Hi Pat,

in your message from 4/28/97 02.09 you wrote:
>This is very interesting. I am inspired to ask: WHY?? Everything I read
>about it (other than raw-food) advises the superiority of whole grains over
>processed as far as density of nutrient is concerned. (We are talking here

My view of this case (processed wheat versus whole wheat):

The extracted white flour, that is normally used for making products,
consists of much less chemical compounds that the whole grain. Consider,
that the skin and sprout of grain consist of a lot of compounds (vitamins,
fat, minerals) while the body is built in a much simpler way. If we
assume that wheat isn't good for humans any way because it is too much cul-
tivated and should never be eaten in the amounts available today, it could
be possible, that our digestion system fights an ever harder fight if you
give it the full grain instead of a reduced set of molecules.
Does this sound reasonable to you?

If the whole grain also is heated (this wasn't totally clear to me from
your message) things even become worse: The higher the number of molecules
that are part of the chemical reaction, the higher the number of chemical
products, especially maillard-molecules. Therefore heated whole grain should
be much more toxic than heated white flour. Isn't it a big irony? The
whole grain dietists stress, that it is important to get all minerals etc.
from the whole corn. But they normally heat their food and therefore get
the opposite of what they wanted.
Life is funny although I can't say that I can laugh freely about this.

Stefan