Ancient grains such as quinoa, spelt, and chia seeds have surged in popularity, with many claims that they are more nutritious than modern grains. However, scientists caution that the evidence is not as clear-cut as it may seem.
Ancient grains are those that have remained largely unchanged for hundreds or even thousands of years, unlike modern crops like wheat, which have been selectively bred for traits such as higher yield and better taste. Proponents argue that ancient grains retain more of their original genetic properties and therefore offer superior health benefits.
Grains, whether ancient or modern, are a major source of fibre, carbohydrates, and some protein. Health experts recommend that at least half of the grains we consume be wholegrains, which contain all three original components: bran, endosperm, and germ. Wholegrains are rich in vitamins, polyphenols, and fibre, and have been linked to a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers. Refined grains, by contrast, lose much of their fibre and nutrients during processing.
Yet the perceived benefits of ancient grains may be overstated. Julie Miller Jones, professor emerita of foods and nutrition at St. Catherine University in Minnesota, notes that population studies are often confounded because people who eat wholegrains tend to have healthier overall diets. A Finnish study of over 5,000 adults found that wholegrain consumers also ate more fruits, vegetables, low-fat milk, and fish, and less red and processed meat.
While ancient grains like spelt, emmer, and barley have a long history—dating back to Neolithic times—modern grains have been bred for desirable traits over millennia. The key difference is that ancient grains have not been intentionally altered by humans, but whether this translates into meaningful health advantages remains uncertain.
