[ExI] Paleo/primal health: why meat, and why not grains?

[J. Stanton]

More important and interesting information about grain consumption follows:

On 11/17/10 12:01 PM, Dave Sill wrote:
 >> But why would you eat grains, composed of empty calories and 
anti-nutrients,

 > According to the USDA, 100 g of whole wheat flour contains 13 g
 > protein, 11 g figer, 363 mg K, 357 mg P, 62 mg Se, and various other
 > minerals and vitamins. That's not "empty" calories.

That grain has been "enriched" with vitamins and folic acid, because it 
has so little nutritive value by itself.

Also, many of the 'nutrients' in grains and seeds are not bioavailable 
due to anti-nutrients: phytate, for example, binds to phosphorous, iron, 
zinc, calcium, and magnesium.  It also binds niacin, which causes 
pellagra, a well-known problem in developing countries with high-grain, 
low-meat diets -- and in the USA, until we started enriching grains.

"In the early 1900s, pellagra reached epidemic proportions in the 
American South. There were 1,306 reported pellagra deaths in South 
Carolina during the first ten months of 1915; 100,000 Southerners were 
affected in 1916."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellagra

I'll take 100g of meat and fat, full of complete protein and 
bioavailable nutrients, thank you.  Meat animals and fish do a far 
better job of bioaccumulating everything we need to live than Cargill, 
ConAgra, ADM, or anyone else can do in their factories.

And contrary to your bizarre assertion, it is absolutely relevant that 
humans can thrive on a purely meat-based diet, whereas they cannot 
survive at all on a purely grain-based diet.

 >> >  when you could eat delicious meats composed of necessary amino 
acids, fats,
 >> >  and nutrients, or tasty vegetables composed of fiber and nutrients?
 > How about "because I want to"? I*like*  to eat grains. One of the
 > greatest pleasures in my life is a slice of crunchy sourdough still
 > warm from the oven and slathered in butter. I also like a stack of
 > pancakes with butter and swimming in real maple syrup. I could give up
 > these pleasures, but I'm not going to do it without a compelling
 > reason.

You like it because you're really just eating sugar, and you get the 
same metabolic sugar rush from sourdough (glycemic index: ~71) that you 
get from Skittles (glycemic index: ~70).

Carbs = sugar.

Glycemic index of whole wheat bread: ~72
Glycemic index of Coca-Cola: ~58
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

Yes, drinking a Coke will spike your blood sugar *less* than eating that 
"healthy" whole-wheat sandwich or bagel!

"Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not 
Fats, Threaten the Heart"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio

The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, he says, consider that 
“butter is actually the more healthful component.”


 >> >  The argument that "they aren't harmful to SOME people" isn't a 
reason to
 >> >  voluntarily choose them if you have the means to choose more 
nutritious
 >> >  foods.
 > What, so we're all going to be compelled to eat the most nutritious
 > foods?

Of course not!  You can eat whatever the heck you want.  I'm just 
presenting the evidence that it's healthier to decrease carb intake, and 
to not eat grains at all.

JS
http://www.gnolls.org