new cereal !!!

ldubois7 · Post by **ldubois7** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:39 pm

Yay! Look at this .....for those of you who can't eat any grains at all, like me!!! But, I wonder if the fiber would be an issue????

http://www.julianbakery.com/paleo-product/paleo-cereal/

Post by **tex** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:51 pm

Linda,

The label shows it to be 28 % dietary (insoluble) fiber.

Tex

JLH · Post by **JLH** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:55 pm

The same company also has wraps made from coconut.

http://www.julianbakery.com/paleo/wraps/

Look at the price.

ldubois7 · Post by **ldubois7** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:25 pm

Tex...so this cereal is not a good idea due to the insoluble fiber amount.... :(

Joan...I got the wraps (the package of 7), and they are a little over a dollar each, but it's all I could find for an 'on the go' wrap for me. :)

JLH · Post by **JLH** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:22 pm

I know. How do they taste?

kd025 · Post by **kd025** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:25 pm

Just a heads up in case you all haven't heard the latest controversy surrounding this company. Personally, I wouldn't support them based on all the mudslinging they've been doing in the Paleo community. (The FDA is also taking issue with the labeling claims on their bread.)

Jimmy Moore goes into it on his blog:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/fda- ... read/23254

Post by **tex** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:35 pm

Linda wrote:Tex...so this cereal is not a good idea due to the insoluble fiber amount.... :(

I didn't look closely enough at that label. Actually (now that I took a better look at it), I see that the total fiber is 28 %, but of that, 16 % is soluble, so only 12 % is insoluble.

For reference, consider that Corn Chex has 7% fiber. Vanilla Chex has 4 % fiber. Fritos have 5 % fiber, and tortilla chips have 7 % fiber. (Not that I'm promoting those particular products, but I just happened to have some packages handy here.) For some reason or other, I can tolerate Fritos (despite the fact that they are greasier) better than I can tolerate tortilla chips if I eat a relatively large amount of them. But maybe that's just a coincidence.

For all I know, coconut fiber may not be as likely to cause problems as other types of fiber.

I know nothing about it, and I don't know if there is any difference among fiber types (other than soluble and insoluble). I have no idea if one type of insoluble fiber might be more abrasive than some other type of insoluble fiber, for example.

28 % just struck me as a relatively large amount of fiber. But that's presumably because it's positioned in the market as a health food, and as we all know (according to all the health experts), fiber is one of the healthiest things we can eat, and no one eats enough of it to satisfy USDA. their doctor, and their nutritionist or dietitian.

Since we all have varying tolerance levels, there's only one way to find out whether or not the cereal is an option.

Tex

Post by **tex** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:50 pm

OK, I see that Kristen posted a link to an article while I was writing my last post, and if we take the estimate for fiber mentioned in that article (1/2 of what the label says), then the cereal may be only 6 % insoluble fiber and 8 % soluble fiber.

That would be better for us, even though the label would have to be ludicrously dishonest for that to be true (which may well be the case for all I know, because the company appears to be about as untrustworthy as a company can get.

)

Tex

JLH · Post by **JLH** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:00 pm

Thanks, I had no idea. I posted it to Gluten Dude and Food Babe. The latter had quite an unflattering article about her. WOW!

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... -vaccines/

kd025 · Post by **kd025** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:46 am

I'd say they're not worth the time and attention.

I just wanted everyone to be aware of what was going on lately. It's a personal decision if you still want to buy their products, of course.

Kristen

Post by **tex** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:48 am

Joan,

Gorski is right of course that Hari tends to use pseudoscience now and then to support her claims, but in her defense I would point out that she most certainly is not the only internet blogger out to gain fame and fortune by the use of similar tactics to unfairly (in some cases) discredit corporations because she knows that they will usually choose to bow to such demands, rather than to try to fight an unfair accusation and risk alienating their customers. IMO, the descriptive term coined by Forbes blogger Trevor Butterworth, namely "quackmail", does indeed aptly describe such campaigns, as Gorski pointed out in his blog. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that some of her "inquisitions" are not legitimately motivated (isn't Hari the one who persuaded Silk to stop using carrageenan in their "milk" products?), but any way you look at it, the tactic is still the equivalent of public relations blackmail.

The temptation to do such things is great, because there are so many people roaming the Internet searching for a "pseudoevangelist", or "guru", as they prefer to call them, who knows how to say exactly what they want to hear. And the pursuit of fame and fortune has been the moral downfall of many. Just because it works, and it's popular with the masses, does not mean that it's right. Lynch mobs used to be popular a century or 2 ago, and they were certainly well-received by the masses in those days, but few of us would feel comfortable with that type of mentality today.

But . . . in this particular case, we also have to remember that Gorski (who uses the pen name "Orac") is notorious for being an outspoken critic of "complementary" and "alternative" medicine. He has in the past, for example, complained about the increasing adoption of pseudoscience in the medical field after some institutions adopted alternative therapies, such as acupuncture, dietary treatment or autism, etc. He's a surgical oncologist, with extensive medical credentials, so he's done his homework, but he appears to be a "by-the-book" type of physician, who is not particularly open-minded when it comes to medical procedures or treatments that have not met the rigors of random, double-blind, peer-reviewed research. That's a legitimate position of course, but the main problem with it (IMO) is that is shackles medical procedures so that progress proceeds at a snail's pace (and as always, it's the patients who are the losers in this game, not the doctors).

And obviously one of Gorski's major beefs is directed at those who blame vaccinations for major health issues in many people. But one could expect no less from a physician who never ventures outside the guidelines imposed by his medical books. He is, after all, a Professor of surgery at Wayne State University.

Tex

JLH · Post by **JLH** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:03 am

Thanks, Tex, very enlightening. I really don't follow any of them closely at all.

I watched a Dogs Naturally webinar by Dr. Patricia Jordan on vaccinosis which really opened my eyes to the problem with vaccines. SCARY.

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/dr ... s-webinar/

Tkdmama · Post by **Tkdmama** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:12 am

I have tried some of this company's products and seriously, regardless of the package claims, the products are just not that good. I do like the coconut wraps, but will now be more careful about what's in them. I don't think that Julian makes them, I think they can be gotten from other outlets but I will need to check on that.

Mary

ldubois7 · Post by **ldubois7** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:48 pm

Mary...I'm glad you like the wraps. I can't wait to try them.

Joan... Thanks for the link to Dog Naturally....very enlightening! I notice that you have many of the food intolerances that I have...basically, what do you eat? I have not tried the wraps yet.

Tex...thanks for the knowledge...I just got excited about having a cereal again, but processed is processed, and I should know that by now...I get weak...I'll stick with my meat & veggies for breakfast!

Kristen...I appreciate your input, too. That's why I love this site....the knowledge I gain from informed people!