Wheat started off pretty bad, and then the scientists designed it to be even worse.  It's easier and cheaper to grow, and, mechanically, it works better for baking.  Be that as it may, wheat, and any other grain is harmful.  

There many new findings on this.  I am one of the lucky ones that found out now so that I can live the rest of my life with many fewer problems than I had before last October.  I just wish my parents would have known.  I wish I would have known when I started making decisions about what food I would eat.  It's a shame I didn't find out until I was 64.  At least now I feel 44.

This week my wife was getting some organic food at the local hippy food store (called "Wheatsville" actually   ) and being an awesome person who actually listened to my ramblings about wheat experiments, found this pasta made from the ancient non-engineered strain of wheat, "Einkorn," as mentioned in the Wheat Belly book, a good sized box of pasta for $3.50.  It is enough pasta to serve a family of 4.

http://www.jovialfoods.com/whole-grain-einkorn-pasta

So she cooked it up and I had me a big ol' heapin' helpin' of pasta (which I never eat, being pretty much off wheat on Gyro's advice) and hot diggity damm, no negative effects. No rough joints or anything. Cool, now I know I can have pasta now and then, with no ill effects.

Of course it is still a starch and will zonk you out the same as regular pasta. Being used to a low-carb diet, I got real tired real fast.  But for not much money, einkorn wheat steers you clear of any disadvantages specific to the modern "dwarf" wheat optimized for yield (not nutrition).  Or for the experiment-minded wheat eater.. maybe try einkorn pasta one week, regular pasta the next week, and note any difference in how you feel.

Einkorn is nutritionally different from modern wheat too.  More of its calories come from fat and less from carbs, so it has a lower glycemic index.  Also, along with other early wheats like spelt and kamut, the genetic structure of its protein (gluten), is very different and is more hypoallergenic than the gluten in modern wheat.  I'm sure its not 100% safe and if I had a life-threatening sensitivity to wheat I would avoid all varieties.  But for most humans, limited consumption of the ancestral varieties is far less likely to provoke adverse reactions.  It's just that it doesn't produce as large a crop in as many environments and the engineered wheat's gluten is better for baking lighter bread and pastries.  It is still wheat though, and does still have a higher glycemic index than something like a sweet potato.  Everyone will have different levels of sensitivity, so there really isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.  Right now, the worlds population is, sadly, largely dependent upon wheat.

I checked the box, it is 100% einkorn.

Also, pasta is the least 'spikey' way of consuming wheat.  Something about the way they process it makes it slower to digest.  I can't remember if that point is from the Paleo book by Robb Wolf or WheatBelly. Pasta gives your blood sugar a mellower ride, probably more like potato starch than bread.

Boule’tard wrote on 03/17/12 at 06:14:25:


Pasta may not be the worst spiker (white rice, wheat cereals, and whole grain bread have that honor), but definately is in the blood spiking category.  Most of the sites have it somewhere around 40 to 60.  That means a plate full of spaghetti will take your normal blood sugar level of, say, 75, and more than double it in the first hour.

Boule’tard wrote on 03/17/12 at 12:26:24:



Could be,... could be,..  Buy a glucometer and find out for real.  That's what I did.  I wanted to see how much of a spike I got from various foodstuffs.  It's interesting to see how your body reacts compared to the way all the experts claim it will react.


I still look at the modern vs einkorn deal as similar to the plain cigarette vs filter cigarette deal.  Switching from modern wheat to einkorn is an improvement, just like switching from plain cigs to filtered.  Those "improvements" however, are miniscule compared to abstinence.

BTW, the guy that wrote that book you quote so correctly says we should be striving for single-digit (or less) rises in blood sugar.   Same with glycemic indexes,... no more than single digits.

Gyrobob wrote on 03/17/12 at 12:49:23:

I agree the cig analogy is good insofar as you are talking about blood sugar.. einkorn is "less bad" but not ideal.  But note in the same experiment, Mr. Davis had none of his usual wheat reactions like nausea and aches and pains. That seems to indicate that einkorn is as good as wheat-abstinance in some regards.

Boule’tard wrote on 03/17/12 at 13:47:17:


I'll betcha the fewer symptoms from the einkorn is just because of his particular bod having a less intense blood sugar spike with that paricular dose of einkorn.  All blood sugar spikes are bad, whether or not you go epileptic or comatose or puky,..

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say, "That seems to indicate that einkorn is as good as wheat-abstinance in some regards."  I'll wager you a loaf of grain-free bread that the Doc would not go along with that.  He's the one that came up with the cig analogy,.. and in the FB traffic on the Wheat Belly page, he has made many remarks about the harm from einkorn (and Emmer, Spelt, and Kamut) being there,... not as evil as modern wheat, to be sure,... but still, because it is wheat, it is unhealthy.