Modern wheat a "perfect, chronic poison," doctor says

[Kelvin Mace]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: "It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s," he said on "CBS This Morning." "This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten. I'm not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I'm talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year."

Asked if the farming industry could change back to the grain it formerly produced, Davis said it could, but it would not be economically feasible because it yields less per acre. However, Davis said a movement has begun with people turning away from wheat - and dropping substantial weight.

"If three people lost eight pounds, big deal," he said. "But we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds. Diabetics become no longer diabetic; people with arthritis having dramatic relief. People losing leg swelling, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and on and on every day."

*sigh*

I throw this out for discussion as I do not quite know what to make of the claim.

Yes, I can believe the premise of what Davis is saying, and it makes sense, but so do a lot of other "sensible-sounding" theories until you get some serious peer-reviewed research into the claims.

America's obesity problem is being blamed on a number of factors, all which seem plausible:

- High Fructose Corn Syrup
- High concentrations of corn in food
- Sugar (all types)
- Growth hormones used in animals
- Growth of suburbia requiring driving instead of walking
- Practical elimination of phys-ed in schools
- Shift from agrarian to industrial economy
- The rise of super-high calorie fast food/convenience food
- Cheap food prices (relative to the past, especially meat)
- All the above

What does one eat to be healthy? And if most of what is on the market is unhealthy, how does one find the money and time to find, buy and prepare healthy foods?

How do we make sense of all these conflicting theories?

[flamingdem]

1. Who knows if the claims are true

but if you want to find out cut wheat from your diet. If you feel better there might be something to it.
Try Spelt pasta!

[JustAnotherGen]

4. better yet

Spaghetti squash.

Or my new favorite . . . Steamed Zucchini/Yellow Squash with my husband's sauce with meatballs (made with OUT any starch products).

[femrap]

32. It's good!

I like it...sometimes I just put cheese (usually swiss) on it.

and butternut squash w/ a bit of butter and brown sugar for dessert!

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Yes, but depending on who I listen to

I would have to cut:

- All carbs
- All sugar
- All HFC
- All meat
- All dairy
- All glutens
- All GM foods
- All fruits/vegetables treated with pesticides
- All "processed" foods
- All foods containing corn

Etc.

I don't expect someone to offer me "the answer", just hoping to promote some discussion on the issue. For example, what is "Spelt Pasta" and why do you recommend it?

[flamingdem]

15. It's not wheat and it tastes better than wheat pasta

I might buy into all of the wheat is bad now because I really do feel better limiting wheat.

I used to eat a lot of whole wheat bread and felt bloated, not so much now.

If I were you I'd first drop HFC and GM foods first. Those are proven to cause problems.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Spelt contains just as much gluten and gliadin as standard wheat

Spelt wheat (Triticum spelta L.) has not been investigated for the toxicity on coeliac disease patients until now. Because clinical studies are out of considerations for ethical reasons, spelt wheat and coeliac-active bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were compared by the analysis of N-terminal sequences of alpha-gliadins, which have been proposed to be responsible for the toxic effect. The gliadin fractions of the spelt wheats 'Roquin' and 'Schwabenkorn' and of the bread wheat 'Rektor' were preparatively separated by RP-HPLC and major alpha-gliadin components were then compared by N-terminal sequence analysis. The results did not reveal any significant difference between spelt and bread wheats within the first 25 positions. For the determination of sequences further from the N-terminus, the gliadin fractions of the spelt wheats were hydrolyzed with pepsin and trypsin. The resulting peptides were successively separated by gel permeation chromatography and RP-HPLC. Those peptides derived from the N-terminal part of alpha-gliadins were identified by reference peptides isolated previously from bread wheat [this journal 194: 229 (1992)]. Retention times upon RP-HPLC and amino acid compositions of corresponding peptides confirmed the identity of spelt and bread wheat concerning the N-terminal sequences of alpha-gliadins from position 3 to 56. For these reasons, it can be concluded that spelt wheat is a coeliac-toxic cereal and has to be avoided by coeliac patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7571865

(note that gliadin is a component of gluten, no matter what the quack on CB said:

Gliadin is one of two types of proteins, along with glutenin–that are the components of the gluten in wheat. It is the part of the gluten that contains specific amino acids sequences that people react to if they have Celiac Disease or another form of gluten sensitivity, except for some gluten allergies.

http://www.gluten-free-around-the-world.com/gliadin.html

[flamingdem]

62. I don't think that I have a gluten problem, but I'm concerned about the

way wheat was altered as was stated in the original article.

Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: "It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s," he said on "CBS This Morning."

It's not clear from this research if it has been or not but it seems to be in its original form without intervention from science?

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. It's been altered by genetic research for thousands of years

That's how agriculture works. You breed selectively for the characteristics you want.

[flamingdem]

86. So the question is whether some grains are easier on the digestion

than others. That's what I'd like to know because wheat does seem to do a number on me, for one it seems to stimulate my appetite.

[DarleenMB]

90. That's not quite true ...

But be that as it may, modern wheat is basically inedible.

Here's the kicker ... the sugar in wheat will spike your blood glucose higher and faster than table sugar. The protein in wheat crosses the blood/brain barrier (which is a HUGE NONONO) and attaches (are you ready?) to opiate receptor sites.

That's right boys and girls. Modern wheat is as addictive as opiates. And what do you jones for when you are literally addicted to wheat? Why more food. It MAKES YOU HUNGRY when there's no physical reason for you to BE hungry.

Great, eh?

[Kelvin Mace]

99. Yes,

but as I note above, opiates SUPPRESS appetite according to everything I have read (this is why heroine addicts are so emaciated). So WHY would the opposite happen with the same receptors. The addiction part I could buy, but stimulating appetite contradicts established neurology.

[sense]

136. It stimulates your appetite

because of the blood sugar spikes. Worse than eating sugar.

[HiPointDem]

104. basically inedible? oh really? that's funny since it's the world's more widely cultivated grain &

Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 02:11 PM - Edit history (2)

a major source of calories & nutrients for large fraction of the world's population. shouldn't they all be dead?

if wheat is 'inedible' 'poison,' how is it that as more people ate it more often lifespan increased rather than decreased?

as for opioid receptors, you understand that lots of things that aren't opioids will 'attach' to opioid receptors without being opioids or having the effect of opiates.

for example, the opioid antagonists Naloxone and naltrexone prevent actual opiates from attaching & thus prevent people from getting high even when they use opiates.

Many natural substances, e.g. some fractions contained in coffee:

It is not widely known, but coffee - decaf and decaffeinated, instant, brewed and espresso - contains compounds such as 4-Caffeoyl-1, 5-quinide (AKA 4-Caffeoylquinide or 4-CQL) which have a high affinity for the mu opioid receptor. These compounds do not activate the receptor. They prevent it being occupied and activated by endogenous opioids (produced naturally by the body) or by exogenous opioids, such as morphine. These compounds are mu opioid receptor antagonists and are unrelated to caffeine.

http://aminotheory.com/coffee/

a fraction of morning glory also binds to opioid receptors -- and produces hallucinations. but it's not an opiate and doesn't have the properties of opiates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvinorin_A

wheat isn't 'addictive'. that's bunk. not everything that binds to opioid receptors is addictive.

as for 'the sugar in wheat spiking blood sugar faster than sugar,' that's also bunk.

the 'sugar in wheat' = glucose. if you isolate it, it goes into the blood (maybe marginally) faster than sucrose because it doesn't need to be broken down -- same as the glucose from any plant food.

Starch or amylum is a carbohydrate consisting of a large number of glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds. This polysaccharide is produced by all green plants as an energy store. It is the most common carbohydrate in the human diet and is contained in large amounts in such staple foods as potatoes, wheat, maize (corn), rice, and cassava.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch

even lettuce contains glucose, btw.

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. Hang on, you think it's not true that wheat has been changed for thousands of years

and then you claim "modern wheat is basically inedible"? Wow, you have no idea what the word 'true' means.

Prehistoric cultivation of wild wheat in the Fertile Crescent led to the selection of mutants with indehiscent (nonshattering) ears, which evolved into modern domestic wheat. Previous estimates suggested that this transformation was rapid, but our analyses of archaeological plant remains demonstrate that indehiscent domesticates were slow to appear, emerging approximately 9500 years before the present, and that dehiscent (shattering) forms were still common in cultivated fields approximately 7500 years before the present. Slow domestication implies that after cultivation began, wild cereals may have remained unchanged for a long period, supporting claims that agriculture originated in the Near East approximately 10,500 years before the present.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16574859

So, yes, it has been changed for thousands of years.

HiPointDem has pointed out how fatuous the "basically inedible" claim is.

"the sugar in wheat will spike your blood glucose higher and faster than table sugar" - link to science for this, please.

" Modern wheat is as addictive as opiates" - link to science for this, please.

[Kelvin Mace]

97. The wheat is the product of old-fashioned

cross-breeding rather than direct genetic manipulation.

My doubts about the article come from his discussion of opiate receptors causing appetite to be stimulated. Opiates, according to all I have read, SUPPRESS appetite.

[yellowcanine]

134. The change made in the 60s was called the semi-dwarf gene.

It is a change in a couple of genes which has an effect on how tall the plant gets. As a result the heads get a little bigger also. There is almost no effect to the chemistry of the wheat itself. The writer of the original article knows almost nothing about plant breeding and even less about plant physiology. Hexaploid wheat has been around for thousands of years, including hexaploid wheat with semi-dwarf genes. The reason taller varieties were grown for years and years were because farmers wanted the straw in addition to the grain. It was great for animal bedding, particularly for horses. Then some scientists came along and said - look, we can get a better yield if we have shorter plants. Since by the time of the 60s farmers had less need for straw and they wanted better yields, they planted the new semidwarf varieties. The biggest differences in gluten in wheat is the type of wheat grown. Bread wheat, which is hard wheat, has more gluten - for good reason. It makes better bread. Soft wheat, which is used for cookies and cakes, etc, has less gluten, again, because less gluten is more desirable for cookies and cakes.

[Retrograde]

143. There you go again

bringing actual facts into a discussion about foods: next you'll be explaining the differences in dent, flint and sweet corns (another plant that humans have hybridized beyond the recognition of its first cultivators). I didn't know about the straw, but since farming is a business, it makes sense that commercial farmers are trying for better yields.

I keep whole wheat, all purpose, and bread flours around because I use them for different things. If you make bread by hand-kneading it it's easy to see (or feel) the difference between bread flour and all-purpose flour: the former can really give your hands and arms a workout, and makes a much stiffer dough. It's also the kind used for most pastas

[yellowcanine]

161. Thanks for the nice words but I have to disagree on the pasta.....

Most pastas are mostly made from durum wheat, a different species altogether. Bread flour, pastry flour and all purpose flour come from Triticum aestivum, a hexaploid wheat, and pasta flour comes from Triticum turgidum, a tetraploid wheat. Very different plants, as one can tell from the fact that they have different numbers of chromosomes.

"next you'll be explaining the differences in dent, flint and sweet corns"
Yes, corn, being probably one of the most truly domesticated crops which we have, in the sense that there is no wild equivalent, at least not in the sense that we have wild wheats.

Actually I would rather explore the differences between open pollinated corn and hybrid corn. Now there is a fun topic.

[Kelvin Mace]

95. Already did that.

Cut out GM foods (when I can determine it present) and HFCS 2-3 years ago. Lots of label-reading to avoid HFCS, it is in almost everything!

[HiPointDem]

96. it's wheat.

Spelt, also known as dinkel wheat,[2] or hulled wheat,[2] is a hexaploid species of wheat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt

[GeorgeGist]

16. You forgot FAT.

SPELT is a hexaploid species of wheat.

[K8-EEE]

27. Spelt has gluten nt

[DarleenMB]

89. And you are left with ...

Shellfish, crustaceans, fish, offal from grass fed land animals, meat from grass fed land animals, nuts, non-starchy veggies, and modest amounts of berries in season.

It's called epi-paleo. And when you stop eating for entertainment and eating for health you'll find this is the only way to go.

[truebrit71]

107. Love my Paleo diet

...best thing i ever did for myself..

[Rainngirl]

113. Yep, this is how I'm eating now.

Although I DO allow a little dark chocolate and an occasional coconut milk ice cream, because it makes me feel like I can still be a part of society while foregoing birthday cakes and all the crap people bring into the office. By giving up ALL grains, MOST sugars, and sticking with just the "good" fats (coconut, olive, avocado and bacon and other meat fat), my cholesterol is better, my blood sugar is in the normal range and I've reversed diabetes. See Mark Sisson's site www.marksdailyapple for the rundown on paleo.

Once I got over being mad about having to give up my carb addiction, I'm much happier, feel better and am finally starting to lose weight. It can only get better from here.

[sense]

141. Absolutely!

I'd be careful saying that here though. I've had all sorts of people jump all over me, calling paleo/primal woo, and try to hide my posts and discredit what I say because I told the truth about it curing my diabetes and improving my health enormously. I had to fire my first doctor who told me I'd kill myself eating this way. The advice she kept giving me that the AHA, ADA and all of the other nutrition advisors only made me more ill! I've got a new doctor now who's very excited about what I've done. My labs are all better than they've been in 30 years!

Stuns me that people that are supposedly progressive would expend so much energy trying to ensure that the word doesn't get out about how we've been so mislead about what's healthy and what's not. Apparently ensuring the massive profits of the agricultural Corporations and big Pharma are much more important than our health.

People believe we've been cheated by the ptb in other areas, but not about food.

[diane in sf]

153. You're probably being atacked by the vehement vegans--there are a flock of them here.

[sense]

280. Thanks for the suggestion.

It hadn't occurred to me that might be the problem. And the notion of a flock rings true, as one attacks and then are followed by one or more in quick succession!

[Shanti Mama]

223. I cut all grains, legumes and dairy in July.

My autoimmune conditions are much improved and my belly is MUCH smaller. Yeah!

I eat meat and lot and lots of vegies. Unfortunately, I can't get coconut oil where I live (Asia), but will try making it soon.

I occasionally have some milk in a latte and eat a bit of Dagoba 87% chocolate every day. Couldn't feel more satiated. Life is good.

Next is exercise...

Maybe we should start a paleo group here on DU.

[gateley]

154. Ideally I'd cut all of the above with the exception of meat occasionally.

When I was eating all organic, only "real" food, I felt better than I ever had in my life. I honestly remember thinking I didn't think I even felt that good when I was 18 (and I was in my late 40’s at the time). I fell off the wagon when I succumbed to a Dick's cheeseburger (Seattlelites will know what I'm talking about) followed by moving to the South and discovering Hush Puppies.

With how I respond to wheat products, I believe what this guy says about it being like an opiate.

Can't afford to return to that way of eating now, but it's my goal. I know I'll feel 20 years younger. At least.

[Smickey]

270. 2 delux's(?) and an order of fries please.

Capitol hill and people watching. Family tradition. It is like an opiate. But my god it is good. I know, spoken like an true believer.

[gateley]

272. I had just returned to Seattle for my niece's wedding after living in NC for three years.

As fabulous as I was feeling, and as high as I was on my new lifestyle, my first stop after landing was to hit Dick's (the Broadway location -- closest to the airport. ). I couldn't decide if I wanted a Cheeseburger or a Special, so I had both! And a shake and those heavenly greasy, over-salted fries. That's all she wrote. I was almost hoping my clean, pristine body would revolt so I wouldn't be tempted further. But no, it was like my body said Finally! REALLY good food!

[HiPointDem]

93. spelt is wheat and has gliadin.

[yellowcanine]

147. Pasta is made from durum wheat, which has gluten but so does spelt.

Spelt is actually more closely related to bread wheat (which all the brouhaha seems to be about) than pasta wheat. In fact it is the same species, Triticum aestivum, whereas durum wheat is Triticum turgidum. All a moot point anyway, they all contain gluten and are not appropriate for anyone who truly needs a gluten free diet. Problem is many people don't and that is why they think they are benefiting their health by substituting spelt for wheat but in fact they have changed very little. A harmless diversion maybe, unless they pig out on the spelt pasta and become overweight. By the way, barley, rye and oats contain gluten also. If you truly need a gluten free diet you need to substitute corn or rice, or if you want something fancier, quinoa or kasha (buckwheat).

[REP]

192. Or shirataki (noodles made from konnyaku)

No carbs, no nothing, really - and can be boiled or dry roasted. I don't really like pasta but I do like shirataki and konnyaku.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Trial and Error

Not being flippant - but those of us with genetic/chronic/auto immune diseases look at this 'science' as old news. You don't have to have celiac's disease - to feel your back 'freeze' - if you eat a sandwich of 'whole grain' bread. :nonono: I've found completely eliminating starch (including things like rice and quinoa) have made a tremendous impact on how my Ankylosing Sponylitis and R.A. present themselves.

If true health issues are not a concern - then stick with the food pyramid.

If there is an auto immune disease present - what's wrong with turning to food BEFORE drugs? Example - A.S. they tend to prescribe Enbrel - it's one big cancer causer we shoot ourselves up with once a week.

Not me - not anymore. Not gonna do it. Just sticking to fish, veggies, fruit, lean meat, and limited dairy.

My life doesn't suck because I don't eat pasta.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. You are not being flippant at all

This is kind of what I want to discuss. I have family members and friends with health problems. My wife has MS (diagnosed in 1990), I have a sister-in-law with fibromyalgia (she has just started cutting gluten out of her diet) and I have my own battles with weight.

I am just frustrated at all the conflicting information and want to hear other people's views and experiences.

[drokhole]

31. You might be interested in this TEDTalk from Dr. Terry Wahls...

It's called Minding Your Mitochondria, and she discusses being afflicted with MS and what she did to treat it:

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Thank you very much for the link

[drokhole]

172. You're welcome!

[femrap]

47. I was a fat child and probably

have a genetic tendency to gaining extra pounds. I have yo-yo dieted my entire life. I will keep the weight off for over 5 years and then BAM! something bad emotionally happens (W's 2nd term, for example), and I look to food to comfort me.

So I know a little about nutrition and allergies because of all my dieting, and wanting to have a 'lifestyle' diet not a 'going on a diet which I eventually go off' diet.

A person can develop allergies as an adult and those allergies in a few years can disappear. I got sinus headaches from dairy. I quite dairy and changed to soy cheese/milk and the fat dripped off of me. Now regular cheese doesn't bother me in the least.

Wheat. This is the first that I've heard of this 'opiate-type' ingredient in wheat but it makes perfect sense. I can sit down and eat pasta, bread, etc. and I never feel full. Do you? Protein makes me feel full.

Another thing about United States Wheat: we grow only a couple of kinds of which there are thousands. Our wheat is what I call 'The Wonder Bread' wheat. In Europe they grow an entirely different type of wheat. When I went to Europe w/ my backpack back in the mid-70's, I was amazed by the taste of their bread. I also discovered that beer tastes really good (always hated it in the US). I read recently that Europe is still growing a different wheat than us.

Try an experiment. If you have Aldi's grocery stores near you, go buy one of their pizzas that is made in Italy or Germany (they are seasonal so you might have to wait a couple of weeks before they arrive). The crust tastes so much better than what we have here....and what really amazed me was that I didn't eat the whole pizza (which I always do if it is a US pizza)....I was full. When those German and Italian pizzas arrive, I buy a bunch....and so does everyone else....they are that good!!! And cost only $3 to $3.50.

I have cut down on my bread intake and have lost 6 lbs. without even trying....but I'm still eating the Aldi's pizzas.

I am going to look for rice noodles and see if I like them w/ pesto sauce or marinara sauce. Maybe I should look for pasta made in Italy as well.

Big Food and Monsanto are killing us and they are in collusion w/ Big Health and Big Pharma.

I fix an eye of round beef roast and slice it up into individual servings and freeze it. Same w/ a pork loin. I'll marinate chicken breasts/tenders in teriyaki...again wrap up into individual servings and freeze. Also skinless chicken thighs. I'll fix all four in one day...saves energy. I fill up the oven.

I keep dark chocolate from Aldi's (you'll never eat a Hershey bar again) in the freezer and eat 1/2 a bar a day. I eat cheese which I know has fat, but we need a bit of fat to satisfy our hunger. Again Aldi's has a wide selection of 'real' cheese....10 slices for $1.99. Aldi's owns Trader Joe's, but their prices are much less. Aldi's is the biggest grocer in Europe so they will sell us stuff made in Europe which is much better than the stuff made in the US. Lots of different veggies/salads and I'm set.

Crock Pots can make some great thick stews/roasts...and again I freeze in individual GLASS containers...do not use plastic given the US's tendency to use NON-SEALED BPA plastic containers. Again, Europe will NOT accept the non-sealed containers of food.

Our wheat sucks. I just eat my burger w/o the bread piled w/ sauted onions, mushrooms, and cheese. It's too bad we can't find a farmer willing to grow European wheat....he/she'd make a fortune! Monsanto would probably have them shut down. And then we need a European bakery...different way of baking....but these are already in the US.

Hope this gives you some ideas for experimenting.

One side of my family is from Germany, but no one kept in touch. DAMN! Supposedly from Baden-Baden which is right on the French border....that'd be heaven for me!

Good luck. Let me know how your nutrition plan works out.

[JustAnotherGen]

232. My mother In laws

Homemade pasta made with locally produced wheat (she is in Southern Italy) does not make me a ache or swell. That's a tip of the hat to your note about buying frozen pizza produced abroad. . Neither does her bread. Or her sweets.

[femrap]

290. So I should be

able to find pasta made in Italy, don't you think?

You are lucky to have a cook/baker in your family. Do you visit Italy often? Or can she send goodies?

[JustAnotherGen]

291. Even better!

I love to cook! She's teaching me how to do all of those Calabrese specialties. As an aside - Scharr Pasta is sold in the PHARMACIES there. Look for that or try to order it online.

[femrap]

292. I just joined

the Schar Club! Thanks for info...I've been looking for something like this forever.

[flamingdem]

17. Does you Dr. say it's necessary to have some kind of grain product?

That's something I'm not sure about, I'd like to cut them out further but you know they say to balance fats, protein and carb.

[DarleenMB]

94. You do not need grains at all

That's the grain industry talking.

Humanity only began cultivating grains (aka GRASSES) about 11,000 years ago.

for MILLIONS of years prior to that humans lived on fish, nuts, berries, meat when they could get it.

So ... millions of years, grass free vs. 11,000 years eating grass

I don't know about you but I am not a ruminant. Leave the grass to the cows and I'll have some more oysters please.

[Abq_Sarah]

222. Grains aren't necessary unless you literally have nothing else to eat

I've spent the last decade grain free on a moderate protein, high fat diet. Lots of eggs, avocado, full fat yogurt, beef, pork, chicken, fish and for the minimal carbs I eat, green leafy vegetables, nuts and occasional berries. At 50, I'm in better health, and more importantly, I feel better than I have since I was a kid. I wish I'd know that grains aren't an essential part of a healthy diet 30 years ago.

[HiPointDem]

227. meat also isn't necessary. neither are eggs, avocado, yogurt, etc. in fact, as many people who

(including children) dependent on artificial feeding know, it's possible to live without eating any 'real' food at all.

not criticizing your choice of diet; just saying.

[LittlestStar]

117. You are saying that diet helps your R.A.? I wonder if it would help fibromyalgia.

My mom is often bed-ridden from it, its very sad, and doctor's don't even really know what it is.

[sense]

132. One of my friends who

followed my spouse and I into our new lifestyle, without wheat, no longer has fibromyalgia. She's also experienced a really encouraging improvement in her RA and went from a size 14 to a 4. That wasn't her goal, but it happened when she quit eating what we now call the "filler" foods. She's actually trying to find a way to put some weight back on, without grains, as she thinks she's too thin.

[LittlestStar]

171. Wow that is such good news! I have been so worried about her, only 65 and so sick with

this stupid mystery illness. Thanks!

[sense]

184. My friend is 63.

She was on so many meds (still on some of them) and is really a different person now that she's feeling so much better. Giving up wheat seems like a reasonable option to try. Especially in light of all the side effects from the drugs given to auto-immune sufferers and the devastation of the diseases themselves. I know that we're all individuals and our bodies react to things differently, so responses will vary, but it's such a harmless thing to try.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Meh. Bread and pasta are staples in my house, and

we're all of normal weight.

[Jester Messiah]

10. Doesn't mean you wouldn't be better off without it.

Bread just fills you up without giving you much nutrition in return. Same with pasta.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I'm Italian. You might as well ask Asians to give up rice, or Mexicans

to give up tortillas. Ain't gonna happen.

[OriginalGeek]

19. I'm Scottish and Irish mostly and

I'd be awfully hard pressed to give up bread, pasta, tortillas or rice....I eat them all and often.

But I did rec this thread because I have all the same questions as OP - am looking forward to some good info for how/what/when to substitute....


But damn...no pizza? Harsh.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Yep, pizza night isn't going anywhere in my household. I also have

to wonder, how would I feed a family of teenage boys on nothing but meat and veggies, with no bread, tortillas, pasta allowed? WTF would they make sandwiches with? How about cereal--is that out too? There would be mutiny--AND I'd go broke in two weeks.

[BlueToTheBone]

40. The answer is using other strains of wheat

For instance, soft white wheat is an heirloom. The new wheat is hard red wheat, so that's an answer.
without sounding like a commercial, our DU member Tumbulu is a wheat farmer and can give some great info on the differences. Her company is Vreseis Ltd

I know that it makes great tortillas, but I haven't made bread or pasta from it. It would probably be great for that too.

[OriginalGeek]

130. I doubt I'll ever learn to make anything from any kind of wheat

but if I can buy products made from the good stuff I will do it. I don't mind driving for it either. I'll look up Tumbulu's info. Sounds pretty cool!

[WinkyDink]

200. I'm Irish-Italian, and I'm a carbohydrate addict! This thread is very educational and inspirational!

[Doremus]

46. That's true ... if you're talking about bread and pasta made with white flour, i.e. wallpaper paste.

Whole grain pastas and breads are nutritious, provide energy and contain healthful fiber which does lots of beneficial things not least of which is help to remove cholesterol and toxins from our system.

An excellent book on the subject is The Starch Solution by Dr. McDougall.

For whatever reason, starches have been given a bad rap and if we care about our health we need to educate ourselves.

[cbdo2007]

5. I believe it, as I know many people who don't eat wheat....

and feel much better for cutting it out of their diet. I still eat a small amount of wheat and don't notice a difference if I go on it or off of it, so just like everything else it's probably most about moderation than anything else. Everybody's body reacts differently though.

To answer your next question, I don't know how the average family affords to eat healthy. Again, try to mix in some healthy with some normal foods and see if you feel better. Read more labels and many companies are cutting out some of the harmful stuff, they just aren't advertising it.

[lunasun]

7. try to eat food in its whole state if you must do processed then try to do alternate grains+organic

You are what you eat
very time consuming and $$ I do agree
if you can handle it try to eat as much as possible raw (50% is not out of the question = salads whole fruit nuts vegies etc.)
http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html for success stories at the end of page
diabetic nation coming
fast food nation is already here
this finally getting to media like CBS? good but it has been known for years

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Another sensible idea

We are trying to stay away from "processed" foods, but as you know, expensive and time-consuming.

I lived in Switzerland when I was ten, and food was something that was bought every day or so. You walked down to the market, and got what you needed for the next few meals. Fresh food AND exercise!

Unfortunately, this type of practice is virtually impractical where I live now. Grocery stores must be driven to, and the cheapest prices are for quantities of food that require storage, and increase the chances that it will spoil before being eaten. One VERY irritating example in supermarkets is when you want to buy strawberries. You cannot buy a "pint" of strawberries anymore, they want to sell you a quart or MORE.

Thanks for the link.

[shanti]

48. "diabetic nation coming"

tell me about it. me and sis, in our mid-50's, now are T2, with no family history of diabetes. it was a big kick-in-the-butt.

and to think i used to brag on having a cast iron stomach for many years....until i didn't. now, i have to actually think about what i'm eating, which is a big change. no fast food, no pizza, no fried food, no sweets. i do feel better for it, though, and have lost weight.

[99th_Monkey]

182. Organic Wheat, by definition, can't be genetically engineered wheat, can it? ~nt

[Richard D]

279. No

But it also is heavily hybridized.

[piratefish08]

8. start by avoiding the center aisles at the store - fresh foods are on the perimeter.

it doesn't need to be more expensive to eat healthy and the additional cost is offset by not buying the frozen, processed, boxed crap that allows us to eat 'cheap'.

it does take a little more time and effort which is where most shoppers give up trying.......

[Kelvin Mace]

45. Yeah, I noticed that

Trying to make more food from scratch adds about an hour to food prep, which is hard at the end of a long day, especially as we all still have all the other household chores to do.

As I said, I posted this for discussion and out of frustration. Perhaps folks will share some useful info with us about how they deal with the issue.

[japple]

59. We've always done most of the cooking on the weekends and

eaten leftovers during the week. My mother could feed a family of 5 for a week on one chicken. I exaggerate, but only slightly. After we ate a meal of roasted chicken with vegetables, she would use the rest of the chicken for casseroles or as a base for other meals, and she cooked the bones/skin to make broth for soup. She was a great scratch cook and very creative to boot. Join the DU cooking & baking group for great ideas!

[Kelvin Mace]

105. We are having a discussion in my home

about cooking on Sunday for the entire week. The basic idea is to have all the ingredients in the freezer, and simply assemble them for each meal and re-heat.

Of course, I was shooting for sandwiches at lunch...

[Egalitarian Thug]

70. Excellent advice (IMO), with one exception, hardy veggies (squash, broccoli, snap peas, etc).

Buying your vegetables frozen, produced as locally as possible greatly increases the chances of getting veggies that have matured through growing. Most of the fresh produce in the supermarkets was picked weeks ago, far before it is mature and has been treated with chemicals to finish growing and turn color in the back of the truck/ship/railcar on its way to the distribution center.

The frozen veggies are frozen in the field and so have to be allowed to finish their natural cycle. I find that the flavor is usually better as well.

[mzmolly]

13. Sheesh. I had no idea that wheat had changed

Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

so dramatically.

On edit, I plan to verify before cutting wheat out.

[yellowcanine]

35. Well the claim that it did is not verified by good science.

Yes, modern wheat varieties are semidwarf which leads to higher yields. But I have seen no good scientific studies showing a linkage between the semidwarf character and wheat chemistry. It could be that the higher levels of nitrogen which are used could alter wheat chemistry somewhat. But the assertion that gliaden in wheat is any kind of problem for people not sensitive to gluten (gliaden is a gluten precursor) has not been shown. And there is no evidence that cutting out gluten benefits people who do not have gluten sensitivity. What we do know is that cutting out extra carbs will benefit people. But it doesn't matter whether those carbs come from wheat, which had gliaden and gluten, or rice, which does not. The gluten free/gliaden free diet is a FAD. As with all food fads, it has little basis in science. Bottom line is that most people will be perfectly healthy on a varied diet of different kinds of grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and some meat and dairy. That and limiting caloric intake and engaging in moderate exercise daily to maintain a healthy weight is the key. If people have allergies or foods they can't tolerate they should avoid those. For most people, that does not include wheat.

[mzmolly]

37. I tend to agree with you

after digging a bit.

[SunSeeker]

41. Exercise and limit caloric intake? That's just crazy talk.

[yellowcanine]

101. Yes it is. Much easier to just quit eating wheat.

We do love our silver bullet solutions.

[pnwmom]

49. Actually, quite a number of researchers have demonstrated

that there are people with gliadin sensitivity who do not have classic celiac.

Antibodies to gliadin have been connected with neurological problems, with liver problems, and more.

I didn't have a positive response to the blood test that's most specific to gluten, but I did to both gliadin tests (which doctors routinely administered in those days, to possible celiac patients). When, upon the advice of my GI doc, I stopped eating wheat and other foods with gliadin/gluten, my symptoms of ulcerative colitis disappeared. (Blood isn't a psychosomatic symptom, so the improvement was pretty undeniable.)

[yellowcanine]

81. "there are people with gliadin sensitivity who do not have classic celiac." No one says otherwise.

The question is not whether people have gluten or gliaden sensitivity. They do and most do not have celiac disease. But it is a continuum like most other stuff. And most people can manage it without going gluten free just as we manage sensitivities to other things in food. It is the "silver bullet" notion - "eliminate gluten and your problems will be solved, " which bothers me. No, eat a balanced diet, avoid overeating, and get some exercise. Yes if you are truly sensitive to something, eliminate that from your diet or manage it with moderate intake. But that is the exception. One size does not fit all.

[pnwmom]

165. People with gluten sensitivity and Celiac are having an antibody response that cannot be managed

well by simply eating gluten foods moderately. By reducing their consumption of these foods, they may be feeling better for the time being, but as long as people with the anti-body response eat any amount of gluten, they are increasing their risk for a host of auto-immune diseases down the road, and even for intestinal lymphoma.

[wtmusic]

58. What's your take on gluten sensitivity/allergy? nt

[yellowcanine]

84. I think I gave my take. It occurs. It is a continuum.

Most people can manage it by moderating their intake of gluten containing grains and eating a good mix of different grains along with a balanced diet, which is what everyone should be doing anyway.

[Kelvin Mace]

106. Hence my skepticism with the article

and desire for discussion.

Plus, I am hoping for useful suggestions and maybe a few recipes.

[Kelvin Mace]

174. Yellowcanine

This was the kind of discussion I was hoping for. What is your area of expertise?

[yellowcanine]

178. Agronomy/crop science.

But I mostly work in education now, not research. And I do not work for the grain industry, as one person implied.

[Kelvin Mace]

249. I didn't think so

and admonished the person for implying.

Thanks for the educational posts.

[HiPointDem]

116. it hasn't. flour in grandma's day had plenty of gliadin -- else her bread wouldn't have risen.

[mzmolly]

119. I've come to that conclusion after doing research.

I was about to toss the flour.

[yellowcanine]

150. What I keep trying to tell people, gluten/gliadin is needed for good bread.

Of course you can make corn bread, but it is not really the same thing. Makes a crappy sandwich, for one. I like corn bread but not that way. And I have no idea what rice bread would look like. I suspect there is a good reason why one doesn't see it on store shelves.

[gkhouston]

157. +1. You need to *add* gluten if you're making whole wheat bread, unless you want a door stop. n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

177. i LOVE fresh bread

especially French and Italian loaves.

And corn bread does not make a good sandwich, though skillet-made corn bread is the only way to go.

[yellowcanine]

179. Fresh skillet corn bread with butter and honey, omg.

That is some good eating. But it will give you a big belly if you eat too much of it, even though it doesn't have any gluten in it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I avoid it, for food allergies reasons

and yes, I feel better. I know it is an allergy... so different than Gliadin... but if I eat any by mistake, I am out for the day.

Hubby mostly avoids it since he eats what I cook and eats small amounts otherwise.

Oh and my brother is a doctor and due to the increase he has seen in things like Chrons and Celiacs as well as other things, he is also convinced there is something in what we eat.

There should be some peer reviewed studies imho, to find out if there is any validity to this.

[yellowcanine]

42. "There should be peer reviewed studies......." There are. They do not support the faddists.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112680482/new-research-debunks-glutenfree-diet-for-weight-loss/


Gluten free should be seen for what it is - a fad. As with most food fads, there is a kernel of truth in the fad claims. Yes, a few people need to go gluten free, and yes, probably everybody has some level of intolerance to gluten, just as nearly everyone has some intolerance to the trisaccharides in legumes (they give you gas). But does that mean we don't eat legumes? No, they have too many healthy benefits - so we learn how to cook them properly, we avoid the ones we seem to have the most problems with, and we eat them in MODERATION mixed with other foods, thus diluting the ill effects. Each person has to find for themselves what the right mix is. One size definitely does not fit all and it is actually quite rare that someone is totally intolerant of a particular food. Celiac disease and peanut allergies are exceptions which prove the rule.

[pnwmom]

51. That one study doesn't support gluten abstinence as weight loss device.

It doesn't address many other problems caused by gliadin and gluten.

(And that study makes sense, too, because so many Celiacs are underweight before the diet, and the diet helps them start absorbing food and gain weight.)

[yellowcanine]

71. Yes it is only one study which is ONE MORE than the gluten free faddists can point to.

Including the "wheat belly" doctor. It is all anecdotes and supposition. And his claims about modern wheat varieties being so much different from older varieties is ludicrous.

Most foods have things in them which we are somewhat intolerant of. Ever get gas from beans? Should we stop eating beans? Most people have more problems with eating beans than they will ever have with eating foods containing gluten.

[pnwmom]

162. Unless people are producing antibodies to an ingredient in beans,

as blood tests show about 10% of the population does to gliadin, the problems aren't comparable. (The reason the anti-gliadin blood tests fell out of favor was because they were deemed overly sensitive for Celiac disease -- which is a particular type of damage to the upper intestine -- because so many people showed the antibodies who didn't have that specific type of damage.) But many other doctors (for example, liver doctors and neurologists) have now done research showing that there are non-celiac gluten/gliadin sensitivities affecting the liver and the brain that can be picked up by the tests for anti-gliadin antibodies.

But obviously, if you are producing antibodies in response to something you're eating, that's not good for you.

[yellowcanine]

175. 10% is a relatively small number though. About 75% of the world has some lactose intolerance, for

example. Anyway I think the problems ARE comparable, because the fix is an adjustment in diet or in how we eat certain foods. And some people do produce antibodies to certain legumes, peanuts, for example.

[pnwmom]

180. 10% is a very significant number. Twenty years ago, they thought only about 1 American in 4500

had a serious problem with gluten. Now they think about 1 in 100 has Celiac (damage to the intestinal villi), and many more have another form of gluten sensitivity.

Lactose intolerance causes discomfort but, again, if the person isn't producing antibodies then exposure doesn't cause the same damage that it does to people who do. People who produce antibodies to peanuts must avoid them completely, unlike people who just get gassy from beans.

There have been large-scale studies with blood that was stored decades ago, comparing the samples with new blood drawn from the same individuals. There was a real increase in the number of cases over the decades; that is, people who weren't positive for Celiac antibodies several decades ago are positive now. Something happened over the intervening years -- they just don't know why people are more susceptible now.

[yellowcanine]

241. they just don't know why people are more susceptible now.

Because that is how sensitivities can develop. There are many cases where people develop antibodies to something they had no problems with before. It doesn't mean that the protein causing the sensitivity changed. It can mean that the immune system in the person changed. Besides, the supposed change in wheat took place 40-50 years ago, so presumably the people were exposed to whatever is triggering the antibodies back when the blood was stored several decades ago. People's immune systems change as they age so that in itself could explain the data. There is also a possibility that the population where stored blood is available is not very representative of the population as a whole. Most people don't have stored blood. But people with chronic illnesses might.

As for the increase in sensitivity to gluten in the population overall, no surprise there, that is the case for almost every kind of sensitivity. Our ability to measure these sensitivities has vastly increased in recent years.

[pnwmom]

281. No, it's more than that. I'm curious why it is important to you to be so dismissive

of gluten sensitivity. How does it hurt you or anyone else that researchers and doctors are taking this seriously now? People with real gluten problems don't appreciate being told by people who know nothing about them that they are followers of a fad. I was diagnosed by a gastroenterologist 10 years ago. Was he a fad follower, too?

I don't think you're keeping up with current research. This article just talks about one new study. But there are many more out there by neurologists, gastroenterologists, and others. Celiac disease is just the tip of the iceberg in gluten sensitivity. Some people with gluten sensitivity have the Classic celiac damage to the villi; but many more have other problems related to an immune system reaction to gluten.

I'm gluten sensitive but I don't have Celiac; instead, I have symptoms of ulcerative colitis when I'm exposed to gluten. Some people with Crohn's are also sensitive to gluten. Should we all be dismissed as insignificant because we don't have classic Celiac disease?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200393522456636.html

"People aren't born with this. Something triggers it and with this dramatic rise in all ages, it must be something pervasive in the environment," says Joseph A. Murray, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. One possible culprit: agricultural changes to wheat that have boosted its protein content.

SNIP

In the new study, researchers compared blood samples and intestinal biopsies from 42 subjects with confirmed celiac disease, 26 with suspected gluten sensitivity and 39 healthy controls. Those with gluten sensitivity didn't have the flattened villi, or the "leaky" intestinal walls seen in the subjects with celiac disease.

Their immune reactions were different, too. In the gluten-sensitive group, the response came from innate immunity, a primitive system with which the body sets up barriers to repel invaders. The subjects with celiac disease rallied adaptive immunity, a more sophisticated system that develops specific cells to fight foreign bodies.

The findings still need to be replicated. How a reaction to gluten could cause such a wide range of symptoms also remains unproven. Dr. Fasano and other experts speculate that once immune cells are mistakenly primed to attack gluten, they can migrate and spread inflammation, even to the brain.

Indeed, Marios Hadjivassiliou, a neurologist in Sheffield, England, says he found deposits of antibodies to gluten in autopsies and brain scans of some patients with ataxia, a condition of impaired balance.

SNIP

[yellowcanine]

282. Please don't question my motives. I disagree with you and I have given my reasons which are based

on my understanding of plant genetics and plant physiology. "Something pervasive in the environment" could be just about anything. It is not necessarily anything in wheat. It could even be a pathogen. Not likely but for a long time stomach ulcers was attributed to all kinds of things until someone directly linked a bacterial pathogen as the cause. Autoimmune diseases are some of the most difficult to identify causes for. The evidence for a direct cause from some kind of change in wheat genetics just isn't there imo - and in the opinion of the scientific community. The doctor attributing it to wheat has done no studies and does not correctly cite any studies. Virtually no one in the scientific community agrees with him. That is why I am dismissive. To be clear, I am dismissive of the explanation, not the fact that gluten sensitivity exists.

[pnwmom]

284. That's not what you said before.

Last edited Thu Oct 11, 2012, 04:38 AM - Edit history (2)

You say now you are "dismissive of the explanation, not the fact that gluten sensitivity exists."

But this is what you first said that sounds very dismissive to me. You said gluten-free is a fad; and you compared immune reactions to gluten-containing foods to the gassiness people get when they eat legumes. For people who have immune reactions to gluten, there is no safe level of exposure and moderation is not a healthy option. Up to 20 million Americans may have immune-mediated gluten sensitivity, which means that it is not "actually quite rare."

This was what you said in your first post in this thread:

"Gluten free should be seen for what it is - a fad. As with most food fads, there is a kernel of truth in the fad claims. Yes, a few people need to go gluten free, and yes, probably everybody has some level of intolerance to gluten, just as nearly everyone has some intolerance to the trisaccharides in legumes (they give you gas). But does that mean we don't eat legumes? No, they have too many healthy benefits - so we learn how to cook them properly, we avoid the ones we seem to have the most problems with, and we eat them in MODERATION mixed with other foods, thus diluting the ill effects. Each person has to find for themselves what the right mix is. One size definitely does not fit all and it is actually quite rare that someone is totally intolerant of a particular food. Celiac disease and peanut allergies are exceptions which prove the rule.

______________________

[yellowcanine]

287. Wow you do like to quibble. Gluten sensitivity is real, but

gluten free is not a sensible approach for MOST people, therefore it is a fad. One size does not fit all.

[pnwmom]

288. MOST people are not following a gluten free diet, and the fraction that do

are not following a fad, they're trying to deal with real health problems.

The average person with Celiac suffers with the illness for eleven years before getting a diagnosis, because doctors still tend to discount it. The idea that it's only a fad causes more suffering. That's why I'm "quibbling."

[yellowcanine]

289. No but Dr. Wheat Belly thinks they should.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Actually we have seen an increase in Celiacs and Chrons

and for me it is not a fad... it is very real. Want me to tell you just how real? It took three years to diagnose by the by, and I am too chicken to follow the full month of eating gluten and testing later on. It would be a month spent in the bathroom, sorry for geting graphical, with stomach issues from hell.

[yellowcanine]

122. We have seen an increase because of better diagnosis.

Celiacs and others with high sensitivity to gluten should eat a gluten free diet. What I am saying is that this level of sensitivity occurs in a very small % of the population and there is no evidence that a gluten free diet is of any benefit to the rest of the population. Avoiding something when you have medical evidence that you have a sensitivity is not a fad. Avoiding something based on anecdotes and unscientific assertions of some "wheat belly doctor" is a fad. And fads in fact are dangerous, because they may provide a false sense of security (in terms of the need for healthy eating and exercise) and people may cut out healthy food without making the proper substitution of another food providing equivalent nutrition needs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. My brother works with Chrohns

A top specialist in the fied. His professional opinion is that we haven't seen enough peer review into these issues.

He thinks, but there is no research, just a hypothesis, scientific method at work here, that there is something in the food we eat, that wasn't there. Getting the grant money is a problem

Like him, I'd like to see actual research. Don't get me wrong, fads are fads, Atkins anybody?

[yellowcanine]

158. "there is something in the food we eat, that wasn't there"

How much does he know about plant genetics/physiology though? Problem with that kind of thinking is one should at least be able to hypothesize a possible scientific mechanism for such a change. Otherwise it is not a scientific hypothesis, sorry, and no respectable granting agency is going to fund a proposal like that. Nor should they - there are plenty of good science questions out there dying on the vine for lack of research money. In this case the ONLY thing I can think of is that the switch to dwarf varieties allowed the use of higher levels of nitrogen, which could hypothetically result in higher levels of gliadin in bread wheat - it is a protein after all and proteins contain nitrogen. However, there is not a direct connection between high protein levels and high gluten levels. And the genetic variation of gluten/gliadin in different kinds and varieties of wheat would completely "dwarf" any nitrogen induced variation. There is nothing in the genetics of the dwarfing process itself which would explain the difference as the "wheat belly" doctor suggests. And the old wheat varieties have just as much gluten in them as modern varieties.

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. gmo comes often

and the fact that it was banned in the EU is telling. that is what has been added, not selective breeding

[yellowcanine]

203. GMO wheat? There are no commercial GMO wheat varieties released. None.

This is the thing that drives me crazy about this whole subject. So much misinformation out there. Someone puts it out online and people just pick it up.

The dwarf wheat varieties developed in the 60s were developed using conventional age old plant breeding methods -

cross, select, backcross, etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

210. Check with Montsanto

Of course there is also corn, and it is for the same reason.

[yellowcanine]

213. No - you switched topics. There are no commercial GMO wheat varieties.

The issue here is wheat gluten. Corn has no gluten. Talking about corn is a diversion. How can there be a reasonable discussion if the blame is always laid at the door of GMO or Monsanto? Think. This is not reasonable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. Try to pay attention

I said something in food, not what.

And if there is no commercial GMO wheat why did the EU said NYET to GMO wheat? It is for the exact same reason as corn, not gluten by the way.

And no, we do not have the peer review studies. Which is what we need.

[yellowcanine]

235. We were talking about wheat and gluten so that was the reference point

The whole thread is about wheat and gluten and you start talking about corn. So who is not paying attention? As for GMO wheat and the Europeans, note I said no commercial wheat varieties. That doesn't mean that companies aren't working on GMO wheat varieties. So that is presumably the target of European edict. But varieties which haven't been released to farmers can't be causing problems in the current food supply. Anyway this current "problem" supposedly dates to the 60s when the semi-dwarf gene was introduced into commercial wheat varieties using conventional plant breeding. There are plenty of peer reviewed studies since that time on the nutritional make up of wheat varieties before and after the semi-dwarf gene. None support the assertions of the wheat belly doctor of a connection between the semi-dwarf gene and nutritional makeup of wheat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

236. when i said talk to monsanto

[yellowcanine]

237. It is hard to follow you when you don't complete thoughts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

240. ok, complete though

do you agree, or not, that DNA non useful segments appear to have an actual effect per peer reviewed recent lit? Ergo, it makes sense to look into this issue in a scientific study, or rather a few dozen? Since humans live too long, we should use human analogues to try to see if the few studies (EU based) can be replicated, the studies that are the basis of the EU ban. The human analogue were the usual, pigs and rats

we know there is something in food...because we put it there

And that is what comes up...we have had an increase in gluten sensitivity (modern wheat varieties have more of it)...we have had a spike in allergies, auto immune diseases and asthma. part of it is diagnosis, but there is no way all of it is Something is up, but try to find the funding...

I agree talking just wheat and blaming for all ills is silly... but dismissing out of hand that this pop culture belief might have some reality behind it is silly as well

[yellowcanine]

242. "Something is up but try to find the funding...."

Ok what do you suggest? The way our scientific research process works is a scientist proposes a hypothesis and then designs an experiment to test the hypothesis. If it is a good scientific hypothesis (can be falsified) on a topic of interest to the scientific community (will generate new information), the experiment is well designed, and the scientist has the credentials to do research in that area, there is a reasonable chance the project will get funded. Whining about "trying to find the funding" is not how one gets research funded.

To the question at hand....
It does not follow that increases in autoimmune diseases, asthma, etc. is related to gluten levels in wheat. That has not been proven. Also what doesn't follow is that semi dwarf wheat varieties are implicated in an increase in gluten sensitivity. There are many possible confounding factors - other environmental variables which affect human immune systems, methods of processing wheat and other foods, changes in diet, etc, etc.

What I am dismissing as pop culture is urging everyone to adopt a gluten free diet when there is no evidence that most people will benefit. If people have a diagnosis, yes - or they are suspicious and substitute rice for wheat and they feel better as a result - ok. But I would maintain that this is a very small group.

[nadinbrzezinski]

243. And what i am telling you is that there is something extra in food

it's not wheat, but other species genetic code.

have a good day. I moved on to going from the pop culture to actually what might be going on. I am also telling you that folk believes, as folksy and non scientific as they are, do at times have a reason to be. Talk to an anthropologist at the college or two.

But hey, this fad is great. I do have the real article, so all these gluten free products are a boom for me

oh and no, it's not my imagination...it is very, and i mean this, VERY real

[DarleenMB]

98. So do you work for the grain industry?

Sure sounds like it.

[yellowcanine]

112. Wow. Take cheap shots much?

Just because I point out the scientific flaws of this particular food fad doesn't mean I work in the grain industry. The answer is no, I do not work for the grain industry. As a matter of fact I work for a university and try to introduce some science into discussions such as this one when possible.

[sense]

146. It's not a food fad.

Just because you don't want to eat that way, there's no reason to try to discredit what works for so many others. The harm caused to many by eating the SAD occurs over decades. It's not something that happens overnight for most of us. Auto-immune diseases take years to develop. I hope you never have one, but the likelihood of ending up with one has increased exponentially since the introduction of the low fat, eat your grains meme.

You could do much more good in providing the science if you actually read Gary Taubes book, as it's loaded with 200 years of science about obesity and nutrition. He actually spent years going over the existing research into nutrition to figure out where we'd gone so wrong in the advice given to people about their diets. Its' not an easy read, but well worth it.

I can easily find anything I want on the web to discredit absolutely everything, but that just results in inertia. I and others have improved our health enormously, most after extensive research and experimentation into what works for us. I don't believe that anyone is saying that one size fits all or that one diets will work wonders for everyone. However, if changing the way we eat results in better health, for us, why would you try to discredit it?

[yellowcanine]

170. "if changing the way we eat results in better health....."

I don't. What I am discrediting is claims not grounded in science that some kind of change occurred in the nutrition of wheat when the transition from tall wheat to semi-dwarf wheat was made. I don't read books about this stuff. I would rather rely on the scientific studies themselves, not what someone else says about them. And as I understand it, this is not the same as what Taubes is saying anyway. He is arguing for a low carb diet, not a low wheat diet. They are not the same thing. So I am not sure where you are coming from here. I noted that people are different, if something is working for you so be it. If you want to eliminate wheat from your diet, fine, but don't assume that you can't get fat if you do. If you take in too many calories for the amount you metabolize each day you will gain weight, whether those calories are in the form of carbs, fat, or protein.

[Kelvin Mace]

186. I think

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

changing the way you eat, has certainly worked for you, and certainly others. Changing the way WE eat is the question, as it is the broader populace.

I don't think anyone is discrediting what works for you, but I am trying to determine how it applies to everyone else. A lot of books and articles are showcased in the media, despite lacking any scientific rigor. Scientific rigor requires that we test a hypothesis (wheat is bad for us) in a structured manner, with controls and reproducible results. It requires that we have relevant experts who can interpret data correctly in context to the hypothesis.

My concern over the article in my post is that Davis' is a cardiologist, and it seems to me, admittedly a layman, that the disciplines needed for such an evaluation would involve endocrinologists, neurologists, biochemists, botanists and plant geneticists.

While changes to your diet have inarguably helped you, it would scientifically irresponsible to draw conclusions from your experience (and/or the experience of others like you) to the broader populace, without evaluating for other possible explanations and controlling for numerous other factors which could also have resulted in your improved health.

This is the scientific method as I understand it, and it it no way invalidates your experience or questions your motives.

[sense]

194. You seem like a very reasonable person.

Your posts and responses are thoughtful and measured and I appreciate that. I think referring to a way of eating that differs from the Standard American Diet as a food fad, as the previous poster did, is trying to discredit that way of eating. That shuts down the conversation and seems undemocratic. That's what I object to.

I'm not necessarily endorsing the entirety of Wheat Belly, as I haven't yet finished it, but I do think it's a good start for people to begin thinking differently about what we've been told and sold. I think it addresses a very small part of what's wrong with the recommendations we've been given for nutrition in the last 40 years or so.

I understand the scientific process. I heartily recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories for a scientific look at the studies that have been done in the last 200 years regarding obesity and nutrition. Most people who look at the studies and then look at the SAD would have to conclude that we are not on the path to health.

[Kelvin Mace]

268. Internet discussions have a tendency to bring out our pat answers to things

and sometimes in a way that may seem more harsh than intended.

It is frustrating for scientists and doctors who have seen the damage done by actual "fads" to have patience for what they see as yet another one. I think they respond strongly, not because they think people are stupid (though some may ), but because they don't want to see more people suffer. This is unfortunate, kind of like yanking you back and chastising your carelessness when they see you about to step into an open manhole, rather than grabbing you and saying "Oh my god, I wasn't sure you saw that open manhole!"

As someone who has seen and been involved in a lot of "harsh" discussion over the years, I try very hard to assume benign intent and smooth things over when possible, or at least until virtual punches are thrown.

[HiPointDem]

121. that's funny coming from the person who wrote this post demonstrating lack of knowledge

of basic nutrition or science:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1500632

[Kelvin Mace]

181. Not a fair question

and more of an accusation.

Please, just because people disagree with us, doesn't mean they have some nefarious motive.

The point of my post was to rationally discuss the issue. The article I posted was simply a jumping off point for a discussion about a trend in food news articles that seem to condemn some food group or item with annoying frequency.

I am interested in anecdotal accounts, as they have merit, but I am also concerned with scientifically rigorous, reality-based studies.

Please, let's discuss the facts, not impune each other's motives.

[eridani]

231. Tri and tetrasaccharides contain galactose, and no human has the enzyme beta-galactosidase--

--which is needed to snip the galactose off. Gut bacteria do--hence gas. Soaking gets rid of some of them and makes eating legumes easier on us.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. OK, gliadin may stimulate the appetite, but...

so far I've found nothing to say it's a "new" protein in wheat. Everything I've found about it says it's an essential part of gluten and therefore bad for celiac disease but otherwise OK, and around since the beginning of wheat.

And, there's gliadin in barley, too, so one of the good doctor's suggestions has a problem. I would also ask just which vegetables he recommends that have not been changed in some way by the mad geneticists? And more meat to get away from wheat? This from a cardiologist?

Another nutter out there selling a book to the ever hopeful looking for the magic bullet.

On your list, I'd go for all of the above. In my own case as an overweight diabetic, I've changed my diet to mucho healthier and less of it, but I just don't get the exercise I need. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

[OriginalGeek]

23. Good info - thanks for doing the research!

I'll have to get into it more when I get home and have time but I appreciate you going out and looking for this stuff.

[yellowcanine]

52. There is also gliaden in spelt, one of the other so called "primitive wheats" the gluten-free

faddists tout. Hexaploid wheat, Triticum aestivum, which is sometimes called "modern wheat" has in fact been around a long time, longer than humans have been cultivating it. And there is no evidence that the semi-dwarf character by itself has anything to do with gluten levels in wheat. Bread wheat, a particular kind of hexaploid wheat, does have high levels of gluten and gliaden. That is why it makes good bread - the gluten helps form a strong dough which traps the air in pockets when the bread rises. So the bread is less dense and it is better for most of the things we use bread for.

[magical thyme]

20. trial and error

I read this article (somewhere else), temporarily switched from bread sandwiches to wraps just to cut the amount of wheat I eat. I noticed an immediate difference in my appetite, which has sustained over several weeks now.

Had it lasted only a couple days, I wouldn't believe it. But I have no desire to go back at all.

I changed my general approach to eating after seeing Dr. Joel Fuhrman, MD on a PBS program based on his book, Eat to Live. I also got the book to see the whole approach. Mostly what we lack is sufficient nutrients (especially phytochemicals) and overeat fat (especially but not just saturated) and protein. He has treated thousands of patients with morbid obesity (who can't even walk, up there in the 400-500 pound range) and the health problems associated with it, along with other diseases (eg type 1 diabetes) successfully using his approach. Famous tv doctors send many of their patients to him. He modifies the food pyramid, putting almost all veggies and all fruits on the bottom level and at the center of the diet. White potatoes he ranks up higher on the food pyramid.

Make veggies the center of your diet and fill yourself up with them 50/50 raw/cooked -- aim for a pound raw/day (I've cut it back to 1/2 pound for me -- I'm a small person to start with!) plus 3-4 fruits/day. Eat a small amount of grains (as little as possible processed, eg wraps instead of bread), legumes, seeds and nuts. A much smaller amount of meats/sweets (<10%).

When I stick closely to his diet, I don't get the cravings I used to get and I don't feel like I'm missing any thing. I don't get the reactive hypoglycemia symptoms I used to get. It doesn't cost any more than my old habits since I center my diet around the cheaper veggies and fruits and then spice things up with the more expensive ones.

[Arugula Latte]

38. Another good technique is to wrap fillings in lettuce leaves.

You get the crunch, the nutrition, reduce calories, reduce wheat, etc.

[yellowcanine]

211. appetite/cravings is a very complicated thing.

Just cutting back on calories/portion control can change the dynamic. Using a smaller plate can help, people tend to eat what is on the plate and feel satisfied. Using a plate instead of grabbing from a buffet of appetizers usually means eating less. Filling your plate at a serving area and then carrying it to the table rather than having a serving dish on the table makes it harder to mindlessly take and eat seconds and thirds. Eating with other people rather than alone also helps. If you are alone, sit down and chew slowly rather than eat standing up in front of the sink. Eat at a table rather than in front of the TV. Eating breakfast, lunch and dinner at fixed times instead of whenever helps. Don't skip meals. Your mind will rationalize eating more as a result and it creates blood sugar fluctuations, which causes cravings. Choosing a high protein snack for a late afternoon snack (such as a handful of peanuts) rather than a bag of chips or candy will also help control cravings. Also keep lots of carrot sticks, celery, etc on hand for snacking on if needed. Cultivate a taste for plain water instead of sodas. Choose carbonated water if it helps. It might. Drink plenty of water. Exercise every day when possible but don't obsess about it if you miss a day. I find first thing in the morning works best for me and I don't do the same thing every day. This helps keep it from getting boring. For me, boredom is the most dangerous emotion when it comes to food cravings.

Eating is much more than just nutrition. A balanced, interesting and small portion meal eaten with friends or family will go a long way toward developing good eating habits and controlling craving. Make eating together an event. Theme potluck meals are a great way to eat with friends. Say grace before the meal or just have a moment of silence. My mother's family sings a song together. Some families go around the table and have each person share a thought before beginning. This builds relationships and makes each person feel important. Many eating problems/disorders/cravings arise from relationship problems and self image problems.

Some cravings and eating problems have a physiological basis, without a doubt. But many have other causes.

[closeupready]

21. It can be very difficult to change dietary habits, particularly long-term.

I've tried to make changes before, and actually succeeded most times; it's just that sticking to these changes long-term is difficult in a country like the US, in which people do not live close to the land, as they do in France or Italy.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but having said that, I will say that I have stricken HFCS from my diet entirely, always checking ingredients/labels, and cut way down on corn consumption.

[jeff47]

24. This guy has his science utterly and completely wrong

This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten.

That's because NO wheat has gluten. And no wheat ever has had gluten.

Gluten is formed from gliadin and glutelin. Those are two proteins that have been present in wheat since the stone age.

Why do you have to knead dough for your bread to rise nicely? Because you're converting those two proteins into gluten.

So no, gliadin is not a "new" protein. It's been around since the beginning of recorded history.

The only way this guy could be more wrong while marketing himself would be to claim modern wheat came from baby seals.

[4th law of robotics]

26. Very interesting

I never looked in to it, I guess I just assumed wheat contained gluten.

But that makes sense.

Thanks for the info.

/I wonder why he'$ willing to make $uch bold and ea$ily contradicted $tatement$?

//http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543

[HuckleB]

135. +1,000 ...

[HiPointDem]

115. +1. though (some) varieties of wheat have been bred for increased gluten.

There are different varieties of wheat, each with its own gluten content. Flours made from high-gluten wheats are called strong flours and are used for making bread, bagels, pasta and pizza crusts. Flours made from softer, low-gluten wheats are called weak flours, and are used for making cakes and delicate pastries.

http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/bakingdesserts/p/gluten.htm

[Kelvin Mace]

187. Thanks!

Another tidbit to add to my stock of information.

Someone just asked me why I didn't just look this up, and I explained that when trying to validate some datum, you have to know where to start, and as I didn't want to spend the next several weeks boning up on botany, genetics and various food sciences. It was easier to post the question where people with expertise could point me in the right direction.

My area of expertise is computers, and I can handily spot faulty logic or outright BS when spouted by "learned experts". I know by how people use terms whether they actually know what they are talking about.

This post underscores what I was actually looking for, someone who could put there finger on the precise flaw in the argument. I was suspicious of the claim that opiate receptors stimulate appetite, which did not remind me of any heroine addicts I had ever seen, and this made me question the whole premise.

[jeff47]

202. Usually you can start at wikipedia.

Decent enough for answering "I wonder" situations.

[Kelvin Mace]

251. True, I went there

but after you pointed out the the discrepancy in the guys argument, and explained the proteins.

[TheCruces]

283. If you're correct then people with celiac could eat unkneaded wheat products...and they can't

[jeff47]

286. This is basic chemistry, not opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten

Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutelin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat seed.

Mix any water into flour, and you will get some gluten. Kneading is basically mixing so that you get more.

On the other hand, most people "with celiac" don't actually have any disorder. They declare themselves to have the disease and don't bother getting any tests done to determine if they really do.

[4th law of robotics]

25. Well yeah, reducing carbohydrate intake is a good idea

not because modern wheat is bio-engineered but because we were never meant to have carbs form the basis of our diet. That is extremely unhealthy for all us H. sapiens.

And of course reducing your weight will reduce problems associated with being overweight.

Again, it's not because modern wheat is bad for you. At least not particularly so compared to past wheat. It's because carbs in general aren't a great thing to base your diet on. People have always realized that you eat bread to get fat. It just used to be a good thing.

It almost sounds like he's trying to stoke fears to sell some sort of book, maybe for the special price of 15.43 with free shipping!

But no, I'm just being too cynical.

[K8-EEE]

29. I bought the Nook version of that book

for cheaper than that, can't remember, but I'm not complaining because the diet he suggests changed my health for the better - I don't know if I would have stuck with it if I hadn't read what to expect (headaches etc.) the first several wheat-free days.

[jeff47]

34. WTF are you talking about?

Ancient humans got the vast majority of nutrition from plants. Plants have this tendency to not run away, unlike animals. "Hunter-Gatherer" should really be reversed - we were gatherers who hunted some.

Which means we got the vast majority of our calories from carbohydrates. Plants are low protein, and we can't digest cellulose. That leaves the carbs.

[4th law of robotics]

39. I'm talking about science

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdf

Generally, in most parts of the world, whenever cereal-based diets were
first adopted as a staple food replacing the primarily animal-based diets of
hunter-gatherers, there was a characteristic reduction in stature [4, 17–19], an
increase in infant mortality [19, 20], a reduction in lifespan [19, 20], an increased
incidence of infectious diseases [19–22], an increase in iron deficiency anemia
[19, 20, 22], an increased incidence of osteomalacia, porotic hyperostosis and
other bone mineral disorders [4, 19, 20, 22] and an increase in the number of
dental caries and enamel defects [19, 20, 23]. In a review of 51 references
examining human populations from around the earth and from differing chronologies,
as they made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers, Cohen
[19] concluded that therewas an overall decline in both the quality and quantity
of life. There is now substantial empirical and clinical evidence to indicate that
Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double-Edged Sword 23
many of these deleterious changes may be directly related to the predominantly
cereal-based diet of these early farmers.

[wtmusic]

55. Sure, if you want a Paleolithic life expectancy of 33 years

Apparently mammoth meat wasn't so hot for preventing heart disease.

[4th law of robotics]

61. Life expectancies actually dropped after we figured out agriculture

and took a long time to get back to pre-neolithic standards.


Additionally the lack of medicine and frequency of violent death (they think around half of human males died violently in hunter gatherer societies) skewed those statistics a bit.

If given the choice between a poor diet such as ours plus a safe/stable society and modern medicine and a better diet in a violence prone world with just witch-doctors to pray away your cancer yes the former is better.

However that is a false dichotomy: we could eat healthier and still have doctors and police. Not so?

The FDA's food pyramid was written by grain lobbyists (what was the basis of a *healthy* diet again? Grains?).

It wasn't written based on actual human dietary needs.

[wtmusic]

66. Life expectancies dropped after we started sitting on our asses.

There is nothing wrong with a carbohydrate-rich diet if you're active.

If you sit on the sofa, it's a problem.

[4th law of robotics]

73. It's not quite that simple

Look up the health effects of the neolithic revolution.

[wtmusic]

75. The neolithic revolution has little in common with modern diet

Virtually all grains today are enriched, and people in Western cultures have exponentially more variety in their diet.

[4th law of robotics]

87. Actually if you look at the food ratios most people enjoy

and the composition in animal/cereal totals in our diet they have changed very little. That was also pointed out in the study I posted.

[wtmusic]

91. From your link:

"However, as more and more cereal grains are included in the diet, they tend to displace the calories that would be provided by other foods (meats, dairy products, fruits and vegetables), and can consequently disrupt adequate nutritional balance. "

They displace the calories provided by other foods only if people are inactive. That's the problem from both a dietary standpoint and a cardiovascular one.

What the study doesn't mention is they also displace calories from saturated fats in meats and dairy.

[HiPointDem]

228. life expectancies dropped because of larger, more settled (and more unequal) populations &

the concommitant rise in infectious disease, particularly affecting infants & children.

'life expectancy from birth'

not to mention that all this science is just as much affected by political considerations as dietary recommendations are affected by 'grain lobbyists'.

[4th law of robotics]

245. And a monoculture based diet

that was low in protein and essential vitamins and high in carbohydrates.

Hence the decline in stature (that we've only recently recovered from) and poor dental health among other problems.

People don't get short because they're living in cities.

[HiPointDem]

276. yes, people have historically gotten shorter as they started living in cities, because cities

imply class hierarchy with great want alongside great wealth and plenty.

if the city-dwellers had been eating *any* diet dependent on one or two foods the results would be the same. nothing to do with grains per se.

same thing happened during the industrial revolution in england, despite the fact that english peasants in the countryside had been eating grains since forever.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2123399?uid=3739856&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101254933321

same thing is happening to some americans *now* as the concentration of wealth intensifies:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3293191#.UHW4o66ltkg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/05/AR2009010501905.html

not happening in most european countries even though they also eat grain-based diets.

[HiPointDem]

159. "Common wheat was first domesticated in Western Asia during the early Holocene...."

and eaten before that.

Eating wheat didn't cause decreased lifespan. If it did, we should see the same decreased lifespan today. which we don't. rather the opposite: as wheat flour became more & more available, lifespan increased (though not because of the availability of wheat per se, just as decreased lifespan in some agricultural societies wasn't due to the availability of wheat).

also, the food guide pyramid wasn't a product of the 'fda' (food & drug admin), but usda. and it wasn't written by 'grain lobbyists'.

[4th law of robotics]

168. You can feel that way if you like

but science doesn't back it (also note I never said that eating wheat decreased your lifespan, but rather than relying heavily on cereal grains is unhealthy for our species).

If it did, we should see the same decreased lifespan today.

If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?

Perhaps it's worth considering that there are other differences between stone age hunter gatherers and modern first world nations. Can you think of any?

which we don't. rather the opposite: as wheat flour became more & more available, lifespan increased (though not because of the availability of wheat per se, just as decreased lifespan in some agricultural societies wasn't due to the availability of wheat).

Not due to the wheat. Due to higher standard's of living. Depending on wheat will always be better than dying of famine. That doesn't mean it's our ideal diet. You can live longer on candy than on nothing. That doesn't make it healthy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22642064
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21507735
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564538
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2008.0268
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20140/abstract
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml
http://foodnhealth.tumblr.com/post/8514784462/4-studies-showing-the-effectiveness-of-the-paleolithic

also, the food guide pyramid wasn't a product of the 'fda' (food & drug admin), but usda. and it wasn't written by 'grain lobbyists'.

Yes, USDA. That was a typo. But the statement stands.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/06/02/27059/food-pyramid-gets-makeover/
http://www.nutritionalconcepts.com/Articles/USDA%20Won'tTellYou.htm
http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.html

The food pyramid is good for food producers arguing for more subsidies.

Not so great for humans who have to live with those subsidies.

[HiPointDem]

226. nothing to do with how i 'feel'. i'm fairly sure i've read more nutrition studies than most people

will in a lifetime. and not just studies that support my own dietary choices & beliefs.

the food pyramid wasn't created by food producers looking for more subsidies, let alone 'grain lobbyists'.

that doesn't mean producers don't influence dietary recs -- but they don't write them. and there are lots of food lobbyists besides 'grain lobbyists'. with somewhat conflicting interests.

you do realize that grain lobbyists *love* protein-dominant diets, right? most US grain is grown to feed animals.

http://www.tofurky.com/whyeatveg/meat_of_the_matter.html

[4th law of robotics]

248. So I post from NCBI

and you discount that with a single article from "tofurky.com".

Um. . . k.

i'm fairly sure i've read more nutrition studies than most people will in a lifetime.

The internet is an amazing place, full of nothing but experts. Literally the greatest minds who have spent their lives studying whatever topic is being discussed at the moment congregate on the web.

the food pyramid wasn't created by food producers looking for more subsidies, let alone 'grain lobbyists'.

Not according to history. . .

that doesn't mean producers don't influence dietary recs -- but they don't write them. and there are lots of food lobbyists besides 'grain lobbyists'. with somewhat conflicting interests.

Haha, ok. Yes I suppose they give the words to someone else who orders some page to actually write out the document.

you do realize that grain lobbyists *love* protein-dominant diets, right? most US grain is grown to feed animals.

And meat/dairy make up large sections of the pyramid as well. Be sure to drink 3 glasses of milk every day to stay healthy.

If you won't believe the mountains of evidence just use your common sense: what in our history would have prepared us to get the majority of our diet from cereal grains? At what point in history were we walking around in massive fields of modern wheat and little else?

[HiPointDem]

273. just the first link i came upon that stated the fact (which i already knew from graduate

degree from food science/nutrition/pharmacy) that most of the grain in the us is produced for animal consumption.

you are the one who insisted the 'grain lobbyists' wrote the pyramid; now you say it's the meat & dairy lobbyists.

ok, grain's out, meat & dairy are out -- what should be on the pyramid, pray tell?

fruits and veg? oh, wait, they cover half the plate. and there are fruit and veg lobbyists too.

i doubt you know anything about the food guidelines, such as what the recommended servings are or what the categories are. for starters, there's no 'meat' category -- it's 'protein foods'.

What Foods Are in the Protein Foods Group?

All foods made from meat, poultry, seafood, beans and peas, eggs, processed soy products, nuts, and seeds are considered part of the Protein Foods Group. Beans and peas are also part of the Vegetable Group. For more information on beans and peas, see Beans and Peas Are Unique Foods.

Select a variety of protein foods to improve nutrient intake and health benefits, including at least 8 ounces of cooked seafood per week. Young children need less, depending on their age and calorie needs. The advice to consume seafood does not apply to vegetarians. Vegetarian options in the Protein Foods Group include beans and peas, processed soy products, and nuts and seeds. Meat and poultry choices should be lean or low-fat.


Things that = 'cup of milk' =

- cup calcium-fortified soymilk (soy yogurt as well)
- cup yogurt
- 1.5 oz hard cheese/other cheeses

There's also this recommendation:

Tips for Vegetarians

Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

Protein has many important functions in the body and is essential for growth and maintenance. Protein needs can easily be met by eating a variety of plant-based foods. Combining different protein sources in the same meal is not necessary. Sources of protein for vegetarians and vegans include beans, nuts, nut butters, peas, and soy products (tofu, tempeh, veggie burgers). Milk products and eggs are also good protein sources for lacto-ovo vegetarians.

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html


Talking points about how lobbyists write food recommendations from people who claim that gliadin is a 'new protein' are very unreliable.

[yellowcanine]

256. "If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?" ?????

Can't figure out if this is an attempt at humor or you are promoting a young earth creationist argument. If it is the former I am missing something - I don't get the joke.

If the latter - well. There are "still" monkeys because of evolution. I put the "still" in quotes because the monkeys we see today are not the monkeys which were around when our human ancestors were roaming the earth. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common primate ancestor. At some point the ancestral primate line diverged into a line which led to monkeys and another line which led to humans.

[4th law of robotics]

263. Not really a joke. Well maybe, sorta

I felt that this statement: If it did, we should see the same decreased lifespan today.
. . . showed a lack of understanding of the issues involves and tried to make a false comparison based on obvious facts (people do live longer today) but ignoring the basic concept.

To me that seemed awfully similar to people who say: If evolution is real why are there still monkeys?
Obviously there are still monkeys. And evolution theory talks about humans and monkeys and a common ancestor. So it has elements of truth. But it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Obviously I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old or whatever.

ist es jetzt klar?

[Kelvin Mace]

189. Well, some cynical types

might claim that the USDA and "grain lobbyists" are the same folk, but I try not to be that cynical.

[HiPointDem]

197. the pyramid (which is no longer a pyramid, btw) is published under the auspices of usda, but it's

not usda personnel who actually develop it. it's basically dietitian types, academics, food scientists.



There are grain lobbyists, beef and dairy lobbyists, sugar lobbyists, processed food lobbyists -- and yeah, even fruit and vegetable lobbyists. There's a lobbyist for everything you put in your mouth. Which is why narratives like "the grain lobbyists wrote the pyramid" are over-simplistic. Sure, politics has a role in development of the food guidelines -- big surprise. Politics has a role in every aspect of our lives, including the anti-tobacco guidelines. People think their own hobbyhorses are all ridden by good fairies while other folks' are ridden by the forces of mordor.

You think the beef/dairy lobby didn't bitch when the pyramid focused more on grains and advised reduced protein and fat consumption? Well, they did:

Upon release of the guidelines, the cattle, egg, and dairy industries went ballistic. Congress was telling people that animal products were bad for health! The intense pressure from these industries forced the committee into revising the report in late 1977. But the damage had been done, and American meat, egg and milk consumption continued to fall.

Because the goals of this document were so different, the USDA did not adopt them at first. In 1980, the USDA partnered with the Health and Human Services department to issue the first edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which eventually became the USDA Food Pyramid.

During the 1980s, several other guidelines and reports were issued by various agencies. These included the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health, and the National Research Council’s Diet and Health Report. Both reports were heavily influenced by the low fat proponents.

The USDA leaned heavily on these reports in the revision of its USDA Food Pyramid guidelines in the early 1990s. Interestingly, the actual graphic for the USDA food pyramid came from Sweden...(which had similar guidelines, btw -- international agencies also influence the dietary guidelines. There are lots of influences on the guidelines, not just food lobbyists).

http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.html

Not to mention that grains grown for direct consumption by humans are a smaller fraction of the "grain" category than grains grown to feed animals. So the 'grain lobbyists' have kind of divided loyalties in this respect.

[4th law of robotics]

252. "Upon release of the guidelines, the cattle, egg, and dairy industries went ballistic."

Upon release of the guidelines, the cattle, egg, and dairy industries went ballistic. Congress was telling people that animal products were bad for health! The intense pressure from these industries forced the committee into revising the report in late 1977. But the damage had been done, and American meat, egg and milk consumption continued to fall.

What a solid argument you have constructed to disprove my notion that lobbyists are writing this stuff: government comes up with something the lobbyists don't like, they complain, government changes it to suit them. AHA! Clear evidence that science is their only consideration.

Not to mention that grains grown for direct consumption by humans are a smaller fraction of the "grain" category than grains grown to feed animals. So the 'grain lobbyists' have kind of divided loyalties in this respect.

And one truism of American politics is: lobbyists can only beg for money from one source at a time! Which is why they had to give up grain subsidies to push bio-ethanol . . .

[HiPointDem]

266. wait, i thought it was the 'grain lobbyists' writing these things? now it's the 'meat lobbyists"?

The report that was edited was not the food pyramid, but the report on "Dietary Goals for the United States" recommending that all Americans reduce their fat, saturated fat and cholesterol consumption, and increase their carbohydrate consumption to 55-60% of daily calories.

The editing did not change that recommendation, but tweaked some of the language in the report so it didn't sound so negative toward meat and fat. The general recommendations re lower fat & percent carbs stood -- despite the ire of the meat lobby.

I clearly said that lobbyists & interest groups -- of all sorts (not just 'grain lobbyists') -- influence the pyramid -- but don't *write* the pyramid. The people who actually do the development and writing (dietitians, academics, food scientists) are often in political conflict with lobbyists and interest groups.

[4th law of robotics]

269. In that case it was

previously it was the grain lobbyists.

You realize you referenced a revision to the existing format. So if I'm talking about the creation of it are those two distinct events or the same event?

I clearly said that lobbyists & interest groups -- of all sorts (not just 'grain lobbyists') -- influence the pyramid -- but don't *write* the pyramid. The people who actually do the development and writing (dietitians, academics, food scientists) are often in political conflict with lobbyists and interest groups.

Splitting hairs. I didn't write this. I told my fingers to move about and they typed it.

Lobbyists didn't write anything. Doctors who happened to be members of lobbying groups wrote it.

[HiPointDem]

278. you really don't know much about the extensive process that leads to the creation of us nutrition

policy.

in the case of the dietary goals (which led to the creation of the first pyramid) these are the folks who 'wrote' them:


Allen Ellender of Louisiana
Herman Talmadge of Georgia
Ralph Yarborough of Texas
Philip Hart of Michigan
Walter Mondale of Minnesota
Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island
Jacob Javits of New York
Charles Percy of Illinois
Peter H. Dominick of Colorado
Marlow Cook of Kentucky
Robert Dole of Kansas

Later members of the committee included Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Edward Zorinsky of Nebraska, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma, Alan Cranston of California, and Mark Hatfield of Oregon.

Throughout, the select committee held hearings in which it heard from academics, non-governmental organizations, educators, health and nutrition experts, school officials, the medical community, and the public.[4] The committee's work filled many volumes of hearing reports.[4] Staff members on the committee included lawyer Jack Quinn, future diplomat Julia Chang Bloch, and nutritionist D. Mark Hegsted.

Beginning in 1974, McGovern expanded the committee's scope to include national nutrition policy.[6] Now, the committee's focus was not just on not eating enough, but also eating too much.[2][9]

In January 1977, after having held hearings on the national diet, the McGovern committee issued a new set of nutritional guidelines for Americans that sought to combat leading killer conditions such as heart disease, certain cancers, stroke, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and arteriosclerosis.[2][10][11] Titled Dietary Goals for the United States, but also known as the "McGovern Report"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Nutrition_and_Human_Needs


Fad diet books give you simplistic non-information. Like 'medical doctors who are also food lobbyists write the pyramid'

[jeff47]

204. Here's how you're getting the science wrong

The problem is the author of that paper has declared "animal-based diets" based on studies from around 1985.

Those studies claimed things like carbon isotopes can prove meat-vs-plant diet. Because somehow the carbon atoms would know they were in a plant instead of a gazelle. And somehow 3 skeletons from about the same area are somehow a valid sample. And forgetting that bones decay much slower than dead plants. But I digress.

More modern studies have basically come to the conclusion "it's hard to say". Such as this one. However, we do have evidence in that until we developed decent hunting tools we could not live in the relatively plant-poor colder climates. Like Europe.

That pre-tool era would be closest to what we "evolved to eat", if you're going to make the claim we "evolved to eat" anything in particular.

Also:

there was a characteristic reduction in stature , an
increase in infant mortality , a reduction in lifespan , an increased
incidence of infectious diseases , an increase in iron deficiency anemia
, an increased incidence of osteomalacia, porotic hyperostosis and
other bone mineral disorders and an increase in the number of
dental caries and enamel defects

It's called a population explosion. It happens in pretty much all mammals when you provide them a massive abundance of food.

Lastly, there's a major chemistry flaw in your conclusions: Carbohydrates don't only come from cereals. Yes, cereal grains are high in carbohydrates, but what's the major source of calories for humans in vegetables? Or apples? Or potatoes? Carbohydrates. Plants have little in the way of protein and humans can't digest cellulose.

[K8-EEE]

28. I decided to try wheat-free for 3 weeks, still at it 3 months later

I feel so much better, I am not tempted to go back to it at all! You can argue about the premises all you want but bottom line if you suffer from any of these chronic conditions you owe it to yourself to at least try it.

[HiPointDem]

229. nothing wrong with that. but why the need for false claims to sell a diet that 'works'?

why does the author have to construct a fairy story about gliadin being a 'new protein' invented by mad scientists in the 70s, etc?

when people lie to sell something, it naturally makes one suspicious of the product being sold.

[Kelvin Mace]

254. I agree

but the problem still may not be wheat.

There is a danger in generalizing cause and effect, without very specific testing and controls. It is also very problematic to extrapolate results of one person, or group of people as applying to a larger group.

Let me provide an example:

You are having health problems, and after much reading decide that it is glutens that are causing your illness. So, you cut out all wheat and gluten-containing products. One, month later, you feel great. You stay on the diet and a year later you still feel great.

So, can we conclude that wheat/glutens were the problem?

No, we can't. It is entirely possible that amongst all the wheat/gluten products you were eating, was the real culprit, say an ingredient in your favorite brand of doughnut. You ate these doughnuts at least once a week maybe more, and it was that food item causing your health problems, not wheat/gluten in general. But, since the change to your diet also involved dropping doughnuts, you got better, but not for the reason you thought.

Even when a dietary change seems to affect a group of people, you cannot determine with certainty the reason for the health improvement without a detailed medical history and a careful analysis of what is added or subtracted to the diet, while monitoring various metabolic rates via blood tests.

So, your treatment for an ailment can work, but not for the reasons you assume.

[hedgehog]

30. In the preface to his "The End of Overeating", Doctor David Kessler

refers to an abrupt spike in obesity in the period 1988-1991:

"When a respected academic journal calls something dramatic, it's the equivalent of a red alert. The results were consistent virtually across the board - among men and women, young and old, black and white. The rate of obesity in America had evidently exploded."

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Overeating-Insatiable-American/dp/B004NSVE32#reader_B004NSVE32


Ironically, I think Dr. Kessler's entire book was on the wrong track after that. He listed several causes for obesity in America, but failed to show that they linked to the 1988-1991 time frame. I would say that we need to look at, say 1985 forward and see what was different from the preceding years. It's possible that there is no single cause, but a perfect storm of all the causes listed in the OP plus the introduction of GMO foods plus environmental exposures to chemicals such as BPA.

[waddirum]

191. What happened in 1988?

Wilson-Phillips debut album?

[hedgehog]

199. Well, isn't that the question? If there was an abrupt rise in obesity, there

must have been a change in conditions, say within the previous 5 years. Something new entered the environment (HFCS? GMO foods? Fire retardants breaking down?) and/or human behavior changed . That's if the change really was abrupt. We've always had people who were fat, but has a society ever had this problem?

[Kelvin Mace]

255. There is also the need

to look at how things were being measured prior to the "abrupt" change. Was some new, more accurate methodology introduced that allowed more diagnosis of obesity?

[HiPointDem]

230. I think it's pretty clear why americans are heavier on average than in the past: they eat more &

do less physical activity.

This is borne out by yearly estimates of caloric intake from various agencies, conducted since about the 1940s:

The CDC reported that in 2000, women ate 1,877 calories per day, 335 calories more per day than they did in 1971. Men, averaging 2,618 calories per day, consumed 168 calories more per day than their counterparts in 1971 ("Trends in Intake of Energy and Macro-nutrients—United States, 1971–2000," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 53, no. 4, February 6, 2004).

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the Agriculture Fact Book 2001–2002, during the 1950s food production in the United States provided about 800 fewer calories per person per day than in 2000. Of the 3,800 calories produced per person per day in 2000, the USDA estimates that about 1,100 calories were wasted, either through spoilage, plate waste, or cooking, leaving an average of about 2,700 calories per person per day. The USDA data reveal that average daily calorie intake increased nearly one-quarter (24.5%) or about 530 calories between 1970 and 2000.

Read more: Americans Weigh in Over Time - Why Are So Many Americans Overweight? - Food, Table, Consumption, and Portion http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2709/Americans-Weigh-in-Over-Time-WHY-ARE-SO-MANY-AMERICANS-OVERWEIGHT.html#ixzz28sSnrcU3

[Kelvin Mace]

257. And even then, the question remains

Why did we start eating more?

One theory postulates that restaurant profits were responsible. Once upon a time, when you ordered a drink, you picked a size, and they handed it to you. If you ran out and wanted more, you had to buy another drink. Then they came up with free refills. This happened because it was cheaper to let the customer get their drink, than to waste time having the counter help fill the cup. So, they hand you an empty cup, and you got your own drink. Of course, they knew you could now get free refills, so, they raised the price of the drink, then trumpeted "FREE REFILLS" and suddenly you are now consuming twice as much soda as you had previously done. The practice then moved to traditional restaurants, who saw it as an excuse to double the price ( quadruple the profits) of soft drink sales.

Then came "super-sizing".

In Europe, which has far less obesity, drinks are still sold individually in most eateries. My aunt from Ireland comes to visit on occasion and she is shocked at the portion sizes in his country. They are easily 2-3 times what she is used to at home.

Of course, this is just one theory, there are others.

[HiPointDem]

262. because food was more readily available. just like dogs eat more when they get more food.

[Kelvin Mace]

265. True,

but why is more food available?

Well, food is cheaper than in the past, and thus the food industry can increase serving size 50%, while only increasing costs 25%, but increasing profits 75%.

A LOT of factors that had to come into play, which absent just one, might not have caused the problem. To me, this supposition seems the most plausible, and there is some science to back it up. There may not be a DEFINITIVE answer, but a collection of causes.

[HiPointDem]

267. capitalism. but regardless of why food is more readily available, the simple explanation of taking

in more calories while doing less activity explains the weight gain. as it does for every society that's made the same transition with the same resultant weight gain -- which is pretty much global at this point.

i don't understand why people need to look for more esoteric causes, like high fructose corn syrup making people gain weight 'more easily'. more calories, less activity is sufficiently explanatory.

[Kelvin Mace]

271. I think there is concern

(quite possibly justified) about additives and changes to the actual food which is screwing up our already complex metabolism, perhaps causing things to happen faster.

You are correct that the issue distills down to simple physics. But at the same time, I see cultural, societal, financial, behavioral, ethical, and a dozen other "ials" and "isms" that complicate the problem. Even on the left, and in the "reality-based community", where we should know better, we crave "simple" solutions to complex problems. We do not wish to blame ourselves, but then again, sometimes it is not quite our fault either. "Fixing" any one aspect of the problem will have consequences which we may, or may not be able to predict.

Some in this discussion would ban the newer wheat, and have us go back to older strains. But due to lower yields, and greater weakness to pests and disease, this could result in massive famines.

This discussion has been a microcosm of possible causes and solutions to the problem. You will note it is long, complex to read, and takes a rancorous tone here and there on both sides.

A cynical person might incline to see the situation as hopeless, but as you and I are still talking reasonably (as are a number of others) and as humor still shows up here and there, I an inclined to the optimistic.

[HiPointDem]

274. i agree that cultural/societal factors are in play, and that people are concerned about additives

etc.

what bugs me is that anxiety over additives & changes to the food supply mostly leads to private, consumerist solutions -- "i'm following such & such a diet" -- rather than big-picture common-cause solutions. and meanwhile, additives, gmos, etc. continue to grow.

i often post about the activities of bill gates -- one of the biggest sponsors of gmo R&D all over the world, responsible for converting the agricultural base of multiple countries to gmo.

i get a handful of responses, half of them telling me what a wonderful man bill gates is.

meanwhile, 200 posts about a con artist telling people gliadin is a new harmful protein dreamed up by scientists in the 70s.

i also think that people are way overconcerned about diet in a sense, and the religiosity surrounding it (& i speak as one who used to have the same attitudes) is sort of a cultural depository for general anxiety.

[hedgehog]

275. There is a very intersting observation of lab animals, well worth further investigation

Lab animals and pets face obesity epidemic

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.html

[HiPointDem]

277. "This is an interesting collection of data, but it's very difficult to interpret them,"

Seidell says. Pets and feral animals might very well be subject to changes in our eating patterns, and there isn't enough information to conclude that the captive animals are exempt from such influences, he adds. Other factors may also have changed. For example, over the past 30 years the number of rodents housed in each cage may have altered — which could very well affect the amount of exercise they get.

"I think they are trying to deflect the attention from restriction of physical activity and high-energy foods," Seidell says.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/news.2010.628.html


People (including the ptb) don't want to get into over-consumption and want of activity because that is tied so tightly to the mechanics of capitalism and how it structures our lives. And it is *very* difficult to step out of the little grooves that our economic structure creates: suburbs that aren't walkable, car commuting, long days mostly devoted to work with TV & a quickie meal at the end, etc. (and now computers -- i know my bottom's grown in that respect)

They'd rather spend lots of money endlessly researching the esoteric. It's a money-maker. Every couple of years a new diet fad, a new research agenda, new cookbooks and diet books -- meanwhile we get heavier and heavier.

There may be something to the study -- but not much, is my guess.

[wtmusic]

33. I live for that poison.

Bread, pasta, rice, mmm. Couldn't imagine life without it.

Blame America's obesity problem on a "shift from agrarian to industrial economy"? Let's call it what it is: a "shift from being active to sitting on one's ass".

Carbs are energy. If you're active, you need 'em.

[demokatgurrl]

64. yes that and "supersizing"

There was a time not so long ago when a normal size soda was a 7 ounce bottle and soda was a treat, not the default beverage. A quarter-pound burger was considered huge. A single scoop of ice cream was a single scoop - now I have to ask for a kids' portion if I don't want to end up throwing out half. And people ate at meals, not 24/7. All that AND less time sitting on our asses.

[wtmusic]

68. Absolutely - to sell more food, just redefine what a "normal" portion is

Good point

[HappyMe]

83. I agree.

Reasonable portions of all food groups is a thing of the past. If you take in x amount of calories per day, make sure you burn x amount of calories per day. I have seen some powder stuff that you sprinkle on your food and it will make you lose weight. They were bragging that you don't even have to change your lifestyle! Eat, eat, eat, sit, sit, sit!

It amazes me that we have to have professional athletes make commercials telling kids to get off their asses for an hour a day.

[sense]

152. You don't need carbs.

There is no requirement for carbs and if we change what we eat we can become fat burners instead of burning sugar. I Improved my labs enormously when I cut the carbs and it also resulted in a huge increase in energy. Our bodies are perfectly capable of producing all the the energy we need from fat.

Low carb ultra marathon wins!

http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/08/11/western-states-100-low-carber-wins-ultramarathon-steve-phinney-and-jeff-volek-study/

[wtmusic]

190. OK.

I'm an endurance athlete, a cyclist, who rides more vertical miles every year than most people ride horizontal (last year I cleared 300,000 feet of vertical climbing, or 57 miles straight up.

Fat may be fine for an ultramarathoner who has a very small but steady power output (watts) but I would crash and burn on any one of the 18% grades I climb regularly which involve a semi-sustained power output of 500w or more. Fat doesn't give me that - I can't metabolize it fast enough. For similar reasons, it sucks at recovery. By the time blood vessels are contracting after a workout, your liver is still churning away trying to burn fat going through your system and, finding nothing to do with it, it is stored once again - as fat.

I say this not to brag, but I do know what I'm talking about. There may be individuals who are marvelous at metabolizing fat quickly but they are far closer to the exception than the rule.

[sense]

195. I believe you.

You do something very extreme and that makes you the exception, not the rest of us.

The majority of people are sugar burners because that's what we've been told to eat. Carbohydrates in all their forms make up a huge proportion of the SAD. We can become fat burners by adapting our diets and our bodies will make the necessary adjustments, most with no difficulty.

People who tackle extreme sports will have different requirements for fuel and are definitely a minority.

[wtmusic]

196. There's also a wide range of glycemic indices within carbs.

If you ask most people which will metabolize first - a bagel, or table sugar - nearly everyone would pick the sugar and they'd be wrong. Similarly, whole grain bread, usually considered the quintessential carb, has a GI of only 50.

If people were more aware of which carbs to eat, and when, they'd have a lot less of a problem with weight. The problem with fats, for me and I think with others, is they have so many calories per unit volume is they don't fill you. So you eat more.

Not to mention attendant problems with cholesterol, etc.

[jeff47]

206. You need carbs.

Your brain can only eat glucose. A carbohydrate. No glucose, your brain dies.

You can eat a low-carb diet, and your body will reserve the glucose for your brain. But it is impossible to survive on a 0-carb diet.

[laundry_queen]

215. yes it is and that is why

most low-carb diets only have you on 20 carbs or less a day for a very short period of time (2 weeks is the norm). Most low-carb diets expect you to eat 50-100 grams of carbs per day once you are past the initial phase, but they just insist those carbs come from non-grain sources the majority of the time. I really hate when I hear that all low carb diets are bacon and steaks. That's not my experience at all. You basically eat shitpiles of vegetables (the odd starchy one), a few fruits and a serving of protein at every meal. That protein CAN be bacon or steak, but mostly it's a variety, like chicken breast, fish, shellfish, tofu, cheese and so on. Low-carb diets aren't no-carb, nor do they have to be high-fat.

The Paleo-diet is much more restrictive - no dairy at all, or grains at all. I had no issues following a low-carb diet but had difficulty with the Paleo diet.

BTW, I felt like a million bucks on my low-carb diet. Interesting anecdote - I'm pretty lactose intolerant. Cannot drink milk, can only eat tiny bits of yogurt, definitely cannot eat ice cream (though I do and pay for it later) and I can tolerate only certain kinds of cheese. I had severe IBS diagnosed before I figured out I was lactose intolerant (in my teens). Some of my worst offenders were whipping cream and cream cheese, which are also high fat - and these foods used to leave me in serious gastro-intestinal distress for hours after I ate them. When I first started low-carbing, lots of recipes called for these 2 things and I was reluctant, but soon enough got bored and tried them. Zero issues. Like, not even the tiniest bubble of gas.

When I slipped on my low-carbing (hello, Christmas) and ate carbs along with cream cheese and whipping cream, the tummy issues returned with a vengeance. I'm not sure what the mechanism at work here is, but I definitely feel better low-carbing. IBS is pretty much gone when I'm on it (sorry, must take a break for Christmas, lol).

Sorry, kind of went off on a tangent there...

[Abq_Sarah]

224. Your brain likes glucose but it's not the sole source of fuel

Given a diet with enough fat and protein, gluconeogenesis will supply the brain with the minimal amount of glucose that it requires. The difference can be supplemented with ketones and even lactate. Survival of the species dictates that the human brain be able to function and perform well with various types of "fuel".

[jeff47]

225. Sure, if you're not particularly fond of your liver.

The process you describe takes place in the liver. And destroys it over time. It's meant to buy a little more time during starvation. It doesn't work as part of a long-term diet.

[sense]

261. Please site

a source for your assertion. I've heard it before, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Our bodies can be fat burners instead of sugar burners and really function quite well as such. That is, of course, provided that we're not doing other things to screw it up and we're putting in good fats.

[sense]

260. Actually your

body can make glucose from the fat you eat. Not as quickly as from sugar, but it can be done. In saying that you don't need carbs, my intent was to say that there's nothing in carbs that you can't get in other foods. It would be extremely difficult to eat and never eat any carbs, but most people eat far too many and especially far too many carbs that immediately turn to sugar. You will not die without carbs.

[catrose]

36. You might read

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes or his briefer book Why We Get Fat. They review the literature involving fat and carbs. Davis' book is Wheat Belly; he applied its principles to himself because he became fat and diabetic eating "whole, healthy grains."

[sense]

57. Good Calories, Bad Calories is

an excellent book. Gary Taubes goes over the research and control of obesity for the last 200 years or so and explains in great detail how we got so off track in what we "know" about it. I cut wheat and all grains, starches and sugars out of my diet more than a year ago and it made an enormous difference in my health and weight. I used to have type 2 diabetes and now do not. I've lost weight and and gained lots of energy. My spouse lost more than 50 lbs and got off all but one medication. We have several couple friends and many co-workers who at first just laughed at what we were doing, but one by one, they've followed the "weird" experiment we tried and have seen drastic improvements in their health as well.

I think there's a lot of confusion and a lot of reluctance to try anything new, but I think that many people would benefit from giving up at least wheat. Try it for 30 days and see if you feel better. If you don't then perhaps it's not for you. I know that I can eat wheat occasionally and don't seem to experience any immediate distressing affects, but what I do experience is an enormous craving for it for many days after that's very hard to get past. I just want to keep eating things with wheat. It's much easier and I'm able to function much better when I don't eat it. I've gotten off all medications and would never go back to eating the Standard American Diet (SAD).

Pizza really seems to be a tough one for people to give up.... but good health always makes me think twice now!

Here's a good video from a Swedish doctor that's very informative about diet and health and the grand experiment that's been performed on us by our government and the ptb over the last 30-40 years.

http://vimeo.com/couchmode/ancestralhealthsymposium/videos/sort:newest/29464690

[catrose]

69. Our pizza secret

We go to buffets and scrape the ingredients off the top. And we tip generously. To make one at home, we throw the toppings on a pizza pan and bake them.

I'm so glad you've had such great success. My husband has not been able to reverse diabetes, but he keeps his blood sugar very tightly controlled by avoiding carbs. His HA1C is 5.2, I think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. This 'new' protein was first noted in wheat in 1830

according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

[abumbyanyothername]

44. <<What does one eat to be healthy?>>

Raw fruits and vegetables as close as possible to their living, growing state.

If you have to have meat, kill the animal yourself (looking in its eyes while you do).

Grains and processed sugars are generally foods of an ancient army and have outlived their usefulness.

Simply shop at your local farmers' markets or strictly in the produce section of your supermarket and you will be fine.

[yellowcanine]

67. "Grains and processed sugars are generally foods of an ancient army...."

That's nonsense. Grains are a key part of a healthy diet. They supply needed energy as well as a lot of fiber if you eat whole grains, vitamins and some essential amino acids. The point is to avoid excessive caloric intake, whether one is doing it by eating grains, sugars, or potatoes.

[Seedersandleechers]

50. If the gliadin protein

binds to the opiate receptor sites then I should at least get an opiate high.

[MindPilot]

74. If this were true, if there were really opiates in wheat...

then bread would be illegal and I would get my Frosted Mini's from that biker house down the street.

[NC_Nurse]

53. I have never heard this before, but I have lost 25 pounds in the last 6 months by

cutting out carbs - I eat fruit but no bread, only whole wheat organic pasta, quinoa, and almost all refined sugar is out of my diet too. Clearly that also cut my calories. I suppose the wheat thing could be part of it. I have had less IBS symptoms since I changed my diet...

[KamaAina]

54. A protein that's an opiate?

Hoo boy. Sounds like junk science to me.

[abelenkpe]

56. Genetically modified food should be labeled so people can make more informed decisions

It would make it easier for individuals to zero in on what makes them gain or lose weight.

I use an iphone app that helps me keep track of my daily calorie intake and calories burned through exercise. I'm sure there are similar apps for other devices. After trying lots of different diets, being a vegetarian, vegan, atkins, etc monitoring calories plus moderate exercise is really the only thing that actually works. I usually have either oatmeal and fruit for breakfast or yogurt and fruit. Then a snack at 10:30 or so, lunch around 2:00 and for dinner spaghetti because I'm trying to save money and lets face it, spaghetti in all it's various forms is always yummy. Or maybe that's just me

[wtmusic]

63. OK, but there's no evidence GM food is harmful.

"There are no reports of illness or injury due to genetically engineered foods."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002432.htm

So I'm not sure how labeling it will help inform you.

[abelenkpe]

80. Can't track evidence one way or another

If people don't know they're even consuming it.

[HuckleB]

149. How do you think illnesses caused by foods are tracked?

Sorry, that's just not true.

[abelenkpe]

155. How so?

If something isn't a variable how can you measure it? If people aren't aware they are eating a modified food how can they report or identify it as what's causing a problem? Are you advocating for not labeling food?

[HuckleB]

167. Are you kidding?

Do you not understand what I wrote? Have you never read about how salmonella outbreaks are tracked, etc... ?

[HuckleB]

148. It won't help anyone but those who will jack up prices on "non-GMO" products.

Fear sells!!!

[truebrit71]

160. "There's no evidence GM food is harmful" - except for when it causes cancer..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html

[HuckleB]

166. That preliminary study has been shown to have more holes than a screen door.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

This piece contains many links to many critiques of that crap study. Please don't just push debunked preliminary studies as evidence.

Thank you.

[truebrit71]

185. You believe what you choose...

....it ain't fashion that's causing all of these countries to ban that poisonous shit..

[HuckleB]

188. It's not about belief. It's about evidence.

And most countries are not banning anything. Those that do are doing so on political grounds only.

[truebrit71]

234. Yup...

Sure...You keep defending Monsanto, and i'll keep believing in the science that says they're poisoning us..

[HuckleB]

238. Unfortunately, you are choosing to ignore the consensus of the science.

And you apparently think that offer up red herrring ad hominem attacks changes that.

Sorry, no.

[truebrit71]

244. Yup. GMO is prefectly fine and Monsanto are pure as the driven snow..

To borrow a phrase from you "Sorry, no."

[HuckleB]

250. Again, offering up meaningless red herrings does not change the scientific consensus.

Try challenging yourself. Spend some time learning how science works, the value of the different types of studies, how to evaluate them, etc...

Pushing meaningless platitudes of fear doesn't help anyone.

On the other hand, spending time to understand things fully might give one the ability to help others.

http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2012/09/24/rachel-carsons-dream-of-a-science-based-agriculture-may-come-as-a-surprise-to-those-who-believe-that-sustainability-and-technology-are-incompatible/

[laundry_queen]

216. LOL

"Show me a study."
"Here you go."
"I don't like that one. It doesn't work for me."

ahhh, DU.

[HuckleB]

219. So you don't understand how science works?

Do you even know the value of a preliminary study, if it had been done right?

It would serve every American to understand these things. The question for you: Will you choose to learn?

Here's a start: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/reporting-preliminary-findings/

[laundry_queen]

233. Thanks. Took science in uni

genetics and biology. My family doctor was a friend who helped me to pick apart scientific studies, it was a pasttime of ours. Part of learning about science is keeping an open mind. 35 years ago people like you laughed at the idea of antiobiotic resistant bacterial strains. Keep laughing.

Oh, had a look at that site and it's clearly biased in a few areas I have a bit of expertise in. It's a bunch of bloggers (some who are biased doctors parroting what they are taught in med school) doing PubMed searches and coming to their own conclusions. So scientific.

[HuckleB]

239. That's nice.

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately, your response above shows that you don't understand how it works. You find Science Based Medicine to be biased. Well, yeah, if you don't use science to find consensus, then it's biased. Your description of the authors is absolutely out to lunch.

Oh, and you also chose to ignore multiple references in the first piece showing just how bad that preliminary study is, and why.

So, again. It's not about what classes you took, or who you know. It's about showing it. Until you show some understanding, and stop using easy outs to ignore the consensus, no one who understands science is going to buy your story.

[HuckleB]

253. PS: EU rejects French scientist report linking GM corn to cancer Read more: http://www.nydailynews

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/eu-rejects-french-scientist-report-linking-gm-corn-cancer-article-1.1175725?localLinksEnabled=false

Damning Report Questions Monsanto Genetically Modified Corn Study
http://www.citywatchla.com/component/content/article/317-8box-right/3879-damning-report-questions-monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study

[NickB79]

77. The doctor in the OP isn't talking about GM crops

He's talking about wheat hybrids, which are nothing more than the result of crossbreeding two different varieties together, which humans have been doing for hundreds of years.

[abelenkpe]

156. I see

Good to know.

[jeff47]

207. Lemme fix that for you...

...which humans have been doing for tens of thousands of years.

[yardwork]

65. This is a very interesting OP - I like the way that you posed this question

It's not clear what is causing this epidemic of obesity and diabetes, and it's good to see an OP that puts the question out there along with the list of potential culprits.

Another possibility are the SSRI anti-depressants. I was on Paxil for more than ten years and gained 30 pounds. I had always been thin, but during the decade I was on this prescription drug I was chubby, and I could not lose weight. I craved carbs and I felt like sleeping all the time. It took me months to tail off the drug - miserable months during which I felt like I had the flu - but almost immediately I began to lose weight without trying. I sleep much less, eat less, and have more energy. I've dropped more than 20 pounds over the past year without trying and continue to lose weight.

Another important fact is that China and India are undergoing sudden and dramatic epidemics of obesity and diabetes among young people. Whatever has gone wrong, it's serious.

[Kelvin Mace]

92. I am taking an SSRI as well for quite some time

and did some weight loss when I switched to a different type of anti-depressant.

My father and mother were heavy, and I was pretty thin until my late 20s. Then again, I lived my childhood years in towns where it was possible to reach most destinations by walking, and actually had sidewalks to make it possible. I now live in a place where it would be highly dangerous to walk to work or the grocery store.

A New Zealand study traced the spread of HFCS east as coinciding with obesity in India, China and Japan. Europe still uses beet and imported cane sugar in its food and soft drinks do to the high cost of growing corn, and has lower rates of obesity. But, it could still be something else. The only research I have seen has been outside the U.S.

[yardwork]

173. I think that different types of SSRIs have different side effects.

I was on a bad one, by all accounts.

[MindPilot]

78. Well, I guess that explains Honey Boo Boo...

[flamingdem]

100. ha ha - is wheat in Cheatos? nt

[DhhD]

82. People with blood type A (AA, AO and AB) do not have natural antigens against grains. Type OO has

antigens against mostly wheat and corn and some against oats and rice. Type OO is the most frequent blood type in the human population. Some study on movement of people into and out of Europe will help one understand where the A and B blood antigens originated and why. For instance, blood type B developed in areas where humans mainly had animals for food. And they have no antigen (allergic reaction) against bovine milk.

Blood and its cells/contents move food from the alimentary canal/gut to the cells of the body. The gut has many surface capillaries in the intestines so a reactions can get started before absorption in to the capillaries.

There are numerous other factors in each person's body as to allergic reactions. Blood type is a big one though.

[Odin2005]

212. I'm O- and I have no issue with wheat.

I love good bread.

[marions ghost]

85. I don't eat human chow (breakfast cereals) anymore

and feel a lot better... (still eat oatmeal off and on)

I do think Americans eat way too much pizza and cheese. And if people wash that down with sodas it's a sure recipe for obesity. I didn't read the book--just what I've observed in my family. One of my nephews is truly addicted. Yes I call it an addiction.

If consumers reject the sugared human chow & drinks, processed "Food Substance" & fried junk nuggets, we'd be a lot better off. The suppliers would eventually get the message. But we keep eating it...I think we're paying for it with bad health (that IS documented).

So I don't know if this guy is "right" or not -- what I take from it is, if you are overweight or have chronic ailments or just don't feel good, why not give it a try? There are plenty of alternatives.

The UK chef Jamie Oliver has a lot to say about all this--especially with regard to children:

http://www.jamieoliver.com/us/foundation/jamies-food-revolution/home

[flamingdem]

102. plus the organic kind is $5 a box now!

that is a rip off for what is mostly comfort food

[marions ghost]

120. yes I see organic chow going up faster than gas in California...

Too much for a few carbs of dubious nutrition...I agree

A lot of it has flax & soy, questionable in my book, not for everybody. Not to mention serious amounts of sugar--good for nobody.

I do sympathize with people who find it convenient and don't have the time to "research" every bite they eat.

And I also sympathize with consumers who find organic too expensive. I support it because I know we must support organic if we want things to change, but I know that it's paying through the nose for it. It's like a donation to a cause for me. But yeah I'd rather take the $5 for the organic wheat-based breakfast chow and buy organic (local if poss) veggies and fruit. Try to support the local growers.

I think we'll see more alternatives to these engineered wheat based products--consumers are looking for it.

[DarleenMB]

88. I read Dr. Davis's book

last September when it first came out. I was already doing low carb because of Gary Taube's "Why we get fat and what to do about it" but "Wheat Belly" put the nail in the grains coffin.

DH read the book in December and in January gave up all things wheat. He has since lost his chronic acid reflux (which had him downing buckets of antacids daily) and 30 pounds.

As for me, I have since gone further down the rabbit hole by following a neurosurgeon from Tennessee (www.jackkruse.com).

Have I lost weight? No. Why? It turns out that after all these years of being told I just needed to count my calories I have a thyroid issue. But am I healthier after giving up grains and most carbs and switching to a paleo and now epi-paleo diet? Well let's just say my doc swoons when he sees my labs. He cannot figure out how I can be eating all that FAT and have such great numbers.

[sense]

169. I've been following

along on Dr. Kruse's site also. Not sure I want to say that out loud.... Interesting stuff. Unfortunate about his politics though.

[truebrit71]

103. I stopped eating ALL grains 30 days ago. I have lost a significant amount of weight...

...i feel better, and I eat better, and I eat less because my hunger cravings have subsided...i highly recommend that people give it a shot...

[Bigmack]

108. My doc told me that sugar and wheat stuff should be controlled substances like heroin....

I went off them cold turkey.... complete with withdrawal symptoms and cravings... and lost 45 lbs.

Without "dieting". I eat as much as I want to. Which is lots less than when I was on the "drugs".

Won't work for everybody, but it works for me.

People tell me... "You lost weight! Now you can treat yourself to some goodies like pie and cake."

I tell them... "Sure... kinda like a cocaine addict can have just a sniff or two as a reward for going off the drug."

[LittlestStar]

123. I have a feeling your doc is right, gliatin or no. I think the carbs are killer. nt

[HiPointDem]

109. the doctor has a cookbook coming out on the heels of his diet book.

[HuckleB]

137. Aarrrggh.

[msedano]

110. grow your own food

in california, i can eat from the garden year-round. other parts of the country aren't as fortunate. gluten-free diet is exceedingly difficult. like soy sauce? it has wheat. like corn flakes? flavored with malted barley. take a magnifier grocery shopping and read every label.

here are several gluten-free recipes:
http://readraza.com/cbgfood/cbgindex.htm

and a report on gluten-free beer:
http://labloga.blogspot.com/2011/10/gluten-free-chicano-diga-me-on-line.html

sending best wishes to all who unknowingly suffer gluten allergies.

mvs

[Ian David]

111. There's a discussion about this over here...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=664254

and also here:

http://alt.fan.cecil-adams.narkive.com/6iz6tts8/quack-or-whack

It looks like bullshit.

Don't buy this quack's diet book.

[HuckleB]

118. +1,000,000,000 ... 000

[Codeine]

133. Good post. It will be totally ignored. nt

[Ian David]

138. Thanks. And You're right. But I still collect my giant check as a shill for Big Wheat. n/t

[LittlestStar]

114. I think its worth going wheat-free for a while and see if I drop these 15 pounds off.

I have always suspected that there was something in our diet now that makes people fat. I don't think its just high-fructose corn syrup, either. And I have been vegetarian and a health food eater since I was 15, and I exercise daily, I just think there is something wrong in our diets.

[KarenS]

124. I stopped eating wheat & most other grains after watching a video of this guy,,,,

and reading his book,,,, Since early September, I've been losing a little more than a pound a week.

I'm not hungry, sleeping better and in general just feeling better.

I get that we're not all the same but this really seems to work for me.

I'm looking forward to his cookbook coming out ~ December, I think.

[HuckleB]

126. Is gluten the new Candida?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-gluten-the-new-candida/

"...

The trend (which admittedly is hard to quantify) seems to have shifted, now that there’s a new dietary orthodoxy to question. Yeast is out. The real enemy is gluten: consume it at your own risk. There’s a growing demand for gluten labeling, and food producers are bringing out an expanding array of gluten-free (GF) foods. This is fantastic news for those with celiac disease, an immune reaction to gluten, where total gluten avoidance is essential. Only in the past decade or so has the true prevalence of celiac disease has become clear: about 1 in 100 have the disease. With the more frequent diagnosis of celiac disease, the awareness of gluten, and the harm it can cause to some, has soared. But going gluten free isn’t just for those with celiac disease. Tennis star Novak Djokovic doesn’t have celiac disease, but went on a GF diet. Headlines like “Djokovic switched to gluten-free diet, now he’s unstoppable on court” followed. Among children, there’s the pervasive but unfounded linkage of gluten consumption with autism, popularized by Jenny McCarthy and others. Even in the absence of any undesirable symptoms, gluten is being perceived as something to be avoided.

What’s been lost in an enthusiasm for gluten avoidance, is the fact that there are some people who do experience undesirable symptoms from gluten consumption, but don’t have celiac disease. It’s this group that was the focus of a recent paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine: Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: Sense or Sensibility? It’s behind a paywall, but I’ll try to summarize the paper in the context of what we know, and what we don’t know, about celiac disease and possible non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

...

The idea that gluten sensitivity is real and widespread goes far beyond the current scientific evidence, and the well-established facts of celiac disease. Time will tell if gluten avoidance follows the path of Candida, and other dietary fears and fads that preceded it. But it doesn’t need to. Given the protean nature of CD, symptoms cannot be dismissed as nocebo effects: A CD diagnosis needs to be ruled out before NCGS is even contemplated. Going gluten-free in the absence of a proper medical evaluation may not be directly harmful, but it complicates a diagnosis. Moreover, it can be expensive, and difficult to maintain 100% avoidance – essential with CD, but not established as necessary with NCGS. Besides, who really wants to cut out all gluten-containing products if they don’t need to? Until better diagnostic criteria are established, the N of 1 trial is probably the most science-based (if impractical) approach: single-blind challenges to measure for subjective or objective symptoms. Our challenge in dealing with dietary fads as health professionals is to recognize that some of our patients are suffering, and evaluate them in a science based way: without dismissing the symptoms, and without advocating dietary transformations that may be unnecessary."


------------------


Definitely worth reading.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. <----- that be me

Havong all this labeling and gluten free pizza crust, I still make the sause, is damn great.

But I am allergic.

[flamingdem]

140. If nothing else the new anti-grain trend is good to counteract

the overeating of carbos, that makes people fat and stimuates appetite

[HuckleB]

142. I don't see any of the big selling diets as doing much good.

Apparently balance doesn't sell.

[tapermaker]

127. Cutting out all breads

Has saved my life. At 50 yrs old i weighed 420 pounds and had swelled feet and ankles that were begining to change colors( lots of purples and reds).I could not effectivly clean or take care of my self.My diet consisted of mostly red meats potato`s and bread along with candies and ice cream. I was on my way out and i knew it .
I altered my diet at my mothers request after her breaking down in front of me during a visit.She cried she didnt want to bury me before she died. I promised her i would try to do better. So i bought 5 books by dr. norman walker and started using a Jack lalane juicer three times a day and stopped eating bread and red meat ,cutting out the sugar and eating only whole foods fruits and nuts and berries.with skinless chicken or sea food as an entree.I am currently 245 lbs at 6ft and 54 years old.I am convinced i would be dead now if i hadnt changed my habits.I currently do not have medical insurance ,but i no longer feel bad and have begun to enjoy getting out of the house and moving again. my feet and lower legs have returned to their normal size and the colors have faded to a more healthy apperance. I am a firm believer in only eating healthy now ,and i hope to outlive my mother , I dont want to cause her that kind of pain again.

[flamingdem]

139. That's great you could turn things around!

I'll check out Dr. Walker's books

[Faux pas]

129. Here's another

interesting site. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/200-clinically-confirmed-reasons-not-eat-wheat

[RebelOne]

144. I very seldom buy bread and there is no sugar in my house, only Splenda.

When I buy a loaf of bread, most of it goes stale because I only eat a few slices and then have to feed the rest to the squirrels.

[a kennedy]

145. Obesity and CANCER.....

I have never heard of so many people having cancer......what's the count now, 3 out of 5 are getting some sort of cancer....I think all the modified food stuffs are a contributing factor....just like the obesity problem. Am I wrong?? I wonder.....

- High Fructose Corn Syrup
- High concentrations of corn in food
- Sugar (all types)
- Growth hormones used in animals
- Growth of suburbia requiring driving instead of walking
- Practical elimination of phys-ed in schools
- Shift from agrarian to industrial economy
- The rise of super-high calorie fast food/convenience food
- Cheap food prices (relative to the past, especially meat)
- All the above

[jeff47]

208. That's because cancer kills you when nothing else does.

Medicine massively reduced the numbers of deaths from infection. Then diseases became the top killers.

Medicine massively reduced the numbers of deaths from disease. Then heart disease and cancer became the top killers.

Medicine massively reduced the numbers of deaths from heart disease. That leaves cancer.

And while things like cigarettes make you get cancer faster, everyone will get cancer eventually. It's the inevitable result from having linear DNA.

[WinkyDink]

246. And all the skinny people are living to age 90, right?

[Kelvin Mace]

264. Other factors can be at play

such as better diagnosis of cancer earlier, meaning people get treated way earlier, despite the fact that the cancer may be extremely slow growing, and other things may actually kill you first.

This has been the case with prostate cancer. They developed a test for catching it way earlier than before. But, prostate cancer in inevitable in males if you live long enough. It is aggressive in only a small number of men. Thus, after the prostate cancer antigen test was developed, there was a huge spike in prostate cancer diagnosis, despite the fact that the actual rates had not increased.

I can list a lot of other things that changed over the same time period that could be equally accused of rising cancer rates in the last 30-50 years:

- Explosion in computer use and ownership.
- Proliferation of FAX machines/copiers and exposure to toner
- Increased consumption of light beer
- Cable TV watching
- Rising polarization of political discourse (causing harmful stresses on human body)
- Decline of newspapers (maybe newsprint had an anti-cancer property)
- The continued existence of Nancy Reagan
- The change in Mr. Pibbs' recipe
- Decline in licking of stamps and envelopes (the glue prevented cancer)
- Rap music
- The end of Saturday morning cartoons.
- Stress from reading a constant stream of stories blaming various things for cancer

[Retrograde]

151. There's one other contributing factor

-Increase in portion size

Back when MacDonald's first came to my neck of the woods in the early 60s the main offering was a single hamburger, about half the size of a quarter-pounder, without all the cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, sauce piled on it. I don't think that's even on the menu. Plus, it was an occasional treat, not an everyday meal. Sugar-laden soft drinks were also a special occasion beverage, not something to eat with every meal. Does anyone else remember the jingle "Pepsi Cola hits the spot/12 full ounces, that's a lot"? It's rivals - including Coca Cola - were sold in 6 or 7 oz bottles, not 64 oz Big Gulps.

People also eat outside of the home a lot more than they used to, and not just at fast food restaurants. Most restaurants in the US serve huge portions.

Many people swear that they've lost weight by cutting [insert favorite food here] from their diets, and I don't doubt it. I think, though, that the weight loss comes from an overall increased attention to what they're consuming and how they're living otherwise than the addition or elimination of any one food.

[ananda]

163. Grainfree

I've been off wheat for 14 years and
completely Grainfree for about four
months. The difference is significant
and a definite improvement.

[tjdee]

176. Stopped eating wheat, still as fat as ever. :(

I think it has more to do with the individual person than all the external things.

[99th_Monkey]

183. Organic Wheat, by definition, can't be genetically engineered wheat, can it?

I didn't see where that was mentioned at all. What's up with that?

It's all so very confusing,
which is exactly how Monsanto et. al. want it.

[wtmusic]

193. No it can't.

The list of regulations is a mile long, but that's one of them.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9aa8e6d9864cc2683cea02&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl

[jeff47]

209. It can't be genetically engineered, but it can be a hybrid

or otherwise produced by selective breeding.

[Flying Squirrel]

201. I eat pizza. It makes me happy.

[WCGreen]

205. Phys Ed was probably canceled because of high liability insurance....

And so the kids are no longer tormented for not being coordinated.

[WinkyDink]

247. PE, where dropped, was to have more time to teach to the NCLB tests AND to cut staff.

[Kelvin Mace]

259. No, testing mania killed PE

[Odin2005]

214. Another quack with an MD after his name peddling a fad diet.

[HuckleB]

220. +1,000,000,000,000

[Recovered Repug]

217. Feed the wheat to Tribbles and see what happens to them.

[Kelvin Mace]

258. That would depend on whether

Arne Darvin was hanging about, wouldn't it?

Besides, as McCoy explained:

McCoy: "Do you know what you get if you overfeed a tribble?"

Kirk: "A fat tribble."

McCoy: "No, a whole lot of hungry little tribbles."

[Kurovski]

218. I'm slowly going back to how I ate about twenty years ago...

Oats, teff, rice, amaranth, and more. I was much healthier. I've noticed over the past 5-6 years that I'm always hungry.

I've even heard that improperly protected cell phone towers can scramble things like your appetite. Who knows? Corporate America is just here to milk you round the clock like a cow. they wouldn't give a shit...indeed, they don't

[JNelson6563]

285. You forgot one

Over-eating. I am often amazed at how much food some can eat in a sitting. Their stomachs must be enormous.

Julie