> Does anyone here know if raw grains are a
> healthful food to eat?

The other day on the web I stumbled upon a testimonial
for bread-type foods made from fermented, rather than
baked, dough. The claim was that the grain was more
digestible and more appealing as a result. It occurred
to me over the weekend how interesting I think this is
and so I have spent all day today looking for the
reference but with no success. Has anyone by chance
seen it or anything similar?

Anyway, since I have been very happy with my trials at
allowing meat to age in the fridge, I think this is
really worth some investigation. The impression I have
is that instead of using a foreign agent like yeast
you allow the enzymes in raw grain to predigest it. I
am not sure exactly how to begin experimenting - and
to get raw grain flour I'm probably going to have to
acquire a grain or coffee mill and grind my own - but
I'm going to give it a shot. In the meantime I'll also
keep searching for that testimonial, which I think may
have been an advertisement for a book.

I know of one place on the web that sells raw oat
groats. Does anyone know where to find other grains
like millet and kamut and buckwheat, raw? I'm guessing
it's safe to assume that any grain is steamed or
heat-processed unless otherwise labeled?

So on another note, my curiosity has become piqued
about different types of grain. I had been told some
time ago that buckwheat is not actually grain, that it
is botanically a fruit, although I don't know how
reliable that info is. I also found this essay at the
Price-Pottenger Foundation
(http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/quinoa.html)
which says, "Although Quinoa is thought of as a grain,
this annual herb is technically a fruit of the
chenopodium family."

Thus I am on the lookout for botanical and nutritional
distinctions between "modern" high-gluten grains such
as wheat and rye, and "traditional" ones like quinoa,
millet, and buckwheat. Anyone have any leads on this?

> Are grains a natural food for us? When considering
> that grains must be processed in order to make
> them edible -- hulled first (tedious work), then
> either soaked or cooked, it makes me wonder how
> "natural" they can be considered to be in one's
> diet, at least on a regular basis...

Since I have been mostly paleo for the past year part
of me says "no!!" - but the fact that grain is eaten
by almost every culture, including robust and
long-lived ones like the Hunzas, to me is a persuasive
argument. I personally would not use less than the
whole grain, because of the loss of nutrients when it
is refined, as well as the loss of bulk, which makes
it easier to overeat.

> If anyone has any certainty on this subject, I'd
> like to know.

Certainty-free,
Ratha :)                          ICQ number 18395425
                      http://www.angstrom.net/~ratha/
            "...therefore, if thou like, rain, O sky!"