Carbohydrate blockers cause unpleasant side effects and deny the body of important vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre. Here's why:
Side Effects
It is claimed that carbohydrate blockers permit carbohydrates to pass through the body undigested. The side effects of this process include gastrointestinal upset and excessive wind.
Poor Nutrition
Carbohydrate is the body's preferred fuel source: many carbohydrate-rich foods offer vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre. So when you block carbohydrates, you deny your body important nutrients.
Safety Issues
People with a medical condition should be wary of carbohydrate blockers: especially people with Diabetes.
Lack of Effectiveness
The manufacturers of carbohydrate blockers claim they can 'block' up to 1125 Calories per meal, helping people lose 5kgs in two months. These results are by no means remarkable. At the Wesley Weight Management Clinic our heaviest client group loses an average of 7.9kgs in one month, 15kgs in three months and 21kgs in six months.
So when it comes to healthy weight loss there's no quick and easy solution: you need to change your lifestyle by eating a healthy balanced diet and engaging in regular exercise.
Sabtu, 28 Februari 2009
Jumat, 27 Februari 2009
Weird Fun Friday - Play to Win Prizes
Happy Fun Friday!! Is this weird or what? I'm sending out this Fun Friday reminder after the sun has set... and we all know weird things happen after dark!! Sorry about that good Neighbors. I was on the road today and out of bandwidth. But oddly enough our effervescent Neighbor Kim poses some weird questions for YOU in this weekly Neighborhood game. Take a look: Weird Fun Friday February 27,
How to lose Weight?!
Are you exhausted from so many exercises you have to do in order to lose weight.
Do you feel the same when you make a healthy diet. Take a look here to learn more about this new product:
Lose weight with the new method:
There are a lot of people, who are looking for a way to lose some weight. They want this way to be a natural one, so they can have perfect body, and excellent health.
This product is 100% natural and it's extracted from traditionally plants in the mountains. Fat binders that can provide you with a good way to lose some weight. There is no RISK. The only thing you are going to lose, is Weight!!!
What exactly are these fat binders, we are promoting?
Let's give an example. You are eating a cheese burger. It's very good. When this burger go down to the stomach, it will produce fat that could be very dangerous for you and especially for your health. From here it's enough a single burger per day. Otherwise, your body will not be in the perfect style. These fat binders can also make a molecules that absorbed some of this fat, and make it decrease. It uses a special chemically weight loss method, which has an evidence by a lot of doctors and specialists.
But if this is not enough, take a look below:
They have the ability to make people reducing their weight. It's very effective with the meal portions it can REMOVE.
The best result: After you use this product, you will see a result in the very first day. This is why, so many people are using it.
Why do you have to try these fat binders?
It has a special suppressant, which can make your brain think "By Force" that your body is full and can't fill anymore. But that's not true. You will refill your hunger faster than ever. It will cut your appetite signal from the brain and makes you feel in perfect mood.
Very interesting fact:
The fat binders also "Work" without your help. You can play, drink coffee, drive your car, etc. and this product will work alone.
Why do you have to choose this product?
There is no risk, you will lose only your weight.
Now you will see the best product in this area. It can remove the problem you have. Other products will delete the fat for more than a month. This is very slow, and you will have some other problems... With this, you won't find any negative effects and you will feel yourself ever in a comfortable situation.
I think that in the media, from TV, from the radio and maybe from lots of your friends you are told a lot of advertisements for many products for weight losing. They are all promoting a special way to lose weight, some with exercises, some with diet plans, but this product is ALL IN ONE.
The answer you can give to my question is not enough to learn the most important info you need. Let's say for example the product: Proactol. It has two years experience and is voted number one in each chart for the best product to lose weight. With more than 90% positive votes, there is any other product which makes people feel happy.
When you use "Proactol" you have the ability to eat a lot, without increasing your health. You can have the most important eating during the day- the healthy breakfast. Every exercise the people are doing in the fitness can also be done with this product. Now the specialists offer this product with a lot of benefits.
The most important advantages are:
You will have a lower blood cholesterol
You will increase your energy level
You will feel a reduction in the food, you need during the day
This reduction is up to 450 calories per day
Without negative effects
And finally, people can take "Proactol" and they can be sure that it's 100% natural, and they will be happy in just one week- they will be in perfect health. They don't need to make any exercises. Two words only: THE BEST!!!
Now you can offer your body a perfect solution to lose weight.
Visit Proactol.com And try it now- Click here
Happy People who used this Healthy Diet
___________________________________
A lot of medical Doctors all over the world have recomended Proactol. For example, here are the Words of Dr. Adam Carey:
Dr. Adam Carey
Dr. Adam Carey is a health expert and he is known worldwide. He is also a co-presenter for the three series of 'Celebrity Fit Club' and for Sky Ones program ' Change the Day you Die'.
Until now he has over 20 years experience in the Health World and also in reproductive endocrinology.
Many groups of elite athletes and celebrities are advised by Dr. Carey to use this diet plan. In this number of people are including a lot of football teams and Cricket board too.
He is a director in lots of companies for charity, but his almost job is "Director of Nutrition for the England Rugby Football Union and Nutrition Director for ' Focus on Food'".
100% Healthy and Medically proven product.
Is Public Health Important?!
The Public Health tries not only to prevent treatments, but also a strange human behaviour. In these cases everybody is studying and if there are some strange activities, the person could have a disease, and this disease could be very harmful for his health. This organization also makes a lot of vaccination programs in order to make the population more healthy.
What exactly is Health care?!
Kamis, 26 Februari 2009
Dietary Fiber and Mineral Availability
Mainstream health authorities are constantly telling us to eat more fiber for health, particularly whole grains, fruit and vegetables. Yet the only clinical trial that has ever isolated the effect of eating a high-fiber diet on overall risk of death, the Diet and Reinfarction Trial, came up with this graph:
Oops! How embarrassing. At two years, the group that doubled its fiber intake had a 27% greater chance of dying and a 23% greater chance of having a heart attack. The extra fiber was coming from whole grains. I should say, out of fairness, that the result wasn't quite statistically significant (p less than 0.05) at two years. But at the very least, this doesn't support the idea that increasing fiber will extend your life. I believe this the only diet trial that has ever looked at fiber and mortality, without also changing other variables at the same time.
Why might fiber be problematic? I read a paper recently that gave a pretty convincing answer to that question: "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability", by Dr. Barbara F. Hartland. By definition, fiber is indigestible. We can divide it into two categories: soluble and insoluble. Insoluble fiber is mostly cellulose and it's relatively inert, besides getting fermented a bit by the gut flora. Soluble fiber is anything that can be dissolved in water but not digested by the human digestive tract. It includes a variety of molecules, some of which are quite effective at keeping you from absorbing minerals. Chief among these is phytic acid, with smaller contributions from tannins (polyphenols) and oxalates. The paper makes a strong case that phytic acid is the main reason fiber prevents mineral absorption, rather than the insoluble fiber fraction. This notion was confirmed here.
As a little side note, polyphenols are those wonderful plant antioxidants that are one of the main justifications for the supposed health benefits of vegetables, tea, chocolate, fruits and antioxidant supplements. The problem is, many of them are actually anti-nutrients. They reduce mineral absorption, reduce growth and feed efficiency in a number of species, and the antioxidant effect seen in human plasma after eating them is due largely to our own bodies secreting uric acid into the blood (a defense mechanism?), rather than the polyphenols themselves. The main antioxidants in plasma are uric acid, vitamin C and vitamin E, with almost no direct contribution from polyphenols. I'm open to the idea that some polyphenols could be beneficial if someone can show me convincing data, but in any case they are not the panacea they're made out to be. Thanks to Peter for cluing me in on this.
Whole grains would be a good source of water-soluble vitamins and minerals, if it weren't for their very high phytic acid content. Even though whole grains are full of minerals, replacing refined grains with whole grains in the diet (and especially adding extra bran) actually reduces the overall absorption of a number of minerals (free text, check out table 4). This has been confirmed repeatedly for iron, zinc, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. That could well account for the increased mortality in the DART trial.
Refining grains gets rid of the vitamins and minerals but at least refined grains don't prevent you from absorbing the minerals in the rest of your food. Here's a comparison of a few of the nutrients in one cup of cooked brown vs. unenriched white rice (218 vs. 242 calories):
Brown rice would be quite nutritious if we could absorb all those minerals. There are a few ways to increase mineral absorption from whole grains. One way is to soak them in slightly acidic, warm water, which allows their own phytase enzyme to break down phytic acid. This doesn't seem to do much for brown rice, which doesn't contain much phytase.
A more effective method is to grind grains and soak them before cooking, which helps the phytase function more effectively, especially in gluten grains and buckwheat. The most effective method by far, and the method of choice among healthy traditional cultures around the world, is to soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This breaks down nearly all the phytic acid, making whole grains a good source of both minerals and vitamins.
The paper "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability" listed another method of increasing mineral absorption from whole grains that I wasn't aware of. Certain foods can increase the absorption of minerals from whole grains high in phytic acid. These include: foods rich in vitamin C such as fruit or potatoes; meat including fish; and dairy.
Another point the paper made was that the phytic acid content of vegetarian diets is often very high, potentially leading to mineral deficiencies. The typical modern vegetarian diet containing brown rice and unfermented soy products is very high in phytic acid and thus very low in absorbable minerals. The more your diet depends on plant sources for minerals, the more careful you have to be about how you prepare your food.
Oops! How embarrassing. At two years, the group that doubled its fiber intake had a 27% greater chance of dying and a 23% greater chance of having a heart attack. The extra fiber was coming from whole grains. I should say, out of fairness, that the result wasn't quite statistically significant (p less than 0.05) at two years. But at the very least, this doesn't support the idea that increasing fiber will extend your life. I believe this the only diet trial that has ever looked at fiber and mortality, without also changing other variables at the same time.
Why might fiber be problematic? I read a paper recently that gave a pretty convincing answer to that question: "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability", by Dr. Barbara F. Hartland. By definition, fiber is indigestible. We can divide it into two categories: soluble and insoluble. Insoluble fiber is mostly cellulose and it's relatively inert, besides getting fermented a bit by the gut flora. Soluble fiber is anything that can be dissolved in water but not digested by the human digestive tract. It includes a variety of molecules, some of which are quite effective at keeping you from absorbing minerals. Chief among these is phytic acid, with smaller contributions from tannins (polyphenols) and oxalates. The paper makes a strong case that phytic acid is the main reason fiber prevents mineral absorption, rather than the insoluble fiber fraction. This notion was confirmed here.
As a little side note, polyphenols are those wonderful plant antioxidants that are one of the main justifications for the supposed health benefits of vegetables, tea, chocolate, fruits and antioxidant supplements. The problem is, many of them are actually anti-nutrients. They reduce mineral absorption, reduce growth and feed efficiency in a number of species, and the antioxidant effect seen in human plasma after eating them is due largely to our own bodies secreting uric acid into the blood (a defense mechanism?), rather than the polyphenols themselves. The main antioxidants in plasma are uric acid, vitamin C and vitamin E, with almost no direct contribution from polyphenols. I'm open to the idea that some polyphenols could be beneficial if someone can show me convincing data, but in any case they are not the panacea they're made out to be. Thanks to Peter for cluing me in on this.
Whole grains would be a good source of water-soluble vitamins and minerals, if it weren't for their very high phytic acid content. Even though whole grains are full of minerals, replacing refined grains with whole grains in the diet (and especially adding extra bran) actually reduces the overall absorption of a number of minerals (free text, check out table 4). This has been confirmed repeatedly for iron, zinc, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. That could well account for the increased mortality in the DART trial.
Refining grains gets rid of the vitamins and minerals but at least refined grains don't prevent you from absorbing the minerals in the rest of your food. Here's a comparison of a few of the nutrients in one cup of cooked brown vs. unenriched white rice (218 vs. 242 calories):
Brown rice would be quite nutritious if we could absorb all those minerals. There are a few ways to increase mineral absorption from whole grains. One way is to soak them in slightly acidic, warm water, which allows their own phytase enzyme to break down phytic acid. This doesn't seem to do much for brown rice, which doesn't contain much phytase. A more effective method is to grind grains and soak them before cooking, which helps the phytase function more effectively, especially in gluten grains and buckwheat. The most effective method by far, and the method of choice among healthy traditional cultures around the world, is to soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This breaks down nearly all the phytic acid, making whole grains a good source of both minerals and vitamins.
The paper "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability" listed another method of increasing mineral absorption from whole grains that I wasn't aware of. Certain foods can increase the absorption of minerals from whole grains high in phytic acid. These include: foods rich in vitamin C such as fruit or potatoes; meat including fish; and dairy.
Another point the paper made was that the phytic acid content of vegetarian diets is often very high, potentially leading to mineral deficiencies. The typical modern vegetarian diet containing brown rice and unfermented soy products is very high in phytic acid and thus very low in absorbable minerals. The more your diet depends on plant sources for minerals, the more careful you have to be about how you prepare your food.
Dietary Fiber and Mineral Availability
Mainstream health authorities are constantly telling us to eat more fiber for health, particularly whole grains, fruit and vegetables. Yet the only clinical trial that has ever isolated the effect of eating a high-fiber diet on overall risk of death, the Diet and Reinfarction Trial, came up with this graph:
Oops! How embarrassing. At two years, the group that doubled its fiber intake had a 27% greater chance of dying and a 23% greater chance of having a heart attack. The extra fiber was coming from whole grains. I should say, out of fairness, that the result wasn't quite statistically significant (p less than 0.05) at two years. But at the very least, this doesn't support the idea that increasing fiber will extend your life. I believe this the only diet trial that has ever looked at fiber and mortality, without also changing other variables at the same time.
Why might fiber be problematic? I read a paper recently that gave a pretty convincing answer to that question: "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability", by Dr. Barbara F. Hartland. By definition, fiber is indigestible. We can divide it into two categories: soluble and insoluble. Insoluble fiber is mostly cellulose and it's relatively inert, besides getting fermented a bit by the gut flora. Soluble fiber is anything that can be dissolved in water but not digested by the human digestive tract. It includes a variety of molecules, some of which are quite effective at keeping you from absorbing minerals. Chief among these is phytic acid, with smaller contributions from tannins (polyphenols) and oxalates. The paper makes a strong case that phytic acid is the main reason fiber prevents mineral absorption, rather than the insoluble fiber fraction. This notion was confirmed here.
As a little side note, polyphenols are those wonderful plant antioxidants that are one of the main justifications for the supposed health benefits of vegetables, tea, chocolate, fruits and antioxidant supplements. The problem is, many of them are actually anti-nutrients. They reduce mineral absorption, reduce growth and feed efficiency in a number of species, and the antioxidant effect seen in human plasma after eating them is due largely to our own bodies secreting uric acid into the blood (a defense mechanism?), rather than the polyphenols themselves. The main antioxidants in plasma are uric acid, vitamin C and vitamin E, with almost no direct contribution from polyphenols. I'm open to the idea that some polyphenols could be beneficial if someone can show me convincing data, but in any case they are not the panacea they're made out to be. Thanks to Peter for cluing me in on this.
Whole grains would be a good source of water-soluble vitamins and minerals, if it weren't for their very high phytic acid content. Even though whole grains are full of minerals, replacing refined grains with whole grains in the diet (and especially adding extra bran) actually reduces the overall absorption of a number of minerals (free text, check out table 4). This has been confirmed repeatedly for iron, zinc, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. That could well account for the increased mortality in the DART trial.
Refining grains gets rid of the vitamins and minerals but at least refined grains don't prevent you from absorbing the minerals in the rest of your food. Here's a comparison of a few of the nutrients in one cup of cooked brown vs. unenriched white rice (218 vs. 242 calories):
Brown rice would be quite nutritious if we could absorb all those minerals. There are a few ways to increase mineral absorption from whole grains. One way is to soak them in slightly acidic, warm water, which allows their own phytase enzyme to break down phytic acid. This doesn't seem to do much for brown rice, which doesn't contain much phytase.
A more effective method is to grind grains and soak them before cooking, which helps the phytase function more effectively, especially in gluten grains and buckwheat. The most effective method by far, and the method of choice among healthy traditional cultures around the world, is to soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This breaks down nearly all the phytic acid, making whole grains a good source of both minerals and vitamins.
The paper "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability" listed another method of increasing mineral absorption from whole grains that I wasn't aware of. Certain foods can increase the absorption of minerals from whole grains high in phytic acid. These include: foods rich in vitamin C such as fruit or potatoes; meat including fish; and dairy.
Another point the paper made was that the phytic acid content of vegetarian diets is often very high, potentially leading to mineral deficiencies. The typical modern vegetarian diet containing brown rice and unfermented soy products is very high in phytic acid and thus very low in absorbable minerals. The more your diet depends on plant sources for minerals, the more careful you have to be about how you prepare your food.
Oops! How embarrassing. At two years, the group that doubled its fiber intake had a 27% greater chance of dying and a 23% greater chance of having a heart attack. The extra fiber was coming from whole grains. I should say, out of fairness, that the result wasn't quite statistically significant (p less than 0.05) at two years. But at the very least, this doesn't support the idea that increasing fiber will extend your life. I believe this the only diet trial that has ever looked at fiber and mortality, without also changing other variables at the same time.
Why might fiber be problematic? I read a paper recently that gave a pretty convincing answer to that question: "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability", by Dr. Barbara F. Hartland. By definition, fiber is indigestible. We can divide it into two categories: soluble and insoluble. Insoluble fiber is mostly cellulose and it's relatively inert, besides getting fermented a bit by the gut flora. Soluble fiber is anything that can be dissolved in water but not digested by the human digestive tract. It includes a variety of molecules, some of which are quite effective at keeping you from absorbing minerals. Chief among these is phytic acid, with smaller contributions from tannins (polyphenols) and oxalates. The paper makes a strong case that phytic acid is the main reason fiber prevents mineral absorption, rather than the insoluble fiber fraction. This notion was confirmed here.
As a little side note, polyphenols are those wonderful plant antioxidants that are one of the main justifications for the supposed health benefits of vegetables, tea, chocolate, fruits and antioxidant supplements. The problem is, many of them are actually anti-nutrients. They reduce mineral absorption, reduce growth and feed efficiency in a number of species, and the antioxidant effect seen in human plasma after eating them is due largely to our own bodies secreting uric acid into the blood (a defense mechanism?), rather than the polyphenols themselves. The main antioxidants in plasma are uric acid, vitamin C and vitamin E, with almost no direct contribution from polyphenols. I'm open to the idea that some polyphenols could be beneficial if someone can show me convincing data, but in any case they are not the panacea they're made out to be. Thanks to Peter for cluing me in on this.
Whole grains would be a good source of water-soluble vitamins and minerals, if it weren't for their very high phytic acid content. Even though whole grains are full of minerals, replacing refined grains with whole grains in the diet (and especially adding extra bran) actually reduces the overall absorption of a number of minerals (free text, check out table 4). This has been confirmed repeatedly for iron, zinc, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. That could well account for the increased mortality in the DART trial.
Refining grains gets rid of the vitamins and minerals but at least refined grains don't prevent you from absorbing the minerals in the rest of your food. Here's a comparison of a few of the nutrients in one cup of cooked brown vs. unenriched white rice (218 vs. 242 calories):
Brown rice would be quite nutritious if we could absorb all those minerals. There are a few ways to increase mineral absorption from whole grains. One way is to soak them in slightly acidic, warm water, which allows their own phytase enzyme to break down phytic acid. This doesn't seem to do much for brown rice, which doesn't contain much phytase. A more effective method is to grind grains and soak them before cooking, which helps the phytase function more effectively, especially in gluten grains and buckwheat. The most effective method by far, and the method of choice among healthy traditional cultures around the world, is to soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This breaks down nearly all the phytic acid, making whole grains a good source of both minerals and vitamins.
The paper "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability" listed another method of increasing mineral absorption from whole grains that I wasn't aware of. Certain foods can increase the absorption of minerals from whole grains high in phytic acid. These include: foods rich in vitamin C such as fruit or potatoes; meat including fish; and dairy.
Another point the paper made was that the phytic acid content of vegetarian diets is often very high, potentially leading to mineral deficiencies. The typical modern vegetarian diet containing brown rice and unfermented soy products is very high in phytic acid and thus very low in absorbable minerals. The more your diet depends on plant sources for minerals, the more careful you have to be about how you prepare your food.
Just a Reminder
I will not tolerate comments that are disrespectful or threatening to other commenters or myself. Feel free to disagree with anyone here, including me, in a courteous tone. I enjoy the intelligent discussions we have here, and I don't want them to degenerate into troll wars.
Just a Reminder
I will not tolerate comments that are disrespectful or threatening to other commenters or myself. Feel free to disagree with anyone here, including me, in a courteous tone. I enjoy the intelligent discussions we have here, and I don't want them to degenerate into troll wars.
Rumbly-Grumbly Tummy
Recently I was asked about the "inactive stomach" that is separated from the pouch in a gastric bypass surgery. Here is one of my syndicated articles that addresses the issue of the rumbly-grumbly tummy:If you’ve been enjoying life after gastric bypass surgery you will know exactly what I’m talking about. That rumbly-tumbly stomach growl that’s more bark than bite. It’s the inactive tummy talking
Selasa, 24 Februari 2009
A few thoughts on Minerals, Milling, Grains and Tubers
One of the things I've been noticing in my readings on grain processing and mineral bioavailability is that it's difficult to make whole grains into a good source of minerals. Whole grains naturally contain more minerals that milled grains where the bran and germ are removed, but most of the minerals are bound up in ways that prevent their absorption.
The phytic acid content of whole grains is the main reason for their low mineral bioavailability. Brown rice, simply cooked, provides very little iron and essentially no zinc due to its high concentration of phytic acid. Milling brown rice, which turns it into white rice, removes most of the minerals but also most of the phytic acid, leaving mineral bioavailability similar to or perhaps even better than brown rice (the ratio of phytic acid to iron and zinc actually decreases after milling rice). If you're going to throw rice into the rice cooker without preparing it first, white rice is probably better than brown overall. Either way, the mineral availability of rice is low. Here's how Dr. Robert Hamer's group put it when they evaluated the mineral content of 56 varieties of Chinese rice:
Potatoes and other tubers contain much less phytic acid than whole grains, which may be one reason why they're a common feature of extremely healthy cultures such as the Kitavans. I went on NutritionData to see if potatoes have a better mineral-to-phytic acid ratio than grains. They do have a better ratio than whole grains, although whole grains contain more total minerals.
Soaking grains reduces their phytic acid content, but the extent depends on the grain. Gluten grain flours digest their own phytic acid very quickly when soaked, due to the presence of the enzyme phytase. Because of this, bread is fairly low in phytic acid, although whole grain yeast breads contain more than sourdough breads. Buckwheat flour also has a high phytase activity. The more intact the grain, the slower it breaks down its own phytic acid upon soaking. Some grains, like rice, don't have much phytase activity so they degrade phytic acid slowly. Other grains, like oats and kasha, are toasted before you buy them, which kills the phytase.
Whole grains generally contain so much phytic acid that modest reductions don't free up much of the mineral content for absorption. Many of the studies I've read, including this one, show that soaking brown rice doesn't really free up its zinc or iron content. But I like brown rice, so I want to find a way to prepare it well. It's actually quite rich in vitamins and minerals if you can absorb them.
One of the things many of these studies overlook is the effect of pH on phytic acid degradation. Grain phytase is maximally active around pH 4.5-5.5. That's slightly acidic. Most of the studies I've read soaked rice in water with a neutral pH, including the one above. Adding a tablespoon of whey, yogurt, vinegar or lemon juice per cup of grains to your soaking medium will lower the pH and increase phytase activity. Temperature is also an important factor, with 50 C (122 F) being the optimum. I like to put my soaking grains and beans on the heating vent in my kitchen.
I don't know exactly how much adding acid and soaking at a warm temperature will increase the mineral availability of brown rice (if at all), because I haven't found it in the literature. The bacteria present if you soak it in whey, unfiltered vinegar or yogurt could potentially aid the digestion of phytic acid. Another strategy is to add the flour of a high-phytase grain like buckwheat to the soaking medium. This works for soaking flours, perhaps it would help with whole grains as well?
So now we come to the next problem. Phytic acid is a medium-sized molecule. If you break it down and it lets go of the minerals it's chelating, the minerals are more likely to diffuse out of the grain into your soaking medium, which you then discard because it also contains the tannins, saponins and other anti-nutrients that you want to get rid of. That seems to be exactly what happens, at least in the case of brown rice.
So what's the best solution for maximal mineral and vitamin content? Do what traditional cultures have been doing for millenia: soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This eliminates nearly all the phytic acid, dramatically increasing mineral bioavailiability. Fermenting batter doesn't lose minerals because there's nowhere for them to go. In the West, we use this process to make bread, which would probably be a good food if it weren't for the gluten. In Africa, they do it to make ogi, injera, and a number of other fermented grain dishes. In India, they grind rice and beans to make idli and dosas. In the Phillipines, they ferment ground rice to make puto. Fermenting ground whole grains is the most reliable way to improve their mineral bioavailability and nutritional value in general.
But isn't having a rice cooker full of steaming brown rice so nice? I'm still working on finding a reliable way to increase its nutritional value.
The phytic acid content of whole grains is the main reason for their low mineral bioavailability. Brown rice, simply cooked, provides very little iron and essentially no zinc due to its high concentration of phytic acid. Milling brown rice, which turns it into white rice, removes most of the minerals but also most of the phytic acid, leaving mineral bioavailability similar to or perhaps even better than brown rice (the ratio of phytic acid to iron and zinc actually decreases after milling rice). If you're going to throw rice into the rice cooker without preparing it first, white rice is probably better than brown overall. Either way, the mineral availability of rice is low. Here's how Dr. Robert Hamer's group put it when they evaluated the mineral content of 56 varieties of Chinese rice:
This study shows that the mineral bio-availability of Chinese rice varieties will be [less than] 4%. Despite the variation in mineral contents, in all cases the [phytic acid] present is expected to render most mineral present unavailable. We conclude that there is scope for optimisation of mineral contents of rice by matching suitable varieties and growing regions, and that rice products require processing that retains minerals but results in thorough dephytinisation.It's important to note that milling removes most of the vitamin content of the brown rice as well, another important factor.
Potatoes and other tubers contain much less phytic acid than whole grains, which may be one reason why they're a common feature of extremely healthy cultures such as the Kitavans. I went on NutritionData to see if potatoes have a better mineral-to-phytic acid ratio than grains. They do have a better ratio than whole grains, although whole grains contain more total minerals.
Soaking grains reduces their phytic acid content, but the extent depends on the grain. Gluten grain flours digest their own phytic acid very quickly when soaked, due to the presence of the enzyme phytase. Because of this, bread is fairly low in phytic acid, although whole grain yeast breads contain more than sourdough breads. Buckwheat flour also has a high phytase activity. The more intact the grain, the slower it breaks down its own phytic acid upon soaking. Some grains, like rice, don't have much phytase activity so they degrade phytic acid slowly. Other grains, like oats and kasha, are toasted before you buy them, which kills the phytase.
Whole grains generally contain so much phytic acid that modest reductions don't free up much of the mineral content for absorption. Many of the studies I've read, including this one, show that soaking brown rice doesn't really free up its zinc or iron content. But I like brown rice, so I want to find a way to prepare it well. It's actually quite rich in vitamins and minerals if you can absorb them.
One of the things many of these studies overlook is the effect of pH on phytic acid degradation. Grain phytase is maximally active around pH 4.5-5.5. That's slightly acidic. Most of the studies I've read soaked rice in water with a neutral pH, including the one above. Adding a tablespoon of whey, yogurt, vinegar or lemon juice per cup of grains to your soaking medium will lower the pH and increase phytase activity. Temperature is also an important factor, with 50 C (122 F) being the optimum. I like to put my soaking grains and beans on the heating vent in my kitchen.
I don't know exactly how much adding acid and soaking at a warm temperature will increase the mineral availability of brown rice (if at all), because I haven't found it in the literature. The bacteria present if you soak it in whey, unfiltered vinegar or yogurt could potentially aid the digestion of phytic acid. Another strategy is to add the flour of a high-phytase grain like buckwheat to the soaking medium. This works for soaking flours, perhaps it would help with whole grains as well?
So now we come to the next problem. Phytic acid is a medium-sized molecule. If you break it down and it lets go of the minerals it's chelating, the minerals are more likely to diffuse out of the grain into your soaking medium, which you then discard because it also contains the tannins, saponins and other anti-nutrients that you want to get rid of. That seems to be exactly what happens, at least in the case of brown rice.
So what's the best solution for maximal mineral and vitamin content? Do what traditional cultures have been doing for millenia: soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This eliminates nearly all the phytic acid, dramatically increasing mineral bioavailiability. Fermenting batter doesn't lose minerals because there's nowhere for them to go. In the West, we use this process to make bread, which would probably be a good food if it weren't for the gluten. In Africa, they do it to make ogi, injera, and a number of other fermented grain dishes. In India, they grind rice and beans to make idli and dosas. In the Phillipines, they ferment ground rice to make puto. Fermenting ground whole grains is the most reliable way to improve their mineral bioavailability and nutritional value in general.
But isn't having a rice cooker full of steaming brown rice so nice? I'm still working on finding a reliable way to increase its nutritional value.
A few thoughts on Minerals, Milling, Grains and Tubers
One of the things I've been noticing in my readings on grain processing and mineral bioavailability is that it's difficult to make whole grains into a good source of minerals. Whole grains naturally contain more minerals that milled grains where the bran and germ are removed, but most of the minerals are bound up in ways that prevent their absorption.
The phytic acid content of whole grains is the main reason for their low mineral bioavailability. Brown rice, simply cooked, provides very little iron and essentially no zinc due to its high concentration of phytic acid. Milling brown rice, which turns it into white rice, removes most of the minerals but also most of the phytic acid, leaving mineral bioavailability similar to or perhaps even better than brown rice (the ratio of phytic acid to iron and zinc actually decreases after milling rice). If you're going to throw rice into the rice cooker without preparing it first, white rice is probably better than brown overall. Either way, the mineral availability of rice is low. Here's how Dr. Robert Hamer's group put it when they evaluated the mineral content of 56 varieties of Chinese rice:
Potatoes and other tubers contain much less phytic acid than whole grains, which may be one reason why they're a common feature of extremely healthy cultures such as the Kitavans. I went on NutritionData to see if potatoes have a better mineral-to-phytic acid ratio than grains. They do have a better ratio than whole grains, although whole grains contain more total minerals.
Soaking grains reduces their phytic acid content, but the extent depends on the grain. Gluten grain flours digest their own phytic acid very quickly when soaked, due to the presence of the enzyme phytase. Because of this, bread is fairly low in phytic acid, although whole grain yeast breads contain more than sourdough breads. Buckwheat flour also has a high phytase activity. The more intact the grain, the slower it breaks down its own phytic acid upon soaking. Some grains, like rice, don't have much phytase activity so they degrade phytic acid slowly. Other grains, like oats and kasha, are toasted before you buy them, which kills the phytase.
Whole grains generally contain so much phytic acid that modest reductions don't free up much of the mineral content for absorption. Many of the studies I've read, including this one, show that soaking brown rice doesn't really free up its zinc or iron content. But I like brown rice, so I want to find a way to prepare it well. It's actually quite rich in vitamins and minerals if you can absorb them.
One of the things many of these studies overlook is the effect of pH on phytic acid degradation. Grain phytase is maximally active around pH 4.5-5.5. That's slightly acidic. Most of the studies I've read soaked rice in water with a neutral pH, including the one above. Adding a tablespoon of whey, yogurt, vinegar or lemon juice per cup of grains to your soaking medium will lower the pH and increase phytase activity. Temperature is also an important factor, with 50 C (122 F) being the optimum. I like to put my soaking grains and beans on the heating vent in my kitchen.
I don't know exactly how much adding acid and soaking at a warm temperature will increase the mineral availability of brown rice (if at all), because I haven't found it in the literature. The bacteria present if you soak it in whey, unfiltered vinegar or yogurt could potentially aid the digestion of phytic acid. Another strategy is to add the flour of a high-phytase grain like buckwheat to the soaking medium. This works for soaking flours, perhaps it would help with whole grains as well?
So now we come to the next problem. Phytic acid is a medium-sized molecule. If you break it down and it lets go of the minerals it's chelating, the minerals are more likely to diffuse out of the grain into your soaking medium, which you then discard because it also contains the tannins, saponins and other anti-nutrients that you want to get rid of. That seems to be exactly what happens, at least in the case of brown rice.
So what's the best solution for maximal mineral and vitamin content? Do what traditional cultures have been doing for millenia: soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This eliminates nearly all the phytic acid, dramatically increasing mineral bioavailiability. Fermenting batter doesn't lose minerals because there's nowhere for them to go. In the West, we use this process to make bread, which would probably be a good food if it weren't for the gluten. In Africa, they do it to make ogi, injera, and a number of other fermented grain dishes. In India, they grind rice and beans to make idli and dosas. In the Phillipines, they ferment ground rice to make puto. Fermenting ground whole grains is the most reliable way to improve their mineral bioavailability and nutritional value in general.
But isn't having a rice cooker full of steaming brown rice so nice? I'm still working on finding a reliable way to increase its nutritional value.
The phytic acid content of whole grains is the main reason for their low mineral bioavailability. Brown rice, simply cooked, provides very little iron and essentially no zinc due to its high concentration of phytic acid. Milling brown rice, which turns it into white rice, removes most of the minerals but also most of the phytic acid, leaving mineral bioavailability similar to or perhaps even better than brown rice (the ratio of phytic acid to iron and zinc actually decreases after milling rice). If you're going to throw rice into the rice cooker without preparing it first, white rice is probably better than brown overall. Either way, the mineral availability of rice is low. Here's how Dr. Robert Hamer's group put it when they evaluated the mineral content of 56 varieties of Chinese rice:
This study shows that the mineral bio-availability of Chinese rice varieties will be [less than] 4%. Despite the variation in mineral contents, in all cases the [phytic acid] present is expected to render most mineral present unavailable. We conclude that there is scope for optimisation of mineral contents of rice by matching suitable varieties and growing regions, and that rice products require processing that retains minerals but results in thorough dephytinisation.It's important to note that milling removes most of the vitamin content of the brown rice as well, another important factor.
Potatoes and other tubers contain much less phytic acid than whole grains, which may be one reason why they're a common feature of extremely healthy cultures such as the Kitavans. I went on NutritionData to see if potatoes have a better mineral-to-phytic acid ratio than grains. They do have a better ratio than whole grains, although whole grains contain more total minerals.
Soaking grains reduces their phytic acid content, but the extent depends on the grain. Gluten grain flours digest their own phytic acid very quickly when soaked, due to the presence of the enzyme phytase. Because of this, bread is fairly low in phytic acid, although whole grain yeast breads contain more than sourdough breads. Buckwheat flour also has a high phytase activity. The more intact the grain, the slower it breaks down its own phytic acid upon soaking. Some grains, like rice, don't have much phytase activity so they degrade phytic acid slowly. Other grains, like oats and kasha, are toasted before you buy them, which kills the phytase.
Whole grains generally contain so much phytic acid that modest reductions don't free up much of the mineral content for absorption. Many of the studies I've read, including this one, show that soaking brown rice doesn't really free up its zinc or iron content. But I like brown rice, so I want to find a way to prepare it well. It's actually quite rich in vitamins and minerals if you can absorb them.
One of the things many of these studies overlook is the effect of pH on phytic acid degradation. Grain phytase is maximally active around pH 4.5-5.5. That's slightly acidic. Most of the studies I've read soaked rice in water with a neutral pH, including the one above. Adding a tablespoon of whey, yogurt, vinegar or lemon juice per cup of grains to your soaking medium will lower the pH and increase phytase activity. Temperature is also an important factor, with 50 C (122 F) being the optimum. I like to put my soaking grains and beans on the heating vent in my kitchen.
I don't know exactly how much adding acid and soaking at a warm temperature will increase the mineral availability of brown rice (if at all), because I haven't found it in the literature. The bacteria present if you soak it in whey, unfiltered vinegar or yogurt could potentially aid the digestion of phytic acid. Another strategy is to add the flour of a high-phytase grain like buckwheat to the soaking medium. This works for soaking flours, perhaps it would help with whole grains as well?
So now we come to the next problem. Phytic acid is a medium-sized molecule. If you break it down and it lets go of the minerals it's chelating, the minerals are more likely to diffuse out of the grain into your soaking medium, which you then discard because it also contains the tannins, saponins and other anti-nutrients that you want to get rid of. That seems to be exactly what happens, at least in the case of brown rice.
So what's the best solution for maximal mineral and vitamin content? Do what traditional cultures have been doing for millenia: soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This eliminates nearly all the phytic acid, dramatically increasing mineral bioavailiability. Fermenting batter doesn't lose minerals because there's nowhere for them to go. In the West, we use this process to make bread, which would probably be a good food if it weren't for the gluten. In Africa, they do it to make ogi, injera, and a number of other fermented grain dishes. In India, they grind rice and beans to make idli and dosas. In the Phillipines, they ferment ground rice to make puto. Fermenting ground whole grains is the most reliable way to improve their mineral bioavailability and nutritional value in general.
But isn't having a rice cooker full of steaming brown rice so nice? I'm still working on finding a reliable way to increase its nutritional value.
Protein Quickies: Recipes for Real Life
In today’s You Have Arrived Newsletter (subscribe here) we presented five “Protein Quickies: Recipes for Real Life.” The recipes are so terrific, all taken from Women’s Health Magazine, that I’m sharing three more recipes here in the LivingAfterWLS Blog. They are all protein dense with a reasonable serving of nutritious complex carbohydrates. Enjoy!Chicken Braised in Soy Sauce and LemonBrown
Senin, 23 Februari 2009
Taking Supplements: Tough Pill to Swallow
Kaye Bailey syndicated articlesWe have all been told to take our vitamins after gastric bypass weight loss surgery. In order to be nutritionally healthy we must supplement because the malabsorptive system prevents key nutrients from being absorbed by the body. But new patients report difficulty swallowing pills because of liquid restriction and tightness in the new stomach pouch.Here are some
Rule 2: Lots of Water
Greetings Neighbors!Last week we talked about the first golden rule of weight loss surgery: Protein First. This week we are going to look at rule #2: Lots of Water. Below is the article from our LivingAfterWLS Library about water. It is pretty straight forward. What I'd like to add is "Yes! It all counts." You see, I am often asked, "Does flavored (Crystal Light) water count? Does coffee count?
Neighborhood News: February 23, 2009
Have you visited The Neighborhood lately? We have lots of hot discussions going on and lots of good friendship and support for one another as we do our best to live this LAWLS lifestyle. Take a look at a few of our active topics:Kitten is getting back on track here: OK It's timeNancy - our resident funny girl and graphics guru - is celebrating here: 4 Years OutPen is new and pre-op! And she's the
Sabtu, 21 Februari 2009
How to Eat Grains
Our story begins in East Africa in 1935, with two Bantu tribes called the Kikuyu and the Wakamba. Their traditional diets were mostly vegetarian and consisted of sweet potatoes, corn, beans, plantains, millet, sorghum, wild mushrooms and small amounts of dairy, small animals and insects. Their food was agricultural, high in carbohydrate and low in fat.
Dr. Weston Price found them in good health, with well-formed faces and dental arches, and a dental cavity rate of roughly 6% of teeth. Although not as robust or as resistant to tooth decay as their more carnivorous neighbors, the "diseases of civilization" such as cardiovascular disease and obesity were nevertheless rare among them. South African Bantu eating a similar diet have a low prevalence of atherosclerosis, and a measurable but low incidence of death from coronary heart disease, even in old age.
How do we reconcile this with the archaeological data showing a general decline in human health upon the adoption of agriculture? Humans did not evolve to tolerate the toxins, anti-nutrients and large amounts of fiber in grains and legumes. Our digestive system is designed to handle a high-quality omnivorous diet. By high-quality, I mean one that has a high ratio of calories to indigestible material (fiber). Our species is very good at skimming off the highest quality food in nearly any ecological niche. Animals that are accustomed to high-fiber diets, such as cows and gorillas, have much larger, more robust and more fermentative digestive systems.
One factor that reconciles the Bantu data with the archaeological data is that much of the Kikuyu and Wakamba diet came from non-grain sources. Sweet potatoes and plantains are similar to the starchy wild plants our ancestors have been eating for nearly two million years, since the invention of fire (the time frame is debated but I think everyone agrees it's been a long time). Root vegetables and starchy fruit have a higher nutrient bioavailibility than grains and legumes due to their lower content of anti-nutrients and fiber.
The second factor that's often overlooked is food preparation techniques. These tribes did not eat their grains and legumes haphazardly! This is a factor that was overlooked by Dr. Price himself, but has been emphasized by Sally Fallon. Healthy grain-based African cultures typically soaked, ground and fermented their grains before cooking, creating a sour porridge that's nutritionally superior to unfermented grains. The bran was removed from corn and millet during processing, if possible. Legumes were always soaked prior to cooking.
These traditional food processing techniques have a very important effect on grains and legumes that brings them closer in line with the "paleolithic" foods our bodies are designed to digest. They reduce or eliminate toxins such as lectins and tannins, greatly reduce anti-nutrients such as phytic acid and protease inhibitors, and improve vitamin content and amino acid profile. Fermentation is particularly effective in this regard. One has to wonder how long it took the first agriculturalists to discover fermentation, and whether poor food preparation techniques or the exclusion of animal foods could account for their poor health.
I recently discovered a paper that illustrates these principles: "Influence of Germination and Fermentation on Bioaccessibility of Zinc and Iron from Food Grains". It's published by Indian researchers who wanted to study the nutritional qualities of traditional fermented foods. One of the foods they studied was idli, a South Indian steamed "muffin" made from rice and beans. Idlis happen to be one of my favorite foods.
The amount of minerals your digestive system can extract from a food depends in part on the food's phytic acid content. Phytic acid is a molecule that traps certain minerals (iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium), preventing their absorption. Raw grains and legumes contain a lot of it, meaning you can only absorb a fraction of the minerals present in them.
In this study, soaking had a modest effect on the phytic acid content of the grains and legumes examined (although it's generally more effective). Fermentation, on the other hand, completely broke down the phytic acid in the idli batter, resulting in 71% more bioavailable zinc and 277% more bioavailable iron. It's safe to assume that fermentation also increased the bioavailability of magnesium, calcium and other phytic acid-bound minerals.
Fermenting the idli batter also completely eliminated its tannin content. Tannins are a class of molecules found in many plants that are toxins and anti-nutrients. They reduce feed efficiency and growth rate in a variety of species.
Lectins are another toxin that's frequently mentioned in the paleolithic diet community. They are blamed for everything from digestive problems to autoimmune disease, probably with good reason. One of the things people like to overlook in this community is that traditional processing techniques such as soaking, sprouting, fermentation and cooking, greatly reduce or eliminate lectins from grains and legumes. One notable exception is gluten, which survives all but the longest fermentation and is not broken down by cooking.
Soaking, sprouting, fermenting, grinding and cooking are the techniques by which traditional cultures have been making the most of grain and legume-based diets for thousands of years. We ignore these time-honored traditions at our own peril.
Dr. Weston Price found them in good health, with well-formed faces and dental arches, and a dental cavity rate of roughly 6% of teeth. Although not as robust or as resistant to tooth decay as their more carnivorous neighbors, the "diseases of civilization" such as cardiovascular disease and obesity were nevertheless rare among them. South African Bantu eating a similar diet have a low prevalence of atherosclerosis, and a measurable but low incidence of death from coronary heart disease, even in old age.
How do we reconcile this with the archaeological data showing a general decline in human health upon the adoption of agriculture? Humans did not evolve to tolerate the toxins, anti-nutrients and large amounts of fiber in grains and legumes. Our digestive system is designed to handle a high-quality omnivorous diet. By high-quality, I mean one that has a high ratio of calories to indigestible material (fiber). Our species is very good at skimming off the highest quality food in nearly any ecological niche. Animals that are accustomed to high-fiber diets, such as cows and gorillas, have much larger, more robust and more fermentative digestive systems.
One factor that reconciles the Bantu data with the archaeological data is that much of the Kikuyu and Wakamba diet came from non-grain sources. Sweet potatoes and plantains are similar to the starchy wild plants our ancestors have been eating for nearly two million years, since the invention of fire (the time frame is debated but I think everyone agrees it's been a long time). Root vegetables and starchy fruit have a higher nutrient bioavailibility than grains and legumes due to their lower content of anti-nutrients and fiber.
The second factor that's often overlooked is food preparation techniques. These tribes did not eat their grains and legumes haphazardly! This is a factor that was overlooked by Dr. Price himself, but has been emphasized by Sally Fallon. Healthy grain-based African cultures typically soaked, ground and fermented their grains before cooking, creating a sour porridge that's nutritionally superior to unfermented grains. The bran was removed from corn and millet during processing, if possible. Legumes were always soaked prior to cooking.
These traditional food processing techniques have a very important effect on grains and legumes that brings them closer in line with the "paleolithic" foods our bodies are designed to digest. They reduce or eliminate toxins such as lectins and tannins, greatly reduce anti-nutrients such as phytic acid and protease inhibitors, and improve vitamin content and amino acid profile. Fermentation is particularly effective in this regard. One has to wonder how long it took the first agriculturalists to discover fermentation, and whether poor food preparation techniques or the exclusion of animal foods could account for their poor health.
I recently discovered a paper that illustrates these principles: "Influence of Germination and Fermentation on Bioaccessibility of Zinc and Iron from Food Grains". It's published by Indian researchers who wanted to study the nutritional qualities of traditional fermented foods. One of the foods they studied was idli, a South Indian steamed "muffin" made from rice and beans. Idlis happen to be one of my favorite foods.
The amount of minerals your digestive system can extract from a food depends in part on the food's phytic acid content. Phytic acid is a molecule that traps certain minerals (iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium), preventing their absorption. Raw grains and legumes contain a lot of it, meaning you can only absorb a fraction of the minerals present in them.
In this study, soaking had a modest effect on the phytic acid content of the grains and legumes examined (although it's generally more effective). Fermentation, on the other hand, completely broke down the phytic acid in the idli batter, resulting in 71% more bioavailable zinc and 277% more bioavailable iron. It's safe to assume that fermentation also increased the bioavailability of magnesium, calcium and other phytic acid-bound minerals.
Fermenting the idli batter also completely eliminated its tannin content. Tannins are a class of molecules found in many plants that are toxins and anti-nutrients. They reduce feed efficiency and growth rate in a variety of species.
Lectins are another toxin that's frequently mentioned in the paleolithic diet community. They are blamed for everything from digestive problems to autoimmune disease, probably with good reason. One of the things people like to overlook in this community is that traditional processing techniques such as soaking, sprouting, fermentation and cooking, greatly reduce or eliminate lectins from grains and legumes. One notable exception is gluten, which survives all but the longest fermentation and is not broken down by cooking.
Soaking, sprouting, fermenting, grinding and cooking are the techniques by which traditional cultures have been making the most of grain and legume-based diets for thousands of years. We ignore these time-honored traditions at our own peril.
How to Eat Grains
Our story begins in East Africa in 1935, with two Bantu tribes called the Kikuyu and the Wakamba. Their traditional diets were mostly vegetarian and consisted of sweet potatoes, corn, beans, plantains, millet, sorghum, wild mushrooms and small amounts of dairy, small animals and insects. Their food was agricultural, high in carbohydrate and low in fat.
Dr. Weston Price found them in good health, with well-formed faces and dental arches, and a dental cavity rate of roughly 6% of teeth. Although not as robust or as resistant to tooth decay as their more carnivorous neighbors, the "diseases of civilization" such as cardiovascular disease and obesity were nevertheless rare among them. South African Bantu eating a similar diet have a low prevalence of atherosclerosis, and a measurable but low incidence of death from coronary heart disease, even in old age.
How do we reconcile this with the archaeological data showing a general decline in human health upon the adoption of agriculture? Humans did not evolve to tolerate the toxins, anti-nutrients and large amounts of fiber in grains and legumes. Our digestive system is designed to handle a high-quality omnivorous diet. By high-quality, I mean one that has a high ratio of calories to indigestible material (fiber). Our species is very good at skimming off the highest quality food in nearly any ecological niche. Animals that are accustomed to high-fiber diets, such as cows and gorillas, have much larger, more robust and more fermentative digestive systems.
One factor that reconciles the Bantu data with the archaeological data is that much of the Kikuyu and Wakamba diet came from non-grain sources. Sweet potatoes and plantains are similar to the starchy wild plants our ancestors have been eating for nearly two million years, since the invention of fire (the time frame is debated but I think everyone agrees it's been a long time). Root vegetables and starchy fruit have a higher nutrient bioavailibility than grains and legumes due to their lower content of anti-nutrients and fiber.
The second factor that's often overlooked is food preparation techniques. These tribes did not eat their grains and legumes haphazardly! This is a factor that was overlooked by Dr. Price himself, but has been emphasized by Sally Fallon. Healthy grain-based African cultures typically soaked, ground and fermented their grains before cooking, creating a sour porridge that's nutritionally superior to unfermented grains. The bran was removed from corn and millet during processing, if possible. Legumes were always soaked prior to cooking.
These traditional food processing techniques have a very important effect on grains and legumes that brings them closer in line with the "paleolithic" foods our bodies are designed to digest. They reduce or eliminate toxins such as lectins and tannins, greatly reduce anti-nutrients such as phytic acid and protease inhibitors, and improve vitamin content and amino acid profile. Fermentation is particularly effective in this regard. One has to wonder how long it took the first agriculturalists to discover fermentation, and whether poor food preparation techniques or the exclusion of animal foods could account for their poor health.
I recently discovered a paper that illustrates these principles: "Influence of Germination and Fermentation on Bioaccessibility of Zinc and Iron from Food Grains". It's published by Indian researchers who wanted to study the nutritional qualities of traditional fermented foods. One of the foods they studied was idli, a South Indian steamed "muffin" made from rice and beans. Idlis happen to be one of my favorite foods.
The amount of minerals your digestive system can extract from a food depends in part on the food's phytic acid content. Phytic acid is a molecule that traps certain minerals (iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium), preventing their absorption. Raw grains and legumes contain a lot of it, meaning you can only absorb a fraction of the minerals present in them.
In this study, soaking had a modest effect on the phytic acid content of the grains and legumes examined (although it's generally more effective). Fermentation, on the other hand, completely broke down the phytic acid in the idli batter, resulting in 71% more bioavailable zinc and 277% more bioavailable iron. It's safe to assume that fermentation also increased the bioavailability of magnesium, calcium and other phytic acid-bound minerals.
Fermenting the idli batter also completely eliminated its tannin content. Tannins are a class of molecules found in many plants that are toxins and anti-nutrients. They reduce feed efficiency and growth rate in a variety of species.
Lectins are another toxin that's frequently mentioned in the paleolithic diet community. They are blamed for everything from digestive problems to autoimmune disease, probably with good reason. One of the things people like to overlook in this community is that traditional processing techniques such as soaking, sprouting, fermentation and cooking, greatly reduce or eliminate lectins from grains and legumes. One notable exception is gluten, which survives all but the longest fermentation and is not broken down by cooking.
Soaking, sprouting, fermenting, grinding and cooking are the techniques by which traditional cultures have been making the most of grain and legume-based diets for thousands of years. We ignore these time-honored traditions at our own peril.
Dr. Weston Price found them in good health, with well-formed faces and dental arches, and a dental cavity rate of roughly 6% of teeth. Although not as robust or as resistant to tooth decay as their more carnivorous neighbors, the "diseases of civilization" such as cardiovascular disease and obesity were nevertheless rare among them. South African Bantu eating a similar diet have a low prevalence of atherosclerosis, and a measurable but low incidence of death from coronary heart disease, even in old age.
How do we reconcile this with the archaeological data showing a general decline in human health upon the adoption of agriculture? Humans did not evolve to tolerate the toxins, anti-nutrients and large amounts of fiber in grains and legumes. Our digestive system is designed to handle a high-quality omnivorous diet. By high-quality, I mean one that has a high ratio of calories to indigestible material (fiber). Our species is very good at skimming off the highest quality food in nearly any ecological niche. Animals that are accustomed to high-fiber diets, such as cows and gorillas, have much larger, more robust and more fermentative digestive systems.
One factor that reconciles the Bantu data with the archaeological data is that much of the Kikuyu and Wakamba diet came from non-grain sources. Sweet potatoes and plantains are similar to the starchy wild plants our ancestors have been eating for nearly two million years, since the invention of fire (the time frame is debated but I think everyone agrees it's been a long time). Root vegetables and starchy fruit have a higher nutrient bioavailibility than grains and legumes due to their lower content of anti-nutrients and fiber.
The second factor that's often overlooked is food preparation techniques. These tribes did not eat their grains and legumes haphazardly! This is a factor that was overlooked by Dr. Price himself, but has been emphasized by Sally Fallon. Healthy grain-based African cultures typically soaked, ground and fermented their grains before cooking, creating a sour porridge that's nutritionally superior to unfermented grains. The bran was removed from corn and millet during processing, if possible. Legumes were always soaked prior to cooking.
These traditional food processing techniques have a very important effect on grains and legumes that brings them closer in line with the "paleolithic" foods our bodies are designed to digest. They reduce or eliminate toxins such as lectins and tannins, greatly reduce anti-nutrients such as phytic acid and protease inhibitors, and improve vitamin content and amino acid profile. Fermentation is particularly effective in this regard. One has to wonder how long it took the first agriculturalists to discover fermentation, and whether poor food preparation techniques or the exclusion of animal foods could account for their poor health.
I recently discovered a paper that illustrates these principles: "Influence of Germination and Fermentation on Bioaccessibility of Zinc and Iron from Food Grains". It's published by Indian researchers who wanted to study the nutritional qualities of traditional fermented foods. One of the foods they studied was idli, a South Indian steamed "muffin" made from rice and beans. Idlis happen to be one of my favorite foods.
The amount of minerals your digestive system can extract from a food depends in part on the food's phytic acid content. Phytic acid is a molecule that traps certain minerals (iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium), preventing their absorption. Raw grains and legumes contain a lot of it, meaning you can only absorb a fraction of the minerals present in them.
In this study, soaking had a modest effect on the phytic acid content of the grains and legumes examined (although it's generally more effective). Fermentation, on the other hand, completely broke down the phytic acid in the idli batter, resulting in 71% more bioavailable zinc and 277% more bioavailable iron. It's safe to assume that fermentation also increased the bioavailability of magnesium, calcium and other phytic acid-bound minerals.
Fermenting the idli batter also completely eliminated its tannin content. Tannins are a class of molecules found in many plants that are toxins and anti-nutrients. They reduce feed efficiency and growth rate in a variety of species.
Lectins are another toxin that's frequently mentioned in the paleolithic diet community. They are blamed for everything from digestive problems to autoimmune disease, probably with good reason. One of the things people like to overlook in this community is that traditional processing techniques such as soaking, sprouting, fermentation and cooking, greatly reduce or eliminate lectins from grains and legumes. One notable exception is gluten, which survives all but the longest fermentation and is not broken down by cooking.
Soaking, sprouting, fermenting, grinding and cooking are the techniques by which traditional cultures have been making the most of grain and legume-based diets for thousands of years. We ignore these time-honored traditions at our own peril.
Jumat, 20 Februari 2009
bonsoir
Bonsoir little diary...
Today has been cool. I went to a friends house and we had a load of mums and kids over to play and a good old natter. The lunch that she served was:
Ham rolls
Cheese rolls
Cold pizza slices
Sausage rolls
Crisps
Cakes
Flapjacks
Salad
Oh dear. A Bandsters NIGHTMARE. Obviously I could eat absolutely nothing. I sucked a bit of roll trying to not look like an idiot for about half an hour, and then gave up. The rolls were the really floury dry kind and there was just no way. I had a bit of some chocolate slab cake that one of the mums had made, but it came back at me. My mate came to the rescue and made me a bowl of soup bless.
Today has been cool. I went to a friends house and we had a load of mums and kids over to play and a good old natter. The lunch that she served was:
Ham rolls
Cheese rolls
Cold pizza slices
Sausage rolls
Crisps
Cakes
Flapjacks
Salad
Oh dear. A Bandsters NIGHTMARE. Obviously I could eat absolutely nothing. I sucked a bit of roll trying to not look like an idiot for about half an hour, and then gave up. The rolls were the really floury dry kind and there was just no way. I had a bit of some chocolate slab cake that one of the mums had made, but it came back at me. My mate came to the rescue and made me a bowl of soup bless.
Kaye's Top 10 Healthy LivingTips
Like many of you I have spent a lifetime collecting tips and hints for living a healthier life. "Take the stairs instead of the elevator" or "Park far from the entrance of the mall." We have heard them all. Well, to refresh my memory and yours, here is a list of my top ten favorite healthy lifestyle hints. I'd love to hear from you and find out what hint inspires you. Come to the Neighborhood and
Fun Friday in the Neighborhood
Happy Fun Friday!!Today in the Neighborhood we celebrate our weekly get-to-know-you game: This is your chance to share something lighthearted about yourself and learn a little bit more about your Neighbors. Each week the person asking the question selects two winners who receive FAME and FABULOUS Prizes! So come on over and join us! Today's Question is brought to us by the charming and always
Rabu, 18 Februari 2009
Vitamin D: Miracle Vitamin?
As recipients of surgical weight loss we need to be vigilant about our nutritional intake and nutrient balance in our bodies. Lately the headliner vitamin in mainstream media is Vitamin D. The jury is still out on the impact of vitamin D deficiency in surgical weight loss patients so we are left to make sense out of data presented for people without WLS. I found this article in Clean Eating
Have you played Question of the Day?
Our Neighborhood crazy girl ~Jane~ has introduced us to a fun new daily diversion: Question of the Day! In her usual "Hokey Fright" manner she tosses out a random question for discussion: sometimes weight loss related, sometimes simply random. There are no rules, no prizes, and the conversations can last for days. How fun is that?The Neighbors have picked up on this bit 'o fun and there is always
The Four Rules: Protein First
Weight loss surgery patients are no strangers to the miracle of a high protein diet. In fact, the first rule of the post-gastric surgery lifestyle is "Protein First". The Protein First rule works not just during the phase of weight loss, but is essential to our ongoing weight management with weight loss surgery including gastric bypass and gastric banding procedures. The reasons for this are
Senin, 16 Februari 2009
The room is D O N E !
Ok, so this is not the most flattering pic of me, but I am slumped, glugging wine and absolutely shattered. Its all done bar the carpet. This was me last night (Sunday 15th Feb) covered in expanding foam, polyfiller and paint. Until sometime later, I didnt realise that expanding foam DOES NOT come off of your skin. NO. IT. DOES. NOT. My hands right now (over 24 hours later) are still covered in hard green gooooo which has eaten small parts of my skin like a very presumptuous skin peel. DO NOT use this muck without gloves. You have been warned.In the photo are Sue, Travelling Buddie's DH and me. They are sitting on the roll of beautiful carpet that I laid this morning in my nightie BEFORE I went to slimmingworld (2 pounds off!! YAY!).
I am a freak, I know. Sue (the lodger whos been here nearly a year) said that I am the only person she has ever known that decorates at 2am and lays carpet in a nightie. Well, I guess she must be right.
But NOW, the room is DONE. Check it out. Its pure lush. MMMmmmmmm. I want it for myself now. I am gutted that its not going to be me thats in it, but then again, at least this time tomorrow I will be in my own little office once again. YAY! The 5th bedroom will become my office at last MWAHHH HAAA HAAAA
OK, here it is complete-o:
TURN SOUND !!!!DOWN!!!! It sounds like someone is being murdered!! DH dropped the camera, and its trashed the microphone obviously!! :o(
Chinese Green Tea Weight Loss
Chinese Weight Loss Green Tea Can Help You Lose Weight
Chinese green tea for weight loss can really help you lose weight. Everyone knows that. But does everyone understand what is the real mystery behind getting rid of your love handles using only traditional and well prepared weight loss tea? This blog is about Chinese weight loss tea and if you follow it for some time now you've probably already understood that. It is very interesting how people start to know such things only when it happens for them to realize that it's time to change something in their life. By now we always focus on providing free information for people on how to lose weight using organic traditional weight loss tea.
If you really want to achieve something in your life then you will. Our mind is responsible for things that happen to us in our life. If you have a fat metabolism you are going to be not really slim. Well in that case some kind of special traditional Chinese treatment can help you lose weight. Everyone is afraid of trying new things. There is not the case of being afraid here. We always want to provide new information and thoughts to our friends and family. We always wanted people to understand that by that time you need to make it possible for everyone that their dreams are actually achievable. And that is referring to losing weight too. Do you know something about wu yi weight loss tea? If yes that is good. If no - would you like to find out more? Is there that interesting to be able to do that kind of things without making anyone fail and actually have some reason to do that. We think that it is time to change something in your life and that something is probably now. You need to be able to see how things work in your life. You need to learn to see things without bothering others. You need to be there and that is the case for most of you to understand how real facts work nice.
Chinese green tea for weight loss is nothing special in the long run. If people believe in it they are going to have success. The level of antioxidants provided in that kind of tea is nothing special. In fact, the antioxidants that we have in our own tea that we drink on daily basis is much more then in the traditional Chinese weight loss tea but who understands that. People learned to think in a negative way and none can stop them from doing so. They need to focus on what is really important and by that they need to be able to do everything that is necessary. We understand that something has to be changed in your life especially when it's time to apply something related to free tea. The problem that we deal with in most of the cases is that people don't actually want to work in order to have some results. If you really want something to happen you need to make sure something to be possible and then to try everything possible. With Chinese weight loss tea you can achieve the results that you want. You can actually do it. But that is no problem. Make sure that you really need what you want and what you want you need.
Your thoughts are going to reflect on your weight loss actions. You have to understand that in order to have results you need to have attitude and in order to have attitude you need to learn how to make a commitment. That is not so easy in the long run but people must manage to apply the effects of doing so and everything is going to be fine. That is no good if you really would like to apply that kind of stuff to people that are there and don't offer any kind of alternatives to the most interesting and passionate things that happen to them in life. We have stumbled upon many things that reality check happen to be and that is often associated with content related to weight loss tea. We are surprised to say that in most of the cases that we noticed and especially on the internet people are promoting a lot of worthless products just to make a living from it and that is not the case. We want our readers to have the ultimate experience and find everything about the weight loss tea. It is necessary to say that in order to have that kind of experience and indeed to learn something you need to learn how things work in the long run. Please check what we are doing here. That is going to be interesting and that is why we do recommend that you stay and actually learn a lot about free weight loss tea.
When asked what people think about Chinese green tea most of the people that we have asked answer that they don't know and that is a pity. The need to be able to achieve that kind of stuff and they need to understand that in order to obtain the desired results something needs to be changed in their way of thinking and of realizing things. There is nothing wrong with that but people need to understand that things won't really work until there are not other options available. Experience is the utmost important thing that ever happened to us in our live. There are a lot of things that you actually need to perform and to realize because one day this is going or might even happen to you and in that case you need to be prepared to know what to expect from people that really and to lose weight and with the best weight loss green possible available out there to do the same. We always wanted to see you and to tell that people must understand and realize how things work in order to be able to touch that things and accept them as reality.
We here at Chinese weight loss tea blog always wanted to open people's eyes at several things that bother us most. We want to find out how people recognize the good parts of losing weight with Chinese green tea and how a detox via green tea is really possible. That is extremely interesting and we always wonder how this is going to end. In the long run we are waiting for something more interesting to give the same ultimate results and it is better to be waiting for that kind of stuff that is going to manage our history and way of being. We need to understand that in order to get slimmer and to have that kind of figure that we want we need to go into exercise and help others lose weight as well. That is no measure of being in fact one of the best fit person in the world - just something that each and everyone of you should know in case of something and by mistake happens. That is really important and by know we understand that nothing can be compared to that stuff that people promote on the TV and radio and on different sites. It is no big deal but we wonder how is that happening and we would like to promote it at the highest level possible.
Alright now. Only because all you guys waited for some much time just to hear the truth about Chinese green tea weight loss. We have time to provide all that is necessary. That is really good and we also have and do need to promote that kind of stuff at the highest level possible. That is no need to promote it just by doing any type of selling. You need to be at least at a level of understanding how weight loss works. Go into detox diets, go into drinking more tea, go into relying something for that being done and because of that everything is really interesting to be said and promoted things work marvelous at that kind of attitude. If you really want in 2009 to lose weight then follow our instructions on weight loss tea. First of all, forget about all the instant results that those promoting companies advertise. It is actually work and if you are not willing to do it you are going probably to fail and that is no mystery by far. Now, when you realize the potential of things you need to go and actually buy some Chinese weight loss tea or simple green tea. Drink it daily, be calm, have a positive attitude and love people around you. Go into jogging each day. You are going to need to detox your body before any possible changes are going to take effect. Did you like our Chinese green tea weight loss post?
Stay safe and may the weight loss tea really help you!
Huang Jiung
Chinese green tea for weight loss can really help you lose weight. Everyone knows that. But does everyone understand what is the real mystery behind getting rid of your love handles using only traditional and well prepared weight loss tea? This blog is about Chinese weight loss tea and if you follow it for some time now you've probably already understood that. It is very interesting how people start to know such things only when it happens for them to realize that it's time to change something in their life. By now we always focus on providing free information for people on how to lose weight using organic traditional weight loss tea.
If you really want to achieve something in your life then you will. Our mind is responsible for things that happen to us in our life. If you have a fat metabolism you are going to be not really slim. Well in that case some kind of special traditional Chinese treatment can help you lose weight. Everyone is afraid of trying new things. There is not the case of being afraid here. We always want to provide new information and thoughts to our friends and family. We always wanted people to understand that by that time you need to make it possible for everyone that their dreams are actually achievable. And that is referring to losing weight too. Do you know something about wu yi weight loss tea? If yes that is good. If no - would you like to find out more? Is there that interesting to be able to do that kind of things without making anyone fail and actually have some reason to do that. We think that it is time to change something in your life and that something is probably now. You need to be able to see how things work in your life. You need to learn to see things without bothering others. You need to be there and that is the case for most of you to understand how real facts work nice.
Chinese green tea for weight loss is nothing special in the long run. If people believe in it they are going to have success. The level of antioxidants provided in that kind of tea is nothing special. In fact, the antioxidants that we have in our own tea that we drink on daily basis is much more then in the traditional Chinese weight loss tea but who understands that. People learned to think in a negative way and none can stop them from doing so. They need to focus on what is really important and by that they need to be able to do everything that is necessary. We understand that something has to be changed in your life especially when it's time to apply something related to free tea. The problem that we deal with in most of the cases is that people don't actually want to work in order to have some results. If you really want something to happen you need to make sure something to be possible and then to try everything possible. With Chinese weight loss tea you can achieve the results that you want. You can actually do it. But that is no problem. Make sure that you really need what you want and what you want you need.
Your thoughts are going to reflect on your weight loss actions. You have to understand that in order to have results you need to have attitude and in order to have attitude you need to learn how to make a commitment. That is not so easy in the long run but people must manage to apply the effects of doing so and everything is going to be fine. That is no good if you really would like to apply that kind of stuff to people that are there and don't offer any kind of alternatives to the most interesting and passionate things that happen to them in life. We have stumbled upon many things that reality check happen to be and that is often associated with content related to weight loss tea. We are surprised to say that in most of the cases that we noticed and especially on the internet people are promoting a lot of worthless products just to make a living from it and that is not the case. We want our readers to have the ultimate experience and find everything about the weight loss tea. It is necessary to say that in order to have that kind of experience and indeed to learn something you need to learn how things work in the long run. Please check what we are doing here. That is going to be interesting and that is why we do recommend that you stay and actually learn a lot about free weight loss tea.
When asked what people think about Chinese green tea most of the people that we have asked answer that they don't know and that is a pity. The need to be able to achieve that kind of stuff and they need to understand that in order to obtain the desired results something needs to be changed in their way of thinking and of realizing things. There is nothing wrong with that but people need to understand that things won't really work until there are not other options available. Experience is the utmost important thing that ever happened to us in our live. There are a lot of things that you actually need to perform and to realize because one day this is going or might even happen to you and in that case you need to be prepared to know what to expect from people that really and to lose weight and with the best weight loss green possible available out there to do the same. We always wanted to see you and to tell that people must understand and realize how things work in order to be able to touch that things and accept them as reality.
We here at Chinese weight loss tea blog always wanted to open people's eyes at several things that bother us most. We want to find out how people recognize the good parts of losing weight with Chinese green tea and how a detox via green tea is really possible. That is extremely interesting and we always wonder how this is going to end. In the long run we are waiting for something more interesting to give the same ultimate results and it is better to be waiting for that kind of stuff that is going to manage our history and way of being. We need to understand that in order to get slimmer and to have that kind of figure that we want we need to go into exercise and help others lose weight as well. That is no measure of being in fact one of the best fit person in the world - just something that each and everyone of you should know in case of something and by mistake happens. That is really important and by know we understand that nothing can be compared to that stuff that people promote on the TV and radio and on different sites. It is no big deal but we wonder how is that happening and we would like to promote it at the highest level possible.
Alright now. Only because all you guys waited for some much time just to hear the truth about Chinese green tea weight loss. We have time to provide all that is necessary. That is really good and we also have and do need to promote that kind of stuff at the highest level possible. That is no need to promote it just by doing any type of selling. You need to be at least at a level of understanding how weight loss works. Go into detox diets, go into drinking more tea, go into relying something for that being done and because of that everything is really interesting to be said and promoted things work marvelous at that kind of attitude. If you really want in 2009 to lose weight then follow our instructions on weight loss tea. First of all, forget about all the instant results that those promoting companies advertise. It is actually work and if you are not willing to do it you are going probably to fail and that is no mystery by far. Now, when you realize the potential of things you need to go and actually buy some Chinese weight loss tea or simple green tea. Drink it daily, be calm, have a positive attitude and love people around you. Go into jogging each day. You are going to need to detox your body before any possible changes are going to take effect. Did you like our Chinese green tea weight loss post?
Stay safe and may the weight loss tea really help you!
Huang Jiung
Some random Inspirational photos
Some Horrors from my past... in order of fatness...
DS was only 7 or 8 months here. I was porky, but not my biggest...
A Holiday in the St. Tropez, South of France. Don't look that humongous, but trust me, the tables covering a lot!
In the American Airlines flight to San Diego. The most uncomfortable trip of my life. The seat divider was practically rammed up my bum the whole trip. Thank goodness the plane wasn't full so DH sat in the mid section so I could have his seat too. (a cute picture of the little bloke though I think, he was 4 here, and turned 5 in California)
Jan, 2004. The recording studio in San Diego. Glad voices don't sound fat eh!! I was recording an 'English' voice for an audio book company and DH took a quick shot mid sentence. Thanks!!!
Our last day in America... A massive slap up meal in Fudruckers (yes, its really called that!) sees us into the car that drives us to the airport. I am wearing some of my new gear from Lane Bryant - a fab outsize clothing store in the states. I spent £1000 there!! HA!!!!!
Oh good grief. I want to die. The above is me doing a medieval cooking demonstration at a 'Gravett Gathering'. Genealogy is a passion of mine and I used to do a lot to bring family history alive. I think in my hands is a 'Tart de Brie' which would have been consumed in the 1450 -1500's England. Look at my arm... its positively bloating. Euuuugh.
Another awful pose of me in full flight delivering a History talk during a Genealogy tour. I actually remember thinking I looked great. GULP! I only ever kept photos that I thought I looked halfway decent in, so you can imagine the photos I threw away!! I am actually 4 times the size of my Grandmother who is right next to me. Jeeeeez.
this is a photo taken to show how bad my impetigo was. I caught impetigo from somewhere and it was terrible and painful and I could barely speak. I got DH to take a photo to remember it. I am now using this photo as my all time FATTEST photo. I was over 19 stone here (266 lbs +).
DS was only 7 or 8 months here. I was porky, but not my biggest...
A Holiday in the St. Tropez, South of France. Don't look that humongous, but trust me, the tables covering a lot!In the American Airlines flight to San Diego. The most uncomfortable trip of my life. The seat divider was practically rammed up my bum the whole trip. Thank goodness the plane wasn't full so DH sat in the mid section so I could have his seat too. (a cute picture of the little bloke though I think, he was 4 here, and turned 5 in California)
Jan, 2004. The recording studio in San Diego. Glad voices don't sound fat eh!! I was recording an 'English' voice for an audio book company and DH took a quick shot mid sentence. Thanks!!!Our last day in America... A massive slap up meal in Fudruckers (yes, its really called that!) sees us into the car that drives us to the airport. I am wearing some of my new gear from Lane Bryant - a fab outsize clothing store in the states. I spent £1000 there!! HA!!!!!Oh good grief. I want to die. The above is me doing a medieval cooking demonstration at a 'Gravett Gathering'. Genealogy is a passion of mine and I used to do a lot to bring family history alive. I think in my hands is a 'Tart de Brie' which would have been consumed in the 1450 -1500's England. Look at my arm... its positively bloating. Euuuugh.Another awful pose of me in full flight delivering a History talk during a Genealogy tour. I actually remember thinking I looked great. GULP! I only ever kept photos that I thought I looked halfway decent in, so you can imagine the photos I threw away!! I am actually 4 times the size of my Grandmother who is right next to me. Jeeeeez.this is a photo taken to show how bad my impetigo was. I caught impetigo from somewhere and it was terrible and painful and I could barely speak. I got DH to take a photo to remember it. I am now using this photo as my all time FATTEST photo. I was over 19 stone here (266 lbs +).
Minggu, 15 Februari 2009
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part III
I'm happy to say, it's time for a new installment of the "Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials" series. The latest study was recently published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Dr. Anthony Sebastian's group. Dr. Sebastian has collaborated with Drs. Loren Cordain and Boyd Eaton in the past.
This new trial has some major problems, but I believe it nevertheless adds to the weight of the evidence on "paleolithic"-type diets. The first problem is the lack of a control group. Participants were compared to themselves, before eating a paleolithic diet and after having eaten it for 10 days. Ideally, the paleolithic group would be compared to another group eating their typical diet during the same time period. This would control for effects due to getting poked and prodded in the hospital, weather, etc. The second major problem is the small sample size, only 9 participants. I suspect the investigators had a hard time finding enough funding to conduct a larger study, since the paleolithic approach is still on the fringe of nutrition science.
I think this study is best viewed as something intermediate between a clinical trial and 9 individual anecdotes.
Here's the study design: they recruited 9 sedentary, non-obese people with no known health problems. They were 6 males and 3 females, and they represented people of African, European and Asian descent. Participants ate their typical diets for three days while investigators collected baseline data. Then, they were put on a seven-day "ramp-up" diet higher in potassium and fiber, to prepare their digestive systems for the final phase. In the "paleolithic" phase, participants ate a diet of:
There are a couple of twists to this study that make it more interesting. One is that the diets were completely controlled. The only food participants ate came from the experimental kitchen, so investigators knew the exact calorie intake and nutrient composition of what everyone was eating.
The other twist is that the investigators wanted to take weight loss out of the picture. They wanted to know if a paleolithic-style diet is capable of improving health independent of weight loss. So they adjusted participants' calorie intake to make sure they didn't lose weight. This is an interesting point. Investigators had to increase the participants' calorie intake by an average of 329 calories a day just to get them to maintain their weight on the paleo diet. Their bodies naturally wanted to shed fat on the new diet, so they had to be overfed to maintain weight.
On to the results. Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that:
There's one last critical point I'll make about this study. In figure 2, the investigators graphed baseline insulin resistance vs. the change in insulin resistance during the course of the study for each participant. Participants who started with the most insulin resistance saw the largest improvements, while those with little insulin resistance to begin with changed less. There was a linear relationship between baseline IR and the change in IR, with a correlation of R=0.98, p less than 0.0001. In other words, to a highly significant degree, participants who needed the most improvement, saw the most improvement. Every participant with insulin resistance at the beginning of the study ended up with basically normal insulin sensitivity after 10 days. At the end of the study, all participants had a similar degree of insulin sensitivity. This is best illustrated by the standard deviation of the fasting insulin measurement, which decreased 9-fold over the course of the experiment.
Here's what this suggests: different people have different degrees of susceptibility to the damaging effects of the modern Western diet. This depends on genetic background, age, activity level and many other factors. When you remove damaging foods, peoples' metabolisms normalize, and most of the differences in health that were apparent under adverse conditions disappear. I believe our genetic differences apply more to how we react to adverse conditions than how we function optimally. The fundamental workings of our metabolisms are very similar, having been forged mostly in hunter-gatherer times. We're all the same species after all.
This study adds to the evidence that modern industrial food is behind our poor health, and that a return to time-honored foodways can have immense benefits for nearly anyone. A paleolithic-style diet is a very effective way to claim your genetic birthright to good health. Just remember to eat the organs and fat. And skip the canola oil and mayonnaise.
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
One Last Thought
This new trial has some major problems, but I believe it nevertheless adds to the weight of the evidence on "paleolithic"-type diets. The first problem is the lack of a control group. Participants were compared to themselves, before eating a paleolithic diet and after having eaten it for 10 days. Ideally, the paleolithic group would be compared to another group eating their typical diet during the same time period. This would control for effects due to getting poked and prodded in the hospital, weather, etc. The second major problem is the small sample size, only 9 participants. I suspect the investigators had a hard time finding enough funding to conduct a larger study, since the paleolithic approach is still on the fringe of nutrition science.
I think this study is best viewed as something intermediate between a clinical trial and 9 individual anecdotes.
Here's the study design: they recruited 9 sedentary, non-obese people with no known health problems. They were 6 males and 3 females, and they represented people of African, European and Asian descent. Participants ate their typical diets for three days while investigators collected baseline data. Then, they were put on a seven-day "ramp-up" diet higher in potassium and fiber, to prepare their digestive systems for the final phase. In the "paleolithic" phase, participants ate a diet of:
Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, canola oil, mayonnaise, and honey... We excluded dairy products, legumes, cereals, grains, potatoes and products containing potassium chloride...Mmm yes, canola oil and mayo were universally relished by hunter-gatherers. They liked to feed their animal fat and organs to the vultures, and slather mayo onto their lean muscle meats. Anyway, the paleo diet was higher in calories, protein and polyunsaturated fat (I assume with a better n-6 : n-3 ratio) than the participants' normal diet. It contained about the same amount of carbohydrate and less saturated fat.
There are a couple of twists to this study that make it more interesting. One is that the diets were completely controlled. The only food participants ate came from the experimental kitchen, so investigators knew the exact calorie intake and nutrient composition of what everyone was eating.
The other twist is that the investigators wanted to take weight loss out of the picture. They wanted to know if a paleolithic-style diet is capable of improving health independent of weight loss. So they adjusted participants' calorie intake to make sure they didn't lose weight. This is an interesting point. Investigators had to increase the participants' calorie intake by an average of 329 calories a day just to get them to maintain their weight on the paleo diet. Their bodies naturally wanted to shed fat on the new diet, so they had to be overfed to maintain weight.
On to the results. Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that:
In all these measured variables, either eight or all nine participants had identical directional responses when switched to paleolithic type diet, that is, near consistently improved status of circulatory, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism/physiology.Translation: everyone improved. That's a very meaningful point, because even if the average improves, in many studies a certain percentage of people get worse. This study adds to the evidence that no matter what your gender or genetic background, a diet roughly consistent with our evolutionary past can bring major health benefits. Here's another way to say it: ditching certain modern foods can be immensely beneficial to health, even in people who already appear healthy. This is true regardless of whether or not one loses weight.
There's one last critical point I'll make about this study. In figure 2, the investigators graphed baseline insulin resistance vs. the change in insulin resistance during the course of the study for each participant. Participants who started with the most insulin resistance saw the largest improvements, while those with little insulin resistance to begin with changed less. There was a linear relationship between baseline IR and the change in IR, with a correlation of R=0.98, p less than 0.0001. In other words, to a highly significant degree, participants who needed the most improvement, saw the most improvement. Every participant with insulin resistance at the beginning of the study ended up with basically normal insulin sensitivity after 10 days. At the end of the study, all participants had a similar degree of insulin sensitivity. This is best illustrated by the standard deviation of the fasting insulin measurement, which decreased 9-fold over the course of the experiment.
Here's what this suggests: different people have different degrees of susceptibility to the damaging effects of the modern Western diet. This depends on genetic background, age, activity level and many other factors. When you remove damaging foods, peoples' metabolisms normalize, and most of the differences in health that were apparent under adverse conditions disappear. I believe our genetic differences apply more to how we react to adverse conditions than how we function optimally. The fundamental workings of our metabolisms are very similar, having been forged mostly in hunter-gatherer times. We're all the same species after all.
This study adds to the evidence that modern industrial food is behind our poor health, and that a return to time-honored foodways can have immense benefits for nearly anyone. A paleolithic-style diet is a very effective way to claim your genetic birthright to good health. Just remember to eat the organs and fat. And skip the canola oil and mayonnaise.
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
One Last Thought
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part III
I'm happy to say, it's time for a new installment of the "Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials" series. The latest study was recently published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Dr. Anthony Sebastian's group. Dr. Sebastian has collaborated with Drs. Loren Cordain and Boyd Eaton in the past.
This new trial has some major problems, but I believe it nevertheless adds to the weight of the evidence on "paleolithic"-type diets. The first problem is the lack of a control group. Participants were compared to themselves, before eating a paleolithic diet and after having eaten it for 10 days. Ideally, the paleolithic group would be compared to another group eating their typical diet during the same time period. This would control for effects due to getting poked and prodded in the hospital, weather, etc. The second major problem is the small sample size, only 9 participants. I suspect the investigators had a hard time finding enough funding to conduct a larger study, since the paleolithic approach is still on the fringe of nutrition science.
I think this study is best viewed as something intermediate between a clinical trial and 9 individual anecdotes.
Here's the study design: they recruited 9 sedentary, non-obese people with no known health problems. They were 6 males and 3 females, and they represented people of African, European and Asian descent. Participants ate their typical diets for three days while investigators collected baseline data. Then, they were put on a seven-day "ramp-up" diet higher in potassium and fiber, to prepare their digestive systems for the final phase. In the "paleolithic" phase, participants ate a diet of:
There are a couple of twists to this study that make it more interesting. One is that the diets were completely controlled. The only food participants ate came from the experimental kitchen, so investigators knew the exact calorie intake and nutrient composition of what everyone was eating.
The other twist is that the investigators wanted to take weight loss out of the picture. They wanted to know if a paleolithic-style diet is capable of improving health independent of weight loss. So they adjusted participants' calorie intake to make sure they didn't lose weight. This is an interesting point. Investigators had to increase the participants' calorie intake by an average of 329 calories a day just to get them to maintain their weight on the paleo diet. Their bodies naturally wanted to shed fat on the new diet, so they had to be overfed to maintain weight.
On to the results. Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that:
There's one last critical point I'll make about this study. In figure 2, the investigators graphed baseline insulin resistance vs. the change in insulin resistance during the course of the study for each participant. Participants who started with the most insulin resistance saw the largest improvements, while those with little insulin resistance to begin with changed less. There was a linear relationship between baseline IR and the change in IR, with a correlation of R=0.98, p less than 0.0001. In other words, to a highly significant degree, participants who needed the most improvement, saw the most improvement. Every participant with insulin resistance at the beginning of the study ended up with basically normal insulin sensitivity after 10 days. At the end of the study, all participants had a similar degree of insulin sensitivity. This is best illustrated by the standard deviation of the fasting insulin measurement, which decreased 9-fold over the course of the experiment.
Here's what this suggests: different people have different degrees of susceptibility to the damaging effects of the modern Western diet. This depends on genetic background, age, activity level and many other factors. When you remove damaging foods, peoples' metabolisms normalize, and most of the differences in health that were apparent under adverse conditions disappear. I believe our genetic differences apply more to how we react to adverse conditions than how we function optimally. The fundamental workings of our metabolisms are very similar, having been forged mostly in hunter-gatherer times. We're all the same species after all.
This study adds to the evidence that modern industrial food is behind our poor health, and that a return to time-honored foodways can have immense benefits for nearly anyone. A paleolithic-style diet is a very effective way to claim your genetic birthright to good health. Just remember to eat the organs and fat. And skip the canola oil and mayonnaise.
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
One Last Thought
This new trial has some major problems, but I believe it nevertheless adds to the weight of the evidence on "paleolithic"-type diets. The first problem is the lack of a control group. Participants were compared to themselves, before eating a paleolithic diet and after having eaten it for 10 days. Ideally, the paleolithic group would be compared to another group eating their typical diet during the same time period. This would control for effects due to getting poked and prodded in the hospital, weather, etc. The second major problem is the small sample size, only 9 participants. I suspect the investigators had a hard time finding enough funding to conduct a larger study, since the paleolithic approach is still on the fringe of nutrition science.
I think this study is best viewed as something intermediate between a clinical trial and 9 individual anecdotes.
Here's the study design: they recruited 9 sedentary, non-obese people with no known health problems. They were 6 males and 3 females, and they represented people of African, European and Asian descent. Participants ate their typical diets for three days while investigators collected baseline data. Then, they were put on a seven-day "ramp-up" diet higher in potassium and fiber, to prepare their digestive systems for the final phase. In the "paleolithic" phase, participants ate a diet of:
Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, canola oil, mayonnaise, and honey... We excluded dairy products, legumes, cereals, grains, potatoes and products containing potassium chloride...Mmm yes, canola oil and mayo were universally relished by hunter-gatherers. They liked to feed their animal fat and organs to the vultures, and slather mayo onto their lean muscle meats. Anyway, the paleo diet was higher in calories, protein and polyunsaturated fat (I assume with a better n-6 : n-3 ratio) than the participants' normal diet. It contained about the same amount of carbohydrate and less saturated fat.
There are a couple of twists to this study that make it more interesting. One is that the diets were completely controlled. The only food participants ate came from the experimental kitchen, so investigators knew the exact calorie intake and nutrient composition of what everyone was eating.
The other twist is that the investigators wanted to take weight loss out of the picture. They wanted to know if a paleolithic-style diet is capable of improving health independent of weight loss. So they adjusted participants' calorie intake to make sure they didn't lose weight. This is an interesting point. Investigators had to increase the participants' calorie intake by an average of 329 calories a day just to get them to maintain their weight on the paleo diet. Their bodies naturally wanted to shed fat on the new diet, so they had to be overfed to maintain weight.
On to the results. Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that:
In all these measured variables, either eight or all nine participants had identical directional responses when switched to paleolithic type diet, that is, near consistently improved status of circulatory, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism/physiology.Translation: everyone improved. That's a very meaningful point, because even if the average improves, in many studies a certain percentage of people get worse. This study adds to the evidence that no matter what your gender or genetic background, a diet roughly consistent with our evolutionary past can bring major health benefits. Here's another way to say it: ditching certain modern foods can be immensely beneficial to health, even in people who already appear healthy. This is true regardless of whether or not one loses weight.
There's one last critical point I'll make about this study. In figure 2, the investigators graphed baseline insulin resistance vs. the change in insulin resistance during the course of the study for each participant. Participants who started with the most insulin resistance saw the largest improvements, while those with little insulin resistance to begin with changed less. There was a linear relationship between baseline IR and the change in IR, with a correlation of R=0.98, p less than 0.0001. In other words, to a highly significant degree, participants who needed the most improvement, saw the most improvement. Every participant with insulin resistance at the beginning of the study ended up with basically normal insulin sensitivity after 10 days. At the end of the study, all participants had a similar degree of insulin sensitivity. This is best illustrated by the standard deviation of the fasting insulin measurement, which decreased 9-fold over the course of the experiment.
Here's what this suggests: different people have different degrees of susceptibility to the damaging effects of the modern Western diet. This depends on genetic background, age, activity level and many other factors. When you remove damaging foods, peoples' metabolisms normalize, and most of the differences in health that were apparent under adverse conditions disappear. I believe our genetic differences apply more to how we react to adverse conditions than how we function optimally. The fundamental workings of our metabolisms are very similar, having been forged mostly in hunter-gatherer times. We're all the same species after all.
This study adds to the evidence that modern industrial food is behind our poor health, and that a return to time-honored foodways can have immense benefits for nearly anyone. A paleolithic-style diet is a very effective way to claim your genetic birthright to good health. Just remember to eat the organs and fat. And skip the canola oil and mayonnaise.
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
One Last Thought
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)