PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:51:03 -0400
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (56 lines)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> >I didn't switch, but I inadvertently used enriched parboiled
> >rice.  The thiamin quotient for plain white rice is still .674,
> >higher than brown rice.
>
> Since we know, that the B-Vitamin complex is located in the germ and outer
> parts of a cereal grain it's astonishing, that even rice without these
> parts can have sufficient (or more??) of it.

Yes, I am astonished.

> I see. Probably the tables show niacin *equivalents*, which means the
> tryptophan part is counted as a (60 to 1) niacin source.

I doubt this, but when I get a change I'll read the USDA
documentation and try to find out.

> However, looking at the data of the anchell food, it appears, that my
> pyruvate decarboxylase complex vitamins are high in all permitted items
> (alpha lipoic acid not possible to check).
> So far ok for the diet from this POV.

Except for pears, which are low.

> And also high in some "forbidden" items (the fruit and vegetables).
> So it doesn't explain the enigma why certain things are forbidden.

Right.  I have to wonder if there is some "digestibility" factor
involved, but I don't know what it might be.  As others have
noted, the Anchell foods are relatively low in fiber (except for
raspberries); perhaps this is important.

> Isn't it this, what you already did on neanderthin?

Very seldom, and not for long.  When I tried this sort of
variation I would usually add greens of some sort (per the
recommendation of Troy Gilchrist).

> I mean was it the *addition* of a little anchell potatoe or rice what
> caused your loss? Or was it reduction on nuts?
> Or some unknown magic factor?

At this point, I think it was a combination of the reduction on
nuts, plus some magic.  When I look through various low-carb
support list archives, nuts seem to be legendary for stalling
weight loss or causing weight gain.  I have no idea why this
should be so.

My letter to Anchell is in the mail.  I hope he has answers.  I
shall also try to get a copy of another Pennington paper, this
one from the 1953 Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2