PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[metalman]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

My sources who are experts on celiac disease say that distilled spirits, even if derived from gluten grains like wheat or rye - do not have gluten grain proteins or peptides in them.

Apart from the alcohol content and its effects on insulin response, hepatotoxicity, etc. whiskey is safe. Alcohol can affect the lining of the stomach and could in binge amounts cause a leaky gut, but used minimally is OK from a dietary standpoint, IMO.

thx... and for the note on beer. so that's why i like it! :eek:

since you are kindly sharing your encyclopedic knowledge of matters nutritional as they relate to alcohol... wine? i'm going to guess not much better than beer. you said earlier that fruit is nature's candy bar on a tree. does that make wine candy bar juice with alcohol?

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Right!

Thanks for your informative posts, rogermexico. They are quite illuminating.

You are most welcome.

[BadJuju]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Well, you can just go the next step and distill it.

Right!

Thanks for your informative posts, rogermexico. They are quite illuminating.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Bah! Ruin my fun. All things in moderation, I suppose!

Well, you can just go the next step and distill it.

[BadJuju]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Beer is loaded with maltose, a disaccharide sugar composed of two molecules of glucose this gives you a massive rise in blood glucose and concomitant insulin response when you drink it - not too good for you.

Bah! Ruin my fun. All things in moderation, I suppose!

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I can attest that non-pasteurized, unfiltered brews are packed with nutrients and other beneficial molecules.

beer tastes good. No argument there.

Beer is loaded with maltose, a disaccharide sugar composed of two molecules of glucose this gives you a massive rise in blood glucose and concomitant insulin response when you drink it - not too good for you.

As beer is fermented and not distilled, it will have some nontrivial amounts of lectins from whatever grain(s) the yeast ate in order to crap out the alcohol that people drink it for.

It's good to remember that many of the nutrients in grains are located in the same part of the seed that the antinutrients which the seed has developed as a defense mechanism are found. (Gluten is proteins found with the starchy part of seed however) Therefore, attempts to keep the "good" part of the seed, by emphasizing whole grain consumption, for instance, necessarily increase your exposure to the lectins (antinutrients).

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Nourishing Traditions is my bilble in the kitchen. I have learned valuable information about true nutrition. One of the most interesting parts of the book for me was their explanation of how people in the past deactivated what are called phytates ( part of the seed's natural defense mechanisms against being eaten) in grains, legumes and nuts. Lots of other topics (enzymes, fermentation, organ meats,tonics) are covered in this very comprehensive book. There are also references to many other books that add insight and historical/cultural perspectives. It is truly a wealth of information.

I have also read Dr. Mary Enig's Know your fats: the complete primer for undestanding the nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol which I also found very informative. One of the Best books I have read on nutrition is Weston Price's Book Nutrition and physical Degeneration which I give as a gift to my friends and family who are even hinting at having children. Sally Fallon and Mary Enig (authors of Nourishing traditions) are involved in the Weston price foundation and I find their website and updates another good source of information.

Mary Enig's book is excellent.

Weston Price's book is a valuable read - were you to only follow his and WAP recommendations you would on average be healthier than the average person. However, there is simply more information on diet and health available now from more diverse fields of inquiry. If interested in the optimal diet for the individual, I strongly encourage familiarity with additional sources, many of which I have mentioned elsewhere on this thread.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

curious... where does whiskey fit into the paleolithic diet? or is it the equivalent of a vegan stopping by macdonalds for a burger?

My sources who are experts on celiac disease say that distilled spirits, even if derived from gluten grains like wheat or rye - do not have gluten grain proteins or peptides in them.

Apart from the alcohol content and its effects on insulin response, hepatotoxicity, etc. whiskey is safe. Alcohol can affect the lining of the stomach and could in binge amounts cause a leaky gut, but used minimally is OK from a dietary standpoint, IMO.

[BadJuju]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

curious... where does whiskey fit into the paleolithic diet? or is it the equivalent of a vegan stopping by macdonalds for a burger?

I can attest that non-pasteurized, unfiltered brews are packed with nutrients and other beneficial molecules.

[metalman]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

curious... where does whiskey fit into the paleolithic diet? or is it the equivalent of a vegan stopping by macdonalds for a burger?

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Paleo humans discovered that soaking grains overnight reduces cooking and chewing time -- thus saving firewood and energy expenditure.

I doubt if there is any evidence for use of soaking or sprouting of wheat, barley or rye in the paleolithic record, which by definition is prior to 10,000 years ago. If you do have such evidence apart from what contemporary hunter-gatherers do, I would be curious to see it. The contemporary hunter-gatherers that had any substantial calories obtained from carbohydrates (e.g., Kitavans) did not get them from wild wheat, barley or rye. The wild forms of these gluten grains were much smaller and would have been unimaginably energy inefficient as a primary food source - they entered our diets as a result of the technology of agriculture, including cultivation and thousands of years of artificial selection.

I have found no sources in the paleoanthropological literature that document more than token consumption of gluten cereal grains, and certainly none that support any substantial calories from modern versions of these.

The mere fact that soaking, sprouting or even cooking makes things anything more edible tells you zero about whether you would be healthier or less healthy without it in your diet. If the alternative is starvation, it is simply a non sequiter to say that we observe humans eating this to survive so it must be healthy because they are not "modern".

Unbeknowst to them, soaking grains also destroys phytates, "anti-nutrients" that bind with minerals and prevent their usage by the body. Letting bread dough ferment for a day or some days makes grains more digestible and easier to chew, as well as deactivating phytates.

Even if soaking "destroys" all phytates, which is doubtful, how many here at itulip are eating all their whole grains soaked?

Lets stipulate, though, that soaking destroys the phytates and increases the bioavailability of the minerals.

What does soaking do to wheat germ agglutinin, the well studied lectin from wheat that binds so avidly to such a variety of human tissues that it is used for that purpose in laboratory science?

Answer - nothing

What does soaking do to the gliadin proteins found in all gluten grains and found in all wheat flour whether whole or refined, that cause 3 million americans to have celiac disease ?

Answer - nothing

Does cooking eliminate the risks of WGA, other lectins and gliadin protiens?

No.

Evolution favored these traditional practice of processing grains, and we would be wise to do the same to maximize our health.

This is argument by assertion and also a non sequiter. It does not follow that that what is selected for at the gene or group level is the healthiest for the individual. This is an error you continue to make and which is common in those who have inadequate grounding in biological evolution or medical biochemistry and metabolism. You cannot equate "selected for" with "healthy for the individual". I am sure you are familiar with sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell gene conveys survival advantage in africa by conferring resistance to malaria but in the absence of malaria is definitely not "healthy", even though it was selected for.

We don't need to know all the details of science -- such as the biochemistry of phytates in nutrition -- we need only educate ourselves about traditional dietary practices and follow them (although there is some controversy as to what is a "traditional" diet).

You may not be interested in the insights that modern medicine, immunology, molecular biology, and paleoanthropology can add to empirical observations of modern primitives, but that does not mean there is nothing more to learn.

Your continued admonitions to be wary of science and your devotion solely to tradition and intuiiton are what threatens to make your dietary prescriptions a kind of reactionary religion, even though we agree on many points. Try to look at more lines of evidence and your arguments will hold more weight.

I'm not a Luddite when it comes to modern ways, however when it has to do with nutrition, I think modern practices such as refining and food "technology" can only do harm.

I agree to a point - but would disagree that a two hundred year old or even two thousand year old tradition, which may be adaptive at the level of the gene, is the healthiest for an individual in a modern, food abundant environment. My concepts are not grounded at all on whether something is modern as a matter of principle. I am sure you would agree that the modern practice of food preservation via refrigeration is nutritionally superior to the much more traditional method of salt curing.

Nutrition is like economics or the weather -- nobody really knows how it works, especially going out into the future, because it's extremely complicated to analyze all the factors and determine how they all will fit together. That's why I trust Nature over Science in these matters.

Science is the study of nature. We should strive to go beyond appeals to tradition.

Finally, I wonder what commonly available foods would be allowable under your scheme?

The majority of grains consumed in the US (for example) are consumed as white flour. We could probably agree that non-whole wheat pasta is just empty calories, has a huge glycemic load, and is of little nutritive value if you have healthy animal products and other vegetables available. Also, the whole wheat flour that is almost universally mechanically processed has the same glycemic index as white flour, so to keep insulin levels low, we would want to avoid store-bought wheat bread and whole wheat pasta as well, unless it were homemade.

You have stated that we should eat whole grains that are soaked or sprouted.

What is left?

Let's say I decide that, after eliminating sugar and HFCS, and after purposefully radically reducing the amount of grains in my diet to decrease my insulin levels (and my risk of metabolic syndrome and cancer) I desire to retain some small fraction of my residual grain consumption. I am holding my healthy meat consumption constant. This grain consumption will necessarily displace my consumption of salads, cruciferous vegetables, asparagus, mushrooms, nuts, the odd yam, etc. I have seen zero evidence that wheat barley or rye consumption offers me anything I cannot get from what I am already eating, but they have been consumed by tradition (necessity?) for about ten thousand years, so I feel I need the mysterious benefits of these grass seeds that science cannot explain.

I will go to the grocery store right now. What should I buy?

Later I will go to a restaurant. What should I order to go with my seared tuna, green salad and side order of buttered asparagus to make sure I get the special benefit of whole grass seeds that are basically inedible without meticulous preparation?

If we stipulate that lowering carbohydrates as a % of calories from 55% to say, 20% is beneficial, and this is almost impossible to do without eliminating most of the grains we are now consuming, and the remaining huge variety of animals and plants can meet our needs just fine, why not just eliminate gluten grains?

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Nourishing Traditions is my bilble in the kitchen. I have learned valuable information about true nutrition. One of the most interesting parts of the book for me was their explanation of how people in the past deactivated what are called phytates ( part of the seed's natural defense mechanisms against being eaten) in grains, legumes and nuts. Lots of other topics (enzymes, fermentation, organ meats,tonics) are covered in this very comprehensive book. There are also references to many other books that add insight and historical/cultural perspectives. It is truly a wealth of information.

I have also read Dr. Mary Enig's Know your fats: the complete primer for undestanding the nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol which I also found very informative. One of the Best books I have read on nutrition is Weston Price's Book Nutrition and physical Degeneration which I give as a gift to my friends and family who are even hinting at having children. Sally Fallon and Mary Enig (authors of Nourishing traditions) are involved in the Weston price foundation and I find their website and updates another good source of information.

Paleo humans discovered that soaking grains overnight reduces cooking and chewing time -- thus saving firewood and energy expenditure. Unbeknowst to them, soaking grains also destroys phytates, "anti-nutrients" that bind with minerals and prevent their usage by the body. Letting bread dough ferment for a day or some days makes grains more digestible and easier to chew, as well as deactivating phytates.

Evolution favored these traditional practice of processing grains, and we would be wise to do the same to maximize our health. We don't need to know all the details of science -- such as the biochemistry of phytates in nutrition -- we need only educate ourselves about traditional dietary practices and follow them (although there is some controversy as to what is a "traditional" diet). I'm not a Luddite when it comes to modern ways, however when it has to do with nutrition, I think modern practices such as refining and food "technology" can only do harm. Nutrition is like economics or the weather -- nobody really knows how it works, especially going out into the future, because it's extremely complicated to analyze all the factors and determine how they all will fit together. That's why I trust Nature over Science in these matters.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Simple question,

In 2)

2 ..... Drink whole milk or half and half instead of skim.

but in 10)

11 Eliminate milk (if you are sensitive to it, move this up the list)

I understand this to suggest that there is some benefit to eliminate milk, but if you drink it then don't drink skim. Is that correct ?

USING DAIRY TO SUBSTITUTE FAT FOR CARBOHYDRATES

Good question - the list assumes we are starting with the standard american diet. I have found that step one is very difficult without the introduction of fats to substitute for the excess of carbohydrates. Step one is enabled by taking the milk most people are already drinking and ramping up the fat content. Skim milk is less than 0.5% fat by weight and so is mostly water with milk sugar or lactose, and milk protein, including casein. Whole milk is 3.2% fat by weight and has 50% calories from fat, half and half is 10.5 to 18% - usually about 12% fat by weight and most of the calories are therefore coming from fat. (Cream of course avoids most of the lactose and casein because it's nearly all fat.) The hormonal satiety from the increased fat will make the step one elimination of sugar, HFCS and white flour possible. Step one and two really need to be simultaneous to be effective.

In addition to lactose intolerance, which is very common, there can be an immunologic reaction to casein, the protein in milk.

Cream, butter, and cheese have little to no lactose as it has been either skimmed off or eaten by bugs. Cream and butter are mostly fat of course, but both milk and cheese have casein.

I believe casein serving as a molecular mimic to self antigens mainly occurs in the context of a leaky gut however, and if you do not have Wheat Germ Agglutinin and other grain lectins in your diet, the casein is not likely to leak into your blood stream. Multiple sclerosis may be linked to both gluten grain consumption and milk casein in this way. That is why I believe eliminating grains minimizes the threat of milk for most people.

The advice to move milk up the list if you are sensitive just acknowledges that some are lactose intolerant and some may (theoretically) not tolerate the casein even after gluten grain elimination. (although some may be lactose intolerant and just think it's "normal")

I myself drink cream, half and half and occasionally whole milk - but, no surprise, I consume zero gluten grains.

The last two steps are more for theoretical completeness as I find much less scientific evidence indicting dairy than grains. Dairy is not paleolithic historically, but as a relatively ubiquitous food class, definitely helps in acheiving the EM2 - the evolutionary metabolic milieu of low insulin levels and no cereal grains.

[Shakespear]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Simple question,

In 2)

2 ..... Drink whole milk or half and half instead of skim.

but in 10)

11 Eliminate milk (if you are sensitive to it, move this up the list)

I understand this to suggest that there is some benefit to eliminate milk, but if you drink it then don't drink skim. Is that correct ?

[dummass]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Nourishing Traditions is my bilble in the kitchen. I have learned valuable information about true nutrition. One of the most interesting parts of the book for me was their explanation of how people in the past deactivated what are called phytates ( part of the seed's natural defense mechanisms against being eaten) in grains, legumes and nuts. Lots of other topics (enzymes, fermentation, organ meats,tonics) are covered in this very comprehensive book. There are also references to many other books that add insight and historical/cultural perspectives. It is truly a wealth of information.

I have also read Dr. Mary Enig's Know your fats: the complete primer for undestanding the nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol which I also found very informative. One of the Best books I have read on nutrition is Weston Price's Book Nutrition and physical Degeneration which I give as a gift to my friends and family who are even hinting at having children. Sally Fallon and Mary Enig (authors of Nourishing traditions) are involved in the Weston price foundation and I find their website and updates another good source of information.