if you are still eating grains, read this

[SweetLou321]

So oats are bad? That does leave lil for carb sources outside of fruit/veggies/potatoes/rice. What about beans?

[TheLastRonin]

The article states that you should test out whether gluten affects you in any way. Not that it is poison. Not that it is bad for everybody. Which is good, because it isn't. I personally have no problems with gluten. I can eat it all day long if I choose. What I do choose to eat though are a variety of foods for my diet, for as much as health as enjoyable eating. Many people can tolerate and thrive on a gluten,lactose and whatever else you throw in diet. Some people can not. To say that they are poison for everyone is plain outright stupidity. If it works for you great. You are most likely sensitive or suffering from celiac disease. Don't push it as a necessity of everyone's life though.

[JudoJosh]

No, its just amazing that you'd call something poison that humans have been eating for 10,000 years with no evidence but that you and a small number of other people feel better not eating it. Sure some peoples have allergic reactions to it to varying degrees, that doesn't make it poison, and it certainly doesn't mean any majority of people have negative reactions or allergies to it.

And so long as you eat plenty of antiinflammatory foods getting some amount of proinflammatory in isn't terrible either. Heck if you are trying to entirely avoid inflammatory response why would you exercise even?

10,000 years? Really? Wheres your evidence? Wheres your peer reviewed studies to support this claim?????

J/K

Yes while we did start eating grains at around 10-12,000 years ago it didn't make up as nearly as much of our diet as it does today.

After the neolithic revolution the Natufians started experimenting with agriculture and even then grains didn't make up the bulk of their diet.

Prior to agriculture the cavity rate among man was around 5%, whereas after agriculture the cavity rate rose to around 20%.



Also see below a quote from one of Cordain papers

Cereals
Because wild cereal grains are usually small, difficult to harvest, and minimally digestible without processing (grinding) and cooking, the appearance of stone processing tools in the fossil
record represents a reliable indication of when and where cultures systematically began to include cereal grains in their diet (7). Ground stone mortars, bowls, and cup holes first appeared in the Upper Paleolithic (from 40 000 y ago to 12 000 y ago) (29), whereas the regular exploitation of cereal grains by any worldwide hunter-gatherer group arose with the emergence of the Natufian culture in the Levant 13 000 BP (30). Domestication of emmer and einkorn wheat by the descendants of the Natufians heralded the beginnings of early agriculture and occurred by10–11 000 BP from strains of wild wheat localized to southeastern Turkey (31). During the ensuing Holocene (10 000 y ago until the present), cereal grains were rarely consumed as year round staples by most worldwide hunter-gatherers (32, 33), except by certain groups living in arid and marginal environments (32, 34). Hence, as was the case with dairy foods, before the Epi-Paleolithic (10 000–11 000 y ago) and Neolithic (10 000 to 5500 y ago) periods, there was little or no previous evolutionary experience for cereal grain consumption throughout hominin evolution."

Sources:
cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/cslarsen/larsen.html

Cordain L. Cereal grains: humanity’s double edged sword. World Rev Nutr Diet 1999;84:19-73.

Wright K. The origins and development of ground stone assemblages in Late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Paleorient 1991;17:19-45.

Bar-Yosef O. The Natufian culture in the Levant, threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evol Anthropol 1998;6:159-77.

Salami F, Ozkan H, Brandolini A, Schafer-Pregl R, Martin W. Genetics and geography of wild cereal domestication in the near east. Nat Rev Genet 2003;3:429-41.

Keeley LH. The use of plant foods among hunter-gatherers: a cross-cultural survey. In:
Anderson PC, ed. Prehistoire de l’agriculture. Nouvelles approches experimentales et ethnographiques. (Prehistoric agriculture. New experimental approaches and ethnography.) Paris: National Center for Scientific Research, 1992:29-38.

Eaton SB. Humans, lipids and evolution. Lipids 1992;27:814-20.

Harlan JR. 1992. Wild grass seed harvesting and implications for domestication. In: Anderson PC, ed. Prehistoire de l’agriculture. Nouvelles approches experimentales et ethnographiques. Paris: National Center for Scientific Research, 1992;21-7.

Our paleolithic ancestors did indeed eat grains though. They collected wild barley, oats, wheats, etc. Especially those who hunted the larger animals of the ice age...there were abundant grains growing on the steppes since the harsh winds/weather and permafrost did not permit tree growth.

I can see the argument to reduce consumption of ADDED gluten, since it is in just about every processed food imaginable; however, to go so far as to claim the causality in the entire population that some of the paleo proponents (and I think paleo is a poor title choice) has yet to be scientifically founded.

Br

See above quote and sources and also quoted text below in regards to cold climate

The Neanderthals were cold-climate hunters of large game and subsisted primarily on game during the coldest periods (1) Their cooking techniques appear to have included “earth-ovens” (a German term) constructed rather like a barbecue pit or a Hawaiian luau or a New England clam-bake. (2) The Neanderthals were not stooped, they had the ability to slow-cook tough meat to chewability, and they did subsist on a diet rather high in animal protein.

Plus do you really think the rice, oats and wheat's of those times are ANYTHING like the ones that are presently used? With all the years of genetic food engineering that has been done I am doubtful that you would be even able to find a grow anything that even remotely resembled the grain used then, we eat hybrid grains that have been developed over the centuries.

Futhermore on the subject of grains

While the sizes of populations grew, in permanent habitation sites the size of individuals often became smaller, (3,4) American archaeologists, in particular, observe a diminution in body size associated with the advent of maize agriculture and further deteriorations coincident with its intensive cultivation. They cite such evidence as an apparent increase in the number of radio-opaque (Harris) lines seen in the skeletons, diminished thickness of compact (cortical) bone, and punctate markings on the skulls (5,6) We are aware of many problems of growth and reproduction that arise from the phytates in wheat and other grains, reducing the availability of iron and zinc. Sensitivity to wheat gluten is another problem (7)

Source:

Brace CL. Krapina, “classic” Neanderthals, and the evolution of the European face. J Hum Evol 1979,8:527-50

Brace CL, Rosenberg KR. Hunt KD. Gradual change in human tooth size in the late Pleisto-cene and post-Pleistocene. Evolution
1987:41:705—20

Cohen MN. Toward a theory of human food habits: the significance of long-term changes in human diet and food economy. In: Harris M,

Ross EB, eds. Food and evolution: toward a theory of human food habits. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987:166-90

Cohen MN. Armelagos GJ. eds. Paleopathology at the origins of agriculture. New York: Academic Press. 1984

Buikstra JE. Cook DC. Paleopathology: an American account. Annu Rev Anthropol 1980;9:433-70

Goodman AH, Armelagos GJ, Rose JC. The chronological distribution of enamel hypoplasias from prehistoric ****son mounds populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 1964:65:259-66

Robinson CH, Lawier MR, Chenoweth WL. Garwick AE. Normal and therapeutic nutrition. 17th ed. New York: MacMillan, 1986

I don't restrict gluten, but I also do not go out of my way to eat foods with added gluten.

I eat a variety of whole grains: wheat, rice, oats, quinoa, etc.

And, I feel fine and perform well. But, that's not a very good argument in either direction. N=1 means very little.

I think we need to place emphasis on balancing potentially inflammatory foods with foods that hold anti-inflammatory properties.

For example, peanuts are inflammatory. Jalepeno peppers are quite anti inflammatory.

And the problem with a lot of the gluten research, is that it is conducted in people who are already at high risk for systemic inflammation: the sedentary.

So, I think a lot more research needs to be done before we go demonizing a nutrient (when consumed as part of a whole food, not additive) in the general population.

Br

Yes I agree and also at the risk of sounding cynical but there honestly is no money in it for the food industry. There is nothing to gain from demonizing grains and glorify meat for them but there is however tons of money to be made from grains especially after our government subsidized it and plus they are way easier to market. Whens the last time you seen a commercial for some steak, eggs, pineapple, spinach, almonds, etc.. compared to the commercials for our mass produced grain filled products? I always hate to bring this point up but I think it is a valid question to ask.

And just to be clear, I do agree that dropping gluten can benefit a decent amount of people most likely people who have the tendency to be a "hardgainer" as malabsorption of nutrients can definitely lead to hard gaining. Theres definitely no harm in dropping gluten, heck if you can substitute in quinoa + quinoa flour for all the other grains you eat you end up way ahead of the game with the ecdysterone content of quinoa.

I just don't see that dropping gluten will make a noticeable impact on the majority of people. Could it be useful for 20-30% of people? Possibly so I can definitely see where its worth trying a decent time span gluten free, but if you don't have enough of a difference in that time to notice it, returning to using grains with gluten shouldn't hurt either. For most non-bodybuilding people clipping sugar intake and vegetable fats would have more benefit than dropping grains.

Disagree I believe a great amount of our society would benefit from dropping grains from their diet. As a nation I believe we consume processed food (grains) in excess. Im not saying it would cure us from our diseases but considering the nations current overall health condition the present day USDA recommendations just aren't working. Dr. Eades had actually broke down the macro breakdown of the feed from a cattle feedlot and it was almost identical to the recommendations from the USDA. The feed they use to fatten cattle prior to slaughter is what we are being told we should eat in order to achieve optimal health.. so yes I believe if our processed food intake is lowered many people will benefit.

Cross fit and Paleo is cultish....

Believe T-nation believe anyone...

Once nutrition programs becomes my way is the only way, it's time to bail and cover your ears but there is good in almost every dieting philosophy...except the cookie diet, that dude should be drowned...

Proper way to learn nutrition is to learn the basic function of a carbohyrdate, fat, and protein and the ultimate principle of caloric value and move from there...

Don't dring the koolaid....

YES!!! 100% agree!! The paleo crowd is very dogmatic with their beliefs and have a "holyer then thou" attitude to them which I think drives most people away from them. Its not about trying to mimic exactly what our ancestors or a caveman did but it is about creating an optimal diet for YOU

The Gracies have a similar diet.

Paleo is not ground breaking everyone should be eating fruits, veggies, good protein and eliminating processed food.

If you understand food, you find a food that fits you but we've been programmed to eat like robots starting in kindergarden...

My issue is the blind following and the cult like attitude towards food.

poor kids don't even know what a Cucumber looks like these days....

Everyone and mean everyone should understand the basic concept of food. the scary part is those that are teaching nutrition in gyms and such are quaks.

The Gracie diet is totally different

Contemporary nutrition is awful. Look at how many fat nutritionists there are in the world. That is all you need to know. Part of the problem is the conflict of interest between companies such as Monsanto and the USDA.

the good corn particulary from Mexico where I get my avocados... not the corn used for corn syrup or any other government project...

No, Rodja is referring to all corn I believe.

I'm in agreement on the cholesterol issue. We can all thank Dr. Keys and his fraudulent study back in the 50's for some of the health problems and many of the perceptions in nutrition we now face and are trying to correct today.
You (as in the majority of AM, not you rodja personally) may not know this, but Dr. Keys suggestions about limiting fats and cholesterol were actually turned down by the FDA 5 years in a row. The FDA only adopted them when Keys himself joined the board.

Now, onto the topic of eggs.

The SOURCE is just as important as the food. Eggs bought in the supermarket are much different from eggs bought from a local cage free farmer.

Supermarket eggs can be left standing up to 60 days.
Mass produced eggs are from chickens fed a CORN diet. And we all know how harmful corn oil is.
Even your typical "free range/cage free" eggs are not cage free. All it takes to be called "cage free" is a 6" door opening in the cage and a small (about 3 square foot - if memory serves me) area of pen space per 100 chickens.
That's hardly cage free.

My family raised chickens when I was a child for the eggs. We had about 6 and they roamed the yard freely. There is a HUGE difference between the taste and consistency of those eggs vs. the ones in the store labeled "cage free".

Summary:
Locally grown cage free eggs - eat all you want.
Mass produced and supermarket cage free eggs - be wary.

Br

YES!!! Reps to you for even knowing those things bro!! BTW I hate how this "organic" food is now becoming a trend and gaining popularity thus attracting corporations who are now buying out these smaller organic companies and then lobbying our congress in order to get around alot of the organic guidelines. The same thing is done with cattle except a massive steel door is used on the feed lot and these overfed cattle can barely walk 5 steps let alone push open this door but since its there and the opportunity to walk outside and roam is available to them they can legally label it as free range.. WTF!!! I buy my eggs and meat locally from local farmers who share the same beliefs and principles that I do and I believe it is how it should be done. Not only is it a waaay better quality of food but you support your local communities economy. BTW even cracy open a supermarket egg and real free range egg and put them in side by side bowls. Even visually you can see the difference

Systemic inflammation from foods and local inflammation from training are two different processes and should not be used interchangeably. Although it seems like Celiac/gluten intolerance is the new hot button, you cannot use the fact that many of these foods have been staple foods to support your cause. Evolution is a slow process and centuries is not nearly long enough for the body to adapt. Hell, even a few millennia is just a mere blip on a large scale.

Can you elaborate on this please?

[JudoJosh]

I agree on the article. Anyone referencing T-nation should be craddled like a bady and tought to walk again.

I guess T-Nation is the only place that has articles about living gluten free.....


This thread has gotten out of hand. You can argue to the cows come home, but there is no point since no one will change there mind on either side of the matter.

Alright so if gluten is "poison" because some people are intolerant to it, then by the same logic is lactose also "poison"? It seems to me that to call something poison is a little harsh when in fact, it isn't to most people out there. Some people are deathly allergic to bee stings but you also have others purposefully getting stung for health reasons. I think that if the paleo diet/lifestyle works for you, great!, but the attitude of "I'm better than you because of this" seems a bit overboard. Maybe that's not how it was meant to come across in some of the posts, but that is an undertone that stuck out to me. Maybe I can have the attitude of "I'm better than you because my body can handle gluten and yours can't." No, just joking! I'm glad it works for some but for me (I married the farmers daughter), it's a no-go.

Okay guys this is getting a little carried away. Regardless of the source of the article the message in it is true. Did any of you even read it??? The article didn't call gluten poison (anton did) and it even didnt claim gluten was bad for everyone just explained that for some it may be and you should get tested if you suspect it.

Now onto the dangers of grains, while I don't know if I would classify them as poison they definetely arent good for your body and provide no benefits for you. Whatever little nutrients found in most processed foods are added to them. Put it simply for me they just aren't worth the consumption. Look at french fries vs. broccoli or pasta vs steak or whatever vs. whatever and the grain will always loose when it comes down to what is providing your body with the most nutrients it needs.

And to further elaborate on grains

Currently there’s an epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D) worldwide, especially in Westernized countries. T2D is characterized by persistent elevated glucose levels due to disrupted insulin action or an alteration in pancreatic insulin production1.
It was estimated that 171 million people were suffering from T2D in 2001, with a total overall population prevalence of 6%. More alarming is the fact that in Caucasian adolescents 4% suffer from T2D and 25% are glucose intolerant1. However, T2D prevalence in hunter-gatherer societies is low2-6, and even nonexistent in the island of Kitava in Trobiand Islands in Papua New Guinea3.
Genetics does not seem to explain the difference, because when these populations are Westernized they suffer even more from diseases of civilization such as T2D, obesity, myocardial infarction and stroke among others7-10 than original Western populations. Furthermore, there’s evidence showing that hunter-gatherer populations can reverse T2D when they are resettled in their ancient habitat8, a fact that has been demonstrated in two recent clinical trials conducted on Western populations11, 12.
Insulin resistance seems to be one of the factors involved in T2D which is caused, by low-grade chronic inflammation13-15 among other factors. Interestingly, low-grade chronic inflammation is a hallmark16-19 in T2D patients.
Considering these factors, it seems plausible that the nutrition introduced with the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago played an important role in the current diabetes epidemic in Westernized populations. Western foods are overload with antinutrients, namely lectins, saponins and gliadin, which may explain the great disparity between paleolithic and modern Western food when it comes to metabolic syndrome (a combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes). There is evidence showing that antinutrients act as endocrine disrupting substances, promoting metabolic syndrome20. On the other hand, antinutrients may elicit their negative health effects through increased intestinal permeability21. However, scant evidence exists regarding the role of antinutrients in the aetiology of Western diseases.
Gliadin and increased intestinal permeability
One of the most studied foods in the recent years is wheat, which contains a protein called gliadin, and is part of the gluten protein family22. Gliadin increases gut permeability by means of Zonulin production (a protein that regulates in tight junctions between cells in the wall of the digestive tract) in the gut enterocytes (epithelial cells found in the small intestines and colon). Zonulin binds the CXCR3 chemokine receptor leading to intracellular signalling cascades, mediated by protein kinase C (PKC), which ultimately causes disruption of the tight junction proteins which maintain the gut barrier function, and lead to increased gut permeability23, 24.
In addition, when intestinal permeability is increased, gliadin - which is resistant to heat and digestive enzymes - is able to interact with gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) stimulating the innate immune system, leading to low-grade chronic inflammation22, 24. Several studies have demonstrated that gliadin induces the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (a small protein released by cells that has a specific effect on the interactions between cells, communications between cells or the behavior of cells), independent of one’s genetic predisposition to celiac disease – which is virtually everyone23, 25, 26.
Lectins and increased gut permeability
Lectins are a family of glycoproteins (a complex protein containing a carbohydrate combined with a simple protein) found in the plant kingdom, including grains, legumes and solanacous plants (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants and peppers)21, 27. Lectins also have the ability to bind sugar containing molecules. They were first studied for their ability to agglutinate (cause to adhere) red blood cells by binding to their cell membranes. Many lectins present in other foods are harmless, but some lectins found in grains, legumes and solanaceous plants have been shown to be harmful to human physiology28. Lectins are resistant to heat (unless cooked by pressure cooking)29 and digestive enzymes38, and therefore arrive intact when they reach the intestinal epithelium, passing through the intestinal barrier into peripheral circulation. Lectins are able to bind peripheral tissues, producing many deleterious health effects21. Furthermore, lectins disrupt intestinal barrier and immunological function when they bind surface glycans (a carbohydrate polymer containing simple sugars) on gut epithelial cells, causing cellular disruption and increasing gut permeability. Lectins also facilitate the growth of certain bacteria strains, stimulate T-cell proliferation, increase intercellular adhesion molecules (ICAM), stimulate production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, TNF-alpha, etc.), and amplify HLA class II molecules expression, among other effects21.
Saponins and increased gut permeability
Saponins are glycoalkaloids (a family of poisons commonly found in the plant species Solanum dulcamara - nightshades) produced by plants, technically known as steroid glycosides or triterpenoids, are formed by a sugar compound (glucuronic acid, glucose or galactose, among others) and aglycone (non-sugar molecule) portion30-32. The aglycone portion binds the cholesterol molecule on gut cell membranes. When certain amounts of saponins bind cell membrane cholesterol molecules of the intestinal epithelial cells at a 1:1 ratio, the sugar portion of the saponins bind together, resulting in a complex molecule consisting of cholesterol and saponins. This new molecule disrupts the gut barrier and increases intestinal permeability. This has been shown in humans who consume a diet rich in alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine - two of the saponins found in potatoes31.
On the other hand, saponins have adjuvant-like activity, which means that they are able to affect the immune system leading to pro-inflammatory cytokine production33, 34, ultimately inducing insulin resistance.
Intestinal permeability and endotoxemia
ntestinal epithelia act as a physical barrier between the outside and the inside of the body, meaning that the intestinal lumen is technically outside the organism. When the intestinal barrier is disrupted, it allows increased passage of gut luminal antigens derived from food, bacteria and viruses into the organism21. In case of bacteria derived antigens, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is the most commonly studied and utilized antigen to induce acute immune stimulation, this is known as endotoxemia (the presence of endotoxins - a toxin that forms an integral part of the cell wall of certain bacteria - in the blood which may cause hemorrhages, necrosis of the kidneys, and shock)35. In addition, endotoxemia is associated with low-grade chronic inflammation, insulin resistance and T2D13, 18, 36. In a recent human study it was demonstrated that LPS induced low-grade chronic inflammation in adipose tissue in T2D36 humans.
LPS-TLR4 interaction and low-grade chronic inflammation
The innate immune system is localised in the GALT. When luminal antigens pass through the intestinal barrier, they are ****ocited (consumed) by dendritic cells or macro****ues, key components of the innate immune system. Dendritic cells or macro****ues recognize antigens through a family of receptors known as Toll-like receptors (TLR). The best studied and known antigens from gram negative bacteria are LPS which interact with toll-like receptors-4 (TLR4), inducing the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and ultimately insulin resistance and T2D35. Interestingly, a recently published study demonstrated increased TLR4 expression in T2D humans, contributing to an increased inflammatory state37.
In summary, antinutrients introduced with the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago may be one of the causal factors in the epidemic of obesity, (as well as T2D) in Western countries. Lectins, saponins and gliadin increase intestinal permeability and allow increased passage of gut bacteria from intestinal lumen to peripheral circulation. LPS - an antigen found in gram-negative bacteria cell membranes - interacts with TLR-4, leading to inflammatory cytokine production and low-grade chronic inflammation, which is at the root of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is recognised to induce the metabolic syndrome, including T2D. Endotoxemia-induced insulin resistance in T2D patients may be exacerbated, in part, by antinutrients.
References:

Stumvoll M, Goldstein BJ, van Haeften TW. Type 2 diabetes: principles of pathogenesis and therapy. Lancet 2005;365(9467):1333-46.
Joffe BI, Jackson WP, Thomas ME, Toyer MG, Keller P, Pimstone BL. Metabolic responses to oral glucose in the Kalahari Bushmen. British medical journal 1971;4(5781):206-8.
Lindeberg S, Eliasson M, Lindahl B, Ahren B. Low serum insulin in traditional Pacific Islanders--the Kitava Study. Metabolism: clinical and experimental 1999;48(10):1216-9.
Merimee TJ, Rimoin DL, Cavalli-Sforza LL. Metabolic studies in the African pygmy. The Journal of clinical investigation 1972;51(2):395-401.
Spielman RS, Fajans SS, Neel JV, Pek S, Floyd JC, Oliver WJ. Glucose tolerance in two unacculturated Indian tribes of Brazil. Diabetologia 1982;23(2):90-3.
Zimmet P. Epidemiology of diabetes and its macrovascular manifestations in Pacific populations: the medical effects of social progress. Diabetes care 1979;2(2):144-53.
Cruickshank JK, Mbanya JC, Wilks R, Balkau B, McFarlane-Anderson N, Forrester T. Sick genes, sick individuals or sick populations with chronic disease? The emergence of diabetes and high blood pressure in African-origin populations. International journal of epidemiology 2001;30(1):111-7.
O'Dea K. Marked improvement in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian aborigines after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle. Diabetes 1984;33(6):596-603.
O'Dea K, Spargo RM, Akerman K. The effect of transition from traditional to urban life-style on the insulin secretory response in Australian Aborigines. Diabetes care 1980;3(1):31-7.
O'Dea K, Spargo RM, Nestel PJ. Impact of Westernization on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in Australian Aborigines. Diabetologia 1982;22(3):148-53.
Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahren B, et al. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovascular diabetology 2009;8:35.
Lindeberg S, Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, et al. A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease. Diabetologia 2007;50(9):1795-807.
Fernandez-Real JM, Pickup JC. Innate immunity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Trends in endocrinology and metabolism: TEM 2008;19(1):10-6.
Reyna SM, Ghosh S, Tantiwong P, et al. Elevated toll-like receptor 4 expression and signaling in muscle from insulin-resistant subjects. Diabetes 2008;57(10):2595-602.
Song MJ, Kim KH, Yoon JM, Kim JB. Activation of Toll-like receptor 4 is associated with insulin resistance in adipocytes. Biochemical and biophysical research communications 2006;346(3):739-45.
Duncan BB, Schmidt MI. The epidemiology of low-grade chronic systemic inflammation and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics 2006;8(1):7-17.
Kimberly MM, Cooper GR, Myers GL. An overview of inflammatory markers in type 2 diabetes from the perspective of the clinical chemist. Diabetes technology & therapeutics 2006;8(1):37-44.
Pickup JC. Inflammation and activated innate immunity in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes care 2004;27(3):813-23.
Spranger J, Kroke A, Mohlig M, et al. Inflammatory cytokines and the risk to develop type 2 diabetes: results of the prospective population-based European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam Study. Diabetes 2003;52(3):812-7.
Jonsson T, Olsson S, Ahren B, Bog-Hansen TC, Dole A, Lindeberg S. Agrarian diet and diseases of affluence--do evolutionary novel dietary lectins cause leptin resistance? BMC endocrine disorders 2005;5:10.
Cordain L, Toohey L, Smith MJ, Hickey MS. Modulation of immune function by dietary lectins in rheumatoid arthritis. The British journal of nutrition 2000;83(3):207-17.
Fasano A. Surprises from celiac disease. Scientific American 2009;301(2):54-61.
Drago S, El Asmar R, Di Pierro M, et al. Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability: Effects on celiac and non-celiac intestinal mucosa and intestinal cell lines. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology 2006;41(4):408-19.
Visser J, Rozing J, Sapone A, Lammers K, Fasano A. Tight junctions, intestinal permeability, and autoimmunity: celiac disease and type 1 diabetes paradigms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009;1165:195-205.
Bernardo D, Garrote JA, Fernandez-Salazar L, Riestra S, Arranz E. Is gliadin really safe for non-coeliac individuals? Production of interleukin 15 in biopsy culture from non-coeliac individuals challenged with gliadin peptides. Gut 2007;56(6):889-90.
Rakhimova M, Esslinger B, Schulze-Krebs A, Hahn EG, Schuppan D, Dieterich W. In vitro differentiation of human monocytes into dendritic cells by peptic-tryptic digest of gliadin is independent of genetic predisposition and the presence of celiac disease. Journal of clinical immunology 2009;29(1):29-37.
Kilpatrick DC, Pusztai A, Grant G, Graham C, Ewen SW. Tomato lectin resists digestion in the mammalian alimentary canal and binds to intestinal villi without deleterious effects. FEBS letters 1985;185(2):299-305.
Cordain L. Cereal grains: humanity's double-edged sword. World review of nutrition and dietetics 1999;84:19-73.
Grant G, More LJ, McKenzie NH, Pusztai A. The effect of heating on the haemagglutinating activity and nutritional properties of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) seeds. Journal of the science of food and agriculture 1982;33(12):1324-6.
Francis G, Kerem Z, Makkar HP, Becker K. The biological action of saponins in animal systems: a review. The British journal of nutrition 2002;88(6):587-605.
Patel B, Schutte R, Sporns P, Doyle J, Jewel L, Fedorak RN. Potato glycoalkaloids adversely affect intestinal permeability and aggravate inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammatory bowel diseases 2002;8(5):340-6.
Keukens EA, de Vrije T, van den Boom C, et al. Molecular basis of glycoalkaloid induced membrane disruption. Biochimica et biophysica acta 1995;1240(2):216-28.
Oda K, Matsuda H, Murakami T, Katayama S, Ohgitani T, Yoshikawa M. Adjuvant and haemolytic activities of 47 saponins derived from medicinal and food plants. Biological chemistry 2000;381(1):67-74.
Pickering RJ, Smith SD, Strugnell RA, Wesselingh SL, Webster DE. Crude saponins improve the immune response to an oral plant-made measles vaccine. Vaccine 2006;24(2):144-50.
Cani PD, Bibiloni R, Knauf C, et al. Changes in gut microbiota control metabolic endotoxemia-induced inflammation in high-fat diet-induced obesity and diabetes in mice. Diabetes 2008;57(6):1470-81.
Creely SJ, McTernan PG, Kusminski CM, et al. Lipopolysaccharide activates an innate immune system response in human adipose tissue in obesity and type 2 diabetes. American journal of physiology 2007;292(3):E740-7.
Dasu MR, Devaraj S, Park S, Jialal I. Increased toll-like receptor (TLR) activation and TLR ligands in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetic subjects. Diabetes care;33(4):861-8.

So as you can see while they may not be "poisonous" they definitely aren't doing you any good and in my opinion just arent worth the consumption, especially when we have so much better foods available to us

So oats are bad? That does leave lil for carb sources outside of fruit/veggies/potatoes/rice. What about beans?

Oats arent necessarily bad, there is actually a very low amount of gluten in them. My overall problem with oats is the lack of nutrients in them. Instead of asking "why shouldnt I eat oats" instead ask yourself "Why do I eat oats?" There is no nutritional or health reason for them to be a part of your diet IMO

[EasyEJL]

Any statement that uses evolution as a part of its proof is inherently flawed. Evolution does not optimize the individual. The only accurate and logically consistent statement you can use evolution for is that eating the way we evolved to eat will maximize fertility. Thats all. Evolution tunes us for survival of the species, not for survival or optimal performance of the individual. If anything, larger individuals (such as bodybuilders) can be viewed as counter species survival as they consume far more resources than a normal individual, which limits the resources available to the group. Same with claims of eating that way making for a longer life as old members of the tribe don't perform to the same level and require more protection. So if anything evolution would tune you to having a productive ages 14-45 or so, and limit your chances of living past that.

[AntonG42O]

I agree on the article. Anyone referencing T-nation should be craddled like a bady and tought to walk again.

i reference T-nation articles because that particular article is written about something I am interested in. any data in those articles is usually backed up with a simple google search on the subject. where do you get your information, the USDA website?

[AntonG42O]

foods with gluten ARE poison. they cause inflammation and provide ZERO vitamins or minerals. there is simply NO nutritional value in oats/bread/pasta besides the carb content and insoluble fiber that you dont even need provided you eat any vegetables. if you eat a grain you simply waste stomach space and digestive juices that could have been used to absorb something with vitamins and minerals. grains give you simply nothing in return but hearburn and inflammation.

just because you are 20 something and can eat a loaf of bread with no ill effects that doesnt mean that gluten isnt take its toll on you. perhaps you have a medical condition that you never attributed to eating gluten. perhaps you just cant get 6 pack abs no matter how much you workout. its like an alcoholic who says "well i read that drinking can actually be good for blood pressure and prostate!" keep eating the crap but dont even dare post it here thats its a healthy food.

[AntonG42O]

every time we start a thread like this all the bagel lovers unite and throw a sh!t fit. just for your information people, keep stuffing gluten like its your job.

[EasyEJL]

every time we start a thread like this all the bagel lovers unite and throw a sh!t fit. just for your information people, keep stuffing gluten like its your job.

Every time a person starts a cult thread on their favorite methodology of something saying that anything else is garbage the rest of the cult members join in too.

[AntonG42O]

"One of the most studied foods in the recent years is wheat, which contains a protein called gliadin, and is part of the gluten protein family22. Gliadin increases gut permeability by means of Zonulin production (a protein that regulates in tight junctions between cells in the wall of the digestive tract) in the gut enterocytes (epithelial cells found in the small intestines and colon). Zonulin binds the CXCR3 chemokine receptor leading to intracellular signalling cascades, mediated by protein kinase C (PKC), which ultimately causes disruption of the tight junction proteins which maintain the gut barrier function, and lead to increased gut permeability23, 24.
In addition, when intestinal permeability is increased, gliadin - which is resistant to heat and digestive enzymes - is able to interact with gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) stimulating the innate immune system, leading to low-grade chronic inflammation22, 24. Several studies have demonstrated that gliadin induces the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (a small protein released by cells that has a specific effect on the interactions between cells, communications between cells or the behavior of cells), independent of one’s genetic predisposition to celiac disease – which is virtually everyone23, 25, 26."

[AntonG42O]

Every time a person starts a cult thread on their favorite methodology of something saying that anything else is garbage the rest of the cult members join in too.

damn right because we feel good eating this way and want to help the people who drink the government "eat 7-10 servings of grains daily" koolaid. correct me if im wrong, but didnt you lose a ton of weight? you think the good ol hearty grains had anything to do with you gaining it?

[EasyEJL]

damn right because we feel good eating this way and want to help the people who drink the government "eat 7-10 servings of grains daily" koolaid. correct me if im wrong, but didnt you lose a ton of weight? you think the good ol hearty grains had anything to do with you gaining it?

Nope sure don't. The overconsumption of food in general, but particularly fats + sugars was what did it.

So you feel good eating that way. Big whoop. 70+% of the population feels good eating grains. The slavish addition to the cult line with no scientific backing showing it affects more than a small proportion of the population is ridiculous. So great, you fall into the maybe 20% of the population that is gluten allergic to some extent. Its wonderful that you figured that out and that its helped you, it doesn't make the 70+% of people without gluten intolerance or allergies stupid for continuing to eat grains.

Like i've said before, it is worth it for people to take a month off of dairy, off of gluten and see how they feel and how their performance and body comp changes (or doesn't). But if there isn't a significant change and you enjoy grains, theres no reason to avoid them. They are a caloric source, and with eating enough vegetables and taking vitamins the fact that they have minimal levels of additional micronutrients is meaningless as you already have your needs covered. Anyone who works out or competes athletically has a higher than normal caloric need, and grains are a convenient way to reach the caloric goals.

[AntonG42O]

so thats it? calories? your bottom line reason for eating grains is calories?

they provide no other nutritional benefits and contain anti-nutrients but we should eat them for the sake of calories?

[Torobestia]

Any statement that uses evolution as a part of its proof is inherently flawed. Evolution does not optimize the individual. The only accurate and logically consistent statement you can use evolution for is that eating the way we evolved to eat will maximize fertility. Thats all. Evolution tunes us for survival of the species, not for survival or optimal performance of the individual. If anything, larger individuals (such as bodybuilders) can be viewed as counter species survival as they consume far more resources than a normal individual, which limits the resources available to the group. Same with claims of eating that way making for a longer life as old members of the tribe don't perform to the same level and require more protection. So if anything evolution would tune you to having a productive ages 14-45 or so, and limit your chances of living past that.

Very true. This is a point that eludes even many (is amateur a good descriptor?) scientists.

What's important to understand is that we live in a harsh environment; this has been true for millions of years, and it is still true today (processed foods, heavily contaminated water, smog- and carcinogen-packed atmosphere, etc). Our bodies, thusly, can be thought of much like marines - they make do. That you eat your greens every day and are generally healthy doesn't mean you're operating at optimal conditions. And I'm in agreement with everything else you said.

With that said, I think there is substantial evidence to support many of the habits that paleo diets put forth. Their focus on meats over veggies is a little high, but not just in comparison with modern diets but overall the recognition of meat as a vital nutritional source for humans is a good thing about this diet. Their draw away from processed foods is very healthy, and focusing on eating nutrient dense as opposed to nutrient empty (which many carb sources are) is additionally good. I think Paleo would get much greater recognition if they highlighted this last point about carb-rich foods over generating all this fear and animosity towards gluten (lol) to market the lifestyle.

[EasyEJL]

so thats it? calories? your bottom line reason for eating grains is calories?

they provide no other nutritional benefits and contain anti-nutrients but we should eat them for the sake of calories?

No, I don't see anywhere that i've said people should eat them, but that there isn't any justification to not eating them. Whats the point of taking in additional iron if you don't need any more? Whats the point of extra magnesium, potassium, etc? None. If you reach what micronutrient needs you have where the rest of the calories come from is moot. Similarly with calling the phytates antinutrients, thats great and all, and a convenient rally cry but if you are eating enough vegetables also containing those nutrients and also taking vitamins then it makes 0 difference as you have a surplus of those nutrients.

Tell me, what exactly extra nutrients are in all the fats you take in after you reach the point where you've hit the necessary levels of EFAs? Nothing but calories. So why do you eat them then?

Grains are convenient, filling, and provide a source of energy. And for the majority of people there is no evidence of any reason to avoid them.

Realistically, the whole paleo diet has about as much justification scientifically as the Keye's "healthy heart" diet does. The intellectual dishonesty among its supporters is funny. Gary Taubes in his book "Good Calories Bad Calories" continuously discredits the low fat high carbohydrate diet as providing no difference in mortality rates even if there is a slightly lower heart disease death rate. The piece of his intellectual dishonesty is that the Keyes diet also doesn't show any higher mortality rate so theres no particular superiority in terms of lifespan to eating high fat low carbs. So if there is no lifespan difference, eat what you like, eat whats convenient.

And honestly, had this thread been titled as "Having problems reaching your goals? Maybe gluten is the problem" and the first few posts been asking/telling people to try a 4/6/8 week span of no gluten and see how their progress is in that time, I would have been totally supportive, as it is definitely a strategy worth trying. But when it starts with

oh god dont start another "show me the clinical study!" discussion

because its POISON! it causes inflammation! why do you think it causes problems?

it headed down the cultish following path rather than a logical and sensible path. If theres no to minimal studies, and even those are mostly just blood markers, not any mid to long term health studies then you are just using anecdotal evidence and you've got no more real justification than someone advocating a grapfruit diet.

Same with ketogenic diets and fat loss, 0 real world evidence of any greater fat loss or muscle retention with keto vs other diets, actually some found greater muscle loss with keto. But the anecdotal "I lost 100% fat, no muscle" has trumped that apparently. And whenever you ask them how they know, of course the answer is "my bench press went up by 10lbs while I was doing it, so I couldn't have lost any muscle" which is just a total joke.

[lukehayd]

Okay guys this is getting a little carried away. Regardless of the source of the article the message in it is true. Did any of you even read it??? The article didn't call gluten poison (anton did) and it even didnt claim gluten was bad for everyone just explained that for some it may be and you should get tested if you suspect it.

Yes, I did read the article. However, I am man enough to admit that there are things that I didn't understand. I was not saying that the paleo diet was bad. When it comes down to it, I eat more meat than anything else. Mostly all of the meat is wild game (deer, turkey, fish etc.) or beef from my father-in-laws ranch (not feedyard!!) I believe that what you said about the grains being different from ages past is true. Just look at all the genetic modifications that are made to it...insect resistance, herbicide resistance, taller, stronger stalks, rot resistance the list goes on and on. So you ask why continue to eat it and I say for no other reason than the simple fact that I like it. If we want to talk about being devoid of any nutrients, lets talk about most of the bottled water out there. Filtered down so there is absolutely nothing left. No minerals or nutrients at all. Essentially it is "DEAD" water. Then there is the tap water that is loaded with chlorine, fluoride and who knows what else. O.K. that was off subject. My post was not an insult to the diet at all and if anyone took it that way, I do apologize. I did address the attitude of (your words) "holier than thou" and felt it was uncalled for. I believe in moderation in all things. Too much of something can kill you and not enough can kill you too.

[Aleksandar37]

Everybody is different and therefore there is not going to be one universal ideal diet. Can you honestly say that humans have not evolved since the Paleo era? That our GI system has not adapted to the changing environment? I'm not knocking the diet. If it works for you, then great, but saying that others are fools for not jumping on board is insulting.

We as a species are not the same as we were back then. Furthermore, humans have become more diverse, with some cultures being tolerant to some diets that others are not. Enzymes do differ between races.

You have to find what works best for you. If you want to provide others with your diet and show the results you have gained from it, then great. Maybe others will try it and will also benefit. But it isn't for everybody.

I admire how strongly you believe in this, but your delivery is going to push people away from it, which is not your intention. It's like Apple. I don't have anything against Macs, but Mac users tend to be complete snobs that think their way is the only way and has no flaws and makes me want to never touch a Mac.

[bdcc]

What could have been an interesting debate has turned into more of an e-argument than anything.

I was in a lecture on gluten sensitivities and some of the studies shown were absolutely incredible. There were examples of severe, 'non-related' diseases being improved on following a gluten free diet, the most memorable one for me was brain lesions.

The undertone of the lecture was, if you are sensitive to it and eat it then you can suffer in a lot more ways than you will realise, not necessarily localised symptoms to the GI tract. Follow gut inflammation into autoimmune diseases, permeable gut lining, poor estrogen metabolism through beta-glucuronidase and you potentially open the door to a much broader spectrum of dysfunction.

The big question of the lecture was, why are people viewing gluten sensitivity as black and white?

A lot of people here claim gluten is always bad. Others claim there are no problems with it. Rather than arguing one case it would make more sense to rationalise the two.

I have had multiple comprehensive gastrointestinal panels performed and none have identified any significant degree of sensitivity to gluten. On the other hand, I can't eat it without getting GI symptoms such as diarrhoea, bloating, flatulence and lethargy.

In theory I am ok to eat it but anecdotally I am not.

It is not a black or white question. I have had many clients who say they have no problems digesting gluten but feel much better when they do not eat it and substitute it with gluten free options.

[Rodja]

Everybody is different and therefore there is not going to be one universal ideal diet. Can you honestly say that humans have not evolved since the Paleo era? That our GI system has not adapted to the changing environment? I'm not knocking the diet. If it works for you, then great, but saying that others are fools for not jumping on board is insulting.

We as a species are not the same as we were back then. Furthermore, humans have become more diverse, with some cultures being tolerant to some diets that others are not. Enzymes do differ between races.

You have to find what works best for you. If you want to provide others with your diet and show the results you have gained from it, then great. Maybe others will try it and will also benefit. But it isn't for everybody.

I admire how strongly you believe in this, but your delivery is going to push people away from it, which is not your intention. It's like Apple. I don't have anything against Macs, but Mac users tend to be complete snobs that think their way is the only way and has no flaws and makes me want to never touch a Mac.

WRT to evolution of the human GI, you have to remember that the commercial grains of today are highly genetically engineered and its potential effects on the GI are unknown. Needless to say, it is probably is our best interest to at least limit the amount that we consume of these crops

What could have been an interesting debate has turned into more of an e-argument than anything.

I was in a lecture on gluten sensitivities and some of the studies shown were absolutely incredible. There were examples of severe, 'non-related' diseases being improved on following a gluten free diet, the most memorable one for me was brain lesions.

The undertone of the lecture was, if you are sensitive to it and eat it then you can suffer in a lot more ways than you will realise, not necessarily localised symptoms to the GI tract. Follow gut inflammation into autoimmune diseases, permeable gut lining, poor estrogen metabolism through beta-glucuronidase and you potentially open the door to a much broader spectrum of dysfunction.

The big question of the lecture was, why are people viewing gluten sensitivity as black and white?

A lot of people here claim gluten is always bad. Others claim there are no problems with it. Rather than arguing one case it would make more sense to rationalise the two.

I have had multiple comprehensive gastrointestinal panels performed and none have identified any significant degree of sensitivity to gluten. On the other hand, I can't eat it without getting GI symptoms such as diarrhoea, bloating, flatulence and lethargy.

In theory I am ok to eat it but anecdotally I am not.

It is not a black or white question. I have had many clients who say they have no problems digesting gluten but feel much better when they do not eat it and substitute it with gluten free options.

I think most people often forget that there can be a sub-clinical level of allergy. Nothing that causes anything overtly noticeable, but small things such as sinusitis or chronic allergies. Above all else, the main reason I kicked gluten was that it removed, not alleviated or lessened, but completely eliminated my allergies. I only have one good nostril as is and need all the help I can get when it comes to my breathing.

[sapentia]

Frankly, I find this thread absurd. It is based on the same type of gross generalizations that have dominated government policy regarding food for years. When will people learn that balance is the key to nearly every aspect of life. Those who advocate extremes in lifestyle or diet to the exclusion of everything else are more often than not terribly wrong. In its unadulterated form nature provides a wonderful balance. The problem is that modern society takes the less appealing parts of anything, whether food or lifestyle, strips them out leaving what is the sweetest and most gratifying which results in a pandemic of physiological and societal consequences. Diabetes is one example of this stemming from processed grains stripped of fiber and nutrients. In society, decisions that have stripped away discipline and increased leisure have only served to create an increasingly lazy younger generation having a significant lack of character with fewer and fewer exceptions. If we extend this to bodybuilding it would have the essence of desiring the results without having to work for it. The statement would change from no pain, no gain to no pain but I still gain. In some ways we embrace that here by continuing to search for the magic combination of supplements to make us gain more muscle and strength. How would we feel if we could get an amazing physique by simply taking a pill without having to work for it? Then there would be nothing to distinguish those who truly work hard from those who do nothing. My apologies for the rather tangential post.

To bring the thread back around I agree that grains in a processed form are bad for everyone, that gluten is indeed bad for some people, but by no means for all people. I eat whole grains in moderation on a daily basis and will continue to do so. The greatest danger from grains is in excess as the most harmful aspect is elevating blood sugar too high, however, in moderation there is little danger from grains for the normal person.