Longer than people who eat no grains?

For every daily serving of whole grains, people who ate the largest amount of whole grains daily were about 5% less likely to die of any cause than those who ate the smallest amount. For each daily serving, people were about 9% less likely to die of heart disease. Eating whole grains did not affect the risk of cancer death. A serving was equal to 1 ounce (28 grams) of whole grains. The estimates took into account other factors that could affect the risk of death. These included age, smoking, family medical history, and exercise, among others.

Everyone in the study had at least some grains, it seems.

If those who ate the most survived longer than those who ate the least, wouldn't that follow that those who ate none are in the category with those who eat the least? We'd have to look at the study but I would guess that people who didn't eat any (which is a fairly new phenomenon) would have been categorized in the analysis as those who eat less...as in < x grains per week.

The whole "no grains is healthy fad" is relatively new starting from the Atkins institute and growing from there. (I'm still suspicious of Atkins when they failed to make his autopsy public. It seems like if his arteries were clear they would have used that to further hype their business. I would not be surprised if it came out that his "fall" was from a heart attack.)

Yeah, it's suspicious that they won't tell us how Atkins died.

When I mentioned low carb I was thinking more the Paleos. 

It would have been useful to learn how a control group that ate no carbs fared. 

The article indicates that everyone ate some grains.