The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

People should avoid eating grains entirely

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 276 times Debate No: 87570
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




"The one food you should never eat"; "three secret ways grains make you fat"; "gluten is bad for you"; "grains in vegan diets: no, they make you fat or sick."
This is ridiculous. Not only is it ridiculous, but it deludes the image of healthy foods in our society, and it down right mocks our origin.

Doctors left and right might tell you that bread and cereal will make you fat, and for the most part, they would be RIGHT. With brands today having 10 grams of sugar in every bowl, it's not a wonder why they would say that. ( )
But when it comes down to the pure grains themselves, such as steamed rice, you would only get as fat from them as you would from vegetables and lean meat--if you ate 13 cups worth in a single day. ( )

And what about gluten? Isn't there research that it causes constipation and diarrhea?
Yeah, if you have NCGS or Coeliac disease ( ). But unless you're in that 2%, gluten doesn't isn't any more harmful than the protein in meat--because gluten IS protein. Protein is not going to straight turn you into a blimp.

Finally, most people don't seem to understand that society itself began from agriculture. Whether they were from Europe, Asia, or Africa, your ancestors had eaten grains for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and yet we haven't descended as giant flaps of fat. Do I even need proof for this?

We haven't replaced the hippo as the largest naked land animal because of our history of eating grains, and we shouldn't be dissuaded by sob stories or scares scams to think that we are.
If anything, it's the excess sugar companies put in almost everything. Just buy a bag of rice.


The primary reason that people don't think grains are good for you is that humans were not evolved to eat grains. Period. During the millions of years that humans evolved, they ate a diet consisting of mostly berries/fruits, and meat. "The earliest well-accepted evidence for this novel dietary behavior" (eating meat) comes from about 2.6 Ma at the site of Gona, Ethiopia"(1). The "evidence" is the marks found on bones. The reason we know that humans ate fruits, berries, bark, etc, is that scientists can tell the amount of carbon inside of fossilized teeth. So in general, humans had not begin to "engage in agriculture until about 15,000"10,000 years before the present." (2) Considering the fact that humans have been around for around 2.8 million years, this means that humans have only been eating grains for around .004% of our existence on Earth. So, with these facts, it is safe to assume that humans have NOT evolved to consume grains.

Debate Round No. 1


A lot of that is true: humans originally had a diet of meat and fruit, along with other omnivorous primates. However, humans have evolved significantly from 2.8 million years ago--especially considering that the modern Homo sapiens only appeared a hundred thousand (100,000) years ago, and archaic Homo sapiens about nine hundred thousand (900,000) years ago (1). From one your sources (2), agriculture began about 11,700 ago, making up 11.7% of modern human history, not 0.004%.
There is further proof of recent human evolution: we humans have much smaller jaws compared other primates, and a painful reminder is our wisdom teeth (3); even then, some of us are becoming born without them. We also weren't evolved to digest milk beyond infancy, but a mutation 7,500 years ago has now allowed almost all Europeans and their descendants to consume it without much complications (4). If this took less than eight thousand years, surely eleven thousand years would be enough for even more humans to become able to eat grains.

On a separate point, you haven't discussed why we cannot digest grains; we quite literally produce an enzyme in our spit that breaks down starches (amylase), as well as others in our intestinal tract (4). If we were unable to digest the main benefit from grains, this would also void starchy foods such as potatoes, beans, and peas--and the Great Famine in Ireland was caused deprivation of their staple starch (5).
In comparison, we cannot even digest the cellulose from most vegetables, implying that we were not evolved to digest them either. Yet, vegetables are strictly enforced as part of a healthy diet, as the useless carbohydrate is otherwise used as bulk to aid digestion (4); nutrients and vitamins are another reason, of course.

If we weren't evolved to eat grains, "period", then we weren't evolved to eat vegetables, "period". It doesn't need to be said that the latter idea is preposterous.

1. (page 62)


I don't have time to write my response before the time expires, I apologize. I should have it tomorrow.
Debate Round No. 2


Fires_of_Pagan forfeited this round.


By "human evolution" I did not mean specifically homo sapiens. I meant all of our ancestors that are directly related to us. And I never said anything about "modern" human history, I said that for the 2.8 million years of human evolution, we have only been eating grains for about 11,700 years. (so yes, it would be 0.004% of human history).
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.