On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:01:29 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
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.

My own table displayed, that even partly processed grains
(as pasta, with 8% protein) had a much higher thiamin content, than the
.25mg (per 100g) that i assumed as the necessary rate.
Probably this (big and complex) structures are pre-formed in the grain in
expectation of the first incomeing sugar from the onsetting photosynthesis
in the very first growth stage.

Because of this in history, heating or processing in water of grains was
possible anyway. Or the first Linearbandkeramic neolithic wave could not
have taken over so rapid and successful.

>Well, three of the foods that I checked have thiamin quotients
>less than .25: apples, pears, and bananas.  Apples are the worst
>at .135.

I suppose, that any nature apple relative in the wild, or even simple
not so sweet bred varieties have a much better ratio as the .135

>I did niacin quotients as well...  The highest niacin
>quotient for an Anchell food was 18.9, for raspberries.  The
>lowest was pears, at .79. ...As you can see, the variability of niacin
>quotients was
>much greater than for thiamin quotients.

I see. Probably the tables show niacin *equivalents*, which means the
tryptophan part is counted as a (60 to 1) niacin source.
Which requires sufficient
Vitamin B6 and involves a encymatic work of it's own.

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.

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

>Yes, I don't think riboflavin is the rationale for the choice of
>foods, particularly since these non-meat foods are, after all,
>optional.  It is permitted to eat only meat.

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

Amadeus Schmidt