- Hi Everyone, Some people subscribe to the theory that the human race many thousands of years ago became addicted to grains.They say the opioids in grains madeMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2003View SourceHi Everyone,
Some people subscribe to the theory that the human race many thousands of years ago became addicted to grains.They say the opioids in grains made people abandon the hunter-gatherer life (living on meat, fish, vegetables, fruit) and settle down to develop agriculture. The more grains they ate, the most they wanted to grow, and the more grains they grew the more they mated. They mated more because, no longer having to run after food, they had more time for sex, which they needed more of since eating grains left them unsatisfied. Besides, the grains got them out of their minds, so who knows what sorts of vices they then wanted to indulge in? So grain-addiction brought madness, overpopulation, and finally that monstrous crossbreeding of both called civilization. I hope at least some of you are laughing, because this is a very funny thesis.
One reason this is a funny proposition is that some civilizations grew up on grains like wheat, barley, and rye that contain gluten (opioids or exorphins) while others grew up on grains like quiona, amaranth, rice, and corn that do not. How is it then, that both groups were driven by grain-intoxication to abandon the hunter-gatherer life, take to agriculture, grow more grain, have their brains addled, desire more sex, produce a larger population and develop hierarchial civilization? So Inca civilization, Asian civilization, and European Civilization all stem from grain intoxication and grain-addiction, even though one group ate quiona, another mostly rice and millet, and the third mostly wheat, rye, oats, and barley?
If you suspect, as I do, that the entire grain-bashing hypothesis is nonsense, you might enjoy reading the very l-o-n-g but intensively researched article by biochemist Diane Black who adopted two Russian children with severe cases of gluten intolerance. Very often intelligent and trained mothers can, when personally motivated to do so, outperform the most highly-paid scientists in researching a point and reaching sound conclusions.
Dr. Black has written books on the subject, personally motivated to become an expert in it.
She clearly indicates the difference between showing that exorphins in some grains aggravate digestive disorders and allergies (celiac disease) on the one hand and demonstrating that the same exorphins actually cause mental disorders. As a practical matter, she identifies gluten as the culprit in grains but does not indite the entire grain and cereal food group. Instead, she recommends consumption of grains low in gluten, such as rice, millet, buckwheat, corn, amaranth, sorghum, and quiona. She points out that Indian and Middle Eastern cuisine uses spices to stimulate enzymes that aid in grain digestion. These spices include cayenne, ginger, cumin, tumeric, and fennel.
At no point in her deeply committed and often intricate analysis does she wring her hands over the putative damage that grains have done to the human race. So does not link them to madness, increased reproduction, or the development of murderous, red-in-tooth-and-claw civilizations trampling the world in jackboots.
In fact, Dr. Black (a professional biochemist with two sick kids at home to feed) concludes by recommending two Indian cookbooks that feature grains and cereals, and a third that even shows how to bake bread (some breads even of the dreaded Western European variety).
Anyone wishing to pursue the grain question further may see Dr.Black's presentation at http://www.come-over.to/FAS/FASDnutrition.htm
Incidently, my own diet is considerably higher in vegetables and fruits than in grains, and I usually avoid the high opioid grains. But let's try to be fair to grains and not (dubiously) attribute the ills of the world to them. Scapegoating is not science.
Bob Monie, looking at the low-opioid rice fields of Louisiana
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- ... years ago became addicted to grains. you did get well a part of the demonstration , but you missed the most important one opiods, gluten , antinutrientsMessage 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2003View Source
>years ago became addicted to grains.
> Some people subscribe to the theory that the human race many thousands of
you did get well a part of the demonstration , but you missed the most
opiods, gluten , antinutrients etc...are just some aspects of what is
problematic with grain but the most important is because it is high in
carbonhydrates and humand and hominids have been specialising on a high
proteins and fats diet for very very long .
the last 10 000 years when grains have been introduced in quantity is just
a tiny portion of time that don't allow adpatation to such a big change in
the main culprit why grains became such a big deal is the chronic
oversecretion of insuline that disturb the hormonal balance and the
regulation of blood sugar .
more the introduction to grain is recent for peoples ( like for most of
modern recently ex hunter gatherer) and more it is desatrous for the
physiology , creating ground for cardiovascular conditions , diabetes and
jason will not contradict me but i remember seeing a footage of natives from
australia in the last century and then footings of the same peoples after
switching to higher carbonhydrate intake . the former were very lean and
strong bodies while the second were showing obesity .it was striking .
Also don't forget the monocultured grain field is the starting point of
soil depletions . Masanobu showed a way to not be a necessary outcome but
don't fool yourself his field is fertilised heavelly ... look at the
quantity of chickens manure brought to the land .
removing trees from the land is necessarelly a lost in fertility .
<They mated more because, no longer having to run after food, they had more
time for sex, which they needed more of since eating grains left them
You are missinformed here ,it is well established that farmers work way more
than hunter gatherers to obtain the food .
<As a practical matter, she identifies gluten as the culprit in grains but
does not indite the entire grain and cereal food group. Instead, she
recommends consumption of grains low in gluten, such as rice, millet,
buckwheat, corn, amaranth, sorghum, and quiona. She points out that Indian
and Middle Eastern cuisine uses spices to stimulate enzymes that aid in
grain digestion. These spices include cayenne, ginger, cumin, tumeric, and
Mother Black have been a long way to adress the gluten intolerance of her
children ,this is asking a lot from a mother inside the struggle to raise
childrens to go farther in questionning .
this kind of half way resolution ( that works for sure ) is so common
especially if you want to sell your research to others ,you have to make it
acceptable , little bit of questionning is good saler too much and you are
thrown away from respectabilty , even and especially if it is very much
asking a mother and cook to also go hunting to provide optimum nutrition to
her children is going little bit too far , so going to other grains is the
more sensible answer .
that you don't want to go as far as my own research that is okay , we
handled the situation for 10000 years so we can gon on but keep it open as a
possibilty . Real health is so far back now anyway in our experience of
civilised ( synonymous of grain based society... is it not strange ?)
cultures that we forgot of what could be ,.
we adjusted and get used to the worst so it became our second nature .
in case one of you wanted to have an other experience just try it quit
grains and replace with high quality animal protein and fats and see the
i personally could not afford to not try
, the degenerecence in my genetic lineage reach a point that some drastic
change needed to occur , others might have some time or some generations
to figure it out .
- I was just reading a book on Taoism, I am not a specialist in this area, I will appreciate if some of you can share more accurate information on this... TheMessage 3 of 3 , Jul 3, 2003View SourceI was just reading a book on Taoism, I am not a specialist in this area, I
will appreciate if some of you
can share more accurate information on this...
The very first thing you do in strictly following the religion, that is to
pursue the practice of saints,
you have to refrain from "5 grains"--rice, wheat, millet(both kibi and awa,
sorry I don't know the English names), legume.
I am wondering if this five have much meaning or just means all grains and
all peas and beans.
According to the book I am reading, there are two reasons for this practice.
1. To kill Three Bugs that live in a human body. They are like demons: The
first bug, Blue old-man causes disease to ear, nose, etc,
the second, white princess causes heart, lung, mental disease, the last one
the "bloody corpse" causes fatigue, disease of intestine.
And those bugs correspond with the emperor of the North Pole who subtracts
years from one's life.
Those bugs live on grains, so one must not eat grains to kill those bugs
that are living in your body.
2.To purify one's body. You have to transform your body from a material
to a more refined one that can be maintained directly with the source of
Not only grains, but also one is forbidden to eat meat and some plants with
In addition, another chapter of the book explains Mercury and arsenic are
two important spiritual medicine.
I am not particularly a Taoist and I am dependent on and addicted to grains.
So if grains are so to say poisonous
to make human go almost extinct in 10,000 years, the survivor will go on
hunting for the next 10,000 years
until the ignorant descendents are tempted by the same poison again to start
Apart from this discussion, no matter what we choose to eat, the descendents
of most of us will go extinct, that's how
we keep revolving.
So we are trying to direct a personal growth of an individual, and that is
trying to direct a revolution.
How is that possible?
It is quite meaningless to depend on the researches and nutrition facts
because their supposition can be totally wrong.
Our descendents are going to talk about the ancient people that believed
food made up of what are called nutrition--vitamins, minerals...or acid, or
how misinformed they were, and therefore had not been able to live long.
But we know what food is, and if you don't you have to develop a sensitivity
to know what food is.
Weather you learn from a book, a friend or your own invention, you keep
eating, you keep living, and you keep revolving.
We can try to direct ourselves, but after all, shouldn't we just say it is
It anti-social(but again being social is only a virtue of a civil) to say
hunter-gatherer lifestyle without grains is more sustainable than a
Hunting/gathering sounds like a sustainable system if the earth isn't how it
is now. That life is not available to most of us. How do I start?
Buy an airplane ticket to a remaining forest area? All of the world
population that appears as a number is still alive, and still in middle
of a big experiment of civilization. But I do not discourage those who are
already hunter-gatherer, because they may be the
hope of human survival after all the agrarians go extinct.
I think that the discussion of sustainability is about sustaining human
civilization within the ecosystem.
And if it is really not about civilization, the act of this sort of
discussion which is an extension of civilization should be stopped.
And if not about human, and more about the earth and the ecosystem, I think
that they will
be fine after we all die out. And if not, we conclude that the earth was
not sustainable, then an imperfect planet,
so there should be a counterpart somewhere in the universe? And if we
identify ourselves with the Universe, maybe things
do not look so dreadful.