Discussion Board

Each of these claims by Dr Wahl is problematic.

First: The factual basis of her comparison of diet versus species age: We have not existed as a species (homo sapiens sapiens) for 2.5 million years. The first modern human species about 200,000 years ago, homo sapiens about 100,000 years ago. Second: The age of the species and the period in which man has consumed rice have no relevance to whether rice is a food that we can consume healthfully. Third: Obesity does not occur because our "biology" is confused.

The claim that "diabetes and autoimmune conditions are present and increasing dramatically in Asia" in countries with rice-based diets refutes the claim that rice, because it's only been in the human diet for 10,000 (probably at least 15,000) years, is causing it. So in the last two or three decades, Asian countries like China, India, and Thailand are seeing diabetes rise sharply--and the rice that has been consumed as the major staple of the diet for thousands of years is the cause? That doesn't actually make sense, does it? It might make more sense that the increasing consumption of animal meat and fat, oils, refined sugars, and processed foods, which actually are dietarily recent and do reduce the consumption of rice as a proportion of the diet, are more likely to be the causes of these increasing rates of diabetes.

Her claim that agricultural breeding for plant foods has somehow created alien species ignores the fact that the animals humans eat today, other than perhaps wild-caught fish and fowl, are the products of thousands or hundreds of years of breeding. Grass-fed cows are still not paleolithic cows; they're highly artificial products (products of breeding arts). (And the grass they're eating is also a product of agricultural art and science.) But really, Dr. Wahls needs to make up her mind: Is rice bad for humans because we've only been consuming it for 10,000 (or 15,000) years, or is it because the rice that's been bred in the last several decades is so different from the rice of 100 years ago?

Yeah, Nettie, I think so too. It wasn't until someone later posted that changes in rice over time could cause an increase in disease (if the changes in the rice were harmful) that I got concerned.

I think the comments here about a) how long rice has probably been part of the human diet, b) how long Asians having been healthy and trim on a rice based diet, and c) how a "young" food is not necessarily bad are all strong points. Also, I asked her if the rates of disease were "prevalent" and she said they were "present." Those are two entirely different things. You can find breast cancer in Cheta populations but that doesn't mean it's a problem. And, like Nettie said, if you're going to argue that it is currently increasing then you need to explain what has changed recently to account for it. You can't argue current increases in disease are caused by something a population has been consuming for at least 10,000 years. Something changed recently in those countries and if it wasn't a degradation of their rice then it was something other than their rice.

You can buy heirloom rice if you are that concerned about conventional rice.

What's different about heirloom rice than other rice?

I agree with Nettie



You know what is interesting about autoimmune diseases? It has been "present" in all species, probably forever. An example - I live near the La Brea Tar Pits and the Chase Museum. There is a fossil there of the spine of a Woolly Mammoth with ankylosing spondlytitis, a degenerative autoimmune disease.

But, as to your point has it been prevalent? Probably not, until very recently, and that prevalence seems to be tied, in humans, to diet and pollution.

Heirlooms are varieties that were grown earlier in human history, but generally not cultivated now. People have saved the seeds and kept those old lines available. If you are concerned that today's commercial rice is different from rice grown in the past, then an heirloom variety might be your answer.

Here's some background info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirloom_plant

Thanks Frieda. I'm still trying to determine if there's any reason to be concerned about rice now. It seems like people here don't have much to say about it. I hadn't heard anything until this past weekend that made me worry about rice so it could just be the followers of Dr. Wahls or other Paleo people. For now, I'll keep eating my fabulous brown rice.

As others have said, I think diet is often an individualized thing. What works for some doesn't always work for others because of their own unique bodies and food sensitivities or allergies.

I have my own strong opinions on what some people claim is the "ancestral" diet (last I checked, our ancestors didn't eat cheese or processed beef) but regardless, I know the paleo diet is not a diet that would work for me, regardless of how many people insist it works for them. I have problems with low blood sugar and I need starches and complex carbs to keep it stable. I'm also allergic to dairy and a vegetarian so I couldn't possibly follow any diet plan that relies on animal products. So a plant-based, carb-inclusive diet is perfect for me!

But even then there are variations within the diet in terms of what carbs I eat vs. what someone else might eat. I actually have trouble with rice (even brown rice, which is what I always opt for). I'm not really sure why. It seems like it just doesn't keep my blood sugar up enough, since after eating a meal of rice and veggies (even with extra protein like tofu) I feel very hungry and my blood sugar drops again rapidly. It also sometimes gives me a stomach ache. But I have no issues with rice as a healthy food for people in general, it just doesn't work well as a staple for me personally.

I have no issues with any other starches or complex carbs, and I have plenty of friends who eat rice and feel satisfied without issue. So I guess sometimes it just depends on the individual.