siobhan <[log in to unmask]> wrote on 15.04.01 19:51:20:
>
>Charles wrote:
>
><<
>But I do not believe that whole wheat, stone ground, is harmful, and the
>bread does have a fairly low glycemic index, I believe.>>
>
>Hi Charles,
>
>  Have you read the interview at the link below?
>
>http://www.lifeservices.com/cordain.html
>
>Siobhan

Looking at the world shows that many peopleīs diet is based on cereals,
and they are allright, they eat the cereals in a traditional way of baking or cooking.
Cereals have many anti-nutrients inside, even a wheat grain wonīt be eaten by us.
So people must find ways of treating the cereals, that the bad properties were diminished.
Look at the different cultures, what they have done since began eating wheat or rye...
People are convenient, so why should they grind wheat so much, that the result is white
without the bran, which is said to be so good?
Early men experienced, that wheat bran is nothing for us, and try to make a bread without it.
See the italians and french white breads, everybody love it, but does everybody loves a breakfast
with overnight soaked wheatgrains for a long period?
Or the scottish people, they are cooking the oats.
For rye they find that the sourdough is the best to reduce the phytate-content.

For people, who have problems with cereals, like celiac or so, its good to avoid cereals,
but the others can consume it, when its traditional produced. And hereīs one another  problem,
because we have new sorts of grains, high tech grains, cultivate for best farming or
baking results, not farmed for best nutrtion.
Like paleonutrition, we canīt turn back the time.
We can only learn from tradition and try to make the best.



Jochen Schwarz

please excuse my english, Iīm thinking german and translate it, not so ideal.