 The number one killer in the United States and around the world is what we eat, killing millions more than tobacco. For example, what are the five most important things we can do to improve our diets based on the single most comprehensive global study of the health impact of nutrition? Eat less salt, eat more nuts, eat more non-starchy vegetables, and more fruit, and finally, eat more whole grains. Any particular type of whole grains? What about so-called ancient grains? Are they any better than modern varieties? Like what about camut, the so-called mummy wheat, supposedly unearthed from an Egyptian tomb? After World War II, the wheat industry selected particularly high-yielding varieties for pasta and bread. Over the past few years, though, some of the more ancient varieties have been reintroduced on the market. What they find basically is those that haven't changed over the agricultural revolutions of the last century. Nutritionally, einkorn wheat, the oldest wheat in camut, have more of the eyesight-improving yellow carotenoid pigments like lutein and zeaxanthin, compared to modern bread and pastry wheat, because the pigments have been bred out of the bread intentionally. People want their white bread white, but modern pasta flour, durum wheat, maintains much of that yellow hue nutrition. Yes, modern wheat may have less lutein, but for example, tends to have more vitamin E, based on straight vitamin and mineral concentrations. I mean, it's pretty much a wash. They both have lots of each. But the primitive wheats do have more antioxidant capacity, likely due to their greater polyphenol content. But to know if this makes any difference, you have to put it to the test. If you expose human liver cells to digested bread made out of ancient grains, camut and spelt, heritage wheat, or modern strains, and then expose the cells to an inflammatory stimulus, the modern wheat strains seem less able to suppress the inflammation. The investigators conclude that, despite the fact that these different grains seem to be very similar nutritionally, they seem to exert different effects on human cells, confirming the potential health benefits of ancient grains. But this was in a Petri dish. What about in people? If ancient wheats are better at suppressing inflammation, what if you took people with irritable bowel syndrome and randomized them to receive six weeks of wheat products made out of the ancient wheat, camut, in this case, or modern wheat? The same amount of wheat, just different types. If there's no difference between the wheats, there'd be no difference in people's symptoms, right? But check this out. Here's how the control groups did on the modern wheat. Switched to the camut, they experienced less abdominal pain, less frequent pain, less bloating, more satisfaction with stool consistency, and less interference with their quality of life. So after switching to the ancient grain, patients experienced a significant global improvement in the extent and severity of symptoms related to their irritable bowel. What about liver inflammation? The liver function of those with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, randomized to eat camut, improved compared to those eating the same amount of regular wheat. The suggestion of camut is superior in diabetics, better cholesterol and insulin sensitivity on the same ancient grain. In those with heart disease, better blood sugar control, and better cholesterol, better artery function in those without overt heart disease. The bottom line is findings derived from human studies suggest that ancient wheat products are more anti-inflammatory and improve things like blood sugar control and cholesterol. Given that the overall number of human interventional trials is still small and it's not possible to definitively conclude that ancient wheat varieties are superior to all commercial modern wheat counterparts in reducing chronic disease risk, but the best available data does suggest they're better if you have the choice. Regardless of what type of wheat you eat, word to the wise, don't eat the plastic bread bag clip. A 45-year-old guy presents with bloody stools and this is what their CT scan looked like. Later questioned, the patient admitted to habitually eating quickly without chewing properly.