 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007History of the Coeliac Condition
http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0rel/hist.htm History of the Coeliac Condition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By: Dr James S. Steward, Consultant Physician, West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex. About 10,000 years ago, after the end of the last Ice Age, people learnt that hunting animals and gathering wild berries and other fruits were not the only ways of supporting life. They discovered that if they settled in one place for long enough they could sow and then harvest crops of cereals like wheat. This was the neolithic revolution. One of its consequences was civilisation. Another was that people who could not tolerate wheat in their diet became ill with the coeliac condition. ..... Interesting reading. TC > http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0rel/hist.htm > History of the Coeliac Condition > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > By: Dr James S. Steward, Consultant Physician, West Middlesex [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > its consequences was civilisation. Another was that people who could > not tolerate wheat in their diet became ill with the coeliac condition. > ..... > Interesting reading. <mouth full of peanut butter & jelli on whole wheat bread > Mmmm.. yes. Keep reading. The second chapter talks about people who could not tolerate milk and became lactose intolerant. Patrick > TC > > http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0rel/hist.htm > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > TC But we're not talking about milk, are we? That has nothing to do with ceoliac disease and wheat, does it? At least try to stay on topic, eh? TC > > > http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0rel/hist.htm > > > History of the Coeliac Condition > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > By: Dr James S. Steward, Consultant Physician, West Middlesex [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > its consequences was civilisation. Another was that people who could > > > not tolerate wheat in their diet became ill with the coeliac condition. > > > ..... > > > Interesting reading. > > <mouth full of peanut butter & jelli on whole wheat bread > Mmmm.. yes. > > Keep reading. The second chapter talks about people who could not > > tolerate milk and became lactose intolerant. > But we're not talking about milk, are we? That has nothing to do with > ceoliac disease and wheat, does it? You missed it. > At least try to stay on topic, eh? Canadian? Patrick > http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0rel/hist.htm > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > TC Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. TC >Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. Is that not a bt like saying that coeliac disease and food go hand in hand? I thought that coeliac was due to a genetic problem digesting a particular protein. Am I wrong here? jack > >Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. > > Is that not a bt like saying that coeliac disease and food go hand in > hand? I thought that coeliac was due to a genetic problem digesting a > particular protein. Am I wrong here? jack gluten - only comes from grains. TC >> >Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >gluten - only comes from grains. That's not correct. There is no gluten in many grains. Millet, corn and rice just to name three. jack > >> >Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > jack What I said was and is correct. I did not say that all grains contain gluten. I said that gluten only comes from grains. Name me one source of gluten that is not a grain. TC >> >> >Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I did not say that all grains contain gluten. So why did you appear to strongly imply it? Why not say that gluten only comes from wheat and its allies? I'm sorry, but unless I'm being paranoid, I smell a strong hidden agenda in what you said. Have you got some other problem with grains? > I said that gluten only >comes from grains. Name me one source of gluten that is not a grain. And it is also correct to say that gluten only comes from food, like I said by way of example in the first place. Both statements are inadvertently misleading at best or possibly even fraudulent IMHO. jack > So why did you appear to strongly imply it? > Why not say that gluten only comes from wheat and its allies? > I'm sorry, but unless I'm being paranoid, I smell a strong hidden > agenda in what you said. Have you got some other problem with grains? Yes he does have a problem. He thinks all grains are bad. As for paranoid, believe me, it's him. -DF >> So why did you appear to strongly imply it? >> Why not say that gluten only comes from wheat and its allies? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes he does have a problem. He thinks all grains are bad. As for >paranoid, believe me, it's him. Thanks for the heads up Doug, perhaps I should look at the archives to see what these evil grains have been up to. jack > >> >> >Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So why did you appear to strongly imply it? Because that was what you were looking for. Anyone even remotely implying that grains are not the wonder food of the last 10 thousand years are attacked as being 'lifestyle food cultists" and of not being scientific. So I make it a point of implying that grains are poor food for humans, which they are. Which in turn brings out all the food industry cultists to attack me. > Why not say that gluten only comes from wheat and its allies? Why would I need to be so precise? That wasn't part of the question. > I'm sorry, but unless I'm being paranoid, I smell a strong hidden > agenda in what you said. Have you got some other problem with grains? Maybe you are being paranoid. Then again, maybe I am too. And yes, I have a problem with grains. Grains are not the nutritional magic bullet being touted by the food pyramid hardliners. It is not even close to being nutritionally useful for humans, especially with the germ removed and the starch refined to a white powder. > > I said that gluten only > >comes from grains. Name me one source of gluten that is not a grain. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > jack Wheat has gluten. Wheat is a grain. Gluten is only found in grains related to wheat. Gluten is not found in non-grain foods. All the same in the end. Wheat and gluten cause coeliac disease. Is that precise enough for you? In the end, grain is literally for the birds. Even ruminants, with four stomachs, can only handle so much grains in their diets. Too much can kill them. Why would we believe that humans can live off of a 60% grains and grain product diet as per the food pyramid recommendations? And notice how dougie freese pops up his square little food industry cult head whenever anyone starts discussing grains in anything but the most glowing terms? TC > In the end, grain is literally for the birds. Even ruminants, with four > stomachs, can only handle so much grains in their diets. Too much can > kill them. Why would we believe that humans can live off of a 60% > grains and grain product diet as per the food pyramid recommendations? It would be ppossible if the percent of grains is almost zero and the grain products are the leavened bread and grain vodka. S* > In the end, grain is literally for the birds. Even ruminants, with > four [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cult head whenever anyone starts discussing grains in anything but the > most glowing terms? It's only you and your paranoia that the grain industry is one big gang of thieves and all the nutritionists, most that having nothing to do the grain industry say grains are very healthy and why the appear as the basis for good nutrition. For instance The Center For Science and Public Interest is like Consumer Reports and pay homage to nobody, say grains is the basis of good health and this is just one of many many. It's only you that wallows in the conspiracy theory and why the basis for your take on proper nutrition based on paranoia and not science. Book your next flight on the space ship. -DF >> In the end, grain is literally for the birds. Even ruminants, with >> four [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >for your take on proper nutrition based on paranoia and not science. >Book your next flight on the space ship. In fact, he appears to totally reject science and the scientific method. What was that outburst about the invalidity of the "flame calorimeter" all about, do you think? jack >Wheat has gluten. Wheat is a grain. Gluten is only found in grains >related to wheat. Gluten is not found in non-grain foods. All the same >in the end. Wheat and gluten cause coeliac disease. Is that precise >enough for you? This is not exactly correct. In plant science the word gluten is used as a general term for the protein in grains. Corn gluten very much exists. But what has happened is the celiac community has taken the word gluten and used it to refer to the proteins toxic to them. They are: gliadins in wheat, hordeins in barley, secalins in rye, and for some, avenins in oats. Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). >> >What I said was and is correct. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Because that was what you were looking for. Nope, sorry. >Anyone even remotely implying that grains are not the wonder food of >the last 10 thousand years are attacked as being 'lifestyle food >cultists" and of not being scientific. Really? Then I have that strange phenomenon to look forward to. >So I make it a point of implying that grains are poor food for humans, >which they are. Which in turn brings out all the food industry cultists >to attack me. By making obviously misleading statements? Have you had a lot of success with this tack? >> Why not say that gluten only comes from wheat and its allies? > >Why would I need to be so precise? Because obviously misleading statements are counterproductive to your cause? >That wasn't part of the question. The "question" was your strange statement "Ceoliac disease and whole grains go hand in hand", remember? >> I'm sorry, but unless I'm being paranoid, I smell a strong hidden >> agenda in what you said. Have you got some other problem with grains? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >even close to being nutritionally useful for humans, especially with >the germ removed and the starch refined to a white powder. Well of course, but no-one is suggesting that only grain starch is to be used to any great extent. Remember that gluten is not a carb, but a protein and it is very helpful in the breadmaking process. >> > I said that gluten only >> >comes from grains. Name me one source of gluten that is not a grain. >> >> And it is also correct to say that gluten only comes from food, like I >> said by way of example in the first place. Both statements are >> inadvertently misleading at best or possibly even fraudulent IMHO. >Wheat has gluten. Wheat is a grain. Gluten is only found in grains >related to wheat. Gluten is not found in non-grain foods. All the same >in the end. Wheat and gluten cause coeliac disease. Is that precise >enough for you? "Gluten is not found in non-foods" would have been an equally silly statement to make. . But instead of the emotive "hand in hand" a simple accurate statement that coeliac is caused by abnormal reaction to a protein (gluten) found in wheat and a few alied grains. Your original statment just raised my alarm flags and I felt I either had to correct it, or at least see what was floating your boat. >In the end, grain is literally for the birds. So are eggs, and dairy is for the calves, and so on. Do you realise what a trap it is to be so prescriptive with all your "shoulds"? >Even ruminants, with four >stomachs, can only handle so much grains in their diets. Too much can >kill them. And you understand the mechanism for this? Chocolate can kill dogs, does that mean we shouldn't eat chocolate? And what precisely is the relevance of four stomachs? The bacteria contained in them is able to get much more energy from plant material than simple stomached animals can, but so what? Too much water can kill you. >Why would we believe that humans can live off of a 60% >grains and grain product diet as per the food pyramid recommendations? Umm, because we can and have for millennia, and do very well on it, thankyou? >And notice how dougie freese pops up his square little food industry >cult head whenever anyone starts discussing grains in anything but the >most glowing terms? I only noticed he confirmed my suspicions (caused by your original misleading statement) that you had some other agenda. You apparently do, and I'll be inerested in finding out what you have to tell us about these evil grains. jack > Well of course, but no-one is suggesting that only grain starch is to > be used to any great extent. Remember that gluten is not a carb, but a > protein and it is very helpful in the breadmaking process. Grain starch is a plant starch. But what exactly is in the leavened bread? Lately I have found out that yeasts, alga and mushrooms contain the animal starch. (It seems that the products are good for people). So in the leavened bread should be backed yeasts in quantity dependable to the time of the breadmaking process. The high gluten content probably allows to reduce the time. Is it advisable? S* |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.