Bran is a nutrient in whole grains that is NOT found in vegetables

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Mr-Natural-Health, Feb 18, 2006.

  1. Bran is the nutrient in whole grains that is NOT in vegetables

    A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    disease, according to a new study.
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1492

    Men who ate the most whole grains such as oatmeal, brown rice and
    some breakfast cereals had an 18 percent lower risk of heart disease
    than men with the lowest consumption. Those who added the most bran
    to their diet were 30 percent less likely to develop heart disease
    than their peers who ate no added bran.

    The full text of this study which is available online for free shows
    that whole grains are good for you. Bran is the name for one type of
    undigestible non-soluble fiber.
    --
    John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
    Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
    more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
     
    Tags:


  2. "Mr-Natural-Health" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    > Bran is the nutrient in whole grains that is NOT in vegetables
    >
    > A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    > disease, according to a new study.
    > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1492
    >
    > Men who ate the most whole grains such as oatmeal, brown rice and
    > some breakfast cereals had an 18 percent lower risk of heart disease
    > than men with the lowest consumption. Those who added the most bran
    > to their diet were 30 percent less likely to develop heart disease
    > than their peers who ate no added bran.
    >
    > The full text of this study which is available online for free shows
    > that whole grains are good for you. Bran is the name for one type of
    > undigestible non-soluble fiber.
    > --
    > John Gohde,
    > Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
    >
    > The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    > mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
    > Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
    > more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.


    It's an art-science. Avoid dichotomous
    either-or thinking to arrive at the truth.
    It's art and science, science and art.

    George (seeking the middle way)
     
  3. George Cherry wrote:

    > > A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    > > disease, according to a new study.
    > > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1492
    > >
    > > Men who ate the most whole grains such as oatmeal, brown rice and
    > > some breakfast cereals had an 18 percent lower risk of heart disease
    > > than men with the lowest consumption. Those who added the most bran
    > > to their diet were 30 percent less likely to develop heart disease
    > > than their peers who ate no added bran.
    > >
    > > The full text of this study which is available online for free shows
    > > that whole grains are good for you. Bran is the name for one type of
    > > undigestible non-soluble fiber.
    > > --
    > > John Gohde,
    > > Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
    > >
    > > The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    > > mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
    > > Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
    > > more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

    >
    > It's an art-science. Avoid dichotomous
    > either-or thinking to arrive at the truth.
    > It's art and science, science and art.


    While nutrition might be a art-science, achieving it is an art.
    Because art is about achieved results, while science is about so much
    hot air.

    Just thought that you might want to know.
     
  4. TC

    TC Guest

    Since when is bran *a nutient", dumbass.

    TC

    Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
    > Bran is the nutrient in whole grains that is NOT in vegetables
    >
    > A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    > disease, according to a new study.
    > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1492
    >
    > Men who ate the most whole grains such as oatmeal, brown rice and
    > some breakfast cereals had an 18 percent lower risk of heart disease
    > than men with the lowest consumption. Those who added the most bran
    > to their diet were 30 percent less likely to develop heart disease
    > than their peers who ate no added bran.
    >
    > The full text of this study which is available online for free shows
    > that whole grains are good for you. Bran is the name for one type of
    > undigestible non-soluble fiber.
    > --
    > John Gohde,
    > Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
    >
    > The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    > mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
    > Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
    > more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
     
  5. TC wrote:
    > Since when is bran *a nutient", dumbass.


    TC 'The Complainer' complains, yet again. :(

    Maybe be you need some BRAN in your diet in order to flush out that bug
    that has been living up your Arse for the last few years?

    BRAN provides a big health benefit. If something that provides a major
    health benefit is not called a nutrient, then science needs to revise
    their definition.
    http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
    --
    John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
    Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
    sharper terminology than ever before.
    http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
     
  6. TC

    TC Guest

    Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
    > TC wrote:
    > > Since when is bran *a nutient", dumbass.

    >
    > TC 'The Complainer' complains, yet again. :(
    >
    > Maybe be you need some BRAN in your diet in order to flush out that bug
    > that has been living up your Arse for the last few years?
    >
    > BRAN provides a big health benefit. If something that provides a major
    > health benefit is not called a nutrient, then science needs to revise
    > their definition.
    > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
    > --
    > John Gohde,
    > Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
    >
    > The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    > mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
    > Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
    > sharper terminology than ever before.
    > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/


    "Science" needs to change their definition because you chose to define
    nutrient in such a ridiculous way?

    Yeah.... right.......

    While we are at it why don't we re-define troll to mean useful and
    helpful poster. That way we won't be able to call you a troll anymore.

    You, sir, are a moron.

    TC
     
  7. On 18 Feb 2006 07:51:07 -0800, "Mr-Natural-Health"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Bran is the nutrient in whole grains that is NOT in vegetables
    >
    >A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    >disease, according to a new study.


    Wheat bran is our best source for betaine, an important methyl group
    donor recycling homocysteine into methionine. (About 50% of the
    recycling use betaine, not methylenetetrahydrofolate or the B12
    equivalent)
    Choline is the other main source of betaine.

    On warning. Betaine, after donating the methyl group form
    dimethyl-glycine which in turn break down to monomethyl-glycine and
    methanol. Thus being one of the reasons why alcohol dehydrogenase may
    use methanol as alcohol for breakdown. Most possibly a key
    formaline/formaldehyde producer and in turn, formate producer. Most
    possibly, in far hugher doses than whatever aspartame will produce by
    aspartame breakdown into aspartate, phenylalanine and said
    formaldehyde. (And as said other place here, the aspartate degradation
    into beta-alanine, thus inhibiting taurine in being a negative
    feedback signal in downregulation of myeloperoxidase, thus making
    glycine prone to attack by hypochlorite and then formaldehyde
    formation, is most probably the more reason why some may observe
    increased levels of formaldehyde. I guess, if studied, there will be
    observed all forms of aldehydes formed from all aldehyde forming amino
    acids when amino acids reacts with hypochlorite without being able to
    donor the chlorine group to either GSH or taurine.
     
  8. TC

    TC Guest

    betaine is not an essential nutrient in that we produce our own.

    We do not need a "source" of betaine and we do not need bran.

    TC

    Alf Christophersen wrote:
    > On 18 Feb 2006 07:51:07 -0800, "Mr-Natural-Health"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Bran is the nutrient in whole grains that is NOT in vegetables
    > >
    > >A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    > >disease, according to a new study.

    >
    > Wheat bran is our best source for betaine, an important methyl group
    > donor recycling homocysteine into methionine. (About 50% of the
    > recycling use betaine, not methylenetetrahydrofolate or the B12
    > equivalent)
    > Choline is the other main source of betaine.
    >
    > On warning. Betaine, after donating the methyl group form
    > dimethyl-glycine which in turn break down to monomethyl-glycine and
    > methanol. Thus being one of the reasons why alcohol dehydrogenase may
    > use methanol as alcohol for breakdown. Most possibly a key
    > formaline/formaldehyde producer and in turn, formate producer. Most
    > possibly, in far hugher doses than whatever aspartame will produce by
    > aspartame breakdown into aspartate, phenylalanine and said
    > formaldehyde. (And as said other place here, the aspartate degradation
    > into beta-alanine, thus inhibiting taurine in being a negative
    > feedback signal in downregulation of myeloperoxidase, thus making
    > glycine prone to attack by hypochlorite and then formaldehyde
    > formation, is most probably the more reason why some may observe
    > increased levels of formaldehyde. I guess, if studied, there will be
    > observed all forms of aldehydes formed from all aldehyde forming amino
    > acids when amino acids reacts with hypochlorite without being able to
    > donor the chlorine group to either GSH or taurine.
     
  9. TC wrote:
    > We do not need a "source" of betaine and we do not need bran.


    I need my daily Bran a whole lot more than I need to read TC's latest
    complaint.

    Who says so? I do.

    Just thought that the Low-IQ TC might need clarification on that point.
    Also, I am calling TC 'The Complainer' both a Quack and a Kook.
     
  10. Max C.

    Max C. Guest

    Well, first I agree with TC. Bran is not necessary. Calling it a
    nutrient is not going to make it any more necessary. I've personally
    helped too many people turn their health around for the better by
    getting rid of grains in their diet to believe anything in that study.
    Digestion usually improves, weight is usually lost and most people,
    after getting through the carb withdrawal, say they "just feel better"
    after removing grains from their diet.

    I also take issue with this study's methods. They use a history
    questionnaire... one of the least accurate methods of scientific study
    available. I especially loved this sentence from the study:

    "Recipes were written for each type of bread by using product labels,
    and the final composite for dark bread was developed by using a
    weighted average based on observation of shelf space in local
    supermarkets."

    Sounds really scientific, huh?

    The funny thing is, if you read table 4, the study itself shows that
    bran intake had nothing at all to do with cardiovascular disease. The
    only model in that table that looks anywhere close to positive is the
    age-adjusted model. That's a fancy way of saying "We cut out the ages
    we didn't like because those numbers were screwing with our desired
    outcome." The numbers on all other models are all over the place.
    Hardly conclusive evidence.

    Added germ intake in table 5 almost seems to have a negative effect.

    What I REALLY love, though, is table 2. This table CLEARLY shows that
    as whole grain consumption goes up, intake of common junk food goes
    down. Check it out. Intake of white bread, white rice, doughnuts...
    all of which are refined foods... goes down and intake of fruits,
    veggies and fish goes up with increased intake of whole grain. Sorry,
    but THAT'S the reason you're seeing lower heart disease in the high
    whole grain group. It has nothing to do with increased bran.

    A good study shouldn't be that easy to pick apart.

    Max.
     
  11. On 24 Feb 2006 11:51:04 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >betaine is not an essential nutrient in that we produce our own.
    >
    >We do not need a "source" of betaine and we do not need bran.


    Well, choline is essential, and since the feed of choline is rather
    limited, betaine intake has big benefits against problems with
    homocysteinaemia. And experiments do show that B12 and folate cannot
    substitute fully the methyl group donation done by betaine. (and
    neither can betaine exchange for B12 or folate. They are all needed
    present in body. But, as you say, choline intake is good, there is no
    need for betaine, most possibly. But, in Western hemisphere I'm sorry
    to tell you, betaine is needed in diet.
    On the other hand, if you eat lot of beet roots grown in salty soil,
    you also get a splendid source of betaine.
     
  12. Max C.

    Max C. Guest

    The study that started this whole thread posted by Mr-Natural-Health.
    Start at the top of the thread and work your way down. You won't have
    to ask questions that have such obvious answers that way.
     
  13. On 24 Feb 2006 19:32:06 -0800, "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The study that started this whole thread posted by Mr-Natural-Health.
    >Start at the top of the thread and work your way down. You won't have
    >to ask questions that have such obvious answers that way.


    If your post was had been properly referenced it would not be necessary to go
    back and read numerous other posts to find out what you are talking about. When
    you refer to a study it is common sense and courtesy to give a reference. You
    expect people to keep everything from days past so you will not need to give a
    reference?

    Ora
     
  14. On 24 Feb 2006 19:32:06 -0800, "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The study that started this whole thread posted by Mr-Natural-Health.
    >Start at the top of the thread and work your way down. You won't have
    >to ask questions that have such obvious answers that way.

    there is not a single study on the effects of fibers. There has been
    hundreds, and they show just the same, as the one cited.
     
  15. Max C. wrote:

    > What I REALLY love, though, is table 2. This table CLEARLY shows that
    > as whole grain consumption goes up, intake of common junk food goes
    > down. Check it out. Intake of white bread, white rice, doughnuts...
    > all of which are refined foods... goes down ...
    > Sorry,
    > but THAT'S the reason you're seeing lower heart disease in the high
    > whole grain group.


    Newsflash!!!!

    The primary difference between refined grain products and whole-grain
    is BRAN. Other studies have shown that wheat germ is as neutral as is
    the starchy endosperm.

    Perhaps, if you were to concentrate while you read?
    http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
    --
    John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
    Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
    sharper terminology than ever before.
    http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/
     
  16. Introducing an encore performance for the benefit of those unable to
    look up to the top of the thread.

    Bran is the nutrient in whole grains that is NOT in vegetables

    A diet rich in whole grains lowers a man's risk of developing heart
    disease, according to a new study.
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1492

    Men who ate the most whole grains such as oatmeal, brown rice and
    some breakfast cereals had an 18 percent lower risk of heart disease
    than men with the lowest consumption. Those who added the most bran
    to their diet were 30 percent less likely to develop heart disease
    than their peers who ate no added bran.

    The full text of this study which is available online for free shows
    that whole grains are good for you. Bran is the name for one type of
    undigestible non-soluble fiber.
    --
    John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

    The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
    mind-body connection. Weighing in at 17 web pages, The Nutrition of a
    Healthy Diet ( http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ ) is now with
    more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.
     
  17. Max C.

    Max C. Guest

    I've always loved how when you've been proven wrong you just get rude
    and irritable rather than trying to argue on the merits of your
    position. That's usually a sign that a person doesn't really have much
    of an argument.

    My point was that unless you get groups of people who eat the EXACT
    SAME THING and have the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLES except for the amount of
    bran, the study is useless. In the study you posted, those who ate
    more whole grains also ate a lot more foods that are considered
    healthy... that being fruits, veggies and fish. They also seemed to be
    more likely to avoid junk food since they ate fewer doughnuts. Knowing
    these 2 facts, it's not much of a stretch to say that those who ate
    more whole grains probably had healthier life-styles in general. They
    probably exercised more. They were probably less likely to smoke. In
    fact, if you'll look at table 3, you'll see that several other
    variables were documented, but then they just lumped them all together
    in a "multivariate model." If they were concerned about finding the
    truth in this study, they'd run several calculations to see if the
    other factors could account for the decrease in heart disease.

    But like so many studies trying to tout the benefits of this or that,
    history could be used as a better guide to see if grains are truely
    healthy. To see if whole grains are the way to go, we should compare
    historical groups of people who used them with those that didn't. It's
    pretty easy to do. Take the ancient Egyptians as a prime example.
    Grains were a dietary staple. At that point in histoy, they weren't
    refining their grains, but yet the average ancient Egyptian would be
    considered lucky to reach the age of 40. Even their kings weren't
    living any longer than that.

    In contrast, look at the stories of Floridian Native Americans.

    http://imperium.lenin.ru/~kaledin/tmp/agricltr.txt
    "Earlier conclusions about life span have also been revised.
    Although eye-witness Spanish accounts of the 16th century tell of
    Florida
    Indian fathers seeing their fifth generation before passing away, it
    was
    long believed that primitive people died in their 30's and 40's.
    Robson,
    Boyden and others have dispelled the confusion of longevity with life
    expectancy and discovered that current hunter-gatherers, barring injury
    and severe infection, often outlive their civilized contemporaries."

    In fact, that entire article would be a good read for anyone wanting to
    know if grains, and farming in general, are what humans should eat.

    The last point I'd like to make is that the study you posted ONLY
    addresses heart disease. To me, that makes the study no better than
    the majority of statin drug studies available today. It only addresses
    1 topic of health and completely ignores all others, including overall
    life expectancy. What's the point in lower the risk of heart disease
    if you're just going to increase the risk of some other disease? It is
    a fact that many phytates in whole grains bind to several minerals once
    inside the body. There is little research done on this fact, but I did
    find one study that says that a fiber rich diet could lead to
    imbalances in several minerals:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8829129

    "In conclusion, the fractional absorption of zinc, copper and magnesium
    from the fibre-rich diet was not sufficient to cover intestinal and
    urinary losses of these elements, resulting in negative balances."

    I'll let everyone soak that in for a while.

    Max.
     
  18. Max C.

    Max C. Guest

    > Do you want me to tell you that you are an idiot? Okay, you are an
    idiot!!!

    Heh... being called names by someone who is as unintelligent as you is
    really no insult. :) Name calling is the last bastian of the weak
    mind. It means you have nohting else to offer. If you really want to
    prove me wrong, then go find the raw data used in that study and do
    your own calculations. If there are "hundreds of studies" proving that
    increased whole wheat intake is what actually decreases heart disease,
    then it shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong. Just make sure you use
    studies that compare whole grain groups to no grain groups of equal
    nutritional concern. Comparing whole grain groups to refined grain
    groups is like comparing low octane gas in your gas tank to water. Of
    course the low octane gas is going yield better results.

    Put in a way that even you could understand... *put up or shut up.*

    Of course, you won't do that because you don't have the mental capacity
    to do so. You just blindly follow the nutritional recommendation du
    jur and then post it here as though you've found somthing new. You
    sprinkle it with a few of your ill-gotten opinions to make yourself
    think it's your own idea and then wait for people to disprove you so
    you can call them names. So, go ahead with your name calling. I
    actually enjoy reading it. It makes me laugh.
     
  19. Pizzza Girl

    Pizzza Girl Guest

    I smell "prove it" troll. You know the one with nothing of their own
    to say but "prove it"

    Nobody cares enough for your opinion to prove anything and the troll
    goes away "I won that round". Not enough cuddling from his mom.


    Same ole' same ole'

    "Max C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > > Do you want me to tell you that you are an idiot? Okay, you are

    an
    > idiot!!!
    >
    > Heh... being called names by someone who is as unintelligent as you

    is
    > really no insult. :) Name calling is the last bastian of the weak
    > mind. It means you have nohting else to offer. If you really want

    to
    > prove me wrong, then go find the raw data used in that study and do
    > your own calculations. If there are "hundreds of studies" proving

    that
    > increased whole wheat intake is what actually decreases heart

    disease,
    > then it shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong. Just make sure you use
    > studies that compare whole grain groups to no grain groups of equal
    > nutritional concern. Comparing whole grain groups to refined grain
    > groups is like comparing low octane gas in your gas tank to water.

    Of
    > course the low octane gas is going yield better results.
    >
    > Put in a way that even you could understand... *put up or shut up.*
    >
    > Of course, you won't do that because you don't have the mental

    capacity
    > to do so. You just blindly follow the nutritional recommendation du
    > jur and then post it here as though you've found somthing new. You
    > sprinkle it with a few of your ill-gotten opinions to make yourself
    > think it's your own idea and then wait for people to disprove you so
    > you can call them names. So, go ahead with your name calling. I
    > actually enjoy reading it. It makes me laugh.
    >



    *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
    *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
     
  20. Max C.

    Max C. Guest

    > Nobody cares enough for your opinion to prove anything and the troll goes away "I won that round".

    Really? What did you win? Was there a ref involved? You seem to be
    the only person here that thinks we're in a contest. The real prize is
    good health and long life. I already have fantastic health. I'm going
    to be waiting a LONG time to find out how long the long life part will
    be.

    Interesting that you seem to think you've won even though you can't
    answer a simple question. Why are you avoiding the question?

    Really... you and Natural what's his face should hook up.
     
Loading...