|
[ Diets other than Robert's Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I posted this once before. I believe it was archived so no need to do it again. This is just for the people that have not read it yet. Remember, this is only FYI. If you don't like the information, don't read it. I don't post this type of information every day or even that often. Only when I think it bears reminding. So far, I have not seen many references in support of a high-grain diet. I am already aware of most of the studies done. These studies base their "success" on the fact that cholesterol was lowered or LDL was decreased which the researchers feel "lower one's risk of heart attack or stroke". The main problem here, is that these factors have never been proven to be a causative factor in disease to begin with. Therefore, any study using this model as a basis for their research will come up with a conclusion based soley on an unproven theory. That is not evidence, it is speculation and it is rampent in the high-carb/high-grain circles. At this link, every link listed can be clicked on and read. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posting a follow-up message condemning this post UNLESS you have read the references and have intelligent comments refuting the claims WITH supporting references. If so, I welcome your comments as always. This is not about being right. It's about discovering the truth, whatever that is. Thanks.
http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/4/no-grain_diet.htm
In Reply to: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Helping You on May 28, 2003 at 00:37:12:
Thanks for the references HY :-)
I tried typing high grain diet into the search engine at google.com and all I found was a high grain diet in cattle causes disease. I couldnt find any information on a high-grain diet in people. I just thought that was interesting. Thanks again.
Allison
P.S I'm the one that you helped get rid of the candida, klebsiella and staph a few months back. Thanks for all your help. i couldnt have done it without you ;-)
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Allison on May 28, 2003 at 00:47:15:
Hi Allison,
Looks like you're a night owl like me lol. Yes I remember you! It's great to see that you are still doing well. I know it was tough to get through but it was well worth the effort.
The reason you keep finding info on cattle and high-grain diets is because that is the only current application for them. Even cattle don't do well on high grain diets and they have multiple stomachs to digest grains. You would think that they could handle it. Well, as you read, they can't. This is more evidence that the human body is not meant to handle grains in high amounts. Cattle have enzymes to digest cellulose. Humans do not. Cattle have multiple stomachs. Humans do not. Even though we RESEMBLE herbivores, and are capable of digesting some plant matter, we are still more like carnivores. We process animal products VERY efficently and plant matter only somewhat. I have posted enough references to support this. We will see how many people jump on me for this before even reading the references. I have already received 2 negative posts by persons that did not read the references. But, I have to expect this. I am going against the mainstream. And for this, I have actually been called "conventional" by another person on this board. Go figure lol. Anyway, thanks for the comments. I am off to bed now! :-)
-HY
In Reply to: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Helping You on May 28, 2003 at 00:37:12:
Well you already know that I disagree with Mercola's theory on grains--I've posted about it earlier.
The following comments are JMHO, take it or leave it:
Science is merely one approach in the study of life and the world, but not the only one. So it's important for us to use scientific information AND more importantly to see beyond science, with a larger vision. I think Walt has been doing this and that's why I find his ideas/attitudes very often enlightening--in every sense of the word.
Your approach, however, seems limited by science, and therefore quite limiting. You are closing doors instead of opening them. You rely too much on tests and experiments which may be funded/surported by interest groups for their hidden (or not so hidden) agendas. Even when they were done objectively, they merely show a very small part of the picture, and their reaults are open to different interpretations. They (and you) see only trees but not the whole forest.
I wish someday you'll see beyond the scope of the scientific approach and discover a much wider world.
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by bing on May 28, 2003 at 07:53:06:
Show us this "wider world" and how it relates to optimal nutrition. What do we have other than science to show us what is best to eat? Show me a more valid study of life and the world than science. You talk that science can be confusing and open to different interpretations (which it can) but, you won't even explain what your "wider world" is or is about. Talk about confusing.
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by bing on May 28, 2003 at 07:53:06:
Bing, Bing, Bing, the references are NOT Mercola's "theories". They are references SUPPORTING his theories. Thes studies were conducted by OTHER DOCTORS. How do you always seem to miss the obvious?
There is nothing wrong with "ideas" and I never, in a single post I have submitted, say that I am against them. That is insane thinking. Ideas open the door for fiction to become fact. Science, when it is sophisticated enough, is always able to show what is behind the "mystisicsm" that you seem to crave. Also, you assume that by "science", I am talking conventional tests, experiments, and interest groups. It is OBVIOUS and frustrating that you do not really read a SINGLE post that I submit. Either that or you don't pay attention to what you are reading. Spotting the "interest groups" and "hidden agendas" is one of the things I do best. Why do you think that I do not support the "cholesterol and heart disease connection"? I have spotted the MANY hidden agendas. It is YOU that has not, at least in this case. Your aruments are weak, and all you can do is type that same old remarks in which you have never made a case for. I don't know why you continue to repond. You have never made a single case for what you have said.
-HY
In Reply to: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Helping You on May 28, 2003 at 00:37:12:
I don't believe much of what Dr. Mercola has to say but at least the references cited are recent and of good quality. I must disagree with the conclusions about a grain-free diet, however, I believe the data points to the importance of the glycemic index of grains/carbohydrates in the diet. Glycemic index is dependent not only on the choice of grain products but also their preparation - for example cooking pasta al dente results in a lower glycemic index than cooked soft. I once again agree with Dr. Weil's conclusion that grains and carbohydrates are a healthy part of the proper diet as long as these attributes are accounted for.
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Jon on May 28, 2003 at 10:03:00:
Jon,
"Wider world" #1: The 5000 plus years of the Asian cultures have tons of recorded material showing how nourishing and healing the grains are--info that science hasn't even bothered to touch yet; as far as I know, no one in this country even dreamed of how to use these healing grains while my people have been benefiting from them for milleniums;
"Wider world" #2: The Tao;
"Wider world" #3: Human health is closely connected with what we do to the earth and how much we love and care for our planet. What HY suggests is NOT sustainable living for all people on earth: try imagine 6 billion people eating a diet based on grass-fed beef and supplements and try to imagine what kind of burden that would be for the whole planet: the feed, the water used to process the beef, the forests that need to be cleared for ranches... I personally believe this wider view of the connection between our health and the planet's health decides the future of our earth, and us.
There is more but I think the above is enough to illustrate my point.
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by bing on May 28, 2003 at 20:55:10:
You forgot to mention "Wider world" #4: whether you eat according to your Social Security Number (if you live in the USA) affects your health.
What HY suggests is NOT sustainable living for all people on earth: try imagine 6 billion people eating a diet based on grass-fed beef and supplements...
Lame argument, bing. HY was talking about an optimum diet from the point of view of physiology of humans, not economy or available resources. If you imagine 50 trillion (that's a word for a large number, bing) people living on the planet, you will probably change your recommendations too because there will be no land to grow your grains, and your argument will be turned against you. To put it in other terms, just because not everybody can afford a Lexus SUV (or use your own example), doesn't mean that it's not better than average car.
Had there been more SARS-like epidemics, there would have been more land to allow people to afford the diet HY thinks is optimal.
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by bing on May 28, 2003 at 20:55:10:
I love how you take something general that I say, and take it to an ultimate extreme. Did you ever see me say that the whole world should eat grass-fed beef and take supplements? No, you did not because I didn't say it. Thanks for the implication though. Believe me, the world would STARVE if they ate your way, and we would run out of resources. Most of the land available for farming is not suitable for growing grain but IS suitable for raising animals. Your arguments are weaks as always. All you know about is the Chinese. You know nothing else about a single culture on the planet. Therefore, your views are also very limited in their value for anybody but yourself.
And by the way, supplements ARE necessary to a degree. Vitamin K is a nutrient that is very difficult to absorb from food. It would take pounds of collard greens to get the amount needed to prevent osteoporosis and heart disease. Folic acid is PROVEN to be absorbed better from supplement than from food. There are still many things about nutrition that you do not understand.
-HY
In Reply to: Nothing to condemn here posted by Eliza on May 28, 2003 at 20:50:43:
Not every reference is about glycemic index. Furthermore, carbohydrates are NOT essential to life but proteins and fats are. The body can use proteins and fats as energy but carbohydrates cannot replace protein and fat. Also, a certain amount of protein and fat are converted to glycogen (sugar). Therefore, you will still be receiving sugar from the protein and fat. Every single carbohydrate you eat is turned into sugar regardless of the glycemic index. Even though a lower glycemic food turns into sugar slower, it still turns into sugar. Now, are you going to tell a diabetic in good conscience that it's ok to eat large amounts of grains and other carbs that are guaranteed to turn into sugar in the body and further drive up the persons blood sugar? It is proven that the body can run and protein and fat alone. However, the body cannot run and carbohydrates alone. Doesn't that tell you something about carbs? If not, you are in a bit of denial. Carbs are not essential to life. There is nothing benefical in pasta. It is pure sugar.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 00:25:22:
Thanks, HY.
Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree again.
I think you are getting close to the edge of "one diet fits all".
There is ample evidence that humans evolved to be omnivores. That means we ate everything. The length of our intestinal tract says that we are STILL omnivores. That means eating a combination of fat protein and carbohydrates. Now, whether we should get any of that from grain is a valid question still to be decided. My guess is that grain IS a valid inclusion but perhaps not nearly at the level our manufactured life style has dictated.
First of all only refined pasta is "pure sugar". Whole grain pasta is not.
Second, without carbohydrate to use the oxygen the individual would die in about 4 minutes. Without converting protein or fat TO carbhydrate (glucose to be exact) the body will die as soon as the stored form of glucose, glycogen (2 glucose molecules hooked together), is exhausted.
The hallmark here is BALANCE.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 00:25:22:
He is right on the money, balance is the key. Glucose (sugar) is essential to life, all life in fact on the planet. And we are not talking about diabetics here.
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Walt Stoll on May 29, 2003 at 06:33:29:
Well, board peace is as hard to get as world peace--until the Patriarch speakth, that is.
So watch out, HY, to not fall off the cliff...heh heh
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by R. on May 28, 2003 at 23:55:29:
That is a scary thought, R. I hope you are not serious. Rather than wish a plague on humanity (in some other part of the world than that in which you live, no doubt), why not opt for technology and scientific progress, which has always kept us ahead of the curve. Even bing's grain records and ancient healing arts are science.
The flaw in the thinking of most people, is that they view the future as: populations rising, resources falling, and man grasping and snarling for the scraps like a beast. If all these people's minds were well-educated, and their governments reflected the intellect of those people, we would not be in such a state. Groups, countries and financial oligarchs have blocked efficient progress at every point, profligately wasting both human, and other, resources for their own greedy gain, because they believe that their gain must come at another's loss. In our own country, we have been stupified into becoming mindless consumers wishing ill on the developing world (unless they are making the things we need for a pittance) so we can hoard their resources for our own vapid uses.
We are sculpting our own dark age and eventual demise, as a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I wonder what we could come up with if the remaining intellectual capacities of a billion television-gazing zombies were wrenched from their stupors and harnessed to a grand project? Green the desert, transfer water, transportation, better energy sources, space exploration, mars colonization...?
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Walt Stoll on May 29, 2003 at 06:33:29:
Thanks Walt,
I agree with much of what you said here except two issues.
"Without carbohydrate to use oxygen, the individual would die due to a lack of oxygen. That's not exactly correct. The correct phrase reads "without SUGAR to use oxygen, the indidual would die due to a lack of oxygen". Protein and Fat can supply plenty of sugar to the body. This has been proven in "the all meat diet" that lasted for 2 years. The 2 subjects were doctors. They not only survived the diet but thrived. I can't remember the doctor's name but I will look it up and post it.
The other issue regards whole grain pasta. I am curious, besides concentrated energy, what nutrients are contained in whole grain pasta that can't be obtained without all that sugar?
I missed something in your post. I would like to touch upon it. I don't feel I am on the verge of recommending a "one diet fits all" system. The key to individualizing the diet lies partly in which foods to choose, but mostly in which BALANCE to include them in. I believe it's a no-brainer that we should not be eating too many "new foods" which is why I recommend a palelolithic-type diet. However, the BALANCE of which foods to take in is the main factor that individualizes the diet. So, one person may be eating a lot more protein and fat than the next person but the SOURCES would still be very similar. Refined foods, grains, nuts, legumes, and starchy vegetables are NOT the top foods to eat for MOST people. I would be very interested to see what happens if we all started eating this way. Candida infections, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and cancer would run rampent. Wait a minute, that's exactly what is happening to us and for the most part, the foods I listed are being touted as the healthiest (except the refined)
Thanks for your view. I always appreciate it. I think we do think on a similar path but I think I have a different idea of what "balance" actually means. I think that you feel balance is "all food in moderation (minus the junk)" whereas I feel balance is OPTIMAL food for the human species in different concentrations for each individual. I believe that balance can be achieved using Metabolic Typing. Until DNA testing is available, I believe this is the best approach. It also seems to dictate which people should be eating the most grains. However, even in those cases, grain consumption is still best kept low. Thanks
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by bing on May 29, 2003 at 07:35:35:
Bing, I bet you feel you are right on the money now since Walt stepped in with his comments. Read his comments very carefully in regards to grains. He has doubts himself. He might be more open minded than I am in those regards, but I feel the answer is a no-grainer, I mean no-brainer :-)
-HY
In Reply to: Please listen to Dr. Stoll posted by Eliza on May 29, 2003 at 07:32:30:
Elisa, you just don't get it!!! Proteins and fats CAN BE CONVERTED TO SUGAR!!!! We don't need carbohydrates to do this. I am not saying that we shouldn't eat ANY carbohydrates but I AM saying that we don't have to get most of our calories from them. And the type of carbohydrates we choose is what is responsible for the epidemic we are seeing in sickness today. This is the simple fact weather you like it or not. I didn't make it this way. It simply is what it is. I am not speaking in opinions. I am speaking in facts. Show me one shred of evidence that we NEED carbohydrates to survive? It's a losing battle because the evidence does not exist.
Walt and I differ on our definition of balance. Read my follow-up to Walt on this.
-HY
In Reply to: Elisa posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 12:25:52:
But more incorrect information. I do get it, in fact I'm a biochemist so I have to tell you that fat cannot be converted to glucose for energy, this is a biochemical fact of life. Fats can be converted into acetate fragments that some of the body can utilize as fuel (but not the brain). Proteins can but it is an inefficient process that results in by-products like ammonia that the body must then excrete. Carbohydrates are simply the most efficient and cleanest way for our bodies to get the glucose it needs. The fact that we can survive without them is a defense mechanism built into us in the event of poor food supply (i.e. starvation). How do you explain that our bodies have the enzymes and capability to digest and metabolize carbohydrates if we weren't intended to eat them?
I agree that the type of carbohydrate is important, which is why I keep harping on glycemic index which you don't seem to be grasping. And balance is important, which I believe is what both Dr. Stoll and I are saying. A balance of the correct carbohydrates, proteins and fats.
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 00:19:38:
True, and likewise, there are also many things about nutrition and diet that YOU don't understand, that science doesn't understand.
Obviously neither of us is going to convince the other, so may I suggest, once again, we agree to disagree and leave it at that. And no sweat :)
In Reply to: I hate to point this out posted by Eliza on May 29, 2003 at 22:17:46:
If you really were a biochemist, you wouldn't have typed what you just did.
Fat can't be converted to glucose for energy? What planet are YOU living on? Try telling that to Dr. Atkins that has tens of thousands of people on that type of diet with great results.
How do I explain that our bodies have the enzyme systems and capability to digest and metabolize carbohydrates? LOL, we don't! Our bodies make amylase which is used to digest carbohydrates but we lack the ability to digest cellulose, phytates and other enzyme inhibitors in carbohydrates which makes them less than optimal to eat. Also, our bodies are not meant to handle the large amounts of sugar that results from eating carbs.........I am quite familiar with the glycemic index. This measures how quickly carbohydrates get burned in the body. What you miss, is that ALL carbohydrates are eventually converted to sugar in the body, regardless of the glycemic index. A low glycemic food may burn slower, but it is eventually converted to the same amount of sugar in the body. A high-sugar diet is not healthy. Therefore, carbohydrates have a place in the diet, but a rather limited place. If one had to choose between getting most of their calories from animal foods or plant foods, animal foods would be the wisest choice. For more references on this thought, go towards the top of the board. I posted another list of references. The title is in all CAPS. Read the first reference on the list. I know you THINK you know the truth but you have been misguided. DNA testing will prove this. I patiently await the day
Also, you keep harping on balance? What exactly does "balance" mean to you? To me, balance does not mean consuming all foods in moderation. To me, balance means taking the foods that are optimal for the human body, and eating them in amounts that suit the individual. This is the next step in the optimization of human health.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet--to HY posted by bing on May 29, 2003 at 22:23:59:
Whatever :-)
-HY
In Reply to: I hate to point this out posted by Eliza on May 29, 2003 at 22:17:46:
Lipids can be broken down into glycerol, which can be fed into glycolysis, and free fatty acids, which can be beta-oxidized into acetyl CoA and utilized efficiently for energy via the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylization. Ketone bodies produced during the oxidation of lipids can be used by most tissues, including the brain, for energy, by break down back into acetyl CoA. The glycerol produced can be shunted back to glucose in the liver and some other tissues by gluconeogenesis, if necessary.
The body has the situation covered.
In Reply to: Re: I hate to point this out posted by cris on May 30, 2003 at 00:11:15:
Wow you ARE good! Thanks for explaining this in proper terms as my layman's terms wasn't getting through.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 12:17:56:
Thanks, HY.
Unless physiology has changed, OR something new has been learned about the brain, the ONLY way the brain can get energy is by oxygen combining with glucose. The oxygen does absolutely no good without the glucose and vice versa. If you have research showing a revolutionary new discovery that says otherwise I would be interested in seeing it.
The brain is the only tissue in the bodymind that is that way. Since the bodymind cannot survive the death of the brain........
Ready to be enlightened.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Walt Stoll on May 30, 2003 at 09:07:48:
I'm not HY, but the biochemistry physiology I learned indicated that the brain was able to use products from the oxidation of fatty acids. Ketone bodies can be taken up by the brain and transformed back into acetyl Co A, after which they are run through the citric acid cycle and used for energy.
This is very useful as a protein sparing mechanism--if the fasting body has fat stores or fat sources of food. Perhaps I am wrong--wouldn't be the first time. Waiting to be enlightened.
-cris
In Reply to: Re: I hate to point this out posted by cris on May 30, 2003 at 00:11:15:
You went into more detail, and I referred to fatty acid metabolism as glycerol is only a minor component of dietary lipids. The fact remains that fatty acids cannot be converted into glucose, but they can be metabolized for energy, but not as easily nor efficiently as carbohydrates.
In Reply to: Re: I hate to point this out posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 23:26:46:
Yes I am a biochemist and no fatty acids cannot be converted into glucose. As I posted but you didn't seem to pick up on, I agreed that lipids and proteins can be metabolized by the body for energy, simply that it is not as efficient as with carbohydrates.
Your second paragraph is once again not true. Our bodies do have a variety of enzymes specifically for the purpose of digesting and metabolizing carbohydrates, including starches from grains. Further, you are not grasping the rationale behind the glycemic index. The problem with refined carbohydrates with high glycemic index is that they get converted to glucose too quickly which can overwhelm the body's ability to use it. This does not happen with low glycemic index foods.
In Reply to: Yes exactly right posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 13:10:45:
Do you agree, then, that brain cells can utilize ketone bodies for energy through the citric acid cycle when glucose is not available?
In Reply to: Re: Yes exactly right posted by cris on May 30, 2003 at 14:26:20:
Less efficiently than utilizing glucose from carbohydrates, but again, it is our self-defense mechanism against starvation. Which is one reason I don't see the logic in trying to call a diet that forces the body into self-defense mechanisms "optimal".
In Reply to: See above to cris posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 13:15:51:
I am not sure that efficiency of metabolizing of a food into energy determines how good it is for us. Refined sugar (or even better -- glucose) is metabolized very efficiently into energy, but something more complex, perhaps, with fiber, is more difficult to metabolize, and leaves things that our body has to excrete. According to your argument, eating refined sugar would serve us best, but that would lead you to relatively quick death.
In Reply to: Yes posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 15:02:57:
Calling that mechanism a self-defense mechanism against starvation and attaching a somewhat negative and undesirable connotation to it is a product of your thinking. Since you don't know what Nature had in its plans when it designed us (if we can speak of it as a person), you shouldn't present your idea as a fact.
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Helping You on May 29, 2003 at 12:17:56:
I believe one of the doctors' name was Steffanson (some sources spell it with one 'f').
In Reply to: Re: Yes posted by R. on May 30, 2003 at 16:23:26:
No it is not my thinking alone but the consensus of the biochemical and medical community. Read into it if you want more information.
In Reply to: Re: See above to cris posted by R. on May 30, 2003 at 16:17:34:
My arguement, which you also don't seem to grasp, is that a diet balanced with sufficient carbohydrates of correct glycemic index (unlike pure glucose) in combination with protein and fats will allow the body to preferentially use the glucose from carbohydrate for fuel and utilize the proteins and fats for repairing and building the body.
In Reply to: Correction posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 16:55:24:
I'll say it again. Try telling that to Dr. Atkins and the thousands of people staying healthy on his diet. There's your proof. It works!
-HY
In Reply to: Incorrect assumptions posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 16:58:39:
What you are saying doesn't matter because the body does not require carbohydrates to be healthy to begin with.
-HY
In Reply to: Incorrect assumptions posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 16:58:39:
That happens even when one consumes very little carbohydrates. For instance, Masai of Kenya eat mostly meat, dairy (I believe it's mostly fermented dairy), and blood. To me, that sounds like mostly protein and fat. Yet, they are very well developed physically, strong, and observed to have little degenerative diseases.
Have you done or come across an analysis that compares efficiency of metabolism that includes digestion and elimination of low GI carb rich foods with that of high protein/high fat/low carb foods? Real carb rich foods that you advocate to eat to get the fuel that you prefer involve more that just conversion of complex carbs to glucose. There's a lot of things that are left behind that need to be eliminated. Those same things also feed microorganisms of various kinds. Do you know of an analysis that takes into account all those aspects to determine what foods are optimal for humans?
In Reply to: Correction posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 16:55:24:
There's been time when the consensus of scientific community was that airplanes would not fly because objects that are heavier than air couldn't fly. Do you know who happened to be right?
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Walt Stoll on May 30, 2003 at 09:07:48:
Thanks Walt. No, I do not know more than you do in this area. But perhaps looking over the work of Dr. Atkins would shed some light on this. His diet, which is ultra low in carbs, seems to cause no obvious changes in the way the brain is able to function. In fact, people report that they can think more clearly on the diet. I am not suggesting we all should dump all carbs out of the diet. But I am suggesting that for the most part, we can keep them moderately in the diet, and not as the USDA food pyramid suggests. It seems I am starting a bit of a problem on the board latey. I'm not meaining to. However, I can't sit back and watch high carb and high grain diets get promoted without speaking out. Sorry for the trouble
-HY
In Reply to: Scientific Support for a no-grain diet posted by Helping You on May 28, 2003 at 00:37:12:
Regardless of agendas, the free flow of ideas, information and to research links is wonderful. If we don't all learn something from these threads, it's a crying shame.
Let the games continue!
In Reply to: I love this stuff! posted by cris on May 30, 2003 at 18:29:28:
Some people take it so personally and resort to personal attacks rather than trying to prove their points with facts and valid references. Oh well!
In Reply to: Re: Incorrect assumptions posted by R. on May 30, 2003 at 17:45:58:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The primary components left over from complex carbs are soluble and insoluble fibers, both beneficial in different ways. As you point out, some indigestible components such as oligosaccharides become food for desirable bacteria in the intestine (prebiotics) and produce short-chain fatty acids that have health properties as well. There is considerable research in the literature on all these topics.
In Reply to: True of all foods posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 23:13:49:
Also for undesirable microbes.
I think I explained my point clearly enough. Perhaps, someone else will clarify it for you. I have other things to do.
In Reply to: Re: True of all foods posted by R. on May 30, 2003 at 23:36:46:
Prebiotics selectively nourish beneficial bacteria, not pathogens. Here is one reference but it is from USDA, I'm sure you won't believe it.
http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/menu.htm?newsid=2170
You are right about one thing. Your responses and attitude are tiresome. Enough of these threads, on to other topics.
In Reply to: Not true posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 23:57:27:
So are yours. And why the hell did you post the reference if you were sure I wouldn't believe it?
In Reply to: Re: Not true posted by R. on May 31, 2003 at 00:21:24:
Because others may read it. This is a public board.
In Reply to: Not true posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 23:57:27:
Fructooligosaccharides nourish certain pathogens such as klebsiella, which is why they are limited in certain healing protocols.
I read your reference. Some researchers, such as Elaine Gottschall, are not so sanguine about these new (patented, synthesized) prebiotic products coming out of our agricultural companies, precisely because of their unknown effects.
http://www.scdiet.org/6research/fos.html
Elaine Gottschall has broad practical experience in healing difficult gut disorders such as UC and Crohn's, by careful control of the gut ecology and certain types of carbohydrate content of the diet.
"The proponents of these seem to want more and more bacteria and microorganisms to grow in the gut. They seem NOT TO CARE if they are pathological or healthy. I do not think they understand our perspective. .... I still think this probiotic thing is being turned into big business and since I DO NOT KNOW what different strains other than Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus do, I am reluctant to support this big hype"
In Reply to: Re: Not true posted by Jan S. on May 31, 2003 at 01:47:09:
Additionally, carbs feed other undesirable microbes, e.g. candida albicans.
In Reply to: Re: Not true posted by R. on May 31, 2003 at 01:55:56:
Yes, that one is a biggie.
In Reply to: Re: Not true posted by Jan S. on May 31, 2003 at 02:15:46:
And a saddie! I miss my carbs.
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by cris on May 30, 2003 at 11:59:11:
Thanks, Cris.
The professor made a big point about this in medical school 45 years ago and I have not seen anything different since.
It would have been a big deal in the research publications because it would be a revolutionary change in our thinking.
Can you find the reference that says different?
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Helping You on May 30, 2003 at 17:49:58:
NO trouble, HY.
I appreciate everything you say on the BB!
I am still learning, though (not dead yet), and have to hear when the info stream has passed me by.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Yes it is a pity though posted by Eliza on May 30, 2003 at 23:02:10:
isn't that the kettle calling the tea pot black.
In Reply to: Re: Nothing to condemn here (Archive in diet.) posted by Walt Stoll on May 31, 2003 at 08:42:17:
I just looked it up in the nearest handy place, rather an old textbook (many don't love old sources)titled "Intermediary Metabolism and its Regulation", by Joseph Larner, 1971. See page 214 to 218 for a discussion on starvation responses.
It was new information then, and is old hat now. I will look for the most modern paradigm about it and let you know.
In Reply to: Re: Yes it is a pity though posted by mary on May 31, 2003 at 10:49:27:
But mary, Eliza hasn't made any personal attacks.
In Reply to: Re: Yes it is a pity though posted by To mary on May 31, 2003 at 12:29:13:
You should pay more attention when reading.
In Reply to: Well... posted by cris on May 31, 2003 at 10:49:52:
When you find it, please post it in a new thread.
In Reply to: Well... posted by cris on May 31, 2003 at 10:49:52:
Thanks, Cris.
I will ask my library to order it from interlibrary loan. I hope it is still available.
Walt
|
[ Diets other than Robert's Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |