Antinutrients, NT and Paleofoods - Page 2

[CluckyInAZ]

there is an article on the weston price website about the traditional Korean diet.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...rean_beef.html

According to National Cancer Institute data, Korean women have one of the lowest cancer rates in the world (64.9), slightly lower than that of Japan (78.1) and China (88.6), and considerably lower than that of the United States (109.7). For Korean men, the cancer rate falls in the lower middle range (150.3), almost equal to that of Japan and China and slightly lower than that of the United States (150.3) Rates for colon and rectal cancer for beef-eating Koreans are very low, as are rates for lung cancer, breast cancer and cancers of the reproductive organs. But Koreans have the highest rate of stomach cancer in the world. Irritants added to foods – such as talc in white rice – may account in part for high rates of stomach cancer, as well as the prevalence of smoking and consumption of alcoholic beverages, especially among Korean males. Koreans have a relatively high rate of liver disease, also possibly due to consumption of alcoholic beverages without the protective benefits of adequate saturated fat in the diet. The rate of ischemic heart disease is relatively low, about 21 per 100,000, compared to 66.8 in the United States. Average life span in Korea is 70 for men and 77.7 for women.

with one of the lowest total cancer rates in the world, I really wouldn't worry about the kimchi.

[provocativa]

I think the bias towards agribusiness negates the first link the op sites. The aim of that type of research is to be used in commercial farm feeding- the theory being if you give them phytase, you can feed pigs, cattle, and chickens a high grain diet they weren't normally meant to digest.
Also, check out this analysis of phytates in sourdough made with baker's yeast versus wild and other sourdough starters. http://www.emro.who.int/Publications...1_2/effect.htm
For me, I don't seem too have trouble digesting grains, but I think we should eat less of them than most Americans do. We still eat whole grain pasta once a week or so when I fail my dinner planning (sigh). I do love oxalate rich foods too much, and arthritis runs in my family, and I live in a kidney stone 'belt'- an area where folks get lots of kidney stones- the docs think it's the water (I say, water and diet). So calcifications are a concern here. I boil my beets a long time, but still love my chocolate, almonds and spinach, all high oxalate food!
Sometimes, it's important to step back from scientific research that seems contradictory and ask, as always: who profits, who loses, who decides.

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by provocativa

I think the bias towards agribusiness negates the first link the op sites. The aim of that type of research is to be used in commercial farm feeding- the theory being if you give them phytase, you can feed pigs, cattle, and chickens a high grain diet they weren't normally meant to digest.

Believe me, I always examine the motives behind any study, article or research. It's how I live my life - I never take anything at face value. However, I think it's dangerous to dismiss something for no other reason than you believe the organization responsible for it has biases. If the information is good, it doesn't matter where it comes from, IMO. All organizations have biases. Every last one of them. I can't dismiss all information, because none of it is reliable since everyone is biased. I have to sift through the information and determine what is supported by other information and what should be more closely examined.

This link doesn't even mention feeding animals. That's not what it is about at all. It's about how to get foods rich in micronutrients to the poor of the world. I would find it peculiar for them to use humans as the "guinea pigs" of research into how to feed animals. If this was an attempt to convince us that phytates are good for animals, they would've used animal models. It specifically discusses the problems with antinutrients, so this isn't an attempt to prove that feeding cattle, pigs and chickens (which aren't even mentioned) a high grain diet is a good option. It's only about whether breeding or genetically modifying antinutrients out of foods is a good choice. And I think it's worth considering that antinutrients may have beneficial effects to go right along with their detrimental effects.

[provocativa]

I'm sorry, but much of the research I've read about supplementing with phytases is geared towards agribusiness, and it seemed on first glance that this reseach has such implications, and it does. Research always has greater application than its intent, as well it should. But you're right, it's worse, because it advocates genetically modified food for poor people, rather than just their livestock. It is my belief that the 'U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14853' is in fact biased to an extent that yes, I am going to find their claims to be spurious. They are not generally trustworthy, and generally trustworthy phDs do not get funding from them. I don't think genetically modified food is a good idea, at all.