Ancient and Heritage Wheats: Einkorn, Emmer, Spelt and Khorasan

Table of Contents

1. What Counts as an "Ancient" Wheat
2. Einkorn
3. Emmer, Farro and Durum
4. Spelt
5. Khorasan and the Kamut Trademark
6. Are They More Nutritious?
7. Are They Safe in Coeliac Disease?
8. Are They Better Tolerated? The Trial Evidence
9. FODMAPs: Where a Real Difference Might Live
10. Cooking and Baking With Them
11. The Honest Verdict
12. Key Research Papers
13. Connections
14. Featured Videos

What Counts as an "Ancient" Wheat

"Ancient wheat" is a marketing term, not a botanical one, and it covers grains that differ from each other far more than any of them differs from a modern loaf. What actually separates them is the number of chromosome sets they carry — the result of two hybridisation events described on the Wheat history page:

• Diploid (AA) — einkorn, Triticum monococcum. One genome. The first wheat humans domesticated.
• Tetraploid (AABB) — emmer (T. dicoccum), khorasan (T. turgidum subsp. turanicum), and modern durum (T. durum), which shares the same genome pair. Two genomes.
• Hexaploid (AABBDD) — spelt (T. spelta) and ordinary bread wheat (T. aestivum). Three genomes.

That list contains a fact the marketing tends to omit. Spelt is a hexaploid wheat with the same D genome as bread wheat — genetically it is very close to the modern loaf, closer than einkorn or emmer is to either. Grouping spelt with einkorn as "ancient wheat" is a shop-shelf convenience, not a biological category.

Einkorn, emmer, khorasan and spelt are also hulled grains: the husk clings to the kernel and has to be removed in a separate dehulling step before milling. That is why they were abandoned. It is extra processing, lower yield and more work, and free-threshing bread wheat and durum out-competed them commercially thousands of years ago.

Back to Table of Contents

Einkorn

Triticum monococcum — "one grain", from the single kernel in each spikelet — is the oldest domesticated wheat and the only common one that is diploid. Its genome is a single A, without the B or D genomes that later hybridisations added.

Practically, einkorn is small, golden and distinctly nutty. It is noticeably higher in carotenoids than bread wheat, particularly lutein, which is what gives einkorn flour and pasta a yellow cast. It also tends to run higher in protein by percentage. Its gluten, however, is weak: einkorn dough is sticky, slack, and does not hold gas well, so einkorn bread is dense and flat compared with a bread-wheat loaf. It suits flatbreads, pancakes, biscuits, porridge and pasta far better than a tall sandwich loaf.

Einkorn is the ancient wheat that has attracted the most serious scientific interest, precisely because its single genome means it lacks many of the gluten peptide sequences that drive coeliac disease. That research is covered below — and the outcome is not what the health-food shelf implies.

Back to Table of Contents

Emmer, Farro and Durum

Emmer (T. dicoccum) is the tetraploid that dominated agriculture from the Neolithic through to Rome; it was the grain of Egyptian bread and Roman porridge. In Italy it is sold as farro, though the word is used loosely for einkorn (farro piccolo), emmer (farro medio) and spelt (farro grande), which is a genuine source of confusion when buying.

Emmer has a firm, chewy grain that holds its shape in soups and salads — the reason farro works so well as a whole-grain side. Nutritionally it sits in the same broad range as other whole wheats: substantial fibre, magnesium, zinc and B-vitamins.

The direct descendant of emmer is durum wheat, the free-threshing tetraploid that makes semolina and all traditional dried pasta. Durum is never marketed as ancient, and yet in genome terms it belongs to exactly the same group as emmer and khorasan. If tetraploid wheat as such were easier on the gut, ordinary pasta ought to show the benefit — which is a useful test to keep in mind when reading claims about khorasan.

Back to Table of Contents

Spelt

Spelt (T. spelta) is the ancient wheat most likely to be presented as a gentle alternative to modern wheat, and the one where that claim is hardest to support. It is a hexaploid carrying the same A, B and D genomes as bread wheat, and the D genome is where most of the strongest coeliac-triggering gluten sequences live. Spelt contains gluten, and gluten that is immunologically much like bread wheat's.

Spelt does behave differently in the kitchen. Its gluten is more extensible and less elastic — dough that stretches easily but tears — so it is easy to over-knead and it tolerates a shorter mix. Spelt bread has a pleasant nutty sweetness and a softer crumb. Some people report tolerating it better than ordinary bread; whether that is the grain, the fact that spelt is usually sold as a wholemeal artisan product with a longer fermentation, or expectation, has never been tested in a properly blinded trial.

Back to Table of Contents

Khorasan and the Kamut Trademark

Khorasan (T. turgidum subsp. turanicum) is a large-kerneled tetraploid, sold in most markets under the registered trademark KAMUT. This matters for reading the literature: KAMUT is a brand, licensed under conditions that require the grain be grown organically and meet specified quality criteria, and the great majority of published human trials on "ancient wheat" have used it.

The grain itself is roughly twice the size of a bread-wheat kernel, with a buttery flavour and a firm bite. It is higher in protein than typical bread wheat and a good source of selenium and zinc, though as with all wheat the mineral content depends heavily on the soil it grew in.

Back to Table of Contents

Are They More Nutritious?

Modestly, sometimes, and less consistently than advertised.

The most careful comparisons come from researchers who grew ancient and modern wheats side by side and analysed them the same way, which is the only way to separate the species from the soil, the season and the farming. Their conclusion was that ancient wheats are not systematically richer in bioactive components: for most measures, the variation between genotypes within a species was as large as, or larger than, the difference between species. Einkorn does stand out for carotenoids and some tocols. A broader review asking whether modern wheat has lower quality for human health found no evidence that it does.

Two structural points make the comparison harder than it looks:

• Ancient grains are almost always sold wholemeal; modern wheat usually is not. Much of what looks like a species difference in a shopping basket is really a whole-versus-refined difference, which is covered on the whole grain vs refined page.
• Yield dilutes minerals. Analyses of grain from a long-running English field experiment found zinc, iron, copper and magnesium concentrations in wheat declining from around the 1960s, as yields rose. Lower-yielding heritage varieties escape some of that dilution — a real effect, but one about yield rather than about ancientness.

Back to Table of Contents

Are They Safe in Coeliac Disease?

No. This is the one question on this page with an unambiguous answer, and getting it wrong is dangerous. Einkorn, emmer, spelt, khorasan, farro and durum are all wheat, all contain gluten, and all are excluded on a coeliac diet by every major clinical guideline.

Einkorn was the serious candidate, and its story is worth telling properly because it shows how careful science reaches a negative answer. Laboratory work found real grounds for hope: einkorn gliadin, subjected to extensive simulated gastrointestinal digestion including brush-border enzymes, was markedly less immune-stimulating to T-cell lines and biopsy tissue from coeliac patients than bread-wheat gliadin, because several einkorn peptides — including known T-cell epitopes — were broken down during digestion while the bread-wheat equivalents survived.

That justified testing it in people. A single-dose crossover challenge in twelve coeliac patients found einkorn was tolerated in the short term, though the study's own authors concluded that the permeability measure they used was too insensitive to establish safety, and called for longer studies.

The longer study settled it. Eight coeliac patients in remission ate 100 g a day of einkorn biscuits for sixty days, with serology and duodenal biopsy before and after. Two dropped out with returning symptoms. Among those who finished, biopsies worsened, coeliac antibodies converted from negative to positive in three patients, and one had a recurrence of dermatitis herpetiformis. The authors' conclusion was explicit: einkorn is toxic to coeliac patients on histological and serological criteria and is not a safe cereal for people with coeliac disease — even though most patients felt fine while the damage was happening.

That last detail is the most important thing on this page. In coeliac disease, feeling fine is not evidence of safety. The damage is measured by biopsy and antibodies, not by how the day went.

Back to Table of Contents

Are They Better Tolerated? The Trial Evidence

Set coeliac disease aside, and the interesting question remains: do people with irritable bowel syndrome or general wheat intolerance do better on ancient wheat? Here there is real trial evidence, it is mostly positive, and it comes with serious limitations that any honest account has to state.

The best-known trial is a double-blinded randomised crossover study in twenty people with moderate IBS. Participants ate bread, pasta, biscuits and crackers made from either organic semi-wholegrain khorasan or modern wheat for six weeks each, in random order. On the khorasan products they reported significantly less abdominal pain, bloating and tiredness, and better stool consistency and quality of life; on the modern-wheat products, no significant change. Circulating inflammatory cytokines — including IL-6 and interferon-gamma — also fell during the khorasan period but not the control period.

The same Florence-based group has since run comparable replacement-diet crossover trials in people with acute coronary syndrome, with type 2 diabetes, and with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and reported improvements in lipid, glycaemic, inflammatory and liver markers on khorasan relative to modern wheat.

Now the limitations, which are not minor:

1. Small. Twenty participants in the IBS trial; the others are of similar size. Small crossover trials produce impressive p-values on subjective symptom scales more easily than large ones.
2. Nearly all from one group. A critical review of this literature concluded plainly that further studies are urgently needed from a wider range of research groups and on a wider range of genotypes. Independent replication is close to absent.
3. The comparison changes more than the species. The intervention products were organic and semi-wholegrain; the controls were conventional modern-wheat products. Species, farming system, refinement and processing all differ at once, so the design cannot say which of them produced the effect.
4. A commercial interest sits close to the material. The grain in most of these trials is the trademarked product, and studies using a branded ingredient warrant the same scepticism whoever the ingredient belongs to.
5. Genotype variation swamps species differences for most measured compounds, as the side-by-side growing comparisons found — so a result obtained with one khorasan line may not generalise even to other khorasan.

None of that makes the findings wrong. It makes them preliminary. The fair summary is that ancient wheats may be better tolerated by some people with IBS-type symptoms, that the evidence is real but thin and needs independent replication, and that anyone presenting these trials as settled science is overstating them.

Back to Table of Contents

FODMAPs: Where a Real Difference Might Live

If ancient wheats do prove easier on some people's guts, the most plausible explanation is not gluten but fructans — the fermentable carbohydrates that the double-blind rechallenge trials implicate in most non-coeliac wheat sensitivity, discussed on the coeliac, allergy and sensitivity page.

Researchers who measured FODMAP levels across modern and ancient wheat species, and then tracked how much survived into baked bread, found substantial variation between species and between genotypes within a species — and a large influence of the bread-making process itself on how much reached the finished loaf. That second finding may be the more useful one: how long a dough ferments can matter as much as which wheat went into it, because yeast and sourdough bacteria consume fructans during a long proof.

It also offers a cheap experiment. If you suspect wheat, comparing a slow-fermented sourdough made from ordinary bread wheat against a fast-proved industrial loaf tests the fermentation variable directly — and costs a great deal less than switching your household to einkorn.

Back to Table of Contents

Cooking and Baking With Them

These grains are worth eating on their own merits. A few practical notes:

• Whole kernels first. Einkorn, emmer and khorasan berries cook like brown rice — simmered 30–60 minutes depending on the grain and whether you soaked them — and are excellent in salads, soups and grain bowls. This is also the form in which you get the whole grain unarguably.
• Soak overnight. It shortens cooking, improves texture, and activates the grain's own phytase, which breaks down phytate and improves mineral absorption.
• Einkorn dough needs less water and less handling. Its weak gluten means it goes slack quickly; treat it gently and expect a dense, flavourful loaf rather than a tall one.
• Spelt is easy to over-knead. Mix less than you would bread wheat, and watch the dough rather than the clock.
• Khorasan makes very good pasta and flatbread and can substitute for durum semolina one to one.
• Blend rather than replace when baking a sandwich loaf: 25–50% ancient flour with strong bread flour gives the flavour without the collapse.
• Buy small and store cold. These are almost always sold wholemeal, and wholemeal flour goes rancid within a couple of months at room temperature.

Back to Table of Contents

The Honest Verdict

• If you have coeliac disease: none of these are safe. Einkorn was the best candidate and a controlled trial showed it damaging the intestine of coeliac patients who felt well on it. This is settled.
• If you have a wheat allergy: these are wheat. Cross-reactivity is likely and they should not be tried without allergy advice.
• If you have IBS or unexplained wheat-related symptoms: there is preliminary trial evidence in favour, and it is reasonable to try — but test the cheaper variables first. A long-fermented sourdough, a lower total dose, and a proper low-FODMAP trial all sit ahead of switching grain in terms of evidence and cost.
• If you tolerate wheat fine: buy them for flavour and variety, which are excellent reasons. Einkorn's carotenoids are a genuine bonus. Do not expect a health transformation, and do not pay a premium expecting one.
• Whatever you choose, whole beats refined. A wholemeal loaf of ordinary bread wheat is nutritionally ahead of a white loaf made from khorasan.

Back to Table of Contents

Key Research Papers

1. Shewry PR. Do ancient types of wheat have health benefits compared with modern bread wheat? Journal of Cereal Science. 2018;79:469-476. — doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2017.11.010
2. Shewry PR, Hey S. Do "ancient" wheat species differ from modern bread wheat in their contents of bioactive components? Journal of Cereal Science. 2015;65:236-243. — doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2015.07.014
3. Shewry PR, Hassall KL, Grausgruber H, et al. Do modern types of wheat have lower quality for human health? Nutrition Bulletin. 2020;45(4):362-373. — doi:10.1111/nbu.12461
4. Dinu M, Whittaker A, Pagliai G, Benedettelli S, Sofi F. Ancient wheat species and human health: biochemical and clinical implications. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. 2018;52:1-9. — doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2017.09.001
5. Sofi F, Whittaker A, Gori AM, et al. Effect of Triticum turgidum subsp. turanicum wheat on irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blinded randomised dietary intervention trial. British Journal of Nutrition. 2014;111(11):1992-1999. — doi:10.1017/S000711451400018X
6. Whittaker A, Sofi F, Luisi ML, et al. An organic khorasan wheat-based replacement diet improves risk profile of patients with acute coronary syndrome: a randomized crossover trial. Nutrients. 2015;7(5):3401-3415. — doi:10.3390/nu7053401
7. Whittaker A, Dinu M, Cesari F, et al. A khorasan wheat-based replacement diet improves risk profile of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): a randomized crossover trial. European Journal of Nutrition. 2017;56(3):1191-1200. — doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1168-2
8. Dinu M, Whittaker A, Pagliai G, et al. A khorasan wheat-based replacement diet improves risk profile of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 2018;37(6):508-514. — doi:10.1080/07315724.2018.1445047
9. Zanini B, Villanacci V, De Leo L, Lanzini A. Triticum monococcum in patients with celiac disease: a phase II open study on safety of prolonged daily administration. European Journal of Nutrition. 2015;54(6):1027-1029. — doi:10.1007/s00394-015-0892-3
10. Zanini B, Petroboni B, Not T, et al. Search for atoxic cereals: a single blind, cross-over study on the safety of a single dose of Triticum monococcum, in patients with celiac disease. BMC Gastroenterology. 2013;13:92. — doi:10.1186/1471-230X-13-92
11. Gianfrani C, Camarca A, Mazzarella G, et al. Extensive in vitro gastrointestinal digestion markedly reduces the immune-toxicity of Triticum monococcum wheat: implication for celiac disease. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. 2015;59(9):1844-1854. — doi:10.1002/mnfr.201500126
12. Ziegler JU, Steiner D, Longin CFH, Würschum T, Schweiggert RM, Carle R. Wheat and the irritable bowel syndrome — FODMAP levels of modern and ancient species and their retention during bread making. Journal of Functional Foods. 2016;25:257-266. — doi:10.1016/j.jff.2016.05.019
13. Grausgruber H, Lovegrove A, Shewry P, Békés F. FODMAPs in wheat. In: Wheat Quality For Improving Processing And Human Health. Springer; 2020:517-534. — doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34163-3_21
14. Kasarda DD. Can an increase in celiac disease be attributed to an increase in the gluten content of wheat as a consequence of wheat breeding? Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2013;61(6):1155-1159. — doi:10.1021/jf305122s
15. Pronin D, Börner A, Weber H, Scherf KA. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) breeding from 1891 to 2010 contributed to increasing yield and glutenin contents but decreasing protein and gliadin contents. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2020;68(46):13247-13256. — doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.0c02815
16. Fan MS, Zhao FJ, Fairweather-Tait SJ, Poulton PR, Dunham SJ, McGrath SP. Evidence of decreasing mineral density in wheat grain over the last 160 years. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2008;22(4):315-324. — doi:10.1016/j.jtemb.2008.07.002
17. Dubcovsky J, Dvorak J. Genome plasticity a key factor in the success of polyploid wheat under domestication. Science. 2007;316(5833):1862-1866. — doi:10.1126/science.1143986

Further reading via topic search: PubMed: ancient wheat clinical trials and PubMed: Triticum monococcum and coeliac disease.

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

• Wheat — the main topic page
• Wheat Benefits Deep Dive hub
• Wheat: History and Origins
• Wheat: Nutrient Profile
• Coeliac Disease, Wheat Allergy and Gluten Sensitivity
• Whole Grain vs Refined Wheat
• Wheat Bran, Fibre and Gut Health
• Celiac Disease
• Irritable Bowel Syndrome
• Dermatitis Herpetiformis
• Barley
• Oats
• Buckwheat
• Quinoa
• Brown Rice
• Fermented Foods
• Gut Health
• Zinc
• Selenium
• Magnesium

Back to Table of Contents

Featured Videos