View Single Post
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Dec-13-18, 15:49
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,468
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

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.
Reply With Quote