|
|
grain damage?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 08, 2008 08:07PM I would like to know what is your opinion about grains,are they healthy? and how much can you it? Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: December 08, 2008 09:07PM If you don't have any intolerances, whole grains are ok.
I think the main reason to limit them is that there are more nutrient- and phytochemically-dense foods around (fruits and vegetables) that also provide more protection from cancers, diabetes, and premature aging. So from my point of view, no they are not bad, but there is something better. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
iLIVE
()
Date: December 08, 2008 10:36PM people have been cultivating wheat for a significantly short time in the human lifespan which is probably why there are so many allergies to gluten; most other things (pseudograins; non-gluten things) are specified as better to eat by most oriental doctors and nutritional hygienists (in moderation; I saw one suggest a higher vegetable intake compared to grains). I think if you don't have an allergen they might be beneficial, depending on what person you are. It's all in good experience, and experimentation. If they don't give you a problem, or if you feel good eating them, gooo oonn. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Meditating
()
Date: December 08, 2008 11:36PM I read a book about 8 years ago GRAIN DAMAGE. The author didn't believe that humans should eat any grains. It made me decide to severely restrict my grains.
I don't remember everything he said about them. I do recall the following: 1 - They cause allergies above and beyond allergies to the grain. 2 - Wet grain cause some kind of problem with how your insides function. 3 - Grains screw with your adrenals and thyroid (I clearly recall this because I already had those problems at the time). You might want to read a copy so you can decide for yourself. It was a really short book. Just googled the book and the author is Doug Graham. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Utopian Life
()
Date: December 09, 2008 12:04AM I think that part of the "allergies" people have is due to chemicals/pesticides/other poisons used in conventional grains. I've heard of people supposedly allergic to wheat who can eat organic wheat ground themselves. I don't eat many grains, maybe just sprouted here and there. But most of my sprouts are not grains. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Tamukha
()
Date: December 09, 2008 12:19AM Part of the problem with modern grains is that they have been Frankensteined--they have been artificially hybridized to have, among other traits, many times the amount of protein as naturally hybridized grains. This is because more protein means a larger, more durable kernel, which in turn means easier mechanical harvesting and threshing. Which, of course, means less waste and more profit. Our ancestors never sat down and ate that much gluten from a single serving of starch; it's more than our livers and pancreases can handle! Monsanto truly IS the most evil corporation in the world. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 09, 2008 01:47AM I have read from several sources that the very first wheat grasses and grains grew in ancient peoples latrine areas near their camps,and from the remains of their defecation.
Lovely thought. But I personally think your body has no use for any kind of grain.Its only the programming of your taste buds that makes anyone want to eat them. Brian Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Jgunn
()
Date: December 09, 2008 05:34AM having worked in a grain elevator years ago and seeing how the grain is contaminated in the handling and storage process was enough to turn me off ...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist  Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
debbietook
()
Date: December 09, 2008 05:55AM ferow3, grains are a good food for us, as long as raw and sprouted.
I eat a little raw, sprouted wheat at least three or four times a week. For reasons why raw, sprouted grain is fine, as opposed to cooked grain, see my article here: [debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com] Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
debbietook
()
Date: December 09, 2008 06:18AM Sorry, I'll try that again!
If this link takes you to the Home Page rather than the article itself, the article can be found under April archives. [debbietookrawforlife.blogspot.com] Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
flipperjan
()
Date: December 09, 2008 08:00AM I have read that modern wheat has been hybridised to have far more gluten in it than old traditional varieties. This is so that the flour will 'behave' well when it is made into bread - i.e. rise well and stay in required shapes etc. If you imagine these gluten fibres as little sharp iron filings this is why they irritate some people's guts so much.
Apparently the old, traditional wheat varieties such as spelt do not cause such a reaction in people. It is quite easy to get organic spelt flour in England albeit at quite a price. Does any one have more information about old varieties of wheat.? Also stone ground wheat is supposed to be better too. I personally get very tempted by the organic, granary bread that I bake for my family - the smell just wafts across the house when it comes out of the oven. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Ariel55
()
Date: December 09, 2008 08:30AM I understand that older varieties of grain such as Kamut and spelt are better than wheat as are not hybridised. Wheat is just such an unnatural food.
But they still have gluten/glue in them and I would think that could cause a problem for some people. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
iLIVE
()
Date: December 09, 2008 11:37AM I mean, then again, a lot of fruits are highly hybridized too, in America. I think U.S. has the most confusing aspect of food compared to most other countries. We're just young, and not as developed, haha. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
Anonymous User
()
Date: December 09, 2008 07:07PM Could you tell us more about pseudograins? Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
suvine
()
Date: December 10, 2008 01:19AM I make rejuvelac and wheatgrass, Leftovers I blend sprouted wheat with dates and it never gave me a problem. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
iLIVE
()
Date: December 10, 2008 01:58AM ferrooww,
psuedograins (or psuedocereals) are called true cereals, unlike wheat which is a grass; so they are actually seeedss.. these are things like quinoa and millet quinoa also has a balance of essential amino acids  --wheat does not
so there are quite some more differences..I'm sure you could find more online! i'm not saying wheat is bad though; of course if you have gluten allergies, that's different; just quinoa seems to have better protein and digestive aspects. Re: grain damage?
Posted by:
arugula
()
Date: December 10, 2008 02:10AM True grains are monocots in the cereal grass family.
Quinoa is a dicot in the amaranth family which includes of course amaranth and the goosefoots such as spinach, chard, and beet greens. They are very different (DNA and other characteristics) in the plant kingdom "family tree" but what makes them similar is that their seeds are both sproutable and yield a lot of edible starch and a little bit of protein on cooking. Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|
