http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-problems-with-modern-wheat/#axzz2A...
(
This may seem like a redundant topic, since most of you following a
Primal eating plan are already avoiding wheat. The occasional dabbing
of soy sauce, maybe a bit of crusty bread at a restaurant, sure, but
for the most part, you’re not munching on baguettes in parks on sunny
days, wolfing down huge sandwiches, and eating pasta. Wheat avoidance
tends to be the rule in our circle. Still, though, haven’t you had
that moment where someone asks “What’s wrong with wheat?” and you
mutter something about gluten and the advent of agriculture that
doesn’t really sound convincing, even to you? Consider today’s post a
crash course in exactly why modern wheat in particular is a problem.
To borrow a horrible concept that has helped politicians and their
cronies obfuscate the truth for decades, these are “talking points” to
which you can always refer when asked. The only difference is that
these talking points are based on actual research.

Before we begin, what is modern wheat?

Modern wheat is dwarf wheat, a cultivar developed in the ’60s to
massively increase yield per acre. But this dwarf wheat wasn’t the
lovable, bearded, wisecracking, clownish, comic relief-providing,
overly self-conscious Gimli of the Lord of the Rings films, nor was it
the fearsome, highly respected, resolute dwarven warrior Gimli in the
books. It was a high-yielding cultivar with larger seed heads and
thick, short stocks that could bear the extra weight. Being shorter,
it received less sunlight than traditional wheat cultivars, but it
produced a lot of grains on less acreage. Agronomist Norman Borlaug
pioneered the development of these high yield dwarf varieties,
refining and perfecting already existing wheat strains, and received
much acclaim (including the Nobel Peace Prize) for introducing the
dwarf wheat and modern agriculture to developing countries. He
certainly helped many millions of people find sustenance and
livelihood through wheat agriculture, but what were the unintended
consequences of his forays into genetic manipulation of wheat? How is
modern wheat different? What are the problems – if any – of modern
wheat?
It’s less nutritious.

In 1843, agronomists at Rothamstead Research Station in Hertfordshire,
England began what would become one of the longest-running continuous
agronomic experiments in the world: the Broadbalk Winter Wheat
Experiment. For the last two centuries, generations of scientists
involved in the experiment have grown multiple wheat cultivars on
adjacent plots of land and applied different farming techniques and
fertilizers to study the effect on yield, nutritional content, and
viability of the crop. They’ve rotated crops in and out, switched up
fertilizers, and tracked the change in mineral content of both soil
and wheat grain. It’s a stunning example of a well-designed, seemingly
never ending (it continues to this day, as far as I can tell)
experiment.

Between 1843 and the mid 1960s, the mineral content, including zinc,
magnesium, iron, and copper, of harvested wheat grain in the
experiment stayed constant. But after that point, zinc, magnesium,
iron, and copper concentrations began to decrease – a shift that
“coincided with the introduction of semi-dwarf, high-yielding
cultivars” into the Broadbalk experiment. Another study found that the
“ancient” wheats – emmer, spelt, and einkorn – had higher
concentrations of selenium, an extremely important mineral, than
modern wheats. Further compounding the mineral issue is the fact that
phytic acid content remains unaffected in dwarf wheat. Thus, the
phytate:mineral ratio is higher, which will make the already reduced
levels of minerals in dwarf wheat even more unavailable to its
consumers.

Increased yield leading to dilution of mineral density is one possible
explanation for the reduction in wheat mineral content, but modern
wheat has shorter root systems than ancient wheat, and longer roots
allow greater extraction of minerals from the soil. Some people have
proposed soil mineral depletion as the cause of reduced nutrient
content of food, but – at least in the Broadbalk experiment – soil
mineral content actually increased over time.
It’s more damaging to celiacs and gluten-sensitives.

One of the primary proteins in wheat, gluten provides the
“viscoelastic properties” that allow wheat to be turned into bread,
dough, pasta, and all sorts of processed foods. Gluten provides the
chewiness of good bread, the bite of al dente pasta. Bakers, cooks,
and foodies prize it – but some people fear it, and rightfully so. I
wrote all about gluten sensitivity and celiac disease a few weeks
back, but the basic gist is that for many people, consuming gluten
inflames the body, perforates the gut, and opens them up to a whole
host of health maladies.

So what’s the deal with modern wheat? Well, celiac disease is on the
rise, and some researchers have suggested that this is caused by the
prevalence of certain gluten proteins that predominate in the new
varieties of wheat. Namely, a gluten peptide known as glia-α9, which
is nearly absent in older wheats but prevalent in modern wheats, is
the most reactive “CD (celiac disease) epitope.” In other words, a
majority of people with celiac disease react negatively to glia-α9.
It’s a common trigger, and older wheat doesn’t have as much of it.

Meanwhile, einkorn, an ancient variety of wheat, has been shown to
cause less intestinal toxicity in patients with celiac. Einkorn and
other related ancient strains of wheat still contain gluten, of
course, but they do not appear to be as damaging to people sensitive
to or completely intolerant of gluten and its related protein
subfractions.
It’s prepared differently.

Consider how bread is made today:

With refined, old (often rancid) white flour instead of freshly ground
wheat.

Using quick rise commercial yeast instead of slowly fermenting with
proven sourdough cultures.

On an industrial scale instead of in the home.

Meanwhile, for the vast majority of our wheat-eating history, humans
have been grinding whole wheat berries up fresh and fermenting them
before baking and eating the stuff. Dr. Weston Price famously found
several traditional cultures who thrived on wheat, but they weren’t
eating refined white flour treated with quick-rising yeast. They were
stone-grinding fresh wheat. They were fermenting it. They were doing
all the things a person has got to do if they want to make wheat a
staple of their diet and maximize the nutrition in the process. Later,
Price conducted experiments in which he reversed dental decay and
remineralized cavity-ridden teeth in refined white flour-eating people
using wholesome, varied diets that included some freshly ground wheat.
Fermentation effectively “pre-digests” the proteins in wheat, as I
mentioned previously. If you have the right organisms, you can even
break down wheat gluten to the point that celiacs can eat it without
suffering symptoms.

That’s not to suggest you should go eat wheat. It’s simply to suggest
that if you do, fresh, whole, ancient wheat prepared the old way is
definitely healthier.

So, there you go: a few good lines of solid evidence showing why
modern wheat – which is the only kind of wheat most people are ever
going to encounter in the real world – should be avoided. Does that
help? If you’re interested in more, check out Dr. Davis (of Wheat
Belly fame), who’s made it something of his mission to rail against
what he calls a “perfect, chronic poison.”

Thanks for reading, folks. Lemme know what you think in the comment
section. And don’t go rushing out to buy artisan einkorn bread and
spelt fusilli or anything like that. Ancient wheat is still wheat,
it’s still a grain, it’s still got gluten, and it’s still problematic
for a lot of people.
)