Gyroscopic Investing

GR: OK, now for all of our readers, how do you feel about paleo?

MP: Haha! OK. The idea behind paleo is sound. It's probably the diet that we evolved to eat. It has a lot of plants, not too much grain, and it also has a lot of meat. And yes, we were meat eaters, but meat may have been a special-occasion food even back then. I think the problem with the paleo diet is that we can't get the same meat, unless you're a hunter. Our meat comes from feedlot. We're not eating wild ruminants that have been fed on grass. We're eating domesticated ruminants that have been fed on corn. So the fat profile, the nutritional profile, is very different, so unless you're willing to hunt and eat animals that had their own natural diet, their own paleo, you're not getting what you think you're getting. It might look like meat, but it's something new—it's corn-fed meat. Not to mention the pharmaceuticals that go into meat.

Now grain is an interesting issue. I think refined grain, the way we eat most of our flour, is very deleterious to our health, but I think whole grains are important to our diet, they feed the gut really well, they offer us a lot. People who eat whole grains have less chronic disease.

Whole-grain wheat, rye, brown rice, quinoa, farro—all these wonderful grains that still have their bran coat on them. And the paleo people avoid them, because they want to go back to a time before agriculture. But we have an enzyme people didn't have before the birth of agriculture, specifically to help us break down grain. Starch. Amylase. We've evolved since then in certain interesting ways. They're also against milk, but the gene that allows you to digest milk, lactase, has become very common, except in Asia. So we're not the same people as when we were paleos, and the food is not the same food. I think we have to update a little bit. On balance, I think it's far superior to the standard American diet. I would say that. But I just think they need to be conscious about these limitations.

http://www.goodreads.com/interviews/sho ... ent=pollan

Michael Polan wrote:I think the problem with the paleo diet is that we can't get the same meat, unless you're a hunter. Our meat comes from feedlot. We're not eating wild ruminants that have been fed on grass.

He makes it sound like grass fed meat doesn't exist on the planet. No, you don't have to "hunt" for grass fed meat (unless you count going to a farmer's market or grasslandbeef.com "hunting"). The overwhelming majority of Paleos are aware of the importance of grass-fed meat.

Michael Polan wrote:Whole-grain wheat, rye, brown rice, quinoa, farro—all these wonderful grains that still have their bran coat on them. And the paleo people avoid them, because they want to go back to a time before agriculture.

Most Paleos probably agree with 90% of what Polan has to say, but it's laughable that Polan considers "wheat" to be a "wonderful grain". What a joke.

Paleos don't avoid grains because of nostalgia  — that's a gross mischaracterization. They avoid grains because the hulls and bran contains anti-nutrients and toxins that injure the body and rob the body of minerals — which sort of defeats the purpose of eating the grains in the first place.

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:Grain consumption has long been known to damage vitamin D status and bone health. Indeed, it is difficult to induce bone frailty in laboratory animals without feeding them grain. In Edward Mellanby’s original experiments leading to the discovery of vitamin D, he induced rickets by feeding dogs a diet of oats or wheat bread. [3] In human infants, wheat bran induces rickets. [4] In addition to interfering with vitamin D, grains also contain high levels of phytic acid, which interferes with bone mineralization by blocking absorption of calcium and magnesium.

[3] Mellanby E. (March 15 1919) An experimental investigation on rickets. The Lancet 193(4985):407-412.

[4] Zoppi G et al. Potential complications in the use of wheat bran for constipation in infancy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1982; 1(1): 91-5. http://pmid.us/6310074.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/06/gw ... aily-mail/

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:In Edward Mellanby’s pioneering experiments, he induced the disease by feeding dogs a diet of oats or wheat bread, and then cured it by adding cod liver oil (which contains vitamin D). Either dietary fats or sunlight cured rickets; a cereal-based diet combined with confinement indoors caused rickets. [19]

Grain consumption remains the leading risk factor for rickets in the world today. Today, rickets is mainly found in sunny countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, and Bangladesh, where it is the result of “cereal-based diets with limited variety.”? [20]

In recent decades, more progress has been made in understanding how wheat and other grains induce rickets. First, wheat consumption leads to rapid loss of vitamin D. Eating just 20 g (0.7 ounces) per day of wheat bran causes vitamin D to be depleted 43% faster. [21] Second, wheat germ agglutinin, a wheat toxin, can block activation of the Vitamin D Receptor. [22]

[19] Mellanby E. (March 15 1919) An experimental investigation on rickets. The Lancet 193(4985):407-412. Reprinted in Nutrition. 1989 Mar-Apr; 5(2): 81-6; discussion 87. http://pmid.us/2520279.

[20] Pettifor JM. Nutritional rickets: deficiency of vitamin D, calcium, or both? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1725S-9S. http://pmid.us/15585795.

[21] Batchelor AJ, Compston JE. Reduced plasma half-life of radio-labelled 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in subjects receiving a high-fibre diet. Br J Nutr. 1983 Mar;49(2):213-6. http://pmid.us/6299329. 

[22] Miyauchi Y et al. Importin 4 Is Responsible for Ligand-independent Nuclear Translocation of Vitamin D Receptor. J Biol Chem. 2005 Dec 9;280(49):40901-8. http://pmid.us/16207705.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/10/th ... ormations/

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:Grasses became the staple foods of agriculture because of their rich yields:  a single plant may generate tens of thousands of seeds annually.

Yet this prolific seed production has always made grasses attractive to herbivores, and caused seeds to evolve high levels of toxins designed to poison mammalian digestive tracts, thus enabling their seeds to pass through herbivore guts undigested.  It is these toxins that make the cereal grains so dangerous to human health.

The effectiveness of grain toxins at sabotaging human digestion is illustrated by the increase in fecal mass they produce:

For every gram of wheat bran eaten, fecal weight increases by 5.7 grams. [5]

By inhibiting human digestion, wheat toxins dramatically increase the amount of undigested starch reaching the colon. This increased food supply substantially increases the bacterial population – and the presence of starch, which is ordinarily unavailable in the colon, favors the growth of pathogenic species.

Unfortunately wheat toxins do much more than inhibit digestion of food.  They also damage the gut itself.

[5] Cummings JH. The effect of dietary fibre on fecal weight and composition. Pp 547–73 in: Spiller GA, ed. Handbook of dietary fibre in human nutrition. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/07/bo ... od-toxins/

Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. wrote:Most people think that fiber is indigestible, and that it comes out in their stool. This is not true. Fiber is indigestible to humans, but not to bacteria.  Fiber is bacterial food that enables gut bacteria to multiply. Bacteria, not undigested food, make up most of the dry weight of stool. [22]

Doctors often recommend fiber to bowel disease patients. While not wholly without merit, this advice usually backfires.

There are three problems: helping bacteria feed and multiply may be undesirable; fiber, such as the brans of cereal grains, often contains toxic proteins; and, finally, whole grain fibers and other “roughage”? scrape and injure the intestinal wall.  Dr. Paul L. McNeil explains that:

"When you eat high-fiber foods, they bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering." [23]

That can’t be a good thing.

And it isn’t. In the Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART), published in 1989, 2,033 British men were divided into a high-fiber group and a control group.  The high-fiber group ate whole grains and doubled their grain fiber intake from 9 to 17 grams per day. The result?  Deaths in the high fiber group were 22% higher over the course of the study – 9.9% of the control group died versus 12.1% of the high-fiber group. [24]

Softer soluble fibers from fruits and some vegetables are much more likely to help than wheat bran, but even they may be a good thing only in moderation, or only in a healthy bowel. Fiber feeds pathogenic bacteria as well as probiotic bacteria, and increases the populations of both. When the gut is damaged and leaky, more bacteria mean more bacterial toxins and more pathogens infiltrating the body. A low-fiber diet, leading to reduced bacterial populations in the gut, may be desirable for bowel disease patients.

Yes, it is possible to get too much fiber!

[22] Stephen AM et al. Effect of changing transit time on colonic microbial metabolism in man. Gut. 1987 May;28(5):601-9. http://pmid.us/3596341.

[23] Quoted in Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093156.htm. Hat tip Dr. Michael Eades.

[24] Burr ML et al. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial (DART). Lancet. 1989 Sep 30;2(8666):757-61. http://pmid.us/2571009. Hat tip Stephan Guyenet.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/07/bo ... od-toxins/

There's a reason ancient Neolithic cultures went through so much trouble to neutralize those toxins and remove/soak the outer hulls/brans. Grains really aren't that great for you. But, they are cheap!

" But we have an enzyme people didn't have before the birth of agriculture, specifically to help us break down grain. Starch. Amylase. "

The whole point of paleo is that we evolved to eat a certain diet and have not evolved to eat modern things e.g. grains.  If this is correct, it blows away one of the basic tenets of the paleo theory. 

Benko wrote: " But we have an enzyme people didn't have before the birth of agriculture, specifically to help us break down grain. Starch. Amylase. "

The whole point of paleo is that we evolved to eat a certain diet and have not evolved to eat modern things e.g. grains.  If this is correct, it blows away one of the basic tenets of the paleo theory.

Huh? He thinks Amylase is new to the human genome? He couldn't be more wrong. Amylase is not something that showed up in humans over the last 10,000 years. If that were true, salivary amylase wouldn't be so prevalent in human saliva and pancreatic secretions. Furthermore, amylase allows for the digestion of starch by breaking it down to glucose. Humans have been eating starchy tubers for far longer — perhaps 2 million years.

Wikipedia.org wrote:Carbohydrates are an energy rich food source. Amylase is thought to have played a key role in human evolution in allowing humans an alternative to fruit and protein. A duplication of the pancreatic amylase gene developed independently in humans and rodents, further suggesting its importance. The salivary amylase levels found in the human lineage are six to eight times higher in humans than in chimpanzees, which are mostly fruit eaters and ingest little starch relative to humans.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase

The prevalence of salivary amylase genes in the human genome suggests that humans have had salivary amylase for millions of years and that salivary amylase was crucial in allowing our Paleolithic ancestors to thrive off of dug-up wild starchy tubers (something our ape cousins couldn't do).

Polan doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to "Paleo".

Oh, and it's also worth pointing out that grains are high in Omega-6 and most Paleos prefer to minimize Omega-6. I'm still trying to figure out what's so "wonderful" about grains (besides the fact that they are cheap and easy to sell and market to populations).

Be careful when relying on animal studies.  I don't really care what a certain food does to a mouse or a dog or any other animal.  Many foods and substances that are fine for humans are deadly for animals, and vice-versa.  When I read a study that trumpets the results of an animal study, my only reaction is, "OK, so you proved that's how it affects that species.  Be sure to get back to me once you've tried it again on people.  Until then, it's completely meaningless to me." 

rocketdog wrote: Be careful when relying on animal studies.  I don't really care what a certain food does to a mouse or a dog or any other animal.  Many foods and substances that are fine for humans are deadly for animals, and vice-versa.  When I read a study that trumpets the results of an animal study, my only reaction is, "OK, so you proved that's how it affects that species.  Be sure to get back to me once you've tried it again on people.  Until then, it's completely meaningless to me." 

Plenty of evidence of rickets in humans due to calcium deficiencies caused by phytates in grains.

http://pmid.us/4727748
http://pmid.us/17413106
http://pmid.us/6970590

Plenty of evidence for toxins found in grains, such as lectins, and their affects on humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115436/
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bi00515a013
http://pmid.us/9607327
http://pmid.us/11168640
http://pmid.us/16336696

And let's not get started on all the problems with gluten in humans... Tons of evidence there.

Grains (and beans/legumes) are toxic, high in Omega-6, and full of anti-nutrients that are extremely difficult to neutralize (soaking, fermenting, etc). They cause all sorts of issues.

White rice is the exception (it's basically just digestible starch):

http://pmid.us/21170334

But brown rice is not a health food. There's a reason asian cultures worked so hard to remove the hulls and bran from rice.

Gumby I notice you have not commented on the Kresser thread.

Benko wrote: Gumby I notice you have not commented on the Kresser thread.

Yeah, not much to say there. I agree with Kresser that healthy people can eat 80/20 without worry. Nothing wrong with that and it's something I fully support. I just take issue at Polan when he describes whole grains and modern wheat as a "wonderful" food — as if we can't get enough of it. Give me a break.

I say, eat grains occasionally because you enjoy them — not for their so-called nutrition.

Gumby wrote: But brown rice is not a health food. There's a reason asian cultures worked so hard to remove the hulls and bran from rice.

Horsehockey.  The arsenic comes from pesticides and other contaminants in the soil, not because it's naturally occurring in rice.  This is like warning people to stay away from lettuce because of E-coli, when the E-coli actually comes from the manure used on the lettuce, not because the lettuce is inherently bad.  Properly grown and prepared brown rice is perfectly healthy and always preferable to white rice. 

Asian cultures didn't remove the hulls and bran from rice because they were worried about arsenic (which was a non-existent problem in the past).  They removed it to please the upper echelons of society, which viewed white rice as more elegant and refined (both literally and figuratively), whereas brown rice was rough and tough and suitable only for peasants.  White rice also stores better than brown rice, which was important when you didn't have air-tight containers or refrigeration. 

rocketdog wrote:

Gumby wrote: But brown rice is not a health food. There's a reason asian cultures worked so hard to remove the hulls and bran from rice.

Horsehockey.  The arsenic comes from pesticides and other contaminants in the soil, not because it's naturally occurring in rice.  This is like warning people to stay away from lettuce because of E-coli, when the E-coli actually comes from the manure used on the lettuce, not because the lettuce is inherently bad.  Properly grown and prepared brown rice is perfectly healthy and always preferable to white rice. 

Asian cultures didn't remove the hulls and bran from rice because they were worried about arsenic (which was a non-existent problem in the past).  They removed it to please the upper echelons of society, which viewed white rice as more elegant and refined (both literally and figuratively), whereas brown rice was rough and tough and suitable only for peasants.  White rice also stores better than brown rice, which was important when you didn't have air-tight containers or refrigeration.

Either way, the phytates and anti-nutrients in the bran and lower digestibility nullify any benefit.

http://pmid.us/9302338
http://pmid.us/2822877

White rice is better.

Gumby wrote:

Benko wrote: Gumby I notice you have not commented on the Kresser thread.

Yeah, not much to say there. I agree with Kresser that healthy people can eat 80/20 without worry. Nothing wrong with that and it's something I fully support. 

Thanks.  I think a lot of people may be surprised to hear that. 

Benko wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Benko wrote: Gumby I notice you have not commented on the Kresser thread.

Yeah, not much to say there. I agree with Kresser that healthy people can eat 80/20 without worry. Nothing wrong with that and it's something I fully support. 

Thanks.  I think a lot of people may be surprised to hear that.

I'm a sucker for cupcakes, milkshakes and bacon egg croissants. What can I say?

I do eat bread and pasta in restaurants without thinking twice about it. But I don't eat out all that often. I probably eat pasta twice a month if I'm feeling good.

Gumby wrote: I'm a sucker for cupcakes, milkshakes and bacon egg croissants. What can I say?

I do eat bread and pasta in restaurants without thinking twice about it. But I don't eat out all that often. I probably eat pasta twice a month if I'm feeling good.

Yeah, if you're depriving yourself it's really tough to stay with it. One of the biggest things that got me eating healthier was learning how to prepare vegetables in more tasty ways. Now it doesn't feel like a chore to eat them!

Pollan acknowledges that the meat is not the same, but he does not seem to realize the vegetables are not the same, either.  Thousands of vegetable and fruit species have gone extinct, and that has reduced our options.  The survivors have been crossbred into unrecognition.  Of the remaining vegetable and fruit species, pesticides of all types, to say nothing of GMOs, contaminate most.  I think paleo-diet followers are trying to get an optimum dietary result by working with the animal and plant foods that are available today, without being as rigid as Pollan seems to believe.  (I'm not a paleo, but I appreciate their insight and their work.)

And grains are a pretty bad deal for lots of people, for a long list of reasons.  Read "Wheat Belly" for a partial list--it's an enlightening book.  Wheat is probably the worst.  It's not rare anymore that longstanding chronic diseases are often alleviated or even halted by eliminating that one grain and its derivatives from the diet. Unfortunately, with processed foods it's in almost everything, but it is possible to do.

Gumby wrote: Oh, and it's also worth pointing out that grains are high in Omega-6 and most Paleos prefer to minimize Omega-6. I'm still trying to figure out what's so "wonderful" about grains (besides the fact that they are cheap and easy to sell and market to populations).

I don't think there are any benefits to grains per se, but only in the soluble fibers.  They have some unique biomedical properties not shared by fruits of vegetable fibers.  Such as lowering cholesterol or slowing down post-prandial absorption.  The insoluble also helps form your poop so you don't feel clogged up and completely eliminate.  Souble isn't too good at that.

Gumby wrote: I'm a sucker for cupcakes, milkshakes and bacon egg croissants. What can I say?

I do eat bread and pasta in restaurants without thinking twice about it. But I don't eat out all that often. I probably eat pasta twice a month if I'm feeling good.

You are but a young Jedi!  I eat none of the above excluding homemade milkshakes.   It seems as long as I keep the denatured milk proteins or hormones to the day I work out, it minimizes the inflammatory reaction.

Once I perfect my PHD-compliant flour, I will be able to make the occasional, egg-free carob cake or cupcakes as well as pizza crusts.  Maybe even bread.

I think that since we have to eat so much protein to go with carbs makes it very hard to justify eating the stuff on a normal basis, i.e. you'd have to place a hell of a lot of slices of lunch meat between two slices of bread.  It's obvious the vast majority of people are just eating too much carbs out of sheer lazyness or ignorance.

"Paleo" is passe anyway because it is too limiting and not based on science.  The new term is "Ancestral" so we can go back to the pre-Paleo, Cambrian Explosion period!

Benko, are you trying hard to rationalize your intake of barley?   You may find it interesting that out of all the grains, I have the strongest reaction to barley.

Interesting comment by Kresser, during a discussion of toxins in grains — and how there isn't enough evidence to support or shun quinoa:

Chris Kresser wrote:I’m also uncertain about quinoa. But whereas millet, oats, maize, rye, wheat and barley (the most toxic grains) are all monocots, quinoa (along with buckwheat and amaranth) are dicots.

A number of people who don’t tolerate other grains seem to be able to eat quinoa without a problem, but I still view it as a “transition”? food. It’s good for those going from a grain-based diet to a grain-free diet when they still need that grain texture/taste.

I’m a bit more favorable towards buckwheat. It’s a dicot in the polygonaceae family, which also includes rhubarb and sorrel. It contains all eight essential amino acids, so it’s close to being a “complete”? protein. When eaten in the form of sourdough crepes (as suggested by Stephan), it seems very well tolerated by most people.

Is it necessary? No. Is it harmful? Probably not. And it does make some tasty pancakes, which are great carriers for butter, cream and berries!

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/09/th ... mment-2005

MachineGhost wrote: Benko, are you trying hard to rationalize your intake of barley?   You may find it interesting that out of all the grains, I have the strongest reaction to barley.

Not really.  I begin to reallize that I may need to give that up (though my reaction to dairy is worse than wheat and I don't know that I have any reaction to barley at all).  Through Kresser (other thread) seems to think that legumes may be safe so I can eat lentils, and peas.  And if you read the Kresser article he is way less dogmatic than the perfect diet guy and he states he is most certain about wheat (which many including William Davis the cardiologist behind...lots of stuff) agreee.

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote:

Gumby wrote: But brown rice is not a health food. There's a reason asian cultures worked so hard to remove the hulls and bran from rice.

Horsehockey.  The arsenic comes from pesticides and other contaminants in the soil, not because it's naturally occurring in rice.  This is like warning people to stay away from lettuce because of E-coli, when the E-coli actually comes from the manure used on the lettuce, not because the lettuce is inherently bad.  Properly grown and prepared brown rice is perfectly healthy and always preferable to white rice. 

Asian cultures didn't remove the hulls and bran from rice because they were worried about arsenic (which was a non-existent problem in the past).  They removed it to please the upper echelons of society, which viewed white rice as more elegant and refined (both literally and figuratively), whereas brown rice was rough and tough and suitable only for peasants.  White rice also stores better than brown rice, which was important when you didn't have air-tight containers or refrigeration.

Either way, the phytates and anti-nutrients in the bran and lower digestibility nullify any benefit.

http://pmid.us/9302338
http://pmid.us/2822877

White rice is better.

White rice has almost nothing going for it.  Here is a quick comparison:

The bran and germ of brown rice contains fiber, folacin, iron, riboflavin, potassium, phosphorus, zinc, and trace minerals such as copper and manganese.  In countries that do not "enrich" their rice, they lose out on all those nutrients when eating white rice. 
Winner = brown rice.

Brown rice is the only form of the grain that contains vitamin E.
Winner = brown rice.

Rice bran and germ oil both lower cholesterol.  Neither one is present in white rice.
Winner = brown rice.

Insulin response for brown rice is significantly lower than for white rice, which is an important factor contributing to diabetes.
Winner = brown rice.

Diets low in micronutrients (such as those containing white rice), increase the risk for esophageal cancer by 50-fold over diets high in micronutrients (such as though containing brown rice).
Winner = brown rice.

The protein digestibility of cooked brown rice is approximately the same as that of cooked milled rice, hence it is advantageous for those for whom rice is a staple food to consume brown rather than milled rice.
Winner = brown rice.

There are significantly increased numbers of beneficial bacteria (probiotics) during brown rice intake, whereas the total counts of harmful bacteria during the intake of brown rice were lower than those before and after the intake.
Winner = brown rice.

Complete article:
http://arp.optimalhealthsystems.com/showeduc.asp?id=7

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Benko, are you trying hard to rationalize your intake of barley?   You may find it interesting that out of all the grains, I have the strongest reaction to barley.

Not really.  I begin to reallize that I may need to give that up (though my reaction to dairy is worse than wheat and I don't know that I have any reaction to barley at all).  Through Kresser (other thread) seems to think that legumes may be safe so I can eat lentils, and peas.  And if you read the Kresser article he is way less dogmatic than the perfect diet guy and he states he is most certain about wheat (which many including William Davis the cardiologist behind...lots of stuff) agreee.

I agree with Kresser in terms of how to approach all this. He's very level-headed. Jaminet is good for when you want hard evidence on food — though even Jaminet admits that it's an imperfect learning process. The idea is that evolutionary clues help lead his research in the right direction.

Btw, Kresser has a post on treating dairy intolerance (when it's possible to do so):

http://chriskresser.com/how-to-cure-lactose-intolerance

rocketdog wrote:The bran and germ of brown rice contains fiber, folacin, iron, riboflavin, potassium, phosphorus, zinc, and trace minerals such as copper and manganese.  In countries that do not "enrich" their rice, they lose out on all those nutrients when eating white rice.

Too bad you can't absorb them. The phytates and anti-nutirents rob your body of those minerals (and more).

http://pmid.us/9302338

rocketdog wrote:Brown rice is the only form of the grain that contains vitamin E.

Too bad it oxidizes before you eat it. Vitamin E is unstable and tends to go rancid.

rocketdog wrote:Rice bran and germ oil both lower cholesterol.  Neither one is present in white rice.

Too bad high cholesterol (< 260) is associated with longevity. Too bad germ oil oxidizes and goes rancid before you eat it.

rocketdog wrote: Insulin response for brown rice is significantly lower than for white rice, which is an important factor contributing to diabetes.

Please. Small amounts of white rice does not "cause" diabetes. If that were true, asian countries would have lots of diabetes.

rocketdog wrote: Diets low in micronutrients (such as those containing white rice), increase the risk for esophageal cancer by 50-fold over diets high in micronutrients (such as though containing brown rice).

We all agree that white rice isn't "nutritious" (beyond dietary glucose). Get your nutrients elsewhere (not brown rice).

rocketdog wrote:The protein digestibility of cooked brown rice is approximately the same as that of cooked milled rice, hence it is advantageous for those for whom rice is a staple food to consume brown rather than milled rice.

The evidence says otherwise about overall digestibility: http://pmid.us/2822877

Yeah, what you're missing, Rocketdog, is bioavailability. Brown rice does indeed contain more nutrients, but they're more fragile and less bioavailable to our bodies due to oxidation and the anti-nutrients alongside them blocking absorbtion.

Gumby wrote:

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Benko, are you trying hard to rationalize your intake of barley?   You may find it interesting that out of all the grains, I have the strongest reaction to barley.

Not really.  I begin to reallize that I may need to give that up (though my reaction to dairy is worse than wheat and I don't know that I have any reaction to barley at all).  Through Kresser (other thread) seems to think that legumes may be safe so I can eat lentils, and peas.  And if you read the Kresser article he is way less dogmatic than the perfect diet guy and he states he is most certain about wheat (which many including William Davis the cardiologist behind...lots of stuff) agreee.

I agree with Kresser in terms of how to approach all this. He's very level-headed. Jaminet is good for when you want hard evidence on food — though even Jaminet admits that it's an imperfect learning process. The idea is that evolutionary clues help lead his research in the right direction.

Btw, Kresser has a post on treating dairy intolerance (when it's possible to do so):

http://chriskresser.com/how-to-cure-lactose-intolerance

"I agree with Kresser in terms of how to approach all this. He's very level-headed"
Agree.  Very practical.

"Btw, Kresser has a post on treating dairy intolerance (when it's possible to do so):"
Thanks I'll  check it out, but I'm not sure what I have would be called intolerance.  If I eat dairy I get really bad dandruff.  I've eaten daily barly and legumes without any reaction, but dairy/cheese/eggs is my bodies strongest reactor and this was born out when I had the IgG food allergy test.  I know they are not deemed reliable, but they did list dairy as 5+ bad with wheat like 4+ bad (both which seem accurate).  Come to think of it, on that test wheat and gluten/gliaden did show 4+ antibodies, but oats and barley I did not react to. Which makes me wonder if 9aside from wheat) it is an antibody mediated thing and nothing to do with any paleo theory.

Gumby wrote:

rocketdog wrote: Insulin response for brown rice is significantly lower than for white rice, which is an important factor contributing to diabetes.

Please. Small amounts of white rice does not "cause" diabetes. If that were true, asian countries would have lots of diabetes.

In Asia they don't eat "small" amounts of white rice, they eat it at virtually every meal.  In some Asian cultures the words "eat" and "rice" are synonymous.  This is contributing to metabolic syndrome and a potential diabetes epidemic.  For the past 5 years Harvard's School of Public Health has been promoting a switch from white to brown rice in China in order to prevent this health calamity:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/brown-rice/

The preliminary results are promising:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/featur ... -diabetes/