Healthy people that eat grains...
(206 posts) (49 voices)-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
twa2w
MemberI just read a study that showed that raw milk has an ingredient that lessens the effect of gluten in wheat. Since the milk has been widely pasteurized since around WW1, perhaps this is one reason IBS, celiac etc etc has become much more widely spread.
Remember what your grandparents and parents ate can affect how you genes express themselves.Some people may be adapted to whole grains. Remember native americans have a certain gene or lack a certain gene that does not allow them to metabolize alcohol properly. A glass of wine may be fine and healthy for most people but if you are Aboriginal or alcoholic it is bad advice. Same may be true for grains, if you are adapted, fine, otherwise stay away.
Posted 4 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedAlso, raphael, about saturated fats causing high cholesterol...judging by the cholesterol of all the people that post it on the forum, I would have to agree with that assessment...whether that actually is detrimental to your health is a different story.
Also, here is an interesting point...anything I can find on grains being bad for you includes the fact that humans have only eaten grains for 10,000 years.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Juan
MemberYes, OnTheBayou, I think people have wisely started to bow out of the thread. It has likely run its course. Thanks for posting your cholesterol numbers. Another of the endless examples of the lipid-diet hypothesis being wrong.
BobbyLight, if you have to ask "what is good for you if grains are not" then you haven't looked at Mark's Daily Apple beyond this thread!! :)
But, I will indulge (myself, perhaps?) you with an answer. If I had to strip down the answer to "what IS good for you" to its barest essentials, I would start with the words of Jack LaLanne, "If Man invented it, don't eat it." In other words, if it is not a whole food right from Nature, and if it cannot safely be eaten in its raw form, then it is not optimal. Therefore, what is "good for us" pretty much all meat, fish, fowl (not confinement or farmed animals) along with bugs and many kinds of crawly things. We can eat most fruits and vegetables, and some nuts and seeds, all without any processing at all. However, we cannot eat grains nor legumes (fresh peas might be an exception) without extensive processing and cooking. I am not saying we should eat everything raw, although there are advocates of that, for sure. I have at least tried most meat, fish, and fowl raw and not suffered one bit. I continue to do this on a semi-regular basis.Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Go nuts. (Puns intended.)
Juan
Posted 4 months ago # -
Niklas
MemberAbout Okinawans and lard.
Stephan just made a sweeping statement these as did many others who learned that Okinawans eat pork and lard and concluded that they must eat lot of it. But I have seen the data from the original research on the Okinawa Project and ther diet is not loaded with pork or fat, the consumption is modest and most of their food is cooked in soups or boiled so again lard cooking is used just in special occasions to fry onion rings and pork, not an every day meal.Posted 4 months ago # -
Juan
Member@Niklas
Actually, it was I who made the sweeping statement about Okinawans. I was wrong in at least one regard; they don't eat that much fish as compared to their pork and tofu consumption. Here is a website made by Okinawans <http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/026/e/pork.html> and there's a section called "Okinawa: Island of Pork". They claim they eat lot of pork. Admittedly, there's also a section entitled, "The Tofu Kingdom". LOLPosted 4 months ago # -
Niklas
Memberbut the meals they described are all elaborate meals they mostly eat on sunday. It's like French or Italian cuisine. They will tell you that their cuisine begins and end with lasagna, bourguignon, parmesan, parmantier, fondu, pajata, pesto... but the truth is those rich and sophisticated meals are eaten mostly sunday and at feasts and you won't find many people eating them at lunch or dnner of a normal working day.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Juan
Member@Niklas
Looks like we're that last two remaining, and perhaps it's just me now. I'll turn out the lights when I'm done.Okay, whatever, the Okinawans weren't the point of the thread. There are many exceptions and so-called healthy people who seem to do or intake one thing or another that is non-primal. Many of these exist in societies that are far different from our own. Perhaps, in the end, it is a healthier society than it is a healthier diet. After all, many of the "paradox" cultures do things like smoke more and drink more, yet they are "healthier". Should everyone start drinking and smoking more? Probably not. However, the overall cohesiveness and lower stress level of the society in general is probably as protective as anything we might, in our finite wisdom, try to do.
Still, none of that takes away from the fundamental logic of the Primal Blueprint approach. The notion of a "mediterranean diet", which was one of the main points originally brought up, is a great example of the vagueness that exists in this nutritional morass. I mean, if the person is referring to the Mediterranean Diet that has grains at the base of the pyramid, then that is highly debatable. Is that even real? No, it is an American invention. And, besides, there are many Mediterraneans with a wide variety of diets. According to the McMaster study bobbylink referred to, the "Mediterranean type diet" had veggies at its base. Big difference, right? My point in bringing up the Okinawans (I never mentioned lard in my post, by the way, so perhaps that was someone else) was to attempt to underline the fuzziness of drawing simple conclusions from multi-factorial observations.
anyway, probably time for this one to go to bed.
All best.
J
Posted 4 months ago # -
Tarlach
MemberI think the problem here is an order of magnitude.
The average SAD eater will gain a significant improvement in health by removing excess sugar and processed food from the diet.
Any society that eats natural food and smokes or eats grains or whatever else, will still be much better off than SAD eaters. This will always give the impression of greater health.
The idea of the PB is to get towards optimal nutrition based upon what we evolved eating (the paleo diet) and do better than the other societies that show good health. I'm sure you can be reasonably health eating grains or whatever other exception you want to throw in the mix, as long as the overall diet is good.
The common threads from all these societies we keep seeing is that they eat a lot of fresh, natural food and not twinkies and soda.
You can be be reasonably healthy while eating grains.
You can be more healthy by not eating grains.
Posted 4 months ago # -
eva
Memberfrom about 10 years of avoiding grains and researching my a** off about the subject there is only one answer for me- i want to be the best i can be, as healthy as i can be and as optimally/functionally fit as possible - to achieve that there can be no grains in my diet. whatever way prepared. and i do think that even we as humans can be differently adapted for some things... then a poison is a poison...
Posted 4 months ago # -
Juan
Member@Raphael,
When you say eating "... soaked grains.... could fit into the primal lifestyle" perhaps it would be better to say, "... could fit into a healthy lifestyle." I think the "primal" lifestyle, by definition, prohibits grains, or else it isn't primal. Anyway, I'm a WAPF member, too, so I understand how soaked/fermented grains are considered more healthy, but frankly, I'm more with Eva on this one. I haven't been grain-free for as long as she has but the "poison is a poison" comment is apt.This discussion of grains and, by equivalence, sugar, is similar to one about cigarette smoking. I can well imagine that one or two cigarettes per week will not harm you too much, or at all. One problem is, of course, keeping the numbers down in perpetuity. Another is keeping the numbers absolutely low, rather than low as an average. I mean, if you smoke one pack of cigarettes in one night, twice a year, rather than sticking to the one or two per week, your body might not be able to overcome the harmful effects of such a high number of smokes in such a short period (the rate) even though the average will still be just one or two per week. That's the main issue with overloading our body's systems: it's not that we cannot overcome all sorts of attacks, we are very adaptable and resilient, after all -- it's the rate of attack that is difficult to overcome. So, why take the chance?
Same thing goes for grains and sugar.
Posted 4 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedEva, I can guess that you most likely have done some pretty one sided research to deduce that grains are so poisonous. The great majority of the dietary world would disagree with you, as would a lot of the research on grains. It is easy to justify an opinion on something when you dismiss the large amount of evidence that goes against your opinion as BS for no real good reason (other than it is perpetuated by the evil CW!!!!). I have realized that the paleo community in general is similar to the vegetarian community in that they just take what they want from studies and disregard anything that goes against what they say. I would say in the grand scheme of things there is probably a similar amount of evidence that one should avoid meats or animal proteins than their is about avoiding grains...but both views are probably quite one sided anyway. A lot of the research seems to point to saturated fats not being the greatest either. Anyway, I guess if its your opinion you can throw out all of that science as well. Is saturated fat going to be the one factor that causes heart disease...no, probably not. Could it possibly be one of many factors that could increase the chance of heart disease...yes, probably.
There is serious group thinking in the paleo community. It is easy to pick and choose the research you want to look at when you look at any research that goes against your opinion to be BS and the evil conspiracy of CW. Just start looking at things with an open mind other than letting your preconceived notion get in the way of seeing actual science for what it is.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Where's Martin Levac when you need him? Responding to an anti-saturated fat poster:
"The number of people [in the study you cite] is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because no truth was collected. It was food questionnaires. That's not science therefore no truth can be had from it. On the other hand, a single piece of actual science made using only two subjects is much more relevant and truthful than the statistical analysis you provided. The reason is simple, it's an actual test using the scientific method."
Posted 4 months ago # -
Geoff
MemberFunny - rather than a one-sided, self-deluded, cherry picking expedition, I read Eva's post as a responsible and personal statement of her decisions about her diet for herself based on her experience and her review of the research.
In contrast to the many posts here that obsess over what others eat and whether the writer thinks that's good for them, I found Eva's writing a refreshing break. A summary of what she doesn't eat and why that's right for her.
Bobbylight, I'm a little surprised that you'd cry "group think" while, in the same post, implying that Eva's deluded herself for not heeding your opinion. By her account, she did much research. Didn't she write "and i do think that even we as humans can be differently adapted for some things"? Sounds like a pretty open-minded, non-dogmatic statement to me. Yes she concluded with a reference to "poison," but I'm neither informed enough about her life situation nor brash enough to presume to tell her how she ought to eat for her optimal health.
Of course I'm also neither informed enough nor brash enough to presume to tell you not to discount all the progress you appear to have made toward your weight loss goal by eating Primally. (From your other posts it seems that you do concur that, if nothing else, Primal eating is good for weight loss.) If, based on your research, you think it's possible to be healthy by including grains in your diet, then I would respectfully encourage you to do so. Your health is your right and none of us should stand in your way of your informed decision to eat how you think is best for you. Don't expect me (or anyone else here) to join you in your adventure right now, but please be sure to let us know how it works out for you. And I don't write that sarcastically - if you eat a significant amount of grains and end up as healthy and fit as Clarence Bass, I'm sure we'll all be very interested to hear about it and learn from your results.
Posted 4 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedCigarettes have been proven to be unhealthy. Grains, if they have been proven to be anything, have been proven to be good for you...but that is up for debate. They certainly aren't anywhere near as bad for you than cigarettes. Also, sugars have their place in a diet. Sugars can improve health. Cigarettes cannot improve health.
And SS, I do believe in the theory of evolution. Believing that grains are bad for you would be like rejecting evolution despite all the evidence. Paleo people are like creationists IMO.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Sir Grandma
MemberScotch and cigarettes: I'm in!
LOL! comments like that were more fun before I put Sir in my name :).
Just a point from personal experience. Since going primal my eczema has improved significantly, best it has been since I was 16. Yesterday I did partake of some wheat in the form of pizza (part weakness, part justified as an experiment, part desperation). I'll be damned, isn't my eczema flaring up today. Is it an indication that the wheat has increased inflammation? I take it as such, because the only difference in my diet was the wheat; I regularly eat the toping ingredients.
So is wheat healthy? Not for me. That's all I need.
Posted 4 months ago # -
If grains are "proven to be good for you", how can it possibly still be "up for debate"?
"Believing that grains are bad for you would be like rejecting evolution despite all the evidence."
Actually, it's "like" believing in evolution based on the best available evidence.
"Also, sugars have their place in a diet. Sugars can improve health."
No comment, and at this point I'll bow out.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Sir Grandma
Member@BL Once, to prove a point, I did some searches looking for papers which show health BENEFITS from cigarettes. To my surprise I did find some medical uses of Nicotine. Most discussions of the subject will tell you that nicotine has some uses, but when packaged up in a cigarette they come along with lots of other bad stuff. Can you say the same about grains? Many people talking about the benefits of grains will mention minerals and fiber and the good stuff in grains. But, could it be that they also come along with other bad stuff (gluten, phytates, etc)? Of course the good:bad ratio in cigarettes is infinitesimal and for grains it is probably the inverse. But, could you accept that someone looking to optimize health (get rid of even sub-clinical symptoms of disease) that removing grains might have some merit, especially if they are getting the good stuff from other sources?
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.