[kenjackson]

Here's the best summary on the subject that I've found so far: http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=852

That summary is pretty horrible. Maybe you were testifying to the state of the literature, but it read like two children arguing. Both kind of referring to literature, but little really putting together coherent arguments.

Based on this, I think I'll eat what tastes good. :-)

[Evgeny]

Well, I would say that it's understandable for a layperson, logically sound and has heaps of links to peer reviewed literature. This alone brings it to the top 1% of everything written on the subject.

Based on this, I think I'll eat what tastes good. :-)

Based on this:

You claim whole grains have sufficient minerals to negate their toxic effects. Pity that the high phytate content of whole grains binds to minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, and zinc in the gastrointestinal tract, significantly reducing their absorption by the body[6-8]. While they increase the dietary content of zinc, iron, magnesium and calcium when compared to refined grains, they also promptly increase the excretion of these minerals from the body. The end result is that overall mineral status improves only marginally, remains unchanged, or even worsens[7-12]. If you want to increase your mineral intake, whole grains are a pretty poor way to do it. Far better choices would be fresh non-cereal, non-leguminous plant foods, mineral-rich waters (look for a high magnesium:calcium ratio), ionic mineral solutions such as those sourced from Utah’s Great Salt Lake, and highly bioavailable mineral supplements such as those complexed to citrate, picolinate, etc.

I will not. :-)

[kenjackson]

Foods have complex interactions with humans. I can grab 20 papers that talk about the benefits of whole grains. It's extremely easy to cherry pick the data.

Take this quote from one of the papers noted by the author:

The studies summarized in this review show that the recommendation for increasing dietary fiber in Western communities would not be expected to have any adverse effect on mineral absorption if we increase not only the intake of fiber, but also the dietary intake of other food components such as protein (both vegetable and animal protein) and ascorbic, citric, and oxalic acids (in fruits and vegetables). The adequate intake of minerals, fat, and simple sugars are maintained with this type of diet. The recommendations should be best interpreted in such a way as to prevent the consumption of excessive amounts of phytate, particularly for those whose mineral needs are great. Further studies are still needed in this field in order to understand the conflicting results published in the literature regarding the effects of fiber on the utilization of minerals; however, the studies reviewed in this article may give us an idea of the complexity of mineral availability in fiber-rich, phytate-rich diets.

From a cursory skimming of the references that even your author gives, it seems like only diets exceptionally high with phytate are problematic -- in areas such as Iran. I don't think the typical US diet (even at a 1 std dev) is likely to approach a problem. And as noted here, with reasonable diet modification, the problem can be almost completely mitigated.

I'm not a nutritionist, and don't think about this daily, but the evidence just isn't compelling. And often completely contradictory. Given that, if whole grains in moderation lead to a better quality of life, that's my choice.

Of course if we see that most NBA athletes and centurians avoid whole grains, I would strongly reconsider.

With that said, I actually don't eat many whole grains, and eat more fice. But purely for non-health related reasons.