moda0306 wrote:
1) What are the main fundamental reasons one should eat grains when we can get resistant starch and micronutrients from other sources?
There is no
requirement to eat grains. You can do well without them—it's just a little more challenging (i.e. eating
lots of potatoes and greenish bananas). For instance, when I was avoiding grains I often found that I had to really think about what I was eating to get 40g of fiber (unless I made beans, but I was too lazy). With whole grains you really don't need to think about it as much. You just eat your grains and a few other whole foods and it's pretty easy.
If you read
the study I had posted (with the large graphic above) you'll see that whole grains are hypothesized to be a "package" of healthy properties that appear work in combination with each other. I think they are on to something.
Rice
is a grain and even high white rice diets (Pritiken or Kempner) are actually documented to promote the
exact same health benefits as high doses of RS. White rice has zero nutrition, but it does have RS when cooked/cooled.
Tim Steele wrote:RS: F.A.Q.
Q. How much RS if all I eat is rice?
A. Cooked and cooled rice has about 5% RS by cooked weight. If you eat, say, 500g per day (about a pound) you'd be getting roughly 25g of RS -- 10X the national average. Hot, fresh cooked rice contains 0-1g, so you do the math there.
I never eat fresh cooked rice any more, I always get the Uncle Ben's Original Converted kind, cook it, freeze it, thaw, then stir-frying in a tiny bit of hot oil. The latter method really brings out the RS as it has a drying function, and results in rice that is roughly 15% RS.
So in the simplest terms, grains are an
easy and good source of RS and other phytonutrients.
moda0306 wrote:
2) I have NEVER heard anyone claim gluten is healthy... just not harmful. I'd be curious to hear what good they think it does for us.
I don't actually know why gluten would ever be considered healthy. The point is that they
did believe it (right or wrong), for whatever reason and it certainly wasn't considered harmful to them.
For instance, even 6th century Chinese added isolated wheat gluten to their foods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_glu ... d)#Chinese
You'd think
someone would have noticed this was problematic and written about it if it was so harmful. In all my research I have yet to find any historical literature warning about wheat. It
does not exist as far as I know. So something is not adding up.
moda0306 wrote:Are you saying that anyone who is touting gluten as problematic (including Kresser) is likely wrong?
Partially, yes. I have no doubt whatsoever that gluten is problematic for
some people (whether it be from genetic or dyspeptic issues). But there is no research saying that gluten is problematic for everyone. To say otherwise is pure speculation as far as I can tell.
moda0306 wrote:3) What about other problems with grains... high omega 6 fat ratios?
As far as I can tell, there isn't much evidence linking different omega ratios
from whole foods to health. It seems to make no difference of your omega ratios, so long as you eat whole foods (drinking rancid corn oil is a different story). Most of the research showing benefits for omega-3s come from Arctic Inuit studies, but recent research shows that those Eskimos have
highly unique Omega-3 burning genes that we don't have. So, it may be that all the supposed benefits from high omega-3s are only apparent in Eskimos who can rapidly burn those fatty acids. Nobody knows.
Some cultures eat very high Omega-6 diets—see mongongo nuts, for instance. But those
whole seeds or nuts tend to come with high levels of Vitamin E, which protects against oxidation. Mongongo nuts have insanely high levels of Vitamin E. See, the nut needs protection from its own oxidation in the Kalahari heat, and therefore the nut will evolve to have the components necessary to prevent oxidation. Thus, whole foods come with built-in protections. If you isolate that Omega-6 and eat it, not so good. This is why you stick to
whole foods.
moda0306 wrote:Lectins?
Cooked lectins
are fine and cooking destroys lectins. Don't eat raw lectins. Even Hippocrates
wrote that it would be foolish to eat raw wheat.
Secondly, have a look at this, about the supposedly toxic WGA lectin:
Pellegrina et al wrote:‘Indeed, experimental work carried out in vivo has shown that within a huge range of concentrations WGA is non-toxic, its toxicity for the normal gastrointestinal tract occurring at doses much higher (7 g WGA/kg bodyweight over a 10-day period) than those ingested in a regular human diet ([Pusztai et al., 1993] and [Dalla Pellegrina et al., 2005]).’
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332085
The paper continues:
Pellegrina et al wrote:‘Within this concentration range, however, WGA is cytotoxic for human colon cancer cells (Pusztai et al., 1993).’
Sounds like WGA might be rather good for you, don’t you think?
moda0306 wrote:Why not just eat potatoes, rice and vegetables and avoid those problems, or are we now confident those are NOT problems?
'Cos it's boring, probably unnecessary, and whole grains are a very easy way to get beneficial phytonutrients and fiber. Also, rice
is a grain.
moda0306 wrote:If omega 6 fats are not a problem, does this debunk the negatives of seed/vegetable oils and grain-fed beef?
Isolated seed oils would be problematic because the fats would oxidize without the presence of co-factors like Vitamin E, for instance. All those co-factors—that keep everything in balance—are found in the
whole seed, not the isolated oils. Plus, the oils are
already oxidized by the time they go into the bottle at the industrial plant.
Grass-fed beef may be better due to a more natural diet, maybe a leaner animal, and perhaps less chance for tampering with diet (antibiotics and what have you) but there really isn't any reliable research saying that grass-fed beef provides health benefits, afaik.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
