1

votes

Is the paleo community overreacting to the so called " dangers" of grains

Asked on December 31, 2014
Created October 06, 2013 at 1:20 AM

I just find it very hypocritical that one of the main arguments against CWs idea of saturated fats being bad is that a grass fed ribeye with a pile of veggies is much different from a McDonalds burgur with a side of fries and a large coke( in which the latter is used in studies to show the supposed negative effects), yet, when you take an obese, diabetic, insulin resistant , leptin resistant, cancer ridden, IBS suffering individual and feed him 2 pounds of twinkies daily,and see the negative effects, everyone assumes that brown rice and quinoa are suddenly poison to the perfectly healthy. And don't you find it odd, that everybody on this forum, had eaten piles of wheat products their entire life up until starting paleo, yet when someone asks about even the safest of gluten free grains that are soaked, sprouted, fermented, and cooked, it apparently "tears up their stomach" which they try to make out as a reason why nobody should have them . And also, the arguments against grains are that they are high in phytic acid, omega 6, are very calorie dense , have lots of allergenic property's and have excess fibre, yet the main replacement for them(almond flour) is even higher in phytic acid, has much more omega 6, have many more allergenic properties, even more calorie dense, and have even more fibre, yet everyone is still fine because it's not one of those "poisonous grains". And I guess the biggest point is still that pastries, white bread, twinkies, and all other processed grain PRODUCTS, are so ridiculously different than a bowl of teff porridge with eggs and butter, or a scoop of a nice wild rice pilaf. Your opinions?

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 25, 2013
at 03:15 AM

@MathGirl72 Hawkey52 is 13 years old

Medium avatar

(624)

on October 09, 2013
at 04:15 PM

Yeah you should start your own thread. Your rant is considerably more coherent and insightful than the OP.

Medium avatar

(624)

on October 09, 2013
at 04:08 PM

Wow that sounds like a faulty study to me. I've seen plenty of them both pro- and anti- paleo. Most studies can be taken with a grain of salt and added to the list to form a consensus IMO. There are a few really good, compelling ones that stand out.

141c6b3d5e9506dd93881e3f9737f297

(55)

on October 09, 2013
at 03:29 AM

as @mathgirl72 says, you could have made the question a bit less confrontational.

and the fact that you follow a "weston a price style diet", may have elicited the troll remark (can-you-soak-red-river-cereal)

(this is a copy of an earlier 'reply' comment, that does not seem to be visible)

141c6b3d5e9506dd93881e3f9737f297

(55)

on October 09, 2013
at 02:31 AM

as MathGirl72 says, you could have made the question less confrontational.

& the fact that you follow a "weston a price style diet", may have elicited the troll remark (can-you-soak-red-river-cereal)

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:58 PM

i accept your apology

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:52 PM

Argue ad nauseam on a website for those who mostly agree that wheat is bad. I defer to your great intellect and choose to cede all knowledge and power to you. You are the best I am but a humble blind Paleo follower.

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:51 PM

MrNada is correct, positive assertions are the ones that require evidence, and anecdotes are not proof. i think you guys could quickly resolve this by accepting a source for statistics on gluten reactivity.

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:37 PM

"You are confusing Paleohacks with a court of law."

um no, i'm not.

"Fat america says wheat, other grains & sugar are a root cause of FAT people"

you have no evidence for such an assertion. grains didn't make people fat 200 years ago, there's no reason to think they're causing the obesity epidemic today.

"I've made tons of Sourdough, makes no real difference to my family members, almost as bad"

why are you telling me this? doesn't matter one bit.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:24 PM

"Any reasonable person doesn't equate pounds of twinkies with brown rica and quinoa", maybe admittedly, but a lot of people don't realize what's completly out of context in most studies. For example, I saw a study on phytic acid, where rats were fed 10 g of phytates per kilo of body weight. A 150 pound male or female would have to eat 300 cups of raw brown rice to get that much and even though rats have plenty of phytase, that's still out of context

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:23 PM

You are confusing Paleohacks with a court of law. No burden of proof required. Fat america says wheat, other grains & sugar are a root cause of FAT people. It isn't because they are lazy. I've made tons of Sourdough, makes no real difference to my family members, almost as bad.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:17 PM

Teff is awesome, I just throw it in some warm water with ACV and don't even have to worry about phytic acid

2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

(10)

on October 08, 2013
at 10:16 PM

don't take my word for it. the fact that the vast majority of people don't respond negatively to gluten consumption is evidence enough. if everybody replaced unprocessed whole wheat bread with sourdough (which IMO is the only nutritious form of bread), the number of 'gluten intolerant' people would shrink even further. you can call out the modern anti wheat fad for what it is and still acknowledge celiac disease is a real and debilitating condition. the burden of proof is on the people claiming that 'everyone is gluten intolerant'. so far, no proper evidence has surfaced.

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 08, 2013
at 09:37 PM

Likewise who cares if some random guy says eating wheat is fine and dandy. Saying "end of story" doesn't make it so, just makes you feel good.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on October 08, 2013
at 09:31 PM

Mexipaleo all the way. Chilaquiles every day for dinner last week, oh how I missed them!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 08, 2013
at 08:28 PM

@Matt 11

. I think you have mistaken reasonable paleos with mexi-paleos. It's a common mistake, although I'd wager Matt's 1 - 10 would not have made the mistake.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 08:19 PM

Sorry, I should have differentiated the people who are reasonable and the extremists who take it WAY to far. I'm not trolling, I was just asking on everybody's opinion on why a lot of people won't even accept even the best prepared grains as something beneficial for active people and athletes.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 08:10 PM

So posing a question with not 1, not 2, but three valid points to back it up makes me an ass-hat troll

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on October 08, 2013
at 01:16 AM

Perhaps you were downvoted for the sheer troll-like, ass hat questions you posed. Perhaps if you were less confrontational, you would have not been downvoted.

91453a003ff70606fc44ca2ea697048f

on October 06, 2013
at 11:09 PM

Do you do a daily triathalon? If so, you represent a pretty small portion of people. I didn't say carbs are empty, rather that you may be better off getting them from other sources. Not disagreeing with you that people need carbs, but maybe try carbs from fruits or starchy veggies. I'm also not saying that there aren't people who may need grains, but i don't think that most people need a high level frequently. If they do, then paleo may not be for them - it's not a diet that works for all. I'm a very active person and feel great while leaving out grains for most meals

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on October 06, 2013
at 08:57 PM

For the average person, grains are innocuous and not terrible in terms of nutrition (that is, the less-processed grains are).

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 06, 2013
at 08:35 PM

Carbs are only empty if you eat them excessively for the life you live. They're digestible macronutrients that support living. If you're not doing a daily triathalon maybe you don't see how valuable they are.

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on October 06, 2013
at 08:26 PM

grains wont kill people, but many will feel better without them and possibly even if you dont notice a difference you still may get one from reducing that minor irritant.(significant or not)

also you can process grains in different ways to mitigate/exasperate certain effects(negative in this case) if you process grains you remove the gluten, but if you process you increase the glycemic load. so there is not only ambiguity in if or not grain has impacts(huge range) but it also depends on how that grain is processed.

7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on October 06, 2013
at 08:23 PM

you should regard grains in the same way you would dairy, can most people eat some form of dairy and be fine... yes ofcourse. but at the same time many many people are sensitive to dairy in varying degrees, anything from being in horrible horrible pain with minor consumption to maybe just some low level chronic inflammation.(maybe causing things like acne,ect..) with the minority having no negative effects whatsoever.(may differ by populations/regions)

72cf727474b8bf815fdc505e58cadfea

on October 06, 2013
at 08:10 PM

I mean, I eat grains and as far as I can tell they have no obvious effects on my health (didn't feel better after 4 months of abstinence, don't feel worse now), but I don't think the arguments against them are incoherent.

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 06, 2013
at 06:10 PM

Yes I saw that. In the case of this post I upvoted just to counter the downvote as it seemed like a reasonable start of a discussion, can't imagine why the downvote.

72cf727474b8bf815fdc505e58cadfea

on October 06, 2013
at 06:00 PM

Are you actually arguing that grains are innocuous (albeit micronutrien-poor)? I don't think that's a common position, even among "reasonable" paleos. I agree that it's unreasonable when people with celiac preach that everyone needs to avoid grains as strictly as they do, but it's unfair to equate that with other arguments about the nutritional or glycemic effects of a grain-based diet, especially when combined with a modern lifestyle.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 06, 2013
at 11:58 AM

To each his own samc. Guyenet's reward theory is closer to my experience. I accrued the most benefits from being more active, which has nothing to do with diet but everything to do with living like a paleo.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 06, 2013
at 05:41 AM

did you notice you can now see who's voted by hovering over the number between the up & down arrows. it does not explicitly show if a user voted up or down, just the order that the votes were placed.

of course if you were to check after only one vote has been placed, you will only see one user

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 06, 2013
at 04:51 AM

Grains can be addictive. If breaking that addiction relies on love of our Paleo ancestors it's all good with me. In my case I instinctively knew what was adding the weight and gave up grains 6 months before I knew what Paleo was. Reading the Primal Blueprint just told me why I was happy with my choice. I hate grains and am not afraid to tell anyone, they f*cked up a good portion of my life - those evil MF'ers.

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 06, 2013
at 03:23 AM

I don't get the down voting thing. It should require an explanation of why included with the vote.

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 06, 2013
at 03:21 AM

Power of suggestion is your point, I get it and to some degree you are probably correct. But then again little nagging medical issues people have might be explained by it.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 06, 2013
at 03:14 AM

Downvoting me because I'm going against common paleo wisdom, even though i made several effective points in a non critical way?

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 06, 2013
at 03:11 AM

If your family has a history of celiac like symptoms when consuming hybridized grains, that's one thing. What I'm trying to point out are the people on here who ate a healthy diet before that included plenty of whole grains and were perfectly healthy, then learn about paleo, act like grains must be avoided like the plague and suddenly whenever they eat whole grains now that they have been told its bad for them, their stomach now is "torn apart" by all grains even though they were perfectly fine before

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 06, 2013
at 02:14 AM

or may be that should read the lack of taste of white rice

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 06, 2013
at 02:13 AM

i don't bake myself, but i always got the impression from the posts on this site, that coconut flour was the main 'paleo' flour, of course i have no actual stats to back this up...

Tho coconut flour is another nut flour, so may be just as bad as almond flour.

I personally never missed breads, pastries etc so never attempted to replace them with 'paleo' alternatives. I do still eat rice & prefer the taste of white rice over brown.

  • 14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

    asked by

    (220)
  • Views
    4.8K
  • Last Activity
    1144D AGO
Frontpage book

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

11 Answers

1
374925bd0c30305e4027c25e8815b298

(113)

on October 09, 2013
at 07:07 AM

Dude, I was just about to make a topic like this, you jerk. That said, to answer the topic, yes and no. The problem is that the demonization of dairy and grains tends to lack context. Yes, Grains and dairy have traits that are problematic and their effects are being felt. However, I find it amusing that a community that at least the gurus of which pride themselves with knowledge of ancestral eating do not make it a point to point out that ancestrally produced grain products, including ones that contain the dreaded gluten grains, mitigates if not completely eliminates these issues. Raw milk contains enzymes to break down lactose and casein. Fermenting milk makes both of these problematic nutrients non issues. Interestingly enough, Gluten products wasn't as big of a problem until laboratory foods came on the scene and laboratory yeast made I-can't-believe-it's-not-fermented bread a thing.

This issue kinda infuriates me because paleo is becoming a big thing and telling people to ferment their grains and fight the good fight for raw milk is something that will help a hell of a lot more people a hell more lot more sustainably than telling Joe sixpack that he has to whip the wheat out of him at night to fight off the candida demons. Seriously, Joe sixpack will not stop eating dairy. He sure as hell won't stop eating pizza and good luck getting him to cook his own food. What I think you guys can do that will actually work and improve the lives of normal people who will not care about eating healthy is to tell them to buy their food from artisans who do crazy things. Crazy things like frying french fries in tallow, let their bread ferment for longer than it takes to microwave a pack of ramen, and telling big agra and their CAFO loving buddies to take their irradiated and genetically modified garbage and do something good for society for a change and promptly go back to hell!

Yes, there are people who have no business eating even the most fermented and most benevolent of grains or even the rawest and most fermented of dairy. There are also people who will f'ing die if they eat an oyster, yet I don't see paleos telling people that shellfish is evil. The fact that some or even a lot of people is allergic to something is not a valid argument for stopping the consumption of that thing by people who are not allergic to that thing and guess what: not a lot of people get bad reactions to eating grains that weren't made in a freaking factory or dairy that isn't a big jug of pus juice.

Thew. Can you tell I had that one in me for a bit?

Medium avatar

(624)

on October 09, 2013
at 04:15 PM

Yeah you should start your own thread. Your rant is considerably more coherent and insightful than the OP.

1
2eb1b3e896624be5506029e3fec3e9e2

on October 08, 2013
at 08:32 PM

yes, they are absolutely overreacting. since when did n=1 experiments apply to an entire population? who gives a shit if some random nobody on the internet says going grain free cured their joint pain? most people are not wheat intolerant, end of story. and the issue of phytic acid is eliminated if you make sourdough bread

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 08, 2013
at 09:37 PM

Likewise who cares if some random guy says eating wheat is fine and dandy. Saying "end of story" doesn't make it so, just makes you feel good.

1
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on October 06, 2013
at 02:43 PM

I think you have some faulty notions about what reasonable paleos say. I don't think anybody, even paleos, will liken twinkie consumption to quinoa. I do think paleos tend to go a little to hard on whole-food grains though. There's nutrition in grains (it's not negated completely by phyates). The world has done quite well on a grain-based diet, it is really on the the last 100 years of highly-professed foods that has been truly problematic.

The problem than you run into with paleo is that the folks who stick with it generally have problems. They aren't your typically healthy folk. Take two of the gurus of the paleo world: Wolf and Sisson. Both have significant digestive issues that require them to consume a restrictive, gluten-free diet. Maybe they have biased their recommendations by the personal experience.

Are grains 'dangerous', 'toxic' or 'poison'? No. No. And no. Do some folks have issues? Yes. Should we extend observations from sick people to healthy people? No.

72cf727474b8bf815fdc505e58cadfea

on October 06, 2013
at 08:10 PM

I mean, I eat grains and as far as I can tell they have no obvious effects on my health (didn't feel better after 4 months of abstinence, don't feel worse now), but I don't think the arguments against them are incoherent.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 08, 2013
at 08:28 PM

@Matt 11

. I think you have mistaken reasonable paleos with mexi-paleos. It's a common mistake, although I'd wager Matt's 1 - 10 would not have made the mistake.

72cf727474b8bf815fdc505e58cadfea

on October 06, 2013
at 06:00 PM

Are you actually arguing that grains are innocuous (albeit micronutrien-poor)? I don't think that's a common position, even among "reasonable" paleos. I agree that it's unreasonable when people with celiac preach that everyone needs to avoid grains as strictly as they do, but it's unfair to equate that with other arguments about the nutritional or glycemic effects of a grain-based diet, especially when combined with a modern lifestyle.

0
7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on October 09, 2013
at 05:26 PM

@shezmu

very well written. while fermented grains are significantly better, some still argue that they maintain some of their bad qualities even after fermentation/sprouting. aswell as things like if your going from non prepared -> prepared grains even the smaller amount of toxin will sustain the health issues. then ofcourse there is things like grains not being the most nutrient dense or generally healthy for us foods overall.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/soaked-sprouted-fermented-grains/

http://wellnessmama.com/3807/are-sprouted-soaked-and-fermented-grains-healthy/

http://paleohacks.com/questions/55894/how-are-fermentedsprouted-grains-not-ok.html

wouldnt let me fit this is a comment

0
Medium avatar

on October 06, 2013
at 08:49 PM

First off - let me request that you do your own research and at least attempt to get a better grip on what the Paleo community believes and practices. Also note that there are many interpretations of Paleo...

I was just about to write a bunch of paragraphs of insight, counter-arguments, and advice in a highly constructive manner as I usually do even when an obvious troll comes on here and spews false information and extremist dichotomies but then I scrolled back up to review your post and realized I shouldn't waste my time.

Nobody rational person, paleo or otherwise, equates pounds of twinkies to brown rice and quinoa. In fact, many Paleo consumers consider white rice and even quinoa in moderation to be a reasonable part of a balanced, healthy diet.

Many of us are also open to the use of naturally processed (e.g. soaked and sprouted or fermented) grains and legumes in general, and recognize that the choice must be made on the individual level based on personal experience and n-1 testing with these ingredients.

I'm also in the boat that avoids excessive use of almonds and, especially almond flour. The only nut I recognize as an ideal food is macadamia nut (and the coconut if you call it a nut). A bit of almond on your salad is fine but eating them by the hand full and grinding them to make bread is just asking for digestive trouble and omega 6 toxicity.

Here I am doing it anyway. Humoring your trolling post and responding to your extremist flaming...

Anyway, to the last point and perhaps most irresponsibly misrepresented - porridge with eggs and butter, or wonderful wild rice pilaf, ARE INDEED ridiculously different than processed treats whether they're grain-based or not. I tend to avoid highly processed meat products too but processing grains, nuts, and legumes can produce some particularly dangerous results.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:24 PM

"Any reasonable person doesn't equate pounds of twinkies with brown rica and quinoa", maybe admittedly, but a lot of people don't realize what's completly out of context in most studies. For example, I saw a study on phytic acid, where rats were fed 10 g of phytates per kilo of body weight. A 150 pound male or female would have to eat 300 cups of raw brown rice to get that much and even though rats have plenty of phytase, that's still out of context

0
56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on October 06, 2013
at 08:38 PM

Grains have a broad spectrum. Less toxic, fermented are best. Most toxic, non fermented are worst. In my personal experience, I find millet the least toxic. Buckwheat, rice, corn, and oats are next level. Quinoa is next best, then rye and barley, and last wheat and its many relatives (spelt, farro, kamut). Although I have eaten amaranth and teff, I do not have enough experience to rank them.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 11:17 PM

Teff is awesome, I just throw it in some warm water with ACV and don't even have to worry about phytic acid

0
91453a003ff70606fc44ca2ea697048f

on October 06, 2013
at 08:22 PM

While it is true that strict paleo followers subtract grains from their diets, very few will say that gluten-free grains are "toxic". Glutenous grains do cause many health problems and tend to be processed in a way that takes out moist of the few nutrients that grains have, but other grains are left out for various reasons. Phytates aside, grains just aren't super nutrient rich, have a high carb content, and you really aren't getting much of a health benefit in general. Ever notice that your body doesn't typically digest corn fully? That should be a clue that you aren't gaining much from it. Why fill up on empty carbs when you can fill your body with nutritious and substantial foods?

I do eat gluten-free grains usually at least once a week. I am not in any way trying to preach that everyone needs to avoid them. But there are significant reasons to limit your consumption and replace these calories with better foods. Also, most people who follow paleo will tell you to do what works for your own body, so if eating quinoa makes you happy and (truly) healthy, go for it!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 06, 2013
at 08:35 PM

Carbs are only empty if you eat them excessively for the life you live. They're digestible macronutrients that support living. If you're not doing a daily triathalon maybe you don't see how valuable they are.

0
7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on October 06, 2013
at 02:11 PM

cant tell if your just blowing off steam or trolling. but you really have no idea what paleo is if thats what you think... you completely miss-represented pretty much everything you argue against paleo being.

the only possibly valid point i got from that is that when people in paleo say grains are bad, people often over-interpret that to mean grains are bad like getting shot with a bullet is bad... which is obviously not the case to anyone with common sense.

tl: dr- your either trolling, or whoever your getting your paleo info from is an un-informed extremist.(not a good mix)

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 08, 2013
at 08:19 PM

Sorry, I should have differentiated the people who are reasonable and the extremists who take it WAY to far. I'm not trolling, I was just asking on everybody's opinion on why a lot of people won't even accept even the best prepared grains as something beneficial for active people and athletes.

0
3eca93d2e56dfcd768197dc5a50944f2

(11697)

on October 06, 2013
at 01:09 PM

The dangers of grains are true to me. I spent years being sick with various problems, and all magically went away when I cut down gluten. So while I'm not strictly Paleo anymore (I eat rice a few times per month, dairy daily, and rarely some beans and gluten-free rice/quinoa-based pasta), I don't touch glutenous grains not even with an 8 feet pole. Neither I'll ever will, on my own accord, as long as I live. Every time I go through an aisle with bread at the super market I feel contaminated and dirty.

0
Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 06, 2013
at 04:40 AM

Processed grain products were dangerous to me, but not for any of the Paleo reasons. The trouble came from their easy digestion and good taste. Eating them in mass quantities made me obese and diabetic.

To me the modern Paleo grain-hate has the appearance of a witch hunt or Crusade. My diabetes was cured by reducing the amount of food I ate, by substituting better quality foods like meat and seafood for grain-containing processed foods, and by being much more active. Carb counting lowered my grain consumption, but in a measured and rational way instead of following quasi-religious Paleo dogma.

Medium avatar

(238)

on October 06, 2013
at 04:51 AM

Grains can be addictive. If breaking that addiction relies on love of our Paleo ancestors it's all good with me. In my case I instinctively knew what was adding the weight and gave up grains 6 months before I knew what Paleo was. Reading the Primal Blueprint just told me why I was happy with my choice. I hate grains and am not afraid to tell anyone, they f*cked up a good portion of my life - those evil MF'ers.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 06, 2013
at 11:58 AM

To each his own samc. Guyenet's reward theory is closer to my experience. I accrued the most benefits from being more active, which has nothing to do with diet but everything to do with living like a paleo.

0
Medium avatar

(238)

on October 06, 2013
at 02:31 AM

I can only fall back to personal anecdotal family experience and tell you that grain (gluten types) cause inflammation & irritation in the body of family members who are not diagnosed as Celiac. I can tell you that I suffered an almost lifelong struggle with weight and overeating until I gave up grains & sugar. I no longer have the problem of overeating in general and the few times that I might, it is a green salad that is putting me over the top. No belt loosening for me, no more coming home and changing into loose fitting sweat pants.

As to the anti nutrient arguments, I don't know that it has been proven well enough for me to say it is a slam dunk fact, but ultimately what is in the world of nutrition or medicine. We are still arguing the Lipid Cholesterol issue without success.

If I am part of the overreacting Paleo community - so be it.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

(220)

on October 06, 2013
at 03:11 AM

If your family has a history of celiac like symptoms when consuming hybridized grains, that's one thing. What I'm trying to point out are the people on here who ate a healthy diet before that included plenty of whole grains and were perfectly healthy, then learn about paleo, act like grains must be avoided like the plague and suddenly whenever they eat whole grains now that they have been told its bad for them, their stomach now is "torn apart" by all grains even though they were perfectly fine before

Answer Question


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