Why Grains aren't needed in your diet

[Dan710]

Why Grains Are Unhealthy | Mark's Daily Apple

Good article about grains and why they aren't needed in our diet.

"I find that grain bashing makes for a tasty, but ultimately unsatisfying meal. You all know how much I love doing it, though. But no matter how often I sit down to dine on the stuff (and I’ve done it with great gusto in the past), I always leave the table feeling like I left something behind. Like maybe I wasn’t harsh enough about the danger of gluten, or I failed to really convey just how much I hated lectins. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the mere mention of grains was eliciting a crazy insulin-esque response and throwing my satiety hormones all out of whack. I was filling up on anti-grain talk, but I just couldn’t fill that void for long.
Well, I’ve got the hunger today, and this time I aim to stuff myself to the point of perpetual sickness. I don’t ever want to have to look at another anti-grain argument again (yeah, right). If things get a little disjointed, or if I descend into bullet points and sentence fragments, it’s only because the hunger has taken over and I’ve decided to dispense with the pleasantries in order to lay it all out at once.

So please, bear with me.
Apart from maintaining social conventions in certain situations and obtaining cheap sugar calories, there is absolutely no reason to eat grains. Believe me – I’ve searched far and wide and asked everyone I can for just one good reason to eat cereal grains, but no one can do it. They may have answers, but they just aren’t good enough. For fun, though, let’s see take a look at some of the assertions:
“You need the fiber!”

Okay, for one: no, I don’t. If you’re referring to its oft-touted ability to move things along in the inner sanctum, fiber has some unintended consequences. A few years back, scientists found that high-fiber foods “bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering” which “increases the level of lubricating mucus.” Err, that sounds positively awful. Banging and tearing? Rupturing? These are not the words I like to hear. But wait! The study’s authors say, “It’s a good thing.” Fantastic! So when all those sticks and twigs rub up against my fleshy interior and literally rupture my intestinal lining, I’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s all part of the plan, right?
Somehow, I’m not convinced that a massive daily infusion of insoluble grain fiber is all that essential. And that “lubricating mucus” sounds an awful like the mucus people with irritable bowel syndrome complain about. From personal experience I can tell you that once I completed my exodus from grains, the IBS completely stopped. If you’re not yet convinced on the fiber issue I’ll refer you to Konstantin Monastyrsky’s Fiber Menace. Anyway, there’s plenty of fiber in the vegetables and fruit I eat. Which takes me to the next claim:
“You need the vitamins and minerals!”

You got me. I do need vitamins and minerals, like B1 and B2, magnesium and iron, zinc and potassium. But do I need to obtain them by eating a carb-heavy, bulky grain? No, no I don’t. You show me a serving of “healthy whole grains” that can compete – nutrient, vitamin, and mineral-wise – with a Big Ass Salad. What’s that? Can’t do it? Thought so.
“But it forms the foundation of the governmental food pyramid!”

You know, I should have just started the entire post with this one. I could have saved my fingers the trouble of typing and your eyes the trouble of reading. Governmental endorsements are not points in your favor, grain-eater; they are strikes against you. An appeal to authority (unless that “authority” is actually a preponderance of scientific evidence, of course) does not an effective argument make. Conventional Wisdom requires consistent, steady dissection and criticism if it is to be of any value.
There’s a reason grains are first and foremost on the list of foods to avoid when following the Primal Blueprint: they are completely and utterly pointless in the context of a healthy diet. In fact, if your average unhealthy person were to ask for the top three things to avoid in order to get healthy, I would tell them to stop smoking, to stop drinking their calories (as soda or juice), and to stop eating grains. Period. Full stop. They really are that bad.
I’ve mentioned this time and again, but the fundamental problem with grains is that they are a distinctly Neolithic food that the human animal has yet to adapt to consuming. In fact, cereal grains figured prominently in the commencement of the New Stone Age; grains were right there on the forefront of the agricultural revolution. Hell, they were the agricultural revolution – einkorn wheat, emmer, millet, and spelt formed the backbone of Neolithic farming. They could be stored for months at a time, they were easy enough to grow in massive enough quantities to support a burgeoning population, and they promoted the construction of permanent settlements. Oh, and they were easily hoarded, meaning they were probably an early form of currency (and, by extension, a potential source of income inequality). And here’s the kicker: they were harsh, tough things that probably didn’t even taste very good. It also took a ton of work just to make them edible, thanks to their toxic anti-nutrients.
Toxic anti-nutrients? Do tell.

Living things generally do not want to be consumed by other living things. Being digested, for the most part, tends to interrupt survival, procreation, propagation of the species – you know, standard stuff that fauna and flora consider pretty important. To avoid said consumption, living things employ various self defense mechanisms. Rabbits, for example, with their massive ears, considerable fast-twitch muscle fibers, and nasty claws, can usually hear a predator coming, outrun (out-hop?) nearly anything, and (in a pinch) slash a tender belly to shreds. Blue whales are too big to fit into your mouth, while porcupines are walking reverse pincushions. Point is, animals have active defense mechanisms. They run, fight, jump, climb, fly, sting, bite, and even appeal to our emotions (if you’ve ever seen a puppy beg for a treat with sad eyes, you know that isn’t just accidental cuteness) in order to survive. All the while, predators are constantly evolving and generating adaptations.
Plants, though, are passive organisms without the ability to move, think, and react (for the most part). They must employ different tactics to ensure propagation, and they generally have to rely on outside forces to spread their seed. And so various methods are “devised” to dissuade consumption long enough for the seed to get to where it’s going. Nuts have those tough shells, and grains have the toxic anti-nutrients, lectins, gluten, and phytates. (Of course there are some obvious exceptions. Fruits are tasty, nutritious, and delicious so that animals will eat them whole and poop out the seeds, preferably into some fertile soil. The seed stays intact throughout the digestive process; it is indigestible by design. No seed “wants” to be digested, because this would defeat the purpose. They “want” to be swallowed, or borne by the wind, or carried by a bee to the next flower, but they do not want to be digested.)
Some animals are clearly adapted to grain consumption. Birds, rodents, and some insects can deal with the anti-nutrients. Humans, however, cannot. Perhaps if grains represented a significant portion of our ancestral dietary history, things might be a bit different. Some of us can digest dairy, and we’ve got the amylase enzyme present in our saliva to break down starches if need be, but we simply do not have the wiring necessary to mitigate the harmful effects of lectins, gluten, and phytate.
Lectins are bad. They bind to insulin receptors, attack the stomach lining of insects, bind to human intestinal lining, and they seemingly cause leptin resistance. And leptin resistance predicts a “worsening of the features of the metabolic syndrome independently of obesity”. Fun stuff, huh?

Gluten might be even worse. Gluten, found in wheat, rye, and barley, is a composite of the proteins giladin and glutenin. Around 1% of the population are celiacs, people who are completely and utterly intolerant of any gluten. In celiacs, any gluten in the diet can be disastrous. We’re talking compromised calcium and vitamin D3 levels, hyperparathyroidism, bone defects. Really terrible stuff. And it gets worse: just because you’re not celiac doesn’t mean you aren’t susceptible to the ravages of gluten. As Stephan highlights, one study showed that 29% of asymptomatic (read: not celiac) people nonetheless tested positive for anti-gliadin IgA in their stool. Anti-gliadin IgA is an antibody produced by the gut, and it remains there until it’s dispatched to ward off gliadin – a primary component of gluten. Basically, the only reason anti-gliadin IgA ends up in your stool is because your body sensed an impending threat – gluten. If gluten poses no threat, the anti-gliadin IgA stays in your gut. And to think, most Americans eat this stuff on a daily basis.
Phytates are a problem, too, because they make minerals bio-unavailable (so much for all those healthy vitamins and minerals we need from whole grains!), thus rendering null and void the last, remaining argument for cereal grain consumption.
What, then, is the point to all this grain madness? Is there a good reason for anyone (with access to meat, fruit, and vegetables, that is) to rely on cereal grains for a significant portion of their caloric intake?
The answer is unequivocally, undeniably no. We do not need grains to survive, let alone thrive. In fact, they are naturally selected to ward off pests, whether they be insects or hominids. I suggest we take the hint and stop eating them."

[kagaos]

Good read! +rep
But unless I can find a better replacement for my mass gaining blends I'm sticking with oats

[greenmeany]

yup vegetables, fruits, nuts seeds and sprouts are really all you need.

[MelT]

I've been grain free for a couple of years now, best thing I ever did. More lithe, more awake, less stomach problems, good initial weight loss, very worth trying.

MelT

[Penelope420]

Sorry, but that entire blog post read like spam to me. And it is no big surprise at all that the person who wrote it is trying to sell you a low-carb diet plan.

I'm not saying everything in that article is 100% false... he's doing what most good sales people do... he's taking some factual information, adding a whole lot of opinion and junk science and manipulating it to help sell his product.

Humans have been eating whole grains since the dawn of civilization.

It is true that some people cannot tolerate even the smallest amount of gluten, lectin, or other grains. Those people do benefit from a low-carb diet. In the same way that people who are allergic to peanuts, benefit from a low-peanut diet. If you are someone who eats a low carb-diet, and it works for you then that's great, but don't do it because some snake-oil salesman says so.

The healthiest diet for the average person is one made up of a good balance of whole grains, proteins and fats. Processed food should be kept to a minimum, and it's true that a lot of grains are processed poorly and are very unhealthy. And a lot of refined sugars and grains will not satisfy you and can lead to overeating obesity. That's common sense, not revolutionary science.

[Stangfriik]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

Sorry, but that entire blog post read like spam to me. And it is no big surprise at all that the person who wrote it is trying to sell you a low-carb diet plan.

I'm not saying everything in that article is 100% false... he's doing what most good sales people do... he's taking some factual information, adding a whole lot of opinion and junk science and manipulating it to help sell his product.

Humans have been eating whole grains since the dawn of civilization.

It is true that some people cannot tolerate even the smallest amount of gluten, lectin, or other grains. Those people do benefit from a low-carb diet. In the same way that people who are allergic to peanuts, benefit from a low-peanut diet. If you are someone who eats a low carb-diet, and it works for you then that's great, but don't do it because some snake-oil salesman says so.

The healthiest diet for the average person is one made up of a good balance of whole grains, proteins and fats. Processed food should be kept to a minimum, and it's true that a lot of grains are processed poorly and are very unhealthy. And a lot of refined sugars and grains will not satisfy you and can lead to overeating obesity. That's common sense, not revolutionary science.

We may have started to eat them around the dawn of cultivation but it doesn't mean we have adapted to properly absorb them

Whole Health Source: Grains and Human Evolution

[MelT]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

Sorry, but that entire blog post read like spam to me. And it is no big surprise at all that the person who wrote it is trying to sell you a low-carb diet plan.

I'm not saying everything in that article is 100% false... he's doing what most good sales people do... he's taking some factual information, adding a whole lot of opinion and junk science and manipulating it to help sell his product.

Humans have been eating whole grains since the dawn of civilization.

It is true that some people cannot tolerate even the smallest amount of gluten, lectin, or other grains. Those people do benefit from a low-carb diet. In the same way that people who are allergic to peanuts, benefit from a low-peanut diet. If you are someone who eats a low carb-diet, and it works for you then that's great, but don't do it because some snake-oil salesman says so.

The healthiest diet for the average person is one made up of a good balance of whole grains, proteins and fats. Processed food should be kept to a minimum, and it's true that a lot of grains are processed poorly and are very unhealthy. And a lot of refined sugars and grains will not satisfy you and can lead to overeating obesity. That's common sense, not revolutionary science.

I'm with Stangfrick. Illness from eating grain/gluten is an increasing problem worldwide that is severely underestimated by the medical profession, but not those it affects. Almost everyone over the age of around 43 will have some intolerance to it. I literally don't know anyone who doesn't have it (telling of my age group, and a lactose sensitivity too. A grain filled diet is not the way to go for me or them and I lost someone dear to me because they believed it was, and they ignored the fact that gluten was damaging their lower intestine and bowels, and they died of cancer. We are no more meant to have masses of grain - which we unavoidably do, even on a normal diet - than adults are meant to have milk. I seriously recommend any older blades to try life without gluten of any kind for just one week and see the difference it makes.

Added: Just a bit more info. If you do have a problem with it and cut it out of your diet, you will know feel improvements within 4/7 days, the changes you will feel are that marked and rapid. If you don't feel any better after this point and really have cut all gluten (inlcuding oats) out of your diet, you do not have a sensitivity to it. You may at present have a paunch and a feeling of heaviness over your solar plexus, which will disappear very quickly, bowel movements will be much easier (and smell much better too!). Sleep patterns are better, response to stress is diminished.

Gluten exaccerbates the damage caused by old accidents and illnesses: if Ihave gluten now I get a bad big toe, bad back and respiratory problems, all old damage that doesn't normally affect me unless I have gluten.

The symptoms of gluten sensitivity are very broad and not just associated with stomach problems as you might think. For some, fibre and gluten are serious irritants that disturb their whole immune system and makes them more prone to colds and all manner of other illnesses. The worst for me and others I know is the depression it causes. I can have one slice of bread (processed or home-made) and within an hour can go from totally happy to feeling flat, tired, grumpy, depressed and not wanting to be touched or spoken to.

Gluten symptoms come and go, depending on your level of stress

The downside:

The longer you stay off it the more extreme the effects will be if you do go back to it.

Constantly reading labels and avoiding foods with gluten in it is tedious - it's in so many foods nowadays it's soul-destroying -, and some days you will think that you can't keep doing it and you WILL cheat. But you WILL regret it and remember just why you gave it up

MelT

[Toker4L2f0]

hmm this is interesting maybe ill try it

[Smerdyakov]

If you have a pathology that makes it hard for you to tolerate gluten or grain, you should avoid them. If you don't have such a pathology, there is no need to treat them as toxic, though there are certainly good reasons for re-assessing their role in the Western diet.

“You need the fiber!”

The author contradicts himself here in an obvious way; he begins by saying 'fiber is actually bad', and ends by saying 'besides, I get enough from other sources'. He doubtlessly gets enough fiber from fruits and vegetables, but that doesn't mean that fiber from grain is of negligible benefit for everyone else; plenty of would-be Atkins commandos who ended up needing stool softeners can attest to that. The description of the rupturing action in the digestive tract may sound gross to him, but there are lots of parts of the body that work in comparable ways. Muscle tears are how we build muscle; rupturing of white blood cells is a critical part of how our immune system works. The cells lining the GI tract are meant to be cycled through fairly quickly- cells not dieing or not growing back is a serious health issue.

“But it forms the foundation of the governmental food pyramid!”

Starts well, and then boards the train to crazy town. Yes, the fact that the government puts grain at the base of the food pyramid is not a good reason to eat grains. Yes, the food pyramid is out of date, given that in the US right now most people's problem is over-consumption of carbohydrates. Of course, that is mostly in the form of refined sugars and corn syrup rather than the whole grains that the food pyramid actually recommends. But calling the governments endorsement of whole grain a reason to avoid it smacks of conspiracy theory thinking (as does the weird comment about grain being at the root of economic inequality- not sure what stone age politics has to do with anything at all).

I've heard the argument that humans are not 'properly evolved' to digest grains since grain only entered the diet late in the game, evolutionarily speaking. But how is it possible that something that we aren't equipped to digest properly would expand to become the basis of all human agriculture? There are plenty of marginal foods out there that humans can't quite digest properly, but that can be eaten in bulk to ease hunger and provide very low levels of nutrition ("famine foods", they are called, and we are lucky not to have to call on them much in modern society). They haven't caught on; they are always displaced in the diet by grains or other forms of nutrition when it is available. Plant evolution also comes in here as you'll see below...

Toxic anti-nutrients? Do tell.

This argument is a hodge-podge of confused evolutionary thinking. Yes, some plants have defense mechanisms to prevent them from being eaten. Plenty don't, however, including lots of modern cultivars where humans have had the opportunity to weed out the ones that made them ill. The writer ignores the fact that being eaten is an evolutionary advantage for grain plants- it causes humans to preserve them, sow their seeds for them, protect them from predators, and nourish them. As long as the plant gets to reproduce, it doesn't care what happens after. Read 'The Botany of Desire' for a lot more discussion of this type of thing.

Secondly, to be effective, defense mechanisms have to be either immediate or recognizable. Toxic plant species activate taste and texture receptors that developed in humans and animals to recognize poisons- they taste foul or bitter, or have a texture or smell like spoiled food, as an example. Or, they have such an immediate effect that the origin is indisputable- such as quickly inducing vomiting or GI distress. Now, gluten etc. may have that effect on people who have a specific sensitivity, but for the rest of the population it does not. A "defense mechanism" that is as hard to recognize as grain's allegedly is for most of the population is totally useless.

As human cultivation is the primary way that grains are spread and their genetic lines continued, becoming more tasty/nutritious to people is actually a better survival strategy- and plants have had plenty of time to adapt to human tastes and digestion, even if humans may not have had enough time to adapt to stone-age grains. Rye, for instance, started out as a weed that grew in with wheat and barley crops. Through a process called Vavilovian mimicry, rye that survived the techniques that farmers had for separating useless plants from useful ones became a useful food crop- ancestral rye was much less like a grain crop than the modern plant, and more like a weed. A crop plant that sickened people in an overt way would be discarded and cease to be a crop; even one that sickened people covertly would tend to be replaced by varieties that didn't in most of the population.

Gluten

Again, a discussion of a known pathology as though it were applicable to a wider population. Yes, Celiac disease sucks. But it is an aberrant auto-immune disorder, not signs that we weren't meant to eat wheat. Celiac is no more a sign that we aren't meant to eat grain than rheumatoid arthritis is a sign that we weren't meant to have joints.

The guy has some good ideas, particularly for people who have a particular pathology. But bread is not hiding in your closet or under your bed. Most of the population has not evicted it from their diet because it simply isn't responsible for making them ill or significantly less healthy. If you have specific symptoms, try it and see if they go away. And no, 'I eat 4,000 calories a day and I'm gaining weight' is not a symptom.

Yes, Americans should eat less carbs. But by and large, replacing a measure of the sugar that most people eat with a comparable volume of whole grain food would be a net win for 90% of the population. The qualities in grains might be replaceable elsewhere, but most American diets would be improved, not made worse, by adding more grains. Grain might have some issues, but for most American eaters it is a way to make their diet better, not worse.

As Shakespeare doubtlessly actually meant to say, "for there is no (food) either good or bad, but (overconsumption or diseases afflicting the intestinal tract) makes it so".

[MelT]

I've heard the argument that humans are not 'properly evolved' to digest grains since grain only entered the diet late in the game, evolutionarily speaking. But how is it possible that something that we aren't equipped to digest properly would expand to become the basis of all human agriculture? >>

Good post, but I'm not sure I see your logic in the above para'? There are many foods that expand into world wide use, whether or not they're good for us. Nobody over the age of about 5 should have milk (literally, as you know we don't possess the enzyme to break it down once we reach early childhood), and yet lactose, whey powder and other milk products are in almost every food you can buy. Sugars too, salt to some extent - being good for us has never been much of a consideration for humans

We changed from being hunter-gatherers around 12, 000 BC in Turkey. Storing grain to offset dwindling game in winters, and for replanting, is a logical step, it doesn't mean that we were meant to eat it, just that we can eat it if we have to.

Yes, Americans should eat less carbs. But by and large, replacing a measure of the sugar that most people eat with a comparable volume of whole grain food would be a net win for 90% of the population. The qualities in grains might be replaceable elsewhere, but most American diets would be improved, not made worse, by adding more grains. Grain might have some issues, but for most American eaters it is a way to make their diet better, not worse.

The medical profession in the UK tries to down play gluten problems by saying that anyone who doesn't have full blown Crohns or IBS doesn't have gluten sensitivity, when in fact it has a broad spectrum of effects and displays in every way, including neurologically. It makes old damage of any kind flare up - from legs that were broken years ago to arthritis and lung problems. How much extra stress does that place on the welfare serice, how is it beneficial to the general health of the eater to be having something that's is a depressant, or that will make it hard for him to walk? The problem with gluten is rife, because we become sensitive to the foods that we the most of. Only in Japan is it common to have rice sensitivity for example, fish in Scandinavia. I do know what you're saying, anything's an improvement on burgers and fries, but gluten is a nasty thing that I'm sure we will come to regret having so much of in coming years.

MelT

[crackrockstdy89]

Ever since i switched to a diet heavier in whole grains, i've felt alot healthier than before. More energy, i seem more alert, digestive problems i used to have are gone/ not nearly as bad. Plus, nothing beats a big bowl of oatmeal with some brown sugar or syrup when you're baked. Fills you up, tastes good, and it's low in calories. Some of the facts may be true, but i haven't seen any adveserse side effects.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by crackrockstdy89

Ever since i switched to a diet heavier in whole grains, i've felt alot healthier than before. More energy, i seem more alert, digestive problems i used to have are gone/ not nearly as bad. Plus, nothing beats a big bowl of oatmeal with some brown sugar or syrup when you're baked. Fills you up, tastes good, and it's low in calories. Some of the facts may be true, but i haven't seen any adveserse side effects.

Then you're one of the lucky ones, and I'm assuming you're less than 42 (?), when the problems start to appear.

Oatmeal would be more or less instant discomfort and I feel more alert and with less digestive problems off it, strange old world Your low calorie snack BTW is, per cup (ie, 156.0 g), quite a small serving, is 670 calories. Your syrup or brown sugar will add another 300 or more, so we're talking about your snack being the equivalent of nearly half an average persons daily calorific intake in one small bowl.

Sounds good though


MelT

[Toker4L2f0]

sorry some brown sugar and a little syrup squirted in ur oatmeal does not add 300 cals to ur oatmeal a quarter of a cup of syrup is 100 cals my oatmeal is maybe 160 cals a packet and a dap of brown sugar is not much ad a banana in to that bitchin bowl and im full till dinner eat breakfast like a king lunch like a queen and dinner like a peasant, breakfast is where i like to get my breads in with protein for the day.

[Penelope420]

If you have a pathology that makes it hard for you to tolerate gluten or grain, you should avoid them. If you don't have such a pathology, there is no need to treat them as toxic, though there are certainly good reasons for re-assessing their role in the Western diet.

The rest of your post was all very well said, but really, it's this simple. I have no doubt that a lot of people can not digest grains properly, but many of us can. The term "grain" is so broad anyway...

All I'm really saying is to recognize this type of "article" for what it is... someone trying to sell a diet.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by Toker4L2f0

sorry some brown sugar and a little syrup squirted in ur oatmeal does not add 300 cals to ur oatmeal a quarter of a cup of syrup is 100 cals my oatmeal is maybe 160 cals a packet and a dap of brown sugar is not much ad a banana in to that bitchin bowl and im full till dinner eat breakfast like a king lunch like a queen and dinner like a peasant, breakfast is where i like to get my breads in with protein for the day.

You do know there's about 100 cal's in your banana and about 90 for one teaspoon of sugar? Sounds nice mind...

MelT