You are right, it's just hard to read for some reason. Not everyone has the supreme talent of making complex stuff easy to understand. It's a very specific talent. In some ways, his writing there is not quite dumbed down enough and in otherways, it's still too complicated. Plus it kinda meanders all over the place. I would not say it's badly written but it's not really good either. It's almost like he is trying to be both simple and complicated at the same time and not quite making it with either. In many ways, I can sympathize with him every time someone asks me why I don't eat grains or why I think saturated fat is good for you (especially that last one). And I am stuck trying to come up with a 3 sentence reply that they can understand that actually sound reasonable instead of psycho. It's just not that easy to do! Seems like the tough compromise is you can either be accurate or you can be simple and easy to understand, but it's very hard to be both.

I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be "rye, oats" and that was a typo. I do know that one problem with oats, which are by themselves gluten-free, is that they are often processed in facilities that process gluten grains, so gluten can contaminate the oats processed there. Usually, that small level of contamination would only really be a problem for people who are celiac.

But, if I understand Robb correctly, I think a whole separate issue is that gluten is one kind of lectin and Robb is hypothesizing that the problems people have with glutens is a problem they'll have with many lectin-based grains. Millet is also a gluten-free grain, but it has high levels of lectins. This is the first I'm hearing that celiac is caused by lectins, not just gluten. You're right that Robb is not really providing enough explanation about how he's making the jump from associating problems caused by gluten, which are well-established, to be part of a larger scope of problems caused by lectins, which are less well-established. It gets even more confusing when you consider that lectins are in almost everything, but Robb is only advocating for the elimination of certain lectin-based foods.

From your question, it seems like you understand it the other way around - that Robb's made a good case for abstaining from lectins, but not a good case for abstaining from gluten. I think part of the argument for that is just the general overlap between foods containing gluten and food containing dangerous levels of lectin. Practically, it's easier to seek out gluten-free foods in the supermarket and at restaurants than to ask for low-lectin foods.

This probably isn't the best text for a newbie. But you could also encourage a newbie to experiment and come to his own conclusions. Go gluten free for 3 weeks. Then, in 24 hour period, eat lots of pasta and muffins and bread. See what the results are. Then go the same with lectins. Even if you find the best explanation in all the world, it doesn't compare to having taken the time do your own experiment and knowing that this bit of scientific knowledge does indeed fit for you and your body.

Looks like poor editing, though Robb is guilty of this kind of thing verbally as well: On Jimmy Moore's podcast he said that his problem with saturated fat is that "grain-fed meat has very high amounts of short-chain palmitic acid." And he goes on to talk about the problems with palmitic acid. (Though he says it doesn't seem to be a problem in a low-carb diet.)

But in episode 40 of his own podcast he says the problem with grain-fed meat has to do with two other short-chain acids and he doesn't even mention palmitic: "What I'm trying to do is minimize folks' intake of short-chain omega 6 fats so if we don't have a grass-fed source of protein then it's typically going to be pretty heavy in arachidonic acid and linoleic acid."

The listener is left to wonder if he's changed his mind, or if he's accidentally neglected to mention palmitic acid. And you start to question - despite his impressive overall knowledge - whether he's actually on top of this topic.