The study that started this whole thread posted by Mr-Natural-Health.
Start at the top of the thread and work your way down.  You won't have
to ask questions that have such obvious answers that way.

I've always loved how when you've been proven wrong you just get rude
and irritable rather than trying to argue on the merits of your
position.  That's usually a sign that a person doesn't really have much
of an argument.

My point was that unless you get groups of people who eat the EXACT
SAME THING and have the EXACT SAME LIFESTYLES except for the amount of
bran, the study is useless.  In the study you posted, those who ate
more whole grains also ate a lot more foods that are considered
healthy... that being fruits, veggies and fish.  They also seemed to be
more likely to avoid junk food since they ate fewer doughnuts.  Knowing
these 2 facts, it's not much of a stretch to say that those who ate
more whole grains probably had healthier life-styles in general.  They
probably exercised more.  They were probably less likely to smoke.  In
fact, if you'll look at table 3, you'll see that several other
variables were documented, but then they just lumped them all together
in a "multivariate model."  If they were concerned about finding the
truth in this study, they'd run several calculations to see if the
other factors could account for the decrease in heart disease.

But like so many studies trying to tout the benefits of this or that,
history could be used as a better guide to see if grains are truely
healthy.  To see if whole grains are the way to go, we should compare
historical groups of people who used them with those that didn't.  It's
pretty easy to do.  Take the ancient Egyptians as a prime example.
Grains were a dietary staple.  At that point in histoy, they weren't
refining their grains, but yet the average ancient Egyptian would be
considered lucky to reach the age of 40.  Even their kings weren't
living any longer than that.

In contrast, look at the stories of Floridian Native Americans.

http://imperium.lenin.ru/~kaledin/tmp/agricltr.txt
"Earlier conclusions about life span have also been revised.
Although eye-witness Spanish accounts of the 16th century tell of
Florida
Indian fathers seeing their fifth generation before passing away, it
was
long believed that primitive people died in their 30's and 40's.
Robson,
Boyden and others have dispelled the confusion of longevity with life
expectancy and discovered that current hunter-gatherers, barring injury
and severe infection, often outlive their civilized contemporaries."

In fact, that entire article would be a good read for anyone wanting to
know if grains, and farming in general, are what humans should eat.

The last point I'd like to make is that the study you posted ONLY
addresses heart disease.  To me, that makes the study no better than
the majority of statin drug studies available today.  It only addresses
1 topic of health and completely ignores all others, including overall
life expectancy.  What's the point in lower the risk of heart disease
if you're just going to increase the risk of some other disease?  It is
a fact that many phytates in whole grains bind to several minerals once
inside the body.  There is little research done on this fact, but I did
find one study that says that a fiber rich diet could lead to
imbalances in several minerals:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=8829129

"In conclusion, the fractional absorption of zinc, copper and magnesium
from the fibre-rich diet was not sufficient to cover intestinal and
urinary losses of these elements, resulting in negative balances."

I'll let everyone soak that in for a while.

Max.

idiot!!!

Heh... being called names by someone who is as unintelligent as you is
really no insult. :)  Name calling is the last bastian of the weak
mind.  It means you have nohting else to offer.  If you really want to
prove me wrong, then go find the raw data used in that study and do
your own calculations.  If there are "hundreds of studies" proving that
increased whole wheat intake is what actually decreases heart disease,
then it shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong.  Just make sure you use
studies that compare whole grain groups to no grain groups of equal
nutritional concern.  Comparing whole grain groups to refined grain
groups is like comparing low octane gas in your gas tank to water.  Of
course the low octane gas is going yield better results.

Put in a way that even you could understand... *put up or shut up.*

Of course, you won't do that because you don't have the mental capacity
to do so.  You just blindly follow the nutritional recommendation du
jur and then post it here as though you've found somthing new.  You
sprinkle it with a few of your ill-gotten opinions to make yourself
think it's your own idea and then wait for people to disprove you so
you can call them names.  So, go ahead with your name calling.  I
actually enjoy reading it.  It makes me laugh.