PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[Sharky]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

WGA, which is particularly nasty as a lectin, directly binds insulin receptors. There is speculation that proteins in wheat may somehow have opiate receptor activity

Very interesting tidbits there.

Unresponsive insulin receptors are of course at the core of type 2 diabetes. Has any work been done to determine how long the receptors remain bound by WGA after grains are removed from the diet?

There is a relatively recent hypothesis that many autoimmune disorders are caused by low levels of natural opiates; I wonder if this has any connection to that. This concept is the foundation of low dose naltrexone therapy, which works by blocking all opiate receptors for a short time once per day, which causes the body to produce more of them. The higher levels then act to modulate the immune system, causing many auto-immune disorders to abate or go into remission entirely, including things like muliple sclerosis, arthritis, Chron's, etc.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I'm not sure to which snippets of Roger's, Luke's and/or Raja's posts I'm responding here, but I was wondering if we should have a "mental health" thread, perhaps parallel to this "nutrition health" thread.

Nah ... that wouldn't work ... it would collapse into negative comments on each others alleged dietary excesses and deficiencies. :rolleyes:.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I have learned ... abandonment of ... rhetorical devices as a sign of making some headway. Glad to see that is happening. I hope everyone does their own further reading and no one relies solely on either an ex-newsletter writer ... as the final word ... I realize non-physicians are held to a different standard in regards to general advice - but this is absolutely false and dangerous medical advice you are now giving here. The only cure is to avoid gliadin proteins and especially wheat, forever, period.

Rogermexico's reply appears a little bit circuitous on a couple of points to this reader. As Raja somewhat laboriously clarified, no one is advocating the consumption of grains instead of any other foods - just that they can safely be one other source of food on the table. He may get discouraged to read this in reply to such clarifications:

ROGER & PA-NU THEORY REPLY: - "What is your definition of "healthy"? Is a food class that must be "balanced" by more nutritious sources to avoid deficiencies, healthy or just a source of calories?"

Which makes no sense, because *any* food source must be balanced with other food sources to remain healthy for long. If you put humans on a diet of meat only, they will become sickly, and the same will happen from eating grains alone. Not viable in either case! The key component of both meat and grains diets is really just the plentiful vegetable nutrition. and it is these other two rather, which are "incomplete" nutritional sources. Or will someone please correct this elementary reasoning if it is incorrect?

So does Pa_Nu recognize that with great preponderance worldwide, when you add plentiful vegetable nutrition, both the meat and the grain diets become well rounded and for the greatest part the people are healthy?

Not that I've managed to discern. Here is an MD with a presumed keen interest in the bottom line for the good health of mankind at large, arguing that "one of the proofs" that grains are not safe food to eat, is that when consumed alone the grains carbohydrates are actively detrimental to human health. Yes indeed, and who could argue with that? :rolleyes:

So just to be absolutely clear with the secular evidence, out of the meat, the vegetables and grains, only the lowly vegetables will permit you to live healthily enough, without consuming the other two. Meanwhile, one could hardly describe vegetarians as "tottering about" in terms of a fragile state of general health, either. You can't live on meat alone, and you can't live on grains alone. But you can live on vegetables alone, because they are far more "versatile" than the other two in their varieties.

AND SPEAKING MORE TO THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" ASPECT SIDE OF THIS DIET QUESTION:

We can "speak to the public interest" by going global. The presence of grains in the diets of 3/4 of the planet's societies is as an ***additional*** source of nutrition, evolved to permit the numeric expansion of the species - as in - ***more people can be reliably fed***. The reason should be obvious - that without the grains, we are summarily consigning 3/4 of the earth's population to starve, die, or otherwise simply "go somewhere else". :rolleyes:

Raja makes the pragmatic argument - "grains can be a wholesome addition to any diet rich in other forms of nutrition". Roger has little that is 100% unequivocal to rebut this with, as when balanced with plentiful vegetables and meat and where nothing is refined, such diets worldwide (cumulatively) evidence a robust and widely positive health record.

In response, Roger cites statistically significant incidence of grain related issues such as autommune disorders, celiac disease in grain eating regions, but it is unclear whether these cases are being sampled across groups who maintain a healthy vegetable-rich diet, or whether their grains were refined or not. It also remains unclear how this statistical incidence then gets extrapolated out to the general population sufficient to summarily indict an entire dietary source - given that celiac illness or the above automimmune disorders are entirely absent in other grain consuming regions.

Raja's observations accept the following point: Grains have emerged naturally over the course of millennia as a large and viable component of human nutrition, due partly to their nutritive value when combined with vegetables and meat, (BTW a multigenerational real world trial and error that is far superior to any "medically peer reviewed modern case study"), and partly also due to proliferating humanity's NEED TO PRODUCE ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF BASIC FOOD to sustain a growing world population.

Here's another curious argument - That grains "require special preparation therefore they are toxic as food", as if we are to remove "food preparation", most food becomes inedible. The conversation thereafter shows rich promise to devolve into a fruitless academic debate as to "what defines food preparation and why", which clarifies nothing.

Rogers arguments are based upon the notion of an "optimal nutrition" wherein "why should we eat things which have even partly deleterious effects, when we can restrict ourselves to the most nutritious and non-toxic food"?. Well, as noted above, for two thirds of the world this is simply not an option, and secondly when combined in sensible proportions with plentiful vegetables and a modest amount of meat, the argument for toxicity in grains becomes weak, to the point of precarious, as extremely healthy specimens abound the world over.

To argue that "the world" would be better off not eating grains at all is academic, as there is no option to permit the world's current population to exist without grains.

Best approach would be to pragmatically recognize the world's lack of options to feed 8 billion, and redouble one's efforts to prove that grains consumption toxicity really was a real issue at a global level - to settle the matter for the world's best overall interests. Meanwhile the picture that emerges worldwide, is that in the general presence of a balanced other nutrition, such as when grains are combined with enough vegetables, the diseases linked to grains referred to here are simply absent.

Therefore no concerned MD should discharge himself of sincerely and agnostically seeking to understand the bottom line on a food issue of vital importance for the entire world (are grains really even viable food at all?). This is a question of "good grace" inherent in one's recommendations to the world. One has a full understanding of the point that, "institutionalizing" Roger's or Taube's "grains toxicity" to the international food policy level would raise extremely dire consequences for the entirety of people on an already crowded and precariously fed planet.

And if you wrap all of this up with a nice bow around it, and ponder what is signified to the proponent of such a thesis if it were ever ultimately proved wrong by some flaw in it's logic - then one can also understand that for an MD (with influence upon client and public opinion) to be urging the world to dump grains, when it cannot afford to, could arguably even verge upon the unethical, in that it was "bandying about" questions having very large food resource repercussions.

This insight seems curiously missing from Roger's keenness to get to the bottom of the grains having a really deleterious impact on humanity - with that as an ethical backdrop therefore, any skating glibly over the results of simple investigation of the many, many healthy peoples subsisting on grains combined with plentiful vegetables, constitutes a notable ethical hazard as well!

There are some at least potential large improprieties at the heart of a grains=toxic thesis therefore: Because 1) the world NEEDS grains to keep feeding the extant population, therefore grains are "highly pragmatic", and 2) because of the huge abundance of societies evidencing robust good health when the grains are mixed with plentiful other foods.

All this suggests very clearly that "grains toxicity" is a notion that needs to be stress tested carefully away from it's more precious corollaries, such as when expressed in the form of general malnutrition (including Rogermexico's American patients, and all other Americans on an unbalanced modern diet!), or where even a hint of unbalanced diet may compromise the cited instances anywhere in the world. Places in the world where people have less cultural or availability-induced inclination to eat lots of fresh vegetables for balance, should be ruled out as "biased or contaminated case studies" to Roger's thesis.

I don't see Rogermexico candidly confronting any of those issues. I've never seen him even condescend to discuss the benefits of a high meat protein and fat diet upon the elderly. He progresses with this lofty, blandly patronizing style of discourse where every comment and reply to Raja's commmon sense points is an arch form of skirting around the above simple observations.

He seems to have no innate sense of the ethical atractiveness of foregoing a beautifully hermetic thesis involving generalized dogma on the grains, in order to square their at least "imperfect" acceptability as being 2/3 of the world's existing food. And if they are "at least imperfectly" acceptable as food for 2/3 of the world, they are likely quite "at least imperfectly acceptable" as food for you and I. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by raja healthy . . . whole grains are healthy, but must be prepared in the traditional ways, and they must be consumed with a balanced diet.

What is your definition of "healthy"? Is a food class that must be "balanced" by more nutritious sources to avoid deficiencies healthy or just a source of calories?

I think you have just made a very good case for abandoning the naturalist fallacy when it comes to evaluating the health of food eaten by omnivores.

You could also argue that refined sugar is fine in small quantities, "meticulously prepared" - Sugar has been "traditional" in the west now for over a hundred years. Would it be OK to eat 10 lbs of natural, traditional honey every day? It's traditional and natural!

In today's environment, what do you consider the safe, low glycemic properly prepared sources of whole grains that are healthy and essential? ...

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Don't know of any animals that photosynthesis.

A great link about it though: http://www.naturalways.com/spirul1.htm

Spirulina is one of the few plant sources of vitamin B12, usually found only in animal tissues. A teaspoon of Spirulina supplies 21/2 times the Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin B12 and contains over twice the amount of this vitamin found in an equivalent serving of liver.
Spirulina also provides high concentrations of many other nutrients - amino acids, chelated minerals, pigmentations, rhamnose sugars (complex natural plant sugars), trace elements, enzymes - that are in an easily assimilable form.
Even though it is single-celled, Spirulina is relatively large, attaining sizes of 0.5 millimeters in length. This is about 100 times the size of most other algae, which makes some individual Spirulina cells visible to the naked eye. Furthermore, the prolific reproductive capacity of the cells and their proclivity to adhere in colonies makes Spirulina a large and easily gathered plant mass.

I am not an expert on supplements or blue-green algae. As you might guess, I regard supplements and special food-defensive efforts other than cooking as evidence of suboptimal diet per se.

That said, there seems to be at least some dispute about the bioavailability of B12 in Spirulina

From Wikipedia:

B12
The bioavailability of vitamin B12 in Spirulina is in dispute. Several biological assays have been used to test for the presence of vitamin B12.[7] The most popular is the US Pharmacopeia method using the Lactobacillus leichmannii assay. Studies using this method have shown Spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12.[8] However, this assay does not differentiate between true B12 (cobalamin) and similar compounds (corrinoids) that cannot be used in human metabolism. Cyanotech, a grower of spirulina, claims to have done a more recent assay, which has shown Spirulina to be a significant source of cobalamin. However, the assay is not published for scientific review and so the validity of this assay is in doubt.[9] The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina can not be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12. [10]
Tests done on Australian-grown spirulina by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory (AGAL) show Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) levels of 659.1 ug / per100g [11].[dubious – discuss] A one gram tablet could provide more than three times the recommended daily intake of B12.
[edit]

Hopefully you are lacto-ovo or taking brewer's yeast or some additional source.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I don't know if you're from Mexico, Roger, but your username reminded me of something a friend from Mexico, who has been in the US for 10 years, told me recently. His brother just moved to the states, and one of the first things he did was take his brother to the supermarket. He told him all the crap not to buy because he has seen too many Latin American friends get fat on American junk food in the first 6 months after arriving.

Jimmy

Roger Mexico is a character from Gravity's Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon

I'm only from Mexico if you count the part we stole (born in California);)

Jimmy, if you just stay to the periphery of the supermarket and never buy any food that comes in a box or any plant oil that comes in bottle, you are doing about 80% of my recommendations. That is how to survive in the States!

[jimmygu3]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

hello JK, was responding more to Jimmy's comment about trials, there.

As far as the other diseases (not celiac) it is just anecdotal or small non-controlled trials, according to what I have found so far.

I only wish we had that kind of granularity in epidemiologic data!

As far as obesity, I would expect that to be covariant only to the degree that increased carb caloiries tracks gliadin grains like wheat.

One could adopt a western diet with no wheat and lots of sugar and keep eating white rice like in the old country, become obese and not be at increased risk for celiac or possibly the autoimmune diseases. It sounds like that is what you are suggesting. That is what I would expect.

I don't know if you're from Mexico, Roger, but your username reminded me of something a friend from Mexico, who has been in the US for 10 years, told me recently. His brother just moved to the states, and one of the first things he did was take his brother to the supermarket. He told him all the crap not to buy because he has seen too many Latin American friends get fat on American junk food in the first 6 months after arriving.

Jimmy

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i thought perphaps you knew of, e.g., epidemiological data correlating grain component/composition of diet with the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis. for example, comparing asians in the u.s., eating an american diet, with asians in their own countries of origin [to void the genetic variation]- if what you said was true we'd expect the illnesses to vary right along with the obesity.

if the level of evidence is just anecdotal, so be it. it's all we've got. but we need to distinguish levels of evidence to really have a good discussion.

hello JK, was responding more to Jimmy's comment about trials, there.

As far as the other diseases (not celiac) it is just anecdotal or small non-controlled trials, according to what I have found so far.

I only wish we had that kind of granularity in epidemiologic data!

As far as obesity, I would expect that to be covariant only to the degree that increased carb caloiries tracks gliadin grains like wheat.

One could adopt a western diet with no wheat and lots of sugar and keep eating white rice like in the old country, become obese and not be at increased risk for celiac or possibly the autoimmune diseases. It sounds like that is what you are suggesting. That is what I would expect.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i am reading one of eades' books, and he makes the same assertions there, unfortunately without providing any references or even explanation. what is the evidence that grains are implicated with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and epilespy?

e.g. to say that schizophrenia has a 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease may imply, for example, that certain genes which predispose to these illnesses overlap or are closely linked. that is not the same as saying grains are causitive. is there more evidence than that?

and what is the evidence linking grains to rheumatoid arthitis and multiple sclerosis? those were mentioned by eades without any discussion or supporting data - i understand that his is a popular, not a scientific, book, but i'm really curious to know whether there is such a connection.,

Hey JK -

There is link to a review article with quite a few references. I am compiling many more recent references as well and will make those available as I get them.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...%20article.pdf

I think cordain is in error in being somewhat saturated-fat-phobic, but he has good references about grains and a good discussion

If I had all my primary sources ready, I would just recommend my book

As an aside, I would never have started down this path by reading a book wih the word "diet" in the title. My BMI was 20 when I read Taubes' book, and I had never read a diet book, ever.

My book will (hopefully) be a scholarly exploration of the paleolithic nutrition idea more in the vein of Taubes, than in the vein of current "pop" weight loss books. This is what the field needs to bring it into the mainstream of medicine and begin to make further headway against the diet/heart hypothesis and the irrational veneration of whole grains.

Wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) and gliadins both increase the leakiness of the gut, allowing foreign proteins (including lectins from grains themselves) to enter the systemic circulation. If there is homology with existing self proteins, there may then be a cross-reagenicity via molecular mimicry, resulting in autoimmune disorders.

It is possible that individual genes for all these many associated diseases could all just be in linkage disequilibrium and therefore associated with the HLA subtypes most predisposing to celiac disease, which we know for sure is caused by grains. However, once you understand the pathology at the level of the gut, and that WGA and other lectins may affect gut permeability even without celiac disease, it is much more plausible that the associated diseases are all autoimmune diseases related to foreign antigens and molecular mimicry via grain consumption.

WGA, which is particularly nasty as a lectin, directly binds insulin receptors. There is speculation that proteins in wheat may somehow have opiate receptor activity - relating it to the schizoprenia - you would understand such a mechanism better than I - I've not read a lot on the schizophrenia connection specifically.

I am always trying to falsify my hypothesis. If you find an abstract or paper one way or another, you can email it to me.

Thanks

RM

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The removal of grains as the cure for celiac is proven.

There is a fair bit of evidence, mostly anecdotal, of improvement in many autoimmune diseases and even schizophrenia with grain cessation.

The randomized trial is the gold standard, but expensive and difficult to control.

It can take months or sometimes years for some of these diseases to abate, which also complicates things (how long should the trial be?)

my question, rm, was genuine, not combative. i thought perphaps you knew of, e.g., epidemiological data correlating grain component/composition of diet with the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis. for example, comparing asians in the u.s., eating an american diet, with asians in their own countries of origin [to void the genetic variation]- if what you said was true we'd expect the illnesses to vary right along with the obesity.

if the level of evidence is just anecdotal, so be it. it's all we've got. but we need to distinguish levels of evidence to really have a good discussion.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Good questions, jk. And I would add that if such causation exists, it would be relatively simple to do a double-blind study of patients who already have these diseases to see if removing grains alleviates the symptoms.

Jimmy

The removal of grains as the cure for celiac is proven.

There is a fair bit of evidence, mostly anecdotal, of improvement in many autoimmune diseases and even schizophrenia with grain cessation.

The randomized trial is the gold standard, but expensive and difficult to control.

It can take months or sometimes years for some of these diseases to abate, which also complicates things (how long should the trial be?)

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger,

Your posts are like a shotgun blast . . . and just as dangerous :eek:

In support of your agenda, you throw out innumerable points, most of which are not relevant or argue against positions that I have not taken. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of facts your present will be mistaken as wisdom by some of those not well versed in the subject of nutrition.

It is clear that this discussion will be endless . . . because of the complexity of the subject matter and the nature of how you deal with it. This will be the last time I respond. Hopefully, those paying attention will understand what's going on.

I have learned to take the resort to ad hominem and abandonment of other rhetorical devices as a sign of making some headway. Glad to see that is happening. I hope everyone does their own further reading and no one relies solely on either an ex-newsletter writer nor a physician as the final word

True, celiac disease appears more prevalent now. But is that because of better diagnostic techniques, or because sugar and refined grain consumption have skyrocketed resulting in worse overall health?

Celiac has nothing to do with sugar consumption.

I have to confess that weight loss is something that is plaguing America. Why, just look at all the emaciated people walking down the streets of the U.S. :rolleyes:

This idea is that carbohydrates cause obesity in most people but the grains that are their source causes weight loss in some due to the severity of the allergic response in the gut. This seems incongruous to you?

Everybody . . . except you . . . eats grains. So why is the incidence of celiac disease only 1 in 300 ? Obviously, grains are not as toxic as you suggest.

It is prevalence, not incidence. This is higher than the number with type I diabetes.

If you were to say there are only 1 million in the united states with disease x, and let be x celiac, or breast cancer, or diabetes, or whatever, I think you might see that 1 in 300 is not trivial. To use the smoking analogy again, The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer but the relative risk of lung cancer with smoking is 10.0 - it is beyond dispute that it raises your risk.

Nobody ever said celiac disease was fun . . . .

This seems a bit flippant, it is a serious disease that is underdiagnosed.

NThe cure for this disease, however, is not to avoid grains forever, but to avoid them temporarily while eating an otherwise traditional diet that avoids sugar and refined carbohydrates. (Rice may be tolerated.)
Once intestinal health is recovered, grains can be safely eaten again.

I realize non-physicians are held to a different standard in regards to general advice - but this is absolutely false and dangerous medical advice you are now giving here. The only cure is to avoid gliadin proteins and especially wheat, forever, period. To resume eating grains that have made you ill once you have recovered is just plain stupid.

But seriously, how do you explain why the rest of the grain-eating world does not suffer hypogonadal dwarfism? Obviously, something else is going on.

Yes, they are compensating for what grains lack.

Pellagra, a niacin deficiency, is not caused by "excess corn consumption". It is caused by failing to add lime to the corn -- as was done traditionally by the American and Southeastern Indians -- in order to release its niacin.
If you would stop to think a minute, you would ask yourself why pellagra wasn't endemic among these populations.

They ate as many animals as they could - the grain was just caloric supplementation and not in any way "essential", other than for calories.

Again, you claim lack of supplementation, modification or meticulous preparation is the problem, not the food that must be accomodated by such maneuvers. Makes no sense to me.

Did you pause to ask yourself why the grain-eaters in America and Europe are not suffering from iron deficiency and anemia like those of poorer countries?

I have said many, many times they got what they need from animal sources

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Price's work examined people from over 20 remote locations around the world. They all ate different diets, yet all were healthier that modern people.

Price studied people who were his contemporaries in the 1930's - modern primitives driven to niches defined by the absence of our civilization are simply not representative of what was eaten before agriculture. I freely grant if their sugar intake were lower than ours they were definitely healthier. However, the fact that some tolerated grains as a source of calories in no way proves they needed grains or that they might not have been healthier without them.

Observational studies alone cannot prove hypotheses, only generate them.

Regards dental health, Price found that those living in nature experienced one cavity per three adults (no tooth brushing or floss used). . . whereas those living at the trading posts suffered numerous caries.

We are in total agreement about sugar and highly refined grains.

If you avoid processed foods and eat a varied diet of grains, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meats, and add in some sea products (sea fish or seaweeds) you will have a very similar macro and micro nutritional diet as those people that price studied . . . because you are eating as they did. And, you will experience a similar level of health.

Again, the assumption is that that is the best we can do - I believe it is not.
The Kitavans have a 75% smoking rate - you must consider, using other lines of evidence, that other cultures you find, no matter how traditional they look, may have adopted more sublte dietary behaviors that are less than optimal, in addition to obvious ones like tobacco smoking, which was original to native americans and quite "traditional" to them.

Price identified the sugar connection (as did TL Cleave of the Royal Navy), but with more information, we now know that although that may even be more than half the story, it is definitley not the whole story.

healthy . . . whole grains are healthy, but must be prepared in the traditional ways, and they must be consumed with a balanced diet.

What is your definition of "healthy"? Is a food class that must be "balanced" by more nutritious sources to avoid deficiencies healthy or just a source of calories?

For those with intestinal weakness, avoidance of grains, particularly wheat, might be advisable during the healing phase.

Modern medicine and biomedical science are not perfect, but they are not astrology either. With modern molecular biology we now know much more about the pathologic changes caused by grain consumption.

This intestinal weakness you concede is a problem is more ubiquitous than either you or Price realized. Please do some more research before concluding that Weston Price settled the issue in the 1930s and there is nothing that modern molecular biology and clinical medicine can add.

Those few with a true allergy to wheat should eat rice.

Why not just avoid it by eating rice in the first place? Why only wait to stop eating it when you have an obvious "allergy". How do you know if you have an allergy? Why not quit smoking when you show signs of "allergy" in the form of a cough. Why not? Because you might not ever cough. You might just end up on oxygen.

How shall we diagnose this "true allergy" and distinguish it from the thousands of other causes of gastrointestinal disturbance?

How do you know if your asthma or multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease is wheat related or not, and why wait until you get it to avoid the wheat?

The amount of solanine in modern potatoes that will cause symptoms is about 6 times the normal serving. One wonders if the amount of toxin ingested by regular consumption of lesser amounts of nightshades, although not producing immediate symptoms, might cause some negative health consequences over a lifetime.

In some parts of the world, the nightshade vegetables are only consumed after lengthy cooking, soaking in salt water for some time or other processing.

Since the worldwide consumption of nightshade plants is relatively recent, as a precaution I limit my consumption of these plants, using them only occasionally. YMMV.

Now you can see why I mention yams but don't advocate tubers as a class.

Not as problematic as grains, though.

I think you have just made a very good case for abandoning the naturalist fallacy when it comes to evaluating the health of food eaten by omnivores.

You could also argue that refined sugar is fine in small quantities, "meticulously prepared" - that is reasonable actually, but since it offers you nothing, we are both saying just avoid it. Sugar has been "traditional" in the west now for over a hundred years. Would it be OK to eat 10 lbs of natural, traditional honey every day? It's traditional and natural!

Currently, americans get more than half their carbohydrate calories from sugar and refined grains. Machine- made whole wheat flour you buy at the supermarket has a glycemic index nearly the same as white bread. In today's environment, what do you consider the safe, low glycemic properly prepared sources of whole grains that are healthy and essential? What exact sources of whole grains are you advocating?

And then please tell me what these sources have that make them essential.

[jimmygu3]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i am reading one of eades' books, and he makes the same assertions there, unfortunately without providing any references or even explanation. what is the evidence that grains are implicated with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and epilespy?

e.g. to say that schizophrenia has a 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease may imply, for example, that certain genes which predispose to these illnesses overlap or are closely linked. that is not the same as saying grains are causitive. is there more evidence than that?

and what is the evidence linking grains to rheumatoid arthitis and multiple sclerosis? those were mentioned by eades without any discussion or supporting data - i understand that his is a popular, not a scientific, book, but i'm really curious to know whether there is such a connection.,

Good questions, jk. And I would add that if such causation exists, it would be relatively simple to do a double-blind study of patients who already have these diseases to see if removing grains alleviates the symptoms.

Jimmy

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The presence of celiac disease (100% related to wheat) is linked to the risk of many other autoimmune diseases as well:

Insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus (Type I DM) -Type II is more related to sugars and refined grains - this is type I, where little children have to inject themselves to avoid death.

Sjogren syndrome - a serious and uncomfortable autoimmune disorder affecting the salivary glands - 10x more common in those with celiac.

Rheumatoid arthritis - serious, painful autoimmune disease

IGA nephropathy

Multiple Sclerosis - debilitating neurological degenerative disease, Here there are several putative agents in thediet, including wheat

Schizophrenia - 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease.

peripheral neuropathies

epilepsy

Grains are dangerous if your ancestors are from northern europe.

i am reading one of eades' books, and he makes the same assertions there, unfortunately without providing any references or even explanation. what is the evidence that grains are implicated with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and epilespy?

e.g. to say that schizophrenia has a 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease may imply, for example, that certain genes which predispose to these illnesses overlap or are closely linked. that is not the same as saying grains are causitive. is there more evidence than that?

and what is the evidence linking grains to rheumatoid arthitis and multiple sclerosis? those were mentioned by eades without any discussion or supporting data - i understand that his is a popular, not a scientific, book, but i'm really curious to know whether there is such a connection.,

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

However, saying that some population ate this-or-that food and didn't suffer ill effects is a pretty weak argument. Who knows what else they ate, what their genetics were like, how much exercise they were getting, what their overall nutritional status was, etc, etc. For example, the absence of certain micronutrients (such as zinc, selenium, molybdenum, etc), can cause a whole host of problems. Issues related to detoxification of the natural toxins in food is one of the first things to suffer.

I don't think it's weak at all . . . here's why . . . .

Price's work examined people from over 20 remote locations around the world. They all ate different diets, yet all were healthier that modern people.

In Price's time, as today, genetics was used to explain away a lot of the ignorance of disease etiology by the medical profession. Price was interested in this aspect, so made a special point of investigating it. He would examine the dental and overall health of a remote tribe eating their natural diet . . . but invariably there would be a member of the tribe (same basic genetics) who was living at the nearby trading post and eating processed foods, and that individual would be examined too.

Regards dental health, Price found that those living in nature experienced one cavity per three adults (no tooth brushing or floss used). . . whereas those living at the trading posts suffered numerous caries. Also, the jaw structure and tooth formation of the offspring of the latter were severely compromised (i.e., crooked teeth) compared to those living naturally. Overall health was consistently better for those eating a natural diet.

If you avoid processed foods and eat a varied diet of grains, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meats, and add in some sea products (sea fish or seaweeds) you will have a very similar macro and micro nutritional diet as those people that price studied . . . because you are eating as they did. And, you will experience a similar level of health.

Or course, exercise is important, too. All pre-industrial people got lots . . . .

In fact, I'm still not sure I understand the nature of your disagreement. Are you disagreeing with the ideas about insulin? That refined grains are unhealthy? Or is it the possibility that all grain might be unhealthy, and is therefore best avoided if you're trying to optimize your health?

Refined grains are unhealthy . . . whole grains are healthy, but must be prepared in the traditional ways, and they must be consumed with a balanced diet.

For those with intestinal weakness, avoidance of grains, particularly wheat, might be advisable during the healing phase.

Those few with a true allergy to wheat should eat rice.

BTW, the same is true for potatoes, which have also been eaten by humans for ages. Being in the nightshades family, they contain nicotine, as do their cousins tobacco, eggplant and capsicum. Does the fact that they've been eaten for ages mean that the toxin they contain doesn't have a negative effect in some populations?

Potatoes, tomatoes and the other members of the nightshade family were first introduced to Europe during the 16th century when explorers brought them back from Central and South America.

At that time, corn was the preferred food in Central and South America, and potatoes were generally consumed only in the mountains where corn did not grow well.
Traditionally, the mountain potato eaters would consume potatoes with a pinch of ground snail shell or clay to neutralize its perceived toxic effects. The potato was processed by repeated freezing and thawing before consumption.

Nearly all of the 160 wild potato species growing in the Andes contain toxic chemicals, and so do two of the eight species cultivated and consumed by local Indians. The Indians prevent these tubers from causing gastrointestinal distress either by leaching out the chemicals or by eating the tubers with a dip made of clay and a mustardlike herb, reported Timothy Johns, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/22/sc...pagewanted=all

The toxin to worry about in the nightshades is solanine.

Solanine is a glycoalkaloid poison found in species of the nightshade family, such as potatoes. It can occur naturally in any part of the plant, including the leaves, fruit, and tubers. It is very toxic even in small quantities. Solanine has both fungicidal and pesticidal properties, and it is one of the plant's natural defenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine

The amount of solanine in modern potatoes that will cause symptoms is about 6 times the normal serving. One wonders if the amount of toxin ingested by regular consumption of lesser amounts of nightshades, although not producing immediate symptoms, might cause some negative health consequences over a lifetime.

In some parts of the world, the nightshade vegetables are only consumed after lengthy cooking, soaking in salt water for some time or other processing.

Since the worldwide consumption of nightshade plants is relatively recent, as a precaution I limit my consumption of these plants, using them only occasionally. YMMV.