At 07:27 PM 4/26/97 +0200, you wrote:

>we instinctos assume that heated whole cereals
>are probably worse than extracted (is this the
>right word?) cereals flours.

(processed).Yes, Karl, I'm aware of this--I was explaining the term "Better
than sliced bread". However,there is a great, vast quantity of data contrary
to the cooked cereal prohibition--I have largely eliminated wheat, 'tho I
wonder about soaking and THEN cooking, largely eliminating some of the
dietary culprits---but cannot yet discard my reading and study in this area,
considering the many cultures which thrive on cooked wholegrain rice and
much quickly cooked veg., plus small quantities of meat.

There are many examples of the contrary--eskimos eating largely raw meat,
for instance. It is simpler to make religious decisions when only one
preacher has been heard.

On another list a biochemist from Australia writes in answer to the
following statement:
>> there are good reasons to suggest
>>that starch is a relatively recent addition to human diets.

The reply:
>It intrigues me then, why humans have such extraordinary ability to secrete
>aplha-amylase, the starch digesting enzyme, present in both saliva and
>pancreatic secretions.  We have so much, that some biochemists call it
>alph-amylase overkill.

I very seriously wonder if this comment is not key to this debate on grain
and milk in the  diet: why is it so impossible to have biologically adapted
to them in the past 10,000 years? In the lab, mice can be manipulated in
just a few generations into biological variations. This concept has mired my
total acceptance of the instintive eating theory.

I've heard there may be no more than 100 instincto's in the U.S., if I
remember correctly--But there are perhaps a billion healthy Asian's whose
diet includes a great % of calories from wholegrain cooked rice. Up until
this point in time they have used old methods of cultivation--organic
manures and saving the seed of non-hybrid cultivars for culture. It remains
to be seen as to the health status after the chem-agri businesses get their
teeth sunk into their economy.It is clear that transfer to present American
eating habits has been detrimental to their health. I am not sure that it is
our basically understood diet (not fast food alley or even restuarant
eating) that is at fault, learned over generations and coped with by
personal economy, but insist it may just well be the political power and
greed, as always in history, which is undermining our natural right to
health by ignoring science and supporting business. We are dociley
permitting the rapid degrading of our planet, and it looks to become as
hostile as Mars if we remain quietly watching.

Somewhere there is a sound solution.I keep my options open, and believe in
moderation above all--the new "5-9 veg. and fruits per day" advice,
particularly raw, makes emminent good sense to me, with the caveat, warning
that this concentrates the pesticides, phytoestrogenic hormones, herbicides
and empty chemical fertilizers in our systems, if bought at the market.(Just
as the FDA neglects to consider the embryonic or small body of infants and
children in their tolerance levels). I keep preaching the value of at least
a 25'x50' garden in one's own yard, under one's own control, and do hope
there are listening ears who will choose this form of ultra healthy
excercise in lieu of jogging or TV surfing. Learning about the habits and
desires of the food one eats is a very satisfying hobby, and close to nature
too, quieting the mind.

I hope you are not to exhausted by my untiring expostulations, those of you
(if any) who have stuck to the bitter end!

Pat