FAO people who think we shouldn't eat grains
Replies
-
this is the actual study
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6617
the bbc report says that its only wholegrain fibre that reduces the risk.
but the researchers conclusion suggests that its all fibre but whole grain fibre is better. quote " A high intake of dietary fibre, in particular cereal fibre and whole grains, was associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer"
if your eating a diet thats 50+ percent carbs and most of those from whole grains,
then wont that also mean more total fibre?
ie a diet with fruit/veg and refined grains vs fruit veg and whole grains the whole grain diet will have more fibre in total
is it maybe not this that causes the difference?0 -
How does one look at high fiber and low fiber in grains without, incidentally, looking at whole vs. refined grains?Hi
this is some pretty good information
but
its comparing eating whole grains to refined grains
not whole grains to eating no grains.
so lets say hypothetically, if it was grains that caused the cancer in the first place, (and i do mean if. its a big if i have no proof of the if). then this study would be similar to comparing filtered cigarettes to unfiltered cigarettes.
also its a 20% reduction in the risk
the risk is 6.9% for men and 5.4% for women
so 6.9/100 = 0.069 x 20 = 1.38
and 5.4/100 = 0.054 x 20 = 1.08
that's a reduction of to 5.52% for men and 4.32% for women.
so for every 100 people that eat whole grains as apposed to refined grains, one less person (roughly) will get bowel cancer.
No, it isn't. It is comparing low fibre to high fibre. Not refined vs non-refined grains.
No one is saying that was the research question of the study. What we are saying is that when you say "these people ate lot of grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate more non-refined grains." And when you say "these people ate very little grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate very little non-refined grains, and, as such, probably ate more refined grains (assuming a study done in a population eating a modern Western diet)."
I disagree. The paleo diet has low fibre, I am sure some of the people they were looking at were on that, or coeliac. All it was looking at was high vs low fibre, not what source or what form people were eating whatever in. Low fibre doesn't have to mean refined carbs. It was based on 2 million people. They probably weren't all American.0 -
I'm sure people were eating paleo or were coeliac (neither of which are necessarily low fiber) but I doubt that those people made up a significant portion of the participants on the "low fiber" end of the spectrum. And I didn't say they were all American. I said "modern Western diet."
How does one look at high fiber and low fiber in grains without, incidentally, looking at whole vs. refined grains?Hi
this is some pretty good information
but
its comparing eating whole grains to refined grains
not whole grains to eating no grains.
so lets say hypothetically, if it was grains that caused the cancer in the first place, (and i do mean if. its a big if i have no proof of the if). then this study would be similar to comparing filtered cigarettes to unfiltered cigarettes.
also its a 20% reduction in the risk
the risk is 6.9% for men and 5.4% for women
so 6.9/100 = 0.069 x 20 = 1.38
and 5.4/100 = 0.054 x 20 = 1.08
that's a reduction of to 5.52% for men and 4.32% for women.
so for every 100 people that eat whole grains as apposed to refined grains, one less person (roughly) will get bowel cancer.
No, it isn't. It is comparing low fibre to high fibre. Not refined vs non-refined grains.
No one is saying that was the research question of the study. What we are saying is that when you say "these people ate lot of grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate more non-refined grains." And when you say "these people ate very little grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate very little non-refined grains, and, as such, probably ate more refined grains (assuming a study done in a population eating a modern Western diet)."
I disagree. The paleo diet has low fibre, I am sure some of the people they were looking at were on that, or coeliac. All it was looking at was high vs low fibre, not what source or what form people were eating whatever in. Low fibre doesn't have to mean refined carbs. It was based on 2 million people. They probably weren't all American.
We can keep speculating until the cows come home but the fact remains that this seems more like a study saying "If you're going to eat grains (and you are concerned about bowel cancer), you should make them whole grains" than "you should eat grains."0 -
I'm sure people were eating paleo or were coeliac (neither of which are necessarily low fiber) but I doubt that those people made up a significant portion of the participants on the "low fiber" end of the spectrum. And I didn't say they were all American. I said "modern Western diet."
How does one look at high fiber and low fiber in grains without, incidentally, looking at whole vs. refined grains?Hi
this is some pretty good information
but
its comparing eating whole grains to refined grains
not whole grains to eating no grains.
so lets say hypothetically, if it was grains that caused the cancer in the first place, (and i do mean if. its a big if i have no proof of the if). then this study would be similar to comparing filtered cigarettes to unfiltered cigarettes.
also its a 20% reduction in the risk
the risk is 6.9% for men and 5.4% for women
so 6.9/100 = 0.069 x 20 = 1.38
and 5.4/100 = 0.054 x 20 = 1.08
that's a reduction of to 5.52% for men and 4.32% for women.
so for every 100 people that eat whole grains as apposed to refined grains, one less person (roughly) will get bowel cancer.
No, it isn't. It is comparing low fibre to high fibre. Not refined vs non-refined grains.
No one is saying that was the research question of the study. What we are saying is that when you say "these people ate lot of grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate more non-refined grains." And when you say "these people ate very little grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate very little non-refined grains, and, as such, probably ate more refined grains (assuming a study done in a population eating a modern Western diet)."
I disagree. The paleo diet has low fibre, I am sure some of the people they were looking at were on that, or coeliac. All it was looking at was high vs low fibre, not what source or what form people were eating whatever in. Low fibre doesn't have to mean refined carbs. It was based on 2 million people. They probably weren't all American.
We can keep speculating until the cows come home but the fact remains that this seems more like a study saying "If you're going to eat grains (and you are concerned about bowel cancer), you should make them whole grains" than "you should eat grains."
I don't agree. I think it is saying you are better off eating whole grains than not. Whatever the alternative.0 -
How does one look at high fiber and low fiber in grains without, incidentally, looking at whole vs. refined grains?Hi
this is some pretty good information
but
its comparing eating whole grains to refined grains
not whole grains to eating no grains.
so lets say hypothetically, if it was grains that caused the cancer in the first place, (and i do mean if. its a big if i have no proof of the if). then this study would be similar to comparing filtered cigarettes to unfiltered cigarettes.
also its a 20% reduction in the risk
the risk is 6.9% for men and 5.4% for women
so 6.9/100 = 0.069 x 20 = 1.38
and 5.4/100 = 0.054 x 20 = 1.08
that's a reduction of to 5.52% for men and 4.32% for women.
so for every 100 people that eat whole grains as apposed to refined grains, one less person (roughly) will get bowel cancer.
No, it isn't. It is comparing low fibre to high fibre. Not refined vs non-refined grains.
No one is saying that was the research question of the study. What we are saying is that when you say "these people ate lot of grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate more non-refined grains." And when you say "these people ate very little grain fiber" what you are probably saying is "these people ate very little non-refined grains, and, as such, probably ate more refined grains (assuming a study done in a population eating a modern Western diet)."
I disagree. The paleo diet has low fibre, I am sure some of the people they were looking at were on that, or coeliac. All it was looking at was high vs low fibre, not what source or what form people were eating whatever in. Low fibre doesn't have to mean refined carbs. It was based on 2 million people. They probably weren't all American.
It doesn't mention Paleo, hunter gatherer or ancestoral diet , nor celiac in the whole article or the study, so we don't know that from the information provided here.
we basically dont know what diet the low fiber groups were eating, as it dosen't say in the study.
but unless there's whole countrys on the atkins/paleo other diets where grains are excluded i think we can safely assume that they most likely ate refined grains. its an assumption i know, but 95% of the world eat grains, chances are these 2 million people did too0 -
"Associated with", the words the study uses, means exactly that- associated with. In other words, there is no proven pattern of cause and effect. In much the same way that seeing a firetruck at the scene of a fire might lead you to think that they caused the fire in the first place, an association simply doesn't tell you anything about causation.
It is likely that people who include a lot of wholegrains in their diet are quite health-conscious. They will be more likely to exercise, to not smoke and drink only moderately or not at all. With 2 million people involved in the 25 studies looked it, it's virtually impossible to tease out the contributing factor to a tiny reduction in the rate of colon cancer.
I love this quote from the LA Times version of the story:
"No link was seen between eating more fruits and vegetables and colorectal cancer risk, although in a previous meta-analysis an association was noted. This suggests that some other factors could influence cancer risk."
Ya think? One study says one thing, another another....if you sit and manipulate statistics all day (and that's what this study was, it was not real people eating food in controlled conditions), I'll bet you can get the same group of studies to find an association between colorectal cancer and the wearing of straw hats.0 -
Ya think? One study says one thing, another another....if you sit and manipulate statistics all day (and that's what this study was, it was not real people eating food in controlled conditions),
You will never have nutrition studies like this. Unless of course they suddenly make it legal to lock people in a room and feed them exactly as you desire. You are however implying in your post that the sample groups were not adjusted for other common known causes of cancer such as smoking etc and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that they would have been! That's not to say there are not some uncommon or unknown factors that could be at play but still - this is about as good as research gets in the nutrition world.0 -
Heh. I was reading through the studies specifically related to whole grains that were included in the meta-analysis and found this paragraph (emphasis mine):
"The sources of whole-grain intake in our FFQ were ready-to-eat cereals, high-fiber cereals, other fiber cereals, whole-grain breads or dinner rolls, cooked cereal (eg, oatmeal or grits), popcorn, pancakes, waffles, French toast or crepes, rice or other cooked grains, bagels, English muffins, tortillas, pasta, crackers, chips (potato, tortilla, or corn), cookies or brownies, sweet pastries, and pies." (Schatzkin et al. 2007)
Excuse me. I've got some chips, cookies, and pies to eat. Don't worry--they're "whole grain"--gotta ward off colorectal cancer and all. :bigsmile:0 -
I'd like to know if the people who ended up getting colon cancer had a genetic predisposition towards it (mom or dad or both had died from it), any pre-existing bowel disorders (ulcerative colitis, etc), whether they smoked, drank excessively, what their blood pressure was, etc, etc, whether they sacrificed goats to the flying spaghetti monster.
I am interested in biology but so many "objective scientific tests" are engineered to provide the results the clinicians want, and studies that don't back the info up are usually suppressed.
The Western world has a bad history of assuming disease lives in pockets and can develop out of the blue in an otherwise normal body. Because the body is completely interconnected, the general health of the person across the board is also of interest.
Also, a lot of it's common sense. If you feel healthier eating something (give it a while in case of a healing crisis type reaction) then your body is telling you what you need to know.
Forgive me if I take these sorts of studies with a grain of salt. I also am curious as to who funded this study? Maybe this makes me jaded, but I bet in some way it's related to some producer of grains (like General Mills was kicking them money, or whatever company makes Dempster's Bread).
If I listened to every study out there, I wouldn't be able to make any decisions because so many studies contradict themselves. (*Loads up on Tang because it's high in Vitamin C*....) I have heard some people say they lose weight and feel awesome and the "Paleo" diet (no real processed grains, just lean poultry and fish, oils, nuts, leafy vegetables, fruits, berries, etc) and Candida-controlling diets. Other people say they feel sick.
When I hear people mention 'scientific tests' I usually feel less like trusting the data (whatever it is). Where there is "scientific testing", there is someone making a profit, despite the "truth". (Goes back to watching X-Files...)0 -
I'd like to know if the people who ended up getting colon cancer had a genetic predisposition towards it (mom or dad or both had died from it), any pre-existing bowel disorders (ulcerative colitis, etc), whether they smoked, drank excessively, what their blood pressure was, etc, etc, whether they sacrificed goats to the flying spaghetti monster.
I am interested in biology but so many "objective scientific tests" are engineered to provide the results the clinicians want, and studies that don't back the info up are usually suppressed.
The Western world has a bad history of assuming disease lives in pockets and can develop out of the blue in an otherwise normal body. Because the body is completely interconnected, the general health of the person across the board is also of interest.
Also, a lot of it's common sense. If you feel healthier eating something (give it a while in case of a healing crisis type reaction) then your body is telling you what you need to know.
Forgive me if I take these sorts of studies with a grain of salt. I also am curious as to who funded this study? Maybe this makes me jaded, but I bet in some way it's related to some producer of grains (like General Mills was kicking them money, or whatever company makes Dempster's Bread).
If I listened to every study out there, I wouldn't be able to make any decisions because so many studies contradict themselves. (*Loads up on Tang because it's high in Vitamin C*....) I have heard some people say they lose weight and feel awesome and the "Paleo" diet (no real processed grains, just lean poultry and fish, oils, nuts, leafy vegetables, fruits, berries, etc) and Candida-controlling diets. Other people say they feel sick.
When I hear people mention 'scientific tests' I usually feel less like trusting the data (whatever it is). Where there is "scientific testing", there is someone making a profit, despite the "truth". (Goes back to watching X-Files...)
well said
I personally don't eat them as i think there too concentrate a form of carbohydrate, the same reasons i dont eat sugar. I'd rather eat something not so energy dense, like vegetables or fruit. But if i did eat them i would go for the whole grain variety.
i think that in a way its a similar situation to dairy
we havn't eaten dairy for a long time in evoloutionary terms (cow dairy i mean)
and some people have problems with it. lactose intollerance etc
although some people can eat dairy till the cows come home (sorry ;0) , their whole life with no problems.
and i think its the same with grains, some people will have problems with it others wont.
but i dont think companies/authorities should push grains as some essential, super healthy food, there not essential, and i have doubts about there healthiness.
its funny though when i read up about all the different opinions and research out there and from what i've read
fruit=bad because of fructose
grains= bad because of celiac, gluten intollerance, inflamtion etc
fats=bad because of transfats, cholesterol, obesity
sugar= bad because of insulin, toothdecay, obesity, diabetes
animal protien= bad because of cancer(china study), kidney problems, red meat building up in the colon,
soy= bad because of phyto estrogens
Legumes= bad because of leptins
nuts= bad because of fat, nut alergies
vegetables= bad not enough protien, carbohydrate or fat
i think i'm going to paint myself green and feed myself through photosynthisis.0 -
I think it basically goes to show that people believe whatever they want to believe and no amount of evidence one way or the other is going to make the slightest difference.0
-
Heh. I was reading through the studies specifically related to whole grains that were included in the meta-analysis and found this paragraph (emphasis mine):
"The sources of whole-grain intake in our FFQ were ready-to-eat cereals, high-fiber cereals, other fiber cereals, whole-grain breads or dinner rolls, cooked cereal (eg, oatmeal or grits), popcorn, pancakes, waffles, French toast or crepes, rice or other cooked grains, bagels, English muffins, tortillas, pasta, crackers, chips (potato, tortilla, or corn), cookies or brownies, sweet pastries, and pies." (Schatzkin et al. 2007)
Excuse me. I've got some chips, cookies, and pies to eat. Don't worry--they're "whole grain"--gotta ward off colorectal cancer and all. :bigsmile:
Good call - apparently if you eat 100g worth of fibre from chips, cookies & pies, then you can't get cancer! (10g = 10% lowered risk)
That's what I got out of it anyways.0 -
Or.... Some of us can employ common sense along with critical thinking when reading a scientific study and realize that the "low fiber" in these studies were mostly likely not grain FREE diets. Thus the conclusions from such as study cannot really tell us anything about whether some grains are better than NO grains. Rather, it can tell whole grains are better than refined grains for one type of cancer.I think it basically goes to show that people believe whatever they want to believe and no amount of evidence one way or the other is going to make the slightest difference.
Why does it matter who believes "we shouldn't eat grains"? Has someone taken away your bread and pasta?0 -
Or.... Some of us can employ common sense along with critical thinking when reading a scientific study and realize that the "low fiber" in these studies were mostly likely not grain FREE diets. Thus the conclusions from such as study cannot really tell us anything about whether some grains are better than NO grains. Rather, it can tell whole grains are better than refined grains for one type of cancer.I think it basically goes to show that people believe whatever they want to believe and no amount of evidence one way or the other is going to make the slightest difference.
Why does it matter who believes "we shouldn't eat grains"? Has someone taken away your bread and pasta?
I don't eat bread or pasta anyway as they make me sick. I just don't like being told that food that people have eaten for thousands of years is suddenly BAAAAAAD. I also loathe fad diets.0 -
i could live without grain..but never without potatoes. that would be maddness.0
-
You and me both.I also loathe fad diets.0 -
Grains killed my dog
Thank goodness I'm not a dog!
There are a lot of people, as well as dogs, that do have grain allergies, however. Also, you can get "bad feed" (think horses, cows, etc.) which has toxic molds growing in it, for example. 0 -
What I think (?) no one will dispute is that, basically, our bodies are built to use/process fats, carbohydrates, and protein. Excepting those with medical conditions, I don't think poeple become fat because they eat too many carbs, too few proteins, etc. I think we get fat because we eat too da** much of everything!!
How about balance... "everything in moderation"? How about quality of food? That is, eating a high fibre muffin maybe instead of a huge bag of chips to get the same amount of fibre?
Granted... I'm still working on this myself. But, I'm a carb-lover and I'm getting thinner AND healthier in spite of eating my share of grains! 0 -
I never said grains are bad and I am not into fad diets (I have never actually been on a "diet"). Re-read what I wrote. I eat grains and pasta. I just don't consider (probably doctored) scientific tests to be "evidence".
And like another poster mentioned, an association does not equal causality. If you eat grains and feel healthy, go for it. If they make you feel sick, fine. Don't eat them. Like other people, I get a bit sick of commercials telling people to eat 5-10 grain servings a day.
I tend to lose weight when I eat very few carbs and limit my sugars. I feel deprived though, so I generally end up binging on poutine later. Not really the point. I don't think grains are "bad" (pretty simplistic way to look at it). I simply have trouble taking "studies" that people link to on the internet seriously.0 -
Sure, our bodies are designed to eat carbs. But plenty of foods are full of carbs besides grains. That seems to be the crux off the issue. Plants (most "vegetables" and "fruits" are mostly carbs).
Anatomically, Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern humans) have been around approximately 200,000 years. We have only been farming as a species for about 10,000 years. So do we physically *need* grains? Obviously not.
Are they "bad"? Eat some and tell me how you feel. There is a difference between something being essential to life and being "bad for you". Peanuts are fine for most people, but if you go into anaphylaxis after ingesting some, you probably should stop eating them. So much of this is common sense.
The allergist says I am not allergic to my cat. Tet every time I pick her up my throat itches, my eyes get red and itchy and water and I start sneezing.
Decide for yourself what's good for you based on how you feel.0 -
I found this read interesting... http://goo.gl/SzpFc (there is even a paragraph on the idea of fibre lowering your risk of cancer).
Since I was on the site anyway, I found an interesting read on whole grains and living longer too... http://goo.gl/gZ74T
TheGlen0 -
I don't get why this article, which is focused on one specific thing regarding fiber from whole grains, is used as an attack on low-carbers. You don't want to eat low-carb? Fine. Don't. Eat whatever you want. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason to attack people who find they feel better without grains or sugar or pasta or whatever else. I'm sick of people calling low-carbers carb nazis. Aren't you guys being the same by attacking us for our choices? Choices that make us feel far better than your life style made us feel?
Low-carb is not a fad diet. It's been around for well over 100 years, and was in fact the far more common way to eat over 100 years ago. People had bread then, but they ate way more meat and vegetables. Early humans, you know, we've been around for several million years, with modern humans emerging roughly 200,000 years ago, and we only started eating grains 10,000 years ago. We retain our ability to live and thrive off diets with low carbs.
Also, bexominglex, try switching your cat to a raw meat diet (though you need to do research to do it right). Cats on raw diets, at least anecdotally, reduce their allergens. At least, people who seem to be allergic to cats react less, if at all, to cats who are fed a species appropriate diet.
0 -
I said the same thing above about us being anatomically at this point of evolution for 200,000 years and only farming fro grains for about 10,000. my cat won't eat raw. Very picky emotional eater, that cat (she is almost 20 so she does what she wants). As long as I don't let her get right in my face, my allergies (which apparently don't exist) are a lot better.
I don't like word "should" (just like I dislike the word "shouldn't"). All I know is how I react to foods. And the fact that eating grains is relatively new for humans (10,000 years is not that long).
That's all I was getting at.0 -
Without grains making up a major part of the human diet, we could not feed 7 billion people. Indeed, civilization would collapse.0
-
True dat. And of course our health wouldn't be as good as it is today either.Without grains making up a major part of the human diet, we could not feed 7 billion people. Indeed, civilization would collapse.0 -
True dat. And of course our health wouldn't be as good as it is today either.Without grains making up a major part of the human diet, we could not feed 7 billion people. Indeed, civilization would collapse.
hmm i don't know about that,
i mean we don't feed 7 billion people only 6 billion according to worldhunger.org 1 billion are starving world wide.
grains (wheat,corn rice) make up the bulk of global calories, followed by startchy roots like potatoes, yams, casava.
but if say grains stopped being produces, would they not just get replaced with something else?
And even though 1 billion are starving is that not more to do with politics,economics and profiteering?
From what i learned in biology, there is more than enough food in the world to feed the human population several times over. its getting where its needed (at a profit) is why people starve.0 -
1. We don't feed 7 billion people.
2. The Earth is not able to comfortably support this many people so even if we got rid of grains, the human population might drop, but overall that would be a good thing for the planet.
What does that have to do with whether we "need" grains for health? There seem to be quite a few people out there that think grain consumption is essential for good health, which is obviously inaccurate. I don't care if people want to eat grains or not. I eat them. I just don't think you need them anymore than you need to drink another species' milk or ingest cane sugar or watch 3D TV or....
you want to eat grains, fine. I just don't think you have to eat them, and some people apparently feel healthier when they cut them out.
Judging from dumb commercials you'd think processed grains were necessary for good health. Similar to the idiotic got milk? commercials.0 -
But but but... the USDA put them at the FOUNDATION of a healthy diet..... :laugh:Judging from dumb commercials you'd think processed grains were necessary for good health. Similar to the idiotic got milk? commercials.0 -
True dat. And of course our health wouldn't be as good as it is today either.Without grains making up a major part of the human diet, we could not feed 7 billion people. Indeed, civilization would collapse.
Yeah, because most of the world is so incredibly healthy.... people in first world countries are generally over-weight, if not outright obese. If you turn on the television for any length of time, half the commercials are peddling medications for one health problem or another. Asthma and COPD meds, meds for restless leg syndrome, meds for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, arthritis, bipolar disorder (and that's just an hour or so of commercials). Doesn't sound too healthy to me.
The biggest advancements in medicine are the introduction of soap, antibiotics, clean water and tobacco controls. But the global diet is still pretty crappy. We have evolved to find foods with high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar contents "tasty" because in the wild it is a full time job to catch and gather all the food you need to have a balanced diet. Unfortunately, now we can buy as much processed junk as we want, but our brains don't clue in that we have enough so we are ingesting a bunch of crap we don't need (not to mention preservatives and pesticides).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions