Active Low-Carber Forums

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)
-   LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   I can’t even: “The Scientific Case for Eating Bread” (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=481714)

WereBear Thu, Dec-13-18 08:31

I can’t even: “The Scientific Case for Eating Bread”
 
The minute I saw the headline I braced myself.

The Scientific Case for Eating Bread

Quote:
Asked if bread should be considered a “junk” food, Aune says the opposite is true. “Whole-grain breads are healthy, and a high intake of whole grains is associated with a large range of health benefits,” he says, citing links to lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and mortality. In fact, his research has found that eating the equivalent of 7.5 slices of whole-grain bread per day is linked with “optimal” health outcomes.


Quote:
While she doesn’t advocate for the unchecked consumption of white bread, Slavin points out that it and other starchy carbs—white rice, pasta, potatoes—form the foundation of most diets worldwide and aren’t an obvious issue if you’re watching your total caloric intake.


Quote:
Even when it comes to white bread, the evidence tying it to obesity and health problems is patchy. Research has associated refined carbohydrates—a group that includes white bread, but also cookies, cakes, and soda—with an elevated risk for Type 2 diabetes and obesity. But studies that have assessed the health effects of white bread and refined grains independent of sugary snacks and drinks have turned up both positive and negative results.


I only wish it was unbelievable. Nothing new here, certainly, but there are no new arguments. Just more lies.

cotonpal Thu, Dec-13-18 08:51

I just saw this article too and was aghast with horror but not surprised. Conventional ignorance prevails despite all evidence to the contrary. The emperor really does have new clothes :) .

teaser Thu, Dec-13-18 09:23

Quote:
We have conducted several meta-analyses on whole-grain consumption and health outcomes like Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and premature mortality,” says Dagfinn Aune, a postdoctoral researcher at the School of Public Health at Imperial College London. “When looking at specific sources of grains, whole-grain bread, whole-grain breakfast cereals, brown rice, and wheat bran were all associated with reduced risks.”

“Bread isn’t the baddie it’s made out to be.”
Asked if bread should be considered a “junk” food, Aune says the opposite is true. “Whole-grain breads are healthy, and a high intake of whole grains is associated with a large range of health benefits,” he says, citing links to lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and mortality. In fact, his research has found that eating the equivalent of 7.5 slices of whole-grain bread per day is linked with “optimal” health outcomes.


Sure. Bread is healthful, when compared to um, other bread. And whole grain bread is healthful compared to donuts, pizza, etc.. Compared to not eating much wheat at all, and not eating much carbohydrate at all--not so much.


Quote:
Others agree. “If you look at these large diet studies on people who live the longest with the least disease, fiber and whole grains are always major components,” says Joanne Slavin, PhD, a professor of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota.


My go-to point for this is probability-based. Of seven-plus billion people on the planet, roughly seven-plus billion of them are on high carbohydrate diets. A massive number of societies on high carb diets versus a handful on low carb--that just doesn't give enough of a sampling. Even so, looking at the "blue zones" of people eating high carb diets and living especially long, you don't even have to take off your socks to count them, an awful lot of people are eating bread to come up with a pretty small sample of societies that produced more than the usual number of centenarians. Most of the people eating "traditional" diets are not hunter-gatherers, they're eating agriculture-based diets. Some, like the Okinawans, had access to both a traditional diet, and modern medicine as well as a modern understanding of hygiene, a less stressful environment, etc.


Quote:
While she doesn’t advocate for the unchecked consumption of white bread, Slavin points out that it and other starchy carbs—white rice, pasta, potatoes—form the foundation of most diets worldwide and aren’t an obvious issue if you’re watching your total caloric intake.


Actually--it's more like these aren't an obvious issue if you're not watching your calorie intake--that is, if these foods don't seem to be trying to make you fat, if your metabolism works the way it ought and food intake to appetite gives you a good result.

Quote:
While olive oil and fatty fish get most of the positive press, bread (and not just the whole-grain types) is considered a “major” component of Mediterranean-style diets, which have repeatedly been linked to health and longevity. Studies that have specifically looked at bread in the context of these diets have found that people who eat the most whole-grain breads—six slices or more a day—are the least likely to be overweight or obese.


I could imagine a study of people of Hadza ancestry showing those eating large amounts of honey annually having better outcomes, at least for modern metabolic syndrome type disease. Why? Not because honey is a super healthy food, it's clearly not, even in the Hadza. (The men eat more honey than the women. Result? Crummier teeth). But in the Hadza--honey is a likely marker for a traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle. People eating more traditional Mediterranean diets and living more traditional lifestyles are going to be overrepresented in the whole grain eaters--as are people who are health conscious.

mike_d Thu, Dec-13-18 15:04

Smoking 7.5 Virginia Slims per day is linked to a better health outcome, compared to 7.5 Lucky Strikes :rolleyes:

M Levac Thu, Dec-13-18 15:49

There used to be wheat flour and whole wheat flour. We all knew how bad whole wheat flour bread tasted. Then came whole wheat flour bread with crushed grains added in. Personally, I've never seen bread made exclusively with whole grains.

Now for a bit of Little Pedantic Me. Whole means, among other things, undivided, in one piece. It also means containing the full quantity, and containing all the elements properly belonging. With grains, it certainly does not mean "undivided, in one piece", so it must mean "containing all the elements properly belonging".

Unfortunately, that's a lie.

The entire grain industry knows full well that grain flours are all separated into their constituents, then reconstituted to specific criteria for specific purposes. For example, pizza dough is different from bread dough, yet both come from the same grains. The proportions of grain elements are different, cuz gluten is literally the glue that holds pizza dough so well so we can throw it in the air while we're making it. Not so for bread dough, or cake dough, or cookie dough, etc. The most in-your-face evidence that it's a lie is that we buy and consume products that contain grain fiber. Well, if they contain grain fiber, must be that all other products that contain some grain thing, cannot possibly "contain all the elements properly belonging", cuz duh they're all missing at least some of that fiber.

So, this is the true characterization of grain things. Refined, purpose-specific-reconstituted, grain flour, with some crushed grains as the case may be. Nowhere does the term "whole" fit, cuz it just don't. Or if you prefer, when they use the term "whole", that's what it means in fact.

Moving on. The entire library of data that says in any way shape or form that "whole" grains are beneficial when compared to "refined" grains does not include any data regarding any diet which does not contain either. This is the filtered vs unfiltered argument, but thay ain't gonna tell us that cuz they ain't that stupid cuz we ain't that stupid.

Big Point Here. Wheat flour is fortified. Translation: Wheat flour is deficient. It's not merely common practice to fortify wheat flour, it's legislated - mandated. Also, it applies to all flours, not just white flour. So, if we argue that whole grain things are better than refined grain things, we're arguing that deficient things which contain a bit more of itself is better than deficient things that contain a bit less of itself. If that's the only choice, sure. But it's not. There's no way to argue that a deficient thing which contains any amount of itself is better than a non-deficient thing, cuz there is such a thing as a non-deficient thing. We just call it food.

As a side note, the author Markham Heid is what I'd term a mercenary writer, which is to say he'll write anything and everything for a paycheck, and he doesn't have a personal opinion. Myself I considered doing that cuz apparently I write pretty well. I have a friend who makes money like that. So obviously the question is who paid him to write that, huh? Well, Ima not a genuinses but Ima bet half a buck anyways. It's well written, no doubt, so I guess he's got skills at least.

deirdra Thu, Dec-13-18 16:23

When whole grains are ground up, they are no longer whole and the process turns a limited surface area into 100-1000 times more surface area to speed digestion, insulin secretion and fat storage. I've never eaten a whole grain of wheat, but have seen a grain of corn looking the same in the toilet as when it was eaten.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:31.

Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.