# Gluten - What's so bad about it?



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Shahada said:


> Unfortunately this is coming up with a Javascript error for me...anyway, judging from the URL it seems to be related to grain consumption in the US. I've never said that the amount of grains consumed by a typical American is good or healthy, in fact I've agreed with you and others that its not. I certainly don't eat 6-11 servings of grains in a typical day and I wouldn't encourage others to. You and others are saying grains are bad, flat out, and that humans are not "meant" to eat them, period. I'm saying this is not the case and I'd like to see evidence. Then you show me evidence that an excess of grains in the diet is bad. Well, yeah--so is anything that is eaten in excessive amounts relative to other foods, not just grains. Why do you assume I haven't tried? I asked you for evidence because you made a broad historical statement so I assumed you would know what you were talking about. I was making the point that the scientific basis of the paleo diet doesn't make sense, since paleolithic humans did eat grains. There's other reasons in the Wikipedia article for why the scientific basis of the paleo diet is dubious aside from that as well, like the fact that the theory relies on a misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection, or the fact that ~10,000 or so years is plenty of time for human bodies to adapt to new diets (look at a map of global lactose intolerance prevalence sometime). As I've said several times my original issue was with a person who said humans aren't "meant" to eat grains. This is a statement that doesn't have a lot of science to substantiate it. Regarding health, as others like fourtines have pointed out, I see no reason to think grains as a whole, in general, have such catastrophic health consequences that they should be avoided completely rather than consumed in moderation (unless of course you have a dietary condition or allergy).


If you're simply going to dismiss historical accounts where humans had grain heavy diets as "excessive food consumption" then there is no point in linking you to other historical accounts. You've already created a position which will never indicate the food is detrimental to health because you'll always view it as "excessive food consumption and not part of a balanced diet".

Fact is populations which switch to grain heavy diets get malnutrition issues and it's always been like that. 
I gave you the US historical account because that should be the most obvious thing to understand.

You asked me to show proof of malnutrition with people who grain heavy diets and I did just that. Now you're essentially changing the argument.

If epidemiological studies are simply going to be insufficient regardless then I'd recommend looking into the effects on a microscopic level which I have already began to provide.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Shahada said:


> Re: Your edits: If dogs ate corn as a staple in their diets for a thousand years and dogs did not suffer very bad health effects as a result, then I'd disagree with someone saying dogs aren't "meant" to eat corn. As it stands right now, dogs are carnivores that do not digest corn very well and its largely only consumed by dogs because its used as a filler in the food provided to pet dogs, dogs would not choose to eat corn naturally on their own. So if you said "dogs aren't meant to eat corn" I would agree with that statement: They do not freely choose to eat corn, dogs in the wild don't eat corn, it doesn't fulfill their nutritional needs. But you're talking about a very broad array of foods that have been consumed by humans for thousands of years and the cultivation of which arguably predicated the development of modern civilization (early agricultural societies thrived on the availability of calorie-dense grains). So that's a lot harder of a case to make.


But you see that's the beauty of it all.
Thousands of years from now you'd see that when dogs were switched to a diet primarily of grain/corn there was an increase in disease. That's not much difference from human history.

But the thing is people like yourself argue that we've been eating it for thousands of years so it can't be bad. Despite historical accounts that it was.

People didn't always "choose" to eat grain because it was so great. Grain was largely a famine food. During the agricultural revolution they became more prominent because they are relatively cheap and easy to produce. When they found out that it was pretty shitty for health they fortified it. But throwing a bunch of vitamins in soda doesn't make it good for you same goes with grain and the research is starting to come around to why.

I'm really arguing against grain being health food. 
People can eat what they want and be as sick as they want.
I'm here for people who actually care to learn not simply justify their habits and turn a blind eye to science. There are lots of people who want to eat healthy and are fed a crock of lies about whole grains and then wonder why they can't lose their belly despite being skinny, why they are always tired, etc.

I categorize grain as food, but junk food. Veggies, fruits, meat, eggs, nuts, berries that's health food to me.

I wouldn't consider people saying: people aren't meant to eat grain. 
As a statement much different then: people aren't meant to eat foods high in sodium, sugar, and fat.

Ie: it's not good for you.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> If you're simply going to dismiss historical accounts where humans had grain heavy diets as "excessive food consumption" then there is no point in linking you to other historical accounts. You've already created a position which will never indicate the food is detrimental to health because you'll always view it as "excessive food consumption and not part of a balanced diet".


Yes, I'm pretty suspicious of any statement that any particular food that humans have been eating for thousands of years without significant incident is wholly bad, not "meant" for human consumption, and should be absolutely avoided. This wouldn't apply to something like hydrogenated oils, trans fats, HFCS, etc., because these are artificial things that have only come into use fairly recently and the health problems associated with them are backed up by science and the effects are manifest in the general population. To put grains on the same level as stuff like that is kookery, to be frank.


INTJ the DC said:


> You asked me to show proof of malnutrition with people who grain heavy diets and I did just that. Now you're essentially changing the argument.


That is not what i asked of you, I asked you to show a clear causal factor to malnutrition. Though I should have been clearer when I said "grain-heavy," I didn't mean the American food pyramid level of grains, so I apologize for not being clearer. In the US you have people who for generations have largely subsisted on white bread, pasta, etc etc. This isn't enough to indicate to me that grains are not "meant" for human consumption, it'd be like making a group of people eat nothing but deep fried whitefish for years and then when they die of heart attacks say that clearly fish is not meant for human consumption.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> Thousands of years from now you'd see that when dogs were switched to a diet primarily of grain/corn there was an increase in disease. That's not much difference from human history.


Where's this link to human history? Can you show that the grain consumption was a primary causal factor? If what you say is true, have you considered that perhaps disease may have become more prevalent because increased grain consumption coincides with the development of agricultural civilization, and with it increased population size and density?


INTJ the DC said:


> But the thing is people like yourself argue that we've been eating it for thousands of years so it can't be bad. Despite historical accounts that it was.


You keep strawmanning me. I never said that just because something has been done for thousands of years that it's not "bad." I'm saying that if you want to say something is not fit for human consumption, yet humans have been consuming that thing and thriving for thousands of years, and consumption of that thing arguably gave rise to modern civilization, then I'm not sure that an absolutist statement like "humans aren't meant to eat grains" is accurate.


INTJ the DC said:


> People didn't always "choose" to eat grain because it was so great. Grain was largely a famine food. During the agricultural revolution they became more prominent because they are relatively cheap and easy to produce. When they found out that it was pretty shitty for health they fortified it.


Obviously people didn't "choose" to eat grain thousands of years ago because they had examined the health effects and found it to be great for nutrition. They "chose" to eat it because, as you said, it is conductive to mass production and population growth. And people have continued to eat it in significant amounts through most of human history without keeling over and dying regularly from grain consumption or grain-related illnesses. Thus I take issue with the statement that humans are not "meant" to eat it.


INTJ the DC said:


> I'm here for people who actually care to learn not simply justify their habits and turn a blind eye to science. There are lots of people who want to eat healthy and are fed a crock of lies about whole grains and then wonder why they can't lose their belly despite being skinny, why they are always tired, etc.


Okay, great. I don't think someone who's trying to lose weight should just start eating whole grain cereal or bread or cookies all the time either. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that saying grains aren't meant for human consumption is a dubious statement.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Shahada said:


> Yes, I'm pretty suspicious of any statement that any particular food that humans have been eating for thousands of years without significant incident is wholly bad, not "meant" for human consumption, and should be absolutely avoided. This wouldn't apply to something like hydrogenated oils, trans fats, HFCS, etc., because these are artificial things that have only come into use fairly recently and the health problems associated with them are backed up by science and the effects are manifest in the general population. To put grains on the same level as stuff like that is kookery, to be frank. That is not what i asked of you, I asked you to show a clear causal factor to malnutrition. Though I should have been clearer when I said "grain-heavy," I didn't mean the American food pyramid level of grains, so I apologize for not being clearer. In the US you have people who for generations have largely subsisted on white bread, pasta, etc etc. This isn't enough to indicate to me that grains are not "meant" for human consumption, it'd be like making a group of people eat nothing but deep fried whitefish for years and then when they die of heart attacks say that clearly fish is not meant for human consumption.


Rarely do you ever get causal studies. You'll simply find strong relationships, the human body isn't a simple input/output system.
And "putting it on the same level as HFCS and trans fat" isn't what this is about. It's about discussing foods that are more detrimental to health then good. Many view whole grain/grain as health food. You've said you don't agree with that assumption so I wonder what you're really arguing? That humans can consume grain? Of course they can. That grain can help people avoid famine? Of course it can. 

I understand your last comparison with deep fried fish to regular fried fish. 
But you have to understand that when it comes to grain most of that is processed today, ie: like deep fried fish.
And even when you look back at historical accounts of diets consisting of high amounts of "non-processed" grain you still find malnutrition disease increasing because grains are inferior sources of vitamins and minerals with the foods I listed previously.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> You've said you don't agree with that assumption so I wonder what you're really arguing?


Made clear in my first post in this thread and I've repeated it several times for your benefit. If you can't actually read what I'm saying then I dunno man.


----------



## daisy65 (May 24, 2010)

Shahada said:


> "Humans are not meant to eat grains" is an incredibly broad statement, considering humans have been eating and digesting grains with largely no problems for thousands of years. We can digest grains, gain nutrients and calories from grains, offset hunger and starvation with grains, all with little consequence save to a small portion of the population who are allergic or have certain dietary issues. So what does this statement even mean? Obviously one can eat a paleolithic diet and be plenty healthy, and anyone switching to a paleo diet from a traditional American diet is probably going to see their health improve just because they're eating less refined carbs and sugars and generally paying attention to what they eat more. But the idea that humans are "meant" to eat like hunters gatherers is pretty ridiculous. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, humans aren't "meant" to eat anything, there's only foods that can be digested and used for nutrients and sustenance and those that cannot. I'm sure it works for some people, but the idea that its better because our bodies are better suited to eat a primitive diet is pseudoscience.


My words were meant to help the poster with the question, not sit and argue with your viscious judgements. Google Paleolithic diet. Prehistoric times are before we started growing and eating grains....know it all. Why do you ask questions? Just to be harsh? Don't reply to me. I'm not here to argue. Find another sparring partner. Eat grains if you want. Eat sugar and wheat and bread and whatever you want. Have at it. Argue with someone else!!

and have a great day!


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

daisy65 said:


> My words were meant to help the poster with the question, not sit and argue with your viscious judgements.


There's nothing "vicious" about it. This is a discussion forum about health, I thought you were giving out bad information so I questioned it. I didn't personally attack you in any way. The fact that you're reacting like this and being much more "vicious" than I was says a lot.


daisy65 said:


> Google Paleolithic diet. Prehistoric times are before we started growing and eating grains....know it all.


You didn't read the link I posted. People were eating grains in the paleolithic era. You can read more here and here. If you'd like some non-electronic sources you can find more of them in the bibliography of the Wikipedia page I linked. I don't claim to be a "know it all," but I think you are incorrect on this.


daisy65 said:


> Why do you ask questions? Just to be harsh? Don't reply to me. I'm not here to argue.


Okay then don't! You said something I thought wasn't accurate so I commented on it. Kind of the point of a discussion forum. If you don't have anything else to say then fine, no one's going to make you.


daisy65 said:


> and have a great day!


You too!


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Shahada said:


> Where's this link to human history? Can you show that the grain consumption was a primary causal factor? If what you say is true, have you considered that perhaps disease may have become more prevalent because increased grain consumption coincides with the development of agricultural civilization, and with it increased population size and density?


I am illustrating a big picture to you: how it's obvious during our day and age that grain based food is making animals sick. Dogs illustrate how you give a dog a grain based diet and it gets an increase in disease - You say it's because dogs are canines but looking at other animals which we've raised on grain illustrates the impact as well which is easily seen in the composition of their omega fatty acids. That's huge and you really seem to be missing the big picture. Animal models are vitally important to look at to consider the impact on humans. On the microscopic levels the research is coming into light as we understand metabolic diseases more and the mysterious endocrine system. But first we tend to look at the animal models hence my examples which I said should make you question grains as a food source. Molecular biology doesn't care about increased population size which is why I'm not solely talking about proving this via population studies.



> You keep strawmanning me. I never said that just because something has been done for thousands of years that it's not "bad." I'm saying that if you want to say something is not fit for human consumption, yet humans have been consuming that thing and thriving for thousands of years, and consumption of that thing arguably gave rise to modern civilization, then I'm not sure that an absolutist statement like "humans aren't meant to eat grains" is accurate.


Saying grain is healthy food is the issue with me. I've already explained why I wouldn't have an issue with people saying: whole grain isn't fit for human consumption. You're viewing that as a statement saying people CAN'T eat grains. I'd say that's a term that says grains aren't healthy. The difference is really is in the interpretation, using your interpretation I'd say you are correct. However you seem to be arguing against my correctness in my interpretation hence the discussion.



> Obviously people didn't "choose" to eat grain thousands of years ago because they had examined the health effects and found it to be great for nutrition. They "chose" to eat it because, as you said, it is conductive to mass production and population growth. And people have continued to eat it in significant amounts through most of human history without keeling over and dying regularly from grain consumption or grain-related illnesses. Thus I take issue with the statement that humans are not "meant" to eat it. Okay, great. I don't think someone who's trying to lose weight should just start eating whole grain cereal or bread or cookies all the time either. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that saying grains aren't meant for human consumption is a dubious statement.


Once again you're really talking about two different things.
Population growth =/= population fitness
This discussion is about health/fitness not the historical account of reproduction rates in humans with grain based diets.

Your point about people not being sick on grain based diets has already been addressed.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> I've already explained why I wouldn't have an issue with people saying: whole grain isn't fit for human consumption. You're viewing that as a statement saying people CAN'T eat grains. I'd say that's a term that says grains aren't healthy. The difference is really is in the interpretation, using your interpretation I'd say you are correct. However you seem to be arguing against my correctness in my interpretation hence the discussion.


The vast majority of people aren't going to interpret "unfit for human consumption" to mean simply "not healthy." Not fit for human consumption is what you see printed on packages of rat poison and bleach. It makes you sound like a kooky zealot. Not even getting into the fact that trying to equate grains with things like trans fat, high frutcose corn syrup, etc. is scientifically dubious in the first place.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Shahada said:


> The vast majority of people aren't going to interpret "unfit for human consumption" to mean simply "not healthy." Not fit for human consumption is what you see printed on packages of rat poison and bleach. It makes you sound like a kooky zealot. Not even getting into the fact that trying to equate grains with things like trans fat, high frutcose corn syrup, etc. is scientifically dubious in the first place.


Debatable, but you're entitled to your opinion.
I'd imagine that most humans would have enough sense to see that humans don't instantly die when they eat grain so they should be able to conclude that it's not like rat poison or bleach. 

While grain might not be at the level of HFCS or trans fat, it's not too many degrees off IMO.
I wouldn't consider it healthy.


----------



## blacksheepdog (Sep 8, 2012)

For some reason, despite the massive tide of anti-grain/paleo information out there, not many people mention all the ways that grains can be made easier to digest, like with sprouting and sour dough cultures.

A legitimate argument is that its still better to stop eating grains, even ifyou make them more digestable, because alternative sources of energy are more nutritious. That may be true, but I think it's important to consider all of your options. Especially when you're operating under a tight budget, pure paleo (whatever that means) isn't easy to do.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

How widespread is this belief that a gluten avoidance diet will lead to weight loss?

I know a few people who avoid wheat in their diets, but none of them do it to lose weight.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

One big problem is that a lot of people are grain crazy without even realizing it. Cereal or pancakes and toast for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch, spaghetti for dinner, all sorts of crackers and cakes and ramen noodles... I mean seriously. It's one of the biggest fillers that people use I think. Not to mention the poor excuse for what many people call 'bread', which has to be enriched because making it white and soft leeches anything actually _good_ out of it. It's like being robbed but the robber then gives you back a dollar.

Bread is tasty. Soy sauce is tasty, too (the _real_ stuff, not that msg bullshit that comes in the little pouches) but I wouldn't have either one be a mainstay for my diet.


----------



## Cher Zee (Feb 15, 2012)

To be honest, I don't notice much of a difference when I eat grains or when I don't. This might be just me though.

It's the same thing with carbs for me. I have friends who watch their carb intake like a hawk but when I do - no difference. Although it makes me slightly tired to do so, so I just eat balanced and leave it like that.


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm not dietician, but I've heard that if you ingest too much gluten, you get Glutenous Maximus.

There isn't all that much bad about gluten, unless you have Coeliacs disease. If you have that, and you eat food containing gluten, you end up in Mexico.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

So I have read that people can be gluten sensitive without having actual celiacs disease. 
Also, that today's wheat has a lot more gluten in it.

I decided to experiment on myself a few times to see if gluten made me feel crappy, and if going off of it made me feel better, and I just had the same experience as I did every time:

When consuming foods with gluten I feel moody, lethargic, digestion sucks, sleep is irregular, headaches, zombie-brain/in a daze a lot.

Go off it, thoughts become clearer, I can digest things easier, moods more stable, more energy. My sleep still sucks though. 

Clearly theres something to it for me.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Promethea said:


> So I have read that people can be gluten sensitive without having actual celiacs disease.
> Also, that today's wheat has a lot more gluten in it.
> 
> I decided to experiment on myself a few times to see if gluten made me feel crappy, and if going off of it made me feel better, and I just had the same experience as I did every time:
> ...


I feel much better without it too.

Did you read Wheat Belly? If you use Facebook, "like" the page and you'll see LOTS of success stories from people who cut out gluten and had incredible improvements in health and body composition.


----------



## PrettyLush (Mar 13, 2010)

Promethea said:


> When consuming foods with gluten I feel moody, lethargic, digestion sucks, sleep is irregular, headaches, zombie-brain/in a daze a lot.


Have you heard of candida? These symptoms you're describing sound a lot like candida related issues, especially the brain fog. Heres a link to a website that has some really useful info on the subject, I think it would be worthwhile for you to check it out:
Candida Symptoms - The Candida Diet


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Any one else in this thread have Celiac's? I'm dealing with a gluten exposure right now. Totally blah.


----------

