Judy writes:
>Are you saying that white rice is more healthful than brown rice?  I didn't
>know there were anti-nutrients in brown rice!  (I don't eat it as a raw-y,
>but I used to from time to time.)

That has long been the contention of instincto and other
paleo-diets--though they would say that white rice is _less_harmful_ than
brown rice. Or put another way: if a grain is bad, then fractioned grain
would be less bad. Silly analogy: if "hands" are bad, then "only fingers"
would be less bad.

The idea is that since grains are such a late addition (5-10,000 ya) to the
human diet that we have not evolved the digestive wherewithal to deal with
them properly. If this is so, then the simpler (in terms of molecular
structures) white rice should be less problematic that the whole grain. The
grain germ holds the most complex structures (including the nutrients which
is all most people ever hear of). So, ironically, Wonder bread may turn out
to be "better" than whole grain bread--though neither is likely useful.

Who knows whether this will turn out to be supported by institutional
nutritionists in our lifetime, but there does seem to be plenty of research
supporting the idea that grains are problematic for humans, or at least
some humans.

Check out http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/paleodiet.html for more
references than you'll ever be able to follow up on regarding the problems
of grain consumption for humans. A web search on "paleodiet" or "celiac
disease" will likely yield heaps of info as well...

Cheers,
Kirt