Would love links to hard-and-fast evidence that "should be eating lots of whole grains." This is not necessarily universally accepted as fact among many nutritionists!

I agree with Leroi. This is a good place to have a discussion on the questionable benefits of grains - even whole grains.

I was hoping the article would touch on that too. I'm learning about a different perspective on nutrition in Taube's "Why We Get Fat" right now.

This article is hysterical.
"Despite the studies that say eating whole grains will make you healthier..."

Citation? I can tell you from personal experience in addition to well documented studies that grains will in fact NOT make you healthier. They are in many cases toxic and in all cases inflammatory. But don't take my word for it, take a minute and do a little google-fu.

Why Grains are Unhealthy

10 Reasons to Go Grain-Free

The Grain Manifesto

Cutting grains/gluten from my diet changed my life nearly overnight. I was as brainwashed as the next person into thinking that "whole grains" were in fact good for me. PLEASE take a look for yourselves and read up on what grains are really doing to your gut, insulin levels, acid/base balance, etc...

I agree with all the above posts! Grains are why the US is so fat! Most other countries do not rely on grains like we do...breakfast especially is grain filled which is sad since it does not give our insulin a fighting chance to be stable and help keep our energy up through the day. After being on the slow carb diet for 8 months now, I can clearly see and feel the destruction that grains cause.

Here is a great link for those looking to explore the theory :http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-the-campaign-to-stop-america-s-obesity-crisis-keeps-failing.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon

how about "eat less grains in general even if they are *whole*"

I would love a recipe for the ricotta millet pudding with lemon, honey, & raspberry that she mentioned in the article. It sounds divine.

Yes, could we please have the recipe for the date rice and ricotta millet puddings please!

Stealthy and sexy - love it!

Thewholesomehome says, "Most other countries do not rely on grains like we do." How about a citation for that factoid?

I incorporate the three shades of Quinoa and Amaranth with my rice when I cook it.
2 cups Basmarti rice, 1/2 cup white Quinoa, 1/4 cup each of red Quinoa, black Quinoa and Amaranth. Put the mix in my rice cooker cover with water or stock, push "cook"
I cook my Kamut and Whole Barley in my pressure cooker. 25 minutes as opposed to the longer stove top cooking or in the slow cooker.
Buckwheat and millet are both cooked in my slowcooker overnight for a nutty breakfast porridge. I do whole grain Oats the same way.
Chia is sprinkled on top along with using it in my homemade bread along with toasted sesame seeds.
Mix up your grains and seeds, add them to your fruits and veggies, serve them under your fresh fish or steak. Ancient Grains are much better for you than the modern hybridised wheats.

"Most other countries do not rely on grains like we do."

Then how do you account for the many (if not most) cuisines that have some form of bread? Europe, the Middle East, the subcontinent - just off the top of my head.

The indigenous peoples of the Americas had quinoa and tapioca. Asians have rice. I believe millet is commonly eaten in Africa.

Pretty much the whole world eats grains. They can't be THAT bad.

(I find a lot of time people who rail against grains really mean highly processed grains, particularly wheat, and eating far too much of them. So a nice serving of barley with lemon and sage gets lumped in with a dozen cookies as being "bad".)

I mean grains are in EVERYTHING practically, and I guess I should have said the US relies very heavily on PROCESSED grains, instead of meats, fish and veggies. But still, when grains are not prepared properly (soaking, and sprouting) there are biological reactions to the "toxins" contained in the grain and let's face it, not many people are going to do it right.

Read the article I posted before. Of course, the rest of the world and uses grains, I'm not saying they don't.

The rest of the world and indigenous people are not pigging out on Wonderbread and Poptarts.

BTW I love grains! They just don't love me!

These comments are really refreshing. I'm a paleo devotee, and I'd never eat any other way. More specifically, after quitting grains, then falling off the wagon, and then quitting again, I've seen the incredibly stark contrast between how I feel eating grains and how I feel without them. Modern wheat is an opiate (various sources, including CBS News); most whole grains are at least partially indigestible to humans and almost all can cause leaky gut syndrome and a host of other health issues, including metabolic syndrome and diabetes (various sources, including "The Paleo Solution," Robb Wolf). Grains, mostly wheat, are linked to schizophrenia and other mental health problems (see Evolutionary Psychiatry via psychologytoday.com). Our modern grain-rich diets are also responsible for the buildup of cholesterol in our blood vessels (again, "The Paleo Solution;" you should see my lab results after a year grain-free! My doctors can't believe how low my cholesterol is now, on my 3 eggs/100g of bacon a day diet).

Also, tapioca is a starch refined from the cassava root, not a grain, and is therefore generally acceptable to us paleovores. It's great in place of cornstarch or flour as a thickener, and even makes a pretty nice crepe if one is a bit desperate =)

Despite popular belief buckwheat is not a grain. It's actually a fruit and is great at regulating blood sugar and also has a good dose of protein. It's been my favorite breakfast choice for a long time.

Wow, what a debate! I am pretty sure that if one was to put their mind (and time) to it, there are studies to be found that support pretty much any preconceived idea we might have about food: that carbs are good, that carbs are bad, fat is good/bad, etc. Do we really need to go through all those studies to make some sound choices in our life?

My intuition tells me that eating muffins/pastries/sugary cereals for breakfast, a sandwich made with lots of bread for lunch and a bowl of pasta with garlic toast (why toast as a side for pasta, it fails me) for dinner may be a bit much in terms of cereal intakes. Without any scientific proof I am also inclined to believe that consuming a larger variety of cereals rather than relying on white wheat floor all the time may be a smarter move. Also, consuming more artisan-type, even homemade bread, rather than the spongy stuff they sell in stores.

So, despite having a paleo devotee in my family, I personally like to eat cereals and I don't feel bad after eating them. I am aware that they may not be as healthy as some people portray them, but I still prefer to eat them in moderate quantities and, especially, in savoury recipes. And for reminding me how many options there are out there, I have found this interview quite useful.

How, exactly, does Maria Speck define "whole grains?" I ask because several of the foods she calls whole are not, at least according the to way we understand the term in the US.

* Polenta is not a whole grain. It is a crushed grain.

* Cous-cous is not a grain. It is a type of pasta made from crushed wheat.

* And, as noted above by Lindalu, buckwheat is not a grain. It is a fruit.

Put me in the doubters' camp for whole grains being across the board healthy. They may be great for some people (people with low blood sugar and high cholesterol do great when they add whole grains to their diets.) But for many of us, they don't improve health and for some of us, they're definitely not good.

Personally, I can't eat grains, processed or whole, natural or not. They raise my blood sugar to abnormal levels. But I CAN eat sugar without an abnormal spike. Some bodies just don't like grains and I don't see how the myth that they are great for everyone stays alive in the current climate of more awareness of how carbohydrates and grains break down in the body, etc.

@thewholesomehome

So it's not really the grains, it's the highly processed industrial food that makes up the typical American diet - food that also has lots of chemicals and other highly processed ingredients other than grains.

Meanwhile, all over the world people are eating whole grains as they have done for millenia, with no adverse effects.

If there is anything people should be attacking, especially if you live in the US, is the added sugars in processed food. Most whole grains that have not been stripped from their nutritional value help regulate blood sugar levels unlike white rice, white bread and white pasta that spike your insulin levels leading to a risk of developing diabetes. I don't have a specific citation, but this is from reading a lot of Michael Pollan's books, specifically "In Defence of Food".

Sorry I have no published studies at the moment for my point but from what I understand, grains have nutrients that can easily be found elsewhere. Having a wheat allergy myself, I ear non gluten grains as filler only anyway.

I am so glad to see that I am not the only person bothered by the idea we all should know whole grains are healthy. If were a ruminant, sure -- but I'm not. I'm a human being and wheat is a toxin to my body.

I agree with a lot of people above. Like Emmi I am on a gluten free diet for 9 months now, and my body could not be happier. I have stopped consuming anything that pretty much is man made. I eat grains like teff, millet, rice (take a look at how much calcium teff has) and the rest of my diet is made of poultry, fish, a little meat, and a LOT LOT of vegetables, lots of seeds and nuts. Small quantities of fruit, but most fruit is high in fructose anyway. I thought I would miss cheese, but I do not miss it at ALL. There are so many natural sources that made up for my calcium intake. Now if I could only live in a sunny climate to keep my vitamin D at a healthy level - it would be grand. Just keep in mind, we humans were made to be outdoors all the time, get sun, eat what nature made. None of these wheats that are so genetically processed to increase crop. I dont blame the industry tho, the world is how many billions now, how do we feed all these people?

Oh brother. The fact that grains have nutrients that can be found elsewhere does NOT mean that they are bad for humans. Pretty much EVERY food has nutrients that can be found elsewhere. Nutrition-wise, it's meaningless.

No one on this thread has yet answered the question: how do you account for all the grain-eating going on in the world that doesn't cause any harm?

I predict the answer will be "But they don't eat GM grains, their grains are less processed, they cook them from scratch, etc".

Which means: IT'S NOT THE GRAINS. GRAINS ARE NOT POISON.

It's just what Americans are doing to their grains, which is a totally different thing.

Anyway, in 10 years there will be some other food that's terrible and everyone will have forgotten about grains.

@lunalu: buckwheat is a fruit (achene) AND a whole grain.

@anulla: whole grain doesn´t mean "not crushed grain". Couscous (semolina) and polenta (corn) are in!

Whole grain includes "cereal grains that consist of the intact and unrefined, ground, cracked or flaked fruit of the grains whose principal components -- the starchy endosperm, germ and bran -- are present in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact grain" in US FDA´s definition.

The refining process removes some of the bran and germ from the grain, resulting in a loss of dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals in common refined non-whole grain products as white rice, white flour, white bread and regular pasta (FDA again).

Any food can be good or bad. Even bacon can be healthy if not a daily indulgence, in right amount and preparation; even kamut or triticale can be bad for someone with celiac disease. It´s all about measure, balance and personal conditions.

MelissaPauline, if you are curious as to why some people feel grains are unhealthy (aside from personal experiences), these are some concise articles for a start:

Why Grains Are Unhealthy
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz26SPZUQlb

Are Traditionally Prepared Grains Healthy?
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/soaked-sprouted-fermented-grains/#axzz26SPZUQlb

I've come across Mark's Daily Apple before. It's loaded with pseudoscience. I still haven't found the part where Mark details his own scientific and nutrition background. As far as I can tell, he dismisses all the science that doesn't support his theories because those scientists are all "sellouts". All while he is selling stuff himself! The market for new diets and food philosophies in America is HUGE, and he's cashing in, like dozens of others. Weirdly, he seems to think he has human evolution, nutrition and plant science TOTALLY figured out. That's absurd. It's far too complex and there are still many things we don't know.

The article you linked to about traditionally prepared grains has many flaws. For one thing, where's his proof that ALL cultures who eat grains are using the prep methods he describes? They might be doing all kinds of things with their grains. For another, most foods require some kind of processing to be safe and healthy to eat. There are naturally occuring toxins in many of the foods that he himself recommends. But grains are the big nasty?

For yet another, he says right up front that health is due to many factors. Right, so how can he be so sure that *grains* are the culprit in US health issues? When there are so many others?

These other grain-eating cultures have got thousands of years of experience to put up against Mark's theories. I have more faith in their knowledge than some guy flogging diet books.

@MelissaPauline Here is a well written article on why one would choose to believe grains are toxic. If you don't care for this article just google grains/lectins. Grains are not without consequence. But you are right in that it's the way they are prepared and grown. "

"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 gliadin 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.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#ixzz26SQy6Mh3

Here is another article if you would like to read. http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-solution/

This article explains more of the cultural use of grains:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-human-evolution.html

*Not trying to start an argument, just trying to answer your question!

@melissapauline
"No one on this thread has yet answered the question: how do you account for all the grain-eating going on in the world that doesn't cause any harm?"

Its a good question, I'll try to tackle this one. Consider that many such health afflictions such as heart disease, hypertension, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, alzheimers, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, etc are what have been termed as modern diseases, or diseases of civilization as in this article. We know that this is not a genetic predisposition because the rates of these diseases is correlated with the adoption of modern foods such as flour, sugar, industrial seed oils, etc. There is a great book written in the 1930s by a dentist Weston A. Price, called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration that studies traditional cultures' diets and rates of tooth decay (he also describes other types of diseases observed) and what happens with the introduction of modern foods. Anyway remember, correlation does not equal causation so it may not be the diet, but it is interesting to note that health changes are seen within an individual's lifespan with the introduction of these modern foods so it provides a basis for hypothesis and further research. Okay so let me answer your question, grains do have minerals and vitamins, but they also have high amounts of phytic acid which means that our bodies can not absorb these minerals and vitamins unless we take measures to break down the phytic acid. Ruminant animals have an enzyme called phytase which allows them to eat cereal grains and reap the benefits but humans do not have this enzyme. Traditional cultures have adapted by soaking, grinding, and fermenting whole grains to degrade or strip this phytic acid content (such as ogi, injera, idli, dosas, puto) so that these vitamins and minerals become bioavailable.

I don't think it is meaningless to think that we should focus on diets on eating foods that are nutrient dense for our bodies. Think about how grain heavy most diets of even health conscious eaters are. If our nation's standards for healthy eating aim at 30% grains without the proper preparation of these grains, I would say that could lead to a pretty significant nutrient deficiency. Combined with other dietary and lifestyle factors that promote inflammation (find me a modern disease and I'll show you inflammation gone wrong) I think we come to a point where what seems to be "common sense" is not the way we should be thinking about our health. Its like the statement "everything in moderation" and things will be okay. Well, moderation is relative, and in a setting where we are taught to think that 30% our our plate at every meal should consist of some sort of whole grain...I should just step off my soapbox now :)

By the way there is a lot of literature on this subject (especially in the paleo community) but this blog pretty much has references to everything I just said if you are interested in researching further. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/phytic%20acid

Shoot, where I say like this article I was going to cite but then I started getting lazy with my citing every sentence and the post was getting too long so I just deleted all of them, haha.

"Grains are not without consequence."

Are there any foods without consequence?

A DENTIST, whose research comes from the 1930s, who was actually studying tooth decay, but drew broad conclusions about nutrition and health anyway - outdated, misapplied science. I read his chapter on Australian Aborigines (I lived there for a while and know a bit about about their cultures). Hoo boy. In the 1930s indigenous Australians faced a mountain of serious threats to their emotional, physical and community health, and certainly lousy Western food was one, but the outcomes can't be chalked up to it alone. He doesn't even acknowledge this, but his writing is full of the prejudices of the day. Yikes.

I think we're all in agreement that the industrial Western food of today is bad for all kinds of reasons, but it's illogical to conclude that all *grains* are bad for everyone. "Grains" does not equal "Western-style highly processed grains accompanied by fat, sugar, and salt".

Somewhere right now a nice pot of millet is cooking and the people who eat it will be fine.

"Despite the studies that say eating whole grains will make you healthier"

Fiction - seriously do some research Kitchn. Grains are slowly killing us all.

I would venture to say that there are no foods without a consequence and the choices made come down what your individual values are.

Why do you emphasize the fact that he was a dentist? Dental health is so indicative of overall physical health. Can you elaborate on the mountains of serious threats to emotional, physical and community health? If they're things like obesity, heart disease, autoimmune disorder, I am actually really interested.

You're dismiss his research saying its not valid because it is dated but why is that relevant? It makes sense to me to look at groups of people who do not have the health problems that our country has, and figure out what is different and use that as a hypothesis to further test. Today, we do not have these isolated cultures eating their traditional diets without the introduction of our modern foods, so to me, his writings were very valid. Additionally, if you had read the entire book you would find that he does not even conclude that grains are bad for our health when properly prepared but the truth is, most people today that are consuming grains do not and are under the belief that the brown rice they are eating is good for them. I say its good to be educated.

Ugh loads of typos in that previous post, sorry.

Dental health isn't really a good indicator of overall health. Few health problems will show up in teeth until they are already well advanced and loads of other symptoms have already appeared. The connection is more that people with healthy habits tend to have healthy teeth.

The 1930s was a long time ago, in terms of scientific knowledge, even just re: dental health. His methods were questionable. So, no, I don't have much faith in his work.

As for health threats to indigenous Australians, in the 1930s they included poverty, violence, alcohol, sexual assault, Stolen Children, various human rights abuses (e.g. could not vote or get a passport or be considered a citizen, not even included in the censuses of the time, could be abused and exploited by virtually anyone, wrongfully imprisoned), loss of traditional life-ways, loss of land, loss of community. The list goes on, and it's a terrible list. And much the same things happened to indigenous peoples all over the world.

And Price concludes that their health problems were mainly due to diet? Ridiculous.

"Chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and caries are increasing in developing countries, with the implication that quality of life related to oral health, as well as general quality of life, may deteriorate. Because oral and other chronic diseases have determinants in common, more emphasis should be on the common risk factor approach." http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/83/9/editorial30905html/en/index.html

Not saying that all problems of the world are cured by diet. In my opinion its just good to pay attention to the research, as well as take clues from traditional cultures that were without these modern diseases to make informed decisions on what food items are/aren't the most nutritious for our bodies.

The quote doesn't say, as you did, that "Dental health is so indicative of overall physical health." Because it isn't. You can have great teeth *and* HIV, heart disease, fertility issues, chronic back pain and lots of other health problems. You can also have really bad teeth but be healthy otherwise. The quote just says "they have determinants in common", which is not the same thing.

I agree that it's good to pay attention to research but one also has to take account of the *quality* of the research, which includes its age. Price's was very poor. A lot of the paleo stuff I've seen isn't based on any research at all.

Meanwhile, like I said, noble barley gets lumped in with cookies as "poison".

I love that information about the preserved millet noodles from China! Are millet noodles available today? That would be a great gluten-free pasta alternative.

Also, is it possible to get the recipe for the author's favorite stealth dessert, "ricotta millet pudding, lemon-scented and honey-sweetened, served with warm raspberry compote"? Yummmm.....!

PS: Chinese medicine says that grains 'calm the spirit,' so it's recommended to eat at least one serving of grain per day.

Just think of all the stress and frustration that change would relieve.

Well, I can say the same of the quality of research that states eating fat makes you fat, or that salt intake causes hypertension. We'll have to agree to disagree since our evaluation of the research seems to use a different lens.

Good discussion though! I usually keep this stuff to myself around friends because it makes me way too crazy and argumentative.

Goodness sakes...did a link to this article end up on some wacky pseudo-science webpage or email blast?

Unless you have a specific allergy, whole grains are an essential part of a nutritious diet. They have complex carbs, a decent amount of protein, fiber (both kinds), vitamins, minerals, and some healthy fats. They've been shown by legitimate scientific studies to reduce risks of heart disease, obesity, diabetes and some kinds of cancer. They should, of course, be eaten in moderation like any other food, but for most people they are essential and delicious.

Thanks for the interview with the lovely Maria Speck. I just ordered her book from Amazon, and I'm hoping that the millet pudding recipe will be in there!

I agree that there is a place for whole, intact grains in one's diet. Frankly, how are we to get the much needed minerals, B-vitamins, and fiber if whole grains are not included. You will find much about this in my new book, Smart Eating Made Simple.