Buying an iPad sounded like such a good idea....such a great treat!!
I picked out a snazzy white one with an orange cover. I had the Apple people set it all up for me and I walked out with an amazing excitment.
That excitment was tempered by the fact that it didn't connect to the internet later that day. It was temepered even further when I got home and it still wasn't connecting. I was getting downright pissed when I spent almost an hour and a half on the phone with both AT&T and Apple until finally a very nice supervisor came in and fixed the problem.
Whew.
Anyhow...this blog is NOT coming live to you from a new iPad because it is now way too late. And 5am will be here too too quick. So I am crying technical difficulties until I can get back online.
Eat well and enjoy!
5 Agustus 2011
4 Agustus 2011
Cutting out the insurer
While I am not a fan of the AMA in its current structure, I do think that the idea of eliminating Big Insurance is something whose time has come many years ago, but now AMA is noticing. It is certainly long overdue.
This has been around in some parts of the country for a dozen or more years. Doctors and patients like it.
For those who don't get it or refuse to consider it, thrid party billing is more damaging to health care than tort reform: it is the root problem.
By Doug Trapp, amednews staff. Aug. 1, 2011.A small but enthusiastic minority of primary care physicians believe they have found a practice model that can save money, improve patients' long-term health and drastically reduce administrative hassles: direct primary care.Direct primary care practices are an offshoot of the retainer care model, which provides unlimited or less-restricted access to physicians for a set fee. Under direct primary care, patients pay a monthly fee -- sometimes less than $100 -- for unlimited access to a range of primary care services, possibly as complex as minor surgeries and x-rays. Patients at these practices are encouraged to have basic health insurance to pay for specialist and hospital care, otherwise uninsured patients pay out of pocket for care outside the practice. read more
Selection from Natural Health News
VETS: PTSD Gets No Benefit from Antipsychotic
The one major concern many have is that the reason the Rx fail veterans with PTSD is that the core cause is exposure to depleted uranium in the war zone.
Our organization has recently worked with some attorneys regarding this issue.
By Charles Bankhead, Staff Writer, MedPage TodayAugust 02, 2011Military-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) showed no response to risperidone (Risperdal) for antidepressant-resistant symptoms, data from a multicenter Veterans Affairs study showed.Risperidone-treated patients had about a four-point greater improvement on a PTSD scale than did those who received placebo, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance.Detailed analysis showed no significant difference between groups at any point during the six months of follow-up, John H. Krystal, MD, of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, and co-authors reported in the Aug. 3 issue of JAMA. read more
from Natural Health News
Sep 10, 2007
The major concerns behind this effort, even though the oldest vet we have helped is 85, are depleted uranium, PTSD and traumatic brain injury(TBI). I watched how little is done for the returning vets in a news story ...3 Agustus 2011
Top 10 Aruguments Against Water Flouridation
The following information was taken from http://www.fluoridealert.org Please visit their site to view even more reasons! Fluoride should NOT be taken lightly and ANY medication in out water supply is dangerous!
- Fluoridation is a violation of the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
- Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No biological process in animals or humans has been shown to depend on it. On the contrary, it is known that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes and vital cellular constituents, such as enzymes and G-proteins. This makes fluoride potentially toxic even at low doses.
- Children in fluoridated countries are greatly over-exposed to fluoride. When fluoridation began in 1940s, 10% of children were expected to develop dental fluorosis (damage to the enamel involving discoloration and/or mottling) in its very mild form. Today, the prevalence in fluoridated countries is much higher—41% of all American children aged 12-15 are now impacted with some form of dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010), with over 10% in categories (mild, moderate and severe) that may need expensive treatment.
- The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry. These chemicals cannot be disposed of into the sea by international law, and have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world. The U.S. FDA classifies fluoride as an "unapproved drug."
- There is mounting evidence that swallowing fluoride causes harm. Fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis). There are now 24 studies that show a relationship between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and reduced IQ in children. Two of these studies suggest that the threshold for damage may be reached at fluoride levels similar to those used in water fluoridation.
- Swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to the teeth. Even promoters of fluoridation agree that fluoride works topically (on the outer surface of the teeth), and not via some internal biological mechanism (CDC, 1999). A recent U.S. study found no relationship between the amount of fluoride a child ingested and level of tooth decay (Warren et al., 2009). Topical treatment in the form of fluoridated toothpaste is universally available, so it is a mistake to swallow fluoride and expose all the tissues of the body to its harmful effects.
- Human breast milk is very low in fluoride. Breast milk averages only 0.007 ppm F (NRC, 2006). Even in areas with high fluoride levels, nursing children receive only a small fraction of the mother's fluoride intake, ensuring that the sensitive brains and bodies of breast-fed infants are protected from the developmental effects of this toxin. In contrast, a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated area (0.7-1.2 ppm F) gets up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby, resulting in an increased risk of dental fluorosis and other adverse effects.
- Once fluoride is added to water, there is no way to control who gets the drug or how much is ingested. No medical follow-up or monitoring of fluoride levels in citizens' urine or bones is being carried-out by health agencies and so no record is being kept of adverse effects or daily or accumulated exposures.
- Certain subgroups are particularly affected by fluoridation. People vary considerably in their sensitivity to any toxic substance, including fluoride. Infants, the elderly, diabetics, those with poor nutrition (e.g. low calcium and low iodine), and those with kidney disease are especially vulnerable to specific adverse effects of fluoride. Black and Mexican-Americans have a higher prevalence of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis (see Table 23, CDC, 2005).
- Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes. People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures (reverse osmosis or bottled water), or treatment of dental fluorosis (see Point 3) and other fluoride-related ailments (see Point 5).
2 Agustus 2011
Meet Jolene Galbreath, PhD
What if you needed a doctor? What if you could choose a doctor that had the same values as you? Someone who believed that whole foods were the best medicine? What if your doctor could give you top notch breastfeeding advice from both professional and personal experience? What if you knew that your doctor had had a VBAC at home because she believed that was the best choice for her and her family? What if this doctor also had a degree from a very well respected medical college like Kings College of London? What if such a doctor was winding her ways through the halls of medicine right now, but because she was an adult, a mother, she didn't qualify for most traditional student loans. What if there was a way that you could help such a doctor?
Meet Jolene Galbreath. I met Jolene in 1993 during my first year in high school. She was in the grade ahead of me and we became friends. I was always impressed with Jolene's drive, trustworthiness and honesty. She worked very hard in school (much harder than I did) and her grades were stellar. Upon graduation she found herself in the United Kingdom and went on to receive a PhD in biology from the University of Leeds. She and her husband, David, have two young boys. The first was delivered by cesarean section and the second was a VBAC homebirth assisted by a midwife because Jolene believed that if she went to the hospital, she would end up with another c-section.
Her experiences giving birth and caring for her children have made her realize that the medical profession is where she belongs. She believes that access to health care should be equitable and affordable to all. I rather agree. Denying care or giving lower quality care to someone who has fewer means is ethically wrong. Yet it happens every day. Between aggressive modern obstetrics that relies upon medical intervention, poor breastfeeding instruction and support, and venomous self serving formula companies, there are many obstacles for women to overcome when they bear children. And not every pregnant woman is educated enough about her options to navigate such a path and make a choice that is truly her own. Jolene felt that studying traditional western medicine was her opportunity to add value to an area that could desperately use some.
Recently Jolene and her family moved from Aberdeen in Scotland further south to Bristol. And even more recently she was accepted to the Kings College London as a medical student. She will begin commuting from Bristol to London every day to take her classes. Her plan is to write a book about being a wife and mother and non-traditional medical student for others who may be considering a similar path. Having children should be a labor of love or an added layer of experience and responsibility to one's life, but they should not be permanent road blocks to any mother.
Jolene has started a blog to document her journey, White Coat, Bluestocking. Being an older non-traditional student, she is ineligible for most grants and student tuition loans. While she has secured her tuition money through her own networks, she is currently searching for funding for her extensive commute. Like any smart working mother, she is planning on utilising the commute time to work on her studies and to write her blog and book. As an equally driven woman, I am very impressed by her drive, desires, vision and constitution.
Through a link on her blog, she has set up a page at Crowdfunder. Jolene is looking for 8000 pounds for her studies. The program is 5 years long and this should cover her commuting costs. With Crowdfunder, you can pledge large but also small amounts, 10 and 20 pounds if you please. BUT...Crowdfunder only releases the monies if the goal has been reached. Jolene currently has over 6500 pounds to go, and 40 days to do it in. I felt that given her commitment to limited medical intervention and natural living, I wanted to do everything I could to get the word out about her case.
Take a moment today to check out Jolene's blog and hear her story in her own words. Please donate if you are able, or share on Facebook or Twitter. Imagine if more doctor's were like Jolene? Imagine if you could go to the doctor without apologizing for deferring a shot, or not feel bad for investigating and asking questions? Think of all the times you have been seen by a doctor that didn't listen to the whole story of what was the matter, or simply wouldn't listen. Jolene is the kind of person that can make a difference in other's lives. She is smart and capable and she has natural ,non-processed values. That is the kind of doctor that I want to say is my primary care physician. So please, if you are able, help.
I asked Jolene to say a few words about where she has come from, where she is and where she is going...
In between the two boys, I became involved in the National Childbirth Trust As a consequence of our difficulty accessing good help with breastfeeding, I decided that it was an area that I could give back. Because I firmly believe that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (even more so when it is coupled with good intentions and a bit of survivor syndrome), I decided that I needed to do this properly and I started training with them to complete a diploma in breastfeeding counseling (with the University of Bedfordshire). I have nearly completed the course and will continue to volunteer with them.
My interest in maternal and fetal health has grown out of my background as an evolutionary biologist and parasitologist, my feminism and my personal experiences. (Whenever I think that perhaps I'm not needed in the system, I visit a blog like 'My OB Said What' or 'The Unnecessarean' or any on the state of the NHS and I realize that I'm just what's needed).
I think that my scientific qualities give me a level headedness and competence while my empathy and sense of self allow me to hear the patient and to be comfortable with the idea that they own their health. I think that paternalism (and perhaps kyriarchy, but that is something I am not yet educated enough in to explore fully) is particularly prevalent in the delivery of health care. I am certain that I think that this is common for many patients, but particularly women and minorities. Clearly, I think that benevolent paternalism is a poor method of healthcare provision. But, I ramble.
In Aberdeen, I shared a community garden with another amazing and inspirational family. At this point, we started moving away from just buying organic veg boxes and whole foods because they were touted as healthy to paying more attention to issues of sustainability as well. It has also, honestly, been great for us and the kids to grow the food that we eat. We're on our second lot of chickens (the first were served as our going away meal when we left Aberdeen-that may be too much information :) ) and the boys love feeding them scraps and collecting their eggs.
At the moment, I think that I will head into the Ob-Gyn /perinatology world. I would love to work in perinatology. My interest is in how the 9+9+9 months surrounding the birth of a child affect both the mother and child's lifelong health and well-being. I also think that I would be an able surgeon and that surgery would match well with my skills and personality. It would be an opportunity to have the best of both worlds.
I think that there is so much evidence that this 27 month period is very important, to the extent that your mother's in-utero experience will influence your development. Amazing stuff. I would love to run a unit someday where people (patients and staff), biology and evidence are respected. I think that the three are not at odds; perhaps they are only at odds with the funding models :)
Of course, it depends very much how the boys cope with my training and on the positions that are available when I graduate. I am by no means limiting my interests at this point! If the strain is too great, then I will become a general practitioner specialising in women's and children's health.
Thanks Jolene! I truly hope that we can make this happen! And thank you guys for reading and helping!
This post is shared with Traditional Tuesdays and Simple Lives Thursdays
Meet Jolene Galbreath. I met Jolene in 1993 during my first year in high school. She was in the grade ahead of me and we became friends. I was always impressed with Jolene's drive, trustworthiness and honesty. She worked very hard in school (much harder than I did) and her grades were stellar. Upon graduation she found herself in the United Kingdom and went on to receive a PhD in biology from the University of Leeds. She and her husband, David, have two young boys. The first was delivered by cesarean section and the second was a VBAC homebirth assisted by a midwife because Jolene believed that if she went to the hospital, she would end up with another c-section.
Her experiences giving birth and caring for her children have made her realize that the medical profession is where she belongs. She believes that access to health care should be equitable and affordable to all. I rather agree. Denying care or giving lower quality care to someone who has fewer means is ethically wrong. Yet it happens every day. Between aggressive modern obstetrics that relies upon medical intervention, poor breastfeeding instruction and support, and venomous self serving formula companies, there are many obstacles for women to overcome when they bear children. And not every pregnant woman is educated enough about her options to navigate such a path and make a choice that is truly her own. Jolene felt that studying traditional western medicine was her opportunity to add value to an area that could desperately use some.
Recently Jolene and her family moved from Aberdeen in Scotland further south to Bristol. And even more recently she was accepted to the Kings College London as a medical student. She will begin commuting from Bristol to London every day to take her classes. Her plan is to write a book about being a wife and mother and non-traditional medical student for others who may be considering a similar path. Having children should be a labor of love or an added layer of experience and responsibility to one's life, but they should not be permanent road blocks to any mother.
Jolene has started a blog to document her journey, White Coat, Bluestocking. Being an older non-traditional student, she is ineligible for most grants and student tuition loans. While she has secured her tuition money through her own networks, she is currently searching for funding for her extensive commute. Like any smart working mother, she is planning on utilising the commute time to work on her studies and to write her blog and book. As an equally driven woman, I am very impressed by her drive, desires, vision and constitution.
Through a link on her blog, she has set up a page at Crowdfunder. Jolene is looking for 8000 pounds for her studies. The program is 5 years long and this should cover her commuting costs. With Crowdfunder, you can pledge large but also small amounts, 10 and 20 pounds if you please. BUT...Crowdfunder only releases the monies if the goal has been reached. Jolene currently has over 6500 pounds to go, and 40 days to do it in. I felt that given her commitment to limited medical intervention and natural living, I wanted to do everything I could to get the word out about her case.
Take a moment today to check out Jolene's blog and hear her story in her own words. Please donate if you are able, or share on Facebook or Twitter. Imagine if more doctor's were like Jolene? Imagine if you could go to the doctor without apologizing for deferring a shot, or not feel bad for investigating and asking questions? Think of all the times you have been seen by a doctor that didn't listen to the whole story of what was the matter, or simply wouldn't listen. Jolene is the kind of person that can make a difference in other's lives. She is smart and capable and she has natural ,non-processed values. That is the kind of doctor that I want to say is my primary care physician. So please, if you are able, help.
I asked Jolene to say a few words about where she has come from, where she is and where she is going...
In between the two boys, I became involved in the National Childbirth Trust As a consequence of our difficulty accessing good help with breastfeeding, I decided that it was an area that I could give back. Because I firmly believe that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (even more so when it is coupled with good intentions and a bit of survivor syndrome), I decided that I needed to do this properly and I started training with them to complete a diploma in breastfeeding counseling (with the University of Bedfordshire). I have nearly completed the course and will continue to volunteer with them.
My interest in maternal and fetal health has grown out of my background as an evolutionary biologist and parasitologist, my feminism and my personal experiences. (Whenever I think that perhaps I'm not needed in the system, I visit a blog like 'My OB Said What' or 'The Unnecessarean' or any on the state of the NHS and I realize that I'm just what's needed).
I think that my scientific qualities give me a level headedness and competence while my empathy and sense of self allow me to hear the patient and to be comfortable with the idea that they own their health. I think that paternalism (and perhaps kyriarchy, but that is something I am not yet educated enough in to explore fully) is particularly prevalent in the delivery of health care. I am certain that I think that this is common for many patients, but particularly women and minorities. Clearly, I think that benevolent paternalism is a poor method of healthcare provision. But, I ramble.
In Aberdeen, I shared a community garden with another amazing and inspirational family. At this point, we started moving away from just buying organic veg boxes and whole foods because they were touted as healthy to paying more attention to issues of sustainability as well. It has also, honestly, been great for us and the kids to grow the food that we eat. We're on our second lot of chickens (the first were served as our going away meal when we left Aberdeen-that may be too much information :) ) and the boys love feeding them scraps and collecting their eggs.
At the moment, I think that I will head into the Ob-Gyn /perinatology world. I would love to work in perinatology. My interest is in how the 9+9+9 months surrounding the birth of a child affect both the mother and child's lifelong health and well-being. I also think that I would be an able surgeon and that surgery would match well with my skills and personality. It would be an opportunity to have the best of both worlds.
I think that there is so much evidence that this 27 month period is very important, to the extent that your mother's in-utero experience will influence your development. Amazing stuff. I would love to run a unit someday where people (patients and staff), biology and evidence are respected. I think that the three are not at odds; perhaps they are only at odds with the funding models :)
Of course, it depends very much how the boys cope with my training and on the positions that are available when I graduate. I am by no means limiting my interests at this point! If the strain is too great, then I will become a general practitioner specialising in women's and children's health.
Thanks Jolene! I truly hope that we can make this happen! And thank you guys for reading and helping!
This post is shared with Traditional Tuesdays and Simple Lives Thursdays
1 Agustus 2011
Too Many Choices, Too Many Pounds
I thought that this information gave a good perspective on eating. Portion sizes are something I think people need to learn about. I also think that the over abundance of choices is a double edged sword. Too many of all these items at your grocer are made with low level ingredients. You aren't getting the best nutrition from them. Your loss of nutrients is also a factor in the weight game.
From SuperMarket Guru -
The average supermarket has over 50,000 products, the choice can be overwhelming and researchers are finding that the abundance of food choices (not only in supermarkets but all around us) promotes excess consumption. Could the variety of choices we have access to actually be fueling the obesity crisis? In an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition researchers from the University of Florida suggest that diversity in menus could be promoting excess consumption and increased body mass index.The article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is in response to a study from the State University of New York at Buffalo, where researchers found that both obese and non-obese women who were given macaroni and cheese daily, for five days reduced their intake, compared to those who were given macaroni and cheese once a week for five weeks. The authors of this study concluded that people loose interest in their food when repeatedly exposed to the same item; a behavior known as habituation.To a similar tune, another study found that changing the number of colors in a bowl of M&Ms from seven to ten different colors, increased consumption by over 40 percent!
Researchers also say that the findings are particularly significant for people who may suffer from food addiction. Meal monotony, with proper nutrition, could be used as a weight-loss strategy, dimming the appetite and therefore reduce calorie consumption.But let’s face it; a life without variety could be very boring. SupermarketGuru encourages you to listen to your body and be aware that we are always surrounded by food cues, so take a step back and ask yourself if you are really hungry and how much you are hungry for.
Do I Really Need To Soak My Grains?
Several weeks ago now I had the pleasure of staying up until an obscene hour with an old dear friend and talking like a couple of girls who didn't have to wake up at 6 in the morning with four kids between us. I love food, MS loves food. We both agree that the best food is real and non-processed.
Admittedly, while I just preach about real food of the mostly non-chicken nugget variety, MS really lives it, organ meat and all. Living abroad in a country where most milk, meat and vegetables are grass fed and organic by default because the local farmers are too poor to buy feed and fertilizer, MS takes non-processed to the max. It is quite inspiring. MS is quite versed in soaking her grains and flours but as we talked, I lamented my inability to soak my own grains. I understand why one soaks grains, to make them easier to digest. But every morning I wake up ready to make some baked oatmeal (or mmmmmm oatmeal blueberry muffins) only to realize that I have forgotten to soak the oatmeal the night before. I know I could just go ahead and proceed, but I really want to try the soaking. It seems exotic to make soaked flour pancakes. And many texts have lead me to believe that there are no redeemable qualities to unsoaked grains. They are all gut damaging, blood sugar spiking beasties.
But, I have some issues with the idea that grains are useless unless soaked overnight. It just doesn't all add up to me. If soaking grains is so traditional, how come it doesn't survive in a single recipe that I have come across? Everyone still soaks dried beans because just cooking them from their hard state takes forEVER. And if you want to try it for shits and giggles, improperly soaked beans will make you quite the gas machine. Sadly, I have that issue everytime I eat beans in a restaurant. Just about every restaruant out there cooks their beans too hot and too quickly. And while they feel edible on your tounge, they will leave your bowels (and possibly your personal pride) ravaged. But while soaking beans is pretty common from Maine to Mexico, I don't know of any great grandmother that left flour mixed in yogurt sitting on her countertop overnight. Please, my great grandmother had probably never heard of yogurt. And yes I have heard stories about Quaker Oats long ago coming with the instruction to soak the oats overnight. But never have I heard of a text confirming such a story with some first hand account. This soaking thing is really a new concept to me.
I am NOT being difficult, I promise. I just wonder why I haven't heard of the traditional practice of soaking flour until now. The whole premise is that soaking whole or ground grains (better known as flour) in warm salt water or an acidic liquid like keifer, yogurt or even just water with whey sort of pre-digests those nasty lectins or antinutrients and phytic acid found in grains. These antinutrients are substances within the grains that inhibit you from digesting all the nutrition that the grain has to offer. This phenomenon is a defence mechanism of the plant. The seed does NOT want you to chew it up and digest it. It gains nothing from that. So the plant gives us a reason to not want to eat it at all so that it's seed can stay intact. When you eat the grain, it upsets your tummy a little and you get little if any nutrition. This is quite true of raw grains. You would never eat a grain raw, gross. It is worth noting that these antinutrients are found in the bran, which has been removed from white flour. White flour has easily been produced since the mid 1700's, so it is possible that any recipes that included soaking have long been lost (see my post A Brief History of Refined Flour). But the truth is...I don't know. The typical Western diet is not high in these lectins and phytic acid because the typical Western Diet is not high in WHOLE grains. White flour doesn't need to be soaked because it does not contain the bran, which contains the problem antinutrients. So no research has really been done here.
But while you might never eat a raw grain, what does regular ole' cooking do for grains? I certainly don't get an upset tummy from eating a slice of bread made from flour that has not been soaked. The collective opinion is that standard cooking renders some of the nutrition in whole grains available, but not all. Soaking your flour in some acidic medium is said to render more if not all of the nutrition available because the antinutrients are 'pre-digested'. BUT...my biggest issue is, no one seems to know how much nutrition we are really getting with either preparation method. Are you digesting only 30% of the available nutrients of the unsoaked grains and over 90% of the soaked variety? Or are you getting 80% of the available nutrients of the unsoaked grains and 95% of the soaked ones? Does anyone actually know? (By the way, that is not a rhetorical question, if you do think you know, will you please comment?? I am truly interested.)
All I am saying is that I have had a hard time remembering to soak my grains and an equally hard time quantifying how much this soaking will benefit me. And if I didn't obsess about these pithy details, why on earth would you read this blog?
Then recently, to add to my confusion I recently read a blog post from another blogger (who I cannot find now) that explained that the calcium found in fermented dairy products inhibits your ability to digest the nutrients found in flour. This blogger suggested that one should soak their flour in only warm water with a little salt. Then to add even more feul to my fire, Dr. Mercola recently published an article that stated that sprouted grains had some of the highest lectin content out there. He was challenging the notion that sprouting or soaking grains is really worth it. He states, "The sprouts of grains such as wheat, maize, and rye are increasingly being consumed as health foods, and are also used for the production of dietary supplements. However, sprouted wheat actually contains the highest amounts of wheat lectin (WGA)—which is responsible for many of wheat's ill health effects! And that's not all. These sprouts (wheat, maize and rye) also contain benzoxazinoids (BAs). Benzoxazinoids are part of the plants' defense system against pests, and are actually toxic components..." Dr. Mercola does admit that there isn't enough evidence to state that sprouted grains are actually dangerous. And I will continue to buy sprouted grain bread.
Add to these articles, author Rebecca Wood recently published an article in her interesting monthly newsletter that came largely to the conclusion that I have. In her great article Best to Soak Grains? Wood details why one would soak their grains but also the textural changes that grains will undergo as they are soaked. Oatmeal left to soak overnight become more gummy and soft. Some people may love such a texture, others not. Wood states that there are many great reasons to soak one's grains, all of which I have mentioned here. But she also says, "Possibly the advice of some contemporary food writers to soak all grains, seeds and nuts—and even their flours—is a tich overboard. There’s no precedent for soaking almond flour. Taking one bit of information (soaking is best) and carrying it to a time intensive and new-fangled extreme has a fundamentalist ring to me."
It has occured to me that to obsess over the proper way to soak grains may be missing the point. Many of us have been guided to traditional foods because they offer a way to eat intuitively. For me, shunning processed foods has helped me to eat more nutritious foods, but also to stop obsessing over numbers and nutrition panels, Vitamin D content and antioxident availability. I know that when I eat non-processed whole foods I can trust that the natural combinations of vitamins will be right in order to help my digest my food. When I choose whole milk that has been only minorly pasteurized I know that there will be enough fat to help me absorb the Vitamin D. Whole foods have evolved over time to have the most natural chemical structures with nutrients that work together. When we isolate individual vitamins and take them in excess, such as in supplements, we might find that they may not work as well, or that our bodies don't absorb them at all. Worrying about soaking, or becoming preoccupied with the VERY best way to soak one's grains to make them as close to 100% digestable as possible is actually just as obsessive as worrying about saturated fat and counting calories. In eating whole foods I should be able to simply trust that the food is right. Or that it is just as it should be.
Soaking does render the grain more easy to digest. But while soaking grains may be good, unsoaked grains aren't a waste of your time. If you do not suffer from some compromised digestive disorder and you are not a candidate for the GAPS diet, your gut can digest cooked, but unsoaked grains and flour, it just doesn't get as much nutrition from them. And I don't buy into the idea that the vast majority of the population has a digestive sensitivity to grains. Numerous websites all agree that only about 15% of the population is sensitive to the most allergenic grain, wheat. And every now and then I come across a blogger that tells their mass following that wheat is bad for everyone. That is so not true. If you have some health problems wheat intolerance and digestive health is worth considering. But if you are healthy like me, wheat is probably not causing you any trouble at all.
That being said, grains, even soaked grains should not be the foundation of our diet. Regardless of whether it is wheat, rice or corn, two servings per meal with some extra in between isn't a good idea for just about everyone. I feel best when I have 1-3 servings of grains per day. They give me some great energy, so no grains often leaves me feeling tired and unenergetic. But too much makes me feel run down and strung out. Soaking may be good for the digestability, but it doesn't transform grains into something that you should be eating all day every day. Grains simply have their place in our diet behind protein foods and fresh vegetables. So I will try my damnest to soak my flour and oatmeal. But when I forget to soak my flour the night before, I will probably still wake up the next morning and make my muffins.
Also read : Soaking Grains, Healthbanquet.com
Gluten Sensitivity, Wikipedia
UPDATE, August 4th, 2011: I just read a very interesting post at Ruth's Real Food. She mentions the rise of Celiac Disease in the last 50 years, and she quotes an actual study, something I appreciate. Ruth mentions that factory produced bread is given less than 5 hours to rise, when traditional sourdough is given 12-24 hours or more. I get that. Rising times are techinally soaking times. Perhaps that is the missing link in my thinking? Even basic bread recipes from the last 75-100 years that include little packets of yeast include 1 or 2 lengthy rise time that can equal 8-12 hours. While my great-grandmother wouldn't have left pancake batter sitting on the counter top, she would have allowed bread to rise twice before baking it. I don't believe that yeast is the devil, but I do think factory produced bread isn't worth the money spent on it. Maybe it is the rising time that is the key?
More food for thought....
UPDATE AUGUST 11th, 2011: My wonderful readers and commenters gave me so much to think about that I have written a follow up post. I bring it all together in Final Conclusions on Soaking Grains.
This post is shared with Traditional Tuesdays and Simple Lives Thursdays and Food Renegade's Fight Back Fridays
Admittedly, while I just preach about real food of the mostly non-chicken nugget variety, MS really lives it, organ meat and all. Living abroad in a country where most milk, meat and vegetables are grass fed and organic by default because the local farmers are too poor to buy feed and fertilizer, MS takes non-processed to the max. It is quite inspiring. MS is quite versed in soaking her grains and flours but as we talked, I lamented my inability to soak my own grains. I understand why one soaks grains, to make them easier to digest. But every morning I wake up ready to make some baked oatmeal (or mmmmmm oatmeal blueberry muffins) only to realize that I have forgotten to soak the oatmeal the night before. I know I could just go ahead and proceed, but I really want to try the soaking. It seems exotic to make soaked flour pancakes. And many texts have lead me to believe that there are no redeemable qualities to unsoaked grains. They are all gut damaging, blood sugar spiking beasties.
But, I have some issues with the idea that grains are useless unless soaked overnight. It just doesn't all add up to me. If soaking grains is so traditional, how come it doesn't survive in a single recipe that I have come across? Everyone still soaks dried beans because just cooking them from their hard state takes forEVER. And if you want to try it for shits and giggles, improperly soaked beans will make you quite the gas machine. Sadly, I have that issue everytime I eat beans in a restaurant. Just about every restaruant out there cooks their beans too hot and too quickly. And while they feel edible on your tounge, they will leave your bowels (and possibly your personal pride) ravaged. But while soaking beans is pretty common from Maine to Mexico, I don't know of any great grandmother that left flour mixed in yogurt sitting on her countertop overnight. Please, my great grandmother had probably never heard of yogurt. And yes I have heard stories about Quaker Oats long ago coming with the instruction to soak the oats overnight. But never have I heard of a text confirming such a story with some first hand account. This soaking thing is really a new concept to me.
I am NOT being difficult, I promise. I just wonder why I haven't heard of the traditional practice of soaking flour until now. The whole premise is that soaking whole or ground grains (better known as flour) in warm salt water or an acidic liquid like keifer, yogurt or even just water with whey sort of pre-digests those nasty lectins or antinutrients and phytic acid found in grains. These antinutrients are substances within the grains that inhibit you from digesting all the nutrition that the grain has to offer. This phenomenon is a defence mechanism of the plant. The seed does NOT want you to chew it up and digest it. It gains nothing from that. So the plant gives us a reason to not want to eat it at all so that it's seed can stay intact. When you eat the grain, it upsets your tummy a little and you get little if any nutrition. This is quite true of raw grains. You would never eat a grain raw, gross. It is worth noting that these antinutrients are found in the bran, which has been removed from white flour. White flour has easily been produced since the mid 1700's, so it is possible that any recipes that included soaking have long been lost (see my post A Brief History of Refined Flour). But the truth is...I don't know. The typical Western diet is not high in these lectins and phytic acid because the typical Western Diet is not high in WHOLE grains. White flour doesn't need to be soaked because it does not contain the bran, which contains the problem antinutrients. So no research has really been done here.
But while you might never eat a raw grain, what does regular ole' cooking do for grains? I certainly don't get an upset tummy from eating a slice of bread made from flour that has not been soaked. The collective opinion is that standard cooking renders some of the nutrition in whole grains available, but not all. Soaking your flour in some acidic medium is said to render more if not all of the nutrition available because the antinutrients are 'pre-digested'. BUT...my biggest issue is, no one seems to know how much nutrition we are really getting with either preparation method. Are you digesting only 30% of the available nutrients of the unsoaked grains and over 90% of the soaked variety? Or are you getting 80% of the available nutrients of the unsoaked grains and 95% of the soaked ones? Does anyone actually know? (By the way, that is not a rhetorical question, if you do think you know, will you please comment?? I am truly interested.)
All I am saying is that I have had a hard time remembering to soak my grains and an equally hard time quantifying how much this soaking will benefit me. And if I didn't obsess about these pithy details, why on earth would you read this blog?
Then recently, to add to my confusion I recently read a blog post from another blogger (who I cannot find now) that explained that the calcium found in fermented dairy products inhibits your ability to digest the nutrients found in flour. This blogger suggested that one should soak their flour in only warm water with a little salt. Then to add even more feul to my fire, Dr. Mercola recently published an article that stated that sprouted grains had some of the highest lectin content out there. He was challenging the notion that sprouting or soaking grains is really worth it. He states, "The sprouts of grains such as wheat, maize, and rye are increasingly being consumed as health foods, and are also used for the production of dietary supplements. However, sprouted wheat actually contains the highest amounts of wheat lectin (WGA)—which is responsible for many of wheat's ill health effects! And that's not all. These sprouts (wheat, maize and rye) also contain benzoxazinoids (BAs). Benzoxazinoids are part of the plants' defense system against pests, and are actually toxic components..." Dr. Mercola does admit that there isn't enough evidence to state that sprouted grains are actually dangerous. And I will continue to buy sprouted grain bread.
Add to these articles, author Rebecca Wood recently published an article in her interesting monthly newsletter that came largely to the conclusion that I have. In her great article Best to Soak Grains? Wood details why one would soak their grains but also the textural changes that grains will undergo as they are soaked. Oatmeal left to soak overnight become more gummy and soft. Some people may love such a texture, others not. Wood states that there are many great reasons to soak one's grains, all of which I have mentioned here. But she also says, "Possibly the advice of some contemporary food writers to soak all grains, seeds and nuts—and even their flours—is a tich overboard. There’s no precedent for soaking almond flour. Taking one bit of information (soaking is best) and carrying it to a time intensive and new-fangled extreme has a fundamentalist ring to me."
It has occured to me that to obsess over the proper way to soak grains may be missing the point. Many of us have been guided to traditional foods because they offer a way to eat intuitively. For me, shunning processed foods has helped me to eat more nutritious foods, but also to stop obsessing over numbers and nutrition panels, Vitamin D content and antioxident availability. I know that when I eat non-processed whole foods I can trust that the natural combinations of vitamins will be right in order to help my digest my food. When I choose whole milk that has been only minorly pasteurized I know that there will be enough fat to help me absorb the Vitamin D. Whole foods have evolved over time to have the most natural chemical structures with nutrients that work together. When we isolate individual vitamins and take them in excess, such as in supplements, we might find that they may not work as well, or that our bodies don't absorb them at all. Worrying about soaking, or becoming preoccupied with the VERY best way to soak one's grains to make them as close to 100% digestable as possible is actually just as obsessive as worrying about saturated fat and counting calories. In eating whole foods I should be able to simply trust that the food is right. Or that it is just as it should be.
Soaking does render the grain more easy to digest. But while soaking grains may be good, unsoaked grains aren't a waste of your time. If you do not suffer from some compromised digestive disorder and you are not a candidate for the GAPS diet, your gut can digest cooked, but unsoaked grains and flour, it just doesn't get as much nutrition from them. And I don't buy into the idea that the vast majority of the population has a digestive sensitivity to grains. Numerous websites all agree that only about 15% of the population is sensitive to the most allergenic grain, wheat. And every now and then I come across a blogger that tells their mass following that wheat is bad for everyone. That is so not true. If you have some health problems wheat intolerance and digestive health is worth considering. But if you are healthy like me, wheat is probably not causing you any trouble at all.
That being said, grains, even soaked grains should not be the foundation of our diet. Regardless of whether it is wheat, rice or corn, two servings per meal with some extra in between isn't a good idea for just about everyone. I feel best when I have 1-3 servings of grains per day. They give me some great energy, so no grains often leaves me feeling tired and unenergetic. But too much makes me feel run down and strung out. Soaking may be good for the digestability, but it doesn't transform grains into something that you should be eating all day every day. Grains simply have their place in our diet behind protein foods and fresh vegetables. So I will try my damnest to soak my flour and oatmeal. But when I forget to soak my flour the night before, I will probably still wake up the next morning and make my muffins.
Also read : Soaking Grains, Healthbanquet.com
Gluten Sensitivity, Wikipedia
UPDATE, August 4th, 2011: I just read a very interesting post at Ruth's Real Food. She mentions the rise of Celiac Disease in the last 50 years, and she quotes an actual study, something I appreciate. Ruth mentions that factory produced bread is given less than 5 hours to rise, when traditional sourdough is given 12-24 hours or more. I get that. Rising times are techinally soaking times. Perhaps that is the missing link in my thinking? Even basic bread recipes from the last 75-100 years that include little packets of yeast include 1 or 2 lengthy rise time that can equal 8-12 hours. While my great-grandmother wouldn't have left pancake batter sitting on the counter top, she would have allowed bread to rise twice before baking it. I don't believe that yeast is the devil, but I do think factory produced bread isn't worth the money spent on it. Maybe it is the rising time that is the key?
More food for thought....
UPDATE AUGUST 11th, 2011: My wonderful readers and commenters gave me so much to think about that I have written a follow up post. I bring it all together in Final Conclusions on Soaking Grains.
This post is shared with Traditional Tuesdays and Simple Lives Thursdays and Food Renegade's Fight Back Fridays
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
LinkWithin
