Post scientific studies suggesting grains are bad for you here... page 9

[MrsC]

I agree with your viewpoint, but I think Jim's point is valid.

On Paleo web-sites and forums, "Science" is always used to back our viewpoint up. (Yet, we often use the same epidemiological crap studies the Low Fat side use.) So, he's asking for a study to show that wheat is bad for us. Obviously, wheat is bad for YOU, since you appear to have a fairly strong allergy to it. But for those who have no strong allergy (probably 95% of the population), is it really a bad thing?

I don't eat much wheat, but it doesn't bother me either. I feel like the main problem with wheat is the way we eat it, rather than the wheat itself. Eating a Big Mac or a processed meat sandwich or an industrial pizza are not bad because of the wheat, they are bad in almost every way.

That's my personal opinion, too. There's a big difference between the pizzas I ate when I lived in Italy and my local chain pizza parlor. The Italian one was made with real ingredients, and the other is a chemical concoction. Truthfully, however, just about any food can be processed and adulterated to the point that what started out as reasonably healthy (or even benign, in the terms of dietary value) is not worth eating at all.

The thing is, people don't sell books, and online communities and "experts" aren't formed, by saying "Eat real food in reasonable quantities and eliminate what disagrees with you." There's always got to be a hook, something that makes your way of eating better or more desirable than another. For example, I've seen several posts over the time I've been reading this forum asking if Primal is just another name for Atkins, and people give many reasons why it isn't and why Primal is better. But gosh, when I did Atkins several years ago to drop a few pounds, since I was already eating whole/organic foods, it sure did resemble Primal, lol.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people eliminating wheat if they find it impedes their health or makes weight loss efforts difficult. I also understand that this is a forum dedicated to a Primal (as defined by Mark Sisson) way of eating/living. But so many people end up adding in white rice or sweet potatoes for additional carbs (which Mark also writes in his book are really only required by a select few - i.e. think Tour de France cyclists, NBA basketball players, or high school cross-country runners) that I sometimes wonder why some get so worked up about honest questions of whether a pasta dish or loaf of fresh bread is really all that bad, instead of those items. Not everyone wants to face a life of zucchini noodles or crustless quiche! Food is meant to be enjoyed and savored, it's part of the social fabric of our lives, and it's about more than individual nutritional components - something I often think is overlooked in forums such as this.

[Jen AlcesAlces]

Nonsense, you are speaking as if everyone has Celiac disease. Even in the United States, roughly 90+% do not have this intolerance and a comparable amount have allergies to seafood.

Where does this info come from, the 90%? I understand celiac disease is a very small part of the population; however, I am one of the many who tested negative for it (twice) while still exhibiting gluten sensitivity. My doctor certainly didn't document this, as he thought it was a fluke that my health problems cleared up. So where is this documented? Has there been a study done? If so, please post that as I'd be very curious about it.

If it is just a guess, then well, it's no more helpful to say "virtually no one" is affected versus saying "everyone" is affected. Instead, it would be more accurate to say "WE DON'T KNOW" how many people are affected... and in that case, why the big fight?

[Neckhammer]

Where does this info come from, the 90%? I understand celiac disease is a very small part of the population; however, I am one of the many who tested negative for it (twice) while still exhibiting gluten sensitivity. My doctor certainly didn't document this, as he thought it was a fluke that my health problems cleared up. So where is this documented? Has there been a study done? If so, please post that as I'd be very curious about it.

If it is just a guess, then well, it's no more helpful to say "virtually no one" is affected versus saying "everyone" is affected. Instead, it would be more accurate to say "WE DON'T KNOW" how many people are affected... and in that case, why the big fight?

EXACTLY. Much of what we see is sub-clinical with tests that are most common. The "known" percentages are way low.

[StackingPlates]

Where does this info come from, the 90%?

The figure originally came from my original source and subsequently extrapolated to include Neckhammer's high water mark of ~10%. I have no idea how accurate the numbers are, nor does it particularly matter in the context of this discussion.

[cori93437]

Not everyone wants to face a life of zucchini noodles or crustless quiche! Food is meant to be enjoyed and savored, it's part of the social fabric of our lives, and it's about more than individual nutritional components - something I often think is overlooked in forums such as this.

And not everyone HAS to...
It has been posted on this site a thousand times that everyone makes their own decisions.
Eating things is a personal choice.

However... coming to the site and arguing that everyone simply SHOULD eat wheat/grains simply because the troll says "Why not, they taste good..." is utter nonsense.

Some people should not eat grains at all.
Some people can get away with a little bit of certain grains like rice.
Research is being done that is showing more and more connections to autoimmune response to grain consumption besides strictly those people who have Celiac disease or a wheat allergy... so people who have autoimmune conditions should probably be a little more careful than the average fully healthy person. And that covers a lot of people.

Most people will never know if they have an autoimmune response to grains if they don't try excluding them from the diet for at least a while. After one knows, they can easily base their future consumption decisions on that response if they wish to determine if they want to occasionally, or even frequently, include grains of whatever type they chose into their diet.

Everyone can find their own comfort level without telling others what to do.

[StackingPlates]

Everyone can find their own comfort level without telling others what to do.

Paleo irony (as that's exactly what Paleo evangelists do)! That actually made me giggle...nice post

[cori93437]

Paleo irony (as that's exactly what Paleo evangelists do)! That actually made me giggle...nice post

Glad you could giggle...
I'm certainly not a Paleovangelist.

I just think Jimhensen is a twat. I hope he gets toast crumbs all in his keyboard.

[Jen AlcesAlces]

The figure originally came from my original source and subsequently extrapolated to include Neckhammer's high water mark of ~10%. I have no idea how accurate the numbers are, nor does it particularly matter in the context of this discussion.

wheat allergy != celiac disease != gluten sensitivity. A whole spectrum of issues there, but the main way to control them is to avoid wheat and/or gluten-containing grains. So we could say that only a fraction of people who benefit from avoiding wheat are actually diagnosed with a disease or condition that requires it.

I totally agree that the point of how many people are affected is irrelevant in this discussion. So let's not say that avoiding grains/wheat is stupid or unnecessary for 99% or even 90% when the numbers are not there to prove this. Let's instead say, "if you have found that grains are a problem for you, avoid them" and "if you do not know if grains/wheat are a problem for you, perhaps you should try living without them, then decide". That's all I'm saying.

This whole black & white nonsense is frustrating... people are sick and being discouraged from eliminating wheat by health professionals because of this notion that these problems affect less than 1% of the population. I'm just trying to squash that nonsense, while I understand others are trying to squash the "everyone must avoid grains all the time" argument - which is fine by me as I don't believe that either.

[jimhensen]

Since you ignored my previous questions:

Are you trolling? Yes or No?

Depends on your definition of trolling. I am just making a point that your diet is based on fallacy.

[jimhensen]

However, the more bran in a bread, the more phytate - so whole grain versions (you know, the healthy ones!) would contain more phytates than a heavily refined white bread. Hmm, there was a study on that, might have to find that one. Anyway, my point is that the indications to eat whole grains at every meal (toast with your breakfast! Sandwich for lunch! Whole wheat pasta for dinner!) may be very problematic for those susceptible to iron, calcium, or magnesium deficiencies.

I read in a study a while back (there is no way I can find it now so call it BS if you want because I can't provide a link) that although there are more anti nutrients in these breads, there are usually more nutrients in them too, so you still net more of those nutrients eating the whole grain bread than white bread, just not as much as the nutrition info would indicate.