A vast scientific literature shows the positive effects of probiotic foods such as yogurt and natto. What book most completely ignores that literature?
Practically all popular nutrition books ignore it, but some more egregiously than others. (Just as in Animal Farm, some animals were more equal than others.) I’ve decided to give the Yogurt Prize to the worst offender.
The first winner of the prize, I am pleased to announce, to be held until an even worse example comes along, is The Wellness Encyclopedia of Food & Nutrition: How to Buy, Store, and Prepare Every Variety of Fresh Food (1992) by Sheldon Margen and the editors of the University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter. The Wellness Letter has an advisory board of Berkeley professors. The book has the UC Berkeley stamp of approval. Although it has five pages on yogurt — contradicting the title — the book treats yogurt as the nutritional equivalent of milk, which is so clearly false.
The citation reads: “For putting its ignorance not only in the text but in the title of the book; for reflecting the ignorance of not just one person but a whole team of writers; for being created under an advisory board of distinguished professors; and for carrying the stamp of a world-renowned research university.”
Why do you think there is a societal aversion to eating out of dumpsters? Say, even behind a restaurant? You’ve made many posts on this fermentation hypothesis, but I’m not sure I remember you mentioning once that there is a limit to the idea.
If you’ve ever eaten rotten food and involuntarily puked soon afterward, you know this upper limit.
NE1, long ago people thought white bread was better than non-white bread, white rice better than brown rice. I don’t worry much about “societal aversions”.
Actually, white bread and rice ARE better (maybe I should say less worse) than their whole-grain counterparts IF the whole grain versions are not treated appropriately before consumption. Stephen has many posts at his WholeHealthSource blog discussing how important it is to sprout and/or ferment whole grains to make them nutritious. It turns out that refining flour and rice by removing most of the exterior of the grain–although removing most or all of the vitamins and minerals–does get rid of the phytic acid (an antivitamin if you will) that is so problematic for human digestion and absorption of nutrients. But fitting with your hypothesis, it turns out that the best way to consume grains is to not only soak or sprout them but also to lactoferment them (e.g., with some yogurt or kefir).
The lectins concentrated in the bran of grain is also bad for you. They can damage the intestinal lining, get into the blood, trigger off inflammation, and are likely candidates for binding to insulin and leptin receptors, inducing insulin and leptin resistance, the first stages in metabolic syndrome and obesity.
Breaking down the lectins is one of the reason traditional societies ferment grains before eating them. If the grains haven’t been soaked, sprouted and/or fermented though you’re actually better off with the bran removed.
Have you come across any books which are outstanding in their discussion of probiotics? I think there could be two categories; one written for those with a scientific mind, and another written for the general public.
Caleb, what about the Japanese who got beriberi because they ate white rice instead of brown rice?
Kirk, no I haven’t. I agree, that’s a more interesting question.
Beriberi is due to thiamine deficiency. If you’re poor and don’t have a better source of B1 like meat, then yes, you’re better off with brown rice. Won’t change that the phytic acid and lectins are still going to do bad things to you. In rice’s defense, if you’re going to have a grain, it seems to have the lowest level of anti nutrients. Wheat appears to be the worst.