Food pyramid

[chocchillimango]

ah paleo ...

I'm with Bazz on this one ... I avoid some grains because they are high in fructans as I avoid some (so many ) fruits and veg because of their fructose, fructan and/or sugar polyol content ...

all of which cause me to feel really ill because I have a food intolerance to them.

But if it weren't for that, I'd be enjoying them in moderation as part of a balanced diet. How I miss them.

Bazz is correct, most plant foods contain protective enzymes and other measures .. it's their only defense against predators.
But let's not throw these "anti nutrients" into the same bucket as what makes belladonna or hemlock so poisonous ...

Mick, if you feel great eating this way, that's fantastic. But it may have more to do with how your own body responds to fats vs carbs and various other considerations.

Vilifying whole food groups on the basis of dodgy science (ie anti nutrients etc) is not a sound basis for dietary dogma.

Thought you might all find this interesting. It's a very good discussion on what really made a paleo diet

Watch "Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner at TEDxOU" Video at TEDxTalks

 

[Big Mick]

Again we are not designed we evolved, its different. We evolved to digest grains. No confusing the issue. No designer said we were not designed to digest grains because we can. It is different. The only processing required to release the nutrients is cooking. This is common with many foods. So if you want to stick true to this I hope you don't cook any foods at all then incase you release more nutrients and processing is bad. I am assuming you do since you always avoid that question. So why is it fine to cook other foods but not ok to cook grains?

Equating grains with plastic. Lol. Are you on drugs? How many people do you see living off plastic processed or not.

Mick the body can digest gains. Billions of people are doing it every day.

Anti nutrients. Well I hope you don't eat nuts, legumes, spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, most fruits, sweet potato, tomato, infact virtually all plant foods we eat contain some anti nutrients. So if you don't want anti nutrients I am hoping you have stopped eat all plant foods as well as grains?

Well done you lost weight but plenty of people have lost weight and still eaten grains. The two are not exclusive. You feel better, which is great and to be expected when you lose weight.

Finally mick your cut and paste quote is not a bit of light. You are meant to reference stuff you cut and paste but I see you took it from a Paleo fanatic site. Which is far from a respected information source. Do we need to now go through and poke holes in all the Paleo stuff now?

Yes I cook most food that tastes better cooked, but that is not the issue here, as cooking food is a convenience/taste thing, and salad and stuff I eat raw.

The point is MOST grains are poisonous and/or indigestible to humans unless cooked, so they are poison to our system, and as such we have NOT evolved to eat them, humans have only eaten grains for about 10000 years or so, not long enough to evolve. and this can clearly be seen by the general health or lack there of of the general population of today.

We don't thrive because of grains we live despite them

Most other stuff can be eaten raw should you chose to do so, including fish (sushi?) meat (a lot of cultures including Germans eat raw beef), etc etc.

But like I said eat as you like, not my problem, my body or my life.

 

[Big Mick]

Vilifying whole food groups on the basis of dodgy science (ie anti nutrients etc) is not a sound basis for dietary dogma.

Thought you might all find this interesting. It's a very good discussion on what really made a paleo diet

Watch "Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner at TEDxOU" Video at TEDxTalks

Like I said before I do not consider grains as a food group for humans, may be for birds

Try going out into a field pick up a bag full of wheat or whatever and proceed to eat it, then once it comes out the other end see how well your body has evolved to eat/digest/process grains, then get back to me about how it is food.

PS will check the link tonight as I am at work at the moment

 

[wingman]

Like I said before I do not consider grains as a food group for humans, may be for birds

Try going out into a field pick up a bag full of wheat or whatever and proceed to eat it, then once it comes out the other end see how well your body has evolved to eat/digest/process grains, then get back to me about how it is food.

PS will check the link tonight as I am at work at the moment

Couldnt you say the same about going out into a field to pick up a pig and trying to eat it?

 

[Goosey]

Couldnt you say the same about going out into a field to pick up a pig and trying to eat it?

If you ate it whole, eejit.

 

[Bazza20]

Yes I cook most food that tastes better cooked, but that is not the issue here, as cooking food is a convenience/taste thing, and salad and stuff I eat raw.

The point is MOST grains are poisonous and/or indigestible to humans unless cooked, so they are poison to our system, and as such we have NOT evolved to eat them, humans have only eaten grains for about 10000 years or so, not long enough to evolve. and this can clearly be seen by the general health or lack there of of the general population of today.

We don't thrive because of grains we live despite them

Most other stuff can be eaten raw should you chose to do so, including fish (sushi?) meat (a lot of cultures including Germans eat raw beef), etc etc.

But like I said eat as you like, not my problem, my body or my life.

Mick you are just jumping from one wrong argument to the next.

What happened to the anti nutrient argument?? I hope you don't eat any plant foods at all if you want to avoid anti nutrients.

Out bodys can digest grains. This is not an argument at all. Just because you say it over and over doesn't make it true. it happens every day by billions of people. Some of the longest lived nations eat high levels of grains. If grains were killing us why isn't there a correlation between grain intake and life expectancy.

Evolution can most certainly happen in tens of thousands of years.

The argument about grains needing to be cooked. So what, there are other foods that need to be cooked before eating to either allow digestion or break down chemicals. Are you going to stop eating all those as well.

Mick its fine if you don't want to eat grains but comparing them to plastic and saying they are not a food is an absolute joke and just plain wrong.

 

[Bazza20]

Couldnt you say the same about going out into a field to pick up a pig and trying to eat it?

Mick must not eat bacon he just goes out and chews down the whole pig guts, bones and all.

 

[chocchillimango]

Mick, do you eat chocolate/cacao?

If so, in what form and which do you eat?

 

[Goosey]

We can eat anything if we can digest it.

Wheat and other grains like linseed needs to be broken so it can be digested, the problem is once it is, storage becomes an issue as it will become rancid quickly.

White flour from wheat can be stored for a long time, even rodents don't eat it.

The debate I think is, has processed food like white flour contributed like to the obesity and health problems we are faced with today?

The Fijians where once cannibals as food was scarce, they tell me white people taste like pork.

 

[D1cko]

This is a very interesting arguement, and I agree with Goosey that grains and flour etc have contributed to the obesity problem.
I remember the 'food pyramid' being drilled into me at school, and it had grains and stuff at the bottom, which is ridiculous.
Me personally, always feel shit and bloated after eating bread, pasta etc...but GOD DAM it's tasty and I'm prepared to accept that's how I'll feel after eating them

 

[Bazza20]

Grains aren't the cause of obesity, many countries have lower levels of obesity but high consumption of grains. It's excess calories and our sedentary lifestyle.

 

[Bazza20]

Going by Micks arguments lets see what is actually a food.

No foods that contain anti nutrients

There goes all plant foods

No foods that come from modern agriculture.

No dairy.

Only foods that can be eaten raw.

Many plant foods again. Some meats should really be cooked also, but let that slide.

No processed foods.

Well this one is a tuff one. The eye fillet you get from the supermarket looks nothing like the steer in the paddock. You know why, because its processed before it gets to the supermarket but ill let this one slide also.


So as far as I can tell the only thing mick calls an actual food is meat and maybe eggs and both of those could have arguments made against them according to micks criteria.

 

[chocchillimango]

This is a very interesting arguement, and I agree with Goosey that grains and flour etc have contributed to the obesity problem.
I remember the 'food pyramid' being drilled into me at school, and it had grains and stuff at the bottom, which is ridiculous.
Me personally, always feel shit and bloated after eating bread, pasta etc...but GOD DAM it's tasty and I'm prepared to accept that's how I'll feel after eating them

Grains aren't the cause of obesity, many countries have lower levels of obesity but high consumption of grains. It's excess calories and our sedentary lifestyle.

the truth is somewhere in the middle, guys.

We are somewhat over exposed to refined grain products in the modern diet (as a collective population) and refined starches tend to leave us feeling hungry and so there is a tendency to overeat.

Soy is another culprit...it's in everything these days (unless you eat whole unprocessed foods primarily).

It's about making good food choices, not vilifying food groups.
Even sugar is no demon, unless you over eat it as part of your diet.
That same argument can be made for a range of things.

A word to the wise, Mick, grains are a food group. Regardless of species choosing to consume them.

Mick if you have cacao/chocolate in any other form other than whole raw cacao beans, I call BS. Cos that's the only way you could enjoy them without being inconsistent again.

The number of times I want to doof paleo dudes for choosing 85% chocolate...

 

[Bazza20]

To much of anything in out diet is bad Wether its grains, meat, soy or whatever but that doesn't make the original product bad. It's just that you consume too much of it.

 

[Goosey]

Grains aren't the cause of obesity, many countries have lower levels of obesity but high consumption of grains. It's excess calories and our sedentary lifestyle.

I know this, but it is somewhere in the middle, the problem is not black and white but manifold.

Baz, do you think that if a food is low in *nutrient value, there could be tendencies to overeating?

*a whole food source like wheat, where the bran and germ is separated from the endosperm, where the flour is taken from.

 

[Bazza20]

I know this, but it is somewhere in the middle, the problem is not black and white but manifold.

Baz, do you think that if a food is low in *nutrient value, there could be tendencies to overeating?

*a whole food source like wheat, where the bran and germ is separated from the endosperm, where the flour is taken from.

flour is not worse than other food. The problem like any food is if you have too much.

If you had 10 grams of flour a day is that an issue. Not many would say it is. 5kg a day there is a problem.

10 grams of beef a day is no worries. 5kg a day isn't going to be good.

No food is flat out good or bad. Too much of any food is bad but that doesn't mean that the actual food is bad. It's just the persons fault for eating too much.

How much is too much well that depends on the food, the person, the rest of their diet, genetics, activity level ect.

 

[Bazza20]

I want mick to tell chocchilli that chocolate is not a real food to see what happens.

 

[Goosey]

flour is not worse than other food. The problem like any food is if you have too much.

If you had 10 grams of flour a day is that an issue. Not many would say it is. 5kg a day there is a problem.

10 grams of beef a day is no worries. 5kg a day isn't going to be good.

No food is flat out good or bad. Too much of any food is bad but that doesn't mean that the actual food is bad. It's just the persons fault for eating too much.

How much is too much well that depends on the food, the person, the rest of their diet, genetics, activity level ect.

I know, but and this is the question; do you think there is a possibility that we and other animals could consume more of something that is lacking to compensate?

 

[Goosey]

I'm really no authority on food.

But this is an interesting observation.

Quick oats versus milled oats.

The smell, texture and taste are so different.
While on holiday all I had access to is quick oats, the serving size for the quick ots needed to be larger, for me to feel satisfied.

We have a family of magpies that will not touch meat with minimal fat, if I have a handful of meat, one particular maggy looks for the fatty pieces.
Same with the oats, they only eat and go spastic over the milled grain.

 

[Bazza20]

I know, but and this is the question; do you think there is a possibility that we and other animals could consume more of something that is lacking to compensate?

First are you assuming by eating flour we must then be deficient elsewhere in our diet? If you are eating a range of foods most diets are likely to be in excess of most nutrients anyway. If you are eating enough of something like four or any other food and it is replacing enough other nutrients in your diet that you are deficient in things that would fall in the category of eating too much.