Originally Posted by jackinthebox73
im new to this forum and was curious about the wheat controvesey. what is bad about it?
As near as I can tell, the controversy is related to so many people having gluten intolerance (wheat is very high in gluten). The theory is that humans have been eating vast quantities of gluten for a relatively short time (a couple thousand years maybe?) and therefore haven't developed the digestive systems to handle 3 meals a day plus snacks of wheat. Wheat used to be one of many grains that were hard to harvest, even after agriculture was developed. Therefore, it was only a small part of a daily diet. Not too long ago, in human terms, varieties of wheat were developed that had lots of kernels per stalk and were much easier to get large harvests from. Then wheat could be used in large quantities in the diet. People who are sensitive to gluten react by developing an auto-immune response, damaging parts of their intestines. The ONLY way to heal the body is to avoid anything with gluten in it.
I have gluten intolerance (self-diagnosed), but I'm rather leary of declaring that therefore everyone else should avoid a particular food that my body doesn't like. If you have problems with gluten, avoid it. If you don't have problems with gluten, then wheat is a wonderful food. Whole grains are better than white flour, which is stripped of most of the good stuff (vitamins, minerals, fiber).
My personal feeling is that the ills of modern society -- diabetes, cancer, auto-immune diseases, etc. -- cannot be blamed on one particular food. We are assaulting our bodies with bazillions of chemicals and eating lots of calorie-rich foods that are stripped of the good stuff (vitamins, minerals, fiber). Some people have weakened immune systems from lots of reasons, and their bodies break down in some form of disease. But I cannot believe that one food is the culprit for everybody.
My two-cents' worth,