Diet without bread and grains. Suggestions?

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by jtrikster

If we knew everything than we wouldn't still be doing experiments and revamping dietary recommendations now would we?

My philosophy about food and nutition is the opposite of yours: The more we know, the sicker and more diseased we get because we have the uncanny ego to think we can do it better than evolution and nature.

Nature "knows" what humans screw up.

Jennifer

[jtrikster]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

I recently read where modern franken-wheat has something like 15% protein compared to wheat from the Paleo days which was 3% and didn't grow in fields, just sparsely here and there. Certainly not enough for any kind of harvest.

The amount of protein in the wheat is mainly responsible for the massive increase in Celiac disease and allergies to wheat we see today. True allergic reactions depend on a protein component.

Our bodies just weren't meant for this product.


Jennifer

Expandning on your statement. When you said wheat allergy, I had never heard of it before and was curious about the subject, so I went to google. I initially was looking for numbers and stats; how many people are actually suceptible to wheat allergy.
I couldn't find any numbers, but some detailed information. The protein you mentioned is actually a group of proteins called gluten, which is different for humans to digest. What was interesting is that it actually errodes the small and large intestinal lining which can at times lead to partially digested gluten to enter the bloodstream; it's supposed to be absorbed for nutritional value, but not partially digested. I'm guessing this is what would lead to celiac disease since celiac refers to the celiac trunk, a major artery that branches off of the abdominal aorta (thank god for anatomy class )

You can find the info on wheat here: Wheat Allergy Information

It seems to me that over the centuries, wheat has been keeping smarter, in terms of evolution and survival. Glutens are the mechanism that will eventually keep us from eating wheat, since it doesn't want to be eaten.




I don't necessarily believe we have varying nutritional philosophies. Nature does know much more than we do. I do have to say that after doing a bit of reading on glutens I am rethinking my stance, but I do not feel I have enough information to go one way or another one this one. I haven't questioned each side enough.

Another thing too, you say that because we find it difficult to digest gluten, that we were just not meant to eat it. Well on the other hand, we can't digest cellulose or otherwise commonly known as dietary fiber. So are we just not meant to eat foods with cellulose? I would say not since it helps with relieving of toxins.

I use dietary fiber as an analogy to gluten because maybe there is some sort of other nutritional reason to eat it. I don't sway either way since I haven't read enough on this aspect of the subject but both options are possible. This is something though that I would like to do a little experimenting with, either by looking at what others have done or do it to myself.

I meet with my nutrition professor on Tuesdays and Thursdays and I'll bring up the thread to see what he thinks.

Thanks for the conversation. It's been good.

[Vantage72]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

My philosophy about food and nutition is the opposite of yours: The more we know, the sicker and more diseased we get because we have the uncanny ego to think we can do it better than evolution and nature.

I believe it like this: the more I read and the more I think i know about the food, the more I am out of touch with my natural tendencies, my body and my feelings.

My body will tell me exactly what food is good for me, the question is: am I listening?

[jtrikster]

Originally Posted by Vantage72

I believe it like this: the more I read and the more I think i know about the food, the more I am out of touch with my natural tendencies, my body and my feelings.

My body will tell me exactly what food is good for me, the question is: am I listening?

You don't have to get out of touch with nature if you fill yourself with information. If anything, it would allow you to get more into touch because it tries to answer the how and why. This kind of reminds me about the whole argument between science and religion. Is science religion? Or is it the answer to the how and religion is the answer to the why?

[Wildside]

I've been doing a bit of research on gluten and wheat allergys, mostly trying to find a way that I can enjoy some bread without feeling all guilty, wondering if I am doing my body harm by eating it. What about sprouted grain breads? By sprouting the grain first it seems to really minimize the effects of wheat sensitivities and gluten problems. Here is a link to Silver Hills Bakery bread (which is pretty much what I always buy) Silver Hills Bakery
I am going to eat it for the next week or so and then try not eating for a week and see if I feel a difference.

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by jtrikster

Another thing too, you say that because we find it difficult to digest gluten, that we were just not meant to eat it. Well on the other hand, we can't digest cellulose or otherwise commonly known as dietary fiber. So are we just not meant to eat foods with cellulose? I would say not since it helps with relieving of toxins.

I think the difference is that gluten is a protein which is a subtance our bodies are designed for break down and utilize. However, gluten is a difficult protein for our bodies to do that with. Not all proteins were meant for human consumption. Such as cow's milk. Which explains why there are so many more allergies to cow's milk than to the cow meat itself.

But cellulose is an "insoluable" substance which means our bodies do not possess the capacity to break it down. Cows, with four stomachs that each contain differing levels of acid and enzymes, do break down plant fiber and utilize the microscopic levels of nutrition contained within it.

Fiber is just an innocent bystander to the rest of the fruit or vegetable...along for the ride, so to speak. It's presence does benefit us by helping clean out our colons of waste and occasionally acting as a buffer to regulate the absorption of certain nutritional elements such as sugars. It also carries certain toxins out of our bodies, by default.

Thanks for the conversation. It's been good.

My pleasure, sincerely..

Jennifer

[Excellent Lodestar]

Originally Posted by gettingskinny

Why are grains bad?

Mark’s Daily Apple » Blog Archive » Are There Any Good Carbs?

It's so easy to walk around @ 10% bodyfat without bread now, it feels like I'm cheating

Good luck everyone

[The Cloud]

I'm also doing a diet that eliminates most carbohydrates not derived from fruits and vegetables. I find that a great way to fill up quick is with peanut butter. If you're worried about gaining weight, it might not be the best option, but nothing will fill you up faster than a spoon full of peanut butter. Plus, while it is high in fat, much of it is unsaturated (just try to avoid ones with the word "hydrogenated" in the ingredients list) and helps balance out the saturated fats from meat. Also, it is high in protein, which your body can convert into most of the glucose that your body needs (the brain and the kidneys are pretty much the only organs in your body that NEED glucose for energy).

I agree with you, a diet high in grains and starches is not particularly natural, and it over-stresses the body's insulin response. At least this is my opinion, and I've done a bit of research on it (my major in college is strongly oriented toward biology, so I'm not uninformed). Like you said, this diet is much more consistent, because instead of getting a big spike in blood glucose followed by a strong insulin response due to the toxicity of having a high blood sugar content, there is a more slow and steady conversion of fats into energy (in addition to gluconeogenesis from protein). This seems to me to result in a much more stable level of energy, where instead of your body having to react to what you eat to avoid negative consequences, it is reacting positively to use what it needs when it needs it.

Additionally, several recent studies have linked insulin to aging. So it is possible that by reducing the body's use of insulin you're extending your lifespan. I don't remember exactly where to find the papers I read, but if you go onto pubmed.com and cross-reference insulin and aging you'll probably find some interesting stuff.