Gyroscopic Investing

Gumby,

Since you've clearly researched this topic thoroughly:

PLEASE EXCLUDE WHEAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION.  I have read/heard enough (e.g. interview with What Belly author) that I believe wheat is bad for many/most people.

If I understand correctly, the problems with grains are:

1. phytic acid:  Does this do anything adverse except bind minerals?  Because if this is the only issue one can certainly consume more minerals--which is certainly easier than any of the soaking regimens. Specifically, does phytic acid by itself do anything adverse to the gut/person?

2. Gluten (and/or gliaden)--given, but not all grains have this.

3. Lectins: perhaps these are your main objection i.e. perhaps these are the main topic of your (and others) objections to grains.  These were made "famous" by the blood type diet book (adamo) but even he was clear that different people reacted differently to lectins with some people doing better on them than others.  A quick search tells me this is a complex topic.

4. Glycemic index (for whatever you consider that worth).  I always eat protein and fat (e.g. coconut oil or olive oil taken at the same time, but not mixed in the grain) with grains. 

5. Omega 6: given the small absolute amounts and in the context of a total diet, I don't really care and take fish oil, so I'm not worried.

6. Corn: rarely comes up for me, but Wiliam Davis (cardiologist who wrote wheat belly) in the recent interview mentioned that just as modern agribusiness had done things to modern wheat, it had done things to corn (perhaps the term he used had "glyco" as part of it.).  Anyway you can exclude corn from this discussion as well.

I eat 12-16+ ounces animal protein per day (some days that is fish/chicken so perhaps I need more "real saturated fats"/liver ) but in any case I'm talking in the context of a diet which is otherwise healthy and specifically wondering about the benefit of subtracting grains from an otherwise healthy diet.

Thanks for your time.

Forgot to mention, interesting that the perfect diet person recommends seaweed, as the diet person (she is part tcm and part mischo kushi sp?) who first recommended that I eat a lot of grains  recommended that to each pot of grains that I cook I add a small portion of Kombo which I guess adds trace minerals.  No idea if it does anything else.

Benko wrote: Gumby,

Since you've clearly researched this topic thoroughly:

It's worth mentioning that Smurff is likely more qualified to answer your questions than I am. While I like to talk about this topic a lot, he's been following WAPF guidelines far longer than I have!

Benko wrote:PLEASE EXCLUDE WHEAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION.  I have read/heard enough (e.g. interview with What Belly author) that I believe wheat is bad for many/most people.

Happy to leave it out for this conversation. Though, I believe the Weston A. Price Foundation supports ancestral wheat varieties/preparation (freshly milled/soaked/sprouted/fermented Einkorn wheat, for instance, as supposedly it's gliadin protein isn't as toxic as modern wheat).

Anyway, I totally agree that modern wheat is pretty awful stuff, so we don't need to discuss it further.

Benko wrote:1. phytic acid:  Does this do anything adverse except bind minerals?  Because if this is the only issue one can certainly consume more minerals--which is certainly easier than any of the soaking regimens. Specifically, does phytic acid by itself do anything adverse to the gut/person?

I'm not really sure. Phytic acid is mostly about binding to minerals, as you pointed out. Supplementation is pretty complex stuff, so I can't really comment on that. When it comes to gut problems, I think the other antinutrients and excess fiber in grains can be more problematic.

Benko wrote:2. Gluten (and/or gliaden)--given, but not all grains have this.

Yes. And the low gluten grains can be better tolerated by many.

Benko wrote:3. Lectins: perhaps these are your main objection i.e. perhaps these are the main topic of your (and others) objections to grains.  These were made "famous" by the blood type diet book (adamo) but even he was clear that different people reacted differently to lectins with some people doing better on them than others.  A quick search tells me this is a complex topic.

It is complex. I don't understand much beyond the concept that it's generally not good for you. Dave Asprey says they are "small proteins that stick to the sugars that coat your cells, wreaking biological havoc". I believe there is some evidence that lectins (at least those found in beans) can lead to bacterial overgrowth.

http://pmid.us/8226393

Benko wrote:4. Glycemic index (for whatever you consider that worth).  I always eat protein and fat (e.g. coconut oil or olive oil taken at the same time, but not mixed in the grain) with grains.

MG knows a lot more about the glycemic index than I do. I can't really comment.

Benko wrote:5. Omega 6: given the small absolute amounts and in the context of a total diet, I don't really care and take fish oil, so I'm not worried.

Modern diets are notoriously high in Omega-6, so the conventional wisdom is to balance it out with high amounts of Omega-3 — to bring the n-6/n-3 ration in line. But, I've read some interesting opinions (and I'm not saying they're definitely correct) that suggest that adults need only tiny amounts of EFAs for proper health. It seems that the problem with having too many EFAs is that they tend to oxidize. So, there seems to be evidence that it may be better to lower n-6 than to just focus on raising n-3.

Benko wrote:6. Corn: rarely comes up for me, but Wiliam Davis (cardiologist who wrote wheat belly) in the recent interview mentioned that just as modern agribusiness had done things to modern wheat, it had done things to corn (perhaps the term he used had "glyco" as part of it.).  Anyway you can exclude corn from this discussion as well.

Sure.

Benko wrote:I eat 12-16+ ounces animal protein per day (some days that is fish/chicken so perhaps I need more "real saturated fats"/liver ) but in any case I'm talking in the context of a diet which is otherwise healthy and specifically wondering about the benefit of subtracting grains from an otherwise healthy diet.

Some of the reasoning for excluding grains comes from evidence of detrimental health problems observed during the Neolithic period, when humans first began eating grains. Adult height dropped considerably. Dental/cranial problems began appearing. Arteriosclerosis increased. Before grains, the Paleolithic period shows us much better health. So, the hypothesis is that grains have detrimental effects on our bodies. And from that hypothesis, Paleo-diet researchers have — right or wrong — honed in on the problems with grains that are documented in the scientific literature.

Weston A. Price — who researched the diets of traditional cultures during the 20s and 30s (as well as others such as Sir Edward Mellanby) noticed that tribe members — from various cultures all over the world — went from perfect health (supposedly free of chronic disease) while eating their ancestral diets to high incidences of degenerative disease and poor dental health as some members left the tribes to begin eating a modern diet of refined grains. Interestingly, he also found that subsequent generations modern tribe defectors had worse and worse cranial development (crowded teeth, crowded jaws, smaller/thinner sculls). It suggested that the modern grains were changing humans as quickly as three generations! (I believe "Pottenger's Cats" showed a similar phenomenon in cats, but I'm not entirely sure)

Here is a PDF of Dr. Price's book, documenting all this:

http://www.w8md.com/nutrition_vs_physic ... _price.pdf

(See the fascinating pictures of tribal cultures with perfect dental/cranial features compared to their modern relatives)

So, Weston Price documented how these cultures — who were supposedly free from degenerative diseases — consumed lots of saturated fats, fermented foods, and — depending on the culture — some traditional grains. And the research gives us a sense of what an ancestral diet that includes some grains looked like.

So, there is clearly evidence that humans can do well on some ancestral/traditionally prepared grains. And, there is also evidence that modern grains and modern preparations can do harm — even to your children and grandchildren.

Other problems with high grain consumption might be problems with mold-toxins, mycotoxins, and fiber. I don't know that much about mold and mycotoxins, but I believe they are exacerbated by modern storage techniques. However, I know that these toxins are often found on the growing plant seeds as well.

Excess fiber seems to be a bigger problem that few people fully understand. Conventional wisdom is that you need fiber to keep your colon healthy. But, if you begin to understand why fiber keeps food moving through your gut, you start to see that there is evidence that it is harming your gut in the process. The book, Fiber Menace by Konstantin Monastyrsky, goes into great detail about the problems with fiber in grains. The book's cover is a photo of a cereal bowl full of nails. If you want a completely different perspective on the negative aspects of fiber, read the book... or at least this short review of the book:

http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-up-r ... ber-menace

Soaking your grains supposedly can minimize the destructive aspects of fiber.

So, does eating modern grains cause a leaky gut and fill our bodies with antinutrients and toxins? Perhaps. On the other hand, my grandmother is 96, obese, and she eats whatever she wants to.

Benko wrote: Forgot to mention, interesting that the perfect diet person recommends seaweed, as the diet person (she is part tcm and part mischo kushi sp?) who first recommended that I eat a lot of grains  recommended that to each pot of grains that I cook I add a small portion of Kombo which I guess adds trace minerals.  No idea if it does anything else.

I was under the impression that seaweed is mostly recommended for the iodine. As Jaminet points out, iodine consumption has a lot of benefits. Kombu is incredibly high in iodine — to the point that it can be way too much iodine for people who aren't used to iodine. Most people use dulse flakes (also recommended in the Perfect Health Diet) if they just want a little extra iodine.

I had previously added dulse flakes to my sea salt shaker, but I'm now taking Jaminet's advice of consuming small amounts of potassium iodide to slowly titrate up to 1mg of iodine over many months. I'm trying eat selenium-rich seafood (and the occasional brazil nut) a few times a week to make sure I protect my thyroid in the process. Hope the slow titrating process works and doesn't shock my thyroid.

Gumby wrote:

Benko wrote:4. Glycemic index (for whatever you consider that worth).  I always eat protein and fat (e.g. coconut oil or olive oil taken at the same time, but not mixed in the grain) with grains.

MG knows a lot more about the glycemic index than I do. I can't really comment.

What you want to worry about is the post-prandial glucose spike being too high because it causes lot of cumulative damage to the organs, not the least which is diabetes.  The majority of heart attacks occur in the 2-hour period after a meal, in the morning.

The only way to know, objectively, how your body responds to a carb in a mixed meal is to use a glucose meter and test your blood glucose 1,2,3,4 hours after a meal and make sure it A) does not spike too high and B) returns to normal as quickly as possible.  Rules of thumb from PHD: Fiber, fat and acid will slow down absorption and theoretically lower the post-prandial glucose spike.

I am not yet convinced those rules of thumb are sufficient, but I have not yet tested my blood glucose either.  Maybe in a few weeks after I'm adjusted sunce I'm coming from a very low or no carb diet.