Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, my goodness. Wheat became a staple because it caused societies to live together since it was so labor intensive and required so many people. But the "straight to the bloodstream" screaming-fast action of wheat made people willing to make that tradeoff...which then required even more masses of people for production...lather, rinse, repeat. I do read. A lot. Particularly anthropology and archaeology. The economics, the payoff, of eating a grain-based diet SUCK, absolutely and positively, v. hunting/gathering.
And in this way it became a cycle and a trap. It wasn't all bad, of course. People being able to live in agrarian/settled areas also enabled us to advance in many other technological ways. And I think technology can be darned food.
Your "whole grains" are very, very, very, very, very processed, brooklyndad, which is why all the forehead-slapping. Good God but there isn't even enough room to go into it all on here, plus I have to go take my kids to the pumpkin patch now.
I disagree that "whole" wheat is healthier than a french fry but again, you're talking something very starchy, very easy to overeat, and... ...wait for it...Absolutely non-Paleo. Not even Meso! If you want to get right down to it.
Le sigh...as I said...keep going the way you're going but I hope people will do their homework on this issue...I have found that people defensive of their grains will go to huge lengths to defend them (this used to be me, BTW, not pointing fingers).
Good luck and good health, everyone.
Trap? Duh, ive read anthro. I know living as a bronze age farmer was less healthy than living as a hunter gatherer. I have no intention of living as a bronze age farmer, with little to eat BUT grain, poor sanitary conditions, infectious diseases, etc. False choice. Im talking about whether as a MODERN American I should include whole wheat muffins in my diet.
easier to overeat? See I dont buy that. I can over eat on lots of foods. Any that I really like, essentially. In my experience there is no particular group of foods susceptible to over eating, and I know of no scientific studies that indicate that. Thats the low carb mantra - and maybe some folks find carbs addictive. I dont see evidence that applies to all of us.
and its not paleo - so what? I dont buy paleo. I dont care its not paleo.
I would say the most defensive people are the folks defensive about meat and sat fat. They have convinced themselve most mainstream nutritional science is a hoax perpetrated by "big grain" while ignoring the actual influence of the meat lobby (and cherry picking the studies that they think DO support them).
I live in a country where millions of people would benefit from whole wheat bread, whole wheat english muffins, whole wheat pasta. And I see ideologues pushing the notion that a slice of whole wheat bread is "crap" when I know it is not. Of course that angers me.
Im sorry if you have celiac, or some other problem digesting wheat. Im glad we have alternatives (I know where you can get wheat free pasta if you like). But dont generalize that to everyone.
I don't believe milk is *toxic* either. Please for the love of cheese () research weaning and lactose-digesting enzymes and how they lower drastically after the breastfeeding approximate biological age is over (age 2-3, I think?) b/c I just don't have time...this is pure, plain science.
.
"Lactase persistence is the continued activity of the enzymelactase in adulthood. Since lactase's only function is the digestion of lactose in milk, in most mammalian species the activity of the enzyme is dramatically reduced after weaning.[1] However in some human populations lactase persistence has recently evolved[2] as an adaptation to the consumption of non-human milk and dairy products beyond infancy. The majority of the global population remain lactase non-persistent,[1] and subsequently exhibits varying degrees of lactose intolerance as adults – though not all genetically lactase non-persistent individuals are noticeably lactose intolerant, and not all lactose intolerant individuals have the lactase non-persistence allele."
Look, my wife and I are both ashkenazic Jews. Though I have other biological markers of my mid eastern origin, on this one I must have lucked out and gotten the goyish genes - she is lactose intolerant, and I am not. Its not hard to tell - the symptoms of lactose intolerance are widely known, and easy to tell. They are common among asians, africans, and middle easterners. they are UNCOMMON among north europeans, BECAUSE they have used so much dairy for so long (but not before the neolithic, of course). I guess Ive gotten some north european ancestry then (not surprising given that ashkenazic Jews are only about 50% Middle eastern in ancestry according to recent studies). Ergo, I can eat cheese, skim milk, ice cream, etc (as long as I limit the sat fat). I know of no evidence that there are negative health effects of lactose on people who are NOT visibly lactose intolerant.
I. For any of us whose bodies do not have the genes to accept 90% processed non-food foods
rhetoric.
There are foods traditionally gathered by hunter gatherers that ARE toxic without processing, including various tubers, nuts, etc. So the hunter gatherers figured out how to leach out the toxins and get the nutrients. Thats what humans do. It doesnt establish that those foods are not foods, unless you DEFINE foods to be those that need no processing, but thats circular reasoning, as I am sure you know.
and again theres no evidence that our genes "know" the difference between a starch made from a detoxified toxic nut, say, and an originally non toxic nut. Thats WHY hunter gatherers, AND early farmers, were able to do what they did. They were finding foods they COULD healthily eat, but could grow more economically (that the INCREASE in their numbers made their societies dependent on agriculture is NOT an argument that those were not "real" foods or were unhealthy - if anything its a sign of how healthy their diet was, or it would not have led to INCREASES in density).
Oh my goodness, how many times now have I said "most" or "many" and specifically pointed out that I'm not talking about everyone?
We will have to agree to disagree. I didn't appreciate the "duh" either. Obviously this is pressing some buttons. As I've said several times now (PLEASE re-read, goodness sakes), if you're fine with it then go for it -- anyone would. Beyond that we'll have to agree to disagree because you're just not hearing me and I'm sorry that's happening.
Whatever country you're in, the people might benefit from whole wheat if all the nutrients weren't stripped out of it (which they are...which is why wheat products, including whole wheat products, are "enriched"...they have to add stuff in). I would think that if what's helping is what's being injected back into flour, then people would benefit more from a vitamin, plus whole foods rather than vitamins mixed in a lab, injected into something that many people's bodies can't handle. (I repeat. MANY people's bodies.) But that's just me.
I don't think you're hearing me but hopefully anyone reading this thread will be interested enough to continue his or her own research from here. I'm sorry you react emotionally to certain foods being called "crap."
[ I know of no evidence that there are negative health effects of lactose on people who are NOT visibly lactose intolerant.
Erm, I don't either. I never said I did. I obviously hit a BIG trigger calling food you love a name. I won't take the name back but I will say: you're so inflamed at this point that you're not hearing what I *am* saying...and you're hearing me say things I'm *not*. So I'll leave you to your bread now. Not much more I can do, I've explained enough. (shrug)
When you say something is "crap" you imply that there's something wrong with it. Not that it's neutral, but that it's very specifically - negative. Bad for you. Unhealthy. Toxic. That is what the expression "<noun> is crap" means.
If you don't mean to imply that dairy is an unhealthy thing that people shouldn't consume (without qualification) then don't say it's crap. Instead, perhaps, say "I am unable to tolerate dairy." or "I can't stand dairy." or "Dairy does crappy things to me."
But to take an item, and label it crap, IS insulting to those people who enjoy that thing, especially when there is nothing about it that's inherently bad for people, in general. Most people are NOT unable to eat dairy products. Only a minority are.
If you don't mean to imply that dairy is an unhealthy thing that people shouldn't consume (without qualification) then don't say it's crap. Instead, perhaps, say "I am unable to tolerate dairy." or "I can't stand dairy." or "Dairy does crappy things to me.".
I...and many, many, many, many other people...are "unable to tolerate dairy."
There ARE people who CAN tolerate dairy, certainly. There are also people who can tolerate grains. For about the 11th time... (Oh dear God why don't people read?)
And for the record, I'm not the person who originally said it was crap at all; I was trying to explain why, for some people, it IS crap, pure and simple. I would not have thought to call it that myself, I was just explaining for someone else. Then I picked up on the "crap" thing because it seemed to be the singular focus for some people (rather than any actual learning or teaching going on ...heaven forbid, let's go crazy with semantics).
As for the majority of people being able to tolerate dairy, between 30 and 50 million people in the U.S. are DIAGNOSED lactose intolerant (there may easily be more who aren't DXd; but we'll stick with just the facts here). There are some 320,000,000 (IIRC...somebody correct me...the only stat I just verified is the lactose intolerant one) in the U.S. That's somewhere close to 10% (at the lowest, and reported end)...a significant amount. Maybe a little more significant than just saying "some."
30,000 people is, well, a lot of people. Just sayin'. That number does warrant looking twice...and becoming educated.
Remember, this is only people who have decided to look for an official diagnosis and for whom doctors reported lactose intolerance (i.e. to an insurance company).
From your post, brooklyndad...I didn't have the patience to quote and take out all the code for the colors, etc.:
"Lactase persistence is the continued activity of the enzyme lactase in adulthood. Since lactase's only function is the digestion of lactose in milk, in most mammalian species the activity of the enzyme is dramatically reduced after weaning.[1] However in some human populations lactase persistence has recently evolved[2] as an adaptation to the consumption of non-human milk and dairy products beyond infancy. The majority of the global population remain lactase non-persistent,[1] and subsequently exhibits varying degrees of lactose intolerance as adults
You said it yourself. (shrug) Science says: No, for the majority of us, drinking breastmilk after infancy is NOT natural.
Which is (wow...coincidence?) exactly what I've just said...about 6 or 7 or more times.
Please re-read because my patience is low; my kids learn faster than this.
Remember, this is only people who have decided to look for an official diagnosis and for whom doctors reported lactose intolerance (i.e. to an insurance company).
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. So basically you're derailing the topic to present your position against specific foods based on specific medical issues.
For the umpteenth time, humans are omnivores, by definition. Vegetarianism is a dietary CHOICE. An animal that is unable to digest meats of any kind with any significant success, is called an herbivore, and NOT a vegetarian. Humans are not herbivores. Someone who eats primarily meat, and avoids vegetable matter of any kind, is a carnivore. People don't eat primarily meat and avoid vegetable matter of any kind. As ominvores, we are designed, as a species, to tolerate and even thrive on the nutrients present in dairy, a variety of flesh, and a variety of plantlife. As a species, we are designed to require nutrients that are present in all of these things.
There are some who can't handle certain foods. Some who have sickness that prevents them from eating certain foods. This doesn't change the fact that the human species is, by design, omnivorous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wheat became a staple because it caused societies to live together since it was so labor intensive and required so many people. But the "straight to the bloodstream" screaming-fast action of wheat made people willing to make that tradeoff...which then required even more masses of people for production...lather, rinse, repeat. I do read. A lot. 
Particularly anthropology and archaeology. The economics, the payoff, of eating a grain-based diet SUCK, absolutely and positively, v. hunting/gathering.
...wait for it...Absolutely non-Paleo. 
) research weaning and lactose-digesting enzymes and how they lower drastically after the breastfeeding approximate biological age is over (age 2-3, I think?) b/c I just don't have time...this is pure, plain science.
I never said I did. I obviously hit a BIG trigger calling food you love a name. I won't take the name back but I will say: you're so inflamed at this point that you're not hearing what I *am* saying...and you're hearing me say things I'm *not*. So I'll leave you to your bread now. 
...heaven forbid, let's go crazy with semantics).
