Is this whole wheat bread?

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Raul_SJ, Sep 24, 2013.

  1. Raul_SJ

    Raul_SJ Professional

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,342
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    Would these ingredients be considered whole wheat bread?

    http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/white-bread-vs-wheat-bread/

    How can I tell if bread is really whole wheat?

    Color used to be a clue, but no more. Although white bread is white because it’s been bleached, some dark bread has just had caramel coloring added to it. Look for “whole grain” or “whole wheat” as the first ingredient on the label. If any other ingredient is first, put the loaf back and keep looking.



    If the ingredients of the bread say:

    Unbleached enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid).

    Would that be considered whole wheat bread?
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
    #1
  2. esgee48

    esgee48 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,455
    Location:
    SF, CA
    Labeling in the US is important. You can say 100% whole wheat flour if the loaf contains all 3 components of the wheat seed. If it just says wheat flour, then it may or may not contain all 3 components. Odds are, it is not 100% whole wheat flour,
     
    #2
  3. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Unbleached wheat is not the same as whole wheat.

    BTW, I wouldn't touch anything "enriched".
     
    #3
  4. NE1for10is?

    NE1for10is? Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    477
    My method for telling if a loaf of bread is nutrient dense or fluff involves two things.

    First, obviously look at the label and see what the ingredient list is. The less ingredients the better. Also a good idea to avoid breads with soybean oil. It should say something like "unbleached unbromated whole wheat flour, salt, yeast."

    Second, squeeze the loaf. It should be very firm and dense and give in only maybe about an inch or so. If it collapses so that you could easily squeeze the loaf like a feather pillow it is not nutrient dense bread, and/or it has soybean oil.
     
    #4
  5. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Great question, OP.
    There is no good reason to eat refined grains if you can afford whole grains.

    The Whole Grains Council is a great resource. I would do your diligence there too. The FDA is also an obvious resource for information, even if it is a little more wonky reading than perhaps an educational organization.

    You have to read the word "whole" next to the grain in order for that ingredient to be considered a whole grain. This applies to cereal grains (wheat, corn, rice, etc ...). The label would read "whole wheat," or "whole corn," etc ...
    If the label reads something like, "unbleached enriched wheat flour," that is a refined grain (not a whole grain). If it reads, "unbleached wheat flour," that is not a whole grain: it's refined. If the label reads, "natural wheat flour," or some BS like that: not a whole grain.

    It must say "whole [CEREAL GRAIN]".

    If you want to be sure that all of the grain in a product is whole (which is a good idea), find the products with the "100%" qualifier. For instance: "100% whole wheat" bread. Or "100% Whole Corn" tortilla chips.
     
    #5
  6. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    If you buy whole wheat though, make sure its organic too, otherwise you're eating all the pesticides and other crap from the outside of the grain.
     
    #6
  7. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,116
    Make sure its gluten free and carb free too.
     
    #7
  8. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Hmmm not sure what you're getting at. The point of eating whole-grain is that it's supposed to be better for you. But in fact it may be worse, unless it's organic.
    Eating pesicide filled whole grain is like the jogger who does his running on busy streets filled with fuming cars. Better stay at home.
     
    #8
  9. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Nope. Just Whole Grains are fine.

    Organic is a nice feel good bonus, if you can afford. But there is zero nutritional difference, including exposure to trace, trace, elements of synthetic of organic pesticides.
     
    #9
  10. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Organic is a lot more than "feel-good". If the amount of pesticides in non-organic wheat were negligible, then they wouldn't serve their purpose: to kill insects/pests. Stuff that kills insects won't make humans happy either.
    Pesticides are used for higher productivity at the expense of food quality. Common sense.

    If you can't afford to buy organic, you can still grow your own food or similar.

    Or, you can keep your head buried in the sand. Believing is good for you they say.
     
    #10
  11. mikeler

    mikeler G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    19,836
    Location:
    Central Florida
    And bread free.
     
    #11
  12. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,116
    I think most people are following your advice on this one (I mean the "stay at home" part).

    Personally, I do all my running inside the Whole Foods store.
     
    #12
  13. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    [/INDENT]

    If the ingredients of the bread say:

    Unbleached enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid).

    Would that be considered whole wheat bread?[/QUOTE]

    The malted barley flour makes it brown. It is not wholemeal bread.

    A long fermentation of 24 to 48 hours also makes it brown but gives it a long shelf life instead of adding E numbers. So is better for you.

    I would be more concerned about GM crops that are unfortunately prevalent in the USA. Luckily we have sent Monsanta packing here.

    If you want low gluten, use wholemeal spelt, and there is no GM version that I am aware of.
     
    #13
  14. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Look, guys. It's mythbusting time.

    I used to think the same thing as you. The primary reason I would buy organic food was: less pesticides used in production, and less residual pesticides on my produce.

    I was wrong. That's a myth. It's simply not true. I urge you to read this (and other articles like it):

    there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn’t keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

    Source ....

    The source article is eye-opening, for sure.

    This is another myth that needs busting: GM = bad. It's just as ridiculous to make the blanket statement that GM = bad as it is to say that Organic = good.

    I would not be more concerned with GM foods than making sure you're eating whole grains and other whole foods. My goodness. There is an actual nutritional difference between whole foods and high processed foods. There is no necessarily nutritional differences between an organic tomato, a conventional tomato, or a GM tomato.
     
    #14
  15. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    This is another myth that needs busting: GM = bad. It's just as ridiculous to make the blanket statement that GM = bad as it is to say that Organic = good.

    I would not be more concerned with GM foods than making sure you're eating whole grains and other whole foods. My goodness. There is an actual nutritional difference between whole foods and high processed foods. There is no necessarily nutritional differences between an organic tomato, a conventional tomato, or a GM tomato.[/QUOTE]

    The real trouble with GM is no one really knows is it matters or not. Not only to ones health directly, or indirectly by affecting the environment, therefore yourself. By the time , in say 30 years when it can be proven one way or another, it maybe to late for you. Are you willing to risk it, so that a few fatcats in the city can make multi million pound bonus packages. I am not!

    Luckily, in Britain we have got fed up with food companies trying to make profit at our expense. So GM has been given the boot for a while at least. If it turns out to be okay, we will adopt it, if not we won't.

    The argument is not about the foods nutritional status. There are also ethical discussions to be thought about. Most grain is sterile, so a farmer cannot use the harvest to replant a new crop. They become beholdant to big multi national companies.

    I am glad that you are willing to be our guinea pigs. Thank you. I still think it should be labelled as GM to give people the choice whether they wish to purchase it or not though, surely that would be the ethical thing to do?
     
    #15
  16. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,116
    What's wrong with General Mills? Lucky Charms are pretty tasty.
     
    #16
  17. Overdrive

    Overdrive Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,301
    Location:
    Garden of Gethsemane
    Don't kid yourself. :p
     
    #17
  18. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    I think they were poking fun at us. Genetically Modified, eaten by Gullible Morons?
     
    #18
  19. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Firstly, most of the GM grain is not sterile. That's a myth. The companies that use the seed willingly enter into a binding contract with the companies promising to not use the harvested seeds. It's their business, the farmers. They know what they're doing.

    So you're taking a strong position on something you're willing to admit you don't know enough about?

    Lots of people think they want labels. I'm of the opinion that it's largely hysteria right now. In your opinion, what exactly would the label say? "Hi, there's not enough research to suggest that we cause harm, but some people are super paranoid that one day it might be shown that we do, so, to put your mind at rest, don't buy me if I bear this label. Thanks!"

    Certainly you realize that people are so wildly misinformed about this topic, so ignorant about it, that a GMO label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones, right?

    There's a lot to hash out with this issue, for sure, the main point I'm trying to drive home is that the two generalizations I pointed are almost always mischaracterized.
     
    #19
  20. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,892
    The label would just say "Contains Genetically Modified blah." More information is better than less.

    It is strange that some supporters of GMO want to ban supplements and vitamins that haven't gone through rigorous testing. That seems to be a contradictory position. I say just label stuff accurately and let the consumers decide.
     
    #20
  21. LafayetteHitter

    LafayetteHitter Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,954
    Location:
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Simple, if it doesn't say Ezekiel I don't eat it.
     
    #21
  22. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    Foods should be labelled clearly so that we can make a choice.

    We have the right to know what we are buying, even if we make irrational choices. It is not up to some smug advertising executive to decide what is good for us.

    We are fed up with being talked to like little children.

    We now have new food labelling which informs us at a glance fat, sugar, protien etc. The labels also tell us it contains GM food.

    If companies want us to eat it, it is up to them to persuade us it is good for us. If they cannot, well go and jump off the nearest cliff. It should not be sneaked into the food chain. It is immoral !

    Clear labelling is what the OP was all about.

    It should be our right to know what we are eating, then to make choices, irrational or otherwise.
     
    #22
  23. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    At least you recognize that it could be irrational.

    You, someone with a strong opinion, were flat wrong about one of the key facts. Doesn't that make you wonder what else you could have been misinformed about?
     
    #23
  24. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    Which key fact?

    I assume you mean about grain being sterile. We have been shown documentaries about grain farmers in Africa being given GM trial crops for free. I suppose greed on their part, but in the second or third year they then have to buy it. They cannot afford it, but have now eaten all of the original grain. Guess you call it catch 22 ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013
    #24
  25. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Well, there is no point in commenting on some obscure instance of something that happened in a documentary that you watched. Documentaries are great, but usually incredibly biased to whatever issue they're advocating. I've seen many that turned out to be patently false, or misinformation.

    Yes, the key fact that you were wrong about is that you said most GMO grains are sterile, which is false (badly false).

    What exactly is greedy about giving impoverished countries free crops? They were probably testing and after the test said, here is the price. So they couldn't afford it. Big surprise! That's one of the problems trying to be solved. It's interesting that you brought up Africa, because us 1st-worlders tend to view the world through 1st-world filters, when the GMO innovation is largely focused on feeding the impoverished and harsh environmental conditions around the planet, in light of booming population and impending climate change.

    We debate whether or not we should be all organic, limit or cut out grains all together, or any other cacophony of hilarious fad-diets, when the rest of the world literally starves.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013
    #25
  26. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    Timespiral,
    I do not know about all of your worldwide trials, as you obviously work for one of the said companies.

    When they did a few grain trials in Britain, some protesters destroyed the crops. A spokesman for the GM manufacturers was seen many times on many television programs informing us that there was no danger of contamination to the countryside as it was sterile, as was the pollen. Maybe that is what they trialed here, hopefully he was not misinforming us?

    Luckily we have good new labelling laws in our country, it is our right, or do you think it is not ?

    Funnily in a shop I saw organic soybean. The label also clearly that it contained GM. As it should be. If people want to buy it, good for them.
     
    #26
  27. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Reasonable people can disagree, can they not?

    I do not work in the agricultural industry--not even close! I just care about some issues enough to become well informed about them. I find it humorous that simply because we disagree you assume I must be an industry shill. That is priceless!

    Again with your example, you're telling stories. I'm not really concerned with stories. I go by the published data, studies, and experts in the field (of which I am not, mind you). Maybe you're story is accurate, maybe it isn't. I don't think you're lying, but it's anecdotal, you know?

    I'm going to assume your question about the sovereignty of your democracy is purely rhetorical.

    To further the conversation, I have a question for you. Maybe a few questions, actually.
    1. What's the difference between broccoli and cabbage?
    2. What's the difference between breeding and selecting crops for certain genetic traits while wearing boots and overalls versus wearing goggles and a lab coat?
    3. What's the difference between the farmer that grafts a branch of one fruit producing tree to another to produce a genetically modified offspring with desirable traits versus the farmer who does the same exact thing in a lab?
    Humans have been genetically modified crops and livestock for thousands of years. It just used to take a really long time. We've innovated a way to do it better and faster, and of course, because it happens in a lab, people are scared.
     
    #27
  28. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
     
    #28
  29. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    #29
  30. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    #30
  31. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    What question did I not answer?
     
    #31
  32. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,116
    #32
  33. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    Anything regarding why we should not have clear labelling for one.
     
    #33
  34. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    Timespiral,
    This is the type of article that has forced Europe to largely reject GM. It also answers the question you asked me as to why GM is different to farmers selectively breeding plants or animals.

    http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/about-gmos.html

    Now please let me know why you think we should not have clear labelling on our food, so we know what we are eating and were it came from ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013
    #34
  35. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,902
    Well I think the entire whole grain thing is a bit of a trick. I know timespiral will disagree. But if whole unrefined grains were so good for you - I don't think we would have started refining them in the first place..

    Many vegetable 'stuff' needs to be processed before it can be eaten - whether its beans, Yucca or real african Yams. The reason being that outside of fruits vegetables don't particularly WANT to be eat. So they have anti-nutrients to discourage this..

    When we refine them - we are removing those parts of the plant. This is why I like most of my vegetables cooked and of course part of the reason why I think sanely fed and cared for meat is good for you as well..

    Most animals didn't have to evolve to be poisonious - as they can run away..
     
    #35
  36. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I think refining grains is a way of preserving it. Pests prefer whole grain. A bit like refined sugar is also a preservative. In the quest for profit, nutrional value is secondary.
     
    #36
  37. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    Pre industrial revolution peasantry would eat wholemeal rye bread. This kept them very regular with all of the fibre. When people started working in factories, this was a problem. It was found that when people ate soft white bread made with refined flour, it would slow down their system a bit. This was advantageous to companies as with mild constipation the workers would take less toilet breaks. Probably less methane produced in a building as well.
     
    #37
  38. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    I do disagree, and so does the scientific community that has studied the health benefits of whole grains. As much as I'd like to agree with your implication, that industry wouldn't do something if it wasn't good for you--lol, really?--I think even though we disagree you can look back on that one and say that is some backwards logic.

    Grains are refined for a variety of reasons: baking purposes, color, taste, texture, etc ...

    Your analogy between some fruits and vegetables and cereal grains is not sound.

    This directly contradicts your earlier implication, that we wouldn't refine the grains unless there was a health benefit! I've never heard this claim before. It sounds interesting, while at the same time highlighting one of the problems with eating too much refined grains.
     
    #38
  39. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    This directly contradicts your earlier implication, that we wouldn't refine the grains unless there was a health benefit! I've never heard this claim before. It sounds interesting, while at the same time highlighting one of the problems with eating too much refined grains.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but I never made the claim that refined food was for health benefits. Please reread the posters name.

    I have answered two of the three questions that you asked me , yet you still have not answered my question to you?
     
    #39
  40. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    The answer to you third question is, not a lot. Both brassicas. Brocoli has slightly more calories than cabbage.
     
    #40
  41. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Please forgive me. I was not trying to dodge any question. I think I've made it clear I'm willing to debate this topic. I seriously did not see a question that I didn't address, so I'm going to go back and look for your questions.
    I answered both of these questions. If they are not to your satisfaction, please rephrase the question and I will address it again.

    I addressed both of these questions also. In the above quote you asked about whether or not it is your right as a country to pass labeling laws. I seriously thought this was a rhetorical question. Obviously a country has the right pass and enforce laws.

    I believe I've been fair with my responses, and I thought I addressed your questions. I could argue that you have glossed over many of my points.

    I'm not qualified to make any type of recommendation for what type of laws Great Britain should pass, in regards to food labeling. I'm a US citizen and have virtually no experience with GB's food labeling policies.

    I do not believe I've made the argument that we should not have clear labeling. I think you're making assumptions about my position.

    We've had several votes in various states about labeling GMO foods here in the States. They will either pass or fail, now I will admit; it's heavily political and influenced by special interests on both sides. This is always a problem in the States.

    I'm on the fence about labeling for GMOs for several reasons. I see both sides of the argument and there is still a lot of learning I feel I need to do, especially about the details of whatever law is being presented. The so-called Health Food Special Interest lobby is going to bias information in their favor, and the Biotech industries are going to bias information in their favor. Where guys like me are left to look, are to the scientists researching the topic.

    I do think you should know what you're eating. I do think you should be able to know where it came from. I will check out that link, but I fear the URL says it all.

    I apologize. That was my mistake. Similar names, and he came out of nowhere.

    That was my first question :twisted:. It was a slightly unfair question, in which the answer was supposed to highlight the fact that we have been genetically modifying organisms since the inception of farming and livestocking.
     
    #41
  42. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    "That was my first question . It was a slightly unfair question, in which the answer was supposed to highlight the fact that we have been That was my first question . It was a slightly unfair question, in which the answer was supposed to highlight the fact that we have been genetically modifying organisms since the inception of farming and livestocking. modifying organisms since the inception of farming and livestocking."

    Thank you for your response.

    I believe every person in every country has the right to know what they are eating and were it comes from in a clearly labelled manner. This would help the OP as well. They are unable to clearly find out what type of bread they are purchasing.

    If companies want to sell us their product, it is up to them to explain why we should purchase it. GM food is a product like any other, all the time the companies try to hide the truth we should not purchase their product. If they have yet to do proper research into its effects on us or the environment, it should not be on sale until they are able to answer our concerns.

    We should be suspicious of multi national companies. They are there to make profit for their shareholders. That is also how it should be.
     
    #42
  43. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,902
    Bull. Anti-nutrients are real - widely acknowledged by the scientific community and found in the bran of rice and other grains.

    "Many traditional methods of food preparation such as fermentation, cooking, and malting increase the nutritive quality of plant foods through reducing certain antinutrients such as phytic acid, polyphenols, and oxalic acid.[13] Such processing methods are widely used in societies where cereals and legumes form a major part of the diet.[14][15] An important example of such processing is the fermentation of cassava to produce cassava flour: this fermentation reduces the levels of both toxins and antinutrients in the tuber.[16]'

    Refining of grains and legumes pre-dates ANY 'industry." Because 'whole grains and legumes' contain POISON. We invented the refining process so they would be safe to eat. Obviously the larger the quanity the more they have to be refined. The Chinese who have been eating white rice for thousands of years figured this out..

    If you want to munch down on some phylates and arsenic - go for it. I am sticking with refined grains when I eat grains (which is pretty rare).

    Obviously we are going to disagree about this..
     
    #43
  44. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    You and I disagree by proxy. You disagree with widely recognized health sciences, and I agree with them.

    Similar to how I trust the expertise of civil, electrical and mechanical engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, botanists ... you know, scientists--all the sciences that make our world go around. We believe they know what's going on every time we step foot in an elevator, plain, automobile, ER, and basically all of the rest of life, but because some read a book or an article trying to sell a controversial diet, all of the sudden health science and medical experts are wrong? Lol. It's so funny to me, what people choose to believe and what they don't.

    It's such a huge problem, misinformation ...
     
    #44
  45. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,902
    Keeping dreaming - scientists discovered the anti-nutrients in whole grains years ago. Like I said it well established fact.

    "Phytates represent just one of many anti-nutrients in grains, nuts, tubers, seeds and beans. These include oxalates, tannins, trypsin inhibitors, enzyme inhibitors, lectins (hemagglutinins), protease inhibitors, gluten, alpha-amylase inhibitors and alkylresorcinols .

    Anti-nutrients exist in these plant foods because they are part of the process of life. The natural world requires them in order to perform many important tasks, including protection against insects, maintaining freshness of seeds for germination, and protection against mold and fungus. In order to consume these foods on a regular basis we must remove the phytates and other anti-nutrients through processing in harmonious ways. Many people in the health field assure us that if something is from nature, then it doesn’t require processing. Phytates act as the seed’s system of preservatives, like the impossible-to-open plastic packaging of many consumer goods. To get to the item we need—namely, phosphorus—we need to unwrap the phytate-phosphorus package."

    Like I said grains are essentially the 'seeds' of plants. They don't "want" to be eaten. The plant needs for the seeds to grow - not get fully digested. This is they have anti-nutrients.

    It's evolution 101 - but clearly far beyond your grasp of science.

    Here is some more backaround so you can understand what I mean..



    "All plants need assistance in dispersing their seeds as they are unable to move, so they need a way to create their own way of migrating, like growing delicious fruits around their seeds in order to entice animals, and humans, to eat them and carry them off to another location where the seeds are eventually spread.

    Grass seeds like wheat or corn do not have fruit. They rely mainly on the wind to disperse their seeds as they weren’t designed by nature to be eaten. Grains are actually toxic to humans in their raw state.

    Before agriculture was invented, our ancestors were said to have eaten very few, if any, grains. Many different cultures throughout human history, even well into the last century, ate a totally grain-free diet and generally enjoyed good health."

    Grains you see are the plants way of reproducing. They don't want them to be fully digested. Hence we found ways to remove the toxic outer layers. It was a great step forward for mankind.

    It's just laughable that YOU think that our ancient ancestors were just refining grains for the hell of it. I mean wow.. I realize this is a lost cause. Some people are beyond help.
     
    #45
  46. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Sorry, man. Sounds like some BS pseudoscience drummed up from Natural News, or some other quack-site like it. Here is how wive's tales like what you're selling get teeth: Someone reads an article, or a study, thinks they understand (when they don't), they write and article citing the thing they don't understand, then someone writes an article citing that one ... repeat that a few times and you've got this guy ^ telling me that you shouldn't eat whole grains because of antinutrients. And he's laughing at me.

    Extremely comical.

    Where exactly did I say that our ancestors were refining grains "for the hell of it?" What are you even talking about? I will happily elaborate if you find me saying something, because clearly you're misrepresenting me.

    If someone cares to educate themselves on the topic of antinutrients, how they relate to whole grains, and how that's relative to a variety of topics, this is a well cited article: http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/dissecting-anti-nutrients-good-and-bad-phytic-acid

    You won't read it though. And if you do, you'll pick and choose what you want from it, and toss away the rest. That's how pseudoscience typically works.

    You also seem to be under the impression that antinutrients are deleterious to your health, or their potential effects are already compensated for in your regular diet (or could easily be). Clearly you've weighed this against the well established health benefits that you gain from whole grains and determined what? (You won't read / believe those articles either, but someone else might!)

    Unless your vegan, vegetarian, have a disease, or live in a third world country where your diet is wildly imbalanced, the phytic acid in whole grains should not be a concern to you at all.

    This post is a response to you, but more so for the other people who might read this and get scared by your pathetic scare tactics. Or, and allow me to check myself--maybe you really believe what you're trying to sell and you're just trying to help. In that case, I apologize. That's not pathetic at all. The problem is that you're wrong, and you're being an *** about it by misrepresenting me and belittling me (which I'm doing here also, to you).
     
    #46
  47. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,116
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy1hXDOenOY

    I am just a poor boy
    Though my story's seldom told
    I have squandered my resistance
    For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises
    All lies and jests
    Still a man hears what he wants to hear
    And disregards the rest
     
    #47
  48. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,902
    That article does nothing for your cause. It claims that phytic acid has some POSSIBLE good effects and KNOWN bad effects (hence the reason why they have been refining rice and other grains for thousands of years).

    It then suggests that you soak and or germinate the grains. That's processing! Because its unsafe. You like throw around words like 'Psuedoscience' but you don't even seem to understand the concept.

    Newsflash - anti nutrients are not psuedoscience. Substances that ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN ARTICLE bind nutrients and prevent their absorbtion are anti-nutrients. Thats what they are. They prevent from getting life providing nutrients. Hence the name 'anti-nutrients.' Its not rocket science.

    This is a DIRECT QUOTE from your article:

    "This is due to phytic acid’s ability to bind to essential minerals such as iron, zinc, calcium, and magnesium in the digestive tract and inhibit their absorption by the body.1,2"

    See - that's an anti-nutrient. That's not pseudo science. Its real established science and the reason why we have been refining grains for a very long time. You don't think the anti-nutrients are worth worrying about despite thousands of years of history.

    That's your call. But there is nothing 'psuedo' about anti-nutrients. Its been proven how they work in labs. We not only know about them - we know about them on a chemical level. We know the exact chemical reactions that make them work.

    You are making this too easy.. Your 'sources' directly contradict your own theories. Yeah anti-nutrients are psuedoscience. Sure what's next evolution is Pseudoscience too? You do know that humans evolved to eat meat.. You better get to work on discrediting that one..
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2013
    #48
  49. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Thanks for letting me know, very clearly, that I'm wasting my time with you. You can't even follow the conversation, so I'm bailing out. You can have the last word, if you want it.

    For those that may be reading along, continue your search and vetting your sources! Don't believe it because I said it. Follow and read the citations.
     
    #49
  50. GBplayer

    GBplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    567
    It seems that everything we eat is processed, even if only picking and washing. I think of that slightly differently to refining a food. Phytic acid has plus and minus marks against it. The minus marks only seem to really matter if you have a poor diet. The plus marks seem overwhelming in a rich diet to me. The bad effects of Phytic acid are largely negated if fermented for a day or more in bread making the traditional way with wholemeal flour.
     
    #50

Share This Page