Multigrain vs. whole wheat bread

Billy wrote:
Susan wrote:

Grains aren't good for you.

Wow, an unqualified statement. I can accept grains not being the staff
of life, but no good under any circumstances? Please, give me a citation.

I think you converted it to an unqualified statement. I'm wheat
intolerant and my discussions with folks over the years tells me that
unknown or undiagnosed wheat and corn allergies are about a percent of
the population. Lots of people have simply told me that grains can't be
bad and so I've made up being wheat intolerant.

For a reference start with a chapter in one of the standard books in the
low carb field - Protein Power by Drs Eades. The good doctors cite
archeology texts that show when a population starts farming and eating
grains the general health level of the entire population drops
dramatically. That's a stronger assertion than I usually make but it's
good enough as a basis for Susan's stance.

Grains are carby enough to be not healthy for anyone as a staple of
their diet, no matter the economic neccessity that the extremely poor
need to use grain as their staple no matter the health reasons.

Grains as a smaller portion of the diet is more arguable but the
existance of specific grain intolerances (me) and of unknown and
undiagnosed grain intolerances among my friends says that for some even
small portions are bad.

Extending that to all grains being bad in all quantities is an extreme
stance, but it is a stance that is better justified than the USDA food
pyramid that uses grains as a staple for everyone. Grains may not hurt
everyone but they definitely hurt some. The down side to going grain
free is smaller than the down side of doing a grain based diet.

It would be very nice to find a study where grains are compared to
cauliflower as a diet staple, but no scientist does such a study. The
result would be too predictable and too contray to previous USDA
statements to be funded.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Susan wrote:
FOB wrote:

No, the flax rollups say 15 total ... Flax is good in many ways.

Unless you're male; there's some discussion there about the estrogenic
properties.

I take it this parallels the soy issue? My take on soy is I would not
want to use it as a staple of my diet (common by vegitarians) but having
a meal based on soy a couple of times per month should not be a problem.

Yikes!

Phytoestrogens
Food sources
According to a study by Canadian researchers about the content of nine
common phytoestrogens in a Western diet, foods with the highest relative
phytoestrogen content were nuts and oilseeds, followed by soy products,
cereals and breads, legumes, meat products, and other processed foods
that may contain soy, vegetables, fruits, alcoholic, and nonalcoholic
beverages. Flax seed and other oilseeds contained the highest total
phytoestrogen content, followed by soybeans and tofu.[14] The highest
concentrations of isoflavones are found in soybeans and soybean products
followed by legumes, whereas lignans are the primary source of
phytoestrogens found in nuts and oilseeds (e.g. flax) and also found in
cereals, legumes, fruits and vegetables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens

Soybeans and processed soy foods are among the richest foods in total
phytoestrogens (wet basis per 100g), which are present primarily in the
form of the isoflavones daidzein and genistein.[82]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Health_risks

According to lipid specialist and nutritionist Mary Enig, PhD, "The
reason there's so much soy in America is because the soy industry
started to plant soy to extract the oil from it and soy oil became a
very large industry." There was a lot of soy oil and with it came a lot
of soy protein residue as a left over by-product, and since they
couldn't feed it to the animals, except in small amounts, they had to
find another big market which, of course, was human consumption.

The unfermented soy category is a most problematic one. It includes soy
products, such as tofu, bean curd, all soy milks, soy infant formulae,
soy protein powders and soy meat alternatives, such as soy
sausages/veggie burgers, made from hydrolysed soy powder.

Being a legume, soy contains a high amount of phytic acid. So, what's
wrong with phytic acid?

Phytic acid's structure gives it the ability to bind minerals, proteins
and starch, and results in lower absorption of these substances. Hence,
phytic acid, in large amounts, can block the uptake of essential
minerals, like calcium, magnesium, copper, iron, and especially zinc in
the intestinal tract. Soy also inhibits the uptake of one of the most
important minerals needed for growth and metabolism, iodine, which is
used by the thyroid gland in the production of thyroid hormones.
However, for non-vegetarian men, phytic acid may prove to be quite
helpful, due to its binding/chelating ability with minerals.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022630.html
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Susan wrote:

Grains aren't good for you.

Wow, an unqualified statement. I can accept grains not being the staff
of life, but no good under any circumstances? Please, give me a citation.

I think you converted it to an unqualified statement.
You mean that grains aren't good for me, personally?
I'm wheat
intolerant and my discussions with folks over the years tells me that
unknown or undiagnosed wheat and corn allergies are about a percent of
the population. Lots of people have simply told me that grains can't be
bad and so I've made up being wheat intolerant.

For a reference start with a chapter in one of the standard books in the
low carb field - Protein Power by Drs Eades. The good doctors cite
archeology texts that show when a population starts farming and eating
grains the general health level of the entire population drops
dramatically. That's a stronger assertion than I usually make but it's
good enough as a basis for Susan's stance.

Grains are carby enough to be not healthy for anyone as a staple of
their diet, no matter the economic neccessity that the extremely poor
need to use grain as their staple no matter the health reasons.

Grains as a smaller portion of the diet is more arguable but the
existance of specific grain intolerances (me) and of unknown and
undiagnosed grain intolerances among my friends says that for some even
small portions are bad.

Extending that to all grains being bad in all quantities is an extreme
stance, but it is a stance that is better justified than the USDA food
pyramid that uses grains as a staple for everyone. Grains may not hurt
everyone but they definitely hurt some. The down side to going grain
free is smaller than the down side of doing a grain based diet.

It would be very nice to find a study where grains are compared to
cauliflower as a diet staple, but no scientist does such a study. The
result would be too predictable and too contray to previous USDA
statements to be funded.

Besides, the USDA job is to help farmers sell their tax subsidized crops.

You mean like cauliflower and CHEESE. There aren't the calories in
cauliflower to make it the staff of life.
----

Available at better libraries everywhere.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...ce/dp/14000334
62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science
of Diet and Health (Vintage) (Paperback)
~ Gary Taubes
p.194
Anything that raises blood sugar - in particular, the consumption of
refined and easily digestible carbohydrates - will increase the
generation of oxidants and free radicals; it will increase the rate of
oxidative stress and glycation,and the formation and accumulation of
advanced glycation end products. This means that anything that raises
blood sugar, by the logic of the carbohydrate hypothesis, will lead to
more atherosclerosis and heart disease, more vascular disorders, and a
pace of accelerated degeneration, even in those of us who never become
diabetic.
---

Hand me the pork rinds, would ya?
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

Billy wrote:

You mean that grains aren't good for me, personally?

Depends on how much Con Agra and Quaker Oats stock you own.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:

You mean that grains aren't good for me, personally?

Depends on how much Con Agra and Quaker Oats stock you own.

Well it would be of obscure interest to see where our Medical healers
invest.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm Gary Null seems to
cause a nod of history.

First do no harm seems lost in time look for "Iatrogenic Events"

--
Bill Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:

You mean that grains aren't good for me, personally?

Depends on how much Con Agra and Quaker Oats stock you own.
Cute;O)

The taxes we pay, subsidizes the crops that they buy cheap, with which
they make calorie dense, nutritionally void, junk food.
My taxes are my only connection with those . . . folk . . .ers.
Oh, you forgot Archer Daniels Midland.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

On Apr 14, 4:31*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,
*Doug Freyburger wrote:

Susan wrote:
FOB wrote:

No, the flax rollups say 15 total ... Flax is good in many ways.

Unless you're male; there's some discussion there about the estrogenic
properties.

I take it this parallels the soy issue? *My take on soy is I would not
want to use it as a staple of my diet (common by vegitarians) but having
a meal based on soy a couple of times per month should not be a problem..

Yikes!

Phytoestrogens
Food sources
According to a study by Canadian researchers about the content of nine
common phytoestrogens in a Western diet, foods with the highest relative
phytoestrogen content were nuts and oilseeds, followed by soy products,
cereals and breads, legumes, meat products, and other processed foods
that may contain soy, vegetables, fruits, alcoholic, and nonalcoholic
beverages. Flax seed and other oilseeds contained the highest total
phytoestrogen content, followed by soybeans and tofu.[14] The highest
concentrations of isoflavones are found in soybeans and soybean products
followed by legumes, whereas lignans are the primary source of
phytoestrogens found in nuts and oilseeds (e.g. flax) and also found in
cereals, legumes, fruits and vegetables.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens

Soybeans and processed soy foods are among the richest foods in total
phytoestrogens (wet basis per 100g), which are present primarily in the
form of the isoflavones daidzein and genistein.[82]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean#Health_risks


Wikipedia, where any 7 year old can create, edit and post anything
isn't a credible reference for anything.





According to lipid specialist and nutritionist Mary Enig, PhD, "The
reason there's so much soy in America is because the soy industry
started to plant soy to extract the oil from it and soy oil became a
very large industry." There was a lot of soy oil and with it came a lot
of soy protein residue as a left over by-product, and since they
couldn't feed it to the animals, except in small amounts, they had to
find another big market which, of course, was human consumption.


Wow, she figured that out? The reason there is so much lumber in
the world is people figured out how to cut trees down, shape the wood
into everything from chairs to houses and found there was a big market
for lumber.




The unfermented soy category is a most problematic one. It includes soy
products, such as tofu, bean curd, all soy milks, soy infant formulae,
soy protein powders and soy meat alternatives, such as soy
sausages/veggie burgers, made from hydrolysed soy powder.

Being a legume, soy contains a high amount of phytic acid. So, what's
wrong with phytic acid?

Phytic acid's structure gives it the ability to bind minerals, proteins
and starch, and results in lower absorption of these substances. Hence,
phytic acid, in large amounts, can block the uptake of essential
minerals, like calcium, magnesium, copper, iron, and especially zinc in
the intestinal tract. Soy also inhibits the uptake of one of the most
important minerals needed for growth and metabolism, iodine, which is
used by the thyroid gland in the production of thyroid hormones.
However, for non-vegetarian men, phytic acid may prove to be quite
helpful, due to its binding/chelating ability with minerals.http://www.naturalnews.com/022630.html
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3l...Zinn_page.html

Billy wrote:

You mean that grains aren't good for me, personally?

Compared to cauliflower? Not good for you personally.

That's the comparison that should be made, so it's the comparison I'll
go with.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:

You mean that grains aren't good for me, personally?

Compared to cauliflower (4.1g/100g)? Not good for you personally.

That's the comparison that should be made, so it's the comparison I'll
go with.

Think I'll binge, and have cabbage instead (5.5g/100g).
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

I'm late in this thread, but a comment on the subject-line, multigrain
vs. whole wheat bread.

Depends on the context of the line, nutrition or weight control.


If you are asking about nutrition, a variety of grains is better, but
how much better depends on an individual's needs/metabolism.


If you are concerned about weight control (or are a Diabetic) and
bread, the REAL issue is the carbs in bread.

High carbs in ANY bread is due to processing of the flour, and the
majority of breads on the market use processed flour (white, wheat,
multigrain, whatever).

Need to control your weight, or are a Diabetic (like me), and want to
eat bread? Find a brand that does NOT use processed flour, they will
have much lower carbs.


I use a local (San Diego, CA) store/brand, their "Smart Carb 1":
http://www.julianbakery.com/

Click the pic "Smart Carb 1" on their home page, and you get the page
with the Nutrition Label: 1 NET Carb per slice.

I get 3 at a time, freeze 2 for later, refrigerate the other. It's an
all-natural bread and last longer this way.

They ship by the way.


--
==== Tecknomage ====
Be mindful that happiness isn't based on
possessions, power, or prestige, but on
relationships with people we love and respect.
Remember that while money talks, CHOCOLATE SINGS!