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

On 20 Feb 2006 13:27:36 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
oups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

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.

Why choose when you can have both?



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.

Again, an "either/or" logic.

What makes you think that grain eaters don't eat 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.

Good to know

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.

What is a "healthy food", scientifically?


Why?

Because comparing a yes-grain and another yes-grain experimental
group is a scientifically dishonest justification for calling grains
healthy.

Call them "healthier"

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.

"Worse"? Do you mean refined grains are bad?
There are many different "refined grains": al dente pasta is not the
same as white flour bread or as sugar-coated cereals.

Just a relative comparison.

True, yet an interesting one, as grains are a staple for mankind.

No way of telling
if either of the two are beneficial when compared to an alternative.

Neither of telling they are bad for you.


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.

I guess it depends on: 1. who you are (overweight?) 2. what you
replace grain with.


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.

I'd say they are just two different questions.
1. Whole grains vs. refined grains
2. Grains vs. a no-grain diet.

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

On 21 Feb 2006 12:56:05 -0800, Doug Freyburger wrote in
roups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

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?

Compared to what? For whom? How much grains?


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?

If you are fine, fine with that.



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

My best reason is my own example.

That applies for you.

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.

Agreed. Listen to your body. Try different diets if you want. Then
decide what is good for you.

[...]

So it isn't that grains are certainly bad,

Ok

it's that there's an
assumption that grains must automatically be good,

Ok

and
it's a demonstrably false assumption that few folks ever test.

Maybe they are fine already.

Folks simply assume that since grains are good, they can't
possibly have a problem with grains. It's a baseless
assertion.

The same can be said with other foods. We are not all made equal!

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

Life expectancy is mostly genetic and not based on your
diet.

What? You've got to be kidding, right? There are hundreds of
references showing that the food you eat can dramatically increase your
life expectancy. Weston Price studied several people who had left
their native groups for modern areas with refined foods. He
consistantly found that those people had more degenerative diseases and
shorter lives than the families they left behind.

Yes, genetics has SOME bearing on age, but it's certainly not the only
thing. Your comment doesn't even make sense. Do you think you can
live to your fullest eating only Twinkies? The food you eat has
everything to do with how long you live.

Max.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:57:31 +0100, Alf Christophersen wrote in
on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

Most important (applies to all whole grains) is that whole grains
release carbohydrates far more slowly than finely ground flour.

That can be said for pasta too, even "white" pasta.

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

On 22 Feb 2006 19:31:49 -0800, wrote in
roups.com on
alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition :

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,

Quantity is key...

I believe most people should eat more veggies than they do.


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).

Lucky man


[...megacut...]


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

I understand your point of view.

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

Read your imaginary statistics closer 85% of life expectancy is based
on genetics.

Ask your life insurance policy provider and stop making ridiculous
ignorant claims not related to any semblance of logic.

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Life expectancy is mostly genetic and not based on your
diet.

What? You've got to be kidding, right? There are hundreds of
references showing that the food you eat can dramatically increase
your
life expectancy. Weston Price studied several people who had left
their native groups for modern areas with refined foods. He
consistantly found that those people had more degenerative diseases
and
shorter lives than the families they left behind.

Yes, genetics has SOME bearing on age, but it's certainly not the
only
thing. Your comment doesn't even make sense. Do you think you can
live to your fullest eating only Twinkies? The food you eat has
everything to do with how long you live.

Max.



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

Read your imaginary statistics closer 85% of life expectancy is based
on genetics.

First, you didn't answer my question. Do you or do you not think you
could live just as long on Twinkies as on a diet of whole foods?

Second, you never seem too keen on supporting your statements with
data. Where did you get the 85% number? One would assume you read
that somewhere and that it is based on supported evidence.

It seems to me you're just Mr. Natural whatever with a differnet nick.
If not, the two of you should hook up.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine Northland boy.

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Read your imaginary statistics closer 85% of life expectancy is
based
on genetics.

First, you didn't answer my question. Do you or do you not think
you
could live just as long on Twinkies as on a diet of whole foods?

Second, you never seem too keen on supporting your statements with
data. Where did you get the 85% number? One would assume you read
that somewhere and that it is based on supported evidence.

It seems to me you're just Mr. Natural whatever with a differnet
nick.
If not, the two of you should hook up.



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

You show me yours and I'll show you mine Northland boy.

Exactly what, of mine, would you like to see? I don't recall making
any outlandish statements that I couldn't support. You, on the other
hand, seem to have pulled a number about genetics out of your butt for
all of usenet to see. If you didn't make up the 85% number, prove it.
If you're really so educated, it should be easy to back up your
statements. One link. That's all it takes to be taken even remotely
seriously. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a science group. If
you can't support your position with any data at all, you really don't
belong here.

The same goes for you as Natural boy. Insults from you make me laugh.
It means you have nothing left. You've been out debated and so the
only thing you have left is insults. Of course all it would take to
prove me wrong is some data... but I don't think you have any.

I'll let the others decide who "won" this round.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:48:31 +0100, Enrico C
wrote:

Most important (applies to all whole grains) is that whole grains
release carbohydrates far more slowly than finely ground flour.

That can be said for pasta too, even "white" pasta.

Not my experience :-( Spaghetti, even boild for 5 minutes is really
heavy on spiking my blood sugar and also keeping high for many hours,
even with 36 IE Insulatard :-( About same amount of rough rye bread
lasts even longer, but much less blood sugar.