For this kind of article we need a new word like Steven Colbert's "truthiness". Scienciness? It has a lot of that. This is the reason we don't let MBAs and economists do medical research. The tonnage of grains consumed says nothing about the form in which the grains were eaten. If you want to maintain that a slice of bread and a chunk of beef is equivalent to the same wheat- and meat-equivalent in Hot Pockets, this article will be food for thought.
From the article: Was it that all the grain consumed before 1950 was healthier whole grain? No. As flour became an industrial product in the late 19th century, mills began processing out the germ and other "whole wheat" elements because the fats in the germ caused the flour to go rancid. By 1914, your great grandmothers were mostly baking with white flour. Polished ("white") rice was similarly well established, and for some of the same reasons. And of course corn, the other major American grain, does not have a healthier "whole" alternative.
The author doesn't address meat since she is focusing on the hypothesis that carbs are making us fat.
