The consensus is carbs in moderation and to be intelligent about which ones you tend to eat (ie; unrefined/whole as opposed to highly refined) rather than the case that all carbs are evil. Grains are cheap, they're full of fibre, rich in protein, can reduce cholesterol levels, etc. They're not without benefit but Mark Sisson does excessively demonise them.
When did i ever say anything about removing
from your diet? Grains might equal carbs but carbs dont equal grains. When you replace the grains in your diet with vegetables you definitely won't be deficient of carbs in any way.
PS. Grains are definitely not a 'rich' source of protein, especially not rice/pasta/potatoes/wheat that are the most common in the western world. Quinoa and couscous on the other hand have more protein, but they're definitely not that 'rich' in protein as you make it sound.
For example we get told about how the high fibre content in grains can inhibit vitamin and mineral absorption, ok, but he forgets to mention that most of the vegetables and fruits he recommends as part of his primal blueprint are even HIGHER in fibre.
The problem with grains (and legumes as well as some nuts) is not just the (possible) fibre content, its the
that drastically restricts how well we can utilise the minerals and vitamins present in grains.
Lectins? Yes they're found in grains, but they're also found in nuts, seeds and beans, again, more foods which he recommends on his site.
So? If you'd actually looked into the matter in greater detail you'd notice that the proportion of nuts, seeds and beans he recommends is not nearly enough to negate the effect of removing grains from your diet.
Gluten? Allergenic? They can be, but at the same time lactose is said to be more allergenic yet milk and dairy products are something which he recommends.
A.Please give me a source to back up your claim that 'lactose is said to be more allergenic'.
B.No he doesn't. He specifically says that dairy should be avoided.
Yes, diets high in carbs (particularly sugar) have been linked to diabetes, then again diets high in red meat have also been linked to diabetes and heart disease (again, something he recommends).
Very true, but only because the animals are fed grains which results in meat that is rich in omega 6 that leads to heart disease. The key is to eat grass fed meat. (of course red meat isn't the only meat you should eat).
He is a man of contradictions.
Do you know him personally?
Take what St Mark says with a pinch of salt he does have an agenda (namely creating his own 'Primal Blueprint' to flog in book form and make a hell of a lot of money).
He isn't the only one advocating a diet like this. The diet also goes under the names: Paleolithic diet and Hunter-gatherer diet.
In the end any
diet you come across will be from someones subjective point of view, even the diet the government promotes (have you ever taken a look at the food pyramid? its ridiculous.). So what makes a government promoted(i take it that's what you see as the ideal) diet more 'right' than any other? Is it the fact that an authority promotes it?