On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:12:13 -0700, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Ralph Carabetta wrote:
>> but speculate that
>> because whole grains have more insoluble fiber they spend less time in
>> the digestive tract.
>
>Whole grains contain much of this fiber, mostly celulose.  That
>increasing the amount of this inert substance lowers the risk is not
>surprising.  Refined grains can be thought of as concentrated grain
>extracts.  If you took 1/3 of your bread away and replaced it with pure
>cellulose you would have the same result.  About 20 years ago a large
                ==========================
>bread manufacturer was caught doing exactly this.  It's "Hi
gh Fiber"
>bread was found to have been merely plain bread to which sawdust had been
>added.  Replacing all grain consumption with sawdust probally would
>produced even better results in the tests you mention.

To me reduced cancer risk is not at all astonishing since whole grain
consumption comes very close to a natural (yes, paleolithic) nutrition
in terms of fibers AND of vitamins.
Hmmm I personally would prefer that over sawdust. :-)

Unfortunately you are not right with your statement about refined grains.
Refining not just takes out the cellulose (fibers), but also
(most important) it's vitamin contents as well as most protein.
They are not "concentrated grain extracts". Rather they are
"only the starch of grain, loosing 90% of all vitamins, fibers and protein"!
Refining also cuts out  "Lignane" and "Isoflavionide" of grains which are
thought to have an add'l cancer pr
otection factor.
Refined grains are (like most other refined food items) the biggest
sickmakers. Unrefined go well.

I think as long as humans don't get enough fibers and vitamins in their
diet as in paleolithic times they should _not_ think of increasing their
protein consumption.

regards
Amadeus