Who are you going to believe? This post by Tim Ferris, excerpting a new book on the Paleo approach to diet and wellness, describes one major viewpoint in the current conflict: getting rid of grains, and why.
I'm waiting to see what a different upcoming book, The Spartan Diet, has to say about allowing certain whole grains into a super healthy diet. It's corresponding blog has been quite the read for a closet Classical Civilization major like myself -- though there's a big, big difference between "the glory that was Greece/ the grandeur that was Rome" and the dirt-in-your-sandals reality. (The SD folk seem to appreciate this, but we'll see.)
You have to be careful, seeking a guide for the the here and now based in the idealized fantasies of a Golden Age.
A number of folks are looking back to prehistory for an ideal, healthy approach to eating. The Spartan Diet goes back to some pretty closed-lip, if not pre-linguistic, hardasses, and the Paleo and Primal Diets go all the way back to Ug and Grok. "Shut up and kill," or gather and hunt. Settling down and baking pasta from waving fields of grain was nowhere in sight.
The Paleo Solution isn't new: The Primal Blueprint, The Paleo Diet, and Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution (in addition to The Zone Diet, South Beach Diet, etc.) have been pushing a lo-no starch diet for years. Its author, Robb Wolf, seems to go farther in explaining the whys and wherefores of this, particularly the biochemistry between his recommendation to completely eliminate grains (and other sources of anti-nutrients) from the diet. A WHOLE lot of comments follow, many supportive, most skeptical.
If you lack an advanced degree in biochemistry and nutrition, who are you to believe? Especially if you've eaten a grain-rich diet up until now, with no apparent ill effects (or have had negative experiences when you tried to eliminate said starches)?
More thoughts on this to come...but the reading is absolutely fascinating.