What is so great about grains?

x-no-archive: yes

wouldntyouliketoknow said:

I am not in the medical or nutritional field at all (I am a
psychologist by trade but I have a basic layman's knowledge of the
components of good nutrition). I am enquiring why it is important to
eat grains, by which I mean cereal-based foods. I am studying
informally the components of a complete diet reading texts on the
net, but I can't seem to find what is unique at all about grains - in
other words, what do they have that cannot be obtained elsewhere?

Nothing.

Quoted message said:

The reason I ask is because I personally find them rather too filling
and bloating - especially when cooked in cakes, breads, crackers - I
usually avoid those like the plague. A small portion of cooked brown
rice in my salad does not have that effect, I find. Also, I do drink
the many flavored rice milks (carob, vanilla, etc) so I am obviously
consuming them to a small degree, and I also eat Ryvita crackers a
few times a day (rye), which I find easy on digestion and producing a
light rather than full feeling afterward.

However, most descriptions on the nutritional websites discuss grains
from the perspective of fiber - well obviously one can get tons of
fiber in fruits and vegetables and nuts (thus, not counting grains) -
especially when like me one eats a lot of salads that contain
numerous vegetables, fruits and nuts in them. In fact, when I look
at a list of all the required minerals, vitamins and oils, I find
them in abundance in the veggies, fruits and nuts.

I do realize that grains are great for producing sources of energy,
and the World Health Organization recommends we eat 55% of our diet
in terms of grains, but when I look at the breakdown statistics of
carbohydrates in veggies and fruit, I see that they are packed in
them too (some more than others, granted).

So that would seem to rule out carbohydrates and fiber (as unique to
grains/cereals, that is).

There isn't anything about grains that isn't inferior to veggies as a
source of nutrients and/or fiber, unless you really need to load up on
calories cheaply.

Susan

I suggest you Google this group for terms like "whole grains" or "whole
wheat." I believe you'll quickly find plenty of references and inks to
follow to answer your question. It should become obvious with little
research that Susan it right. There's nothing you need in grains you
can't get from some other source, and you won't have to worry about the
"iffy" side of grains like gluten sensitivity should you choose to
avoid grains.

Of course the title of this thread will practically beg a user named
"Mr. Natural Health" to chime in. While you're Googling whole grains,
pay particular attention to his posts, as he is a self preclaimed whole
grain expert. If you can find them, make sure you read where he has
mentioned his current state of health. I think that, along with his
attitude will be enough to convince you to remove grains from your
diet.

Max.

Susan said:

There isn't anything about grains that isn't inferior to veggies as a
source of nutrients and/or fiber, unless you really need to load up on
calories cheaply.

And that would explain why the diets of third world countries are
loaded with grains ... its the cheap calories.

Quoted message said:

Susan

Rob

x-no-archive: yes

Rob said:

Susan said:

There isn't anything about grains that isn't inferior to veggies as a
source of nutrients and/or fiber, unless you really need to load up on
calories cheaply.

And that would explain why the diets of third world countries are
loaded with grains ... its the cheap calories.

It also explains why a lot of Americans load up on pasta, potatoes,
bread and rice.

Susan

wouldntyouliketoknow said:

However, most descriptions on the nutritional websites discuss grains
from the perspective of fiber - well obviously one can get tons of
fiber in fruits and vegetables and nuts (thus, not counting grains) -
especially when like me one eats a lot of salads that contain
numerous vegetables, fruits and nuts in them. In fact, when I look
at a list of all the required minerals, vitamins and oils, I find
them in abundance in the veggies, fruits and nuts.

Wheat bran is the richest source for betaine. (at least, it could be
so. Most probably, peasants today water the plants far too much to
improve the synthesis of betaine which in plant is mostly needed to
withstand drought periods.

In humans on the other side, it is just as important as the B-vitamins
for recycling homocysteine back to methionine several reports state.

And, B-vitamins cannot exchange for it.

Max C. said:

I suggest you Google this group for terms like "whole grains" or "whole
wheat." I believe you'll quickly find plenty of references and inks to
follow to answer your question. It should become obvious with little
research that Susan it right. There's nothing you need in grains you
can't get from some other source, and you won't have to worry about the
"iffy" side of grains like gluten sensitivity should you choose to
avoid grains.

The bad side of grain growing is that it did feed so many more people.

Without invention of grains humans would count perhaps less than
100000 people totally in world today. So, yes, it is a terrible thing
to have encouraged to grow by repeatly selecting the seeds that did
cling to the weed axe so long, until someone found it could be
grounded, and yeast could leaven it and feed humans. Which suddenly
survived more than probably around 1-2 child pr generation as previous
the grain age (while humans still lived in the non-irrigated land of
the steppes around the area of Black Sea and southward, in the
socalled Garden of Eden (Gann edin which in Sumerian means land of
non-irrigated land). When irrigation was understood after gaining
knowledge, they could sow and harvest grain and lot of other plant
could be grown along the sides of Eufrat and Tigris and the
agriculture was in the blooming.

Everything!
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/

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.html

Susan said:

There isn't anything about grains that isn't inferior to veggies as a
source of nutrients and/or fiber, unless you really need to load up on
calories cheaply.

The 20+ Full Text online for FREE research studies on my whole grains
web page documents that you are full of it, Lady.
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/

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.html

Quoted message said:

Without invention of grains humans would count perhaps less than
100000 people totally in world today.

If I'm recalling your previous posts correctly, you seem to have a bad
habit of pulling numbers out of thin air. How could you possibly prove
that there would only be 100,000 people in the world today without
grains?

Max.

"Max C." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without invention of grains humans would count perhaps less than
100000 people totally in world today.

If I'm recalling your previous posts correctly, you seem to have a bad
habit of pulling numbers out of thin air. How could you possibly prove
that there would only be 100,000 people in the world today without
grains?

Max.

Well while it's an arbritrary number, grains have indeed allowed
civilization to advance. In terms of keeping people alive (rather than
healthy) grains will do the trick quite nicely. While they are not an ideal
food IMO, they will keep you alive in terms of starvation. The land and
technology we have had available throughout history would not allow us to
grow enough food to keep 8 billion people fed (or whatever). Now that the
technology is better, we are beginning to see the drawbacks of a grain-based
diet and can accomadate a more ideal diet.

Quoted message said:

Well while it's an arbritrary number, grains have indeed allowed
civilization to advance. In terms of keeping people alive (rather than
healthy) grains will do the trick quite nicely. While they are not an ideal
food IMO, they will keep you alive in terms of starvation. The land and
technology we have had available throughout history would not allow us to
grow enough food to keep 8 billion people fed (or whatever). Now that the
technology is better, we are beginning to see the drawbacks of a grain-based
diet and can accomadate a more ideal diet.

You're a couple of billion people over the planet's current
populartion. 😉

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but I can't accept that
there would only be 100,000 people alive today without grains. We
*probably* wouldn't have 6 billion, I agree, but then again, one could
argue that the human race would be much healthier as a whole without
grains and so may be much longer lived, which would again increase the
population.

The more important point I was trying to make was that since this is a
science-based group, we shouldn't accept people making up numbers to
make a point. An old saying goes something like "82% of statistical
numbers are made up on the spot." Obviously you can replace 82% with
any number you want, but my point is, this group shouldn't need to
resort to such tactics. Just stick to the facts or be willing to
support a stat you post when asked to.

Max.

On 22 Mar 2006 21:40:11 GMT, wouldntyouliketoknow wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

I am not in the medical or nutritional field at all (I am a
psychologist by trade but I have a basic layman's knowledge of the
components of good nutrition). I am enquiring why it is important to
eat grains, by which I mean cereal-based foods.

My layman's understing, in short, is that grains are a dense source of
calories, and as such you should compare them to other dense sources
of calories like dietary fat or sugar.

For a number of people, grains are easier to digest than fat, so they
can make an easy "energy fill up", so to speak. 🙂
If you are striving to reduce your caloric intake, though, that could
be a downside, as it makes easier to overeat.

Compared to sugar, grains are more satiating, don't cause cravings and
generally don't raise blood sugar as quickly, especially when you
choose low-glycemic whole grains, as opposed to refined cereal-based
foods. Whole grains also provide more fiber and natural vitamins and
mineral elements.

Grains even contain some protein, but the protein content depends on
the crop, and you get better quality protein by combining grains with
legumes, as in "pasta e fagioli"!

If you are intolerant to grains, or diabetic, or just don't like
grains, well, that's a different kettle of fish! 🙂

Anyway, as you know, there are so many different kinds of grains, and
they are not all the same...

On 22 Mar 2006 21:40:11 GMT, wouldntyouliketoknow wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

I am not in the medical or nutritional field at all (I am a
psychologist by trade but I have a basic layman's knowledge of the
components of good nutrition). I am enquiring why it is important to
eat grains, by which I mean cereal-based foods.

My layman's understanding, in short, is that grains are a dense source
of calories, and as such you should compare them to other dense
sources of calories like dietary fat or sugar.

For a number of people, grains are easier to digest than fat, so they
can make an easy "energy fill up", so to speak. 🙂
If you are striving to reduce your caloric intake, though, that could
be a downside, as it makes easier to overeat.

Compared to sugar, grains are more satiating, don't cause cravings and
generally don't raise blood sugar as quickly, especially when you
choose low-glycemic whole grains, as opposed to refined cereal-based
foods. Whole grains also provide more fiber and natural vitamins and
mineral elements.

Grains even contain some protein, but the protein content depends on
the crop, and you get better quality protein by combining grains with
legumes, as in "pasta e fagioli"!

If you are intolerant to grains, or diabetic, or just don't like
grains, well, that's a different kettle of fish! 🙂

Anyway, as you know, there are so many different kinds of grains, and
they are not all the same...

Mr. Natural-Health said:

Everything!
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."

What the frig is this supposed to mean?

"The nutrition of eating a healthy diet" is a non-sensical phrase. And
so is "a biological factor of the mind-body connection".

Linguistically speaking, that entire quote is nonsense.

Kinda like the interminable nonsensical speak of L Ron Hubbard. Pure
cultist [censored]. Words strung together to sound good but having no real
meaning. The readers interpretation becomes confused and convoluted so
that the speaker can then present himself as apparently
super-intelligent to such an extent that he speaks in entirely
different terms than the rest of us, and mostly terminology he created
for the purpose.

This is an clear extension of the concept that if you can't dazzle them
with your brilliance, baffle them with your [censored]. And it is
[censored].

There are plenty of existing words, phrases and concepts in the English
language to express any idea you may have or hold on any topic. Learn
to use them. Learn the language or give us a glossary of what the f**k
you think you mean to say. If you cannot learn the friggin' language,
shut the f**k up and go away. Moron.

TC

Enrico C wrote:

: Grains even contain some protein, but the protein content depends on
: the crop, and you get better quality protein by combining grains with
: legumes, as in "pasta e fagioli"!

Your posting seem indicate that you have to get all amino acids at the same
meal in order to have a "better quality protein". Actually that is not true.
There is no need to get different amino acids at the same meal or even at
the same day as the body stores amino acids in a amino acid pool.

--
Juhana

One of the most significant problems with grains, other than the fact
that it has to be pre-processed in order for us to be able to digest
any nutrients from it, is the simple fact that it is completely bereft
of any vitamin C and it is nearly bereft of many other vitamins and
minerals that are available in larger amounts from other whole food
carbs.

It is far from an ideal food for humans.

TC

wouldntyouliketoknow said:

I am not in the medical or nutritional field at all (I am a
psychologist by trade but I have a basic layman's knowledge of the
components of good nutrition). I am enquiring why it is important to
eat grains, by which I mean cereal-based foods. I am studying
informally the components of a complete diet reading texts on the
net, but I can't seem to find what is unique at all about grains - in
other words, what do they have that cannot be obtained elsewhere?
The reason I ask is because I personally find them rather too filling
and bloating - especially when cooked in cakes, breads, crackers - I
usually avoid those like the plague. A small portion of cooked brown
rice in my salad does not have that effect, I find. Also, I do drink
the many flavored rice milks (carob, vanilla, etc) so I am obviously
consuming them to a small degree, and I also eat Ryvita crackers a
few times a day (rye), which I find easy on digestion and producing a
light rather than full feeling afterward.

However, most descriptions on the nutritional websites discuss grains
from the perspective of fiber - well obviously one can get tons of
fiber in fruits and vegetables and nuts (thus, not counting grains) -
especially when like me one eats a lot of salads that contain
numerous vegetables, fruits and nuts in them. In fact, when I look
at a list of all the required minerals, vitamins and oils, I find
them in abundance in the veggies, fruits and nuts.

I do realize that grains are great for producing sources of energy,
and the World Health Organization recommends we eat 55% of our diet
in terms of grains, but when I look at the breakdown statistics of
carbohydrates in veggies and fruit, I see that they are packed in
them too (some more than others, granted).

So that would seem to rule out carbohydrates and fiber (as unique to
grains/cereals, that is). Can anyone from the nutritional/dietary or
medical fields, please explain to me what in our humanly required
diet is UNIQUE to grains/cereals that cannot be obtained from
veggies, seeds (from non-cereals), nuts, or fruit?

Thanks!

danny

p.s. If you know of any good readings as an added bonus....

TC said:

Mr. Natural-Health said:

Everything!
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."

What the frig is this supposed to mean?

"The nutrition of eating a healthy diet" is a non-sensical phrase. And
so is "a biological factor of the mind-body connection".

Linguistically speaking, that entire quote is nonsense.

Kinda like the interminable nonsensical speak of L Ron Hubbard. Pure
cultist [censored]. Words strung together to sound good but having no real
meaning. The readers interpretation becomes confused and convoluted so
that the speaker can then present himself as apparently
super-intelligent to such an extent that he speaks in entirely
different terms than the rest of us, and mostly terminology he created
for the purpose.

This is an clear extension of the concept that if you can't dazzle them
with your brilliance, baffle them with your [censored]. And it is
[censored].

There are plenty of existing words, phrases and concepts in the English
language to express any idea you may have or hold on any topic. Learn
to use them. Learn the language or give us a glossary of what the f**k
you think you mean to say. If you cannot learn the friggin' language,
shut the f**k up and go away. Moron.

TC

Let me put it this way, Moron. My web page on Whole Grains is
supported by 20+ Full Text research studies that are available online
for free.

These research journals are giving them away for free, because of Kooks
like TC.

You have my condolences, Complainer. Come back when you have something
to say that is supported by hard science.
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/

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.html

Mr. Natural-Health said:

TC said:

Mr. Natural-Health said:

Everything!
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."

What the frig is this supposed to mean?

"The nutrition of eating a healthy diet" is a non-sensical phrase. And
so is "a biological factor of the mind-body connection".

Linguistically speaking, that entire quote is nonsense.

Kinda like the interminable nonsensical speak of L Ron Hubbard. Pure
cultist [censored]. Words strung together to sound good but having no real
meaning. The readers interpretation becomes confused and convoluted so
that the speaker can then present himself as apparently
super-intelligent to such an extent that he speaks in entirely
different terms than the rest of us, and mostly terminology he created
for the purpose.

This is an clear extension of the concept that if you can't dazzle them
with your brilliance, baffle them with your [censored]. And it is
[censored].

There are plenty of existing words, phrases and concepts in the English
language to express any idea you may have or hold on any topic. Learn
to use them. Learn the language or give us a glossary of what the f**k
you think you mean to say. If you cannot learn the friggin' language,
shut the f**k up and go away. Moron.

TC

Let me put it this way, Moron. My web page on Whole Grains is
supported by 20+ Full Text research studies that are available online

20+ research studies that compare whole grains to refined grains?
Useless.

And your webpages are full of your nonsensical ramblings. Just as
useless.

USELESS.

TC

"Juhana Harju" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Enrico C wrote:

: Grains even contain some protein, but the protein content depends on
: the crop, and you get better quality protein by combining grains with
: legumes, as in "pasta e fagioli"!

Your posting seem indicate that you have to get all amino acids at the
same
meal in order to have a "better quality protein". Actually that is not
true.
There is no need to get different amino acids at the same meal or even at
the same day as the body stores amino acids in a amino acid pool.

Well if ya' wanna be malnourished than sure. Bodybuilders know that complete
proteins are the best way to build up muscle after a workout. You do not,
apparently.