On Sun, 6 Sep 1998 23:22:14 -0700, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Of course, there is the questions of what these vegetables replaced in
>the diet.  A recent study showed that consuming whole grains produced a
>33% benifit when compared to eating more refined ones.
Can you specify in which way these 33% could have been
measured? Some nearer sources or references to this study?

One grain is a little organism that consists of a
big energy storage (of starch) and a small peace containing the
real living thing.
Refinded grains more or less take away anything living, leaving almost only
the starch. This is then an ideal energy supply for the
average western meat-eater, who needs much pure *energy*, because
he gets all of his proteins from his meat.

But grain-processing - generating white flour, or white rice
for example- takes away about *90* percent of all vitamins
minerals, antioxidantioms, phytochemicals and protein (not just 33%).

>  As 33% of whole
>grains is not digestable (bran) this is not surprising!

This "undigestable" bran, also known as fiber,
is an ideal supply for our gut symbionts.
It *is* digested by *them* leaving us vitamins and
suppressing unwanted other bacteria in the gut/colon.
One of the main advantages of a paleolithic diet should be
to supply enough of fiber in the diet, as opposed
to the average western diet.

At least real paleolithic had a much bigger fiber intake
than not only todays average, but also today health
concious people. Maybe also neanderthins?

>Ray Audette

Amadeus Schmidt