Viewpoint: ‘Ancient grains’ can transform your health? Probably not—and they’re more recent than you think

KHORASAN, teff, emmer and amaranth. No, these aren’t planets in the next Star Wars movie, but some of the growing range of wheat alternatives that are increasingly filling supermarket shelves (and “wellness guru” Instagram feeds) everywhere. Said to be untouched by modern plant breeders, who have apparently rendered wheat an unhealthy option, these “ancient grains” can supposedly transform your health.

…

Here’s the first thing: ancient grains are often anything but. Take quinoa. The seeds of this South American plant are thought to have been bred for human consumption as recently as 3000 years ago, making it only a third of
the age of bread wheat.

…

Related on the SLP

For your daily bread, give thanks to the latest genetic research How CRISPR gene-editing technology could change the way we eat

Viewpoint: 7-OH controversy: An opioid is available over-the-counter–even at gas stations. Should we be concerned?

RFK, Jr. likely violated federal ethics guidelines in accepting more than $4,275,000 in gifts and book advances from MAHA allies

No, organic eggs are not more nutritious or necessarily healthier than regular eggs. They are far more expensive.

In fact, many ancient grains aren’t even true grains (the seeds of grass plants) …. Semantics aside, are they more nutritious? This seems to have been investigated only very recently. With most of the best studies published in
the past five years or so, the health claims appear to predate much of the evidence.

Studies examining the nutritional composition of ancestral wheats like emmer, einkorn and khorasan compared with modern bread wheat tend to have found a wide variation between samples, which makes comparing them tricky.

Read full, original article: Ancient grains are misnamed and their health benefits are unconfirmed (Behind Paywall)