These Are Good For You?
Photo courtesy of Healthline

Let’s look today at two somewhat contradictory articles that are an exercise in showing how the media influences perceptions. First up, we have this article from EurekAlert: Whole grain diets lower risk of chronic disease

In this study (partially funded by General Mills), researchers took adults (ages 20-65) with metabolic syndrome and randomized them into two dietary groups.

Diets with high amounts of whole grains may help achieve significant weight loss, and also reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, according to a team of Penn State researchers at University Park and the College of Medicine.
….
They were randomly assigned to either a group that received instructions to have all of their grain servings from whole grains or all of their grain servings from refined grains.
….
“This is the first clinical study to prove that a diet rich in whole grains can lead to weight loss and reduce the risk of several chronic diseases,” added Kris-Etherton.

Of note is that the researchers asked the study participants “to consume five daily servings of fruits and vegetables, three servings of low-fat dairy products, and two servings of lean meat, fish or poultry.” So it was truly a dietary revamp for these people, not just a switch in the types of grains consumed, which is probably why both groups lost weight. I wonder why they didn’t have a third group replace their grain intake with more fruits and vegetables. But notice that the first line of the article is “whole grains may…” while the study co-author is saying “this proves it.” Actually, all it proves is that whole grains are better than refined grains, something I could have told the study authors without the need for them to run a study.

And here’s the second article, via Science Daily: Whole Grain Foods Might Reduce Diabetes Risk, But Evidence Weak

Wait…the evidence is weak? But Ms. Kris-Etherton just “proved” to us that whole grains reduce the risk of chronic diseases. This review study was conducted by The Cochrane Collaboration, which Dr. Michael Eades has pointed out, produces top notch material. Here’s the abstract.

“At the moment, because there is only weak evidence, no definite conclusion can be drawn concerning the protective effect of whole grain foods for the development of type 2 diabetes,” said lead review author Marion Priebe.

Yet we’re constantly told that whole grains prevent diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and every other malady under the sun. I will accept that whole grains are better for you than refined grains. That doesn’t really boggle the mind. What does boggle the mind is why all of these studies refuse to pit a whole grains-rich diet against a grain-free, produce-rich hunter-gatherer diet.

I’d like to go ahead and point something out here. There is no such thing as a “whole” grain in the human diet. Every grain we touch, from oatmeal and brown rice, to pretzels and white bread, has undergone some level of processing. There is nothing “whole” about any of the grains we eat. It’s a matter of degree of processing. Which makes it all the more laughable when I hear people talk about “whole grain bread” or “whole grain cereal”. Cereals are some of the most highly processed foods on the shelf. Just look at those crispy flakes. Does that even resemble anything you’ve seen in nature?

The bottom line is that Cochrane has it right; the evidence is too weak to truly prove anything. All we’ve seen are studies comparing whole grains to refined grains, which is a false dichotomy. There exist diets that contain no grains. But wait, we’ve seen one such study comparing the Paleo Diet to the Mediterranean Diet, that ol’ “heart-healthy” darling of the media. Anyone recall that the grain-free Paleo Diet topped the “whole grain-rich” Mediterranean Diet?


If you enjoyed this post, share it on StumbleUpon or Health Ranker (or both!)

Posts from 1 year ago:
For the Last Time, Eat Your Darn Veggies!
Erectile Dysfunction and Health Print This Post Print This Post