Harvard School of Public Health Study Highlights Risk of Early Death from Red Meat

[spatzcat]

My knowledge base on all this 'stuff' is not as in depth, however, these deficiencies are not rocking the US and Canada, as I suspected, it's the less fortunate countries:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7352e/y7352e32.gif

http://www.fertilizer.org/var/ifa/storage/images/media/images/images-sustainability/human-health-and-nutrition/html/235936-1-eng-GB/map-micronutrients-deficiency-zinc.jpg

I am not 100% sure where I stand on a lot of these issues, I do think though, for a lot of people, the paleo diet is a fad diet. They come on here, and their first post goes something like this:

Hey! I'm here because I suck, and I want to get fit, and feel better! going paleo! tonight I'm having bacon for dinner!

Which is followed by a myriad of 'hey! congrats! BACON!'.

yeaaahhhh. let me know how that all works out.

I think excess of anything is bad - be it red meat, or whatever.

I think a lot of people are just obsessed with conspiracy theories. That even though there may be a majority of people/professionals/evidence showing proof for a certain outcome, people find the one needle in a haystack, and come to the assumption that everyone else must be wrong, that there is some kind of conspiracy out there to make us all sick and stay sick, so big companies can profit.

Reason to me states this: if you are allergic to gluten, have an intolerance to wheat and such, stop eating it. Otherwise, control yourself and have a balanced diet. Don't eat stuff from 7-Eleven.

[Waldo]

Exactly... 100 calories of veggies is more food, more nutrients, and fills you up.

What am I missing?

The only people who want to eat more food with less calories are people who don't exercise enough.

[Philociraptor]

The only people who want to eat more food with less calories are people who don't exercise enough.

No. What about people who ENJOY those foods? What about people who do well with less calories in general, which is also tied to longevity. As far as I know, many Paleo folks eat less calories than the average person, INCLUDING those who are at their goal weight. And they are in great shape and exercise plenty.

[Waldo]

No. What about people who ENJOY those foods? What about people who do well with less calories in general, which is also tied to longevity. As far as I know, many Paleo folks eat less calories than the average person, INCLUDING those who are at their goal weight. And they are in great shape and exercise plenty.

Then eat what you enjoy, exercise to sync with your bodies desired intake amount.

The specific condition of wanting to eat a whole lot of low calorie food to fill you up only makes sense if you are tying to lose weight by starving yourself. Otherwise why would you want to eat more food than you are currently eating? Bulking isn't any easier than cutting.

You implication is that paleo people will thus shrink away to nothing (eating less calories that people at their goal weight (maintenence level)) or that the calorie balance doesn't apply to paleo.

[Philociraptor]

Then eat what you enjoy, exercise to sync with your bodies desired intake amount

The carbs and exercise required for the SAD drive insulin production, which is inversely correlated with longevity.

You implication is that paleo people will thus shrink away to nothing (eating less calories that people at their goal weight (maintenence level)) or that the calorie balance doesn't apply to paleo.

The calorie balance is there, but digestion and the body in general is more efficient with what is eaten, so less calories are needed for normal activity. They must calculate their own BMR as you do. But as a general rule it's lower than the average person and the calculators.

[MMyers]

Who tries to make vegetables look bad?

[Waldo]

Who tries to make vegetables look bad?

There is a difference between "look bad" and "not artificially prop up." As a food group they are no better than any other food group, despite what some would have you beleive.

[MMyers]

Ok, whatever you want to think...

[Elastigirl]

I am not 100% sure where I stand on a lot of these issues, I do think though, for a lot of people, the paleo diet is a fad diet. They come on here, and their first post goes something like this:

Hey! I'm here because I suck, and I want to get fit, and feel better! going paleo! tonight I'm having bacon for dinner!

Which is followed by a myriad of 'hey! congrats! BACON!'.

yeaaahhhh. let me know how that all works out.

I think excess of anything is bad - be it red meat, or whatever.

.

One idea behind the Paleo diet is that it is harder to over eat with meat than with grains. I know it is easier for me to over eat on the carbs than on meat. However, I do find it easy to overeat bacon. Grass fed bacon may be differant. But the greasy, saltiness, low portion of protein does make bacon an easy to overeat lotfood. And you're right we do talk about it without talking about the added sugar, nitrates, or that it doesn't have much protein. And that may be misleading to people, so I'll be careful with the bacon bandwagon from now on.

[aj_rock]

Just because hundreds of other doctors say it's a certain way doesn't make that any more or less true either.

I could say the same response for any other doctor you present. No one is the be-all end-all. I am just giving information on the other side of the spectrum here. Please don't blow it off like it can't be accepted.

Everyone used to "know" the world was flat, right? Well, right now, all doctors "know" that cholesterol causes heart disease. In my opinion from what I've read and the reseatch I have done, the world is round. Make your own opinion, but don't disregard the little man. Just because they don't have millions (yes, millions) of $$$ to throw at a study to prove or disprove this argument, doesn't mean there's no way they can be right.

Maybe I should note that I have tried vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, low carb/atkins as well. It's not a straw-man argument.

"A known method of dealing with Crohn's is overall improvement of diet." - Correct.

But a known method of removing all symptoms of Crohn's? It's not known... except to all of the other people who have gone Paleo and done the same as me.

Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it's any less true. I agree studies are extremely important... but just because there's not a study on it doesn't make it any less true and there's plenty of information and smaller studies that conflict this Harvard study. Nothing makes this Harvard study the be-all end-all either. We go back to my last point again. Just adding to the conversation here.

No clue, but it's extemely high. Check here for a list of high omega 6 foods.

I completely disagree here. I will always hold the stance that gluten is bad for you either way. There's plenty of information on it but I'm not even gonna try and argue it because I have a feeling you'll say that since thousands of doctors don't say the same thing, it can't be true.

You'll give me lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies? Better give it to me for meat too. The nutrients are extremely low in comparison. Think of me eating meat and veggies as simply eating the most nutrient dense foods as possible.

Exactly why I stick to broccoli, carrots, sweet potatoes, etc... instead of celery and lettuce.

You list a variety of attempted dieting methods, but non of those methods you just listed represent a 'normal' vision of what healthy eating is seen as. For someone with health issues that can be fixed with a diet, I would personally NEVER perscribe atkins or low-carb or vegan. Just what your average every-day nutritionist would tell you to eat.

As with the doctors, you kinda prove my point. We can't fully believe the legions of doctors; we can't fully believe the guy making a stance all on his own either. There are still some wackos in the world that believe the earth is flat; should we give them our ear simply because they hold a controversial opinion? It is something you have to apply your own judgement to I suppose, but nothing about this solitary surgeon screams out enlightened revolutionary to me. I'm not blowing it off; rather, I don't think one doctor's opinion should be seen as equal in weight to everyone elses.

Looking at your omega-6 list, all it vaguely lists is 'grains'; this is after stating the body REQUIRES omega-6, but a lot of americans simply get too much of it. Before I even address the actual grain fat content issue, these omega-3 to 6 imbalances can be fixed with an increase in consumption of fish oil and reduction of visits to mcdicks. FAST processed food contributes more to these health problems in general; on that, I think we can agree.

But back to the grain fat content; I implose you to check any calorie counting food database and look at the fat contents of most grains; they have 1 or 2 grams per serving, if that, in general. I would hardly call 1 gram of omega-6 as very high, considering the optimal ratio is 4:1 6 to 3 or lower. We don't want to elimate omega-6 intake; simply control it.

And can we, as I think Waldo was trying to point out, make a notational difference between macronutrients (fat, carb, prot) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals)? I think that's where a lot of confusion is coming up. Either way, whole grains DO contain their fair share of micro nutrients, especially B vitamins.

He improved his diet by going Paleo. I obviously don't speak for him, but I believe he feels very strongly that Paleo was the prime thing that helped. Yeah, he improved his diet, but he did it in a specific way, and he had success with it. Whether you agree with the approach, he had success with it.

For somebody who seems to like to think scientifically I would not imagine you brushing off a first-hand account so readily, bud.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, calling it a straw man argument is just kind of confusing. I mean, saying Crohn's is reduced by overall improving a person's diet (which he did), and then making the connection to Paleo (the overall improvement, which is how he achieved it) really isn't taking anything out of context. It's a linear, Point A to Point B observation. Sorry, but I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

And I know you just booked it, but I hope it's a fun and safe trip.

Haha thanks! I will do my best to have fun and be safe/attain some happy medium between the two!

Anyway, I say it's a straw man, because as we are discussing now, he did not in fact attempt all other accepted healthy eating styles before finding paleo. So theoretically, he could have found that some other style of eating could have had the same results.

Not that I'm encouraging him to change; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm only saying that other avenues DO exist, and cannot be discounted thusly.

AJ: most doctors are on board with the conventional views on cholesterol and saturated fat because of the risks of being sanctioned. They can't prescribe contrary treatments because insurance will no longer pay.

Question: if a pill was invented that contained the exact RDA's of vitamins, minerals, and macros that the USDA prescribes, would taking it effectively replace real food? The answer is no, because real foods carry enzymes and much more involved in how we break down and use the nutrients in food.

I believe I addressed most of these concerns about the docs above. Does this doctor have no fear of the same sanctions? Or is he a 'knight on a white horse' that cares not for personal reputation? I don't think any negative consequences arose from his taking of this stance, and so I don't see why other doctors wouldn't if it were true.

Also, what you say about vitamins as they were first made might be correct, but most multi-vitamins are optimized nowadays to correct for metabolic processing. We'd also be seeing an increased incidence in kidney trouble in populations that have been taking multis for a few decades now if they were simply being processed out, and we simply do not see that occuring.

Waldo I don't know where you are getting your information on micronutrients because most of what you are saying is completely untrue. It is a fact, gathered by the USDA that the nutrient content in foods grown in the US and in the United States have SIGNIFICANTLY declined since 1940 and the regular introduction of nitrogenous fertilizer to replace composting fertilizer. Yields have gone up but nutrient values have gone down tremendously. In fact, as far back as 1977 in congressional hearings Dr. Mertz, the former head of the USDA warned that due to soil depletion a balanced diet will not provide all of the essential trace minerals.

Products like centrum have synthetically created vitamins, many of which are in competition for the same receptor sites and thus do nothing for you. But you go ahead and believe that micronutrient deficiency isn't happening and isnt important. In fact, the CDC recently reported that Deficiences in micronutrients such as iron, iodine, vitamin A, folate and zinc affect nearly 1/3 of the world's population and the consequences can be devastating.....

Again, let's start using macro = fat, carbs, or prot, micro = vitamins and minerals; it gets very confusing when people use the word nutrients interchangeably.

You're absolutely right that deficiencies in micros can be devastating for a person's health. Actually tracking intake is difficult, and I'd be willing to bet that even those who follow paleo, ESPECIALLY those attempting weight loss while doing so, are not meeting their micronutrient intake requirements. That's only hot air until someone goes in and gets that checked, but I would sincerely like to know.

Another point because I can't get quotes from the next page; yes veggies are awesome, and a lot of us could do better by ourselves if we consumed more of them; you can however accomplish a diet that meets all macro and micro requirements without them, albeit I will say adequate vegetable consumption is more sustainable in the long run. I'm very confused as to what the rest of the noise is about. Is no one considering the possibility of putting VEGGIES on yo BREAD? Come on guys

I will say that I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation though! Let's continue being constructive.

[MMyers]

You list a variety of attempted dieting methods, but non of those methods you just listed represent a 'normal' vision of what healthy eating is seen as. For someone with health issues that can be fixed with a diet, I would personally NEVER perscribe atkins or low-carb or vegan. Just what your average every-day nutritionist would tell you to eat.

As with the doctors, you kinda prove my point. We can't fully believe the legions of doctors; we can't fully believe the guy making a stance all on his own either. There are still some wackos in the world that believe the earth is flat; should we give them our ear simply because they hold a controversial opinion? It is something you have to apply your own judgement to I suppose, but nothing about this solitary surgeon screams out enlightened revolutionary to me. I'm not blowing it off; rather, I don't think one doctor's opinion should be seen as equal in weight to everyone elses.

Looking at your omega-6 list, all it vaguely lists is 'grains'; this is after stating the body REQUIRES omega-6, but a lot of americans simply get too much of it. Before I even address the actual grain fat content issue, these omega-3 to 6 imbalances can be fixed with an increase in consumption of fish oil and reduction of visits to mcdicks. FAST processed food contributes more to these health problems in general; on that, I think we can agree.

But back to the grain fat content; I implose you to check any calorie counting food database and look at the fat contents of most grains; they have 1 or 2 grams per serving, if that, in general. I would hardly call 1 gram of omega-6 as very high, considering the optimal ratio is 4:1 6 to 3 or lower. We don't want to elimate omega-6 intake; simply control it.

And can we, as I think Waldo was trying to point out, make a notational difference between macronutrients (fat, carb, prot) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals)? I think that's where a lot of confusion is coming up. Either way, whole grains DO contain their fair share of micro nutrients, especially B vitamins.

Haha thanks! I will do my best to have fun and be safe/attain some happy medium between the two!

Anyway, I say it's a straw man, because as we are discussing now, he did not in fact attempt all other accepted healthy eating styles before finding paleo. So theoretically, he could have found that some other style of eating could have had the same results.

Not that I'm encouraging him to change; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm only saying that other avenues DO exist, and cannot be discounted thusly.

I believe I addressed most of these concerns about the docs above. Does this doctor have no fear of the same sanctions? Or is he a 'knight on a white horse' that cares not for personal reputation? I don't think any negative consequences arose from his taking of this stance, and so I don't see why other doctors wouldn't if it were true.

Also, what you say about vitamins as they were first made might be correct, but most multi-vitamins are optimized nowadays to correct for metabolic processing. We'd also be seeing an increased incidence in kidney trouble in populations that have been taking multis for a few decades now if they were simply being processed out, and we simply do not see that occuring.

Again, let's start using macro = fat, carbs, or prot, micro = vitamins and minerals; it gets very confusing when people use the word nutrients interchangeably.

You're absolutely right that deficiencies in micros can be devastating for a person's health. Actually tracking intake is difficult, and I'd be willing to bet that even those who follow paleo, ESPECIALLY those attempting weight loss while doing so, are not meeting their micronutrient intake requirements. That's only hot air until someone goes in and gets that checked, but I would sincerely like to know.

Another point because I can't get quotes from the next page; yes veggies are awesome, and a lot of us could do better by ourselves if we consumed more of them; you can however accomplish a diet that meets all macro and micro requirements without them, albeit I will say adequate vegetable consumption is more sustainable in the long run. I'm very confused as to what the rest of the noise is about. Is no one considering the possibility of putting VEGGIES on yo BREAD? Come on guys

I will say that I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation though! Let's continue being constructive.

Actually, I think he said he tried Vegan/Vegetarian (which is supposed to be very healthy) and a few others, including Pescetarian, regarding Loren's change. Fact is, part of Paleo is used to reduce inflammation, which he did, and nothing else brought him there. Maybe I'm remembering part of something else, but I doubt it. I don't see the issue with this example. And I still disagree about the straw man thing, my line of reasoning is: He needed to reduce inflammation, so he did it. If you want to call it illogical or taking things out of context because you don't like how he did it, then I just don't understand. But it's obviously an issue of point of view, so it's kind of useless to argue.

I actually got a lot more micronutrients when I ate Paleo, and I ate a lot less. It's all about just eating naturally, and just getting to a healthy weight, whether you need to move up (anorexia) or down (obesity) to get there. I still don't see how Paleo is getting so much hate though. Eating Paleo doesn't mean being in a permanent calorie deficit... that's just silly. (Not specifically talking to you, Mr. _rock, just in general to something that was said earlier)

I mean, most people love science, so evolution + health should be a no brainer. Besides, "Harvard School of Public Health Study Highlights Risk of Early Death from Red Meat" is just a headline that tries to sound scary. It's fear mongering.

EDIT: Oh, he said it up there in that post. D'oh

[MMyers]

As with the doctors, you kinda prove my point. We can't fully believe the legions of doctors; we can't fully believe the guy making a stance all on his own either. There are still some wackos in the world that believe the earth is flat; should we give them our ear simply because they hold a controversial opinion? It is something you have to apply your own judgement to I suppose, but nothing about this solitary surgeon screams out enlightened revolutionary to me. I'm not blowing it off; rather, I don't think one doctor's opinion should be seen as equal in weight to everyone elses.

This specific point, though, I want to address. Discounting somebody because they are in the minority with a controversial opinion isn't right... How much has the world changed because one person had a different opinion and decided to try something with it? If we just stuck to the mainstream, then humanity would be just a stagnant swamp with nothing to offer. History would be very different, and we would still be living in caves beating each other with sticks, ironically eating a perfectly Paleo diet.

[Philociraptor]

AJ: you're insulting us for single examples than using the one doctor as a single example against us. Pick one.

And no, doctors DO have a fear of sanctions, as evidenced by SEVERAL I have spoken with in the past 2 days who say alternative medicine practitioners actually have more power than them thanks to the governing bodies tying doctors' hands. Doctors in the Paleo movement can't prescribe against what the regulating bodies say. One doctor in Austin says the Texas Board has come after him 4 times to try and strip him of his license.

[Loren Wade]

The only people who want to eat more food with less calories are people who don't exercise enough.

I'm done debating. First you were rude to me, now you're trying to prove vegetables aren't as healthy. Haha.

[Philociraptor]

I'm done debating. First you were rude to me, now you're trying to prove vegetables aren't as healthy. Haha.

I think all we've proven is that none of us are changing our minds. We all have endless references to material to defend our points. In choosing how we eat we all take place in an n=1 experiment. We'll only really know who's right when we die. So go live how you want. If somebody wants to eat all junk food and understands they will live a short and painful life, so be it (not saying that's anybody on these forms, but people in general).

With that I'm done debating as well, no point in trying to convince somebody who's opinions on a topic are as deeply ingrained as yours on the other side.

[spatzcat]

i'm living the longest. bhahahahaha.

[llsoszynski@gmail.com]

(Just saying, wow, that was a great read)

[aj_rock]

AJ: you're insulting us for single examples than using the one doctor as a single example against us. Pick one.

And no, doctors DO have a fear of sanctions, as evidenced by SEVERAL I have spoken with in the past 2 days who say alternative medicine practitioners actually have more power than them thanks to the governing bodies tying doctors' hands. Doctors in the Paleo movement can't prescribe against what the regulating bodies say. One doctor in Austin says the Texas Board has come after him 4 times to try and strip him of his license.

What? I know for a fact that doctors can perscribe whatever they want, if they feel it will have a beneficial effect. Off-label use CAN be perscribed by doctors. Maybe the situation is different in Texas, but then again Texas isn't generally referred to as a bastion of open-mindedness in the first place. The only reason I use this single doctor is because this single doctor is what was offered as an example in the first place.

Look guys, far be me from suggesting that paleo is a terrible or even bad idea. I give a resounding yes to whether I think paleo is a great improvement over the typical western diet. I DO feel that it is overly restrictive; I fail to see the evidence that says that whole-grain products and dairy are going to kill me slowly inside. I also would not demonize red meat, as I easily eat a net of 5-6 servings of various 'red meat' items a week. I do see a lot of real world evidence of people who practiced limitation of junk food, ate 'healthy', including grains, and moderation in life, and managed to live seeing 100+ years of quality life.

Ok, I really do see this discussion winding down; we're starting to repeat ourselves; progress is being lost; feelings are being hurt.

If I had to TL;DR all my posts in this thread, it boils down to this.

- paleo like diets, while an improvement over the typical western diet, is overly restrictive compared to the actual diet required for optimal health for the majority of people

- moderate intake of all things, including junk, grains, vegetables, red meat, saturated fat, startrek, star wars, exercise; will lead best to a long, happy, fulfilling life.

- how exactly you choose to meet your body's requirements to function is your choice. You want to paleo, go paleo. You want to subsist on protein shakes and multi-vitamins, hey, whatever floats your boat. If, at the end of the day, you feel full of energy, optimism, and contentedness, then you must be doing something right.

That is all. Have a happy St Patricks weekend everyone

Edit to say: I'll PVP you on that spatz

[oystergirl]

I will just add the stress here for a few things so I can say that N=1 is really N=2 for Loren and I. We both have what would be termed auto-immune disease. lyme bacteria is a spyrochete that attacks the nervous system, immune system, cardiac and muscle/connective tissue. If you don't treat it, you will die...if you do treat it with intravenous Rocephin litterally strips you of immunity for quite some time. So much so that I am allergic to almost all antibiotics so I have to be extremely nurturing to my immune system. Eating regular food like a standard american diet I was completely a wreck. I dropped meat because at that point I was eating standard meat and I had a standard dairy issue--I was not aware of gluten at that time, but when I went raw vegan, which contains NO grain, I felt so much better. The thing about raw vegan is you can have serious problems being on it in the winter and especially if you have low immunity. I had some major issues with my reproductive system, issues with pain, sleep, lethargy and so I did more reading, more learning and found the Real Food movement, which was based on weston price and I transitioned to raw milk and that helped. I later fine tuned things when I found the Jamminet's perfect health diet and then finally Dr. Kurt Harris Archevore/Primal. I have never been paleo, and frankly I don't agree with the low fat Cordain stuff and while I think Mark Sisson has some wonderful ideas, some of his stuff is pure conjecture. When I want to know what early man ate, I simply check in with Bruce Ames and his nitrogen dating archeology which showed that humans were almost 100% carnivore with seasonal tubers and berries.

For auto-immune issues, primal works and it works fast. I feel 100% better eating this way. All my health issues with the exception of occassionally pushing it too far and getting some muscle cramps and not falling asleep easily are gone. I know that Loren's relief of symptoms must make him feel as grateful as I do. I have a friend who went the conventional medicine way and she is now on freaking long term opiates and looks like the walking dead. That is not life to me and I would much rather eat a certain way that I know is healthy for me.

Faith in a way of life helps to make the outcome positive. If you believe in what you are doing and it is working for you, do it. Certainly there is TONS of research out there pointing to or away from your way of life. There will always be that. It's up to you to choose, but certainly i think we can all agree that there are many ways to be healthy and no one really thinks its important to pig pile any one way.

[Loren Wade]

I think all we've proven is that none of us are changing our minds. We all have endless references to material to defend our points. In choosing how we eat we all take place in an n=1 experiment. We'll only really know who's right when we die. So go live how you want. If somebody wants to eat all junk food and understands they will live a short and painful life, so be it (not saying that's anybody on these forms, but people in general).

With that I'm done debating as well, no point in trying to convince somebody who's opinions on a topic are as deeply ingrained as yours on the other side.

I agree. And it's not even about changing people's mind. Don't go paleo. I don't care.

I'm sick of seeing red meat demonized when it's perfectly healthy (grass-fed).

[Zorch]

I agree. And it's not even about changing people's mind. Don't go paleo. I don't care.

I'm sick of seeing red meat demonized when it's perfectly healthy (grass-fed).

As another interesting topic for discussion(that might merit its own thread), there are a couple studies out there that, after adjusting for variations in overall red meat intake, found a significant negative impact from the degree to which red meat was cooked - i.e. significantly detrimental impacts from those who readily ate "well-done" red meat and the like. I haven't done as extensive literature review as I'd like, but my current opinion(with at least some basis in research) is that processed and overcooked meats(of all types) are far more unhealthy for you than red meat itself. It's not much of a stretch to say that red meats are overcooked(typically as a product of grilling or broiling) with much greater frequency than other meats/foods, and that this could be responsible for part of the findings related to the purported harmful effects of red meat. Still, I love a good steak on the grill, but I don't cook anything else beyond 325 or so under most circumstances.

[oystergirl]

One thing that is interesting about that Zorch is that folks were told to cook red meat to well done to avoid food poisoning because of the poor saniItation in feed lot meat. I ate plenty of grass fed steak tartare and have never had a problem with it. Protein denaturing can be a part of the issue, so rare is better--as can the oxidation of fat/charring which creates carcinogenic compounds. I generally pan fry my steaks in my big bertha cast iron pan and its super yummy!

[cacodaemonia]

I also find it interesting that while discussing wheat, not one person responded to my information about anti-nutrients. Wheat isn't just about carbs, it is a package of biochemical diversity that create a whole bunch of issues. Same with night shades, legumes, non-nixtomolated corn. It is in my mind a "no-brainer" to eat nutrient dense foods that have the least number of negative chemical reactions in my body related to me gaining the energy or macronutrients necessary for me to BUILD a body in optimal health.

I'd forgotten to reply to your post about anti-nutrients. I actually did a ton of research on trypsin inhibitors, phytic acids, and lectins several months ago. I was worried that the grains and legumes I was eating were possibly harming me, so I hunted down a lot of info and experimented with things like soaking grains for varying lengths of time, as well as sprouting them. I have a terrible memory and have forgotten a lot of the specifics, but here are some of the things I found out.

Lectin and Trypsin Inhibitors are found in legumes, nuts, and grains. They act to inhibit bacterial growth on the ungerminated seeds, and also to prevent animals from eating them, as they irritate the gastrointestinal tract when consumed uncooked beans. However, soaking/cooking/sprouting/fermenting significantly reduces the amounts of antinutrients present in the seeds. I know soy beans contain a lot of lectin and t-i, but if you eat tofu, which is fermented, you don't have to worry about them. This is not one of the articles I came across in my original research, but I just found it and thought you might be interested.

Phytic acid (as well as oxalic acid, which is found in a whole bunch of plants) binds to certain nutrients, like iron, zinc, calcium, and I think magnesium, making those nutrients impossible to properly absorb. As with lectin and t-i, though, processing the seeds by soaking/sprouting/cooking/fermenting reduces the amount of phytic acid. And interestingly, phytic acid is considered an antioxidant, so it has benefits as well as potential draw-backs. I'm one of those lucky people who has never (even when I ate meat) absorbed iron well. So after doing all this research I've concluded that I have to make sure I soak legumes for at least 24 hours, preferably longer, and in warm water. I also sometimes sprout whole grains that I use in baking, etc., just to make sure I get as much iron out of my foods as possible.

For a few months while I tried to figure out all this antinutrient business, I was eating almost no grains. After researching and experimenting, though, I've slowly increased my consumption of whole grains to about 2 servings most days. I haven't noticed any ill effects at all. Of course, that's just anecdotal evidence, but it works for me!

[oystergirl]

Yes, when I was a raw vegan, I sprouted every single seed I ate in an effort to avoid anti-nutrients. When I went back to eating more traditionally, I sprouted and soaked beans and wheat but still had major issues with them.

Funny, kinda yucky story. One day, I was having a big raw wrap for lunch and I must not have sprouted the beans for long enough because after about 15 minutes post meal time all of a sudden I felt this terrible fear and sweat started pouring down my back and I ran blindly for the bathroom where I power gakked for about 10 minutes. I then felt perfectly fine....no eaty raw beanies ever again!

[chairohkey]

Actually, you're right. It sound quirky but that's true.

Dr. Lundell, a world class surgeon, one of the few who operates on beating hearts, gave my Grandpa a quadruple bypass a few years ago.

This guy said in one of his books that he has done open heart surgery on thousands of patients. He said every single one had inflammation around the heart. All of them.

This is significant because what you say in jest is actually the truth. We have inflammation we're not aware of.

Loren I don't mean to discredit you and I'm happy for your grandpa, but with a record like this I would be skeptical of anything Dr. Lundell says.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html