Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 134

Thread: Wheat page 5

  1. #41
    jojohaligo's Avatar
    jojohaligo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Wet Coast of Canada
    Posts
    758
    Quote Originally Posted by Darz View Post
    but if there isn't a problem in the first place why shun it?
    sounds like you know what to do, so have at it, eat away, I don't mind at all
    Female, age 51, 5' 9"
    SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

    Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
    2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

  2. #42
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilleh View Post
    Don't listen to people's experience also, toss all the success stories out of the window and absolutely ignore every opinion that doesn't settle with yours.

    People lie when they say they ditched grains and their health got better
    It's all part of a big, big conspiracy.
    By the way, if you ditch grains for 30 days, your body will turn itself off and you'll be in a coma.
    Because the rational thing to do is NEVER experience ANYTHING.

    Hey Jim what about that help you were going to get?
    Could we get a picture of you and some blood test result?
    Just wondering.
    I just got my blood work done. I was eating about the worst possible diet. It was pretty much exclusively super high calorie food and FAR too much of it. LDL was 77, HDL was 29 (way too low), and trigs were 108. VLDL was 22 apparently (I don't know how that was calculated though). Mind you this was me eating just about the worst possible diet (these results were taken about 10 days after I started dieting). I am guessing that my age (25) is keeping my numbers from being completely out of whack.

    Anyway, if you want to trust blogs and people's success stories, here you go: Meat is HORRIBLE FOR YOU!!!

    10 Veggie Blogs You’ll Love | Traveling Greener

    I said not to trust blogs because they are great at cherry picking data and having a bias. You can say the same thing for some scientific studies but when pretty much every study agrees that something is true (that grains are protective against heart disease for example), you have to be quite a conspiracy theorist to dismiss them all.

  3. #43
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    Do you know there isn't a problem for you?



    Just listen to Jim, he's the only rational person here by his own reckoning.

    Darz
    Do you know what Gluten is?
    Do you know why grains contain Gluten?
    Have you used the search function on both the forum and MDA to see what was previously written on gluten & wheat?
    How much research and reading have you done yourself on this topic elswhere?
    Did you start this thread so someone could spoon feed you? If so Jims got a big bowl of grain products for you to gorge on.
    Did you know that 29% of normal individuals has Gliadin antibodies present in stool?
    Why do you think 29% of normal individuals would have these antibodies present in their stool?

    Did you know the rate of coeliac disease is increasing at a greater rate than can not be explained by better diagnostics?
    Did you know that a lot of autoimmune disease patients present with gliadin antibodies but are not coeliac technically?
    Search for "Gluten & autoimmune disease" and follow the trails and see what you find.
    Did you look at the GI & GL ratings for processed grain products?
    Do you understand how these affect your body?
    Have you looked at insulin & leptin resistance relationships to high starch and sugar intakes?

    Go answer those questions to your own satisfaction and the other 50 that will come to you while researching then come to your own conclusions on the health benefits of continuing to eat wheat.
    Too bad stool testing isn't an accurate way of determining gluten sensitivity....

    Detection of secretory IgA antibodies against gliadin and human tissue transglutaminase in stool to screen for coeliac disease in children: validation study

  4. #44
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    The studies will show whole grains are better than grains but any thinking person would realize that does not make them good for you.
    If this was true the healthiest people in all of the studies would be the ones that ate the least amount of grains. But the healthiest people in the studies are always the ones that eat the most whole grains.

    Doesn't it make sense that if it was best to eat no grains at all that the people that ate the least amount of them in the studies would be healthiest?

  5. #45
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,545
    Quote Originally Posted by jimhensen View Post
    If this was true the healthiest people in all of the studies would be the ones that ate the least amount of grains. But the healthiest people in the studies are always the ones that eat the most whole grains.

    Doesn't it make sense that if it was best to eat no grains at all that the people that ate the least amount of them in the studies would be healthiest?
    You are jumping between grains and whole grains.

    As I have said all along those that eat the most whole grains at the expense of refined grains are often healthier. I agree whole grains are better than refined grains. All your studies show how bad refined grains are and show that whole grains are better.


    That does not mean that whole grains are good for you, only that they are better than refined grains.


    Grains are convenient but they are tasteless, nutritionally void. There are plenty of studies showing how they are health improves by eliminating them and there is no study to show adding them to your diet has any benefit at all. Seems to me it makes much more sense to avoid them.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  6. #46
    Ribbons's Avatar
    Ribbons is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    194
    I think someone should do an experiment where people who don't eat grains (eg. people on some form of the paleo diet) add whole grains to their diet for a few weeks and see if their health improves. That would probably be a better way of testing how healthy grains are than by putting people already eating grains on a diet.

  7. #47
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by jimhensen View Post
    Think harder Jim
    Go back to the original question and try again.
    I know you can do it.

  8. #48
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirlot View Post
    As I have said all along those that eat the most whole grains at the expense of refined grains are often healthier. I agree whole grains are better than refined grains. All your studies show how bad refined grains are and show that whole grains are better.
    [B]
    IF this were true, which it is not, the people that ate the least amount of grains, whether refined or whole, would be healthiest. Right? But the people that eat the most whole grains are always the healthiest. Why aren't these studies showing that people that eat the least amount of grains are healthiest?????? Please just answer that.

  9. #49
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Ribbons View Post
    I think someone should do an experiment where people who don't eat grains (eg. people on some form of the paleo diet) add whole grains to their diet for a few weeks and see if their health improves. That would probably be a better way of testing how healthy grains are than by putting people already eating grains on a diet.
    The bias is already built into the study. A lot of people that don't eat grains do so because of problems they have with grains. It also depends what they are substituting the grains for in their diet. If they are eating grains instead of vegetables they would probably be worse off. If you eliminate one thing from your diet, you have to replace it with something else. So there are so many variables in a study like this.

  10. #50
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    Think harder Jim
    Go back to the original question and try again.
    I know you can do it.
    The study also invalidates your premise that 29% of people without celiac disease have these antibodies in their stool. Because in this study only 4 children out of 84 (and 20 of those 84 actually have celiac disease) had these anti bodies in their stool. So post up your study about the 29%.

    Obviously this proves that these antibodies in stool doesn't prove gluten sensitivity one way or the other, otherwise the celiac patients would all have it.
    Last edited by jimhensen; 07-11-2012 at 08:45 AM.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •