everybody.*

There are certainly individual differences in what is the best diet for
each individual, based on individual biochemistry.


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.

The protein tends to be the problem for a lot of folks. Grain proteins
are what cause allergic reactions in those prone to them.


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

They can raise serotonin levels in normal folks.

However, for those with problems metabolizing sugar, such as myself,
mood swings from unstable blood sugar are much more severe than a
potential lowering of serotonin.

So again, it depends on the individual.

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

Here, I would disagree, primarily based on personal experience.

I assume you are not diabetic, and therefore have never experienced
ravenous, uncontrollable hunger, within an hour of eating a full meal.


Grains, and other carb-heavy foods, do that to me. I'm almost
immediatly starving as soon as I eat them. Unstable bg is experienced
as severe hunger. There's lots of fuel in your blood, but it doesn't
get into your cells... so you are literally starving at a cellular
level.

A lot of folks whom are not yet frankly diabetic are eating themselves
towards the full-blown disease because of that specific reaction to
carbs. Some folks have likened it to an addiction, because it does
feel that uncontrollable.

The bulk of my diet by mass or volume is vegetables, but because
vegetables are very low calorie, most of my kilocalories are from fat.
I average around 1400-1600 kilocalories per day. That is *without*
limiting myself in any way, it's just what I eat if there are few carbs
in my diet.

But with carbs in my diet... I can go through that many kilocalories in
a few hours.

Believe it or not lady, we got your "poor me" the diabetic speech the
first time. There is no need to repeat your story of woe 50 million
times.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
wrote:
Enrico C wrote:
On the other hand, my husband is not diabetic, and can and does eat
whole grains,

Do they affect him in some way?

No. He just likes banana nut bread.

He doesn't eat as much carb as most people, because I do most of the
cooking and can't eat it myself. But... I accomodate him. Heck, I
even bake bread from scratch (*really* from scratch, where step one is
hand-grinding the wheat berries).

A few days back, I made myself a big pot of soup, made with italian
sausage, which he doesn't care for. So... I made him a batch of
scalloped potatoes with ham.

But mostly, we eat the same emals... and since I restrict carbs, he
doesn't eat much carb either. For instance, he has discovered that
rice doesn't add anything to stirfry, just dilutes the flavors, so I
quit bothering to make some on the side for him..

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?

It seems to me that in comparison to the time that I ate grain
regularly, I eat a *lot* more veggies now. Course, that is how *I*
low-carb. You can low-carb in an unhealthy manner too.

For instance, my daughter was vegetarian for several years for ethical
reasons... and primarily ate starch. She just doesn't care for
vegetables much, which is an obvious disadvantage for a vegetarian.

You can do *any* diet in a healthy way or an unhealthy way.


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...

Because I have to limit grains, I find foods with them included taste
"diluted" to me now.

As noted, even my husband, whom had no problems with grains, is sorta
finding the same with a lot of dishes. Noodles don't actually add
anything to soup.

I had a bite of his scalloped potatoes, checking to see if they were
cooked through. Really... boring. I'd rather have had the same ham
cooked up with a mess of kale.


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".

I have not argued that, myself. I think grains are bad for a lot of
people, likely more folks than even know they have issues with grain,
but not *everybody.*

There are certainly individual differences in what is the best diet for
each individual, based on individual biochemistry.


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.

The protein tends to be the problem for a lot of folks. Grain proteins
are what cause allergic reactions in those prone to them.


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

They can raise serotonin levels in normal folks.

However, for those with problems metabolizing sugar, such as myself,
mood swings from unstable blood sugar are much more severe than a
potential lowering of serotonin.

So again, it depends on the individual.

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

Here, I would disagree, primarily based on personal experience.

I assume you are not diabetic, and therefore have never experienced
ravenous, uncontrollable hunger, within an hour of eating a full meal.


Grains, and other carb-heavy foods, do that to me. I'm almost
immediatly starving as soon as I eat them. Unstable bg is experienced
as severe hunger. There's lots of fuel in your blood, but it doesn't
get into your cells... so you are literally starving at a cellular
level.

A lot of folks whom are not yet frankly diabetic are eating themselves
towards the full-blown disease because of that specific reaction to
carbs. Some folks have likened it to an addiction, because it does
feel that uncontrollable.

The bulk of my diet by mass or volume is vegetables, but because
vegetables are very low calorie, most of my kilocalories are from fat.
I average around 1400-1600 kilocalories per day. That is *without*
limiting myself in any way, it's just what I eat if there are few carbs
in my diet.

But with carbs in my diet... I can go through that many kilocalories in
a few hours.

Believe it or not lady, we got your "poor me" the diabetic speech the
first time. There is no need to repeat your story of woe 50 million
times.

Just thought that you might want to know.

What are you talking about? The lady's post was appropriate, on
topic, and not a "poor me.... speech" in any way, shape, or form.

In contrast, you continue to out yourself as a rude little **** with
nothing to offer this group but abuse and scientific illiteracy.
Really, you should FOAD and do the world a favor, much less this group.