[bright_eyes]

I stumbled across this article from a TF blog and am intrigued by it but also doubtful of what he is saying.
http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog...ten-intolerant

The author claims that we should not be eating whole grains but should be eating white rice and white flour that has been properly prepared (fermented). I have a hard time believing that whole grains aren't superiour to refined grains but he claims that the ancient, tried and true slow-ferment baking way rejected outright the germ and bran of grains. He says, for example, that white rice has been eaten millenia by Asians for a good reason and that if brown rice were healthier, they would be eating it.

Here's a quote from the article:

Quote:

From the early 1960's onwards, as a result of championing brown rice and wholemeal everything, we have given many deleterious substances totally unwarranted and misleading kudos. And we are suffering, en masse.

Thoughts? Opinions? Do you think there can be some truth to what he is saying?

FYI- he also has a book out and has quoted some chapters from it in the comment section that are interesting to read (#14, 32, and 69 have chapters from his book).

 

[JamieCatheryn]

Doesn't sound right to me. Of course, grains in general aren't great and we should be eating minimal amounts of them, and whole grains are hard to digest, but what about sprouting and soaking? Refined grains won't sprout that's for sure.

 

[PaulaJoAnne]

He does not sound very TF to me.
Granted, we do not eat grains the way we should in this modern day. Used to be that all grains were lightly sprouted while they were shocked in the field, and now they are just thrown straight into the dryers. Never mind that wheat today has 7 times the gluten that it used to.
And sourdough is considered "so old fashioned"!
All that to say, disregard that article, and if you feel up to it, maybe comment on his blog?

 

[ursusarctos]

Um, I don't know where this guy is getting his information, but he seems to be confused.
Indeed fermentation of bread dough is a very good thing, and most traditional doughs were fermented, for days even. (Before yeast came in packets, yk?

)
The author is also correct in that the poor of Europe used to eat "black bread" made mostly of the inedible part of the grain and the rich ate refined flour.
However, what is wrong with that and with modern "extra bran" products is the separation of parts of the grain, not the parts in themselves. There's nothing wrong with bran when it's part of a whole grain. By itself, it's not so great. And neither the heart of the grain, no matter how fermented it is. Doubtless the fermentation makes it more digestible, but refined grain is still largely empty carbs.
It is true that whole grains can be hard to properly digest, esp. due to the phytic acid. But that's where the fermentation of the dough comes in. Traditional sourdough rye dough in Finland was soured and let to rise for days, then slow cooked, resulting in very chewy, digestible whole-grain bread. A one-night fermentation, while fine for refined grain with yeast added, is not enough for whole grain with no added yeast. He seems to miss this point.
As for the rice thing, I thought I read somewhere that refined grains came to Asia via European colonizers? It was in an article on beriberi (thiamine deficiency; thiamine is found in rice bran). In any case, in Asia people eating white rice, without the bran, (richer people) were observed to have high percentages of beriberi, whereas poorer people who couldn't afford to eat refined rice did not. Someone finally made the connection when chickens fed white rice instead of their usual diet of "poorer" brown rice developed beriberi.
Also, what's with the comment, "If brown rice were healthier, they'd be eating it!" That's ridiculous. People are not known for consistently choosing the healthiest food - sourdough bread, for example, is healthier than conventional bread, but hardly anybody eats it! Not to mention that whole grain rice IS healther

:
I think this guy is trying to dispute the current "base your diet on unprocessed whole grain products and add bran the magic bullet to everything" trend, which is certainly valid. And it is true that fermentation aids digestibility. But he's going about it in a mighty odd way if you ask me...

 

[bella_stranger]

... I don't know, I know I don't do well with white flour, or any flour really. BUT I have heard that the benefit to milling out the endosperm or something makes it less allergenic or easier to tolerate for some dispositions.

would a white flour sourdough be considered TF?

 

[bella_stranger]

ursusarctos... mmm.... finnish rye bread! YUM we had some relatives bring some over to us a couple weeks ago, and it was awesome! flat and round with a whole in the middle.

I also know that french bread traditionally used to be hearty wholemeal sourdough dark brown bread..... trying to remember when the french stick became popular, something to do with a war I think!

 

[eastkygal]

Doesn't Fallon in NT say in her breads section that we should avoid eating the germ and the bran in grains?? I don't believe this guy totally, but I can see where he might get the idea after reading that. I'd still feel that whole grains have to be more TF than refined.

 

[hummingmom]

Traditional milling techniques have often removed some of the bran, but the results typically weren't comparable to modern refined grains. For instance, in Japan, rice could be milled to a variety of degrees of whiteness. As I understand it, those who could afford partially milled rice would usually choose it over 100% brown rice. Only the rich could afford snow-white rice, though.

In Europe, there was a similar situation with stone-ground wheat flour. It could be made whiter and "finer" by sifting it through a sieve or a cloth. This removed much of the bran, but AFAIK left most of the germ with its fat-soluble vitamins. Again, as this was a labor-intensive process, only the rich could afford the whitest flour. Still, I think it was pretty typical for just about everyone to sieve out the coarsest part of the bran, and feed it to the chickens or whatnot.

The modern techniques basically strip away everything, all the bran and the germ. At first, this was considered a good thing, b/c the flour or rice wouldn't go rancid. It was decades before people started realizing that these very refined grains were unhealthy. By that time, there was already a massive industry based on cheap-to-produce, easy-to-store grains, and it hasn't been easy to get people to switch back.

 

[425lisamarie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eastkygal Doesn't Fallon in NT say in her breads section that we should avoid eating the germ and the bran in grains?? I don't believe this guy totally, but I can see where he might get the idea after reading that. I'd still feel that whole grains have to be more TF than refined.

Not a Fallon follower, but I believe in her book she speaks against eating the components of the wheat/grain berry *separately.* As in you should eat the wheat berry in it's whole form, and not buy i.e., white flour, wheat germ, and bran all separately.

I don't get how eating refined anything could be even remotely primitive of people, since long ago there was not science or means of picking apart food to suit our needs.

 

[ursusarctos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bella_stranger ursusarctos... mmm.... finnish rye bread! YUM we had some relatives bring some over to us a couple weeks ago, and it was awesome! flat and round with a whole in the middle.

Guess what it's called? Literally "hole bread"

the Finnish language is so straightforward.
Hummingmom, thanks for the clarification. I always wondered how they used to get white flour pre-industrialisation and how it differs from today's white flour.

 

[hummingmom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ursusarctos Hummingmom, thanks for the clarification. I always wondered how they used to get white flour pre-industrialisation and how it differs from today's white flour.

You know what's kind of scary... I read through the article in the OP last night, and it sounds like the author isn't aware that there's a difference. He seems to be saying that the "plain flour" sold in stores is the same as the white flour that's been used throughout Europe for many centuries. In fact, traditionally milled white flour pretty much disappeared from Europe and North America in the 1800's, except for a few small-scale local operations. Unless things are very different down under, it sounds as if the flour he's using is actually the highly refined, machine milled type.

Here are some mills I've found that appear to produce traditional white stone-ground wheat or spelt flour, or medium rye flour. This is sometimes referred to as sifted, sieved, or bolted flour, or as "reduced bran flour." (It's not the same as the whole grain flour that's made from a white variety of wheat, as mentioned in Nourishing Traditions.) It sounds as if it would be ideal for making special treats using old-fashioned recipes, or for those who can't tolerate a lot of bran.

Balchedre Watermill, Churchstoke, UK

Sharpham Park, Somerset, UK

Lindley Mills, North Carolina

Upper Canada Village, Ontario -- this is a historic re-enactment site; I'm not sure if they offer the flour for sale

For those who can't find a local source, I wouldn't suggest trying to have it shipped, as stone-ground flour is quite perishable due to the presence of the germ. It really needs to be refrigerated and used within a few weeks (or frozen, for somewhat longer keeping). It might be okay if it's shipped in vacuum sealed foil bags, as is done with ground flax seeds. Of course, you can also rig up a system to sift flour you've ground yourself, using one or more fine mesh sieves. I don't know the details, but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult... though perhaps a little messy, what with all the flour dust. It might be a good thing to do outdoors, on a pleasant spring day.

Here's a page that describes the different types of products that might be made at a historic flour mill. It lists the mesh sizes that are needed to sift various grades of flour.

 

[LittleBlessings]

That does not sound right

 

[hummingmom]

Interesting article about the movement to revive local hand-milling of rice in Thailand: The Rice Girls. The journalist calls it "brown rice," but from everything I've read elsewhere, a significant amount of the bran is removed during the hand-pounding. The result is more of a "beige rice," like the kind that was commonly eaten in Japan until highly polished rice became cheap and widely available.

By contrast, here's a video showing the operation of a mechanical rice mill. It's obviously more efficient -- the rice is jiggled along conveyors, rather than pounded in a single batch, so much less of it gets broken. It all comes out pure white... and devoid of the nutrients found in the outer layer.

There's a similar situation in rural India. Here's a picture of an Indian foot-powered rice pounding machine, called a Dhenki. The Dhenki has evidently been around for many centuries, and I've read that it has special spiritual significance to Hindus.

It also turns out that rural parts of Japan (and even some suburban areas) still have coin-operated rice mills, called seimaijo, where rice can be polished to your preference... so it's not just a choice of 100% brown vs. highly polished. I've read that there are also home models available, though I can't find any information about them. Given that we're off gluten, and I'd like to avoid feeding my children lots of bran, that's something I'd love to have.

BTW, in Japan, the left-over rice bran is used as a fermenting medium for making a special type of pickle, or else used as fertilizer. In some places, it's used for animal feed (as is mentioned in the article about Thailand). I don't know of any traditional cultures where it's actually eaten by the people. As for adding a scoop of rice bran to gluten-free baked goods... as is recommended in some GF recipe books... all I have to say is, blecch.

 

[hummingmom]

Also wanted to add that parboiling of rice (i.e., partially cooking & drying it, before husking it) is an ancient practice in some parts of India. This preserves a lot of the nutrients that would otherwise be lost during milling, because the steaming process drives them into the middle of the rice.

In the US, parboiled rice is widely sold as as "converted rice," e.g. Uncle Ben's. It's a fairly good compromise, nutritionally speaking, and I'd be comfortable with using it as an everyday rice if we could get an additive-free kind. I'd prefer the semi-polished rice, but since we have such a nutrient-dense diet overall, I think either one would be okay -- and I'd consider them both traditional foods.

Unfortunately, the commercial brands of converted rice I've found are all "fortified" with things that our family prefers to avoid: synthetic vitamins, iron, etc.

: