Health Benefits Of Whole Grains Confirmed : Low-Carb War Zone Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#61 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 09:22

kaypeeoh

Registered Member

Posts: 1,216

Plan: Atkins
Stats: 185/180/165
BF:
Progress: 25%

So the truth is somewhere between both extremes. Each side has its own beliefs and I wonder if the more vehement are just that unsure of their positions.

BTW, the Atkins camp loves to bring up the Inuit, an indiginous society that never eats anything but meat and fat. I saw a film a while ago that showed the women eating the green plants that flourish in the short summer of subarctic tundra.

We aren't carnivores. We're omnivores. We can eat meat and grains and be healthy. The only unhealthy thing is excessive eating and that goes for meats and grains alike.

Sponsored Links

#62 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 09:36

Gostrydr

Senior Member

Posts: 1,175

Plan: close to zero carbs
Stats: 225/206/210 Male 73

BF:
Progress:

Whoa..oh whoa.

You can show us all the pubmed studies you like. they don't add up to a hill of beans(which are not good for you BTW)

You do understand that the Dept of Agriculture "developed" the original food pyramid. Why? Becasue they wanted us to eat the crap so they could sell it!!!! Not for health reasons.

Just the like the dairy industry campaigning that if you eat dairy you will lose weight..which theynow cannot claim.

The pyramid was slightly adjusted because people were getting fatter and less healthy on it!!

Yes, we all know that people eat more junk food and excercise less and that is a huge cause of obesity and disease,but for the U.S gov't to make adjustments to the recommendations of the Food pyramid should tell you something.

I really don't see what you are trying to accomplish here..I'm not sure why you waste your time here.

We here all know the downside of grains and carbs. Alot of us have done way more researching then you ever will. We've looked at both sides of the high/carb low carb debate and have made a decision for our own PERSONAL health that carbs are indeed a bad thing.

Pubmed means NOTHING to alot of us..in fact it is quite laughable

So go eat your breakfast of celery and 1/2 oz or cream of wheat.

My wife is makeing ham and eggs...all fried in delicious Kerry gold butter

#63 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 10:17

Nancy LC

Experimenter

Posts: 25,881

Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 72%

Location: San Diego, CA

Quote:

Those drugs, like tobaco have carcinogenic properties, wholegrains are anti-carcinogenic. There is good evidence that whole grains can be part of a healthy diet. Show me this is not the case. I've searched up a few papers, you do the same. No *myth* sites involved, please.

There's no research, none that I'm aware of, that shows the long term effects of eating grains versus not eating grains. So it's in the realm of speculation at the moment.

The thing I remain skeptical of is this, most everyone eats a really poor diet. Any time you compare a slightly healthier variation of the poor diet you're going to get a better outcome for a couple of reasons.

1) The slightly healthier thing is replacing something we could probably all agree on is not at all healthy. For instance, using a whole grain you're getting bran and stuff to replace the purely starchier content of some baked thing. That's good, it is going to do two things: Add fiber which will slow down digestion and the big sugar/insulin spike and it will probably provide some additional satiety so that something even worse might be avoided later.

2) People who listen to advice about "healthy diet" are probably motivated to make other lifestyle changes, like eating more fish, taking supplements, eating more vegetables, not smoking or drinking, using their seat belts. Its what we see all the time when we hear how vegetarians are more intelligent or have something that is "better" than their omnivorous counterparts. Sure, they're being compared to everyone else.

But... if you were to pit these people with slightly better diets to people with significantly better diets, for instance the Paleo diet (I'm totally biased, I admit), perhaps the whole grain eaters would be the ones with a load of cancer, the diabetes and other things going on.

That's what I'm trying to express when I compare the meth users to the smokers.

Or for instance, comparing a CRON person to someone eating the standard american diet, sure you all come off looking excellent. But I am guessing that health-gap narrows a lot when you make comparisons between groups of other people that follow other eating disciplines.

I just think these statements about the incredible excellence of whole grains needs a lot of qualifying clauses such as:

1) Compared to the standard american diet
2) Not applicable to those who are intolerant of grains.
3) Not applicable to those who are trying to lose weight or control blood sugar and are following a controlled carbohydrate diet to do so.

The other thing you do Whoa is include yourself in the reasoning that you eat grains and you're extremely healthy. Well sure, you're also doing CRON so I'd expect you to be healthier. You're also very young. But after a life time of eating grains I've got some pretty intense autoimmune reactions to wheat and corn. I wonder sometimes if I were CR'd if it'd dampen down my autoimmune reactions to them. But anyway, you can't include yourself in the anecdotal study of healthiness of grains because you've got something else that can't really be controlled for. Those autoimmune reactions to grains are causing a lot of the colon cancer, myelomas, and neurological diseases not to mention autoimmune diseases.

But if you analyze what happens when you eat grains, how the phytates and lectins interfere with absorbing nutrition, how the proteins are broken into peptides that resemble opiods (some speculate this is why we get addicted to eating, and overeating, grains) I just don't see a lot that justify's eating them other than the fact they're extremely cheap at the moment.

And another thing... (oh god, someone stop me) when you point to the Okinawans and say that the grain is the reason they live to be 100, first of all are they eating whole grains? Every time I see Asians eating grains, it's rice and it certainly isn't whole, it's white rice. Secondly you've already said they CR themselves so you can't attribute their longevity to the grains they eat and then decide that somehow they live a long life despite the fact they eat red meat.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that we may never find out what the optimal human diet is, we live too long, have faulty memories of our eating and there are so many variations between people that one person's optimal diet might not apply to the next person. But I am getting tired of the drum beat about grains. Grains suck for me at least.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Sat, May-26-07 at 10:35.

#64 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 10:58

Gostrydr

Senior Member

Posts: 1,175

Plan: close to zero carbs
Stats: 225/206/210 Male 73

BF:
Progress:

Kaypeeoh,
With all due respect, who do you know that can and does overeat meat? As a person of fitness you know the recommendations are to eat at least 30-40 grams of protein every 3 hours.

alot of that protein intake has to be meat correct?

Are you talking of bingeing? I know of a couple of people in all my years of doing this that could binge on meat.

I know thousands upon thousands who can binge on grains and other carbs..

Not meat..are bodies have a defense mechanism to keep us from overeating fats and proteins. Its called CCK

WHY YOU CAN EAT MORE CARBOHYDRATES THAN PROTEINS.

One of the biggest problems with starches is that the body can consume so many of them compared with proteins and fats. How many times have you eaten a huge plate of mashed potatoes or rice, mountains of fries, or piece after piece of bread? All of us have done it: with carbohydrates, and particularly starches, it seems we can never get enough. But how many times have you eaten a huge plate of nothing but chicken, steak, or eggs? Probably not very often, and if you have tried to eat too much of these protein-heavy foods at one time, you most likely started to get sick.

The reason is that when you eat protein or fat, it triggers the release of a hormone called cholecystokinin (CCK) in the small intestine. CCK tells the brain, in effect, that the body is getting fed, and if enough CCK is released, it signals the brain that the body has received enough food. If one continues to consume proteins or fats beyond that point, nausea is likely to follow. Carbohydrates, on the other hand, do not cause a release of CCK; only when they enter the bloodstream do they finally send a signal to the brain that the body is satisfied. By then, most of us have piled on more mashed potatoes, which are destined to take their place in the body as fat stores

#65 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 11:30

KoKo

Stepford Malfunction

Posts: 25,926

Plan: FatFlush inspired
Stats: 143.5/132/130 Female 62.5 inches

BF:37%/25.%/19%
Progress: 85%

Location: Ontario Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gostrydr

who do you know that can and does overeat meat?

I realize you asked this question to Kaypeeoh. But I’d just like to say that I can and would overeat meat if that’s all I ate. Even with green vegetables on the plate I could and most likely would overeat meat and fat if I didn’t have some grain or other higher carb food at the same meal.

I’m a quite small middle-aged woman and do not have a huge caloric requirement. I also used to do a more Stillman version of LC years and years ago (early seventies) so it’s not like I am against low carb. I know that it works but I also know that it’s not what works for everyone. You might find it impossible to believe but I could very easily tuck away 2lbs (maybe more) of steak or ground beef 3 or 4 times a day and STILL not feel fed.

Our metabolisms are all different, what leaves one person feeling hungry often satisfies someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gostrydr

The reason is that when you eat protein or fat, it triggers the release of a hormone called cholecystokinin (CCK) in the small intestine. CCK tells the brain, in effect, that the body is getting fed, and if enough CCK is released,

Oh - we’re depending on hormones are we. Well I suppose if your hormones are perfectly balanced this might work the way it’s supposed to. Must be I am lacking in that hormone.

#66 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 11:41

kaypeeoh

Registered Member

Posts: 1,216

Plan: Atkins
Stats: 185/180/165
BF:
Progress: 25%

Ingested fat has a sating effect that carbs don't have. That much I know. But vegetable fat is the same as animal fat in that respect. Too much carb is unhealthy. That much I know. I believe there is a magic zone where there is a benefit derived from carb (grain). That much I know. But without the sating effect that zone is easily surpassed. So it becomes a chore to learn what the magic amount might be.

Whatever. I'm leaving for Laramie in a few minutes, where I'll put lowcarb to a test by running for 13 hours or more.

Seeya,

#67 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 12:09

method

Senior Member

Posts: 229

Plan: Zone
Stats: 205/212/150 Male 5' 9"

BF:34/26/12
Progress: -13%

Are grains still bad and dangerous if they have been sprouted?

#68 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 15:12

Gostrydr

Senior Member

Posts: 1,175

Plan: close to zero carbs
Stats: 225/206/210 Male 73

BF:
Progress:

KoKo,
You are an exception. If you can eat 8lbs of meat in a day and not feel satieated then you are quite unique.

I brought up the CCK topic because it is an inherint hormone that we have..obviously it is there by design for us to eat fat and protien..it is in our makeup.

We do not have that for carbs..so I feel we are designed and 'set up" for a diet of fat and protien.

I do not poo poo non-starchy veggies at all. They are calorically inert and do have tons of great properties.

But how much of these nutrients do we absorb? We all know B-12 is far better absorbed from animal sources than from fruits and veggies.

How does one handle the fiber and gas producing properties of these veggies?

I still think grains are just horrible..even if soaked. That takes care of phytates but gluten is still a huge issue.

#69 ^

Sat, May-26-07, 16:41

doobie

Senior Member

Posts: 300

Plan: Atkins
Stats: 220/189/170 Female 5' 7"

BF:
Progress: 62%

Location: VA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoa182

wholegrains are anti-carcinogenic.

Since WHEN? When grains are cooked (which they HAVE TO BE in order to be edible) a substance called ACRYLAMIDE is produced. Acrylamide is thought to be a CARCINOGENIC substance, and all foods that contain cooked grains or starches (potatoes included) contain acrylamides.

How exactly is THAT anti-carcinogenic?

#70 ^

Sun, May-27-07, 04:06

Whoa182

Registered Member

Posts: 1,770

Plan: CRON / Zone
Stats: 118/110/110 Male 5ft 7"

BF:very low
Progress: 100%

Location: Cardiff

The phelonic compounds found in whole grains inhibit Phase I enzymes, but induces Phase II conjugation reactions... Phase II enzymes help detoxify carcinogenic substances.Phase I enzymes convert procarcinogens to carcinogens.

there are also plenty of other ways in whcih wholegrains are protective. It's better off you reading it yourself.

Joanne L. Slavin, PhD, RD
Mechanisms for the Impact of Whole Grain Foods on Cancer Risk
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 19, No. 90003, 300S-307S (2000)

Full paper here: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/suppl_3/300S

Dietary guidance recommends consumption of whole grains for the prevention of cancer. Epidemiologic studies find that whole grains are protective against cancer, especially gastrointestinal cancers such as gastric and colonic, and hormonally-dependent cancers including breast and prostate. Four potential mechanisms for the protectiveness of whole grains against cancer are described. First, whole grains are concentrated sources of dietary fiber, resistant starch, and oligosaccharides, fermentable carbohydrates thought to protect against cancer. Fermentation of carbohydrates in the colon results in production of short chain fatty acids that lower colonic pH and serve as an energy source for the colonocytes. Secondly, whole grains are rich in antioxidants, including trace minerals and phenolic compounds, and antioxidants have been proposed to be important in cancer prevention. Thirdly, whole grains are significant sources of phytoestrogens that have hormonal effects related to cancer protection. Phytoestrogens are thought to be particularly important in the prevention of hormonally-dependent cancers such as breast and prostate. Finally, whole grains mediate glucose response, which has been proposed to protect against colon and breast cancer.

Last edited by Whoa182 : Sun, May-27-07 at 04:16.

#71 ^

Sun, May-27-07, 08:12

Gostrydr

Senior Member

Posts: 1,175

Plan: close to zero carbs
Stats: 225/206/210 Male 73

BF:
Progress:

Chirp,chirp,chirp..

Are those crickets I hear in the distance?

#72 ^

Sun, May-27-07, 08:32

Whoa182

Registered Member

Posts: 1,770

Plan: CRON / Zone
Stats: 118/110/110 Male 5ft 7"

BF:very low
Progress: 100%

Location: Cardiff

The only person that has made any sort of better thought out reply is Nancy, thanks!

#73 ^

Sun, May-27-07, 11:52

SaintAnger SaintAnger is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 60

Plan: Zero carb. Meat Only
Stats: 176/168/160 Male 5'11"

BF:
Progress: 50%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoa182

Hmmm, whole grains are so bad

Whole-grain intake is favorably associated with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study.
BACKGROUND: The influence of whole grains on cardiovascular disease risk may be mediated through multiple pathways, eg, a reduction in blood lipids and blood pressure, an enhancement of insulin sensitivity, and an improvement in blood glucose control. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the association between diets rich in whole- or refined-grain foods and several metabolic markers of disease risk in the Framingham Offspring Study cohort. DESIGN: Whole-grain intake and metabolic risk markers were assessed in a cross-sectional study of 2941 subjects. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, whole-grain intake was inversely associated with body mass index (: 26.9 in the lowest and 26.4 in the highest quintile of intake; P for trend = 0.06), waist-to-hip ratio (0.92 and 0.91, respectively; P for trend = 0.005), total cholesterol (5.20 and 5.09 mmol/L, respectively; P for trend = 0.06), LDL cholesterol (3.16 and 3.04 mmol/L, respectively; P for trend = 0.02), and fasting insulin (205 and 199 pmol/L, respectively; P for trend = 0.03). There were no significant trends in metabolic risk factor concentrations across quintile categories of refined-grain intake. The inverse association between whole-grain intake and fasting insulin was most striking among overweight participants. The association between whole-grain intake and fasting insulin was attenuated after adjustment for dietary fiber and magnesium. CONCLUSION: Increased intakes of whole grains may reduce disease risk by means of favorable effects on metabolic risk factors.
PMID: 12145012 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Whole-grain intake and insulin sensitivity: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study.
BACKGROUND: Increased intake of whole-grain foods has been related to a reduced risk of developing diabetes and heart disease. One underlying pathway for this relation may be increased insulin sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the relation between dietary intake of whole grain-containing foods and insulin sensitivity (S(I)). DESIGN: We evaluated data from the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS Exam I, 1992-1994). Usual dietary intakes in 978 middle-aged adults with normal (67%) or impaired (33%) glucose tolerance were ascertained by using an interviewer-administered, validated food-frequency questionnaire. Whole-grain intake (servings per day) was derived from dark breads and high-fiber and cooked cereals. S(I) was assessed by minimal model analyses of the frequently sampled intravenous-glucose-tolerance test. Fasting insulin was measured by using a radioimmunoassay. We modeled the relation of whole-grain intake to log(S(I) + 1) and to log(insulin) by using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: On average, IRAS participants consumed 0.8 servings of whole grains/d. Whole-grain intake was significantly associated with S(I) (beta = 0.082, P = 0.0005) and insulin (beta = -0.0646, P = 0.019) after adjustment for demographics, total energy intake and expenditure, smoking, and family history of diabetes. The addition of body mass index and waist circumference attenuated but did not explain the association with S(I). The addition of fiber and magnesium resulted in a nonsignificant association that is consistent with the hypothesis that these constituents account for some of the effect of whole grains on S(I). CONCLUSION: Higher intakes of whole grains were associated with increases in insulin sensitivity.

PMID: 14594783 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Whole-grain intake is inversely associated with the metabolic syndrome and mortality in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Whole-grain intake has been inversely associated with the metabolic syndrome in middle-aged populations, but the association has not been investigated in older adults. The metabolic consequence of consuming high whole-grain diets may differ in elderly persons, who are prone to greater insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to examine the cross-sectional association between whole- and refined-grain intake, cardiovascular disease risk factors, prevalence of the metabolic syndrome, and the incidence of cardiovascular disease mortality in the same cohort of older adults. DESIGN: The nutritional status of 535 healthy persons aged 60-98 y was determined from 1981 to 1984. The subjects kept a 3-d food record and had their blood tested for metabolic risk factors. The metabolic syndrome was defined based on criteria set by the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program. The vital status of the subjects was identified in October 1995. RESULTS: The results showed a significant inverse trend between whole-grain intake and the metabolic syndrome (P for trend = 0.005) and mortality from cardiovascular disease (P for trend = 0.04), independent of demographic, lifestyle, and dietary factors. Fasting glucose concentrations and body mass index decreased across increasing quartile categories of whole-grain intake (P for trend = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively), independent of confounders, whereas intake of refined grain was positively associated with higher fasting glucose concentrations (P for trend = 0.04) and a higher prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (P for trend = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Whole-grain intake is a modifiable dietary risk factor, and older and young adults should be encouraged to increase their daily intake to > or = 3 servings/d.

PMID: 16400060 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Whole grains, bran, and germ in relation to homocysteine and markers of glycemic control, lipids, and inflammation 1.

BACKGROUND: Intake of whole grains is inversely associated with risk of diabetes and ischemic heart disease in observational studies. The lower risk associated with high whole-grain intakes may be mediated through improvements in glycemic control, lipid profiles, or reduced inflammation. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine whether the intake of whole grains, bran, and germ is related to homocysteine, plasma markers of glycemic control (fasting insulin, hemoglobin A1c, C-peptide, and leptin), lipids (total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol), and inflammation (C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and interleukin 6). DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study of the relations of whole grains, bran, and germ intakes with homocysteine and markers of glycemic control, lipids, and inflammation in 938 healthy men and women. RESULTS: Whole-grain intake was inversely associated with homocysteine and markers of glycemic control. Compared with participants in the bottom quintile of whole-grain intake, participants in the highest quintile had 17%, 14%, 14%, and 11% lower concentrations of homocysteine (P < 0.01), insulin (P = 0.12), C-peptide (P = 0.03), and leptin (P = 0.03), respectively. Inverse associations were also observed with total cholesterol (P = 0.02), HDL cholesterol (P = 0.05), and LDL cholesterol (P = 0.10). Whole-grain intake was not associated with the markers of inflammation. Whole-grain intake was most strongly inversely associated with markers of glycemic control in this population. CONCLUSION: The results suggest a lower risk of diabetes and heart disease in persons who consume diets high in whole grains.

PMID: 16469984 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Blah blah blah....

If whole grains are SOOOO great for metabolic syndrome and diabetes, tell me then...why did a diet rich in whole grains, fruits and veggies lead me straight TO type II diabetes?

You can shove all the studies you want on here, it doesn't make them right.

#74 ^

Sun, May-27-07, 12:14

CValentine CValentine is offline

HIGH FAT!!!

Posts: 4,798

Plan: CARNIVORE!!!!
Stats: 191/145.0/137 Female 69 inches

BF:30.3/24.06/not yet
Progress: 85%

Location: The Heart of Texas

Studies are the result of people making numbers & percentages say what they want them to say, thusly conveniently fitting statistics into an agenda through which they, the test givers, can benefit through some means. Public manipulation for profit. More grant money, manufacturing kick-backs, political donations...All under the guise of bettering the public good.

Be a free thinker, do what you know works for you. Tell someone else if you want to share, they'll try it if they want to. Individual result are just that, individual. Sometimes things work for alot of people , but we already know no one thing is perfect for everyone. Look at all the differences in LC. High fat for some, lower fat/protein/carbs across the board for others. Put the piles of paper away & try Life for a while.

#75 ^

Sun, May-27-07, 13:13

Whoa182

Registered Member

Posts: 1,770

Plan: CRON / Zone
Stats: 118/110/110 Male 5ft 7"

BF:very low
Progress: 100%

Location: Cardiff

Quote:

Yes of course, its all a big conspiracy

Quote:

why did a diet rich in whole grains, fruits and veggies lead me straight TO type II diabetes?

Excess calories? You're lying about what you ate? you are not remembering the junk food you ate? Or you could just be metabolically screwed up. Whatever the case, your own little experience proves NOTHING. The diet you said you ate is consistently proven to reduce the risk of diabetes or completely prevent it. Even reverse the early stages of the disease.

So now its fruits and vegetables that are the cause of diabetes

Last edited by Whoa182 : Sun, May-27-07 at 13:24.