April 27, 2012 - 12:10pm
Ethics aside...
So the commercial bakery industry is dominated by one strain of yeast and flour that has been 'bred' to have a very strict set of parameters, despite possible evidence that we as humans are not able to digest it very well. Would a group of sourdough bakers be able to 'breed' a set of yeastie beasties so that once eaten they further exacerbate any of ill effects when the 'commercial' or 'industrial' ingredients are consumed?
And the flipside, could you develop a yeast culture that lives in your gut and counteracts any of the nastiness that drives people away from wheat?
Share
This is a really large subject area that should be discussed here and hasn't been thus far that I know. The question of wheat being hard to digest and possibly not being very good for our human system is being discussed seriously all over the world at this time. I'll touch on just a few issues to get the ball rolling and let's see what happens.
The underlying issue is the question of our digestive system being fed a product that it was not designed to convert to proteins and enzymes. Our paleolithic ancestors from roughly 2.4 million years ago were hunter gatherers and evolved to survive on meat they killed or to a lesser degree, vegetables and fruits they could forage. They didn't eat grain in any form along with tubers and probably not milk in any quantity except for during the eating of an animal. Agriculture came along about 50-100000 years ago and scientists can show you a clear change in the bones of the people living at that time. Our pre ag ancestors were healthy and strong. If they managed to survive being killed by accident or some predator or infection, they lived into their late 70's. There are many skeleton specimens who have all their teeth and show no signs of weakness or fragility. I'll just say, there is abundant science to back all of this up. If you are curios, have at it.
When humans started consuming grains, our health started to fail. Zooming forward to the post WWII era, the government USDA started to advocate eating massive quantities of grains. The food pyramid was conceived and we all were told to eat a low fat, high carbohydrate diet with lots of "healthy whole grains". For a time they were selling margarine as the right fat to slather all over it. Butter and saturated fats were said to be contributing to heart disease . Corn oil became the suggested fat along with a generic Vegetable oil, all polyunsaturated fats. The bad news is the people of the world listened. Bread sales soared and lard dropped of the map. The fast food industry learned how to use highly processed foods that felt good and tasted good but are digested poorly and place a huge strain on us as our body attempts to convert to sugar all those carbohydrates.
Today the USA is facing a massive health decline. Actually the entire Global population is in the same boat. The list of disease and life threatening conditions is to long to list. Just looking at all the auto immune disease alone makes one dizzy. Obesity, type 2 diabetes are now seen routinely in children. Cognitive issues, Alzheimer's, are reaching epidemic rates among younger adults. All of these things were essentially unheard of pre WWII. We are all killing ourselves with our diet.
Now for the good news.
The human Brain is the most wonderfully complicated device in the known Universe. Each one of the 20 Trillion or so cells in a human body is in contact with the brain in some way. The biology is complicated but each cell has the ability to repair and even regrow a new cell if needed. All of our cellular functions are designed to repair themselves, repair the functions of each organ just like the day we were born. It's actually pretty easy to get them to do this. All you have to do to have optimal health is provide the proper fuel. That is to say, stop consuming toxins, sugars and carbohydrates (starches) and just eat real foods. Surprise, all your ills will fade away. It's a little more complicated than that but not much.
I can tell you that 90 days ago, I was a 325Lb Type 2 Diabetic. My fasting blood sugars were north of 220 most days. My Blood pressure was 180/80. I had psoriasis on every limb/trunk and face. Today, I'm down to 283 and still dropping. Blood sugars are 95 most days and my last check up my blood pressure was 120/60. All my blood work was great. The psoriasis is about 80% gone. My Dr was amazed. He asked how I managed to cure my diabetes and get my BP down to "perfect"? All I had to do to turn my health around is to start eating the foods I was evolved to eat.
So, to answer your question futureproof, yes there is a solution. Breads levened with sourdough starters are much more digestible. Unfortunately the heat of the baking process kills all the beneficial bacteria that our digestive system needs. You are correct in realizing that we need those bacteria in abundance and of many varieties. In a healthy gut flora, there are 10 times more bacteria than the number of human cells. 400 different kinds roughly it is estimated. So our cell make up is outnumbered 10 to 1. Think about that for a minute. Some people take Probiotic supplements to add to the flora. Especially if you have ever taken antibiotics, you need to replace what was killed off. The best way to accomplish this is with fermented foods. Sauerkraut, all kinds of vegetables, fish or meat, cheese etc. All of these things, if fermented at home, will add to your flora and improve your immune system. You might find you don't need allergy pills or don't actually have a dairy issue after all.
I know this is bound to be seen as a somewhat radical post to be reading on a bread bakers website. Those of you who have been around a while should know me as a careful and usually thoughtful individual. I have kept this to myself for 3 Months as I tested this Paleo Diet on myself and my wife. I have tried to live my life in a manner that I can be proud of and not follow fairy tales or conventional wisdom when the science says to do otherwise. In this case, the science is clear. I take my hat off to the microbiologists and neurosurgeons and other scientists who are breaking ground learning how our cell structure functions. It's massively interesting if you take a look. For those of you who might think I'm nuts, take a look at this TED Video. This Dr Terry Wahls describing how she cured her own MS. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Search for The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf. Look at Mark Sissons blog site, Marks Daily Apple. Mark has an easy to understand book "The Primal Blueprint" also. The MDA site is hugely popular all over the world and frequented by 100 of thousands of people discovering Paleo. There are dozens of highly regarded physicians who are discovering what they didn't learn in medical school. Dr Jack Kruse is out there way in front, looking at medicine through the lens of evolution.
One last thought. Peter Reinhart is about to release a new book all about baking gluten free, sugar free. All of the breads are made with nut flours. I don't think he was aware just how timely he was when he wrote this book. I'm sure it will be a huge success considering what I now know. I've baked a few things from it and everything has been delicious so far. When he gets close to releasing it, I'll post on it in detail.
Cheers,
Eric
That's a big "if". Basically, for our pre-ag ancestors, (assuming for the moment that the premise is true) if they weren't incredibly healthy they died very early. So the ones that survived into their late 70s were only the most healthy of their contemporaries. The sample is skewed. I don't believe it can be shown for sure what people ate 100,000 years ago. I think we have some evidence of what they did eat, but no evidence of what they didn't eat. I think this also neglects the fact that harmful genetic mutations build up from generation to generation, leading to all kinds of disfunction in modern humans that did not exist in ancient humans. We also process our foods much more, and lead a much more sedentary lifestyle which makes a difference in how it is digested and utilized by the body. Lets face it, if a caveman contracted diabetes or appendicitis, he just died, probably without the opportunity to pass it on in his progeny, but genetic defects, should have been much less common then because there hadn't been time to build up mutations and defects. Although some people have reported success with paleo diets, I don't think its a given that going back to a supposed original diet is automatically better. I had many ancestors in the 17th and 18th centuries who lived into their 70s on an eastern european wheat, rye, dairy and potato diet with very little meat (maybe twice or 3 times a year) and no medical care other than the village babusya. Given the paleo diet theory, this shouldn't be.
My observations of how natural selection works is that it selects for success. Stronger faster better hunters, healthy examples passing their genes on to future generations while weaker less able individuals were less likely to populate the tribe. Nature finds a way at the cellular level to encourage optimal. I don't think it's so much of an original diet as it is recognition that what ever happened post WWII, the result of the dietary changes we have all adopted have been a disaster.What wasn't known back then is how important the oils and acids consumed are to the cellular biology. You look at a potato and see a starchy comfort food. When you eat that potato, your body sees it as sugar. Pure and simple that's a 1 pound hunk of sugar. 2 slices of "healthy whole grain bread" have a higher glycemic load than a snickers bar.
I'm not sure why your ancestors did so well back then. Today, the reason Europeans especially the French are believed to have lower than average incidence of heart disease is their heavy consumption of healthy saturated fats.The advice coming out of our treadmill continues to be to eat a low fat diet with plenty of healthy whole grains. That discrepancy is the reason why the low carb or Paleo diet has become so popular. People are beginning to realize they can control their own health and get good results.
Eric
I am more apt to buy the premise that our diet and activity level has taken a turn for the worse since WWII, leading to declines in general health. However, it seems to me that people have done well in many cultures around the world on "traditional" diets that were high in carbohydrates and low in animal proteins. Natural selection doesn't necessarily hold true in the classical sense for modern humans. We tend to go to great lengths to protect the weak, and pass on even detrimental mutations. One other thing that shouldn't be neglected when talking about the way we interact with our environment is the widespread use of hormones, chemicals, sterilants, anti-biotics, etc. People in the past lived much closer to nature, in decidedly non-sterile, non-artificial-hormone environments.
On a slight tangent, I found it interesting that the other branch of descendants from australopithecines seems to have lived on grass rather than nuts as was believed in the past.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/05/03/our-ancient-cousin-nutcracker-man-actually-ate-like-a-cow-lots-of-grass/
This does not mean that I dis-believe your testimonial. Some of the paleo diet literature makes sense to me. Other parts seem less applicable since we have surely been selectively breeding ourselves to match the agricultural diet we provide to ourselves. I think it is possible that the industrial revolution did harm to our diet that is more critical than the change from hunter-gatherer to farmer, at this point in our evolution. Occasionally what I have read is downright bizzare. In one book, a supposed medical doctor suggested wetting your finger and touching some sugar on a counter-top. The sticky feeling was supposed to illustrate what sugar does in your body. According to the author, your red blood cells become candy-coated and won't fit through your smaller blood vessels anymore, causing progressively reduced circulation in extremities and organs. Since the major problem with cholesterol is that it is not water soluble and therefore does not transport well in blood, which is largely aqueous, it is mind-boggling to suggest that sugars don't dissolve in blood. Furthermore, this candy-coating was described as irreversable and irremediable, which made this reader wonder why to bother changing habits, since after 60 years of damage one is surely doomed to come to a literally sticky end. Books such as that one do the paleo diet movement no favors.
Back on topic, kefir possibly provides the mix of yeast and bacteria that the OP suggests. Gaining the best benefits requires eating bits of the culture material, however, and that may not be something most people are willing to do. Kefir also requires a cooler overall climate than the midwestern USA. The culture medium becomes distinctly sour and a bit unpleasant when cultivated at 95 degrees F.
I've enjoyed Kefir but I strain it before eating so I don't get the grains. There are lots of great fermented foods that can be made at home. Many would have a distinctly unique strain as part of their population, which is the idea for flora building. One thing I was a little surprised about is that after taking a series of antibiotics, your gut flora doesn't automatically return to a healthy state. You have to take steps to get it back and that can take over a year to do. It will work and you might feel "normal" quickly but the damage to your flora and immune system won't get better on its own. I've had many prescriptions for AB filled and taken over my life and not given it much thought.
Eric
This is definitely an interesting subject. I don't think the problem is with wheat (gluten) or dairy but rather how we are eating them. Wheat products are definitely an issue because of the way we process and make wheat products. Commerically breads are not fermented and leavened with a sourdough culture, which leaves our bodies with the task of trying to break it down and digest it. Milk was never made to be pasteurized and consumed by the gallon. Raw milk contains the enzymes needed to break down lactose and also has natural probiotics in it as well. Even the cream from milk can be cultured.
We are living in a society of sterilization. Everything we eat is sterile. The water we drink has chlorine in it which kills our gut flora. We need to go back to our roots of fermenting our foods to obtain optimal health.
Agree totally on the milk issue. This has been been a big fight in WI for a number of years. I had hoped that CA setting the pace would help us see the health aspect more clearly. Not. You are right in that we have no trouble finding HFCS sweetened everything without any beneficial bacteria. I really don't see the point in drinking milk anymore. You really need to read the labels these days.
Eric
And yet our life expectancy keeps rising and more importantly the quality of our life in our older years is much higher than it was just 30 or 40 years ago. I can remember when a 70 year old was truly worn out today it seems 70 year olds are independent, energetic and healthy. I tend to agree that as a society we seem to swing to extremes, in the '60s we sprayed every bug with an insecticide of some sort to the detriment of both the environment and humans now we seem to think that every bacteria is a sign of something gone wrong or about to. I enjoy cheese made from raw milk but I don't advocate the elimination of pasteurization as I believe it serves a purpose in the consumption of fresh milk products.
Gerhard
...my grandmother and grandfather are still alive at 97 and 98, and they can both beat me at chess. And they've eaten like Cajuns eat their whole lives.
When I look at my parents, however, who've been more sedentary and have lived under the carbohydrate disasters of Food, Inc., I don't expect them to live that long.
I think our sedentary nature (now vs. my grandparents) combined with the foods we eat now (more, not less and much more carbs), I think we've hit an inflection point where life expectacy will now start to decrease and quality of life will too.
But then I watch those BBC Horizon programs and conclude the opposite: I'll still be alive in 2712, but my bread will not have improved.
Life expectancy figures can be skewed depending on who is doing the calculating and how it is being done. One of the current situations that is causing life expectancy to "appear" higher is the saving of premature babies by modern medicine. The death rate of newborns is way down and this makes overall life expectancy to appear higher than it really is. My grandparents lived to be older than my parents or their siblings. This is a common scenario today.
Jeff
Given that the life expectancy numbers can be so easily skewed today, how much more so the life span of our paleo ancestors, of whom we know so much less? I maintain a healthy scepticism of much that is supposedly "scientifically proven", which includes most modern fad diets.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/the-truth-wears-off/
If you do, you'll suddenly find yourself dismissing science as easily as you do other forms of supposedly proof-rending hocus pocus.
Interesting phenomenon. The cause is not addressed in the article, but several possibilities come to mind.
Unless the universe if playing 'kick the can', the cause is human error, either intentional or not.
(I should read it again to refresh my memory, but it was almost too disturbing the first time. It's one of those articles that makes you want to put your head in the sand, however edjucated that head may be.)
I was wondering why you said it didn't address the cause.
Then I realized I linked to a summary, not the full article.
That explains that.
Here's the article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
It's a long read.
OK, having read the full article now, I see the cause is addressed. What caught my attention is that I've heard this claim years ago stated in different terms, coming from scientists who find themselves outside the mainstream, swimming against the current. They cited such things as the difficulty of getting unpopular science published in peer reviewed journals, which tends to reinforce the perception of the mainstream that their view is the only correct view; after all, no contradictory evidence has been published in peer reviewed journals. Also, the difficulty of getting grants and funding for science which could be at odds with accepted theories. Further, the reluctance of scientists to buck the trend and be labelled a pariah. Many go into science with the belief that they will follow the truth wherever it leads, but in reality this is seldom the case. They find themselves following the science wherever the funding or politics allows them to, and wherever they won't lose the collegiality of their peers. Meanwhile, scientists who are sceptical about the accepted theories find themselves excluded from respected publications, abandoned by their sponsors (sometimes due to lack of published peer reviewed articles), and relegated to irrelevance with the label of ideologues or pseudo-scientists. You see this kind of dynamic in such diverse issues as global climate change, paleontology, archaeology, biology, etc.. Indeed, this partially forms the basis of my "healthy" scepticism. Very nice to see an in depth article addressing the phenomenon.
My husband was on the peer review board of a scientific journal. He once wrote a review of an article, written by a prominent figure in the field, which criticized some aspects of the study. He was removed from the review board. This should tell you something about peer-reviewed publications. It is a source of sadness to both of us that careers in science turned out to be just as political as any other human endeavor. That doesn't even count Political, with a capital "p". Goverment funding has skewed some fields of study so badly that they resemble religion rather than science. Shame on someone, and perhaps on everyone, involved in those studies.
Sadly, its not uncommon. This sort of bias can take many forms. Some, otherwise productive, science professors are denied tenure, other scientists are removed from review boards, some are denied research grants, some can't get published, others are just fired. So much of science is geared toward positive results and confirming cherished theories that negative results and contrary evidence are anathema.
Sorry about your husband. Peer review journals hold a lot of power. In effect they are the gate keepers of how studies are shared and how information is disseminated in the scientific communities, and some, if not all, have an agenda. Get on their bad side, and your career as a researcher could be over.
We've become immune to the affect of anti-depressants over the last twenty years...,
Wild-Yeast
I think the real question in terms of anti-depressants is did they ever really even work? They seem to have the same effect as a sugar pill hyped with the ability to make you happy, with the possible side effect of suicide...
Interesting theory it just does not stand up to scrutiny!
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html
Gerhard
There's no such thing as possible evidence. It's just a line charlatans use to sell diet books.
I have no problem with wheat. For me, healthy eating means ALL things in moderation,eat a good variety and keeping food single ingredient, if possible. This is what is healthy-for me.
Humans are pretty non-specialized when it comes to the type of fuel needed-we pretty much burn anything that gives us calories. Some fuels burn better than others and some people do better than others on certain fuels but there is no "one-size-fits-all". We adapt to what is available. Most of us are fortunate enough to have a choice of what and how we eat.
I'm glad people are finding what works for them. Good health to all.
Moderation in everything will never get you optimal. I would urge you to look into the concept that "we pretty much burn anything that gives us calories". So 500 calories from Twinkies and the same amount of Kale results in the same effect on the body? That's the old "calories in, calories out" dogma. The one size fits all is determined by our DNA. A million generations of evolution made the selection hard wired into each cell. No way we adapted to anything in the last 500 years, never mind the last 5 decades. The health statistics tell a story. The science doesn't lie. It was hard for me to get my head around the simple beauty of the solution at first.
Eric
Making major lifestyle changes is never easy and I think the strides you have made are terrific!
I don't know what our early ancestors ate. No one can, nor can we know precisely what plant life existed at that time since all things evolve and some become extinct. But I do know they did not eat processed foods nor did they lead a sedentary lifestyle.
I wish you all the best in your journey towards wellness and lasting good health.
Lindy
Thanks for the encouragement and well wishes.
Cheers,
Eric
you're onto something about the body taking time to not only recover from illness but the antibiotics as well. WWII is the dawn of wide use antibiotics too!
Another thought, just like sourdough starters get balanced and keep their organisms in check, there must be certain bacteria that keep nasty bacteria in check also so that their influence on our gut is limited. When the "good" bacteria fail because their numbers fall, then they can't keep the bacterial numbers in check. I'm all for keeping our hundreds of gut bugs balanced. Individuals differ so that makes it tricky too!
Being sedentary certainly doesn't help your health. All those people who are late 70's and above are in the post WWII range. My 89 yo FIL recently had 2 stents and a heart bypass operation that kept him alive. A few years ago he would have died with out the intervention. So that kind of situation skews the numbers. On the other hand, that was the first time in his life, after his war wounds, he was in the hospital for any reason. All 5 of his children have been hospitalized for some reason and several have serious auto immune conditions. My family is similar. My dad is 88 and can still get into his old Navy uniform. He walked to work and home for lunch every day and drinks a shot of apple cider vinegar every morning in a glass of water. He's never ever sick. His mind is sharp and he cuts his own grass and shovels his walk when it snows. I envy his good health.
It is the baby boomer generation and those born after them that are falling apart. My father has been telling me for years how to correct my failing health but I wasn't hearing it. I don't know about you but, I want to reclaim my health with a scientific solution based on an understanding of the cellular biology of my body.
Eric
I don't really concern myself with what I eat, but how much.
I figure that if my body is storing fat (I'm gaining weight), that means I'm eating too much for my needs, and so I just stop eating, literally stop eating for day/weeks until I burn the extra mass off. (It burns off at about 1/3 to 1/2 of a pound a day if I eat nothing).
Everyone I tell that to rejects it outright, with the knee-jerk response "Starvation is bad!"
I ask, "Then why does your body store fat?"
I don't eat a paleo diet, but I almost live as if I was 'a paleo man': When food is available, I eat. When it isn't, I burn my stored fat. I essentially fake feast and famine, and my biomarkers are about as good as they can be. (Riding a bike hundreds of miles a week probably helps too).
Ahhh, the bike riding helps a lot, yes. When I fast for 24 hours, I don't feel any hunger pangs what so ever. My body looks to the stored fat for energy. I still have plenty available. There are other benefits from fasting like a spike in insulin sensitivity.
Eric
My body fat must be stored as nitroglycerin. I get manic. Boundless energy.
I tell people how great I feel when I fast, but they think I'm bonkers.
My hunger pangs go away after Day 3, not 24 hours, but once they're gone, they're gone for the duration of the fast.
-
Oh, if you send me your age/height/weight (or just your resting basal metabolic rate in calories/day), I can project your weight loss for you. I'll send you the spreadsheet. (Alas, it's based on really low-cal dieting/fasting, which I don't think you're doing).
Oh, one more thing, careful not to 'fall of the wagon' right about now. There was a study (who knows how valid) that showed people who admit publicly that they're losing weight almost always fail after the admission. Something about: When you don't admit it, you motivating yourself (internal motivation). When you do admit it, you get positive feedback from others (external motivation) and, when that feedback stops, as it invariably does, you no longer have reason to continue (or the internal motivation isn't as compelling). It's like eating the candy bar before doing the exercise. If the reward is obtained before the goal is achieved, the goal will not be achieved.
this subject for several years, since a chef friend brought it up. I am also a recovering fat person. I weighed 250 pounds when I graduated from college. I've weighed in at 170 for more than 40 years and I am very proud of having kept the weight off. I am a serious eater and a serious baker. The gift and the curse of modernity is the ability to make choices. I've learned to manage my intake of simple carbohydtrates. I exercise at least three times a week, which is essential, by the way. I eat as little processed food, white sugar and simple carbs as possible. Like this, I am fine. I am saddened and sometimes angry about what big agribusiness has done to the population. So many unwitting victims.
Eric, be strong and do not waver. You will succeed.
Sounds like you have the formula and are able to implement it. I'm determined to stick with the program until I get down to an appropriate weight and am fit. It seems a little extreme now but I have a lot of catching up to do.
The harm done to the nation by the influence of big ag business and pharma is only overshadowed by the FDA and USDA. I find it very saddening to know the financial interests of those people have corrupted the government regulators.
Thanks for the encouragement Louie.
Eric
on your success at improving your weight, blood sugar and BP! Anytime you need a boost in morale or motivation, I'm sure if you post again you'll find lots of it here.
Looking forward to seeing your nut flour breads, I love using nut flours for sponge cakes in place of wheat flour. Any thoughts on how to get a very fine grind in a nut flour at home? Mine frequently turn pasty before they get fine enough to produce the best texture. I do grind them with sugar or flour or both, but still. Pastry types (like me) are so demanding... :)
Julie
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/4440/walnut-flour