7

votes

Why is wheat worse than other grains?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created January 03, 2011 at 11:42 PM

I notice Stephan Guyenet at Whole Health Source promoting Gluten-Free January. And Paul Jaminet at Perfect Health Diet is pro-rice but anti-wheat.

I'd like to know if anyone has any compelling arguments as to why gluten makes wheat uniquely unhealthy, even whole wheat. Besides the usual "phytic acid and lectins" which clearly is not unique to wheat.

Weston A. Price praised the use of whole rye bread as a staple of the Swiss. Rye has gluten in it, but apparently it has much lower gluten content than wheat. I have also read about einkorn wheat, ancient variety of wheat, possibly being of less concern than modern wheat.

A groundbreaking study showed that celiacs did not react to einkorn wheat. http://www.einkorn.com/toxicity-of-einkorn-gluten/

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29

on January 04, 2011
at 05:15 AM

And I meant to add that the study doesn't mention how long the people were on the einkorn. A few weeks or a few years? And the reality is that we don't need all of that starch anyway, and the world isn't going ot start making bread out of einkorn anytime soon, either, so it's not much of a solution.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on January 04, 2011
at 01:34 AM

I guess I should note that the gluten protein has other issues for a majority of the population but I don't have them sites in my brain. I'll have to look it up.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on January 04, 2011
at 01:29 AM

I believe his question is meant for the general population. Celiac is serious, yes, but only affects a small subset of the population.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on January 04, 2011
at 01:27 AM

Jaminet is pro rice because it has very few toxins compared to wheat. Wheat has WGA, gluten, lectins, etc, but white rice seems pretty safe.

  • 8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c

    asked by

    (2581)
  • Views
    7.5K
  • Last Activity
    1462D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

2
2d5221fa80d04a3d8ac6f471f9feae81

(894)

on January 07, 2011
at 05:19 PM

Wheat is the worst due to WGA, which trashes your gut lining even at tiny nano-molar concentrations. Even if you're not celiac. Even if you have no sensitivity to wheat. After only one exposure, it takes 6 months of complete avoidance to restore your stomach microvili. I found these pretty convincing reasons to avoid it.

Weston Price people are often very dogmatic about everything isolated cultures ate and did. We have no actual statistics on them aside from the dental records. All food has some negative effects and all hunter gatherers and traditional cultures had significant flaws in their diets. Not to mention that the ones surviving into the last few centuries hardly resemble the humans of the paleolithic.

It's a matter of finding the least biologically offensive foods and using them as staples. Grains, especially gluten grains - no matter how you soak or ferment them - will not enter that category unless some processing breakthrough is discovered. White rice, tapioca flour and potato varieties are as good as it gets for starches, and it's really all you can ask for. Since on a production level, they can easily replace wheat, corn and soy/legumes.

2
1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on January 04, 2011
at 12:57 AM

The gluten protein is so similar to the protein structure of your intentestines that sometimes the antibodies can attack your intestines as well as the gluten. This is an autoimmune problem which is generally classified as celiac.

The link from whole health source quotes a research study: ["At nanomolar concentrations WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory cytokines and thus the biological activity of WGA should be reconsidered by taking into account the effects of WGA on the immune system at the gastrointestinal interface. These results shed new light onto the molecular mechanisms underlying the onset of gastrointestinal disorders observed in vivo upon dietary intake of wheat-based foods"

Notice there is no mention of coeliac disease, you do not need to be genetically predisposed by HLA type to have WGA toxicity. This looks to be yet more direct molecular toxicity.]

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on January 04, 2011
at 01:29 AM

I believe his question is meant for the general population. Celiac is serious, yes, but only affects a small subset of the population.

1ec4e7ca085b7f8d5821529653e1e35a

(5506)

on January 04, 2011
at 01:34 AM

I guess I should note that the gluten protein has other issues for a majority of the population but I don't have them sites in my brain. I'll have to look it up.

1
Da3d4a6835c0f5256b2ef829b3ba3393

on October 14, 2011
at 01:34 AM

Chris Masterjohn's review of Dr. Davis' book is a great article, in and of itself, on the evils of wheat.

Have a look:

Daily Lipid review of Wheat Belly

1
667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on January 07, 2011
at 05:28 PM

I would posit that the main issue with wheat, at least as regards the average American on the SAD, is that since most if not all of us are already not very healthy from growing up on the SAD etc that all the potential harmful items within wheat can become very offensive. Possibly in the groups that, say, Weston price observed, the people were raised in a generally more healthful (or, at least, less toxin-loaded) environment and so their bodies could handle the potentially harmful load of the wheat.

In other words, I think that since we are not tabula rasa, we are already by default contaminated by our modern world, wheat can and does become a very damaging item.

1
E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29

on January 04, 2011
at 04:52 AM

Read the pile of medical journal articles here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/node/wga%20gluten

As a very sensitive celiac, you couldn't get me to try einkorn despite a lower rate of reaction in ONE study. The risk is intestinal cancer, because even if I don't show symptoms (the intestinal kind) I can still be doing damage. I wouldn't have become symptomatic if it weren't for ongoing damage over years that lead to gastric symptoms. That took a long time. The other symptoms were too subtle to notice, or vague, such as my dentist just telling me I didn't brush and floss enough and avoiding driving at night, not knowing that was malabsorption.

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29

on January 04, 2011
at 05:15 AM

And I meant to add that the study doesn't mention how long the people were on the einkorn. A few weeks or a few years? And the reality is that we don't need all of that starch anyway, and the world isn't going ot start making bread out of einkorn anytime soon, either, so it's not much of a solution.

1
B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded

on January 04, 2011
at 01:01 AM

Yes, Modern wheats have more gluten. We bred them that way to (amongst other things) make bread fluffier.

WAP has a great article about it at http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-diseases/digestive-disorders/621-against-the-grain.html

0
Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on January 04, 2011
at 12:40 AM

A summary of Dave's answer: there are more (and worse) toxins in wheat than other grains.

White rice, however, has barely any, which is why jaminet supports it.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!