麻豆传媒

听

KHORASAN, teff, emmer and amaranth. No, these aren鈥檛 planets in the next Star Wars movie, but some of the growing range of wheat alternatives that are increasingly filling supermarket shelves (and 鈥渨ellness guru鈥� Instagram feeds) everywhere. Said to be untouched by modern plant breeders, who have apparently rendered wheat an unhealthy option, these 鈥渁ncient grains鈥� can supposedly transform your health. But what exactly are these foods, and are they as beneficial as claimed?

Here鈥檚 the first thing: ancient grains are often anything but. Take quinoa. The seeds of this South American plant are thought to have been bred for human consumption as recently as 3000 years ago, making it only a third of the age of bread wheat. Even some of the oldest members of the wheat group, such as einkorn and emmer which were first bred 10,000 years ago, only .

In fact, many ancient grains aren鈥檛 even true grains (the seeds of grass plants), just a motley crew of seeds from a range of plant families and a few more unusual rice and maize cultivars. With no science behind this definition, it seems to be employed as a catch-all marketing term used to describe anything that isn鈥檛 bread wheat, regardless of its actual age, how intensively it has been bred or whether or not it is even a grain.

Semantics aside, are they more nutritious? This seems to have been investigated only very recently. With most of the best studies published in the past five years or so, the health claims appear to predate much of the evidence. Studies examining the nutritional composition of ancestral wheats like emmer, einkorn and khorasan compared with modern bread wheat tend to have found a wide variation between samples, which makes .

This isn鈥檛 only because there is significant genetic diversity within each of these species, but also because factors like climate, cultivation techniques and soil can have a significant effect on their nutritional content. For example, wheat grown in Canada can contain up to 10 times the selenium levels of the exact same variety , due to differences in the levels of this mineral in soils.

For precisely this reason, set out to compare data only from studies where the modern and 鈥渁ncient鈥� species of wheat were grown side-by-side in the same fields. The researchers found they varied very little in their make-up. Ancient wheats tended to be lower in fibre than modern ones and were higher in a phytonutrient called lutein, but that is where the differences stop.

How about when more distantly related crops under the ancient grain umbrella, such as quinoa, are compared with bread wheat? Despite claims that these seeds are 鈥渓oaded with protein, iron, and vitamin B2鈥� on my quinoa packet at home, the levels of these nutrients in wholemeal flour are comparable when you look at the published nutritional data. The boring old flour is also twice as high in fibre and manganese, despite a similar calorie count and a lower cost. Sorry, clean-eaters!

It would be remiss of me to not point out that there have also been a few very small set up to answer this question. These are potentially more exciting, as they set out to feed people diets based on the different grains and compare the effects: the holy grail in nutritional research. Sure enough, these trials have reported a plethora of health benefits, including significantly reduced cholesterol and lower markers of 听to an improvement in symptoms for people with .

However, there are a few things to note about these trials. Firstly, they only compared two crops: Kamut (a trademarked brand of Khorasan grown in Canada under licence) and bread wheat. So their results can鈥檛 be extrapolated to cover any other ancient grains. Furthermore, despite being otherwise well-designed, these trials didn鈥檛 compare crops grown side-by-side, but Canadian Khorasan with wheat grown in Italy. This means the findings could potentially be attributed to any number of other factors, not just the crop itself. Why so many trials on just this brand of Khorasan? Most of these studies also acknowledge support from producers of the crop. Funny, that.

To me, this is a fascinating area. But given how incredibly early on we are in our understanding of the potential differences here, we are simply going to have to wait before we get a clear answer either way. In the meantime, enjoy your grains, however ancient they claim to be.