Ancient Forms of Wheat Are Not Less Likely to Provoke Allergic Reactions Than Modern Ones

Image by Marina Leonova on Pexels

This page will answer the following questions:

What’s the story?

According to some, ancient wheat is less likely than modern wheat to provoke reactions in people who have gluten sensitivity, coeliac disease or wheat allergy.

In the past few years, this idea has become quite widespread. In 2023, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment commissioned a survey of over 1000 random Germans and discovered that around 1 in 2 did not think that spelt was a type of wheat, and around 2 in 3 though that people who were allergic to modern wheat would not be allergic to spelt. But it is and they are.

What is ‘ancient’ wheat anyway?

There’s no universally accepted definition of the term ‘ancient wheat’. When people speak of ancient wheat they’re generally referring to types of wheat that were grown in antiquity but are no longer widely cultivated; namely einkhorn, emmer, Khorasan and spelt.

Wheat has existed for some half a million years (as far as we know) and was first cultivated about 10,000 (or even 12,000) years ago, when most humans transitioned from hunting and gathering their food while on the move to settling down and cultivating it. The earliest cultivated species were einkorn and emmer. They probably originated in the south-eastern part of Turkey, with einkorn being the first known form of wheat and emmer following as the result of a cross between an ancestor of einkorn and a related species of wild grass. Both are thus domesticated forms of an originally wild plant.

By contrast, bread (aka common) wheat has only existed in cultivation, being hybridised around 9000 years ago from domesticated emmer and wild goatgrass. Unlike most forms of einkorn and emmer which are hulled, bread wheat was specifically selected for a genetic trait that made the grain free-threshing, meaning that the grains easily detach from the husk when the plant is threshed, simplifying harvesting.

Hulled forms of bread wheat do exist, and they are called ‘spelt’. Spelt is thought to be a hybridisation of bread wheat and domesticated emmer, and it’s so closely related to bread wheat that it is often regarded as sub-species. Spelt has been cultivated for about 7000 years and was a staple food in parts of Europe between the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages. Although spelt has not been extensively tinkered with like bread wheat, both are readily inter-bred, which has resulted in several modern types of spelt that contain genetic material from bread wheat and are difficult to distinguish from ‘pure’, ancient spelt. In fact, the original, ancient spelt may actually be extinct.

Modern durum (aka pasta) wheat originated from the same wild ancestor as emmer, so both emmer and durum are regarded as different forms of the same species. Durum wheat is free-threshing and is the main wheat crop in the Middle East. We know it as the wheat that’s used to make most of our commercial pastas and is responsible for their familiar yellow hue.

Khorasan wheat is probably a natural hybrid of Polish wheat and durum wheat. It was named after the Khorasan province—a historical region associated with ancient Persia—where it’s thought to have originated. It was ‘rediscovered’ in the 20^th century and is now grown commercially in North America under the trademark Kamut® with an origin story that involves it being discovered in an Egyptian mummy’s tomb, although it was probably bought in the 1940s from an Egyptian street vendor spinning a tall tale.

Grain from any of the 3 forms of hulled wheats are also called ‘farro’; farro grande (spelt), farro medio (emmer) and farro piccolo (einkorn).

Strictly-speaking, no discussion of older wheat lines is complete without mention of heritage—aka heirloom or traditional—cultivars. These are old-fashioned lines of bread and durum wheat that typically date back to before the ‘Green Revolution’, which is the period between the 1930s and 1960s when scientists developed the modern, high-yielding varieties of wheat which are less susceptible to diseases, insects and environmental stresses and contain stronger gluten that is better able to withstand stretching and deformation during bread- and pasta-making processes.

However, while these breeding programs helped to optimise harvesting and improved the quality of breads and pastas, they came with a decrease in genetic variability and an impoverishment in the nutritional properties of the wheat. Thanks to the efforts of generations of farmers and gardeners, heritage cultivars have remained essentially the same since they were introduced during the last centuries before the second World War.

These days, modern bread and durum wheats account for the vast majority of global wheat production, around 95% and 5%, respectively, although a tiny amount einkorn, emmer and spelt is still being grown, mainly to make traditional foods. That said, production of these ancient grains—spelt in particular—is on the rise due to an increase in demand from the health food market.

Image by Carl Tronders on Unsplash

So, is ancient wheat less likely to provoke allergic reactions?

In a word. no.

The vast majority of allergic reactions to food are caused by proteins, and analyses of the protein content of the different types of wheat have shown that ancient and modern wheat generally contain the same kind of proteins, with some variation.

Also, contrary to popular belief, studies carried out in Europe and the United States have shown that breeding has not increased the protein content in wheat. If anything, it has decreased it, as farmers have concentrated on increasing yields, and higher yields mean more starch and less protein.

A total protein decrease over time also implies a decrease in the content of gluten and this is indeed the case, as nicely demonstrated in by researchers who analysed the concentration of protein in 15 cultivars of spelt, durum, emmer, einkorn and bread wheat all grown in the same year at four sites in Germany. They found that, at all four sites, einkorn, emmer and spelt all had higher levels of proteins and glutens than bread wheat, if not modern durum wheat.

Furthermore, gluten proteins are made of up two fractions—gliadin and glutenin—and the gliadin proportion of gluten was found to be higher in the ancient species than in bread wheat, while the proportion of glutenin was roughly the same.

This is noteworthy because, whereas glutenin is important for making good-quality bread, gliadin—notably alpha and beta gliadins—is the part that can trigger the immune system and is responsible for provoking the onset of coeliac disease in people who are genetically predisposed to develop it.

Indeed, several studies that have examined the protein contents of wheat species produced in different areas of the world over the past 150 years or so have reported a higher level of gliadins in the older species of wheat.

Studies using in vitro tests—literally ‘in the glass’ tests, namely tests carried out in test tubes and petri dishes in laboratories—that have examined the potential of different types of wheat to provoke reactions have produced somewhat conflicting results.

Some have reported that ancient forms of wheat contain fewer allergenic epitopes (specific protein fragments that are recognised by IgE antibodies and trigger an immune response) that may cause new cases of coeliac disease and aggravate conditions like gluten sensitivity—also known as ‘non-coeliac gluten sensitivity’ (NCGS) or ‘non-coeliac wheat sensitivity’ (NCWS) to allergists.

One particular species that stands out is einkorn; several studies have reported that it may be less troublesome for people with gluten sensitivity and coeliac disease because it contains many fewer potential allergens than bread wheat and certain varieties seem unable to active the innate immune response, or contain gliadins that are more easily digested and may even have a protective effect against the toxicity of gliadins found in other wheat species.

However, although einkorn is well tolerated by some people with coeliac disease, it’s still not safe for them, although it might be a suitable alternative for people who are intolerant to gluten.

By contrast, other studies have reported that ancient wheats (and heritage cultivars) are probably more dangerous, at least for coeliac sufferers, because of the greater amount of gliadins that are found in their grains, which seem to produce a higher number of protein fragments likely to provoke reactions in people with coeliac disease.

And whether it’s grain from spelt, einkorn, emmer, durum or bread wheat, it’s all equally likely to provoke a reaction in someone who is allergic to wheat. Indeed, at least one cases of anaphylaxis to Kamut® (Khorasan) wheat has already been recorded. In a person who had a history of eating modern bread wheat without any problem.

That said, one study has reported that modern durum wheat contains less omega-gliadin than heritage cultivars, which might be interesting to people who are specifically allergic to that allergen alone, like some people with wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) and very high wheat thresholds, for example. Although I really wouldn’t advise experimentation.

Image by Andrea Prochilo on Pexels

But some people do seem to have fewer problems with ancient wheat, don’t they?

Yes, they do.

It’s important to remember that results that are produced in test tubes do not necessarily translate to humans—or results ‘in vivo’, literally ‘within the living’, in medical-speak. It’s always important to consider the human experience.

As far as this subject is concerned, a significant minority of people with gluten sensitivity report milder symptoms after eating ancient forms of wheat. For example, when Dutch researchers attempted to assess the prevalence of gluten sensitivity in Holland, they surveyed 785 random adults, 49 (6.2%) of whom reported symptoms after eating food containing gluten. Just over a third (35%) of those said that they experienced fewer symptoms when they ate bread made from spelt.

In Italy, researchers questioned 223 adults with a diagnosis of non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS) about their wheat-eating habits. Half of the people surveyed reported consuming ancient grains, including spelt and Khorasan (Kamut®), before their diagnosis and also reported experiencing fewer symptoms (notably, constipation) as a result.

The people who had been consuming ancient grains were also found to have taken (about a year) longer to get a diagnosis than their counterparts who had been eating modern wheat products. The researchers speculated that this might have been because their symptoms had been more tolerable, so they put off going to the doctor.

Among the 107 people who said they were mostly adhering to strict wheat-free diet after their diagnosis, 14 had tried ancient wheat products (mainly because they were cheaper than the wheat-free alternatives) at least once. Of those 14, 3 had had no symptoms and 5 of the 11 who did experience symptoms said that they were more tolerable than those caused by modern wheat products.

More compellingly, two small Italian studies have tested diets containing ancient grains versus diets containing modern grains on people with wheat-related disorders and have reported results favouring the older forms of wheat.

The first was a double-blinded randomised cross-over trial—a trial in which the subjects were randomly assigned to eat first ancient wheat and then modern wheat or vice versa, with neither the subjects nor the researchers knowing who was eating what when until the study was over.

In this study, 20 adults who were diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) ate bread, pasta, biscuits and crackers made from either ancient (namely, (Kamut®)) or modern wheat for 6 weeks before trying products made with the other species of wheat, with a period of 6 weeks in between during which they ate their regular food products. Each week during each part of the trial, they recorded their symptoms in a standardised questionnaire format. Their blood was also analysed before and during the study period.

The researchers reported that the majority (14 of 20) of the subjects experienced a significant decrease in their IBS symptoms—less abdominal pain, bloating and tiredness, better stool consistency—and a better quality of life when eating the ancient wheat products. Additionally, there was a significant decrease in the level of inflammatory mediators (molecules released primarily by immune system cells that promote an inflammatory response) circulating in their blood.

The second study was also a double-blinded randomised cross-over trial, this time involving 42 people with a diagnosis of non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). These subjects were asked to followed a gluten-free diet for 12 weeks before the trial started and were then given pasta made with either ancient (specifically, Senatore Cappelli which is a heritage wheat variety) or modern wheat to incorporate into their diets for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks on a gluten-free diet and then 2 weeks of the other wheat pasta.

Only 34 made it through the trial, with the others dropping out early because of the symptoms they experienced. Of those who tried both types of pasta, 4 stopped eating the ancient wheat pasta before the 2 weeks were up and 9 stopped eating the standard pasta early.

At a group level, the ancient wheat pasta was found to produce significantly lower symptoms scores for bloating, stomach swelling, burping, breaking wind and feelings of ‘incomplete evacuation’ (the feeling that a bowel movement hasn’t been fully completed even after it has), as well as dermatitis and limb numbness.

Image by Marta Dzedyshko on Pexels

How can this be?

Several reasons have been put forward to explain the fact that ancient wheat grains seem to provoke fewer symptoms in people with wheat intolerance.

When it comes to digestive diseases, gluten may not be the problem

In recent years, research has been downsizing the role of gluten in ‘non-coeliac gluten sensitivity’ (NCGS), hence the adoption of the term ‘non-coeliac wheat sensitivity’ (NCWS) by an increasing number of allergists.

Instead, other components in wheat, such as amylase trypsin inhibitors (ATIs) and Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides, and Polyols (FODMAPs), notably fructans, are thought to play a larger role in digestive disorders. There are also a raft of other, non-gluten wheat proteins that could be responsible for the symptoms that don’t affect the digestive system, such as fatigue, headache and joint pain.

Unfortunately, no species of wheat ticks all the right boxes. For example, although some varieties of emmer have been reported to be ‘poor in or devoid of noxious gluten proteins’, or relatively low in FODMAPs compared to other wheat species, others have also been shown to contain greater concentrations of ATIs than modern durum and bread wheat. And while einkorn is relatively low in ATIs, it’s particularly high in fructans.

When it comes to low FODMAP diets, spelt-based products seem to be a popular option. And some scientists support this choice. Some studies have reported that spelt grain and spelt bread has a lower fructan content than modern wheat grain and bread, especially wholemeal bread, which has a higher content of fructans than white bread because fructans are found in the outer grain layers which are discarded when making refined white flour.

However, before you run out and buy a loaf of spelt bread, you should know about the conflicting results from other studies; like the one that reported that spelt contains more ATIs than all the other species of wheat (while durum and bread wheat have some of the lowest levels), and the one that found that that spelt has an average content of fructans that is actually higher than that of modern wheat because, as it turns out, the potential of a specific variety of wheat to form FODMAPs in bread varies wildly. In fact, the FODMAP content in bread can vary five-fold depending on the specific variety of wheat that’s chosen.

These results are corroborated by those of a study that was designed to compare the FODMAP levels of breads made from different varieties of modern and ancient wheat species grown at different locations. For the study, researchers gathered 19 varieties of einkorn, emmer, spelt, bread and durum wheat grown at four different sites in southern Germany. They ground the grains down to analyse them for FODMAPs, and baked bread rolls made from a popular bread wheat and the most widely-grown variety of spelt to see how the baking process would affect the FODMAP content.

After completing their analyses, the researchers concluded that differences between the concentrations of FODMAPs in whole grain flours of bread wheat and spelt were non-significant and that, although emmer and durum yielded significantly lower FODMAP values than bread wheat and einkorn, there was such variation between the individual varieties of each wheat species that ‘dietary recommendations in favour or against the consumption of selected wheat species regarding their FODMAP contents would be untenable.’

But it was the results that they got from analysing the bread rolls that revealed that perhaps it’s not the species of wheat we should be looking to to solve our digestive problems, but how it’s processed.

Baking methods may make the difference

As a rule of thumb, breads made with ancient wheat or heritage cultivars tend to be made using traditional recipes and methods—often because that’s the only way to produce a decent loaf of bread with older types of wheat. However, as well as improving the quality of the product, traditional baking methods may also improve its chances of going down easily.

Modern baking is blamed by some for the rise in wheat-related digestive disorders because, among other things, the industrialised process of bread-making (intensive kneading, high baking temperatures, etc.) may have made wheat-based foods less digestible and more likely to to trigger chronic low-grade inflammation, a situation that is exacerbated by the fact that flour refining leads to the loss of anti-inflammatory compounds and the way we process the wheat may also increased our exposure to immunoreactive compounds.

Industrially-processed breads also contain potentially unhealthy additives, such as emulsifiers (in which case they are classified as ultra-processed foods) and vital gluten, which is added to enhance certain characteristics of the bread and is suspected of at least being partly to blame for the increase in coeliac disease, which became apparent around the same time as we started putting more vital gluten in food products.

By contrast, traditional baking methods include the use of natural yeast—notably sourdough starter—which increases the digestibility of wheat proteins including gluten, and contains bacteria that degrade amylase trypsin inhibitors.

The main difference between natural yeast and commercial yeast is the time they take to leaven bread. Commercial (aka baker’s or brewer’s) yeast is essentially a cultivated strain of a fungus—typically, Saccharomyces cerevisiae—that has been specifically selected for its ability to leaven dough in about 1 to 4 hours, depending on the recipe and temperature used. In comparison, the wild yeast contained in sourdough starter can take 12 to 48 hours to rise bread.

Because sourdough starter contains a unique mixture of bacteria and yeasts, the effects on the dough varies with each specific starter. Different sourdough mixtures need to be paired with different types of dough and different fermentation times are needed to produce optimal results.

But the effort may be worth it, at least if you have digestive disorders like IBS. As well as making wheat more digestible and ridding it of certain allergenic proteins, sourdough baking also reduces the quantities of FODMAPs in the bread; a reduction of the fructan content of less than 50% has been reported when using baker’s yeast, while that numbers jumps to over 90% when using a certain type of sourdough system.

There’s a reason why the Monash Low-FODMAP system, a reputable diet developed to help people with IBS, only labels spelt as ‘safe’ if it comes in the form of a traditional sourdough bread.

But there’s no need to choose spelt. What the German researchers discovered when they compared their modern wheat and spelt bread rolls was that fermentation time was more important than wheat species when it comes to producing a low-FODMAP loaf; even though the spelt wheat grains generally had a lower FODMAP content than the bread wheat ones, if the dough was left to ferment and rise for 4.5 hours, there was actually a slightly smaller amount of FODMAPs left in the modern wheat loaf than the spelt one (0.16g per 100g vs 0.23g per 100g, respectively) by the time it was ready to eat.

Apparently, if dough is fermented for long enough, even a loaf of bread made from modern wheat can be a low-FODMAP option.

But wait. Your sourdough loaf may not be the solution you were hoping for. For a start, recent studies have found that a sourdough starter only alters the FODMAP composition of the bread, reducing the fructan content but increasing the content of mannitol, another type of FODMAP.

And, while a long fermentation time is helpful in reducing the fructan content of wheat bread—especially white bread—the efficiency of the fermentation process depends on how many fructans there are in the first place. Sourdough does not, for example, reduce the fructan content of rye bread, no matter how long the fermentation time, because there is too much fructan in rye.

Some research has also found that yeast may produce better results than sourdough, as far as fructan content is concerned. And the individual results of the baking process on different types of wheat are all over the place. Emmer, for example, which has consistently been found to have the lowest FODMAP/dietary fibre content in the grain itself, produces a loaf of bread with more sugar and glycerol in it, no matter what type of fermentation system is used (although the health results of this are not known). An emmer-containing sourdough loaf also has more mannitol in it.

It probably helps that ancient wheats like emmer and (whole grain) Khorasan inhibit the fermentation of yeast, meaning that more yeast and longer fermentation times have to be used when making bread from these grains in order to produce a tasty product, which then also ends up with less FODMAPs in it. But as researchers in this study have (also) found, as long as dough is proofed for at least 3 hours, modern species of wheat are also unlikely to ‘act as major gas-forming triggers of gastrointestinal discomfort’. And neither is pasta, which loses up to half of its fructans in the cooking water. Apparently, a person would have to eat the equivalent of 1 to 2 kilos of bread or cooked pasta to exceed what is considered to be a safe dose of fructans for most people.

So, as long as the dough has been proofed long enough, any wheat will do if you’re trying to avoid FODMAPs. The authors of the previous study advise instead avoiding bread supplemented with sucrose (apparently common in American pan bread), because it breaks down into poorly digestible fructose and is more likely to cause gastrointestinal symptoms.

Image by tom analogicus on Pexels

So, ancient wheat may not be the secret to enjoying symptom-free baked goods after all?

That’s right. There are other explanations for the symptom-relief that some people with wheat sensitivities experience after eating ancient grains that don’t involve the type of wheat at all.

The growing environment is more important than the species of wheat

Some studies which have compared traditional types of bread wheat with modern types of bread wheat in different growing conditions have found that, although older and modern types of wheats are genetically similar, there are small differences in grain composition which can, at least in part, be explained by the effects of the environment and the conditions under which they are grown.

For example, when German researchers examined 60 German cultivars that were grown in 3 different years for specific gluten fragments known to trigger an immune response in people with coeliac disease, they found that the harvest year had a larger impact on the wheat’s potential to provoke reactions than the species of wheat itself.

Likewise, the amount of nitrogen in the environment has a bigger effect on the protein content of wheat than its genotype, with higher levels of nitrogen producing grains that contain more protein, which itself contains more gluten which, in turn, contains a bigger proportion of gliadins.

Temperature also has an effect on protein content. When French researchers studied the effects of temperature and nitrogen supply on wheat grain grown in different years in France, they found that the proportion of omega-gliadin (a major allergen for wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis) in total gliadin increased with both factors, whereas the alpha- and beta-gliadins (major allergens for IgE-mediated wheat allergy and coeliac disease) increased with the temperature and decreased with the nitrogen supply and γ-gliadins (also major allergens for IgE-mediated wheat allergy) did the opposite.

Similarly, an international team of researchers examined the genome of 3 different cultivars—2 Norwegian varieties and 1 Chinese—and also reported temperature effects on the protein content of the cultivars, finding that high temperatures increased the expression of omega- and alpha-gliadins and low temperatures increased the content of protein families related to WDEIA or baker’s asthma, but decreased the level of proteins primarily associated with coeliac disease, which each type of wheat being affected to a different extent.

It could be a question of mind over matter

Sometimes we just really want something to be good for us. So it is.

In 2022, a team of German researchers recruited 24 adults who reported symptoms after eating modern wheat products but none after eating spelt for an experiment to compare wheat bread with spelt bread and more traditional baking methods versus current ones. The study participants were randomly assigned to eat wheat bread or spelt made either in a ‘current manner’ or a traditional one (i.e. with a longer fermentation period). They also tried out a loaf of bread with added gluten and one with added oligosaccharides (one of the FODMAPs).

Each participant ended up eating 6 types of bread in a random order over a period of 6 weeks, with a 3-day (or longer, if necessary) gluten-free period in between the different breads. The study was single blinded, meaning that the participants did not know which type of bread they were eating during each test period. Everyone’s symptoms were noted and scored according to a formal IBS scale and their poop was collected so that the researchers could look for certain markers indicating a leaky gut or signs of inflammation.

After analysing all the results at the end of the trial, there were some surprises; although the participants had expected to feel worse after eating the bread wheat loaves, that didn’t happen. In fact, their symptom scores were actually a little worse after eating the spelt breads, which performed a little worse than both the modern wheat breads and significantly worse than the loaf made with added oligosaccharides. The spelt bread baked using a traditional method was the worst of the lot, making the subjects feel significantly worse than all of the other breads, including the one with added gluten.

Neither was there evidence that ancient wheats produced fewer inflammatory chemicals, or were, for the most part, less likely to produce a leaky gut, although there were some signs of a leakier gut after eating the wheat bread made with the shorter fermentation period.

The authors of the study concluded that people who feel worse after eating modern wheat are probably experiencing a strong a nocebo effect because of the negative things they hear about it in the popular press and on social media.

The nocebo effect is the evil twin of the better-known placebo effect; rather than something making a person feel better just because they expect it to, the nocebo effect describes the phenomenon where something makes a person feel worse just because they expect it to.

The Italian researchers weren’t the first to point out that modern wheat, or at least gluten, was labouring under negative expectations. When two Spanish researchers analysed data from 4 double-blinded gluten challenges given to 231 adults diagnosed with NCGS, they found that only 38 (16%) of them actually showed gluten-specific symptoms, whereas 94 (40%) showed nocebo responses.

In 2024, a double-blinded study specifically designed to test the effect of expectations on the symptoms suffered by people with gluten sensitivity took place across 3 locations in the Netherlands and the UK. 84 adults with self-reported gluten sensitivity were randomly assigned to one of four groups based on the expectancy to eat either gluten-containing or gluten-free bread for breakfast and lunch and the actual intake of either gluten-containing or gluten-free bread (i.e. they expected to eat gluten but didn’t, they expected to eat gluten and did, they didn’t expect to eat gluten and didn’t, they didn’t expect to eat gluten but did).

After analysing the reported gastrointestinal symptoms of the participants across all four groups, the researchers determined that the GI symptom scores of the people who expected to eat gluten and actually ate it were significantly higher than those of every other group, including those of the people who ate gluten but didn’t expect to, showing that expectations do have some effect. There was also no significant difference between the scores of those who expected to eat gluten but didn’t eat it, and those who didn’t expect to eat it, but did. All of which effectively implies that a nocebo effect is responsible for at least some of the symptoms experienced by people who are gluten sensitive (and even if their symptoms are due to something other than gluten).

The researchers had shown that people’s feelings about wheat affected their physical reactions to it, and they also suspected the involvement of the gut-brain axis, which is essentially a 2-way communication system between the microbes in your gut and your brain. The gut-brain axis has become a hot topic in recent years, as researchers have shown that gut microbes not only help you to process your food, they can also influence your mood, behaviour and choices. (And if you’re interested in finding out more about this, I can recommend this book, and for those who prefer to get your information aurally, the author of that book is interviewed in this podcast.)

On a purely physical level, research has also shown a clear link between gut microbes and food allergy and the gut microbiota has also been implicated in the workings of both IBS and coeliac disease.

Crucially, everyone’s microbiome is different, and individuality probably has a lot to answer for when it comes to our reaction to food in general, and to different types of wheat in particular.

It could be because the world is not populated by clones

I hate it when I see advice from people stating that everyone should be eating the same thing, or doing the same exercises or buying the same products, as if we’re all copies of the same person with the same life experience. But nature doesn’t work like that.

Over the millennia, wheat has managed to adapt to nearly every growing environment in the world, which is reflected both in the plant’s vast genetic diversity—there are now over 25,000 varieties of modern wheat alone!—and the composition of its grains, which contain different amounts of the bioactive compounds that the various cultivars need to maintain their health.

A good indication of the diversity among different wheat cultivars is given by research carried out under the umbrella of the EU Healthgrain programme which analysed a collection of 150 bread wheat lines and 50 lines of other cereal species grown in different locations and at different times. The scientists found that the concentration of components like dietary fibre and phytochemicals varied between around 1.5 times to 16 times among the different varieties. Protein content ranged between roughly 13% and 20% in wholemeal and between roughly 10% and 19% in white flours.

Likewise, other comparisons of the major FODMAPs and dietary fibre in various varieties of ancient and modern wheat have failed to show a clear differentiation between the species, with concentrations of the various components often overlapping, different studies coming up with different figures, and no clear ‘winners’ in any camp when it comes to potentially problematic allergens, either.

And then there are the natural and beneficial (to us) mutations. For example, when Australian researchers set out to determine the prevalence of wheat sensitivity in the Australian population, they tested effect of bread wheat and spelt on blood samples taken from 1145 random Australians and found that 73 were sensitised to wheat. Of these 73 blood samples, 39 showed a higher response to bread wheat and 31 showed a higher response to European-grown spelt. But when they tested those blood samples against a locally-grown Australian spelt with a mutation in its expansin protein gene, the response was much lower; only 4 samples showed a higher immune response to this spelt than to the wheat, and the responses were of a lower intensity.

Other mutations that could be beneficial include the fact that certain varieties of einkorn lack amylase trypsin inhibitors and that the Monlis variety of einkorn wheat lacks omega-gliadins.

We humans, too, are a unique blend of nature and nurture and we all react slightly differently to food.

This is nicely illustrated by a double-blinded study in which Dutch researchers recruited 20 adults with self-reported gluten sensitivity to try out 6 different types of bread (prepared with bread wheat, spelt or emmer using long or short fermentation times). Most of the study participants experienced GI symptoms to at least one of the breads, and the researchers suspected that their individual gut microbiomes were responsible for this variation. Whatever the cause of the disparities, the researchers were unable to recommend either a species of wheat or a fermentation method that would produce fewer symptoms in the average person.

Some people even seem to feel better when they eat modern wheat; in the Italian study that tested a 6-week diet containing Kamut versus one containing modern wheat on 20 adults with IBS, several of them actually found that their symptoms improved after eating the modern wheat products; 5 were less bothered by stomach pain, 3 had less bloating, and 4 had better bowel movements. Ultimately, 5—a quarter—of the subjects in the study felt significantly better after consuming the modern wheat products.

The baking method doesn’t effect everyone in the same way, either. In 2017 Finnish research carried out double-blinded study designed to compare the effects of sourdough bread with those of yeast-fermented bread in people with IBS. They recruited 26 adults with IBS and prepared 2 different breads for them to eat. Both were made with modern wheat, but one was prepared using traditional methods—a sourdough starter, a 12-hour proofing period and traditional equipment—and one was made in an industrial scale bakery and prepared the ‘modern way’—yeast-fermented for 2 hours and stuffed with the usual additives; wheat gluten, bread improvers (like emulsifiers) and preservatives. The study participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups and ate either the modern or the traditionally-prepared bread over a period of 7 days. The breads’ contents were examined for FODMAPS and amylase trypsin inhibitors, and the participants’ blood was examined for inflammatory compounds. They were also asked to answer standardised questions about their symptoms.

Once the results were analysed, the researchers were able to say that the traditionally prepared sourdough bread contained fewer FODMAPs and fewer ATIs. But that had made no overall difference to either the gastrointestinal symptoms or the inflammation markers of the study’s participants. Some of the study subjects even reported feeling worse (more tired and achy and less alert) after eating the sourdough bread.

All of which goes to show that there’s no accounting for taste or tolerance.

Image by Karyna Panchenko on Pexels

What about people with wheat allergy?

All of the ‘in vivo’ studies that have favourably compared ancient wheats to modern forms involve people with wheat intolerance.

When it comes to research comparing ancient and modern forms of wheat, a couple of studies have suggested that ancient wheat might provide more favourable outcomes for people with wheat allergies, but they come with large caveats and should be taken with a substantial shaker of salt.

In 2012, Spanish researchers gave 66 adults with oral wheat allergy (22) or baker’s asthma (44) oral or bronchial challenges and skin prick tests with bread wheat and spelt. Spelt seemed to provoke fewer reactions in people than bread wheat; the bronchial challenge was positive when using bread wheat in all 44 people with baker’s asthma, but only 13 (29.5%) when using spelt. Similarly, the oral challenge was positive for all 22 people with wheat food allergy when using bread wheat, but only 6 (27.3%) of them with spelt. The skin test responses were also smaller with spelt.

The researchers concluded that spelt may be an option for some people with wheat allergy, although they stressed that people should first undergo testing before trying spelt. However, they provided very few details about their methods and the resulting symptoms and the study has come under criticism for its sparse write-up. They also don’t seem to take into account the differences between the various wheat cultivars; in fact, although they name the modern wheat cultivar that they use for testing, they don’t name the variety of spelt, which make one wonder how applicable their results are. And, most tellingly, their results have not been replicated in any other study.

And there’s the Australian study that examined the response of some wheat-allergic people to wheat and mutated spelt (and was sponsored by the company growing said spelt) and reported a lower (but not ‘no’) immune response to that spelt among people who were sensitised to wheat.

For a start, a ‘lower immune response’ to spelt was not the case for everyone—some people’s antibodies actually showed a higher response to European and/or Australian spelt. To know which category you fall into, you’d have to try the spelt and deal with the consequences.

And then there’s the fact that blood tests for wheat allergy are unreliable, and the level of IgE antibodies in a person’s blood cannot reliably predict whether or not that person is actually allergic to wheat. Sometimes people who show high levels of specific IgE antibodies to a food are not allergic to that food, and sometimes people who show very low (or even, no) antibodies to a food actually are allergic to that food. That’s why the oral food challenge is considered the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosing food allergies.

So, even though the researchers asked people to self-report their symptoms to wheat in an attempt to separate those with allergies from those with a harmless sensitisation, since they didn’t actually feed those people spelt under medical supervision, we cannot conclude that the spelt would be less harmful to them than modern wheat if they actually ate it.

I would like to state at this point that it’s highly unlikely that anyone with a wheat allergy would be okay eating spelt, a form of wheat. Perhaps a certain variety grown under certain conditions may not provoke a reaction because it’s missing the precise allergen that you’re allergic to, but you would have to be allergic only to that one allergen and then you’d have to be sure that you always ate that particular variety and that it was always grown under the same conditions.

Also, in case you were wondering, the way you cook the wheat won’t help, either. Although cooking wheat does reduce its ability to provoke reactions, the end product still contains several proteins that are known to cause symptoms in people allergic to wheat and several more that potentially could.

So, if you have a wheat allergy, do not try random ancient wheats at home.

Image by Vilnis Husko on Pexels

Since we’re here, is ancient wheat at least a healthier option than modern wheat?

Maybe.

Research to date does not reveal huge differences between ancient and heritage grains and modern grains as far the amount of most bioactive components goes; in general, the older cultivars seem to contain less dietary fibre but are higher in antioxidant phenolic compounds such as flavonoids, lignans and phenolic acids.

There is clear agreement among those who’ve looked closely at the content of wheat grains that einkorn, Emmer, and Khorasan all have a higher content of carotenoids—particularly lutein (which einkorn is particularly rich in), a powerful antioxidant which is good for eye health—than bread wheat. But so does durum wheat, because breeders have selected for the yellow colour to which the carotenoids contribute. By contrast, carotenoids have been selected against in bread wheat which is valued for its white flour colour.

The problem is that these nutritious compounds are often dependent on growing conditions—like the weather, or the amount of nitrogen or sulphur in the fertiliser—genetic factors and season, meaning that the beneficial content of wheat grown in different parts of the world or in different years tends to vary widely. This is especially the case for compounds like phenolic acids and folates (vitamin B9) which are reported to be very dependent on growing conditions and not highly heritable.

More importantly, trying to determine how healthy a species of wheat is based simply on an assessment of its bioactive compound content and how the individual nutrients behave in a test tube is problematic for several reasons.

For a start, it’s not what’s in the grain that’s important, but how much of it actually reaches the parts of the body where it’s needed; that is, how bioavailable the nutrient is. This depends on all sort of things from how it’s processed, how it’s cooked and which other foods it’s eaten with to how well an individual’s digestive system deals with it.

Other factors like circulating metabolites—small molecules produced during metabolism—in the blood also seem to impact the effectiveness of certain nutrients.

And we are also becoming more aware of the fact that a food is more than the sum of its bioactive components, a concept otherwise known as food synergy.

Happily, there have been studies specifically designed to compare the effects of diets containing bread, pasta, crackers and biscuits made from ancient wheat cultivars or from modern wheat varieties on both patients and healthy subjects, and these seem to show a clear advantage of the older cultivars when it comes to their anti-inflammatory effects and their ability to manage cholesterol and blood sugar levels.

As such, we now know that a diet of Khorasan (Kamut®) wheat or emmer helps patients with diabetes to reduce their levels of total and ‘bad’ cholesterol, glucose, insulin and certain inflammatory risk factors, as well as their weight and blood pressure.

By lowering a person’s cholesterol and inflammation levels, Khorasan wheat—and heritage cultivars—also reduce a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease and of atherosclerosis and provide extra protection for people with Acute Coronary Syndrome, regardless of whatever medication(s) they are taking.

Khorasan wheat has also been shown to improve the liver function of people with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), reduce the levels of pro-inflammatory compounds produced by muscles during strenuous exercise in the blood of athletes and reduce the risk of developing metabolic syndrome. It also encourages the growth of friendly bacteria in the gut. And einkorn promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria in the guts of pigs, so probably ours, too.

Now, most of these studies included small numbers of subjects (generally between 20 to 30 people) and the vast majority compared Kamut® with one type of modern wheat, so they only cover a tiny fraction of all the wheat cultivars being eaten around the world and don’t have much to say about crops grown under different conditions. Kamut® grain grown in North America, for example, is richer in the powerful anti-oxidant selenium than Khorasan grain grown in Europe and potentially has a larger anti-inflammatory effect.

All of which means that we cannot definitively conclude that the beneficial effects reported in these studies are due to the genetic superiority ancient types of wheat, or whether they are related to the effects of the growing environment (or interactions between the wheat genotype and the environment).

And let’s not forget that ancient and heritage wheats tend to be processed and cooked in a different way to modern wheats, which gives them a nutritional (and a digestive) advantage.

Most bread wheat, for example, is milled to within an inch of its life, producing a flour that’s almost devoid of the fibre and vitamins that were contained in the wheat germ. And that’s probably what most of the subjects of the previous studies were eating before they were put on ancient wheat diets. By contrast, most ancient and heritage wheats are milled in millstones that produce wholemeal or less refined types of flours with more nutritional benefit.

But research shows that if someone eats wholegrain modern wheat, they should enjoy many of the same kinds of benefits as someone who eats ancient wheat, including a reduced risk of getting type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, and certain cancers, as well as mortality from all causes. Also, they are less likely to gain weight over time and more likely to enjoy better digestive health. Wholegrain wheat is also better for your gut bacteria than refined wheat.

That said, ancient wheats are known for their ability to grow naturally and to have a good level of resistance to nutrient-poor soil, drought, temperature extremes, pests and diseases, which means that they need less fertiliser and fewer pesticides, making them unequivocally less toxic for both you and the environment.

Image by gokcinar photo on Pexels

What does this all mean?

The bottom line is that, whether it’s ancient or modern, wheat is still wheat, and if you’re allergic to wheat or you have coeliac disease, you need to avoid all wheat, no matter how historic its provenance. There is no hypoallergenic wheat. Yet.

If you have a disorder like IBS or gluten sensitivity, however, you can afford to experiment because the consequences, though perhaps miserable, will not be life-threatening. If you find that an older variety of wheat seems to give you less trouble, by all means keep eating it. It may genuinely be better for you or it may not, it’s really not important as long as you think that it is. That’s the joy of the placebo effect.

And if you just want to make healthy food choices, pick any type of wheat, as long as it’s wholegrain and, preferably, organic.

Image by Tymur Khakimov on Pexels