Iron is Toxic, Very Toxic -- Avoid At All Costs!

[Reub]

I ordered a gluten free pizza one time in a NY pizzeria and found that it was quite toxic. To my wallet, that is.

[Pointedstick]

MG, for those of us too busy to do the kind of research you do, can you give us the Cliff Notes version of what you've found out about iron toxicity?

Here's my action plan cliffs notes version of http://freetheanimal.com/2015/06/enrich ... thing.html:

- Stop eating white rice; substitute brown rice
- Stop eating fortified grain products; substitute oats and whole grains
- Eat more eggs
- Eat more honey
- Drink more green tea
- Spice cooked food with turmeric
- When eating iron-rich foods:
-- Eat cheese, seafood, nuts, whole wheat, beans, mushrooms, or chocolate
-- Cook meat with red wine
-- Don't eat anything with vitamin C but no manganese (e.g. carrots, tomatoes, salsa)
-- Don't eat anything sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup
-- Don't eat anything fermented (the iron-binding anti-nutrients are diminished)
- Exercise and sweat more
- Donate blood
- Ditch cast-iron skillets for enameled cast iron versions

[MachineGhost]

- Stop eating white rice; substitute brown rice

And best to buy it vacuum-sealed and store in fridge or freezer so it doesn't oxidize.  Same with whole grains.

- Stop eating fortified grain products; substitute oats and whole grains

Scary thought: what if the minuscule health benefits from eating whole grains is actually from avoiding the fortification?

-- Eat cheese, seafood, nuts, whole wheat, beans, mushrooms, or chocolate

I don't think anything can top calcium for virtually inhibiting all iron absorption.  If one can't tolerate dairy, then 500mg from a proper supplement should certainly knock it out completely.

- Donate blood

IP6 works too and is less beaucratic hassle: http://www.amazon.com/BulkSupplements-I ... 00JV4NUSA/

[mathjak107]

Hemochromatosis.

Kresser is one smart (and generally openminded) dude.  I'd go back and listen to the exact wording of what he actually said.  In men there is no easy way for the body to get rid of iron (short of donating blood).
[/quote

I thought people are constantly excreting iron through pee and sweat? Of course, menstruating women have that additional advantage here.

I forgot , how many wheeels does a mensual cycle have ?

[Pointedstick]

All right, let's get to the bottom of this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... absorption

[Benko]

All right, let's get to the bottom of this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... absorption

How do the molecular details of iron absorption help?  I confess unlike GUmby and MG, I dislike reading the molecular stuff unless there is a real need.

If you google cost ferritin test you discover it costs between $27-40 for a ferritin test. So you can see where you are on this issue and whether you need to adjust. 

[Gumby]

It's been a long time since I've posted on the forum, and unfortunately I don't have the time to post much these days. I've done a complete 180º since I last gave dietary advice and I can only apologize for peddling in some of the fraudulent dietary advice that I had been spoonfed by the low carb movement. I unknowingly had been eating a high iron diet. I now believe that "whole foods" are healthiest—and while that sounds like an obvious statement, the fact of the matter is that a steak is not a "whole food." Let me explain...

All living plants and animals require a balance of minerals (iron, copper, zinc, manganese, magnesium, etc). All living things require somewhat similar ratios of these minerals. An entire whole seed or whole grain (bran, endosperm, kernel) has certain ratios of these minerals to support life and growth—not to mention the iron isn't "free," but rather the iron is safely bound to phytates (what helps make phytates antioxidants). If you swallowed an ant or cricket, those insects would also have a balance of minerals to support life and growth. The plant or animal would not thrive without this balance. Soil depletion is real, and healthy soil is required for healthy plants and the animals that eat those plants.

Anyhow, the point is that most Westerners do not eat or swallow whole animals. When most Westerners eat a cow, they eat a steak. A piece of steak is not a "whole food." Look up the mineral balance of a steak and you'll see that it's mostly iron, a good amount of zinc, a little copper but hardly any manganese. Most of the manganese in a cow is in the tripe. In other words, eating a lot of iron-rich steak causes a mineral imbalance.

Most of the copper is in the liver, but the liver has a lot of iron. Carnivores get a balance because they don't just eat steak. Scavengers tend to be omnivores because the mineral rich parts are usually gone by they time they arrive.

Heme iron is easily absorbed. But even if you drink lots of blood the body will only absorb a maximum of ~2mg of iron in one meal. However, meat is known to increase non-heme absorption and cooking transforms a portion of heme into non-heme. Tl,DR feasting on raw whole animals and blood, like your dog does, does not promote iron overload or mineral imbalances, in part thanks to the heme ceiling.

Few people realize that cooking meat destroys the porphyrins around heme (an antimicrobial that probably prevents pathogens in the gut from blooming on the raw iron). Eating a lot of cooked steak will promote iron overload and pathogens will feast on the iron in your gut. But they key here is that meat greatly increases the absorption of non-heme iron and there is no limit to the amount of non-heme iron you can absorb in one meal. The good news is that eating plants without meat or vitamin C will result in very poor iron absorption. So, while the iron absorption of whole grains is relatively poor (again, thanks to the phytates) meat or vitamin C will promote iron absorption (not necessarily a bad thing if you don't have enough iron).

This doesn't mean meat is "bad". It just means that eating a LOT of cooked meat may promote iron overload and a mineral imbalance—particularly if you aren't getting a proper balance of minerals. I still eat meat, but much less than I used to—and I tend to favor low-iron meats. But that's just me, and it's because my ferritin was high last year (better now). Some cultures weren't able to obtain much meat and they made an effort to mix cooked meat and iron-rich plants. Everyone and every situation is different.

As for grains, I've concluded from my research that they are very healthy—if for the fact that they are easy-to-swallow whole foods that already contain a balance of phytonutrients, fiber, antioxidants and minerals necessary to support life. Some cultures, like the Japanese or the French, are able to mix refined foods and whole foods to create their own balances (think white rice and seaweed... or dark chocolate and white bread), but these cultures do so without enrichments. The idea that traditional grain-eating cultures were unhealthy due to the grains is largely unfounded and full of misinformation as best as I can tell. Much of their health problems can be traced to other unrelated issues. McCarrison and Price are the only doctors to have properly studied perfectly healthy whole-grain eating cultures, and their findings are striking. Additionally, whole grains—and wheat in particular—were always revered and worshipped in historical literature for their ability to fight diseases and keep populations healthy. 150 years ago, gluten and gliadin were once considered the most nutritious phytochemicals. Today we don't eat real wheat—we eat refined, enriched, bromated and fumigated wheat. Most "whole wheat" flour is actually processed white flour that's been reconstituted with the bran. And then we wonder why we can't tolerate it. Not everyone does well on wheat, but for those who can, try finding real whole wheat and try it for a few weeks (get past the adjustment period).

Enrichments are the anti-whole foods—too much iron and zero copper/zinc or manganese. In other words it promotes an imbalance. (Btw, the reason why enrichments are added to food is because the food industry knows that you will eventually lose your appetite for them if the enrichments were not there. B vitamins sustain appetite—it's a natural defense mechanism in all animals to prevent them from relying on nutritionless foods as staples. Rats would not eat their chow without enrichments, and this has been known since Osbourne & Mendel discovered B vitamins in the 1920s).

Eastern medicine believes that diseases happen from imbalances. I think they are on to something. Whole grains are a super easy way to obtain a balance of minerals, phytates and fiber (perhaps the most important nutrient of all).

There is plenty of evidence that whole grains are healthy—it's not hard to find. But the next time someone tells you that whole grains are worthless, and toxic (likely hormetic if anything) take a look at the following review and then look at this image summarizing what they provide.

New hypotheses for the health-protective mechanisms of whole-grain cereals: what is beyond fibre? (2010)

[align=center][/align]

So, it's not just the fiber in whole grains. It's not just the mineral balance. It's not just the fact that the antioxidants are often underestimated. It seems to be a combination of all those elements, that support the life of the seed coming together to keep our bodies in balance in ways we barely understand.

I hope that makes up for some of the confusion I've caused in the past (I'm very sorry for that). We may never have all the answers, but I'm confident that we can learn more as we go and admit our mistakes. I don't mind being wrong so long as I become less wrong over time. Cooked WGA isn't to be feared—it's below the toxicity level and is said to kill cancer cells.

Eat whole foods and be well. Give blood when you have the iron to spare. Our ancestors used to do bloodletting all the time—whenever they felt off—it's a lost art.

Addendum: I'm aware that not everyone can tolerate grains. That's fine. There are plenty of ways to get your balance without grains. For me, there was an adjustment period for re-introducing whole grains. After about 3 weeks I felt great. YMMV.

[Gumby]

Gumby!

Nice to see you around these parts.

Thanks, TennPaGa. I don't have much time to stay around. I've actually lost my appetite for thinking about economics, politics and diet. So, don't be offended if I disappear again.

[Pointedstick]

Welcome back, Gumby--if only for a little bit. What exactly do you mean by "real whole wheat?" I assume you're not talking about what goes into supermarket whole wheat bread, right? Where do we find the good stuff and how do we know it when we encounter it?

And any thoughts on the issue of cast iron cookware? Does it leach undesirable amounts of non-heme iron into food?

[Kriegsspiel]

Gumby!

Nice to see you around these parts.

Thanks, TennPaGa. I don't have much time to stay around. I've actually lost my appetite for thinking about economics, politics and diet. So, don't be offended if I disappear again.

I don't even... what do you think about then?!

[Gumby]

What exactly do you mean by "real whole wheat?" I assume you're not talking about what goes into supermarket whole wheat bread, right? Where do we find the good stuff and how do we know it when we encounter it?

90% of the flour consumed in the US is enriched white flour. Of the 10% of wheat that is consumed as whole wheat, it's actually white flour that has been recomposed and reconstituted as whole wheat. To give you an idea of how processed that is, see this video (that was made for kids to watch):

https://youtu.be/3wyhzKX97Vk

If you want "real" wheat, you either need to A) buy wheat berries and grind it yourself (not as hard as it sounds), B) purchase flour from a working gristmill (there are a few dozen working traditional gristmills scattered across New England, many do mail orders), C) you need to find a bakery that grinds its own wheat berries or D) find a bakery that purchases flour from a gristmill.

I'd encourage you to look for a local organic bakery. Sometimes you'd be surprised that the people who understand the importance of fresh flour are right in your neighborhood. Oh, and store flour in your freezer to keep the oils from going rancid.

Basically you want the wheat berries go into a hopper and out the other end comes flour. It's so simple, but very few people and very few bakeries take the time to do it. Truthfully grinding your own flour is not difficult. You can get the wheat berries and grind them on your counter with a few rotations of a handmill. Heck, you could use a coffee grinder.

Yes, wheat has toxins, but if you have a healthy gut and you cook the wheat (don't eat raw wheat) most people (not all) will thrive on it. The problem is nobody really eats real wheat.

And any thoughts on the issue of cast iron cookware? Does it leach undesirable amounts of non-heme iron into food?

I use high quality stainless steel now (the kind a magnet sticks to, not the cheap kind) and a little butter. I don't follow Ray Peat, and he doesn't always get everything right, but his article on iron (it mentions the kinds of stainless pans you want) seems to be very well researched. I think cast iron is really good for some foods, like corn bread—there's virtually no leaching from that. I don't think cast iron pans will kill you, but for me I already had too much iron and it wasn't worth it.

Plus, I didn't like that I could take a paper town to my cast iron, at any time, and it would basically look like I could wipe oxidized grease off of it. The French traditionally preferred copper pans (expensive and required a special coating), particularly for deglazing. A lot of French have switched to enameled cast iron for most dishes, which often call for deglazing. Offhand I can't think of too many meat-replete cultures that used unshielded cast iron. You've got the Chinese stainless and iron woks, but I think they tended to be peasants with low meat intakes. And I'm not entirely sure metal filings is the best source of usable iron. Though, that hasn't stopped the cereal industry from grinding up iron nails and adding it to cereals.

[Mark Leavy]

Gumby, great to hear from you again - and much agreed on the undue emphasis on muscle meat.

I eat several whole animals every day.  Every element required to assemble a living breathing, complex organism.

[Gumby]

Btw, there are a few brands of bread that you can find in your local store that grind fresh wheat berries. The best breads tend to be whole organic and in the freezer section. Berlin Bakery is a good one and in most supermarkets. They use spelt wheat (an ancient wheat). Alvarado Street bakery is another one, but their bread tastes weird. Trader Joes sells Alvarado Street Bakery under their own label (the ingredients say "ground wheat berries"). I eat the Trader Joes stone-ground whole wheat hamburger/hotdog buns—their fine too.

Truthfully some people can do quite well on mass-produced whole wheat. It's not as terrible as I've made it out to be. My point is that few people in the US have ever eaten "real" wheat though.

When I'm at a deli or restaurant, I order whole wheat bread on my sandwich and I don't think twice about it. It's fine for what it is. At home I eat real flour and real bread from a local organic bakery though because it's easy once you find a good source of wheat. If you put the bread in the freezer and lightly toast it (yum) it actually increases the RS3 (resistant starch fiber) pretty well. I'm probably getting 30g of fiber from bread alone throughout the day.

[Gumby]

You too Mark..! I often eat 3 eggs a day with toast. Eggs actually reduce non-heme iron intake within a meal. As does dairy (reduces both heme and non-heme).

So, eggs and cheese. 6 or 7 slices of real whole wheat bread per day. Some fruit/veggies. A little bit of butter. Raw milk. A small amount of meat with dinner. Pretty normal SAD diet, but focussed on real foods and whole grains.

The government has been forced to recommend "whole and enriched grains" thanks to lobbying from the food industry. 90% of Americans eat enriched grains and their health falters. Without the enrichments, they'd be naturally compelled to get their nutrients elsewhere (what happens in most of Europe). Though no fortification requires people keep traditional foods alive—those traditions were invented to manage appetites with naturally occurring nutrients and to promote health. If people tried to eat lots of pure refined nutrition-less grains they'd become deficient and stop eating (pellagra, beri beri). Actually this used to happen during the 19th century—it was called "dyspepsia" and people lost their appetites. The cure was fiber-rich bread and fiber-rich cereals (see Kellogg's sanitarium and Graham bread).

Again, it's a natural defense mechanism innate in all animals to lose appetites from a diet of mostly refined foods. That doesn't happen anymore thanks to enrichments. Enrichments enable humans and animals to eat foods they would otherwise not be compelled to eat without some form of supplementation (Banting kept his appetite high from exercise and by supplementing his refined foods with yeasty vitamin B-rich beer).

It's the food industry that did this—mainly led by the Amer. Bakers Association (ABA). Look at their website and you'll be amazed at how much lobbying they've done to promote enriched grains into the food pyramid. It's shocking. The ABA singlehandedly lobbied to raise the enrichment levels right before the obesity epidemic started. That's not a coincidence. It was done to keep people from losing their appetites for enriched foods (Americans were eating significantly less carbs than any other Western nation at that point in history and the food industry was trying to reverse that trend). The enrichments "normalizes" the appetite so that you can keep eating that otherwise refined food. The ABA promotes the idea that folic acid reduces birth defects, claiming a relative reduction of NTDs by 36% when in reality it's only an absolute reduction of -0.015% in NTDs from fortification. Can you imagine? In what world does anyone spend that much time lobbying for a program to dose all men, women and children of all ages with something that reduces a health issue in just pregnant women by only 0.015%. It's totally nuts.

The healthiest countries are the ones that don't enrich their foods. France actually has a purity law that prevents "traditional" bread from having additives. So the French eat a lot of white flour but are compelled to get their nutrients elsewhere (i.e. traditional foods and beverages) and they are healthier for it. Me? I just stick to whole grains 'cos it's a

[Pointedstick]

So glad to hear your perspective again, Gumby. You've been missed!

So basically I need to find an organic baker who knows his stuff or make my own flour and bake my own bread. I knew there was a good reason I got into bread making recently! Care to share any recipes? I've had decent luck with basic boules, though I haven't managed to get them to rise in the oven much. They mostly turn out as thick, crusty flatbreads. Tasty anyway. And you should try my cheesecake.

I use high quality stainless steel now (the kind a magnet sticks to, not the cheap kind)

Just a quick correction here: the kind of stainless steel that a magnet sticks to is not the expensive stuff; it's actually the cheap stuff! You're talking about ferritic 18/0 stainless steel that consists of 18% chromium with no nickel. It's actually cheaper than the more common 18/10 stainless steel that has 10% nickel in it. The addition of nickel makes it non-magnetic. I've read a lot about nickel and it's not great stuff either. You don't really want to be cooking in it.

My problem with enameled cast iron is how fragile it is. The enamel and the iron have inherently different coefficients of expansion, so it's only a matter of time no matter how good it is, not to mention physical damage. I bought one item and found the enamel already broken in the box, and that about turned me off the whole concept.

The new ceramic nonstick stuff is rather promising, I think. It's applied using a sol-gel process, and there's no organic compounds in most of them. No fluorine crap that gives you cancer and makes you glow in the dark. My parents have an amazing set by some German company--Greblon, I think. Ceramic nonstick that's lasted for years and years with no damage, and it's light as a feather, too. Not cheap, of course.

We really need a "permanent cookware" thread.

[WildAboutHarry]

[quote=Pointedstick]The addition of nickel makes it non-magnetic.[/quote]

That is interesting, since nickel itself is magnetic.

[quote=Gumby]Plus, I didn't like that I could take a paper town to my cast iron, at any time, and it would basically look like I could wipe oxidized grease off of it. The French traditionally preferred copper pans (expensive and required a special coating), particularly for deglazing.[/quote]

I freely admit to a cast iron fetish.  Older cast iron (last century) is mostly wonderfully made and durable.  Traditional.  Cooks well.  More difficult to clean and maintain than stainless.  If you give your cast iron a wipe with oil before cooking, much of that residue will be gone before you cook.

The French copper pans are great too, but they are traditionally lined with tin.  I am sure there are studies about tin toxicity.

And speaking of the French, they have a dish (or process) called Daube, basically a slow-cooked meat stew traditionally cooked in a crockery pot.  Purists insist that the pot never be cleaned, so that all the goodness (and oxidized crap) from prior Daubes will contribute to all future Daubes.

[Gumby]

Just a quick correction here: the kind of stainless steel that a magnet sticks to is not the expensive stuff

Hmm.. I know nothing about metallurgy, but I suspect you can tell a pan that leaches by the taste. The reason why the French don't typically like to deglaze on exposed cast-iron is because it adds a metallic taste to the meal. Well, the metallic taste is your tongue's way of telling you that you don't need more of that particular metal. For instance, people with zinc deficiency cannot taste zinc, nor copper if they have copper deficiency. The offensive taste of the metal only becomes apparent when you have enough. Your tongue actually changes based on your deficiencies—it's related to why your doctor can diagnose certain deficiency-related diseases by looking at your tongue.

At any rate, I've cooked on cheap corningware stainless and noticed a nickel-like taste. I don't get that taste from my All-Clad. And I'd imagine that chefs like All-Clad because it doesn't impart a taste into the food. So, following your tastebuds may be a good bet. But, again, I know nothing of metallurgy.

I have no idea if this article is correct or not, but it's interesting:

How to Tell The Quality of Stainless Steel Cookware

[Pointedstick]

I do happen know a bit about metallurgy. FWIW, the way All-Clad makes their cookware is with a magnetic, nickel-less 18/0 stainless steel on the bottom so it works with induction ranges (which require a magnetic material to heat via the generated magnetic field), and an 18/10 non-magnetic, nickel-bearing stainless steel for the cooking surface. Various things are sandwiched between them depending on the item itself. If you use All-Clad, you actually are cooking on a stainless steel that's 10% nickel. Most of the cookware that has a nickel-less 18/0 cooking surface is the really, really cheap stuff.

As for taste, I've never gotten any metallic tastes one way or the other from anything I've ever cooked with, but I don't have a very sensitive tongue. I'm like the brother in ratatouille who can't taste the difference with any of the amazing concoctions the main character comes up with. For the most part, I'm after health, easy preparation, and low price when I cook.

[Gumby]

The French copper pans are great too, but they are traditionally lined with tin.  I am sure there are studies about tin toxicity.

I didn't look particularly hard (since I don't have copper cookware) but I never came across anything that terrible about tin-lined copper cookware. I think it was probably ok for those who used it.

Tinware was actually very common not too long ago and Wikipedia claims it was generally non-toxic.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinware

Wikipedia: Tinware

Tinware is strong, easily shaped, solder able, and is non-toxic. In addition, it has a good appearance which can be further enhanced by lacquering it. Of extreme importance is its property of corrosion resistance, especially against attack by food products. These properties are due to the properties of tinplate, as tinware is made of tinplate

Of course, too much of anything is toxic.

And speaking of the French, they have a dish (or process) called Daube, basically a slow-cooked meat stew traditionally cooked in a crockery pot.  Purists insist that the pot never be cleaned, so that all the goodness (and oxidized crap) from prior Daubes will contribute to all future Daubes.

I'm not afraid of a little oxidation in my food—particularly if it tastes good. Almost anything that is supposedly terrible for you is actually good for you in small quantities (see hormesis).

I once came across that traditional Swedish wholegrain crisp bread happens to have a lot of acrylamide in it. As I began to look into acrylamide, it turns out that there was no positive correlation for crispbreads with cancer risk in humans (though acrylamides have been connected to cancer in rodents and in some human studies). Digging a bit further I discovered that there is such a thing as "hormetic acrylamide"

Nutritional hormesis (2007)

Hormetic acrylamide

Acrylamide is an industrial chemical also found in cigarette smoke. Acrylamide also occurs as a natural product of cooking, rather than as a food contaminant, as a result of a Maillard chemical reaction between reducing sugars and specific amino acids (e.g., asparagines within foods upon exposure to high heat). Recently, relatively high levels of acrylamide were unexpectedly detected in widely consumed food items, notably French fries, potato chips and bread. Acrylamide is a known human neurotoxin. It has been classified as a group 2A carcinogen ('probably carcinogenic to humans') by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (although the data suggesting that acrylamide may cause cancer in humans is derived from only one strain of one animal species). This has sparked intensive investigations regarding its occurrence, chemistry and toxicology/potential health risk in the human diet.

Retrospective studies on the association of cancer incidence and dietary acrylamide in Sweden (Mucci et al., 2003a, Mucci et al., 2003b, 2004, 2005) and in Italy/Switzerland (Pelucchi et al., 2003, 2006) could not provide evidence for an association between high and low acrylamide intake and cancer incidence of various organs. A hormetic effect was reported by Mucci et al. (2003a): 'unexpectedly, an inverse trend was found for large bowel cancer with a 40% reduced risk in the highest compared to lowest quartiles of known acrylamide intake,' while Mucci et al. (2003b) reported decreased risk of colorectal and kidney cancers with increasing acrylamide dose. Pelucchi et al. (2003) found no evidence of an increased risk of cancer with higher fried potatoes consumption, an important source of dietary acrylamide, and also confirmed the inverse association with large bowel cancer. A large prospective study found no evidence that dietary intake of acrylamide is associated with cancers of the colon or rectum (Mucci et al., 2006). In addition, a study of some 9000 workers exposed to acrylamide between the years 1925 and 1976 found a statistically significant decrease in deaths from all causes (Collins et al., 1989). A follow-up study of these workers through year 1994 corroborated many of the initial findings (Marsh et al., 1999).

Those french fries may not be as terrible as you were led to believe. Oh, and french fries are also reported to be a good source of glutathione. I rarely eat french fries, but the point is that I don't think they are terrible for me when I occasionally have them. You probably need some naughty things to be good.

Again, this just points to the fact that we shouldn't necessarily think of anything as being only "good" or "bad". We seem to need a balance (yin/yang) to keep things running smoothly.

This is probably related to why people who obsess about their health end up paradoxically causing more harm than good. It's actually one of the reasons I don't like to talk about this stuff anymore—my brain can't stop thinking about it once I get going and I'm better off not thinking about it too much. But I thought I would at least return (briefly) to share what I had learned.

[moda0306]

Gumby,

Nice to see you back!

I recently gave blood to the Red Cross. I had moderate iron levels. I asked about folks with "high" iron levels. The nurse said she barely ever sees anyone with too much iron in their blood.

Any thoughts on this?

I eat a decent amount of meat, and a decent amount of that is grass fed beef.

Also, what are your thoughts on Chris Kresser at this point?  Who else is worth following?

[Gumby]

If you use All-Clad, you actually are cooking on a stainless steel that's 10% nickel.

I trust your knowledge of metals. Read that stainless link I posted in my comment and notice the vinegar taste test they did on All-Clad vs. Cheap Stainless. If you can explain why the cheap stainless tastes like metal (and I've noticed this too) then that would be helpful.

[Pointedstick]

The article has the metallurgy correct. That vinegar test thing is an interesting idea! I'll have to try it out.

[Gumby]

I recently gave blood to the Red Cross. I had moderate iron levels. I asked about folks with "high" iron levels. The nurse said she barely ever sees anyone with too much iron in their blood.

Any thoughts on this?

Before you give blood they only test your hemoglobin. They don't test ferritin levels. I've talked to the nurses there before and when I mentioned ferritin to them and its correlations with diseases they had very little understanding about it. They had no idea that there was a growing body of research linking high ferritin to chronic diseases. But it's not hard to find if you look. I think most people just think that high ferritin is like money in the bank. But, the research on ferritin suggests that it may be problematic. Either iron is leaking out of damaged cells or it's an indicator of iron in tissues. Nobody really knows.

Most people resort to gurus for their understanding of the literature. The problem with gurus is that they have their agendas (low carb, veganism, etc). So, I've found it best to find research on my own and ask various experts to explain it to me and then form my own opinions (right or wrong).

Also, what are your thoughts on Chris Kresser at this point?  Who else is worth following?

I think he's very smart. I like him. But I think he is looking at sick people with chronic health issues and maybe extrapolating those issues and the results he finds onto others. For instance, Kresser believes that gluten is bad for you. But he cannot explain why historical medical texts overwhelmingly claimed that gluten was the most important and healthiest ingredient of any food.

For instance (and this is just one example that wasn't even remotely controversial for its time) in 1841, the Thomas Hodgkin (the guy who discovered Hodgkin's Disease) once wrote that gluten was "the most nutritious of all the vegetable principles." Many, many doctors believed this to be true and wheat was revered for millennia. I found many examples of this in the historical literature. If gluten were so deleterious, you'd think everyone would have noticed that given their awareness of specific wheat compounds. I suppose it's easy to chalk that up to primitive science, but it's odd nonetheless.

it may be that whole wheat is fantastic, if not for the adulterations and processing that is done to it. So people give up wheat—as Kresser recommends—and they feel better and Kresser thinks he's solved everyone's health issues. The problem is that it may actually be that real whole wheat is fine for most healthy people and we are all just confused by the processing and adulterations. So, I think Kresser may be missing a few things, but I think he gets most things right. As I said, I really like him and most of what he says is probably spot on.

The main problem is that when people give up grains, they give up resistant starch (unless you eat a lot of taters) and I think RS is one of the many reasons why grains can be very healthy for some—among other things.

This thread mentioned iron enrichments as being problematic. It's true that most of us probably don't need more iron, but in my research on the topic I found that the iron enrichments are poorly absorbed—which is why they add so darn much iron to flour. What most people aren't considering is that all that unabsorbed iron from the enrichments just irritates the gut and blooms pathogens. And there is plenty of research showing this (not to mention it's well known that iron pills promote gut problems).

Check this out...

Solving iron’s solubility problem

However, there are two major problems [with iron supplements]. The chemical environment in the gut, particularly the rapid pH change from the acid of the stomach to the essentially neutral small intestine, as well as the presence of reducing agents like ascorbate, will promote redox cycling between the Fe(iii) and Fe(ii) states. Therefore, any iron that doesn’t get absorbed – which can be up to 70% of the content of a supplement tablet – can cause serious problems, since this redox cycling generates free hydroxyl radicals through Fenton-type chemistry, which leads to inflammation. The second problem is that any remaining soluble iron will travel to the lower bowel, where it is absorbed by pathogenic bacteria. ‘The iron-hungry pathogens can then outcompete the more favourable gut microflora,’ Pereira explains, ‘which is when you get side effects like diarrhoea.’

And research shows that iron supplements can promote gastric distress even at low doses.

When all that poorly absorbed iron fortification passes to your gut, I'd imagine that it impairs our flora's ability to process gluten. This might explain why the gluten free fad is so popular in fortified countries. And I'd imagine that it's no coincidence that gluten became an issue in Sweden and the US when iron enrichments were significantly increased. Sweden banned iron fortification in 1995 and the Swedish coeliac epidemic was said to have ended in 1996 (now attributed to either breastfeeding changes or vitamin D supplementation changes). Frankly, I don't understand why they haven't looked into the obvious inflammatory properties of iron fortification and its correlations to iron enrichment increases in the US and Sweden.

[Benko]

Welcome back Gumby.

Historical documents were talking about historical wheat which is very different from wheat  today, no?

I'm very fond  of TCM (traditional chinese  medicine) and TCm dietary recommendations do recommend grains as being healthy"

"traditional Chinese medicine maintains that human Qi originates with gu�Qi, which literally means "Qi of grains." Thus Chinese medicine recognizes grains�� in particular, rice, but also all other grains�� as the foundation of human vitality"
https://www.qi-journal.com/herbs.asp?Na ... .D=Article

Having said that, I'm suspicious of wheat for whatever reason.  Personally I note that while wheat isa problem, barley (which also has gluten) is not a problem.  And people with "gut issues" obviously may need to avoid one or more  grains.

[Gumby]

Historical documents were talking about historical wheat which is very different from wheat  today, no?

Hi Benko! Nice to hear from you.

In my research, and in talking with researchers who have studied wheat closely, I don't find the "modern wheat" hypothesis very convincing. We have modern broccoli and modern potatoes, but nobody really suspects that the modern hybrids of those vegetables are problematic. More importantly I found that Dr. Davis claims has made some false assumptions in his hypothesis.

For instance, Davis likes to compare "modern" Borlaug dwarf wheat to "ancient" wheat. The problem is that Davis uses Einkhorn as his example of "ancient" wheat. Einkorn is well known to have very low reactivity, and so his comparison is meant to suggest that modern wheat is far more reactive than ancient Einkhorn wheat.

There are a few big problems with this comparison..

The first is that few cultures ever ate Einkhorn wheat, mainly because its lack of gluten and reactivity resulted in an awful bread. Emmer was the dominant wheat in the Neolithic because cultures wanted higher reactivity in their wheats. Spelt, Emmer, Durum, Kamut and Graziella became much more popular than Einkhorn ever did. Bread was the original health food in the Western world (wheat bread in particular) and Einkhorn did not make good bread.

The second problem is that Davis implies that modern wheat is more reactive than the other ancient wheats, but that too is false. Seeds of certain ancient types of tetraploid wheat (e.g.; Graziella Ra, Khorasan wheat/Kamut) have even greater amounts of total gliadin than modern accessions.

Davis appears to be pedaling fallacies that don't hold up to scrutiny—mainly to promote a low carb agenda. There's nothing particularly special about modern wheat other than it can be grown in poor soils—resulting in poorer mineral status than our ancestors obtained from wheat. I recall evidence showing a dramatic drop in copper and magnesium from wheat over the past century. Borlaug wheat is known to be able to thrive in poor soil (one of the reasons it was so successful). Some have suggested that Borlaug wheat may be higher in ATIs (natural pesticides), but no evidence was presented to support this hypothesis.

Borlaug wheat was said to have saved millions of people all over the world. No population eats more Borlaug dwarf wheat than Pakistan, whose population consumes 70% of its calories from wheat (one of the great success stories from dwarf wheat). If Davis was correct, you'd expect Pakistan to have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Instead, Pakistan has one of the lowest obesity rates in the world.

I really think Davis missed the mark. He's never made any effort to account for wheat adulterations and whole grain/refinements.

Having said that, I'm suspicious of wheat for whatever reason.  Personally I note that while wheat isa problem, barley (which also has gluten) is not a problem.  And people with "gut issues" obviously may need to avoid one or more  grains.

Agreed that not everyone can handle grains due to various issues.