This study states that WHOLE grains actually help decreasing inflammation, while only refined grains are increasing inflammation in our bodies....
asked byJonas_2 (5)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on January 12, 2014
at 01:39 PM
That's all well and good, and I'm sure if there's a starve (not IF) or eat grains situation it's a better choice to not starve to death.
That whole wheat contains some beneficial nutrients does not negate the gluten, gliadins, WGA, and other anti-nutrients, nor does it negate the fact that these can signal zonulin, cause leaky gut, and over the long term initiate a whole host of autoimmune diseases.
Sure, given about a million years (or maybe less) of evolutions, most humans can adapt to eating grains, and thriving. Right now, most humans can tolerate them, some with minor issues, and much smaller minorities with far more acute issues - it's the same story with dairy: not every human is adapted to consuming it, and it isn't always the lactose that's the issue.
The questions to ask: who funded those studies, what did those money sources have to gain? Wild human hunter gatherers aren't farmers, they're not tied down to a specific portion of land. They are nomadic and move camp as needed. Until you have farming, they are free to go where they choose.
Once you have farming, they're tied to a specific piece of land, and you open the door to maurauders, which later become lords/kings/slave/serf owners, and later systems of city governments. The farmers become enslaved to the piece of land (or give up their investment, or die starving because they can no longer hunt/gather), and must pay tribute or taxes to those who are armed for "protection" and are at their whim.
Similarly, in modern times, we have a whole set of corporations that profit from the marketing and sale of certain goods, and their influence on mass-media news, government agencies that dictate what is "healthy" and isn't, decide what the public eats.
They form non-governmental-organizations that represent them, and lobby for them in government to provide subsidies to growing grains from the public tax coffers so that they gain a huge advantage.
They can and have setup nutrition schools to push views that are profitable to their parent corporations. Those happily fund studies that show a benefit to the goods those corporations sell, such as the one cited here, and simply choose not to fund studies that point out the problems in wheat. Then, when the article is published in a journal, which they also sponsor with funding, they can turn to the media, which is paid in advertising (cereal/snack commercials for example) by the corporations that created the fund organizations, and give them press releases about the study. Wonderful racket.
For example, the study you point to - when followed to the free text version at
shows this tag at it's bottom "Articles from The Journal of Nutrition are provided here courtesy of American Society for Nutrition" - a ten second google search on "American Society for Nutrition" leads to this article:
Here's a small quote from that:
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN), the largest society for nutrition researchers in the US, openly receives support from pharmaceutical companies like Abbott Nutrition and Martek Biosciences, genetic engineering and pesticide giant Monstanto, food processor ConAgra, and junk food suppliers and producers Coca-Cola, Mars, Kraft, McDonald’s, General Mills, and Kellogg’s, not to mention the Sugar Association, Inc. (among many others).
As usual, ask not what the study shows, but more importantly, whom does it profit? You'll never go wrong following the money.
Another answer here pointed out that one shouldn't trust Mark Sisson and Robb Wolf because of the way they make their money. Fair enough, then why trust a study paid for by an organization that is paid for by big pharma and big agra?
I'd rather trust the science that comes from the mouth of Robb Wolf - what little profit he takes from it is far less evil to my health than from the ASN. I've never paid Mr. Wolf, nor Mr. Sisson for anything other than his excellent books and have learned more from their free articles and podcasts than I have from their books. Unlike the ASN, they aren't big enough to sponsor studies, and thus influence them, so they have to be honest rather than throw their money at a particular view.
on January 11, 2014
at 07:59 PM
Um. No shit. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of studies linking whole grains to good health. It's only refined grains that are linked to ill-health.
And, do you really think our ancestors started planting a food in massive quantities that they had never eaten before? Of course not. Wild cereals were a staple part of the diet of our late paleolithic ancestors in Europe. If you're European or of European descent, chances are you're extremely well adapted to consuming real, whole grains and legumes for calories.
Oh, and the beloved sweet potato was domesticated way later than barley and certain strains of wheat. Just saying.
This is part of the problem when you restrict your sources of nutrition information to mostly if not exclusively "paleo" resources- all these people have an agenda taht they profit from upholding (how do you think Sisson,Wolf, et al make their living?)
on January 11, 2014
at 03:03 PM
"In summary, whole grain intake was inversely related to PAI-1 and CRP plasma concentrations, but these relationships were attenuated by the addition of metabolic variables to the model. Refined grain intake was positively independently related to plasma PAI-1 concentrations."
Not having read more than the abstract on Pubmed, above is the pertinent summary. Whole grains did initially appear to reduce inflammatory proteins (2 out of 3 studied), but when metabolic markers were controlled for, the association was not statistically significant. Refined grains did positively associate with 1 of the 3 inflammatory markers even controlling for metabolic markers.
What I take home from this: Whole grains, despite paleo disdain, aren't awful for you. They are, in fact, preferable to refined grains.