Honestly, I TRIED to read this with an open mind. And failed miserably. Maybe it was the rhetoric that was dig-dig-dig that set me off. I looked for an area that I would like to think I have some knowledge about and got this far.... there is more but just couldn't stomach the presentation.

https://www.precisionnutrition.com/grain-wheat-debate

Certainly not as consistently as another approach, one that greatly limits whole grain consumption--by lowering general carbohydrate consumption to the point where using up valuable carb grams on whole grains seems wasteful. And there's one way, at least that whole grains are "inflammatory," if nothing else is true--in that low carb/keto can be anti-inflammatory.

Precision Nutrition is a "nutritionist" certification program started by Dr. John Berardi, he has some real credentials and has written some decent articles for the fitness community in the past. I don't know how much he agrees with everything written by others in the organization, they're not necessarily in lock-step on every issue.

Saying the plants prevent themselves from digestion, but we don't avoid lobster because it has claws. Well, yes, because claws are a different sort of defense, plants are more dependent on chemical warfare. That doesn't mean that everything accused of being a problem on this front is generally a problem--just that this is a bad argument. Also doesn't work for me because lobster and other sea food tries to kill me everytime I eat it, not with claws but by severely constricting my airways.

The writer writes about whole grains being "satisfying." And about them not being excessively palatable. Well... in that sense I find them so satisfying that I don't want to eat them at all. None is more than enough. But seriously, to be satisfying, something has to be two things. Palatable, so we actually want to eat it, but our bodies have to respond with a sustained satiation so that we don't want to overeat it. My experience with grains is that when the first condition is present, the second isn't. There's no reason to assume this is true of everybody, although it seems to be a lot of people's experience here.

For me, I think food readiness, the effort it takes to eat it, is actually a bigger factor than palatability--although I do think palatability is an issue. I won't generally overeat meat and eggs that I have to cook to eat, if I just cook appropriate portions at a meal. If I cook more than I need, to set some aside for later meals--I'll end up over-eating. Or if I buy ready to eat foods, processed meats, cheeses. Unprocessed chicken is as bad in this regard as bacon or salami. There's how rewarding a food is, then there's how much effort is needed to eat the food. Sometimes laziness is our friend.

ROFL

Oh ,yes!!

Remember the diabetes treatment commercials he made a little further down the road? Not that I blame the oatmeal necessarily. It's a potentially harmless substance. Potential isn't always realized. Never mind the stream of consciousness stuff, it's late, I'm honestly not meaning to blame the oatmeal. Also, epidemiology and stuff. Whole grains. Yum.

I remember when I was a young skinny thing (<110 lbs), and I was working as a waitress on the breakfast shift. Thinking I was being healthy, I'd eat bowls of oatmeal. Plain. Sometimes I'd put salt on them. And an hour later, I'd be starving and shaky and have to eat another bowl of oatmeal. I never understood how people said oatmeal was filling. It just made me hungry. Of course, I should have been eating the bacon, but I was trying to be healthy.