"Are Ancient Grains Healthier?"
The number one killer in the United States and around the world
is what we eat, killing millions more than tobacco, for example.
What are the five most important things we can do to improve our diets, based
on the single most comprehensive global study of the health impact of nutrition?
Eat less salt, eat more nuts, eat more non-starchy vegetables, and more fruit,
and finally eat more whole grains. Any particular type of whole grains?
What about so-called ancient grains? Are they any better than modern varieties?
Like what about kamut, the so-called mummy wheat,
supposedly unearthed from an Egyptian tomb.
After WWII, the wheat industry selected particularly high-yielding varieties
for pasta and bread. Over the past few years, though,
some of the more ancient varieties have been reintroduced on the market,
defined basically as those that haven't changed
over the agricultural revolutions of the last century.
Nutritionally, einkorn wheat, the oldest wheat, and kamut have
more of the eyesight-improving yellow carotenoid pigments
like lutein and zeaxanthin, compared to modern bread and pastry wheat
because the pigments have been bred out of bread intentionally.
People want their white bread white, but modern pasta flour, durum wheat,
maintains much of that yellow hue nutrition.
Yes, modern wheat may have less lutein,
but, for example, tends to have more vitamin E.
Based on straight vitamin and mineral concentrations, it's pretty much a wash.
They both have lots of each, but the primitive wheats do have
more antioxidant capacity, likely due to their greater polyphenol content.
But to know if this makes any difference, you have to put it to the test.
If you expose human liver cells to digested bread made out
of ancient grains—kamut and spelt, heritage wheat—
or modern strains, and then expose the cells to an inflammatory stimulus,
the modern wheat strains seem less able to suppress the inflammation.
The investigators conclude that despite the fact that these different grains
seem to be very similar nutritionally, they seemed to exert different effects
on human cells, "confirming the potential health benefits of ancient grains."
But this was in a petri dish. What about in people?
If ancient wheats are better at suppressing inflammation, what if
you took people with irritable bowel syndrome and randomized them
to receive six weeks of wheat products made out of the ancient wheat kamut
in this case, or modern wheat. Same amount of wheat, just different types.
If there's no difference between the wheats, there'd be no difference
in people's symptoms, right? But check this out.
Here's how the control groups did on the modern wheat.
Switched to the kamut, they experienced less abdominal pain, less frequent pain,
less bloating, more satisfaction with stool consistency,
and less interference with their quality of life.
So after switching to the ancient grain, patients experienced a significant
global improvement in the extent and severity of symptoms
related to their irritable bowel. What about liver inflammation?
The liver function of those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,
randomized to eat kamut, improved compared to those eating
the same amount of regular wheat, suggesting kamut is superior.
In diabetics, better cholesterol and insulin sensitivity
on the same ancient grain. In those with heart disease,
better blood sugar control and better cholesterol.
Better artery function in those without overt heart disease.
The bottom line is findings derived from human studies suggest that
ancient wheat products are more anti-inflammatory,
and improve things like blood sugar control and cholesterol.
Given that the overall number of human interventional trials is still small,
it is not possible to definitively conclude that ancient wheat varieties are superior
to all commercial, modern wheat counterparts in reducing
chronic disease risk, but the best available data does suggest
they're better if you have the choice.
Regardless of what type of wheat you may eat, word to the wise:
don't eat the plastic bread-bag clip.
A 45-year-old guy presents with bloody stools, and this
is what their CT scan looked like. Later questioned, the patient admitted
to habitually eating quickly without chewing properly.