Not for me.  I eat all kinds of grains with absolutely no problems.

Tomatoes for me was definitely an acquired taste. It took me a very
long time before I could stand the taste of a raw tomato on a sandwich.
Me, bite into a juicy whole ripe tomato?  You got to be kidding?
Never!!! The more a tomato tastes like a piece of cardboard the easier
it is for me to tolerate the taste.

I still cannot stand the taste of tomato jucie.  It makes me want to
puke!!!  It is absolutely awful.  Thank goodness I like ketchup and
tomato sauce.

Just thought that you might want to know that you are wrong.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what's heathly.

Except for that whole reality thing.  Growing vegitables works great.
Fruit and nuts, too.  Besides, grain is for animals anyways so
you'd only give up grains if you switch to a vegitarian diet.

People would be getting diabetes.  Oh wait, they do.
Especially populations that previously ate diets that were
lower glycemic index and switched to grain based foods in
the last couple of centuries.  Look at reports of native
Americans in both the US and Mexico for that.  Diabetes
is epidemic in many tribes and there are tribes that have
one branch on each side of the border with the high grain
eating branch having much higher diabetes rates.

So what should have happened in 10K years is some amount
of evolution.  Sure enough, there is less Celiac, spru,
diabetes and such in populations who've been eating grains
for more millenia and more of those diseases in populations
who recently switched to more grains.  You want to eat lots
of grain?  Get some genetic engineering or pick your selectively
bred parents carefully.

There are people with intollerances to all nightshades.
Tomatoes are vegitables or fruits and humans have been
eating various types of vegitables ever since our ancestors
left the trees and various types of fruit for longer than that.
Thus tomatoes make a poor example - they are much more
like what humans are evolved to eat than are grains.  and
still some have nightshade intolerance ...

This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental
factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases
of affluence.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696

The above hyperlink writes about the hunter-gatherer myth.  In reality,
Hunter-gatherer societies simply cannot support the current world
populations levels. Give up growing grains and people would be starving
to death on a mass scale.

The easiest way to disprove this felicitous hypothesis is to point out
the obvious. In other words, if grains do cause diseases of affluence
then what should have happened over the last 10,000 years?

If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains
in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years
these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from
diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years.  This clearly has not
been the case.  Furthermore, these same diseases of affluence should
logically be in a period of decline as man gradually has biologically
adapted to grains.  Or in other words, the worst case scenario for
diseases of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years
ago when man first started eating grains, rather than today.

Furthermore, throughout these past 10,000 years many agrarian societies
existed almost exclusively on grains.  Hence, these people would also
have logically experienced  the worst case scenario for diseases of
affluence.

Further, this very same academic paper contradicts the only logical
conclusion demaned by this felicitous hypothesis by saying point-blank
that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the early
1900s."

So, what happen in the 1900s?  I can tell you.  Food science developed
and accordingly a sudden surge in the widespread consumption of
refined-grain junk food took place.  So, if grains are to be blamed for
this post 1900 phenomenon then we are clearly talking about refined
grains rather than whole-grains.  Of course, there are other
possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress.

Something else major happened.  Refrigeration was invented and our food
distribution system improved tremendously. In reality, modern
industrialized civilizations have had in the past 100 years more
variety in their agrarian diets than ever before. In reality, more
people are eating more meat today than they ever did during the past
10,000 years.

Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven
hypothesis.  I have easily proved this stupid hypothesis to be wrong.

As previously stated, the new world fruit/vegetable called the tomato
has been in the European diet for less than 200 years.  Yet, it is
clearly one of the healthiest foods in the human diet.  So, the notion
that 10,000 years is not long enough for humans to adapt to grains is
total nonsense. If you don't believe me, then why are you eating
tomatoes? Why do men eat tomatoes in order to protect themselves from
prostatic cancer?

Ergo, blaming grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for
diseases of affluence hypothesis  is total bunk.  This theory is
actually arguing that diseases of affluence should be at their lowest
levels ever in the last 10,000 years of history.  Thus, those who are
promoting it have mush for brains and are promoting nothing but a fairy
tale.  Dream on people!!!

Who says so?  I do.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

The above hyperlink writes about the hunter-gather myth.  Hunter-gather
societies simply cannot support the current world populations levels.
Give up growing grains and people would be starving to death on a mass
scale.

Furthermore, throughout these past 10,000 years many agrarian societies
existed almost exclusively on grains.  Hence, these people would also
have logically experienced the most acute levels of these diseases of
affluence.

Something else major happened.  Refrigeration was invented and our food
distribution system improved tremendously.  Modern industrialized
civilizations have had in the past 100 years more variety in their
agrarian diets than ever before. In reality more people are eating more
meat today than in the past 10,000 years.

Ergo, Grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for diseases
of affluence hypothesis  is total bunk.  This theory is actually
arguing that diseases of affluence should be at their lowest levels in
the last 10,000 years of history.  Thus, who are promoting it have mush
for brains and are promoting a fairy tale.

This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental
factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases
of affluence.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696

The easiest way to disprove this hypothesis is to point out the
obvious.

If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains
in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years
than these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from
diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years.  This clearly was not
the case.  Furthermore, these same diseases of affluence should
logically be in a period of decline as man gradually has biologically
adapted to grains.  Or in other words, the worst case of the diseases
of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years ago when
man first started eating grains rather than today.

Further, this very same academic paper contradicts this conclusion by
saying that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the
early 1900s."

So, what happen in the 1900s?  I can tell you.  Food science developed
and accordingly a sudden surge in the widespread consumption of
refined-grain junk food took place.  So, if grains are to be blamed for
this post 1900 phenomenon then we are clearly talking about refined
grains rather than whole-grains.  Of course, there are other
possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress.

Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven
hypothesis.  I have easily this hypothesis to be wrong.

As previously stated, the tomato has been in the European diet for less
than 200 years.  Yet, it is clearly one of the healthiest foods in the
human diet.  So, the notion that 10,000 years is not long enough for
humans  to adapt to grains is total nonsense.

Who says so?  I do.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/