Going Against the Grain: How Reducing and Avoiding Grains Can Revitalize Your Health

This is by far one of the worst books I have read based on scientific dishonesty and inaccuracy. I agree with the premise that flour and sugar make modern civilization unnecessarily obese and sick. There is enough literature and popular books out there that supports this idea. However, anyone examining the statements in Smith's book critically will find inaccuracy of reporting and absences of references. Not only are references for incredible statements not provided but in one instance a reference was not available. This occurred on pg 69 at the table. I though the prevalence of celiac disease was noted in the table was high and I decided to find the citation noted as no 3, Chapter 5. I was unable to find this reference both at the show more Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition nor could I find it with PubMed and Google Scholar. When I say "could not find" I refer to not being able to find any evidence it was published with the exception for a link at Trieste University: http://hdl.handle.net/11368/2295265

Yet there is no file associated with this link. Whether this is an honest mistake or not it makes the book suspect considering it went to a publisher and, presumably an editorial/fact checking process.

There were some claim-howlers that were interspersed while reading up to the point described above.

Pg. 23 genetic engineering creates "new fangled foods with anti-nutrients and built in pesticides." This is simply not true. The American Associations for the Advancement of Science published a letter by Nobel laureates supporting the safety of such food.

pg. 34. A massive statement made about sugar and immunity. Sugar is known to induce the Warburg effect in cancerous cells. I was interested when it was claimed sugar could "reduce(ing) the ability of white blood cells to track and attack bacteria but also reduce the production of antibodies..." Fascinating. The problem? There is no citation. Is this assertion scientific fact or opinion posing as fact?

Similarly on pg. 39: ...MSG is a common cause of allergic reaction and has caused brain damage in animal experiments. No citation. No reference to primary literature to which the reader can refer.

There is a table on pg 38 that shows common foods and their ingredients. This is the common tactic of listing ingredients that contain scientific terminology to cow the reader into paranoia. The foods listed were Wheat thins, Eggo waffles, Kraft Stove Top stuffing mix and Oreos. Some of the ingredients are in "science English." This book makes a clear point of how modern food is devoid of nutrients yet as an example, Eggo waffles listed pyridoxine hydrochloride. Menacing? No Vitamin B6.

Pgs 55-56 were laugh out loud funny. Here we are to believe that 1. all the acid food we consume has to be buffered by our "skeleton to counteract the excess acidity" and 2. fruits and vegetables are only alkaline - citrus fruits? tomatoes? No their acidity is magically alkaline.
Coffee is acid. Imagine how many people in Starbucks should have soft bones liquifying in line for their cappuccino. show less

While I think it is incredibly unwise to eat only one food, I don't think that if it's bad in excess means that you shouldn't eat it at all. Even so there is a heck of a lot of wheat in everything we eat.

My guru says this books is alarmist and the best thing to do is to eat an isocaloric (equal parts; carbs, fats & protein) consisting for the most part of whole unprocessed foods.

Saying that I think it is not general knowledge about how we should eat a ph balanced diet, which is easily correct by eating more...vegetables.

Are grains the devil? Well, yes if you're full blown celiac. But if you're not then grains eaten in moderation along with a varied diet are fine. And don't forget to move. The human body was designed to move.