Wheatgrass madness

I was at the Jamba Juice looking at their menu. Some people are apparently big on wheatgrass. I wonder why. Perhaps it’s:

…due largely to its chlorophyll content (chlorophyll is the pigment that gives plants their green color. It absorbs sunlight necessary for photosynthesis, hence the term "liquid sunshine").

But according to the DeKalb Medical Center:

Only cud-chewing animals with multiple stomachs can properly digest grass to absorb its nutrients. Even though we can decide to liquefy wheatgrass into a juice we still can not benefit from it.

(My bold.)

Humans can’t digest grass: you need multiple stomachs like a cow. Can’t be that then. Perhaps it’s the:

… enzymes wheatgrass juice delivers. Enzymes are complex protein compounds produced by living cells that speed up biochemical reactions required for proper and normal functioning of every organ system and have also been found to aid digestion!

Enzymes have been found to aid digestion? Well, of course they have – but not the enzymes in stuff you eat! From the National Council Against Health Fraud:

Enzymes are complex protein molecules produced by living organisms exclusively for their own use in promoting chemical reactions. Orally ingested enzymes are digested in the stomach and have no enzymatic activity in the eater.

(My bold.)

The plant produces enzymes to help it (the plant) digest the nutrients it needs. The human body produces enzymes to help it (the human body) digest the nutrients it needs. But they are not the same enzymes – they’re different molecules! Plant enzymes in stuff you eat do not aid your digestion.

Perhaps it’s all the other stuff it contains, for example

…all amino acids … essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals, vitamins A, C and Bs… iron and vitamin K.

But according to Jamba Juice’s own nutrition facts table, a 2oz shot only has 15% of the daily requirement of vitamin C and 20% of iron, with no mention of vitamin K, etc (0% vitamin A - not even a rounding error). Can’t be that then. You could eat a banana, drink some orange juice and get more benefit. They taste better too. (Oh yeah, it can’t be the taste either.)

Getting even deeper into the woo:

It is said a shot of wheatgrass juice can help cleanse the blood and other tissues

I’m sure it has been said. It’s still complete crap. Also:

wheatgrass proponent Piter U. Caizer, known as the "wheat grass messiah," argues that there is literally an energy, a life force eastern healers call "chi," present in fresh-squeezed wheatgrass

Of course! It’s the “chi”. It contains something no scientific instrument has even been able to detect. Wow!  How do they know? I’m convinced.

Anyway, I found one thing that Jamba Juice and the National Council Against Health Fraud do agree on. First (all emphasis mine) the National Council Against Health Fraud

…it is conceivable that enzymes present in rectally-administered wheatgrass juice could have chemical activity

And Jamba Juice:

For the more dedicated enthusiast, wheat grass can be taken as an enema!

So it’s official. For all the good this stuff does, you might as well stick it up your ass.

Edit: August 12, 2008

See my follow up post: Wheatgrass - Still Can't Digest It.

Comments

[Danny]

Ouch, rectally-administered wheatgrass. I think I'll pass that and drink some homeopathically energized water instead. At least that one's known to be a source of H2O.

[Paul]

Damn! I like reading your blog.

[Pete]

I enjoy your blog, and agree that wheatgrass as a nutritional supplement is bogus. I like the irony involved in adding a little "boost" to your 460 calorie, 84g-of-sugar shake. But a question about your assertion that ingested enzymes can't help with digestion - what about lactase enzyme pills for people who are lactose intolerant? They seem to help me.

[Skeptico]

Pete:

Good question. It is possible that lactase enzyme pills work, although I don't know for sure. But if they work it will be because a human lactase enzyme (or an analog) has been engineered into the pill. That is different from saying that vegetable enzymes aid human digestion.

Glad you like the blog.

[Skeptico]

Danny

Re: rectally-administered wheatgrass - I think it just tastes better that way. Although that wouldn't be hard.

[Ray]

Your site is really important to keep us reality based, and I really enjoyed the series on astrology. Keep up the good work.

Just a few minor corrections:

Only cud-chewing animals with multiple stomachs can properly digest grass to absorb its nutrients. Even though we can decide to liquefy wheatgrass into a juice we still can not benefit from it.

The cud is for obtaining energy from cellulose, the structural polymer in plant cell walls. Cellulose is made of glucose (like starch), but only certain bacteria have the enzymes necessary to break down cellulose. Nutrients in plants (proteins, vitamins, and minerals) are all available when the cell walls are broken apart by chewing or juicing. Because grasses generally contain silica grit and other stuff (I don't know about this particular "wheat grass"), chewing is not very efficient for breaking down cell walls. So if you want your nutrients from grass (as opposed to fruits and vegetables), juicing is ok. As the juicing won't break down the cellulose, we humans still won't get significant amounts of energy from the drink.

Humans can’t digest chlorophyll: you need multiple stomachs like a cow.

We can digest chlorophyll, it is chemically similar to blood (with magnesium instead of iron). Try some blutwurst.

[Ray Girvan]

Ah, enzymes. This is one of the idee fixes of our Scottish nutritionist, who promotes the idea of eating food with enzymes (not human digestive enzymes, but any old enzymes) including her commercial 'living food' supplements - for which she has yet to take up the challenge of a comparative test.

[latibulum]

Chi only works if you pronounce it properly.

[Skeptico]

Ray:

Thanks for the correction. I have edited the post to say “Humans can’t digest grass” (instead of “Humans can’t digest chlorophyll”).

[Eric]

Found this blog via Randi. This is an excellent blog. Keep up the good work! I'll keep reading it. :)

[Ben M]

Another example of an orally-ingested, active enzmye is Beano---the anti-flatulence pill. It's an enzyme that helps you break down certain carbohydrates before they can reach, and nourish, your friendly intestinal fauna.

I don't know what the enzyme is; all the Beano web page says is that it is from "a natural source".

[Eric Gunnerson]

There are two methods mammals use to digest cellulose. The most known method is the one used by ruminants.

There is another class that harbors cellulose-digesting bacteria in their caecum (where a human appendix is), and those bacteria ferment the cellulose.

Some animals absorb enough of the fermentation byproducts through the walls of the caecum and the large intestine.

Others - such as the capybara - resort to coprophagy, sending the now digestible byproduct on another trip through the system.

http://www.glenoakzoo.org/Capy%20Standards.pdf

[Ray]

> such as the capybara

And, a more commonplace example, the rabbit.

[TallDave]

Linked here from Lambert. Great stuff, thanks for sharing.

[Mongrel]

Just caught this page, getting behind in my reading as we're busy at work...

In regards the lactase enzyme pills. 2 explanations spring to mind for me
1) As they're considered normal for humans all it does is "repopulate" the stomach
2) Many tablets are resistant to stomach acid (enteric coated) and pass through the stomach to be broken down somewhere else in the digestive chain

[Skeptico]

Good points - thanks. Of course, tablets are coated so they are resistant to stomach acid, as they get absorbet at the right time. I had forgotten that.

[nick]

Why would wheat grass juice no be healthy for you when we are told to eat greens, ie. lettuce turnip greens, spinich etc. ?

[Skeptico]

Nick:

Because humans can’t digest grass. Didn’t you read the article? It’s explained there.

[Dana Hata]

Actually, human digestion can be assisted by 2 plant produced enzymes that I know of- papain from the Papaya, and bromelain from the Pineapple. They are partially but not completely destroyed by stomach acid.

Also, I read the article but I want to know why exactly, humans wouldn't be able to digest nutrients from liquefied grass. Is it the cell wall, and if so, wouldn't the cell wall be broken down (and thus the nutrients within released) in a rigorous liquefication? I don't know, just curious and would like some answers.

[Sammy G]

Well, one things for sure. Humans cannot get calories from cellulose in plants. I dont see why the couldnt get vitamins and minerals. In fact, we CAN. Why else would vegitables be good for us? Im sure this wheatgrass isnt the miracle cancer desolving superfood it is hyped up to be, but I dont see why its juice, like so many other fruit/veggie juices, cant be good for us?

To deny that it has some nutritional/health value just seems thickheaded to me

[Skeptico]

Plants yes. Grass, no.

I'm sure you don't see why this is, but fortunately we don’t have to rely on your ability to understand things, other people understand it:

Ruminants have a unique digestive system. You may have noticed cows sitting down, constantly chewing .... then swallowing .... waiting a bit ... then burping and chewing again. Other times you may have seen cows grazing - that is eating grass - and they seem to have their mouths glued to the grass, never pausing to chew! Let's start at the beginning and follow the grass through the cow until it's turned into milk. While we have just one stomach, cows have four! Each one does a different job.

1. Rumen. When a cow grazes grass and other fodder, she swallows it half chewed and stores it in the first stomach, the rumen. In here, digestive fluids and bacteria soften it, then it moves onto the second stomach.

2. Reticulum. In this stomach, big lumps of grass are softened more and formed into smaller lumps called cuds. Each cud returns to the mouth (which looks like the cow burping) and is then chewed for about one minute - or 40 to 60 times! The cow then swallows the well-chewed cud and it goes into the third stomach.

3. Omasum. In here it is broken down even more and some of the nutrients are absorbed into the blood stream. It finally goes into the fourth stomach.

4. Abomasum. This stomach acts rather like ours. In here, the food is mixed with digestive juices which break it down further. Then it passes into the intestine, where the nourishment can be easily absorbed into the blood stream.

I did explain this in my post. Cows have four stomachs; humans have just one. To deny that wheatgrass has no nutritional/health value for humans just seems thickheaded to me.

[woly]

i think sammy g understands that we cant get energy from grass but does not understand how other plants such as cellary are any different to grass

[Skeptico]

Good question - I have no idea. If anyone knows the answer to that question, please enlighten us.

[Juan]

In what way is the chlorophyll of spinach different from that of wheatgrass? Or, for that matter, the chlorophyll of any other (better tasting) green leafy vegetable? Could I get enough chlorophyll from those other plants and bypass the expensive 2 oz. shot of wheatgrass juice. Growing this stuff is very involved for city folks. If this stuff is so great, why don't I see hordes of people demanding it? What gives?

[woly]

ummm juan, i think the point of this article is that wheat grass is NOT so great and is infact bogus. unless you were refering to something else?

[Mark]

Hi there. I've just come across your site and found the wheat grass debate very interesting.I'm 100% in agreement with you that grass is undigestable,and not only that but all fruits,vegetables and nuts have cell walls made of cellulose, and human beings do not possess the enzyme to break it down properly.Biologically and evolutionarily we are carnivours,designed to thrive on high fat,high protein,low carb diets.I live in England and i have emailed the '5 a day'organisation and the N.H.S and numerous slimming clubs asking them to explain to me why we are told to eat lots of fruit and veg when we can't digest it properly. None have replied. I also asked two doctors and four nurses and two research scientists and the only thing they came up with was that we need them for roughage!! Don't know if your aware of it,but a great site is Barry Groves-second opinions. It's all in there. Interesting site,i shall visit it some more.Regards,mark

well i still believe that although, as far as i know, we cannot absorb the energy from plants we can still obtain the vitamins and minerals which would be the reason why we should still eat vegies and fruits.

a friend of mine studying science at university told me that cellulose is a form of carbohydrate, although we cannot absorb this kind of energy we can still get the sugars and protiens from it. im not sure if this is correct but that was his explanation.

[mark]

Hi there.I was just wondering if anyone could help me with a question which has been puzzling me? I was asked, where do herbivours get their complete protein from if they don't eat animals? because plant matter does not contain all eight essential amino acids.Do herbivours require different amino acids to us,and maybe they get them from grasses and plants??? Help!

[Dr. Chris Reynolds]

I agree that a lot of rubbish has been propagated about wheatgrass, particularly the myth that chlorophyll is "almost identical" to hemoglobin. That is simply nonsensical, yet virtually a whole industry has been built around this "fact". In my view, it's not the nutritional value of wheatgrass that's important. My clinical experience with it and the research I have done suggests it acts as a highly effective immunomodulator. This appears to have a "normalising" effect on damaged and diseased tissue.
There is a substantial body of scientific and medical research that has shown repeatedly (since the 30's to the present day) that there are biological actives in the grasses generally (wheatgrass is only one of them) that have quite powerful therapeutic effects, particularly in wound healing, burns and fracture treatment and so on.
I've spent ten years working with a wheatgrass extract in medical practice that has proven itself time and again to be highly effective in numerous medical conditions. It's all there on my website: http://www.wheatgrassprofessional.info if anyone wants to take a look.
Cheers from Melbourne.

[Skeptico]

Can you please provide a link to some of the actual studies done that show wheatgrass has some effect? And I mean the studies, not just your summaries. Thanks.

[Objectivityiskey]

To stay objective, is one of man’s most difficult tasks. Science is an ideology of thought that grows with refined observation and technological insight. If wheatgrass is neutral to the human body, then what is the harm in ingesting this juice for strictly a subjective whim? Nothing at all! Some people might need a crutch to keep their emotional gear in drive, and if wheatgrass fuels their action to sustain life, then who are you to tell them they are foolish. If wheatgrass is harmfull to he human body, then obviously this substance should be avoided, but if this juice is later found to benefit man and his wish to live, then dam all of you who judge to quickly. If life is your standard for morality, then allow life’s uncharted wonders time to grow and show their identity!

[Aaron]

Perhaps some of you should worry more about your education than whether or not to eat grass. The spelling skills of some people here are incredibly poor. Seriously, "celery" is on my 5th grade daughter's reading list.

It's not "cellary" it's "celery"
It's not "dam" it's "damn"
It's not "harmfull" it's "harmful"

[HCN]

What can you say when the spelling police come to comment more than two months later?

[Gef]

with all due respect people, there are many things that science has not been able to prove, am I not right?

Quote "Of course! It’s the “chi”. It contains something no scientific instrument has even been able to detect. Wow! How do they know? I’m convinced."

Sorry friend, but I am much more inclined to take credence from thousands of years of Chinese medicine than your poor attempt at 5 minutes of fame. And as an asside, I was infertile, and with only a homeopathic remedy and wheatgrass juice, raised my sperm count 400%, morphology 350% & motility 10%, and conceived shortly after these tests. Oops, dont report me to the National council against health fraud, because I must have made all this up to make a profit from wheatgrass!!! Tuh.

[Simon]

Hi Mark from Melbourne. Try something for me. Eat nothing but meat for 2 weeks and let me know where your family plan to bury you. I will plant some vegetables around your plot for you.

[Skeptico]

Re: with all due respect people, there are many things that science has not been able to prove, am I not right?

Yes, but you draw the wrong conclusion from this. You think the corollary is that anything that has not been disproven, that you like the sound of, is worthy of consideration. But it is not. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. There is no reason to suppose chi is real, and no reason to suppose wheatgrass is good for you, other than:

Re: Sorry friend, but I am much more inclined to take credence from thousands of years of Chinese medicine than your poor attempt at 5 minutes of fame.

Which is an Appeal To Ancient Tradition

Thousands of years ago people thought the Sun went around the Earth; the ancient Chinese didn’t know blood circulated or what the organs were for. They were wrong. If something has been around for “thousands of years” that doesn’t make it right, it just makes it old.

Re: And as an asside, I was infertile, and with only a homeopathic remedy and wheatgrass juice, raised my sperm count 400%, morphology 350% & motility 10%, and conceived shortly after these tests.

Which is an anecdote.

Thanks for playing though.

[Rockstar]

Of course you know homeopathy doesn't work, right?

If it's been around for thousands of years, it must be right! Yeah, just like Creationism, Astrology, Alchemy, Bloodletting...

Welcome to Skeptico Mark from Melbourne! Boy are you an idiot! I'll take up your challenge. What's in it for me? I'll wager my car and house I can eat nothing but meat for 3 whole weeks and not only live, but be healthier for it!!

[Fiona]

I have been very interested to read this blog, and happy there is an oposing opinion about the benefits of wheat grass, however dissappointed that the author is so adament there is no benefit, and has chosen to disregard the idea that it ISN'T BAD FOR YOU, so why not have it instead of coffee in the morning if it makes you feel good. Placebo or not, it is probably less damaging than a coffee and a cigi in the morning to start your day.
If there is an expert out there who can prove wheatgrass is bad for you, then I am all ears!

[Rockstar]

That wasn't the point of the article. The point of the article was debunking the bullshit the Jamba Juice people were spouting re: their wheatgrass juice.

So go ahead and drink your grass. I'll stick with coffee.

[BronzeDog]

I have been very interested to read this blog, and happy there is an oposing opinion about the benefits of wheat grass, however dissappointed that the author is so adament there is no benefit, and has chosen to disregard the idea that it ISN'T BAD FOR YOU, so why not have it instead of coffee in the morning if it makes you feel good. Placebo or not, it is probably less damaging than a coffee and a cigi in the morning to start your day.
If there is an expert out there who can prove wheatgrass is bad for you, then I am all ears!

Such high standards. You don't seem to care about the lack of value. As long as it's not negative, you're willing to invest in it. What's wrong with demanding that a product have a value proven to be greater than zero?

Of course, I don't have cigis in the morning, we're 99% sure cigis are dangerous, and comparing something useless to something dangerous is completely pointless. Why don't you try showing us that wheatgrass is better than something useless, like a placebo?

Variation on your post: "I don't care if pushing my non-functioning car takes as long as walking! It makes me feel like I'm getting there faster, and that's okay as long as you can't prove it's dangerous."

[Tom]

I propose we all do what helps us, each one of us- alone, and quit getting so defensive of others feelings for their food choices. FYI, Dr. Atkins is very, very dead, so very young, from excessive consumption of meat. To the character that posted that lots of meat is good for you, I feel very sad for you... You've never had the curiosity to try a primarily vegetable diet? I have been on both the meat and veggie train and the veggie ride is a hell of a lot smoother for me.

Please, if you're going to criticize wheatgrass (or anything else), give it a try long enough, to have an educated opinion. All this bickering (perhaps like this blog) is a big waste of time.

[Skeptico]

Re: All this bickering (perhaps like this blog) is a big waste of time.

… a bit like taking wheatgrass, then.

[BronzeDog]

Please, if you're going to criticize wheatgrass (or anything else), give it a try long enough, to have an educated opinion. All this bickering (perhaps like this blog) is a big waste of time.

Sorry. Science isn't done by anecdotes. It's done by, well, the scientific method. The whole "try it yourself before judging" thing is a transparent attempt to make people perform confirmation bias, the regressive fallacy, yadda, yadda. I'm not going to waste my time on something no one is willing to test scientifically.

You might be right about this being a waste of time: The people who use and promote this sort of nonsense are too closeminded to pay attention to what I'm typing.

[Rockstar]

To the character that posted that lots of meat is good for you, I feel very sad for you... You've never had the curiosity to try a primarily vegetable diet? I have been on both the meat and veggie train and the veggie ride is a hell of a lot smoother for me.

Hi Tom, Character here. It's OK if you feel sad for me, but your feelings would be better placed elsewhere. I feel sad you'll never taste a savory rare steak because of some silly unfounded woo-woo. I'll wager everything I have that I could eat nothing but fish, chicken and beef for a month and be leaner for it.

Have I ever had the curiosity to try a vegetable diet? No. I'm 25 years old. I live in Ne-freaking-braska (we eat tons of meat here). To us, vegetables are what food eats. Trust me - in NE Macaroni and Cheese is a vegetable...

Congratulations on your vegan diet being "smoother" (I assume you mean your bowel movements?). I don't give a shit. Pun intended.

[BronzeDog]

From the land of what if:

What if medical science was based on "try it yourself"...

I get the distinct feeling we'd still be in the four humors thing, because somewhere, you'd always be able to find someone who said "bleeding worked for me!" It worked for radium.

[TOM]

My mother just have recovered from severe breast cancer in one month with wheatgrass therapy. Her blood analysis was incredible. If I was sceptical before, I am convinced now.

[Rockstar]

I'm glad she was cured. But, I guarantee two things:

A) you have no evidence to back that statement up and

B) she was treated at least partially by real doctors, but you attributed their brilliance to your woo-woo unfairly.

[BronzeDog]

Additional things that come to mind:

C) Spontaneous remission. Don't know how often it occurs with breast cancer, but sometimes even cancer can just go away.

D) She didn't really have breast cancer in the first place. Any lumps could have been mere cysts. That's what happened with Lorraine Day.

[Dana Hata]

Why do dogs instinctively eat grass when sick? Is it simply to cause a diarrhea-like effect to move stuff out? Or are they deriving some benefit from the constituents? If they were, it would lend *some* plausibility to the notion that humans can derive some benefit from drinking wheatgrass juice, since dogs' short digestive tracts are even further away from herbivores than humans.

[Rockstar]

Why do dogs eat their own poop? This should provide some plausibility to the notion that humans can derive some benefit from eating dog poop, since dogs' short digestive tracts are even further away from herbivores than humans.

Dana: that's just to show your hypothesis is pretty silly.

[Dana Hata]

No, it just shows that you don't read carefully.

You read: If a dog eats something, that provides plausibility to humans also benefitting from eating it.

I said: If a dog eats some plant matter, given it's even shorter digestive tract (which is much less adapted to digesting plant matter than even humans), *and* if they derived some benefit from the constituents, then it is entirely plausible that a human might be also able to derive some benefit.

Clearly a more complicated condition.

You replace plant matter with dog poop, removing the context which was integral to the sensibility of the argument. It was a pretty sophomoric straw-man attempt, Rockstar.

[Skeptico]

Dana:

A google search of dog eat grass shows that there are no known benefits from dogs eating grass. It seems you can’t draw any conclusions about this practice, for example:

No one has ever proven that dogs are intelligent enough to use grass as a medicinal herb, so those in the medical profession generally believe that dogs eat grass simply because they like the taste of it...

In other words, dogs may not have good reasons to eat grass, any more than they have a good reason to eat poop. You shouldn’t draw conclusions from either (except perhaps that dogs will eat anything). I think that’s what Rockstar was getting at.

[Dana Hata]

Hi Skeptico:

"It seems you can’t draw any conclusions about this practice"

Did I draw the conclusion that dogs derive a benefit from the constituents of grass? Absolutely not. I said, "if they were (to derive a benefit)". That is a condition, not a conclusion.

It's as if I said "*if* God created the earth, it would lend some plausibility to the idea that ", and you retort , "There is no evidence that God created the earth".

Here's my food-for-thought idea, restated for clarification:
1) In terms of plant matter digestion, cows > humans > dogs. That is MY postulate, but it seems to be the basis for previous posts in this thread.
2) Dogs eat grass. I'm pretty sure this happens.
3) *IF* they are able to extract anything from the grass, it would lend some *plausibility* to humans being able to do the same. (I can't stress the "if" and the "plausibility" enough)

[Dana Hata]

Also, here is the wider quote of the one you posted:

" The cause and effect relationship in animals of eating grass and then vomiting is often questioned. No one has ever proven that dogs are intelligent enough to use grass as a medicinal herb, so those in the medical profession generally believe that dogs eat grass simply because they like the taste of it and that the vomiting just follows.

Therefore, it's unlikely that a dog will eat grass or other plants in the hopes that they will settle its stomach."

I'll note one problem with HealthyPets.com's thinking, which is that eating a herb medicinally necessarily requires intelligence. It could simply be an innate behavior, as is the case all over the animal world.

The quote does sort of answer my original question, which was "Why do dogs instinctively eat grass when sick?". The answer seems to be "to vomit". If that's the case, it doesn't contribute to the idea that it would be able to extract anything from the grass. This makes my next supposition much less credible.

That would have been a clear and convincing response to my initial post, rather than totally confusing my supposition with first a hypothesis and then a conclusion.

[Rockstar]

In other words, dogs may not have good reasons to eat grass, any more than they have a good reason to eat poop.

I thought I was pretty clear. I wasn't talking about your *if-might-maybe* argument; I was talking about it's potentially false premise. It's basically to illustrate this point:

Don't make things up.

Why do dogs instinctively eat grass when sick?"

See what I mean? Unless you can prove that, you're making it up. If you have evidence, cool, I stand corrected.

[Skeptico]

Dana:

Re: Did I draw the conclusion that dogs derive a benefit from the constituents of grass? Absolutely not. I said, "if they were (to derive a benefit…

Come on. You’re being a little disingenuous here. You are clearly implying there might be some benefit.

You said:

Why do dogs instinctively eat grass when sick?

There is an assumption implied here, namely they do it to help them when they are sick, therefore you are implying the conclusion. From the various links
It is clear this is not necessarily and is probably not the case.

And as I stated, I believe Rockstar’s point was that you can’t draw conclusions from dogs eating grass – a point that is supported by the links.

[Dana Hata]

In other words, dogs may not have good reasons to eat grass, any more than they have a good reason to eat poop.

YOU were pretty clear? Didn't Skeptico say that?

Why do dogs instinctively eat grass when sick?

LOL, I can assure you I did not "make that up". I think the notion precedes me.

Unless you can prove that, you're making it up.

False. If someone says something that isn't proven, it does not imply the person made it up. It means nothing more than someone said something unproven (knowingly or unknowingly). The person isn't even technically mistaken, if the truth is not yet known.

[Dana Hata]

Skeptico,

Why do dogs instinctively eat grass when sick?

There is an assumption implied here, namely they do it to help them when they are sick, therefore you are implying the conclusion.

There is an assumption there. And possibly a mistaken one, though I'd be willing to debate that (but not here). The assumption is the sentence minus the "Why do". Let's just assume for the moment that I didn't even ask a question, but just stated this pie-in-the-sky, extraordinary assumption:

Dogs eat grass instinctively when sick.

This does not imply the conclusion (a conclusion which I did not make, given that the post was a supposition) that humans can digest some portion of grass. This assumption would be:

Dogs can derive some benefit from the grass constituents.

Luckily, I carefully used a condition rather than stating a postulate:

"Or are they deriving some benefit from the constituents? If they were..."

You’re being a little disingenuous here. You are clearly implying there might be some benefit.

I was indeed implying there might be some benefit. I don't really see what's wrong with implying a possibility.

I was not being disengenous though. I was honestly NOT suggesting that wheatgrass can cure sick humans of any specific malady. I was just following the train of thought thus far in the thread, which had become a debate on whether humans can even digest anything from grass, and whether that is a basis for any benefit in the body. If you re-read the original (recent) post, you'll find that the tone is inquisitive in nature. This is reinforced by the fact that my very old post to this thread are also mostly questions.

[Tim]

What makes you think that dogs eat grass when they are sick? It seems to me the simplest explanation would be that dogs will eat anything and grass makes them sick. The search results that I looked at all looked like anecdotal stories and no empirical evidence of doggy tummy aches.

[BronzeDog]

Since we're on the subject, somewhere I remember a vet talking about a condition in dogs where they try to eat inanimate objects. Can't remember the name.

I've seen cats eat leaves (real and artificial), but at least they have a known reason for doing so: Sometimes they need a little help getting rid of hairballs.

[Dana Hata]

Tim, I'll tell you what makes me think it-

I heard it somewhere.

Naturally, it could be false. People I've asked here at work have also heard this, so it's not that extraordinary. I also wanted to know why, which is why I asked that exact question.

[Tim]

The reason why they eat grass is because they eat everything; the reason they eat it when they are sick is because the grass is what makes them sick.

But if people at your work have heard it, that pretty much settles it for me.

[Dana Hata]

Geez Tim. I knew that "I heard it somewhere" might be too tempting of a bait for prefessional skeptics. But you missed the point, which is I am conceding that my assumption about why dogs eat grass was an unexamined one. Bringing up my co-worker was just a point to show that it was not an extraordinary notion, in response to your statement- "What makes you think that dogs eat grass when they are sick?"

[flashkid]

reading all the posts here ahs left me thoroughly confused.
If possible, someone/anyone, kindly point me to a link or a reference that mentions "grass" as different to "other green vegetables". I'm keen to know if green vegetables are good for us then why not wheat grass or anyother.

thanks.

[Skeptico]

Flashkid:

It’s cellulose that we can’t digest. Fruits and vegetables only have a small amount of cellulose, but in grass it is very high.

All plants are made, in part, of a very complex carbohydrate called cellulose. This is the material that gives plants their strength, their ability to stand tall even though they have no bones. Cellulose provides structure by surrounding each cell with a tough wall. Cellulose in foods is usually called dietary fiber. Eating fruits and vegetables, which contains relatively small amounts of cellulose, helps to keep our digestive systems healthy. Fruits and vegetables are also good sources of vitamins and other nutrients that can't easily be found elsewhere.

Unlike fruits and vegetables, most plant material is low in nutrients and extremely high in cellulose. There is simply too little digestible material in most plant tissue to sustain a human, no matter how much of it is consumed.

Source">http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/life/stru/ruminant/">Source (My bold.)

I hope that answers your question.

[flashkid]

hey, thanks skeptico.
I have bookmarked this blog ;-)

does this mean consuming all the greenies, like broccoli, spinach etc., really does not do us much good?

here is an interesting link on green vgetables and cancer
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fruits.html

[BronzeDog]

Since it seems you missed it in Skeptico's post, here it is again:

Cellulose in foods is usually called dietary fiber. Eating fruits and vegetables, which contains relatively small amounts of cellulose, helps to keep our digestive systems healthy. Fruits and vegetables are also good sources of vitamins and other nutrients that can't easily be found elsewhere.

---
The way I think about it, subject to revision: Cellulose is what makes up the cell wall in plants. Our stomachs can handle the relatively thin cell walls in fruits and vegetables. They can't handle the thicker, tougher walls in grass. We simply don't have what's necessary to break it down.

It might help to think about what cows have to do to process grass: They chew their cud with strictly herbivorous teeth, and have four stomach sections in their digestive tract.

[Skeptico]

flashkid:

I’m sure that eating greens, especially broccoli and spinach, but also fresh fruits, is very good for you. Don’t give up your fruits and veg. – just don’t eat the stuff high in cellulose like wheatgrass.

[Edward]

Skeptico: Maybe more than a highschool biology course is in order for you to judge the effectiveness of the chemical components in wheatgrass. Wheatgrass is, in fact, a great source of chlorophyll, anti-oxidant vitamins, and active enzymes, some of which remain active in your digestive tract.
All three of these general components should be a part of everyone’s daily diet. Assuming most of you know of the benefits of vitamin's A and D, I'll just mention the two main subjects that have been misrepresented.

For all those claiming no evidence behind the cancer fighting effects of wheatgrass...try these links:

Linus Pauling Institute
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/chlorophylls/

John Hopkins Research Group (refer to the bottom specifically)
http://www.purlife.com/chlorophyll.htm

In a nutshell, published studies showing the strong corellation between the increase in amount of the chlorophyll salt (derived from injesting chlorophyll) ingested and a decrease in DNA damage caused by carcinogenic chemicals...ie oxidants, the precursors to cancer.

(Oxidants + DNA = broken DNA = sometimes reformed improperly = possibility of cancer)

These molecules bind preferentially to certain carcinogens rendering them inactive and unable to cause any cellular damage. Put two and two together, of green plants/vegetables, wheatgrass has, by far, the highest concentration of chlorophyll.

The argument that ingestion of active enzymes from a live source is useless because they are not our own enzymes, is simply ridiculous. It is very well known that the active enzymes from live sources present in the natural food we eat greatly helps in the digestion process. In effect, these enzymes help your own enzymes in breaking down the food you eat.

This also correlates to cancer incidence, specifically to the digestive system. The harder any part of your body has to work over the course of your life, the greater the incidence of oxidative stress and cancer. These enzymes take a great load off of your own digestive systems; which, when you're eating processed foods and large amounts of meat, is essential.

That in mind, Jamba Juice is a joke. If you're serious about eating healthily grow your own. It costs next to nothing and drinking it on a daily basis will improve your vitality without question.

EDIT: I just read some of the arguments on cellulose. C'mon guys, use your heads...Cellulose is present in plant cell walls, anyone who has ever taken an undergrad biochemistry course knows grinding up a plant stem, or any plant sample with a mortar and pestle (analogous to putting grass in a juicer) is enough to break open the cells. The liquid that comes out of the juicer would be very much free of any cellulose trapping the above-mentioned stuff you're looking to benefit from.

[BronzeDog]

Just one thing I noticed from a quick skim of one of those links you provided:

Chlorophyllin can neutralize several physically relevant oxidants in the test tube (8, 9), and limited data from animal studies suggest that chlorophyllin supplementation may decrease oxidative damage induced by chemical carcinogens and radiation (10, 11).

Limited data from animal studies suggest that it may decrease oxidative damage. That portion isn't terribly convincing. At least not yet.

[Edward]

The terribly convincing evidence you're looking for in 'in vivo' studies...animals and humans, comes from the following link.

http://www.purlife.com/chlorophyll.htm

While the whole page is worth a read, the bottom is a synopsis of a John Hopkins study, where researchers took a sample of healthy people from a city where there was an unavoidable, consistent exposure to a common carcinogen. Half the sample received a placebo unknowingly, while the other half received a chlorophyll supplement unknowingly. Blood and urine samples were collected over the course of four months, and the evidence is very convincing. Take a look for yourself, and while you're at it read the info above on the studies performed on salmon and mice.

[Skeptico]

Edward

Re: For all those claiming no evidence behind the cancer fighting effects of wheatgrass...try these links:
Linus Pauling Institute

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/chlorophylls/

John Hopkins Research Group (refer to the bottom specifically)
http://www.purlife.com/chlorophyll.htm

As far as I can tell, these refer to chlorophyll not wheatgrass per se. The links don’t even mention wheatgrass. Since the argument is that the cellulose prevents the chlorophyll from being digested, I think these studies are moot.

Re: The argument that ingestion of active enzymes from a live source is useless because they are not our own enzymes, is simply ridiculous. It is very well known that the active enzymes from live sources present in the natural food we eat greatly helps in the digestion process.

It is “well known” by whom? References?

[Edward]

Skeptico:

In response to your first argument...I suggest you read my post from start to finish as I explain in my EDIT how physical grinding to lyse plant samples, whether it be with a mortal and pestle, a juicer or a blender, breaks open the plant cells releasing the desired contents from its cellulose encasement. In addition, since cellulose is so highly integrated into the supporting structure of a cell, when you juice grass, the cellulose contents has a high affinity for itself meaning it colligative properties are such that it stays out of solution and comes out as the dry mulch from the juicer. This leaves the juice, which is the inner contents of the plant cells, to be ingested, very much free of any encasement by cellulose.

Now, since I'm sure your following post will ask me for some immediate reference (mind you I came to know this information from much more reliable sources, ie hard text and lab experience):

"Manual grinding is the most common method used to disrupt plant cells...Because of the tensile strength of the cellulose and other polysaccharides comprising the cell wall, this method is the fastest and most efficient way to access plant proteins and DNA"

Also, to be fair

"there are some inherent disadvantages to their use. Localized heating within a sample can occur with many of the techniques described, leading to protein denaturation and aggregation... Reproducibility with homogenization and grinding methods can be challenging due to inexact terminology used to define sample handling"

http://www.piercenet.com/Proteomics/browse.cfm?fldID=72F377CD-2581-438C-9B27-5360226EA128

Please note, I'm simply listing this second point to avoid someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, later trying to use it as an argument...It is of course moot. What they are essentially saying is physical grinding of cells destroys some of the more fragile enzymes, ones that cannot handle too much variation in pH and temperature. Lucky for us wheatgrass drinkers, the enzymes we care about are the robust enzymes that assist in digestion - "gastric enzymes". These enzymes have inherently strong structures, and are able to remain active in a broad pH and temperature range. Chlorophyll of course would not be destroyed as the molecule is far to small to be disrupted by physical grinding. The reason they mention this point at all is because the scope of the web site it to list the pros and cons of cell lysis techniques FOR THE USE OF QUANTIFICATION. This, of course it not the intent for wheatgrass drinkers, we just want a simple way to release the contents in the wheatgrass cells for our bodies benefit.

And in case you all forgot...wheatgrass has higher
concentration of chlorophyll than any green leafy veggie we consume...so to not see this correlation would mean your a bonafide idiot.

On your second point, while I have sitting on my bookshelf half a dozen books I could reference...I'll resort to the internet...which you could have done by the way.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=120

"When we eat fresh, uncooked foods, those foods can still contain active enzymes. When we chew a freshly picked leaf of lettuce, we break the cells in the leaf apart, releasing its nutrients, including enzymes. Enzymes are not automatically destroyed by the acids or temperatures in our digestive tract. Enzymes in the stomach - called gastric enzymes - are specially designed to function in the stomach's extremely acid conditions and are critical to our health. Our bodies can overheat from fever, extreme exercise or summer weather, but not to temperatures that will prevent the enzymes inside us from continuing to function."

http://www.animalfood.com/articles/a-erfkhs0005.htm
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html
http://tuberose.com/Enzymes.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00528.htm

Not to mention the culminating consensus of every one of my undergrad biochem and lab technique books. This is science fact boys, now I’ll wait for the second round of ignorant criticisms so I can play the role of teacher again.

[Skeptico]

Edward:

Re: Manual grinding is the most common method used to disrupt plant cells...Because of the tensile strength of the cellulose and other polysaccharides comprising the cell wall, this method is the fastest and most efficient way to access plant proteins and DNA"
http://www.piercenet.com/Proteomics/browse.cfm?fldID=72F377CD-2581-438C-9B27-5360226EA128

Your citation also says:

Tissue is frozen in liquid nitrogen and then crushed using a mortar and pestle

Does Jamba Juice use a machine with liquid nitrogen to create juice? If not, how do they break the cellulose walls to access the chlorophyll, since your citation says liquid nitrogen is needed?

Re: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=120
"When we eat fresh, uncooked foods, those foods can still contain active enzymes. When we chew a freshly picked leaf of lettuce, we break the cells in the leaf apart, releasing its nutrients, including enzymes. Enzymes are not automatically destroyed by the acids or temperatures in our digestive tract. Enzymes in the stomach - called gastric enzymes - are specially designed to function in the stomach's extremely acid conditions and are critical to our health. Our bodies can overheat from fever, extreme exercise or summer weather, but not to temperatures that will prevent the enzymes inside us from continuing to function."

Yes, it says “When we eat fresh, uncooked foods, those foods can still contain active enzymes” – but not that they are the active enzymes needed to digest food. In fact, your citation goes on to say:

While there have been no large scale, controlled studies to document the impact of enzyme-containing, fresh, raw plant foods on digestion and health, practitioners in fields of complementary, natural, and functional medicine have used enzyme supplementation successfully to help treat a wide variety of health problems and have long advocated the inclusion of fresh, organic, raw plant foods in the diet.

(My bold.)

So:

1) Since there have been no large scale, controlled studies, your citation doesn’t demonstrate what you are claiming. In fact, if there have been no large scale, controlled studies, you can’t justify your claim at all. The burden of proof is with the claimant (you).

2) How do these “practitioners in fields of complementary, natural, and functional medicine” know they “have used enzyme supplementation successfully”? Were there studies? And are the enzymes in the “supplements” the same as the enzymes in the food we eat? Your citation doesn’t say, but I doubt it.

Re: http://www.animalfood.com/articles/a-erfkhs0005.htm
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html
http://tuberose.com/Enzymes.html

These sites basically repeat Edward Howell's "food enzyme" theory, which was AFAIK not published in any scientific journal, is extremely out of date and has been roundly debunked here:

Although both Howell books proposing the food-enzyme theory are dated, they are still among the most often-cited references in raw-food circles. In the 1946 book, for example, most scientific references cited are from the 1920s and 1930s. (By the way, isn't it startling that three major raw-foodist references are more than 50 years old--leukocytosis, Pottenger's cats, and Howell's 1946 book?) As we proceed, we'll see several examples where Howell's claims are based on such outdated science (which is still harked back to by his proponents today) as to completely invalidate a claim by that very fact, let alone the logical problems which also riddle much of Howell's theory.

…

With that as preface, let's now look at the main arguments by Howell "proving" that food enzymes are important for human health, and the weaknesses of these arguments. It will appear that, in fact, "food enzymes" (meaning enzymes present in foods before they are eaten, as opposed to digestive enzymes produced by the body) play a very minor role in our health, if any.

…

CLAIM: The successes of enzyme therapy (via enzyme supplements) also prove the value of eating raw food to get its enzymes.

COMMENT: The fact that enzymes taken as tablets with protective coatings (to avoid destruction by stomach acid before they reach the small intestine) might be of therapeutic value for some individuals (particularly those with inherent or genetic problems with enzyme metabolism) doesn't mean they are helpful for everyone else or for human health in general. Nor does it mean that the food enzymes that accompany raw foodstuffs have an equivalent effect.

One cannot compare the large amounts we get with enzyme therapy (i.e., enzymes taken in capsule or tablet form) with the enzymes in food itself. Most enzymes in food are destroyed by the stomach acids. In formal enzyme therapy, the tablets or capsules that people swallow are soluble only in the small intestine (so that the enzymes are not destroyed by the stomach acids), taken outside meals (to improve absorption), and probably in larger quantities and concentrations than what occurs naturally, since foods contain a mixture of many different enzymes, which appear at more modest concentration.

Such enzyme therapy via tablets or capsules with protective coatings is no doubt useful for individuals whose bodies lack the capacity to produce certain enzymes at all. Again, however, the (very) small amount of enzymes in food itself that might be able to make it through the stomach into the intestine will not have much significant therapeutic effect for these individuals.

(My bold.)

Also, there was this last citation of yours:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00528.htm

Which says:

However, enzymes are generally pretty complex proteins and, as such, would 1) be denatured by heat and the acidic environment of the stomach and 2) be first broken down into smaller amino chains before being absorbed.

…

a number of enzymes are resistant to this environment and could retain some catalytic activity. These enzymes could function in the digestive system and alter the chemical composition of the contents of the digestive system. It might be possible that some could be taken up by the circulatory system or by the cells lining the digestive system and be active within a cell. I am not aware of the current research in this specific area of whole protein uptake and so I do not know how common this possibility is.

(My bold.)

This was your citation, remember? A lot of “coulds” and “mights” etc, so the conclusion from your own citation seems to be, “unknown” or “unlikely” (considering the first paragraph I quoted)..

OTOH, Quackwatch explains clearly the claims verses the facts about enzymes.

Summary: your claims are junk science.

[James Bach]

Well, what an insightful and interesting debate. I am currently still undecided about the benefits of drinking Wheatgrass, but a few points have been made that are quite misleading and I think someone has to clear up a few misinterpretations of the information.

Firstly, 'humans cannot digest grasses'. This is entirely true in their raw form. However, humans most certainly can digest the juice from grasses! We are able to absorb the minerals and vitamins - which are both varied and in high concentration in wheatgrass. We are also able to absorb the Chlorophyll (70% of wheatgrass) and there are numerous medical publications that have shown conclusive evidence for the positive effects of Chlorophyll (both internally and externally administered). These effects are extremely broad and exclusively positive.

Anyone who would take the time to read a medical journal or two will find that the bulk of the evidence relating to Chlorophyll suggests humans would benefit from an increased intake of the substance in its raw form.

Enzymes cannot be digested and the only proven effects of plant enzymes on the human body have come through rectal administration. This does not mean they have no positive effect, but it certainly seems unlikely that drinking plant enzymes would do anything much for you.

It is true that the infamous Anne Wigmore was a quack with bogus qualifications - such as a phd in divinity from non-accredited school! She clearly had a distorted and dangerous view about the place of a theorist and naturalist in medicine.

However, there is always a danger in making a judgement based on the reputation of a person rather than on the evidence. There is also a danger in allowing scepticism to take over when one finds a shortage of evidence.

Medical studies are extremely expensive things to carry-out. Only the big pharmaceutical companies and govt organisations are in a position to finance these studies and the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in discrediting all forms of alternative medicine - it has become their greatest competition in the last 30 years and they will certainly not publish anything that supports the positive effects of taking a product that is better ingested raw than refined in pill form.

The point made earlier about it being fine if it is harmless seems to have been misunderstood. That excerpt seems the most sage advice on the page. I accept that a shot of wheatgrass may be little more than a foul tasting vitamin pill. However, the power of the mind to heal the body is a concept appreciated by the majority of medical practitioners. My father and brother are both doctors and they have frequently commented on the incredible differences they see in the healing of people with a positive mindset and the incredible effects of placebos in many scientific tests. If something does someone no harm and provides them with the mental state of mind that is most condusive to healing and health then it is something that could do without criticism and it is nothing like pushing a car up a hill!

Finally, no one has made much mention of the stimulating effects of wheatgrass. I have only tried it once, but I did experience a 'high' that dwarfed the effect of any coffee I have tried. The fact that almost all users report an effect like this makes it unlikely that this would be purely psychological (besides I didn't know this was supposed to be the effect until I got home and started doing some research because I was so impressed at how energetic I felt).

Let us not forget that most medicines are derived form natural products. To discredit a product on the basis that it has not been properly tested is foolish. After all, almost every medical product went through an untested stage where people were using it without substantial evidence to support it. The product is relatively new and may well prove to be much more than the latest gimmick in the 'alternative medical arsenal'.

Unfortunately only time will tell, but until then anyone 'convinced' by it is being gullable, and anyone branding it a 'con' or 'waste of time' is making a specualtion that they cannot possibly back up with evidence - because the evidence simply does not yet exist!

I will probably drink Wheatgrass again and I will keep an eye out for developments in our understanding of it. I suggest that the clearest way to establish an opinion about a relatively untested product is to try it and make your mind up based on how you feel when you drink it. I suspect the sceptics and devotees alike will look foolish when the real story unfolds in years to come.

[BronzeDog]

Didn't read the whole thing, but noticed this:

I suggest that the clearest way to establish an opinion about a relatively untested product is to try it and make your mind up based on how you feel when you drink it.

Unblinded, uncontrolled studies of vanishingly small sizes are not something I would base my health decisions on.

That is the point! There have been no comprehensive studies. Thank goodness everyone doesn't feel like you, or there would be no people signing up for radical new treatments and medications. I wonder what state Cancer research would be in if no patients were willing to try things that had not been thoroughly tested and proved. I also refer back to my previous point about the reasons for the lack of evidence (no organic farmer or wheatgrass vendor can afford the many millions required to conduct medical research, so the chances are that this product will remain relatively untested for a long while yet).

[BronzeDog]

Logical Fallacy/Propaganda technique: Straw Man

I'm not against testing. I'm against sloppy "try it yourself" protocols.

Additionally, I doubt it would cost "millions" to perform proper tests. Even if it did, 1) They could probably afford it anyway: Quackery is a very big industry, and 2) it's unethical and immoral to advertise unproven benefits for a product you are selling.

How would you feel if a car company advertised their cars as safe and high-performance if they never used crash-test dummies or a performance test track?

What would you think if I was selling a homemade car on eBay, making performance claims when I've never even turned the ignition?

If you can't afford to test your product, you don't go into the industry. Even if everyone thinks it would work.

[Dana Hata]

I suggest that the clearest way to establish an opinion about a relatively untested product is to try it and make your mind up based on how you feel when you drink it.

Well, the way it is written here, I'd say "Don't do that", but as in most arguments I've found here, the reality is a little more complicated. It all depends on a reasonable prediction of the danger of the "untested product". If this is a pharmaceutical medicine, an untested vehicle (as mentioned by Bronzedog), or even a "natural" substance without a generally recognized reputation of safety, then NO, certainly don't make yourself a guinea pig (unless you've got nothing to lose, as in the case of certain cancer patients willing to try out novel but untested therapies.) But in the sense that James Bach is making the statement, it's clear in my view that something such as wheatgrass qualifies as a substance a person can reasonably sample in order to determine its personal health effects.

[BronzeDog]

Just to clarify: I'm not trying to suggest that wheatgrass is dangerous. I suppose it would have been better to compare it with those magic audio chips that supposedly improve music quality, even though the people selling them have never done a DBT.

Just a quick thing on the "nothing to lose" mentality about terminal diseases: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/harmquack.html

[Dana Hata]

Here is some non-junk science:

Advanced
Pediatric Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research:
Wheat grass juice reduces transfusion requirement in patients with thalassemia major: a pilot study

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology:
Wheat Grass Juice in the Treatment of Active Distal Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial

Interesting, but preliminary. Furthermore, I searched for and could not find studies purporting to show that Wheat Grass Juice has no effect, so it's not as if these two studies stand next to a mountain of contrary studies. Do you think these preliminary results merit further study?

Note: The thalassemia study, if sound, would refute DeKalb Medical Center's unsubstantiated claim, which is part of the basis of this site's dismissal of Wheat Grass Juice:

Even though we can decide to liquefy wheatgrass into a juice we still can not benefit from it.

[BronzeDog]

If the studies are positive, but preliminary, then yes, they do merit further study.

They DON'T merit product marketing.

[James Bach]

Firstly, let me say that I don't disagree with your points about 'risk' and 'common sense' when looking at the midicinal effects of wheatgrass.

However, since modern man has been taking wheatgrass since the 1930's and there have not been any reported ill-effects apart from mild allergic reactions and nausea (in rare cases), I would say that your points about the risks of being a guinea pig are a little redundant - though I concede that in most cases I would not opt. to be part of a test group for anything that had not been in use for several generations. Incidentally, wheatgrass was first cultivated by the Egyptians 5,000 years ago and there is evidence that they also made use of the younger grass (juiced) as well as the adult grain.

I would also like to add that I never said anything about taking wheatgrass as a medical treatment and I completely agree that any person who would choose an untested 'alternative medicine' to treat a serious medical condition would be doing so at great risk and it would demonstrate more naivity than open-minded experimentation, in my opinion.

Likewise, all the anecdotal information about wheatgrass is just that! To base ones treatment on such information would be quite ridiculous. I think forums like this provide an invaluable service in balancing the debate and bringing some people back down to earth and I congratulate you for your motives and the positive ramifications of producing sceptical debates of this nature. Where would we be if people just accepted all the rubbish that we were asked to believe on a daily basis.

However, I really can't see the harm in taking a vitamin suppliment that gives you an energy boost and may well have a broader positive effect on one's health. The background evidence relating to the effects of Chlorophyll, anti-oxidants, a healthy balanced diet with high intake on leafy greens etc is all quite well tested and almost universally agreed. While this does not make wheatgrass a cure for cancer, it does not detract from the fact that the positive effects could be even more broad than simple nutritional benefits.

I hope you realise that I am just playing devil's advocate here. I think that a sceptical attitude to such treatments is far healthier than blind faith. I am also in complete agreement that a large number of people have tried to market the grass in an irresponsible way. However, I would say blame them and not the grass itself.

I think this debate has proved one thing quite clearly. It is very easy (and quite right) to discredit the people marketing this stuff in an irresposible way. However, discrediting the grass itself is a little more difficult: simply because there is very little 'hard-science', and the evidence that does exist is actually quite encouraging for any grass juice fan.

All in all, I feel enlightened for having looked through the debate and I thank all of you for that. However, I still believe that the reason wheatgrass is so contraversial is largely due to the Ann Wigmore associations. If we could all remember that it was doctors and scientists who first started looking into wheatgrass in the 1930's and Wigmore who 'rediscovered' it in the 60's announcing it could cure cancer and aids, then we might all get some perspective on the potential for something has received a lot of bad press.

I have now taken wheatgrass three times and I enjoy the taste and effect and will probably continue to take it when I am in the mood (psychosomatic or not, I still feel enegerised and that is reason enough for me).

[Skeptico]

Dana Hata:

I apologize – it has taken me a while to look at the two studies you referenced. Here are my comments:

Re: Wheat grass juice reduces transfusion requirement in patients with thalassemia major: a pilot study

Well, this is not a double-blind study – each patient grew his own wheatgrass at home. Also, “each patient acted as his own control” – ie there were no real controls (the study determined how many patients improved compared with their own results from a prior year, not compared with a control patient).

Also, there were initially 38 patients but the study reports only the results of 16. 22 patients dropped out – 20 of these because of “[i]ndiscipline in intake and insufficient duration of intake of wheat grass”. It is thought these patients did not stay with the program because they could not discern a benefit:

Strict scientific evaluation will undoubtedly recognize a bias towards “responders” when a significant proportion of cases were rendered “inevaluable” for failing to adhere to the criteria in the study protocol. It is difficult to refute this viewpoint especially when “therapy indiscipline” was observed in those who perceived no discernable benefit.

Translation – the ones who received no benefit dropped out of the study but were not included in the results.

So not junk science, but not a particularly good study either.

Re: Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology:
Wheat Grass Juice in the Treatment of Active Distal Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Trial

Sorry, I couldn’t retrieve this study. Do you have a direct link to the study, or at least the date?

[Dana Hata]

Skeptico, do a search at scholar.google.com for "wheat grass juice ulcerative". Should be the top result.

[Skeptico]

This study.

That’s the abstract. From that it’s a small study that appears to show an improvement for a specific gastrointestinal complaint. It hardly refutes anything by itself, but would of course be worthy of further study.

[Rurik]

I found this link to a scientific study on wheatgrass:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11989836&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Seems to be the only real study I can find on the subject of wheatgrass.

[BronzeDog]

Rurik's link for easy clicking.

Well, that's interesting. It looks like a pretty small study (21 people), but it's a good start.