CHAPTER 10:
GRAINS AND LEGUMES
* * *
“I was diagnosed with celiac sprue in 1992, so I’ve been gluten-free since then. Because of the trauma to my gut, I developed other food sensitivities and environmental sensitivities as well. I learned to deal with them and be reasonably active, but I had reoccurring bouts of months of intestinal bloating and debilitating fatigue. I was trying all sorts of probiotics, digestive enzymes—nothing was helping. Then I stumbled across the Whole30. The bloating was gone in a few days and has not returned. I noticed improved energy/stamina and clearer thinking. My environmental reactions aren’t as severe. For someone with celiac, this way of eating provides optimal wellness.”
—Sandy H., Middleport, New York
* * *
We suspect that this is one topic quite likely to spur controversy. See, our general nutritional recommendations don’t include grains of any kind—no breads, cereals, pasta, rice, not even gluten-free grains or pseudo-cereals like quinoa.
No, not even whole grains.
We are well aware that this information may swim upstream against everything you’ve ever been told by your parents, doctors and personal trainers, by the government, and by TV advertisements. We make no apologies, however, because all the people who have been selling you whole grains for health all these years have just been plain wrong.
We understand if this makes you kind of angry—or at the very least skeptical. We want you to be skeptical! We were too. But the science, our education, and our experience have completely altered our perspective—and we believe that by the time you get to the end of this chapter, you’ll be thinking about grains differently too.
Let’s talk about the trouble with grains—refined, whole, and everything in between.
SURVIVE OR THRIVE?
Most agricultural societies eat a diet that includes locally-produced grains (or legumes) as a source of cheap energy, which leads many people to say, “How can grains be so bad, if these healthy cultures have been eating them for thousands of years?” First, there are a lot of factors that play into a population’s health. Sunshine, other dietary choices, exercise, and environment all contribute—so it’s silly to say, for example, that traditional Asian cultures are healthy simply because they eat rice. In addition, the fact that some societies have eaten grains for thousands of years says nothing about whether grains are actually healthy. Their eating habits reflect what was available to them for survival in that particular place and time. But surviving and thriving are not the same thing. In today’s modern world, we are interested in truly thriving, not just providing enough energy to avoid starvation—and in our culture, we can do that with optimally healthy foods that don’t contain any of the downsides of grains.
Grains are seeds of plants in the grass family. This includes wheat, oats, barley, rye, millet, corn (maize), rice (including wild rice), sorghum, teff, triticale, spelt, kamut, buckwheat, amaranth, chia, and quinoa.*
The sole purpose of the seed is for reproduction of the plant. (Plants do not grow their babies just for us to eat.) When that seed matures and falls onto the ground, it needs some stored energy to get started—to germinate and grow until it produces its first leaves and can photosynthesize energy from sunlight. Grains store most of that preliminary energy in their seeds as carbohydrate.
Depending on what we do with those grains (and how we consume—or overconsume—them), all that carbohydrate may violate our first and second Good Food standards.
REFINED GRAINS
Let’s talk about the various components of a grain seed.
The bran is the grain’s outer layer, its suit of armor. Its job is to protect the seed against outside threats, like bacteria and insects. The part of the seed that actually grows into another plant is the germ—that’s where the plant’s reproductive information is stored. Finally, there is the endosperm—mostly starch and some protein—which provides fuel for the seed’s growth.
Refined grains bear little resemblance to the natural structure described above. During the refining process, the bran and the germ are removed, and so are the fiber, vitamins, and minerals present in those two layers. (Some vitamins and minerals may be added back into the product, which is then labeled “enriched,” but the added nutrients don’t make up for what the refining process has removed.) Milling grains in this fashion leaves us with just the endosperm.
Refined grains lack most of the original nutrients but still contain almost all of the calories.
These refined grains are then made into products like white bread, instant oatmeal, snack foods, and desserts. To further increase their palatability, the water is sucked out of these products (further concentrating the calories), and then sugar, fat, and salt are added. Since there is little fiber left, these calories are also easier and quicker for us to absorb. In addition, refined grains contain no complete protein—a critical satiation factor—and little micronutrition because they are so heavily processed.
In other words, they’re junk food.
The flours from refined grains form the foundation of most of the supernormally stimulating, nutrient-poor, carbohydrate-dense foods-with-no-brakes. (Remember, we don’t eat these foods by themselves—they’re ingredients.) These junk foods promote chronic overconsumption, elevated blood sugar levels, reliance on glucose for fuel, accumulation of body fat, and an increase in free fatty acids and triglycerides in the blood. And, if you continue to overconsume them (as is so easy to do), you can say hello to leptin resistance, insulin resistance, and all the negative downstream consequences to your health.
Which is how refined grains fail our first and second Good Food standards.
This should come as no surprise, as practically everyone agrees that refined grains, and the products made from white flour, do not make you healthier. But what about “heart healthy” whole grains? As you’re about to see, those come with their own set of problems.
WHOLE GRAINS
For the record, whole-grain products often violate our first Good Food standard too. The words “whole grain” on a product label don’t mean the product was made with 100 percent whole grain. In fact, the U.S. government has very few regulations for whole-grain labeling, and the Whole Grains Council allows the use of their Whole Grain Stamp on products containing eight grams or more of whole-grain ingredients per serving—even if the product contains more refined grain than whole grain. Don’t let the fact that your waffles, muffins, or cookies were made with whole grains fool you. Whole-grain foods can easily qualify as foods-with-no-brakes.
WHOLE GRAINS
In whole grains, often touted as the healthy alternative to refined grains, all the natural anatomical components—the bran, germ, and starchy endosperm—are present in the same relative proportions as in the intact seed.
Because whole grains still contain fiber, they are often referred to as having a “lower glycemic index” (GI) than their refined counterparts—which is often erroneously thought of as synonymous with “healthier.”
GLYCEMIC INDEX
The glycemic index (GI) is a numerical scale used to quantify how fast fifty grams of carbohydrate from a particular food can raise blood glucose level. Carbohydrates that break down quickly during digestion and release glucose rapidly into the bloodstream have a higher GI; carbohydrates that break down more slowly, releasing glucose more gradually into the bloodstream, have a lower GI. The “standard” used for the GI scale—the food to which other foods are compared—is either glucose (with a score of 100) or white bread (with a score of 70 to 73).
White bread raises blood sugar very rapidly (high GI), while the starch in 100 percent whole-grain bread takes longer to break down into glucose (moderate GI). The lower GI score is largely a result of the additional fiber content of whole-grain flour, but eating a high GI food alongside other foods rich in fiber and fat will also lower the total GI of the meal.
However, the GI does not give any indication of, well, anything else relating to the health of these foods! It doesn’t mention whether the food contains any problematic proteins, or what kind of sugars or fats it contains, or the bioavailability of the nutrients. It also doesn’t tell you how much carbohydrate is contained in the food or how much insulin will be needed to manage blood glucose.
In addition, GI doesn’t take into account how much of that food is typically eaten in a serving. The GI of watermelon is very high (72), but how much watermelon do you normally eat—a slice or two? The GI of peanut M&Ms? is much lower (33), but because they are supernormally stimulating and nutrient-poor, it’s very easy to eat an entire bag. Which food do you think promotes better health?
The glycemic index is largely irrelevant to making Good Food choices.
But the glycemic index isn’t the only thing cited in support of whole grains—proponents will point out their higher micronutrition content, too. And we’d agree—when compared with refined grains, whole grains are certainly more nutritious. But refined grains and whole grains aren’t your only choices when it comes to carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients.
What about vegetables and fruit?
NOT SO NUTRITIOUS
The marketing from big cereal companies would have you think that cereal grains are highly nutritious—and that if you don’t eat them, you’ll miss out on all sorts of vitamins, minerals, and fiber that you can get only from grains.
That’s simply not true.
Grains are not (we repeat, not) nutrient-dense when compared with vegetables and fruit.
Remember back to our prototypical healthy-hormones “good day” and our not-so-healthy-hormones “bad day” in Chapter 5? Our good day described a diet based on our Good Food standards. Our bad day represented a typical Western “healthy” diet based on whole grains and low-fat foods.
When we ran each day’s meals through a nutritional-analysis system, we discovered that a diet built around “healthy” whole grains provided more than three times the sugar and sodium as a diet featuring vegetables and fruit.
Even better, our Good Day diet provides more dietary fiber, potassium, and magnesium, and way more iron, zinc, and vitamins A, B6, B12,C, D, E, and K (often in far more bioavailable forms).
LIQUID CALORIES
Wondering about the extra calories in our prototypical bad day? Two words: liquid calories. The coffees with skim milk and a teaspoon of sugar, the two soy lattes (one medium, one small), the 8-ounce glass of orange juice, and the 5-ounce glass of red wine contribute an extra 532 calories to the day—almost exactly making up the difference in calories between our good and bad days. Most of us don’t think the liquid calories (or sugar) we’re consuming “count,” but when almost 20 percent of your total daily calories come in a form that’s not even food … we’d say that counts.
Another way that a diet high in grains leads to suboptimal nutrition is in terms of opportunity cost: if there are more whole grains on your plate, then there’s probably less of some other food—like vegetables—on your plate. And that lowers the overall micronutrient density in your diet too. In summary:
There is not a single health-promoting substance present in grains that you can’t also get from vegetables and fruit.
Not a single vitamin. Not a single mineral.
Not even fiber.
Yes, the Whole Grain People will insist that you need your whole grains for fiber … but have they totally forgotten that there is lots of fiber in vegetables and fruit? As you can see from the chart below, whole grains do not have a monopoly on fiber:
Dietary Fiber Content of Foods
GRAINS Serving size Fiber (g)
Whole-grain bread 2 slices 3.4
Oatmeal, cooked 1 cup 4.0
Rice, brown, cooked 1 cup 3.5
VEGETABLES AND FRUIT Serving size Fiber (g)
Broccoli, raw 1? cups 3.5
Carrots, raw 1 cup 3.1
Cauliflower, raw 1? cups 3.8
Green beans, cooked 1 cup 4.0
Sweet potato, cooked without skin ? potato 3.9
Winter squash, cooked 1 cup 5.7
Apple, with skin 1 large 3.3
Banana 1 3.1
Blackberries 1 cup 7.6
Orange 1 small 3.1
Pear 1 medium 5.1
Strawberries 1 cup 3.3
Almonds 1 oz. 3.3
All of these veggies and fruits contain about as much fiber (or more!) as two slices of whole-grain bread, a cup of oatmeal, or a cup of brown rice. (We threw almonds in there just for kicks—there’s fiber in nuts and seeds too!) There’s no trickery here—the vegetable serving sizes are modest (so it’s not like you have to eat a pound of broccoli to get enough fiber).
Based just on our side-by-side comparisons, it’s clear that vegetables and fruit are far more nutrient-dense than even their whole-grain counterparts. We could rest our case. …
But there’s even more to this nutrition story.
HEART-HEALTHY?
But what of all the claims made by the Whole Grain People about the heart-healthiness of whole grains? Turns out those claims may be more fluff than substance, as studies show that whole grains may not prevent disease as well as you might think. According to one recent meta-analysis, there isn’t any substantial evidence to back up the “heart healthy” claim beyond what poorly conducted, grain-industry-funded research has yielded. The study concluded: “Despite the consistency of effects seen in trials of whole-grain oats, the positive findings should be interpreted cautiously. Many of the trials identified were short-term, of poor quality, and had insufficient power. Most of the trials were funded by companies with commercial interests in whole grains.” Enough said.
CAN YOU ACTUALLY GET TO THEM?
Grains contain a compound called phytic acid, or phytate, found mostly in the bran portion of the seed. These phytates, often referred to as “anti-nutrients,” grab hold of minerals like calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium found in the whole grain, creating an insoluble and undigestible complex. This means that when these nutrients get to your small intestine, they are not in a usable form—and therefore, not absorbed into the body.
Selfish anti-nutrients.
So even though those minerals are technically present in some grains, since your body can’t actually make use of them, they might as well not be there at all. The takeaway? Not only are whole grains relatively nutrient-poor, but many of the minerals that are present are not actually available to you.
In other words, eating a nutrient is not the same as being able to use that nutrient.
A WORD ON PHYTATES
While other plant foods (like some vegetables) also contain phytates, the combination of relatively low concentrations plus a relatively high level of nutrients generally reduces the overall impact of the anti-nutrients. (Since there are more minerals in vegetables and not as many phytates to “bind” those minerals, a large percentage of those nutrients are still available to us.) In addition, many vegetable preparation techniques (like peeling starchy root vegetables) remove much of the phytate. Sure, if we “peeled” our whole grains (i.e., milled away the bran and germ), we’d be left with fewer phytates—but then we’d have refined grains, devoid of most of the nutrition and fiber but still containing all of the concentrated carbohydrate. Doesn’t seem like a very good tradeoff to us.
At this point, it’s tough to make the case for the regular inclusion of grains in your diet—and we haven’t even talked about gluten yet.
PROBLEMATIC PROTEINS
For us, the propensity to overconsume them and their lack of nutrient density alone are enough to push grains off our plate to make room for fruits and vegetables. But there’s even more to the story—which leads us to our third and fourth Good Food standards.
There are many different protein structures in grains that have been found to create transient increases in gut permeability, increasing exposure of “outside” stuff to the “inside.” In addition, these proteins can improperly cross through the gut barrier, triggering an immune reaction (inflammation!).
Remember the nightclub?
These problematic proteins are, as a whole, poorly digested. In addition, some can temporarily knock out the bouncer outside your club, allowing unsavory characters to sneak inside your (formerly secure) interior. Those same components, once inside, have to be chased down and dealt with by the security guards inside (your immune cells), since they don’t belong anywhere inside your body. One such class of profoundly problematic proteins belongs to a group called prolamins. These prolamins can damage your gut and other parts of your body through systemic inflammation.
YOU KNOW GLUTEN
While the word “prolamin” might not ring any bells, the word “gluten” should. Gluten is a protein found in the endosperm of wheat, rye, and barley, and is partly made up of prolamins. Gluten is the most infamous prolamin-containing protein because people with celiac disease have a specific intolerance to gluten.
Prolamins are especially troublesome because their particular structure makes them very difficult (often impossible) for our digestive enzymes to break down into individual amino acids.
Problem #1: These proteins are resistant to digestion.
In addition, these prolamins (including those from gluten) interact directly with some of the microscopic components of our intestinal barrier. By “interact,” we mean that they trigger changes in the barrier function of the gut, temporarily opening the doors of the “club.” This allows those undigested proteins to come directly into contact with immune cells inside the body.
Problem #2: These proteins create localized inflammation in the gut and elsewhere if they improperly cross the gut barrier and end up where they don’t belong.
That interaction between foreign proteins and immune cells triggers an inflammatory response, the severity of which depends on the individual. (There is considerable person-to-person variation, though the research on individual sensitivity is still fairly incomplete.)
One severe example of intolerance to grain proteins is found in those with celiac disease, an autoimmune disease which occurs when genetically susceptible individuals consume even miniscule amounts of gluten. Celiacs experience an enormous immune response in the gut and elsewhere in the body when exposed to gluten—it’s like dropping a nuclear bomb to kill a spider.
CELIAC AND GS
Celiac disease (CD) is unique in that a specific food component, gluten, has been identified as the trigger in those genetically predisposed to that condition and that the mechanism is well understood. When individuals with CD eat gluten, the enterocytes (cells that line the small intestine) are damaged from the “nuclear blast” of a hyper-reactive immune system. Damaged enterocytes do not effectively absorb basic nutrients—proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals, and, in some cases, water and bile salts. If CD is left untreated, damage to the small intestine can be chronic and even life-threatening, increasing the risk of malnutrition and immune-related disorders. There is also a different condition called gluten sensitivity (GS). Those with GS don’t have the same change in intestinal permeability as celiacs (in fact, they don’t present with any detectable changes), but gluten still provokes a direct activation of their immune system. This response, neither an allergy nor an autoimmune response, can provoke similar gastrointestinal symptoms as is seen in celiacs. The research on GS is still really new, and no one knows what percentage of the population may be affected.
Just because you don’t have CD or GS doesn’t mean grains are good for you, whether they contain gluten or not. Corn and oats, for example, contain different prolamins and other compounds that may be similarly irritating, or worse. While these protein fractions and compounds have not yet been as well studied as gluten, it’s fair to say that they have the potential to create similar undesirable effects on your gut function and immune status.
That is how grains—even whole grains—fail our third and fourth Good Food standards.
When you regularly consume them (whether whole or refined), you expose your body to these potentially problematic proteins. This triggers localized inflammation in the gut, which (in the presence of intestinal permeability—an all-too-common condition) cascades into systemic inflammation, provoking an often silent immune response elsewhere in the body.
Or, more like everywhere in the body.
The inflammatory effects can show up anywhere, as anything: allergies, arthritis, asthma; autoimmune diseases like celiac, Crohn’s, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis; chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, psoriasis, eczema, rosacea, endometriosis; these effects can even be seen in the brain. (Inflammatory messengers in the brain are associated with depression, anxiety, and even conditions like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.) No two people’s symptoms look the same—the inflammatory consequences are virtually unlimited.
Which means gluten-free is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Gluten-free brownies, pancakes, cookies, and breads are all the rage these days, produced primarily for celiacs. But are these products healthy—or just more marketing hype?
Many of our clients and Whole30 participants report similar reactions to non-gluten grains, leading us to believe that there are bigger problems with grains than just gluten. Gluten-free grains and non-grains like quinoa in all likelihood still contain potentially inflammatory proteins and other compounds that can provoke inflammation in the gut and elsewhere.
Finally, bread is still bread (and a pancake still a pancake), regardless of the grains with which they are made—and gluten-free grains promote the same unhealthy psychological response as their gluten-containing counterparts. In summary, “gluten free” does not necessarily represent a healthy choice.
LESS BAD
Ancient cultures reliant on grains for survival figured out ways to prepare them to mitigate some of the inflammatory and anti-nutrient downsides. Prolonged soaking, extended cooking, rinsing, sprouting, and fermenting have been shown to partly break down some of the phytates and some of the inflammatory proteins in certain grains. But note the words “partly” and “some.” These preparation methods don’t guarantee a safe food product in your gut. In today’s modern world, we think it’s an awful lot of effort to soak, rinse, sprout, and/or ferment a food just to make it somewhat less bad … especially when vegetables and fruit provide far more nutritious benefits with none of the downsides of grains.
But wait, you’re thinking, “This science isn’t bomb-proof! Maybe I’m sensitive to the compounds found in grains and maybe I’m not.”
You’re absolutely right. And we can’t answer that question for you.
But neither can you, until you’ve done our Whole30 program.
Remember, we can’t rely solely on science to guide our recommendations, because in some cases (like the effect of proteins in non-gluten grains) data simply isn’t available. But based on the research that is available, combined with the vast body of evidence we’ve gathered from our clients, we advise you to put the kibosh on grains, because: (a) they can be easy to overconsume and promote hormonal dysfunction, (b) they’re not a good source of nutrition compared with vegetables and fruits, and (c) proteins found in all grains may very well be disruptive to the body, just as we know for sure that gluten can be.
We think that sounds reasonable, but to answer the question “How can I know how grains affect me?” we need you to do some self-experimentation.
During our Whole30 program, you’ll evaluate how your body reacts, first without any grains, then with the reintroduction of grains back into your diet. Then you’ll combine the science we’ve presented, our experience and your own experience to make an educated, informed decision about how often (if at all) you should eat grains.
See? We’ve got this all worked out for you.
LEGUMES
Next up is another plant family that has a lot in common with grains: legumes. Legumes include all types of beans, peas, lentils, and peanuts (which are not actually a “nut” at all). Like cereal grains, plants in this family have similarities in the way they behave and what chemical constituents they contain, which impacts us when we eat them.
The similarity to grains starts with the seed. Legumes are actually a plant family, but the part we eat when we consume black beans, soy, or lentils is the seed of the legume plant. The seeds of legumes, like the seeds from cereal grains, store a large amount of energy in the form of carbohydrate. In fact, in most legumes, the amount of carbohydrate present is double or triple that of protein.
Now, remember—we are not afraid of carbohydrate, nor do we know of anyone who has suffered metabolic catastrophe by eating too many carbohydrates from black beans! That’s not to say that legumes are the healthiest choice, but the reason we exclude them is not because they contain a lot of carbohydrate. The carbohydrate content of foods alone is not what causes hormonal dysregulation—it starts with overconsumption.
In our experience, people generally don’t chronically overconsume legumes—at least, we’ve never heard of anyone having an unhealthy psychological relationship with lentils. Legumes are not milled like grains often are, so legumes are essentially the equivalent of whole grains—more fiber, more water, and more nutrients than their more refined counterparts. This makes them far less likely to promote overconsumption than a refined, supernormally stimulating, nutrient-poor food.
CONTEXT MATTERS
One word of caution, however: If you have chronically overconsumed supernormally stimulating, nutrient-poor processed foods and your hormones are already seriously out of balance, then continuing to overconsume carbohydrate—even from “real food” sources like legumes—may keep promoting an unhealthy hormonal response. Furthermore, if you take those black beans and stick them in a seven-layer dip slathered with Mexi-cheese spread and served with nacho-flavored chips, well … that’s another story. As always, context matters.
Since legumes don’t violate our first or second Good Food standards, does that mean they’re a healthy choice?
First, legumes, like whole grains, contain considerable amounts of phytate. Remember, these phytates bind many of the minerals present in the seed, rendering them unavailable to our bodies. This makes legumes not as micronutrient-dense as you might think, in the same way that whole grains are not micronutrient-dense.
As with grains, ancient cultures that consumed legumes as a major food source had ways of mitigating some of the issues with legumes, such as rinsing, sprouting, prolonged soaking and cooking, and fermentation. However, remember that specific legumes were consumed for calories because that’s what was available. The fact that these cultures survived on these foods does not mean that their choices were optimal, or even good—only that they had no choice. “Properly preparing” legumes using these traditional methods today is time-consuming—and frankly, it seems like a tremendous amount of work for a food that simply isn’t that nutritious.
BACK TO FIBER
Many people think beans are a good source of fiber, and they certainly are—but remember, so are vegetables and fruit (not to mention that the nutrients in veggies and fruit are more bioavailable). So while you could get a nice dose of fiber from beans, it would be like eating a Mounds bar to reap the benefits of coconut—there are far better sources of fiber that don’t have the same potential downsides.
THE MAGICAL FRUIT
Because some of the short-chain carbohydrates (sugars) found in legumes aren’t properly absorbed in the small intestine, they can then act as food for bacteria living in both the small and large intestines. The bacteria then “ferment” (digest) these carbohydrates (called galactans), which can create many unpleasant symptoms, including gas and bloating.
We suspect that you’ve experienced this effect.
In addition, if you have an imbalance or overgrowth of gut bacteria, large amounts of this specific type of carbohydrate may feed the “bad” bacteria, thus promoting ongoing gut dysbiosis. The significance of this concern is largely determined by the health of your gut microbiota. Given the kind of foods you used to eat and their cumulative effects on your gut bacteria, dysbiosis is, unfortunately, all too common. This is one potential outcome that would cause legumes to fail our third Good Food standard (promotes a healthy gut), and by default, our fourth (systemic inflammation, via an unhealthy gut).
FODMAPS
These galactans aren’t the only fermentable carbohydrate that causes gastric distress. They belong to a category called FODMAPs (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols)—a collection of fermentable carbohydrates and sugar alcohols found in various foods, like grains, beans, vegetables and fruits. FODMAPs are poorly absorbed, thereby “feeding” gut bacteria and causing a host of symptoms, including dysbiosis and systemic inflammation. Fructans (another type of carbohydrate also in the FODMAP family), such as those found in wheat, have similar effects in the digestive tracts of sensitive individuals. The resulting gut dysbiosis is one reason that even those without celiac or gluten sensitivity still have adverse reactions to grains.
SOY FOR EVERYONE?
We’ll address soy and soy products separately, as they contain unique compounds—and because, due in large part to marketing efforts, “soy” is often perceived as synonymous with “healthy.”
We do not agree with that.
Soybeans are particularly good at producing seeds more protein-rich than most other legumes (and all grains). This makes them ideal for large-scale production but does not automatically make them a healthy food choice! You see, soybeans contain compounds called isoflavones, which are types of phytoestrogens (phyto meaning “plant,” estrogen as in that female sex hormone).
These phytoestrogens are recognized by our bodies—male and female alike—as a female reproductive hormone. Got that? Our bodies recognize these phytoestrogens as estrogen! Some phytoestrogens act to stimulate estrogen receptors in the body, while others block the estrogen receptor. The effects of soy phytoestrogens are tissue-specific, meaning that the effect on one tissue (such as breast tissue) is totally different than on another tissue (such as uterine tissue or prostate tissue).
You may have heard that “soy is heart healthy” or that “soy reduces the risk of breast cancer,” but those are radically simplified media sound bites and are not representative of the overall effect of soy phytoestrogens. The fact is, phytoestrogens may be beneficial for a very specific population (perimenopausal women, for example), but the effect on other populations is largely unknown.
SOY RX
It’s kind of like your doctor saying, “Hey, if you’re worried about heart health, take these pills. I don’t know how much you should take, or even how much ‘medicine’ is in each pill, but these pills are associated with heart health, so just go for it!” You would never want to take a random dose of pharmaceutical estrogens. (And for the men reading this book—do you think you need more estrogen?) So why would you eat a dietary source rich in similar compounds?
We think that regularly consuming a food rich in hormonally-active substances, especially if you do not have a specific sex-hormone imbalance, as in perimenopause (or are male and probably not estrogen-deficient), is a huge health gamble, and not one we think anyone should take. We are not ready to say that soy fails our second Good Food standard (healthy hormonal response)—but we’ll keep a close watch on this subject.
PEANUTS
Peanuts are also of special concern, as they contain uniquely disruptive proteins. First, peanuts aren’t tree nuts at all—botanically, they are legumes. All legumes contain protein structures that may be hazardous to humans—one type in particular is called a lectin. In their raw state, lectins are highly resistant to digestion and toxic to animals.
In other legumes (like black beans or kidney beans), these lectins are destroyed during the cooking process, rendering them harmless. But peanut lectins are different. They are resistant to digestion and are not destroyed by heat. When they land in your gut, they are largely intact. They can then fool your gut lining into letting them through into the body (by mimicking the structure of other proteins) and get into your bloodstream.
Once they’re inside, these peanut lectins can induce an immune response. (Remember, that undigested foreign protein is totally out of place inside the body.) By now, you know that any abnormal activation of your immune system might negatively affect both your short- and long-term health. These dangerous proteins violate our third and fourth Good Food standards—which means that peanuts and peanut butter are banished from your plate. (We suspect that the resilience of peanut lectin is partly responsible for the rapidly growing incidence of peanut allergies.)
PB & J?
Most folks don’t fight us tooth and nail to keep lima beans in their diet, but peanut butter is often a different story. For those of you who love the creamy (or chunky) stuff, don’t panic—we’ve got a substitute. Sunflower seed butter is so similar to peanut butter that your kids probably won’t know the difference, and sunflower seeds don’t contain the same unhealthy proteins as peanuts. All nut butters are best eaten in moderation, for reasons we’ll soon discuss—but as a once-in-a-while treat, sunflower seed butter will pass your PB taste test with flying colors. (Just skip the bread and the sugar-laden J, OK?)
It’s impossible to blame lectins for all the problems with legumes, since no one eats legumes without cooking them first, and non-peanut lectins are destroyed by high heat. It’s worth noting, however, that in improperly cooked legumes (such as those cooked in a slow cooker at a lower temperature), lectins may not be completely broken down—and that could result in severe gastrointestinal distress.
MAKE YOUR OWN CASE
Admittedly, the scientific case against legumes isn’t nearly as strong as the case against, say, sugar. While data suggests that certain lectins can be extremely detrimental, and plenty of research supports the idea that phytoestrogens in soy may adversely affect hormonal balance, researchers simply don’t have enough data on all legumes to know how potentially dangerous they are.
This is where you come in.
Remember, our recommendations are based on three factors: first, the science; second, our experience and the experience of our clients; third, self-experimentation. The science suggests that consuming legumes (especially peanuts) violates our Good Food standards. Our experience certainly confirms that most folks look and feel their best when legumes are kept off their plates. But now it’s time for you to step up.
You can participate in additional (small-scale) research on legumes by participating in our Whole30 program. Make yourself the subject of a case study to determine the effects of legumes on you. Eliminating legumes from your diet (at least for a trial period) will allow you to assess your own personal tolerance—and help you decide what role they should have in your daily meals.