PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger says grains are toxic, yet, as you point out, people all over the world have eaten grains without suffering from diabetes and celiac disease. There is a disconnect there . . . .

You must consider that in Price's time, there was no such diagnosis, as it was first described only 50 years ago. Even in my early radiology training, it was treated as a rare pediatric disease. Now with better diagnostic techniques, we know it is much more common and affects adults as well.

Celaic disease causes weight loss via malabsorption - the villous epithelium of the gut is destroyed. I believe there are many patients told they have irritable bowel syndrome, who in fact have forme fruste celiac. Perversely, they often are advised to increase their grain consumption so they can get more "fiber". You can imagine the effect this has.

There is always a disconnect, cognitive dissonance even, when considering what you have been taught might be wrong. I used to think whole wheat bread was the staff of life, too

There is lots of celiac disease and very high prevalence of gliadin antibodies on a gradient running from the near east to northern europe. Estimates of prevalence in europe is 1/300 and in the united states 1/250.

Celiac is caused by gliadin proteins in the seed that are heat stable and not destroyed by cooking. It is 100% curable by complete abstention from grain consumption.

The presence of celiac disease (100% related to wheat) is linked to the risk of many other autoimmune diseases as well:

Insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus (Type I DM) -Type II is more related to sugars and refined grains - this is type I, where little children have to inject themselves to avoid death.

Sjogren syndrome - a serious and uncomfortable autoimmune disorder affecting the salivary glands - 10x more common in those with celiac.

Rheumatoid arthritis - serious, painful autoimmune disease

IGA nephropathy

Multiple Sclerosis - debilitating neurological degenerative disease, Here there are several putative agents in thediet, including wheat

Schizophrenia - 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease.

peripheral neuropathies

epilepsy

Grains are dangerous if your ancestors are from northern europe.

It is safer to eat grains if you are of genetic stock from the fertile crescent, but still not very safe.

(In Iran there is a region where 3% of military recruits are rejected due to hypogonadal dwarfism - zinc deficiency due to 50% of calories from unleavened bread (tanok) is the culprit. The biovavailability of zinc in grains is compromised by phytic acid binding the zinc.

India -VIt B12 deficiencies are common. B12 is only obtained from animal products.

Beri Beri -Excessive white rice consumption in Japan before artificial fortification in the late 1800s - thiamin deficiency.

Pellagra - Excess corn consumption in the southern US in early 1900s. 3 million cases- 100,000 deaths.

Shall we emulate the wisdom of these traditional diets that were apparently not burdened by sugar and white flour?

Worldwide over 2 billion are iron deficient and 1 billion of these people are suffering from iron deficiency anemia - leading to weakness, increased infections, and elevated infant and maternal mortality. This simply cannot occur with an "unbalanced" diet of animal products and vegetables, it is solely due to the presence of too much grain in the diet. The bioavailability of iron in cereal grains is very poor.

Good health is seen despite grain consumption, not because of it.

You will die or suffer severe nutritional deficiency if you only eat grains and nothing else. No vit A, C or B12. I'll cover these in more detail in my upcoming post.

If you never touch a cereal grain (E.g Inuit), you can live quite well.

There are no essential carbohydrates.

There is no micronutrient in grains you cannot get with higher bioavailabilty elsewhere.

Raja, I know you will not be persuaded, but for the benefit of other readers, I need to set the record straight on what is known about grains and health.

Again I will turn theargument back on the grain defenders.

What do grains offer (other than calories and antinutrients) that we cannot get elsewhere?

I would also protest the continued assumption, without much evidence, that the poorer, simpler and less sophisticated the population, the more nutritional wisdom is to be found. That is where Ancel Keyes and our Goverment went wrong, they went looking for fat as the culprit and found only what they were looking for, but now we know they were probably wrong. In the meantime and with the best of intentions, they have probably killed more than Pol Pot by telling us all to substitute carbohydrates for saturated fat.

This, combined with the western emphasis on diseases of affluence only (we dumb, fat americans with our heart attacks) over nutritional deficiencies or autoimmune disorders that are invisible if you do not even know what they are - is its own form of limiting cultural myopia.

[Digidiver]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

India It B12 deficiencies are common. B12 is only obtained from animal products.
As a vegetarian I take spirulina daily and it has plenty of protein and B12.

`d`

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

As a vegetarian I take spirulina daily and it has plenty of protein and B12.

I thought spirulina was an animal (a one cell algae bacterium) not a vegetable :confused:.

[Digidiver]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Don't know of any animals that photosynthesis.

A great link about it though: http://www.naturalways.com/spirul1.htm

Spirulina is one of the few plant sources of vitamin B12, usually found only in animal tissues. A teaspoon of Spirulina supplies 21/2 times the Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin B12 and contains over twice the amount of this vitamin found in an equivalent serving of liver.
Spirulina also provides high concentrations of many other nutrients - amino acids, chelated minerals, pigmentations, rhamnose sugars (complex natural plant sugars), trace elements, enzymes - that are in an easily assimilable form.
Even though it is single-celled, Spirulina is relatively large, attaining sizes of 0.5 millimeters in length. This is about 100 times the size of most other algae, which makes some individual Spirulina cells visible to the naked eye. Furthermore, the prolific reproductive capacity of the cells and their proclivity to adhere in colonies makes Spirulina a large and easily gathered plant mass.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Don't know of any animals that photosynthesis.

Right you are. Guess I'd better up the brain food nutrients in my diet :rolleyes:.

Thanks.

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger,

Your posts are like a shotgun blast . . . and just as dangerous :eek:

In support of your agenda, you throw out innumerable points, most of which are not relevant or argue against positions that I have not taken. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of facts your present will be mistaken as wisdom by some of those not well versed in the subject of nutrition.

It is clear that this discussion will be endless . . . because of the complexity of the subject matter and the nature of how you deal with it. This will be the last time I respond. Hopefully, those paying attention will understand what's going on.

You must consider that in Price's time, there was no such diagnosis, as it was first described only 50 years ago. Even in my early radiology training, it was treated as a rare pediatric disease. Now with better diagnostic techniques, we know it is much more common and affects adults as well.

True, celiac disease appears more prevalent now. But is that because of better diagnostic techniques, or because sugar and refined grain consumption have skyrocketed resulting in worse overall health? There have been no studies on celiac disease incidence in pre-industrial grain-eating peoples. You claim it existed, but have no proof . . . yet I doubt that lack of evidence will sway your opinion . . .

Celaic disease causes weight loss via malabsorption - the villous epithelium of the gut is destroyed. I believe there are many patients told they have irritable bowel syndrome, who in fact have forme fruste celiac. Perversely, they often are advised to increase their grain consumption so they can get more "fiber". You can imagine the effect this has.

You got me there, Roger.
I have to confess that weight loss is something that is plaguing America. Why, just look at all the emaciated people walking down the streets of the U.S. :rolleyes:

Celiac is caused by gliadin proteins in the seed that are heat stable and not destroyed by cooking. It is 100% curable by complete abstention from grain consumption.

Everybody . . . except you . . . eats grains. So why is the incidence of celiac disease only 1 in 300 ? Obviously, grains are not as toxic as you suggest.

The presence of celiac disease (100% related to wheat) is linked to the risk of many other autoimmune diseases as well:

Insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus (Type I DM) -Type II is more related to sugars and refined grains - this is type I, where little children have to inject themselves to avoid death.

Sjogren syndrome - a serious and uncomfortable autoimmune disorder affecting the salivary glands - 10x more common in those with celiac.

Rheumatoid arthritis - serious, painful autoimmune disease

IGA nephropathy

Multiple Sclerosis - debilitating neurological degenerative disease, Here there are several putative agents in thediet, including wheat

Schizophrenia - 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease.

peripheral neuropathies

epilepsy

Nobody ever said celiac disease was fun . . . .

The cure for this disease, however, is not to avoid grains forever, but to avoid them temporarily while eating an otherwise traditional diet that avoids sugar and refined carbohydrates. (Rice may be tolerated.)
Once intestinal health is recovered, grains can be safely eaten again.

(In Iran there is a region where 3% of military recruits are rejected due to hypogonadal dwarfism - zinc deficiency due to 50% of calories from unleavened bread (tanok) is the culprit. The biovavailability of zinc in grains is compromised by phytic acid binding the zinc.

That explains a lot :rolleyes:

But seriously, how do you explain why the rest of the grain-eating world does not suffer hypogonadal dwarfism? Obviously, something else is going on.

You make statements such as these, without apparently giving much thought to what you are saying . . . .

India -VIt B12 deficiencies are common. B12 is only obtained from animal products.

This is a reason not to eat grain?
Am I suggesting the avoidance of animal foods?

You just spew out the facts, regardless of their relevance to the topic under discussion.

Beri Beri -Excessive white rice consumption in Japan before artificial fortification in the late 1800s - thiamin deficiency.

There you go again . . . with the shotgun blast of facts. :rolleyes:

Who is suggesting eating refined grains? Not me.

Pellagra - Excess corn consumption in the southern US in early 1900s. 3 million cases- 100,000 deaths.

Pellagra, a niacin deficiency, is not caused by "excess corn consumption". It is caused by failing to add lime to the corn -- as was done traditionally by the American and Southeastern Indians -- in order to release its niacin.
If you would stop to think a minute, you would ask yourself why pellagra wasn't endemic among these populations.

Least you say, "Having to add niacin to corn proves that grains are toxic," let me ask whether you add salt to your animal foods, or cook your food? Even many animals add salt to their diets through salt licks. So adding something to "improve" a food is not, per se, an argument against a particular food.
Also, corn is the only grain that requires the addition of lime, so damning all grains because of a requirement for corn is specious.

Shall we emulate the wisdom of these traditional diets that were apparently not burdened by sugar and white flour?

Worldwide over 2 billion are iron deficient and 1 billion of these people are suffering from iron deficiency anemia - leading to weakness, increased infections, and elevated infant and maternal mortality. This simply cannot occur with an "unbalanced" diet of animal products and vegetables, it is solely due to the presence of too much grain in the diet. The bioavailability of iron in cereal grains is very poor.

Sigh . . . .

Did you pause to ask yourself why the grain-eaters in America and Europe are not suffering from iron deficiency and anemia like those of poorer countries?

Am I recommended a diet of "too much grain"?

The reason for these diseases is not because the people eat grain, it's because they are so poor they do not eat enough animal food and therefore do not have a balanced diet.

You will die or suffer severe nutritional deficiency if you only eat grains and nothing else. No vit A, C or B12. I'll cover these in more detail in my upcoming post.

Again, who is recommending to "only eat grains and nothing else"?

You make ridiculous statements, then use them to substantiate your position.

If you never touch a cereal grain (E.g Inuit), you can live quite well.

Are you sure?

The typical Inuit diet is high in protein and very high in fat - in their traditional diets, Inuit consumed an average of 75% of their daily energy intake from fat.^[13] While it is not possible to cultivate plants for food in the Arctic, gathering those that are naturally available has always been typical. Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

While this article says "grasses" -- and grains are the seeds of grasses -- it does not specifically say that the seeds were eaten. However, since seeds were eaten by other pre-industrial people before agriculture, I think we can assume that the Inuits do likewise.

There are no essential carbohydrates.

There is no micronutrient in grains you cannot get with higher bioavailabilty elsewhere.

We've been over this . . . .

Raja, I know you will not be persuaded, but for the benefit of other readers, I need to set the record straight on what is known about grains and health.

I think I am the one who is setting the record straight

What do grains offer (other than calories and antinutrients) that we cannot get elsewhere?

Been over this already . . . .

I would also protest the continued assumption, without much evidence, that the poorer, simpler and less sophisticated the population, the more nutritional wisdom is to be found.

Who is "poorer, simpler and less sophisticated" than the paleolithics? Yet, you espouse paleolithic nutrition :rolleyes:

That is where Ancel Keyes and our Goverment went wrong, they went looking for fat as the culprit and found only what they were looking for, but now we know they were probably wrong. In the meantime and with the best of intentions, they have probably killed more than Pol Pot by telling us all to substitute carbohydrates for saturated fat.

No . . . where they went wrong is that Dr. Keyes was out to promote his own career, so he conveniently ignored the fact that his own research showed two groups -- the Mexican and French -- were eating high-fat diets yet did not have a high incidence of heart disease.
Another case of self-serving people in positions of authority who, I agree, probably "killed more than Pol Pot". The lesson is not that grains are bad, but that doctors who gain the public trust by spewing out erroneous scientific information can be very, very dangerous.

And on that note, I think I'll end it.

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

However, saying that some population ate this-or-that food and didn't suffer ill effects is a pretty weak argument. Who knows what else they ate, what their genetics were like, how much exercise they were getting, what their overall nutritional status was, etc, etc. For example, the absence of certain micronutrients (such as zinc, selenium, molybdenum, etc), can cause a whole host of problems. Issues related to detoxification of the natural toxins in food is one of the first things to suffer.

I don't think it's weak at all . . . here's why . . . .

Price's work examined people from over 20 remote locations around the world. They all ate different diets, yet all were healthier that modern people.

In Price's time, as today, genetics was used to explain away a lot of the ignorance of disease etiology by the medical profession. Price was interested in this aspect, so made a special point of investigating it. He would examine the dental and overall health of a remote tribe eating their natural diet . . . but invariably there would be a member of the tribe (same basic genetics) who was living at the nearby trading post and eating processed foods, and that individual would be examined too.

Regards dental health, Price found that those living in nature experienced one cavity per three adults (no tooth brushing or floss used). . . whereas those living at the trading posts suffered numerous caries. Also, the jaw structure and tooth formation of the offspring of the latter were severely compromised (i.e., crooked teeth) compared to those living naturally. Overall health was consistently better for those eating a natural diet.

If you avoid processed foods and eat a varied diet of grains, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meats, and add in some sea products (sea fish or seaweeds) you will have a very similar macro and micro nutritional diet as those people that price studied . . . because you are eating as they did. And, you will experience a similar level of health.

Or course, exercise is important, too. All pre-industrial people got lots . . . .

In fact, I'm still not sure I understand the nature of your disagreement. Are you disagreeing with the ideas about insulin? That refined grains are unhealthy? Or is it the possibility that all grain might be unhealthy, and is therefore best avoided if you're trying to optimize your health?

Refined grains are unhealthy . . . whole grains are healthy, but must be prepared in the traditional ways, and they must be consumed with a balanced diet.

For those with intestinal weakness, avoidance of grains, particularly wheat, might be advisable during the healing phase.

Those few with a true allergy to wheat should eat rice.

BTW, the same is true for potatoes, which have also been eaten by humans for ages. Being in the nightshades family, they contain nicotine, as do their cousins tobacco, eggplant and capsicum. Does the fact that they've been eaten for ages mean that the toxin they contain doesn't have a negative effect in some populations?

Potatoes, tomatoes and the other members of the nightshade family were first introduced to Europe during the 16th century when explorers brought them back from Central and South America.

At that time, corn was the preferred food in Central and South America, and potatoes were generally consumed only in the mountains where corn did not grow well.
Traditionally, the mountain potato eaters would consume potatoes with a pinch of ground snail shell or clay to neutralize its perceived toxic effects. The potato was processed by repeated freezing and thawing before consumption.

Nearly all of the 160 wild potato species growing in the Andes contain toxic chemicals, and so do two of the eight species cultivated and consumed by local Indians. The Indians prevent these tubers from causing gastrointestinal distress either by leaching out the chemicals or by eating the tubers with a dip made of clay and a mustardlike herb, reported Timothy Johns, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/22/sc...pagewanted=all

The toxin to worry about in the nightshades is solanine.

Solanine is a glycoalkaloid poison found in species of the nightshade family, such as potatoes. It can occur naturally in any part of the plant, including the leaves, fruit, and tubers. It is very toxic even in small quantities. Solanine has both fungicidal and pesticidal properties, and it is one of the plant's natural defenses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanine

The amount of solanine in modern potatoes that will cause symptoms is about 6 times the normal serving. One wonders if the amount of toxin ingested by regular consumption of lesser amounts of nightshades, although not producing immediate symptoms, might cause some negative health consequences over a lifetime.

In some parts of the world, the nightshade vegetables are only consumed after lengthy cooking, soaking in salt water for some time or other processing.

Since the worldwide consumption of nightshade plants is relatively recent, as a precaution I limit my consumption of these plants, using them only occasionally. YMMV.

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The presence of celiac disease (100% related to wheat) is linked to the risk of many other autoimmune diseases as well:

Insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus (Type I DM) -Type II is more related to sugars and refined grains - this is type I, where little children have to inject themselves to avoid death.

Sjogren syndrome - a serious and uncomfortable autoimmune disorder affecting the salivary glands - 10x more common in those with celiac.

Rheumatoid arthritis - serious, painful autoimmune disease

IGA nephropathy

Multiple Sclerosis - debilitating neurological degenerative disease, Here there are several putative agents in thediet, including wheat

Schizophrenia - 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease.

peripheral neuropathies

epilepsy

Grains are dangerous if your ancestors are from northern europe.

i am reading one of eades' books, and he makes the same assertions there, unfortunately without providing any references or even explanation. what is the evidence that grains are implicated with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and epilespy?

e.g. to say that schizophrenia has a 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease may imply, for example, that certain genes which predispose to these illnesses overlap or are closely linked. that is not the same as saying grains are causitive. is there more evidence than that?

and what is the evidence linking grains to rheumatoid arthitis and multiple sclerosis? those were mentioned by eades without any discussion or supporting data - i understand that his is a popular, not a scientific, book, but i'm really curious to know whether there is such a connection.,

[jimmygu3]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i am reading one of eades' books, and he makes the same assertions there, unfortunately without providing any references or even explanation. what is the evidence that grains are implicated with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and epilespy?

e.g. to say that schizophrenia has a 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease may imply, for example, that certain genes which predispose to these illnesses overlap or are closely linked. that is not the same as saying grains are causitive. is there more evidence than that?

and what is the evidence linking grains to rheumatoid arthitis and multiple sclerosis? those were mentioned by eades without any discussion or supporting data - i understand that his is a popular, not a scientific, book, but i'm really curious to know whether there is such a connection.,

Good questions, jk. And I would add that if such causation exists, it would be relatively simple to do a double-blind study of patients who already have these diseases to see if removing grains alleviates the symptoms.

Jimmy

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Price's work examined people from over 20 remote locations around the world. They all ate different diets, yet all were healthier that modern people.

Price studied people who were his contemporaries in the 1930's - modern primitives driven to niches defined by the absence of our civilization are simply not representative of what was eaten before agriculture. I freely grant if their sugar intake were lower than ours they were definitely healthier. However, the fact that some tolerated grains as a source of calories in no way proves they needed grains or that they might not have been healthier without them.

Observational studies alone cannot prove hypotheses, only generate them.

Regards dental health, Price found that those living in nature experienced one cavity per three adults (no tooth brushing or floss used). . . whereas those living at the trading posts suffered numerous caries.

We are in total agreement about sugar and highly refined grains.

If you avoid processed foods and eat a varied diet of grains, vegetables, nuts, seeds, meats, and add in some sea products (sea fish or seaweeds) you will have a very similar macro and micro nutritional diet as those people that price studied . . . because you are eating as they did. And, you will experience a similar level of health.

Again, the assumption is that that is the best we can do - I believe it is not.
The Kitavans have a 75% smoking rate - you must consider, using other lines of evidence, that other cultures you find, no matter how traditional they look, may have adopted more sublte dietary behaviors that are less than optimal, in addition to obvious ones like tobacco smoking, which was original to native americans and quite "traditional" to them.

Price identified the sugar connection (as did TL Cleave of the Royal Navy), but with more information, we now know that although that may even be more than half the story, it is definitley not the whole story.

healthy . . . whole grains are healthy, but must be prepared in the traditional ways, and they must be consumed with a balanced diet.

What is your definition of "healthy"? Is a food class that must be "balanced" by more nutritious sources to avoid deficiencies healthy or just a source of calories?

For those with intestinal weakness, avoidance of grains, particularly wheat, might be advisable during the healing phase.

Modern medicine and biomedical science are not perfect, but they are not astrology either. With modern molecular biology we now know much more about the pathologic changes caused by grain consumption.

This intestinal weakness you concede is a problem is more ubiquitous than either you or Price realized. Please do some more research before concluding that Weston Price settled the issue in the 1930s and there is nothing that modern molecular biology and clinical medicine can add.

Those few with a true allergy to wheat should eat rice.

Why not just avoid it by eating rice in the first place? Why only wait to stop eating it when you have an obvious "allergy". How do you know if you have an allergy? Why not quit smoking when you show signs of "allergy" in the form of a cough. Why not? Because you might not ever cough. You might just end up on oxygen.

How shall we diagnose this "true allergy" and distinguish it from the thousands of other causes of gastrointestinal disturbance?

How do you know if your asthma or multiple sclerosis or Crohn's disease is wheat related or not, and why wait until you get it to avoid the wheat?

The amount of solanine in modern potatoes that will cause symptoms is about 6 times the normal serving. One wonders if the amount of toxin ingested by regular consumption of lesser amounts of nightshades, although not producing immediate symptoms, might cause some negative health consequences over a lifetime.

In some parts of the world, the nightshade vegetables are only consumed after lengthy cooking, soaking in salt water for some time or other processing.

Since the worldwide consumption of nightshade plants is relatively recent, as a precaution I limit my consumption of these plants, using them only occasionally. YMMV.

Now you can see why I mention yams but don't advocate tubers as a class.

Not as problematic as grains, though.

I think you have just made a very good case for abandoning the naturalist fallacy when it comes to evaluating the health of food eaten by omnivores.

You could also argue that refined sugar is fine in small quantities, "meticulously prepared" - that is reasonable actually, but since it offers you nothing, we are both saying just avoid it. Sugar has been "traditional" in the west now for over a hundred years. Would it be OK to eat 10 lbs of natural, traditional honey every day? It's traditional and natural!

Currently, americans get more than half their carbohydrate calories from sugar and refined grains. Machine- made whole wheat flour you buy at the supermarket has a glycemic index nearly the same as white bread. In today's environment, what do you consider the safe, low glycemic properly prepared sources of whole grains that are healthy and essential? What exact sources of whole grains are you advocating?

And then please tell me what these sources have that make them essential.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger,

Your posts are like a shotgun blast . . . and just as dangerous :eek:

In support of your agenda, you throw out innumerable points, most of which are not relevant or argue against positions that I have not taken. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of facts your present will be mistaken as wisdom by some of those not well versed in the subject of nutrition.

It is clear that this discussion will be endless . . . because of the complexity of the subject matter and the nature of how you deal with it. This will be the last time I respond. Hopefully, those paying attention will understand what's going on.

I have learned to take the resort to ad hominem and abandonment of other rhetorical devices as a sign of making some headway. Glad to see that is happening. I hope everyone does their own further reading and no one relies solely on either an ex-newsletter writer nor a physician as the final word

True, celiac disease appears more prevalent now. But is that because of better diagnostic techniques, or because sugar and refined grain consumption have skyrocketed resulting in worse overall health?

Celiac has nothing to do with sugar consumption.

I have to confess that weight loss is something that is plaguing America. Why, just look at all the emaciated people walking down the streets of the U.S. :rolleyes:

This idea is that carbohydrates cause obesity in most people but the grains that are their source causes weight loss in some due to the severity of the allergic response in the gut. This seems incongruous to you?

Everybody . . . except you . . . eats grains. So why is the incidence of celiac disease only 1 in 300 ? Obviously, grains are not as toxic as you suggest.

It is prevalence, not incidence. This is higher than the number with type I diabetes.

If you were to say there are only 1 million in the united states with disease x, and let be x celiac, or breast cancer, or diabetes, or whatever, I think you might see that 1 in 300 is not trivial. To use the smoking analogy again, The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer but the relative risk of lung cancer with smoking is 10.0 - it is beyond dispute that it raises your risk.

Nobody ever said celiac disease was fun . . . .

This seems a bit flippant, it is a serious disease that is underdiagnosed.

NThe cure for this disease, however, is not to avoid grains forever, but to avoid them temporarily while eating an otherwise traditional diet that avoids sugar and refined carbohydrates. (Rice may be tolerated.)
Once intestinal health is recovered, grains can be safely eaten again.

I realize non-physicians are held to a different standard in regards to general advice - but this is absolutely false and dangerous medical advice you are now giving here. The only cure is to avoid gliadin proteins and especially wheat, forever, period. To resume eating grains that have made you ill once you have recovered is just plain stupid.

But seriously, how do you explain why the rest of the grain-eating world does not suffer hypogonadal dwarfism? Obviously, something else is going on.

Yes, they are compensating for what grains lack.

Pellagra, a niacin deficiency, is not caused by "excess corn consumption". It is caused by failing to add lime to the corn -- as was done traditionally by the American and Southeastern Indians -- in order to release its niacin.
If you would stop to think a minute, you would ask yourself why pellagra wasn't endemic among these populations.

They ate as many animals as they could - the grain was just caloric supplementation and not in any way "essential", other than for calories.

Again, you claim lack of supplementation, modification or meticulous preparation is the problem, not the food that must be accomodated by such maneuvers. Makes no sense to me.

Did you pause to ask yourself why the grain-eaters in America and Europe are not suffering from iron deficiency and anemia like those of poorer countries?

I have said many, many times they got what they need from animal sources

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Good questions, jk. And I would add that if such causation exists, it would be relatively simple to do a double-blind study of patients who already have these diseases to see if removing grains alleviates the symptoms.

Jimmy

The removal of grains as the cure for celiac is proven.

There is a fair bit of evidence, mostly anecdotal, of improvement in many autoimmune diseases and even schizophrenia with grain cessation.

The randomized trial is the gold standard, but expensive and difficult to control.

It can take months or sometimes years for some of these diseases to abate, which also complicates things (how long should the trial be?)

[jk]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The removal of grains as the cure for celiac is proven.

There is a fair bit of evidence, mostly anecdotal, of improvement in many autoimmune diseases and even schizophrenia with grain cessation.

The randomized trial is the gold standard, but expensive and difficult to control.

It can take months or sometimes years for some of these diseases to abate, which also complicates things (how long should the trial be?)

my question, rm, was genuine, not combative. i thought perphaps you knew of, e.g., epidemiological data correlating grain component/composition of diet with the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis. for example, comparing asians in the u.s., eating an american diet, with asians in their own countries of origin [to void the genetic variation]- if what you said was true we'd expect the illnesses to vary right along with the obesity.

if the level of evidence is just anecdotal, so be it. it's all we've got. but we need to distinguish levels of evidence to really have a good discussion.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i am reading one of eades' books, and he makes the same assertions there, unfortunately without providing any references or even explanation. what is the evidence that grains are implicated with rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and epilespy?

e.g. to say that schizophrenia has a 30 times higher prevalence in those with celiac disease may imply, for example, that certain genes which predispose to these illnesses overlap or are closely linked. that is not the same as saying grains are causitive. is there more evidence than that?

and what is the evidence linking grains to rheumatoid arthitis and multiple sclerosis? those were mentioned by eades without any discussion or supporting data - i understand that his is a popular, not a scientific, book, but i'm really curious to know whether there is such a connection.,

Hey JK -

There is link to a review article with quite a few references. I am compiling many more recent references as well and will make those available as I get them.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...%20article.pdf

I think cordain is in error in being somewhat saturated-fat-phobic, but he has good references about grains and a good discussion

If I had all my primary sources ready, I would just recommend my book

As an aside, I would never have started down this path by reading a book wih the word "diet" in the title. My BMI was 20 when I read Taubes' book, and I had never read a diet book, ever.

My book will (hopefully) be a scholarly exploration of the paleolithic nutrition idea more in the vein of Taubes, than in the vein of current "pop" weight loss books. This is what the field needs to bring it into the mainstream of medicine and begin to make further headway against the diet/heart hypothesis and the irrational veneration of whole grains.

Wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) and gliadins both increase the leakiness of the gut, allowing foreign proteins (including lectins from grains themselves) to enter the systemic circulation. If there is homology with existing self proteins, there may then be a cross-reagenicity via molecular mimicry, resulting in autoimmune disorders.

It is possible that individual genes for all these many associated diseases could all just be in linkage disequilibrium and therefore associated with the HLA subtypes most predisposing to celiac disease, which we know for sure is caused by grains. However, once you understand the pathology at the level of the gut, and that WGA and other lectins may affect gut permeability even without celiac disease, it is much more plausible that the associated diseases are all autoimmune diseases related to foreign antigens and molecular mimicry via grain consumption.

WGA, which is particularly nasty as a lectin, directly binds insulin receptors. There is speculation that proteins in wheat may somehow have opiate receptor activity - relating it to the schizoprenia - you would understand such a mechanism better than I - I've not read a lot on the schizophrenia connection specifically.

I am always trying to falsify my hypothesis. If you find an abstract or paper one way or another, you can email it to me.

Thanks

RM

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

i thought perphaps you knew of, e.g., epidemiological data correlating grain component/composition of diet with the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis. for example, comparing asians in the u.s., eating an american diet, with asians in their own countries of origin [to void the genetic variation]- if what you said was true we'd expect the illnesses to vary right along with the obesity.

if the level of evidence is just anecdotal, so be it. it's all we've got. but we need to distinguish levels of evidence to really have a good discussion.

hello JK, was responding more to Jimmy's comment about trials, there.

As far as the other diseases (not celiac) it is just anecdotal or small non-controlled trials, according to what I have found so far.

I only wish we had that kind of granularity in epidemiologic data!

As far as obesity, I would expect that to be covariant only to the degree that increased carb caloiries tracks gliadin grains like wheat.

One could adopt a western diet with no wheat and lots of sugar and keep eating white rice like in the old country, become obese and not be at increased risk for celiac or possibly the autoimmune diseases. It sounds like that is what you are suggesting. That is what I would expect.