Remember that most national institutions are backed by large food companies. For example, the american dietetic association is backed by a ton of large food corporations.
So I take anything any "national "organization says with a grain of salt. Or more like an entire salt shaker. It's corrupt from the fucking top down.
To respond directly to what you said, there's absolutely no way you can conclude from that information that grains are now good for you. Fiber is most definitely good for you. What exactly are the "Strongest overall benefits" that the study is referring to? Also, the study was based on a questionnaire...I question it's accuracy. It's so easy to twist statistics into saying what you want them to say.
Also, a few more things - firstly, grains weren't introduced into the human diet until about 10,000 years ago. Which on an evolutionary scale, is a very, very short period of time. So we haven't quite developed the ability to digest grains (yet?). Along with that, those grains that we ate 10,000 years ago bare almost no resemblance to the mutant grains that we eat today. If you want to read more about that specifically you can see my boy Sean's post here:
These Ain’t the Same Grains! | Underground Wellness
Also, it's more about gluten than grains - it's just that most grains now have a lot of gluten in them.
Anyway, the real point I want to make here is that studies done by national, corporate backed companies are almost always designed to promote those corporations products.
And finally, eliminating anything for 30 days (aside from like, all food and water) is not risky. Our ancestors survived their entire lives without eating a single grain, I think we'll be ok.
Goddamn, I feel like Lukep in one of those political threads.
