Reading an article in my troll-through of the Sun, and... Well. Most of it is pretty helpful advice, although I knew just about everything in there myself, buuuut... I kind of have to take umbrage with their little blurb about multigrains/whole grains, especially "What's more, multi-grain products typically contain endosperm, a source of starch and calories."
...Yes? Okay? Endosperm is in fact what's left when you strip the bran and germ away from a grain kernel. It's what flour is mostly made out of. Yes, even whole grain flour. 'White' wheat flour is just the ground up endosperm; mostly the inner endosperm. Whole grain includes the bran and germ, too. Flour without endosperm would have almost no structure to it; it'd just be... bran. Which, while great as an additive, doesn't exactly hold muffins or breads together.
In other words, I'm not exactly sure why this reporter chose to pick on that fact like it's some kind of bogeyman? Smacks of fearmongering and shoddy, ill-researched reporting, to be honest. This isn't even something nutritionally-related that could be open to interpretation or affects some people differently or whatever-have-you - it's plain fact, trivia, something that you could find out by opening a fifty-year-old book on grain biology. There's really no excuse for it.
In somewhat related news, in my hunting for jobs a couple of days ago, I came across a listing for a gluten-free production bakery looking for a baking assistant. Great, I thought - they're not too far away, and I certainly don't mind doing gluten-free baking. Except... On their website they trumpeted their use of aluminum-free baking powder in all of their goods, including breads. This is also okay. What wasn't okay was their justification for doing so: that yeast is always bad for celiacs and people with gluten sensitivities. Which is outright oppositeland in some cases. Yes, some celiacs/gluten-sensitive folks have allergies or problems with yeast, and obviously those people should abstain from eating it. But to suggest that it's unilaterally harmful, in the face of evidence to the contrary, is kind of shady.
It bothers me probably more than it should. I'd be happier if they just said 'we just don't like yeast', or gave no reason at all; there's no arguing with either of those things. But to seemingly base your decision on something that's not actually right... eeeeugh.
I obviously didn't apply. :P