Blog

5

The title says it all. I feel somewhat stumped. Looked through the pop down info with interest but I still don't know what to say to her. I know that eliminating grains (5 weeks now) has been what my body has needed for years. I feel it!

If someone can provide an intelligent response to this, it would be much appreciated.

flag
Say "and many smokers don't have cancer." – mth Jun 24 2011 at 22:52
"Yet!"......... – mth Jun 24 2011 at 22:53
very well said! – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:04

12 Answers

13

Just because people are thin does not mean that they are healthy!

link|flag
Agreed! Thin does not automatically equal healthy. – gilliebean Jun 24 2011 at 20:22
Significant gut pathology can actually make you very skinny. Look at celiacs. Many of them are thin as rails, but not healthy if they are constantly being grained. – Stabby Jun 24 2011 at 20:44
True. Apply that logic to some of the people who are popular in the paleo world while you're at it (charismatic good looking personal trainers, for example). – Xyz Jun 24 2011 at 21:48
When I use the term Peoples with a capital, I refer to a nation, for example, south Asians who have grain-based diets, vegetables and very little meat. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:06
13

Yeah, there are plenty of people who eat mostly grains but are nevertheless perfectly slim and healthy. In fact, I was one of those people a long time ago. There's a mountain of common-sense counter-evidence against the claim that eating a lot of grain necessarily makes you fat. That's what those people are bringing up.

So what's the problem? You tell them that grains are fattening because they promote fat storage or whatever? And then they counter that they know plenty of people who are slim and healthy "despite" eating a lot of grain? Well, they have a point I guess.

Or do they? For somebody overweight or obese, making a no-grains rule and slimming down as a result is a completely different animal than somebody already slim and healthy making that rule. The no-grains rule doesn't necessarily apply to somebody who's clearly doing fine on grains... that is if we're only talking about losing weight. If you don't need to lose weight, of course you don't need any rules for doing so.

You say to your overweight friend, "Hey, why not quit grains and see whether you lose weight?" And then they respond, "But but BUT... there are plenty of grain-eaters who are healthy and slim!" Well, who cares? Yes, there are plenty of grain-eaters like that, BUT THEY AREN'T ONE OF THEM! It's not a hard-and-fast rule that eating grains makes you fat, and I don't think anybody suggested that anyway. All we know is that that rule has been extremely helpful for losing weight for many people.

Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the no-grain rule only works by accident. If you advise somebody fat to stop eating grains, there are thousands upon thousands of crap products that are now off-limits. Most processed food includes grains in at least some sort of form. And the worst industrial imitations do too: Industrial pastries, cake, pie, pizza, etc. Quitting grains means eating less processed food and more meat, fish, dairy, veggies, fruit, etc. No wonder it works!

This is the same reason why the raw food diet works wonders for many people. If you make it a rule to never eat anything cooked, what junk food or industrial whatever do you have left on the menu? Nothing really. All you got is fruit, veggies, nuts, seeds, etc. Somebody switching from the SAD to that is gonna make a miraculous transition, even if it might be very suboptimal in comparison to a paleo or traditional eating routine.

See what I'm saying? Stare those people in the face and ask whether they're preparing traditional rice, pasta, bread, or whatever from scratch and along with other traditional ingredients, or if their grain-happy diet is a mix of bread from some grocery store, cake on their friends' and family's birthday parties, pizza from the local food court, pastries in individual plastic wraps from the local convenience store, etc. Maybe... just MAYBE... the people who do well on grains are those who eat REAL grains, avoid the junk food to a greater extent than normal people, and perhaps exercise every once in a while.

But then you would have to change your whole argument, wouldn't you? Why exactly put so much faith in this grain-are-evil philosophy anyway, if it seems like some random dude you know is poking holes in it in a casual bar-room conversation? The fact is this there are plenty of people who do fine on grains, but those are the people who eat REAL bread, REAL rice, REAL pasta, etc... not the people who stuff their faces with individually-wrapped pastries and fake-tasting cake.

If this rule really does work by accident in that way, that explains why the no-grains rule works so beautifully for fat people even though you can easily point to many people who do fine on grains and aren't fat or anything. The ones who are doing badly are the ones who need to stop eating all that industrial crap, which the no-grains rule usually takes out with a glancing shot. And those who are already doing well even though they eat grains already avoid that industrial crap pretty well. Get a SAD-eater to go raw, and there will be a revolution. Get me to do the same, and I'll do worse.

link|flag
Thank you,anonymous coward, for the above. You've provided a lot to think about and you're right. The "Peoples" with a capital P that my friend spoke about do eat closer to the natural state and move around a lot more. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:21
For got to mention....Peoples= e.g. South Asian societies – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:22
A really excellent answer from you AC. +1 well deserved here. – Jack Kronk Jul 15 2011 at 19:17
11

Just look at the people that you see when you walk around. They aren't slim.

It really strikes me when I am just a the store or the mall or something. People are fat. Nearly everyone I see is carrying easily an extra 10-20 pounds.

Watch an old movie like Jaws which was filmed in 1975. People aren't fat. That movie was filmed over a long period of time and the people on the beach in those scenes were random locals who were extras. There are a couple of overweight people but almost all of them are slim and a lot more fit-looking.

Something really bad happened to public health over the past 40 years.

link|flag
3 
I think this is where people balk at the idea of eliminating grains entirely from their diet. We haven't been eating grains for only 40 years, we've been eating them for thousands. But in the last 40 years, industrial strength processed food and oils, HFCS, a other chemicals and byproducts have entered our diet. What I think people need help grasping (not you, I mean people who continually make this argument in defense of grains) is that those non-foods have made many of us hypersensitive to gains and in order to undo that damage, they need to be eliminated. – lunabelle Jun 24 2011 at 19:57
@lunabelle: Doesn't that imply that you could safely return to grains after recovering from the SAD? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:09
1 
I wasn't implying that because I really don't know. I'm personally nowhere near a place where I want to experiment with that. What I was trying to say is that simply telling people that grains have destroyed our health while pointing at an obese person is not very convincing. There's a whole lot more to the story. – lunabelle Jun 24 2011 at 20:31
1 
I think modern grains are not the same as the grains that were grown 40 years ago. I think with all of the pesticides used and genetically modifying plants etc. They've made them into something else entirely. – HeatherC Jun 25 2011 at 3:00
I work with organic producers in my region a lot and have learned much. The last comment by "hcantrall" is very true. Post WW2, the chemical giants that made huge profits as part of the 'war machine' had nowhere to sell herbicides, etc. so in order to keep the 'machine' alive in peace time, they began a war on other life forms, ultimately us as consumers. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:12
3

It's not their size that matters. It's health and longevity. If they are eating toxic grains, such as gluten, they are slowly poisoning themselves. It won't show up in a lab test as grain toxicity. But, it will show up as Crohns, IBS, vitamin and mineral malabsorption, thyroid problems, cancer, heart problems, etc. Just ask me. I lost my mother in February at age 58. She was as thin as a rail her entire life, her diet was very grain and sugar heavy, though. Too many people are attracted to the physical aspects, when we should be concerned with the internal and our health.

link|flag
Aren't there plenty of grain-eating people in third-world places who don't get Crohns, IBS, vitamin and mineral malabsorption, etc? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:10
Isn't it possible that although they don't acquire those symptoms their intake of grain manifests in other ways? Didn't you know that the US diet is 75% grain-based? Didn't you know that we are stuck in an epidemic of obesity here? How much of the diet in 3rd world agrarian societies is grain-based? – BAMBAM Jun 24 2011 at 20:22
I think it is more about grain toxicity. White rice and buckwheat have almost no toxins, when cooked. Plus, the people around the world who do consume grains, traditionally, would ferment them and it takes a lot of time to properly prepare those grains. As a Weston Price advocate, and former all types of grain consumer, I can attest to that. – jamie Jun 24 2011 at 20:34
@BAMBAM: Yes, and I think the first step in the solution is to cut out the junk food and allow traditional grains and legumes in moderation. If you get to that point (which few do), then maybe it's time to try some careful self-experimentation to figure out whether getting rid of the traditional grains or legumes would be an optimization over-top you're already sturdy health. Just keep in mind that that 75% grain-based diet is almost 100% industrial crap and almost 0% traditional grains prepared traditionally (as jamie pointed out). – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:41
@jamie: Can you point me to something explaining how to ferment the grains and prepare them properly? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:42
show 2 more comments
2

Gary Taubes likes to compare insulin insensitivity & obesity to lung cancer: only ten percent of smokers get it. Similarly, only a fraction of the population will become obese from eating grains. So, if you can do it, then that's great, but if you're already gaining unwanted weight, then that's the canary in the coal mine (a metaphor from chris kresser), and you should probably lay off of the grains. Also, since one's metabolism can break down slowly, those who seem able to tolerate grains now, might find that their tolerance attenuates over time.

link|flag
1 
So again we make the claim unfalsifiable. You say grains are bad but they say they're doing fine, so you say "yeah, but just wait and see!!!" What if I came onto this forum and had the same attitude about red meat and how it supposedly causes cancer, heart disease, etc? What would you say? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:53
I'd say that health is too complicated for only one thing to be the controlling variable--no matter how much, in your idea of logic, you want to make it so. If science could not control for multiple variables, we'd have a much poorer understanding of the world than we do. – David Rourke Jun 24 2011 at 22:18
AC - I would say show me the evidence. I can show you evidence that grains cause health problems. – peter Jun 25 2011 at 2:57
1

Its true, some people eat grain and are skinny. Some people also smoke 2 packs a day and don't have cancer. Others drink a bottle of vodka and a 6-pack every night and still have a functioning liver. Just because they haven't suffered ill effects YET doesn't mean they wont. Some people just take a little longer to suffer from their poor lifestyle choices.

I'd tell your friend to follow those same people for a couple of years and see how they do. I bet they aren't so skinny at 30.

link|flag
1 
Others (like many here!) eat red meat many times a week and don't have cancer or whatever. But just because they haven't suffered ill effects YET doesn't mean they won't!!!111 See why these claims aren't falsifiable? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:36
1 
Sigh. That's why we go back to the science. The most credible evidence from many different sources doesn't support the hypothesis that eating red meat will kill you. That's why I eat it, not because it hasn't yet killed anyone on this forum. – David Rourke Jun 24 2011 at 22:20
Sigh indeed!... – peter Jun 25 2011 at 2:58
1

We all have unique biochemistry and genotype so grain can manifest in different forms in different individuals. In some people, the symptoms/damage might appear as obesity, lethargy and depression. In others the symptoms might lead to acute anxiety, stress or hostility. The point is, grain/wheat creates an imbalance in all people that can manifest in different ways, at different times, in different people. The combination of environmental factors and foods that trigger autism in one family line might cause ADHD or celiac's disease in another.

Ask your friends to explain one reason why wheat is good for you?

The usual claim is because it is made of fiber and we need fiber to poop.

Not all fiber is alike.

Soluble fiber dissolves in water (water-soluble) and can be digested by 'good bacteria' in the colon and converted into essential vitamins like vitamin K. You get it from fruits and veggies. Fruits and veggies also contain insoluble fiber - apple skins for instance.

Insoluble fiber does not dissolve rather it soaks up water and can lead to constipation which can trigger inflammation/immune response and make you ill if consumed in excess. Wheat is 100% insoluble fiber.

The grain industry has established an entire food group based on fiber. Their claims about "fiber" in general are the driving force behind their marketing strategies. Why did they need to establish an entire food group based on something that we can easily obtain from the other food groups?

link|flag
1 
When's the last time you saw somebody experience acute hostility from eating too much brown rice? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:17
Where did I say that? – BAMBAM Jun 24 2011 at 20:19
You said that the bad effects of grains manifest in different forms in different individuals. I was exaggerating, but I'm essentially asking why you're so sure that somebody eating grains (such as brown rice for example) is gonna have any bad effects at all. You acted like eating grains simply results in terrible disorders no matter what. So when's the last time you saw somebody experience one of those terrible effects from eating too much brown rice? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:28
It's possible the microbiology of brown rice is more compatible with the human body and the different species of bacteria that we host. Other grains like wheat - not so much. But why does one need brown rice? What nutritional value does insoluble fiber hold? Is it worth a food group? – BAMBAM Jun 24 2011 at 20:35
No idea whether it's worth a food group, but about the rest, couldn't you say the same thing about some random food like coconuts? Why does one need coconuts? I dunno. They taste good, are satiating, and whatever. – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:44
show 2 more comments
0

Which peoples? If they're talking about people in developing nations, then sure. They can eat grains and be slim. But many of the people in these populations also work very laborious jobs for 10 hours per day so they're obviously burning it off. This does not mean that they are healthier for it, by any means.

link|flag
So what would be the difference if they started eating paleo? Take a strong guy from an undeveloped (not necessarily DEVELOPING, many are going the opposite way actually) who seems healthy but eats tons of grains. You say he stays trim and whatever only because his 10-hour-per-day job burns it off for him, but he's not healthier for it. So what exactly would happen if he started eating more paleo and less grain-oriented that would constitute being healthier? Would he get even stronger and trimmer? Or what? – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:59
2 
Humans can withstand a certain amount of negative health factors in their lives. Eating grains is one of them. Eating processed sugary food is another. Getting no exercise, staying indoors all day, sitting down all the time, and so on. If the only health-negative thing you did was eat hand-sprouted whole grains, you might never notice the difference if you stopped doing that. On the other hand, most people in industrial countries have so many negative health factors that eliminating toxic grains is a great first step toward health. – David Rourke Jun 24 2011 at 22:15
In response to anonymous coward... My point is that someone who is working 10 hours in a laborious job is slim DESPITE their diet. The diet is just sustaining their activity. Also, let's also assume these people aren't taking in loads of HFCS and other processed sugar. If grains are the only flaw in their diet, they're going to be loads healthier than your typical person on the SAD diet. And to answer your question: You're asking whether or not someone would get healthier by eating a healthier diet? The answer is yes :-) – jared Jun 27 2011 at 15:35
0

I've run into plenty of slender, seemingly healthy people who eat grains, but who also have developed heart disease, IBS, Crohn's and psoriatic arthritis. Can't judge a book by its cover.

link|flag
2 
Can anybody else see the trend in this thread? If readily independently verifiable information fails (e.g., rather than experiencing any negative effects, the grain-eater seems healthy, slim, strong, and happy), then switch to "they'll pay for it later!!!" Always works, right? It's like a 12 year old calling somebody gay (supposedly as an insult). It's not a falsifiable claim (because "but I have a girlfriend" or anything like that can be countered by "you're just in the closet"), so they can't lose. – Anonymous Coward Jun 24 2011 at 20:34
1 
Of course lots of people tolerate grains OK. You are making up a straw man ("those idiot paleo folks claim that if you eat a bagel you will die") and then proving how stupid it is. Try arguing with the real people making real arguments on this forum and not the morons in your head. – David Rourke Jun 24 2011 at 22:26
1 
I don't see why there's so much hostility to AC's comments in this thread. The poster is asking for help in composing a logical argument to counter a common observation. It's helpful for all of us if someone pokes holes in our arguments to show us what others less tolerant of Paleo will say. – permiechickie Jun 25 2011 at 2:48
I am reading all the comments with interest and I appreciate the effort and thought people have put into this. The juxtaposing of western industrialized grain-based food stuffs with those of more traditional societies is helpful. I still need to think carefully about the argument for vegan or vegetarian diets, since the friend also argues that they are best, regardless of the fact that her ancestry is one that included a lot of meat. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:38
0

Even assuming the thin people she's referring to are perfectly healthy and will remain so their whole lives... it's irrelevant. You dropped grains from your diet, and you're feeling better. Isn't that more important than how other people's bodies react?

link|flag
I agree whole-heartedly. It is more important. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:41
0

"Show me their guts!"

link|flag
Yeah! I know my gut is thanking me! Thanks to all who have given me food for thought. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:43
-1

If you're talking about chinese people eating rice and aren't fat. That's true but there also of very small stature and that's from undernourishment.

link|flag
Well, there is one area of rural China that has people with advanced longevity. – Aili Jun 26 2011 at 15:42

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.