Not when used according to Barron's recommendations

I think that the key part of the article, when read from start to finish, is this clearly stated conclusion:

But all of the above is if you're consuming grains. Should you consume grains at all? Is it healthier to go on a no-grain diet?

Certainly, there are those who recommend a no grain diet, Dr. Mercola, for example. Considering the negatives associated with the excessive consumption of grains (most notably associated with high glycemic responses and allergies), I cannot argue with the basic premise. On the other hand, consumption of certain grains in moderation, if selected carefully, can provide significant health benefits with little downside. For example, sprouted grains and cereal grasses have all the positives associated with grains and virtually none of the negatives.

And let's quickly single out barley, maybe the king of grains. It's high in beta-glucans; it's one of the least acidic grains; and it's one of the lowest of all foods on the glycemic index. And when consumed in its sprouted, pre-sprouted, or cereal grass forms, it's a monster of nutrition.

I agree that in general the healthiest diet is one that is closest to the diet man became adapted to thousands of years ago and most whole grains are not healthy when eaten in any significant amount.  As a point of fact, I recommend that people avoid most grains, especially in the form of bleached and/or highly processed ones found in most bread products - and recommend that grain consumption be modest and limited as much as possible to sprouted grains and fermented soy products like natto, miso and tempeh.  I seriously doubt that any of the studies involving grains have limited the grains consumed in the study to only those forms of grain, or only to the forms of grain Barron actually recommends.

I have to ask: are we to argue that man is forever stuck with eating ONLY the foods he ate up until 20,000 years or so ago and will never adapt to a single other food  for the rest of eternity?  That seems patently absurd to me, and the fact is that the very large majority of fruits and vegetables in our diet today, even the non-GMO ones, are NOT at all the same as those available thousands of years ago for our ancestors.

Due to the geographical limitations of travel, trade and storage, the same can be said of much of our meat supply, including the healthier organic meats not subject to feedlot practices - especially fish.

I like Mercola, I am on his mailing list, and I use his advice and quote him frequently  - but, in my opinion, Mercola has painted himself into an either/or black and white corner in a world made of gray when it comes to absolutely forgoing all grains period.  And, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, I have to add that if his photos and videos of himself, which appear second only to all the products he promotes, are the picture of ideal grain-free health, then pass me a bowl of sprouted grains!

For the most part, I agree with you and with Mercola; however, while it is nice to be a purist, one must be careful and not let their purist footprints walk all over a message that the majority of the world could benefit from. 99% of the people in the world eat grains and most will continue to do so no matter what.  It was mostly those people Barron's article was intended for, and for those people it is a very healthy message.

As Barron said, he cannot argue with the premise of a no-grain diet, but for those who are determined to eat grains, he offers some very good advice and I agree with it.

DQ