General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsModern wheat a "perfect, chronic poison," doctor says
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/Play CBS News Video
(CBS News) Modern wheat is a "perfect, chronic poison," according to Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist who has published a book all about the world's most popular grain.
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."
To avoid these wheat-oriented products, Davis suggests eating "real food," such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. "
It's) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness," he said. "Certainly not grains. When I say grains, of course, over 90 percent of all grains we eat will be wheat, it's not barley... or flax. It's going to be wheat. "It's really a wheat issue."
snip
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Deep13
(39,157 posts)...how come a sandwich doesn't make me high?
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)Deep13
(39,157 posts)...not just drowsy.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)it's not an actual opiate.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)If so, the perceived effect should be the same as an opiate.
Chemisse
(31,348 posts)So it can attach there, but it may not produce the same effect.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)...is not an opiate? It would have to be chemically identical to opiate, which means it would have to be opiate.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Yes, in our food. No, they are not "identical" to estrogen. However, they mimic just enough of that hormone to cause trouble for human beings (especially children, especially males), whose eating environment is saturated with plastics. And it's very hard to avoid.
This has been well established scientifically.
I have to read the article on wheat before I go much further, and then do some other research. I do know that carbs calm me and other people down, and make me and other people lethargic. Hmmm.
So, does this compound in genetically modified wheat mimic opioids just enough to cause trouble for us? Could be. I certainly wouldn't rule it out just yet, but having eaten my Thanksgiving pie and stuffing just now, I'm not likely to toss out everything in my fridge this moment.
Hope that helps.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)opiates aren't even chemically identical to each other, nor are opioids produced naturally in the body like endorphins and exorphins.
There is a whole range of chemicals that can bind to any particular receptor and their effects vary. Also the 'bind' varies.
"Agonists bind to receptors to produce a functional response.
Agonists can be full, partial or inverse.
Antagonists reverse the effects of agonists.
Antagonists can be competitive or non-competitive."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_agonist
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the opposite effect that opiates do. so they're given to addicts to keep them from getting high.
not everything that binds to an opiate receptor acts like an opiate.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)When I have dental surgery, I take one tiny pill.
Now, if I've built up a tolerance to bread and spaghetti, why doesn't that tolerance prevent me from feeling a percoset?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)loves bread. She's in heaven in places like bakeries where they make fresh baked bread products. I wonder if the wheat they use is GM? Probably so. Same with corn as well. Maybe just cutting all this crap out of our diets would be the best remedy for every illness.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)
Squinch
(59,522 posts)tolerance for it. Once in a great while after that I would have bread or pasta, and I would have a very amplified reaction to it: exactly the sleepiness and loopiness you get when you get drunk. I knew I couldn't have it during lunch time because I wouldn't be able to function at work in the afternoon.
I couldn't sustain it (perhaps because I am addicted to the wheat?) and when I went back to eating bread and pasta, my tolerance again rose to the point where I can function after eating it. However, overall, I don't feel nearly as well as I did when I wasn't eating it.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)They do, because wheat is not an opiate, it does not stick to opiate receptors, and it is not an addictive drug.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
Igel
(37,535 posts)Just a nice protein, one that makes wheat distinctive.
Food fads and their pushers don't have to rely on actual science.
For example, it's gliadins that those with celiac disease are sensitive to. In other words, what he's saying he's not talking about is precisely what he is talking about. So we can probably conclusde that he says he is talking about is something he's not talking about at all.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)...been going on for 1000s of years. Isn't maize just a kind of grass that was selected for seed size over the centuries? Now granted, there is nothing to guarantee that the new crop won't be poisonous, but if it were, would we not have seen it before now? And if the chemistry of a new kind of plant were radically different from the old variety, would that not have killed the plant?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Igel
(37,535 posts)But it's absent in things like maize and rice, and not present to the same extent in a lot of other grains.
Gluten is one of the things we like wheat for, the texture it makes as you develop the structure of the dough.
Their absence makes kneading rice and maize-based doughs fairly pointless. And barley dough is just a sticky mess.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I wish I had understood that when I was first diagnosed. I will not forget that poisoning. Ouch.
customerserviceguy
(25,406 posts)that has the gluten taken out of barley before they make beer from it. Supposed to taste better than the sorghum beers, but being as I haven't had either, I can't offer an educated opinion.
Just thought you might like to know, if you'd like to have a beer sometimes. It's called Omission, and it's made by the same company that produces Widmer and Red Hook brews, they're decent quality microbrews.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)But, alas, I was never a beer fan and as I'm getting older I can't seem to tolerate any alcohol at all, so, no help for me, but since almost 1 in 120 people have Celiac (though only 1 in 3000 is diagnosed in the US), it could help another beer loving soul out there.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)has my right eye looking directly at my left eye.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Igel
(37,535 posts)He says gliadins are new. They're not.
He says they're not part of gluten. They are.
He says that they're not involved in things like celiac disease. They are.
He says that they're something new. They've been in wheat for at least a couple thousand years.
He says that they're (essentially?) opiates. No evidence of it. Otherwise we'd have been sitting around getting doped up on dinner rolls and gravy.
Granted, they show up in things like beer, but still ...
It's like tuning in to a tv show to hear commentary on President Obama's policies, and having the guy start off by saying that given Harry Obama's service in Bush I's administration as a white, middle-aged male, twice divorced ... At that point we'd just declare "LOL" and either sit back to ridicule the guy or flip the channel to something useful like Dressage for Dummies.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)where those who are sensitive to gluten and gliadins eventually form micro tears in their small intestinal mucosa, which allows the proteins to leak out fairly unchanged and are then able to bond to the opiate receptors.
My own personal experience with getting off of gluten was that it felt like I imagined getting off drugs would feel like. I was really, really, jumping out of my skin, my blood pressure was through the roof and I had lots of other food intolerances, frankly my stomach was in no mood to accept anything.
After I was clean, I went back to feeling normal (actually better than I had felt in about 20 years), though, now, if I get an accidental exposure, my body is hypersensitive and it hurts, a lot. Needless to say, there are no purposeful exposures. I can't look at glutenous items without feeling a bit of revulsion. Lucky for me, actually.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)but there are other tests available now that are more specific for celiac and gluten sensitivity.
However, people with gliadin antibodies have their own set of symptoms, which varies depending on the individual. In my case, I get bleeding.
Gliadin and gluten both may cause serious problems.
Warpy
(114,615 posts)as far as pain goes, the pain was worse when I was eating wheat.
Now the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," although with so many people reporting the same relief of symptoms when they stopped eating wheat, even when they, like me, kept eating other grains, something worth studying might be going on.
I was trying to chase down a persistent rash and wheat was far down on the list of things to try avoiding because true wheat allergy is so rare. However, there it was.
This does need study, a lot of study. Unfortunately, the wheat kings in the upper midwest will be working full time to make sure funding is largely blocked.
It's too bad because something has been making a lot of people feel chronically unwell and those people report improvement when they eliminate wheat from their diets. Whether it's gluten, gliadin, or something used on the wheat, there is likely something there.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)...nor does it make a variety artificially selected for size any more allergic than a 19th century variety. And for those who are not allergic, it would certainly not be poisonous.
Warpy
(114,615 posts)Even if the protein binds to opiate receptors, that doesn't mean it triggers an opiate-like response. It just means it blocks those receptors to endorphins and enkephalins, something that might explain an increase in the sense of well being among people who avoid it. Those are a lot of weasel words and we really don't know what's going on.
It does bear further study, though.
I avoid it because I don't enjoy itching and wheezing. I'm delighted it's a fad right now because so many products are available that don't contain it, some of them quite good.
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)
nilram
(3,549 posts)Clearly, this guy has some truthyness in his GUT!
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)who don't test positive on the celiac tests (such as anti-endomysial antibodies).
And they can have different symptoms, depending on the individual.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)There are tests for antibodies to the various gliadin and glutenin proteins specifically, as well as antibodies to lectins.
https://www.cyrexlabs.com/Portals/0/Docs/ClinicalApplications/ClinicalAppArray3.pdf
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)There are different genetic groupings associated with responses to gliadin and gluten in different parts of the body.
People can have severe responses to gliadin and gluten in other systems of the body and NEVER progress to classic Celiac disease, which affects the upper intestine.
For example, there are people with Crohn's-like symptoms due to gluten, and/or with elevated liver enzymes or even neurological symptoms. These aren't stages on the way to Celiac disease -- most Celiac patients don't have lower intestinal bleeding, for example. These are separate problems that don't lead to classic Celiac, but can be just as serious.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Preservatives, flavor enhancers like MSG, fake sweeteners, HFCS, bovine growth hormones etc. I can see being a problem. But this is about wheat that is only different from previous varieties in that it is bigger. People have been eating wheat since at least medieval times and probably in some for since the stone age.
>>But this is about wheat that is only different from previous varieties in that it is bigger.
Absolutely incorrect. Read the book on how the worlds population of wheat has been modified.
"While no genetically-modified wheat has yet made it to market (as the Wheat Lobby likes to point out), the mutated forms of wheat created via the techniques of mutagenesis have been sold for years. Yes: The products of the mutagenesis are already on the market and have been for years. The world is in an uproar over the potential dangers of genetically-modified food, but the products of mutational processes that are worse than genetic-modification are already reality . . . and the public has been eating them. "
“Genetic modification,” in the slippery terminology of genetics, means that a gene or partial gene sequence was inserted or deleted using gene-splicing technology. While current research efforts continue to work on genetically-modified wheat, e.g., herbicide-resistance and reduction of celiac disease-provoking sequences, such GM-wheat is not currently on the market.
Modern wheat has been hybridized (crossing different strains to generate new characteristics; 5% of proteins generated in the offspring, for instance, are not present in either parent), backcrossed (repeated crossing to winnow out a specific trait, e.g., short stature), and hybridized with non-wheat plants (to introduce entirely unique genes). There are also chemical-, gamma-, and x-ray mutagenesis, i.e., the use of obnoxious stimuli to induce mutations that can then be propagated in offpspring. This is how BASF’s Clearfield wheat was created, for example, by exposing the seeds and embryos to the industrial chemical, sodium azide, that is highly toxic to humans.
By definition, hybridization, backcrossing, and mutation-inducing techniques are difficult to control, unpredictable, and generate plenty of unexpected results. In short, they are worse than genetic-modification. Imagine we were to apply similar techniques of hybridization and mutagenesis to mammals–we’d have all manner of bizarre creatures and genetic freaks on our hands. I am no defender of genetic-modification, but it is pure craziness that Agribusiness apologists defend modern wheat because it is not yet the recipient of “genetic modification.”
Just as Agribusiness is lobbying to prevent truth in labeling that proposes to require food manufacturers to include a “genetically-modified” declaration on foods since they feel it is none of your business, they are likewise muddying the water by defending modern high-yield, semi-dwarf strains of wheat, created through extensive genetics manipulations, as not the product of “genetic modification.”
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)random hybridization and 'mutagenesis' that occurs in nature without human intervention.
'modern wheat' is basically the same wheat your grandmother ate, and gliadin was in ancient wheats as well.
the guy is a charlatan.
left on green only
(1,484 posts)Einkorn, probably 10k BCE. Somewhere in NW Syria, S. Central Turkey. A founder crop, the big genetic change was that the grain didn't dehisce so that harvesting was easier.
Part of the crop "basket" that included chickpeas and made some of the early warfare in the area (long before the Sumerian civilization) possible. And inevitable.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I have always found that when I am eating whole grains including wheat my sugar cravings disappear. I don't know about anybody else but for me whole grain wheat is great.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)I wish I had been diagnosed as a child rather than just before I was 40. My immune system has been trying to take me down since I was 2 and I might have had an easier time of it, if I wasn't slowly poisoning myself.
wakemewhenitsover
(1,595 posts)...have more to do with the elimination of refined wheat from one's diet than the elimination of wheat, period. Refined wheat makes me crash rapidly, whereas whole grain wheat gives me sustained energy.
vs. 
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Ran across this article earlier:
http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/food_and_drink/1271943/top_10_alternatives_to_wheat.html
Unfortunately, they cost more than wheat flour.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Squinch
(59,522 posts)a comment on gliadin.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
postulater
(5,075 posts)She follows his recommendations religiously and is happy with her dietary choices.
She has lost 60 pounds in the last 8-10 months, her blood pressure has dropped from life threatening (I know, I took it) to 135/90, she goes for followup labs next week. She has been taken off three drugs.
Yeah, it's all woo. But don't tell her.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)postulater
(5,075 posts)
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...considering the number of nutritional fails from one magic bullet claim after another.
When anyone says "ZOMG! It's <insert food item or ingredient here> that is killing us all!!!" and immediately advocates for the eradication of said item, I have to be skeptical. It's too hyperbolic a reaction for me to take seriously, especially if the item in question has been a staple of the human diet for quite some time.
Salt was out, then it was found that the metabolic chemistry wasn't all that simple and that avoiding it didn't necessarily result in better cardiovascular health. Eggs were out for a while, then it was found that they had enzymes in them that helped metabolize their cholesterol. Red meats were out, then that was modified to be fatty red meats. Then it was wheat gluten, which only technically affects celiac sufferers, but has been pushed as the latest greatest diet austerity measure. Now wheat on the whole is the problem. And until someone comes up and refutes it, this will stand as the next great bogeyfood.
And this won't necessarily un-enrich the death merchants. They, like they have in every example I've named above, will turn a tidy profit from products specifically made to take advantage of whatever anxiety comes from this. Just look at all the gluten-free labels and cholesteral-free eggs and salt-free selections and the buffalo meat. Now considering that these items are actually missing ingredients (excepting the buffalo meat, of course), you would think that they would be less, but no, market pressure to sate the dietarily anxious is toward higher price, not less.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)There are many more examples of bad results from products declared safe and beneficial from authorities that there are of the opposite. I look at it this way, nobody is going to be killed by not eating wheat, and some of them might get better for whatever reason.
And yes, I am pretty cynical.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)I'm sure there are, but for fuck's sake, WHEAT?!?! I'm sorry, millenia of safe (and beneficial) consumption trumps one outrageous claim. Even two. Maybe four. Possibly ten. If you're going to take out wheat of all things, you'd better come with a plethora of scientific validation, not conjecture.
It's better to believe in God, just in case there happens to be one? Pfft.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of America's dietary woes is that we eat too much, too often, and move too little. Our diet evolved during a time when you got up before sunrise, worked a couple or three hours taking care of the livestock, ate breakfast, and then went back to work for another few hours before lunch, then back to work until dusk. You can burn up a 5,000Kcal diet with that level of activity, no problem.
I remember a film of Ansel Adams' expedition shooting the Grand Canyon. These were like home movies. They were mugging for the camera, lots of shots of making and breaking camp, and so on.
There were several shots of these guys going about their tasks shirtless. Middle aged men with gray or no hair, lined faces, turkey necks, and the rest. They all had the bodies of underwear models. Hard muscle, and very little fat if any. Even the stocky guys weren't fat, they just had large, hard abdomens and were very thick.
That's when it first struck me just how soft we are today. I have no doubt that any one of these men could beat the shit out any of today's gym rats half their age.
Anyway, cutting down or eliminating wheat from one's diet isn't going to hurt anyone and it might well help some. I don't believe I've read anyone advocating for banning wheat, so I think the freak out displayed on this thread is about something much more than some guy hawking his book.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...the fact that we will believe anything that comes out of any idiot's mouth if they have a book about it.
Rationality is not the enemy of anything, but the idea that we need to always act in a way that is presumed "safe" even though every bit of rationality is telling us that the danger is overblown as hell is a slap in rationality's face. Moreover, when "safe" is presumed, but not supported, does it matter if you go left or right at that point?
What we should be ashamed of as a people is that we do not QUESTION people when they make claims provided they come from a place that seems legitimate, no matter how up in the face of reason that claim seems to be. These should be the first ones we SHOULD be calling bullshit on.
I really don't worry that people are soft in the middle, I worry that they are soft in the head.
But, if you are that convinced of the dietary woes, just write a book about it using prophetic language, and not only will you be a millionaire shortly, but you will have a devoted following and be able to hit the talk show circuit. Could be quite lucrative.
Anyway, I am convinced you don't know what you're talking about vis-a-vis dietary woes. It's much simpler. Exercise. Everything else is bullshit. The human body seems able to take in all kinds of crap and turn it into something useful. Not using it is what makes you unhealthy. Agree, disagree, it's got as much support as what you're saying.
Chemisse
(31,348 posts)BUT - this all makes sense to me anyway. I know I have always felt better when I ate a low-carb diet.
And I did find one piece of evidence:
Demonstration of high opioid-like activity in isolated peptides from wheat gluten hydrolysates.
0.5 mg of the most active peptides were equivalent to 1 nM of morphine in the binding assay. The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6099562
Oh, and another:
Peptic digestion of gluten results in the production of substances having opiatelike activity in bio- and receptor assays.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6840480
Ahh, one more that connects appetite with an opiate receptor blocking drug:
Naloxone reduces the food intake of normal human
volunteershttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666383800452
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)nope, gliadin was present in ancient grains. it's been in wheat and other grains since the creation.
lots of things bind to opiate receptors; that doesn't mean they act like opiates. they may, in fact, act in precisely the opposite way.
in fact, some substances which bind to opiate receptors are specifically given to prevent people from getting high, because they prevent opiates from binding.
'binding' is a loose term; different substances will bind in different ways.
Opiate blockers are a class of pharmaceutical that bind to pain receptors ("opiate receptors"
in the human brain. As a result, opiate based drugs, the narcotics, cannot bind to the same sites and must remain in the bloodstream. Naloxone is one of the most commonly used drugs of this type.
Opiate blockers have an emergency use in the treatment of narcotic overdose. They reverse the nerve suppression of narcotics, restoring normal heart and breathing rates. They are also used in rapid detox procedures in order to prevent withdrawal symptoms.
The main side effect of opiate blockers is that they cannot block the transmission of pain impulses, even by the body's own endorphines. As such, for patients in pain, they block the effect of most painkillers.
http://house.wikia.com/wiki/Opiate_blocker
the guy's work is a hodgepodge of woo, at least as explained in these articles.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)have been many newly created variables of/on old proteins, most accidental, and many that have or will cause unintended consequences.
It has been a couple of decades since I was forced to take a year and a half of organic chemistry, and even though I aced it, all I got a deep understanding of was that there are very, very few people that really understand it and even they are frequently wrong. Anybody that claims certainty in the effects and consequences of our meddling is just flat-out lying to you.
I consider documented results in living organism to be the only objective data that I have at hand, and that data indicates an unlikely correlation between the growing use of these technologies and the rise of formerly rare and even unheard of maladies. Most(?) of us have a pretty high tolerance for many things and our bodies and systems can deal with them for years, but not everybody is so lucky.
Leaving yourself open to the possibility that neither you nor I nor the people profiting from these technologies really understand all the potential implications is just good sense. I have too often seen the results of science being wrong with disastrous results to discount these hypotheses out of hand.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of gliadin (a-gliadin, y-gliadin, etc.) are new & none were created by man.
'woo' isn't a pejorative if someone is trading on his credentials to promote outright falsehoods. it's just the truth.
i don't like the term either, when used to shut down conversations about questions that actually are at issue -- but there's no doubt whatsoever that gliadin isn't a new protein and has always been present in various grains.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)fed today is not the same wheat we ate 100 years ago. And 'woo' is a pejorative unless followed by hoo.
And if this gets results, who cares that he's wrong or perhaps the story was just badly written. But this aggressive offensive against everything not corporate only serves to stifle conversation. If you really care so much, why don't you go do some investigation and present your case?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)*all* the wheat we ate 100 years ago (though some is).
nor was the wheat they ate 100 years ago the same as they ate 200 years ago, etc.
but gliadin isn't a new protein. that's for certain. it was in wheat 100 years, 200 years, 500 years ago.
and promoting that falsehood, as well as the misleading half-truth about opioid receptors, tells me he's a charlatan.
yes, woo is a pejorative. i use it to describe charlatans who are purposefully lying to gullible people to make money. and they deserve it.
his diet may be great and he may believe in it, but he's selling it with a false narrative; demonstrably false, clearly false. so if his diet is so great, why does he have to use lies to sell it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)then you're wrong. It's not a thing where there's wiggle-room. If you dislike 'woo' so much, we could simply call it lying.
So if I think it's a good enough reason, it's fine for me to lie?
Do I need to investigate before claiming the sun rises in the East? Or can I use the investigation of people over the last 10,000 years to say that?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I never claimed that this guy is right or wrong, yet here you are calling me a liar and trying to put me in the position of defending something which I started of saying that it doesn't matter is right or wrong if he's getting results.
Buh-by
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So it is ok for me to lie if I think there's a good enough reason?
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Just as a point, a Christian health plan could claim Jesus is making you well. Someone else might point out its cutting tobacco, alcohol, Ezekiel diet which eschews processed foods, exercise via volunteer work and placebo effect. There's real results, may as well credit it to Jesus if it keeps them healthy. To any skeptic, you point out the scientific reasons and take what you will.
My sister and mom are doing special diets that have really helped them out.
Igel
(37,535 posts)"The sky is made of marmelade, therefore the sky is blue" is a true syllogism simply because the final proposition, "the sky is blue," is true. The inanity of the initial proposition is beside the point.
My wife tries to be carb free (which also exclude gluten). She lost weight. Not because she avoided carbs, but simply because the sheer quantity of low-cal leaves and stems don't allow for a lot of fat to be consumed (or absorbed). Probably healthier, since a lot of the carbs she ate had a high glycemic index, low fiber, and, well, it was easy to over-consume.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Deep13
(39,157 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)find it. But do whatever you like and believe whatever you want to believe. It makes no difference to me.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)me with my sugar addiction so I will continue to eat it.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I think most of us get screwed up by doing what we're told by people with their own agenda. For myself, I know that my body has a fit if I eat HFCS, but sugar doesn't seem to bother me.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you a tapeworm and then told you your weight loss resulted from your prayers to the great spaghetti monster, would you say the same?
after all, you're getting results! what does it matter if you're lying about how or why!????
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)injurious, not eating wheat won't harm anyone.
What I am more interested in is why you are so obviously invested in this? We established about a hundred replies ago that both of us understand enough to know that neither you nor I can know the answer with any certainty and yet you, and your buddies, are bordering on obsession with this thread. Why is that?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a public forum without being challenged.
it's not "obsession" that you continue to post, only that your challengers do (none of whom are my buddies, btw).
no one can know *anything* to an absolute certainty. that doesn't mean that truth value shouldn't be debated.
if the diet works for you, eat it.
just don't start talking about wheat being poison and gliadin being a new protein and einkorn being better than modern wheat re gliadin because it only has 14 chromosomes -- and not expect to be challenged.
if you want to make claims without challenges, start a blog and block comments.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)as "challenging". OK, fine doesn't matter to me. But I am going to point out again what has already been stated numerous times.
The posters you keep trying to shout down have not made any claims whatsoever. Any claims were made by the author of that book.
Neither you nor the other posters in this have any claim to The Truth, the fact that this guy gets results establishes that beyond debate. He may completely full of shit as to why, but that doesn't mean that your position is any more justified, and at least he has the excuse of making money in an mutlibillion dollar industry based on the American fantasy of the quick fix, what's yours?
You don't even have enough conviction to write the only person that is making claims.
So I will continue to point out the faults in your attacks for as long as it interests me, a point that I have now reached.
reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)...starch is basically a polymer of sugar - a polysaccharide - that breaks down into sugar during the digestive process. Isn't it true that when you eat wheat you are basically eating sugar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#Nutrition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Chemically they have three or more sugar molecules instead of one or two that simple sugars have. It takes longer to digest and have nutrients our bodies need like vitamins, minerals, and fiber. It's the good sugar our bodies need. In fact it is our main source of energy especially for our brain and nervous system. For me it helps curb hunger and processed sugar cravings.
reACTIONary
(7,162 posts)... I sometimes eat a little of something sugary to curb my appetite and keep my over-all calorie intake down.
Different strokes for different folks.
longship
(40,416 posts)I eat food because food is good for you.
Wheat is no more poison than any other food. The poison is the screaming meemies who claim that everything is bad, including... Horrors!!!! wheat.
Fuck this shit. The same people said that eggs were bad, butter was bad (but oleo was allegedly good), etc.
Food is good for you!!! If you want to eat healthy, just eat a balanced diet. If you're a vegetarian, eat beans (or some such) for protein. If you're vegan, the same. If you're a fructarian, there's little hope for you -- I recommend lots of wine. If you're a breath-airian, I recommend Hospice care.
In my older age, like many, I eat less meat. But I eat all sorts of everything. That's the way humans evolved. If you disagree, I would suggest that you consider that humans have been omnivores for a million years, maybe many. Of course, many humans eat bugs -- I understand that they're tasty and very nutritious.
Wheat is just another part of human diet. Calling it a poison is to display utter ignorance and an ideology counter to everything we know about diet.
In other words, balderdash!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Crisco is approved for human consumption, and no, eating that all day is not good for you.
Not all food is equal. Not all food is good. Not any amount of a "good" food is necessarily good either.
Yavapai
(825 posts)She also put more salt on most everything than I could stand. She died when she was 104 years old because she was in a hospital where she contacted hepitius c. Every morning I can remember she fried bacon then eggs in the remaining grease.
She ate white bread and corn bread with real butter. Whenever I went to her house I felt like I was going for an oil change!
I call bullshit on all these live forever diets. It is your genes more than anything else, I think. My father would be called an alcoholic as he drank at least two six packs a day, every day! He also smoked tobacco his entire adult life. He died at 87 and I can only remember him being sick once, with the flu. His brother died of Alzheimer,s. At about 83.
I am 70 and have also smoked since age 14. I eat whatever sounds good at the time and am determined to continue until I drop dead.
These fad diets are total bullshit!!!
Edited to add: my doctor warned me twenty five years ago to change my diet, he died at 54!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Yavapai
(825 posts)Long life runs in my family.
Did you know that diarrhea is hereditory?
Yea, it runs in your jeans...
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I don't generally think that a few exceptional anecdotes invalidates science. And frankly, science isn't on the side of smoking and eating lard-fried food. I'm glad its worked out for you, but for the general population, clogging up their arteries with grease and nicotine intake is the same as buying express ride to the morgue.
Genes will not entirely save you (nor can diet entirely doom you) in a every case
Maineman
(854 posts)A few weeks ago, I bought a jar of pink stuff that looked like marshmallow cream because I wanted the nice pint sized plastic jar to carry protein powder when I travel. It was cheap, and the best jar I could find. When I tried to empty the jar (down the drain!), I found that the stuff inside was not really water soluable. I read the label. If was fat free. So, it was non-fat and not water soluable. I do not know what it was, but it sure as hell was not food.
longship
(40,416 posts)And it was food, too.
I rarely do that, but I did so in honor and in solidarity to the Hostess workers. It has coconut, which I love, and which is also food.
In spring, I pick morel mushrooms in my yard, when they show up. But I also eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on occasions. (I prefer orange marmalade.)
I love fried eggs, preferably basted and fried in a dollop of bacon grease. I eat them at least a couple times a week, with toast made with -- HORRORS!!!! -- the evil wheat!!!
My question to the food police is this: what would you have humans eat? Dirt!? That's natural!
My advice to everybody. Eat food. Don't listen to the food police. Eat what you like, but eat a variety.
And above all: Wheat has sustained humankind for many millenia. It is not fucking poison.
The food police suck!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)bacon fat, and you can live on bread alone for quite a while, but the sno-ball diet will literally kill you.
Have you seen Super Size Me? Young, relatively healthy man nearly died trying to live on nothing but McDonald's so-called food for a month.
longship
(40,416 posts)But I will demure. Indeed, Sno-Balls are neither necessary nor sufficient food. But neither is beer. And I would rather be without Sno-balls than an occasional beer, or so.
I guess my point is that a diet which maligns a specific food type is not very logical. Saying wheat is evil is counter to the fact that humans have lived off wheat for many thousands of years, since the beginning of agriculture, the beginning of people living in villages.
The first harvestable wheats were natural hybrids of natural grasses. But humans, by either accident or intent, brought about the more modern hybrid of today's wheat.
It is like those who think that genetic modifications of crops are utterly evil. Shit! Humans have been doing it for tens of thousands of years.
Show me a person who protest GMO food and goes home to feed their pedigree dog breed, and I will show you a hypocrite.
The only argument against GMO food, is not that it is genetically modified, since genetic modification goes back tens of thousands of years, but that only today, a company can own that genetic modification.
That's the problem. It's an economic problem which has little to do with the genetics which we have been doing for so many thousands of years.
I have sympathy with the economic argument, but no sympathy at all with their baseless pseudo-scientific argument. No one company should own a patent to a genome.
But I diverge here. Food is food. Humans, and their ancestors, have been eating food for millions of years. Our heritage tells us more about our proper diet as the bullshit advertisements for so-called "natural" or "organic" or any other advertising label a company might want to apply. Fucking arsenic is natural. The Death Angel mushroom is organic. Doesn't make them edible.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)equivalent to the genetic modifications that Mendel formalized in the mid-19th century is disingenuous to say the least. Never in the history of the world has a grass ever combined with a beetle to produce an entirely new planimal, and if it did, it would invariably be sterile.
We are meddling with stuff, the potential ramifications of which the very best minds in the world (excluding those minds paid by Con-Agra, Monsanto, et al) can't even quantify, let alone predict. Every time we go this route, it comes back and bites us in the ass.
But this is getting far off the topic of whether it is a good idea to eat wheat, how much, and in what form.
But, I do believe you could live on beer.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)I'm losing iron like crazy.I am so anemic I sleep ALOT.And running up one flight of stairs,like I did a few months ago with ease,leaves me breathless and my heart pounding. It sucks. It is severely fucking with my life.
I think wheat being a slow poison and an opiate,really would be a perfect social control mechanism...
http://arkwriter.hubpages.com/hub/nutritiousbiblefoods
Hell most of us are being slowly poisoned,if not by wheat,by enviromental pollution,by the food,and the additives and insecticides and GMO's.
What really pisses me off is,why did people ignore the WGA and other abberant properties in wheat.
Although significant progress has been made in exposing the dark side of wheat over the past decade, gluten receives a disproportionate share of the attention. Given that modern bread wheat (Triticum Aestivum) is a hexaploid species containing three distinct sets of chromosomes capable of producing well over 23,000 unique proteins, it is not surprising that we are only now beginning to unravel the complexities of this plant's many secrets.1 What is unique about the WGA glycoprotein is that it can do direct damage to The future fate of wheat consumption, and by implication our health, may depend largely on whether or not the toxic qualities of WGA come to light in the general population.
Nature engineers, within all species, a set of defenses against predation, though not all are as obvious as the thorns on a rose or the horns on a rhinoceros. Plants do not have the cell-mediated immunity of higher life forms, like ants, nor do they have the antibody driven, secondary immune systems of vertebrates with jaws. They must rely on a much simpler, innate immunity. It is for this reason that seeds of the grass family, e.g. rice, wheat, spelt, rye, have exceptionally high levels of defensive glycoproteins known as lectins. Cooking, sprouting, fermentation and digestion are the traditional ways in which man, for instance, deals with the various anti-nutrients found within this family of plants, but lectins are, by design, particularly resistant to degradation through a wide range of pH and temperatures.WGA lectin is an exceptionally tough adversary as it is formed by the same disulfide bonds that make vulcanized rubber and human hair so strong, flexible and durable. Like man-made pesticides, lectins are extremely small, resistant to break-down by living systems, and tend to accumulate and become incorporated into tissues where they interfere with normal biological processes. Indeed, WGA lectin is so powerful as an insecticide that biotech firms have used recombinant DNA technology to create genetically modified WGA-enhanced plants. We can only hope that these virtually unregulated biotech companies, who are in the business of playing God with the genetic infrastructure of Life, will realize the potential harm to humans that such genetic modifications can cause.
Lectins are glycoproteins, and through thousands of years of selectively breeding wheat for increasingly larger quantities of protein, the concentration of WGA lectin has increased proportionately. This, no doubt, has contributed to wheat's global dominance as one of the world's favored monocultures, offering additional "built-in" pest resistance. The word lectin comes from the same etymological root as the word select, and literally means "to choose." Lectins are designed "to choose" specific carbohydrates that project off the surface of cells and upon which they attach. In the case of WGA the two glycoproteins it selects for, in order of greatest affinity, are N-Acetyl Glucosamine and N-Acetylneuraminic acid (sialic acid).
WGA is Nature's ingenious solution for protecting the wheat plant from the entire gamut of its natural enemies. Fungi have cell walls composed of a polymer of N-Acetylglucosamine. The cellular walls of bacteria are made from a layered structure called the peptidoglycan, a biopolymer of N-Acetylglucosamine. N-acetylglucosamine is the basic unit of the biopolymer chitin, which forms the outer coverings of insects and crustaceans (shrimp, crab, etc.). All animals, including worms, fish, birds and humans, use N-Acetyglucosamine as a foundational substance for building the various tissues in their bodies, including the bones. The production of cartilage, tendons, and joints depend on the structural integrity of N-Acetylglucosamine. The mucous known as the glycocalyx, or literally, "sugar coat" is secreted in humans by the epithelial cells which line all the mucous membranes, from nasal cavities to the top to the bottom of the alimentary tube, as well as the protective and slippery lining of our blood vessels. The glycocalyx is composed largely of N-Acetylglucosamine and N-Acetylneuraminic acid (also known as sialic acid), with carbohydrate end of N-Acetylneuraminic acid of this protective glycoprotein forming the terminal sugar that is exposed to the contents of both the gut and the arterial lumen (opening). WGA's unique binding specificity to these exact two glycoproteins is not accidental. Nature has designed WGA perfectly to attach to, disrupt, and gain entry through these mucosal surfaces.
It may strike some readers as highly suspect that wheat - the "staff of life" - which has garnered a reputation for "wholesome goodness" the world over, could contain a powerful health-disrupting anti-nutrient, which is only now coming to public attention. WGA has been overshadowed by the other proteins in wheat. Humans - not Nature - have spent thousands of years cultivating and selecting for larger and larger quantities of these proteins. These pharmacologically active, opiate-like proteins in gluten are known as gluten exorphins (A5, B4, B5, C) and gliadorphins. They may effectively anesthetize us, in the short term, to the long term, adverse effects of WGA. Gluten also contains exceptionally high levels of the excitotoxic l-aspartic and l-glutamic amino acids, which can also be highly addictive, not unlike their synthetic shadow molecules aspartame and monosodium glutamate.1In a previous article on the topic,The Dark Side of Wheat: New Perspectives on Celiac Disease and Wheat Intolerance2, we explored the role that these psychotropic qualities in grains played in ushering in civilization at the advent of the Neolithic transition 10,000 BC. No doubt the narcotic properties of wheat are the primary reason why suspicions about its toxicity have remained merely speculation for thousands upon thousands of years...
http://www.sott.net/article/205205-Opening-Pandoras-Bread-Box-The-Critical-Role-of-Wheat-Lectin-in-Human-Disease
Matariki
(18,775 posts)
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The basic premise is that modern wheat has been so hybridized over the thousands of years that it has been in agricultural use, that it has lost all (most of) the nutritional properties that ancient humans thrived on.
Modern wheat has been bred to grow fast, grow short, process easily and behave well in the kitchen. These are all properties that are driven by economics. Somehow along the way no one thought to understand how the hybridizing process was affecting the nutritional aspects of wheat. It is simply not the same grain that human civilization cut it's teeth on.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)This guy's basic chemistry is completely wrong - gliadin has been in wheat since antiquity. 1 gliadin + 1 glutelin + water creates gluten. Which is why we've been kneading wheat flour for centuries to make bread.
So if he can't get the very basics of food chemistry right, why on earth should we listen to anything else he says?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Read the book before you say he is wrong. I think you are misinterpreting what he said.
He simply states that the number an types of glutens and gliatins in einkorn are far fewer and less complex than those in hybridized wheat.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)he states that the number and types of gluten chromosomes in hybridized wheat are greater and for different types of gluten than what is found in einkorn.
It is therefore the D genome of modern Triticum aestivum that, having been the focus of all manner of genetic shenanigans by plant geneticists, has accumulated substantial change in genetically determined characteristics of gluten proteins. It is also potentially the source for many of the odd health phenomena experienced by consuming humans.
This passage follows a section describing the number of gluten (gliadin and glutenin) producing chromosomes in various wheat varieties, including einkorn.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, wheat doesn't produce gluten. Wheat produces gliadin and glutelin. Gluten is formed by combining gliadin and glutelin and water. Pick some wheat seeds and there will be 0 gluten. There's also 0 gluten in wheat flour.
Second, chromosomes are bundles of DNA. Genes actually produce proteins. Chromosomes are how cells arrange their DNA, and the chromosomes must be unwound in order for the genes to be transcribed into RNA. There are no "gliadin chromosomes" or "glutelin chromosomes". There are "gliadin genes" and "glutelin genes". 6 copies in the most common wheat, because it has 6 copies of it's DNA....but just because there's multiple copies doesn't mean it produces more - gene regulation is far more complex. For example, women do not have double the proteins in the genes on the X chromosome - one copy of each gene is inactive.
As for the passage:
Wheat is one of the few crops that has not had genetic engineering in commercial crops. The existing varieties are results of selective breeding. Just like a terrier vs a great dane. So there have not been "shenanigans by plant geneticists", because geneticists have yet to produce a commercial wheat crop. Unless you're gonna call ancient Sumerians "geneticists" too.
So...the guy is now saying gliadin is new....but said something different in his book. So by his own admission he's lying either now or then. He also apparently doesn't understand that chromosomes and genes are different things.
And we should believe this guy because.......?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)and this doc's claim that gliadin is a new protein makes everything else he says suspect, because that's just complete bullshit. it's been around as long as grains have.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)than perhaps corn. Those are the two which are most widely used here in the US where agribusiness rules, and which would yield the most profit if they became larger or smaller stalked (thus more viable against the elements) or whatever.
Ever look at heirloom corn? Very little resemblance to supermarket corn.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)do the selective breeding, somehow that's more natural than if white people do it, i guess.
the original corn was a grass.
Part of maize’s monstrosity is that it has been highly bred from a “normal” grassy ancestor. Corn originates from South and Central America and is the result of Native American breeding that’s been going on for thousands of years. Its original ancestor is almost certainly teosinte, an unimpressive little grass that produces a few tiny kernels on an inflorescence that shoots out from the top of the plant. There’s several species of teosinte, including Zea diploperennis, and it can be crossed with maize. In teosinte, the female flowers are at the ends of the shoots and the male flowers shoot out from the sides. In corn, it’s the opposite. So not only has corn been bred to produce large numbers of large kernels all on a single cob, there’s been a sex change as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize
'heirloom' corns
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)If it did everything anyone ever said would be "suspect".
And I think the "error" is till open for debate. He has a clear and detailed discussion about gliadins in the book.
The term "gluten" encompasses two primary families of proteins, the gliadins and the glutenins. The gliadins, the protein group that most vigorously triggers the immune response in celiac disease, has three subtypes: alpha/beta-gliadins, gamma-gliadins and omega-gliadins.
...
Because fourteen-chromosone einkorn has the smallest chromosomal set, it codes for the fewest number and variety of glutens.
...
Hybridization efforts of the past fifty years have generated numerous additional changes in gluten-coding genes in Triticum aestivum, most of them purposeful modifications of the D genome that confer baking and aesthetic characteristics on flour. Indeed,genes located in the D genome are those most frequently pinpointed as the source of the glutens that trigger celiac disease.
I don't know - seems pretty clear that his point is that the amount and variety of gliadins in modern wheat is the issue.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)had (has) 28 chromosomes. and T. aestivum, which first appeared on the scene maybe 8000 years ago as a natural hybrid of emmer & another wild grass, had 42 chromosomes, just like modern T aestivum wheat varieties do.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8tz2aB1-jb4C&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=emmer+28+chromosomes&source=bl&ots=PEwbf-cGlB&sig=JKMaxppnU84WIzXgeMyZxYUsQps&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pD6wUMraF9DWigKc7YD4CA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=emmer%2028%20chromosomes&f=false
‘Gluten’ is the inclusive term for a complex mixture of storage proteins found in grains. There are more than 50 different protein components in hexaploid wheat. When a person with Celiac Disease becomes exposed to specific amino acid sequences of some storage proteins, the immune system is stimulated to attack the body.
All members of the Triticum family contain the amino acid sequences.
The two major wheat species used for food production are bread wheat and durum wheat. However, other triticums were cultivated and consumed historically and are still marketed today. They include spelt, emmer, and einkorn. (I've highlighted D genome wheats)
Common Name Scientific Name Genomes
Wheat (bread) Triticum aestivum A B D
Durum (pasta ) wheat Triticum turgidum var durum A B
Spelt Triticum aestivum var spelta AA BB DD
Emmer Triticum turgidum var diccum AA BB
Kamut Triticum turgidum, ssp. turanicum AA BB
A, B and D genomes of cultivated wheat are derived from related wild grass species of the genera Triticum and Aegilops and therefore encode the related proteins.
“Consequently, it is not valid to expect any cultivated or wild wheat species to be nontoxic to those suffering from celiac disease despite claims to the contrary.”
http://www.csaceliacs.info/celiac_disease_defined_spelt_is_wheat.jsp
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)- less hybridized and fewer varieties of the proteins. Further, that hybridization was done to enhance growth and cooking characteristics without any consideration or testing for effects on humans.
It may not be "valid to expect any cultivated or wild wheat species to be nontoxic to those suffering from celiac disease despite claims to the contrary" but Davis presents plenty of clinical and experiential evidence that it is valid to expect that einkorn is less toxic than modern hybridized wheat.
The point regarding his ignorance of gliadins is taken off the table.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)years ago. It had 42 chromosomes and produced a loaf that would rise.
Mol Genet Genomics. 2009 Mar;281(3):289-300. Epub 2008 Dec 23.
A catalogue of Triticum monococcum genes encoding toxic and immunogenic peptides for celiac disease patients.
Vaccino P, Becker HA, Brandolini A, Salamini F, Kilian B.
The involvement of gluten in the CD (celiac disease) syndrome has been studied in detail in bread wheat, where a set of "toxic" and "immunogenic" peptides has been defined. For wheat diploid species, information on CD epitopes is poor.
In the present paper, we have adopted a genomic approach in order to understand the potential CD danger represented by storage proteins in diploid wheat ... Four bona fide toxic peptides and 13 immunogenic peptides were found. All the classes of storage proteins were shown to contain harmful sequences.
The major conclusion is that einkorn has the full potential to induce the CD syndrome, as already evident for polyploid wheats...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19104838
One einkorn and five spring spelt accessions were grown at five and
four locations in 1992 and 1993, respectively, and evaluated for their
compositional and nutritional properties compared to common hard red
spring (HRS) and durum wheats...
Einkorn and spelt SK0021 and PGR8801 flours had higher protein contents than did common HRS flour... The gluten content of all wheat species was similar and constituted about 77% of total flour protein.
The gliadin to glutenin ratios were 2:1 for einkorn; 1:1 for spelt SK0021 and PGR8801 and common HRS; and 0.8:1 for RL5407 wheat flour proteins.
http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/cc/backissues/1995/Documents/72_621.pdf
IOW, the einkorn had *more* protein and a higher ratio of gliadin proteins to glutenin proteins than others tested (spelt and durum cultivars).
Characterization of alpha-gliadin genes from diploid wheats and the comparative analysis with those from polyploid wheats.
Ma ZC, Wei YM, Yan ZH, Zheng YL.
Source
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya'an, Sichuan 625014, China.
Abstract
To carry out the comparative analysis of alpha-gliadin genes on A genomes of diploid (einkorn - t. boeticum & other) and polyploid (more modern) wheats, 8 full-length alpha-gliadin genes...were obtained from diploid wheats, among which 2, 2 and 4 alpha-gliadin genes were isolated from T. urartu, T. monococcum and T. boeoticum, respectively.
The results indicated that higher number of alpha-gliadin pseudogenes have been present in diploid wheats before the formation of polyploid wheats.
Amino acid sequence comparative analysis among 26 alpha-gliadin genes, including 16 functional genes and 10 pseudogenes, from diploid and polyploid wheats was conducted. The results indicated that all alpha-gliadins contained four coeliac toxic peptide sequences...
Comparative analysis indicated that the functional alpha-gliadin genes from A genome are highly conserved, whereas the identity of pseudogenes in diploid wheats are higher than those in hexaploid wheats....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186192
"Einkorn–The great granddaddy of all wheat, the stuff first harvested wild, and the source of the 14 chromosomes of the A genome."
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...an appeal to authority?
Hmm.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)validate or invalidate them. I am not a geneticist.
But as far as it goes, his book provides his reasoning and the science behind his position.
And as far as that goes, he wrote a lot more on the topic than I have seen from you.
on edit: and his work carries more weight for me than,,, well than anonymous intertube posts
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Perhaps you might do the due diligence and look for the contrarian opinion/research/critiques of methodology before throwing your lot in with his postulates alone. There are some cites lower in this thread by others if you need to get started.
You are right, he did write a lot more on the topic than I have. But I suppose I could spend the weekend writing on this topic and even surpass his word count if I really burn the midnight oil. Would that make me a more reliable source?
But you know best how to live your life. If one point of view without a counterpoint to decide in this life what is fact, fiction, or otherwise, then by all means go to it. But really, if that's the way you want to proceed, you might as well weight intertubes posts and published works equally for all of the rational skepticism you've chosen to apply.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)eom
blue sky at night
(3,313 posts)got off the stuff about a year ago and now I am going to go Gluten Free...do the research and you might join me! It is indeed a poison!
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)'Modern "Wheat" or more precisely Glutten is at the heart of all disease....'
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Or so some say.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Do we have issues with obesity? Yes. But historically speaking we outlive past generations by many decades.
oh, sorry Shivering Jemmy. My post was addressing the poster who asked where disease came from before modern wheat, not at you.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)Certain types of lymphomas that were very rare a very short time ago are growing very quickly in number, for example.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Too many people are jumping the gun on what causes our modern diseases. My son has autism. He has never reacted badly to his vaccinations. In fact he had the rest of his adolescent shots a couple of years ago. He does not have seizures. He doesn't even have tantrums anymore. He is social and friendly. He has friends. He has been improving every year since pre-school, and he eats wheat. The fact is we don't know what causes autism and we don't know what causes auto immune diseases either. I prefer to wait for a consensus from the scientific community before I make radical adjustments to my diet or my son's diet for that matter.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)That would require patience and reason, and you can't sell a lot of books that way.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's why we knead bread dough. To form gluten from gliadin and glutelin. The gluten is what traps the CO2 from yeast and causes bread to rise.
We've been doing it since we first started farming wheat, thousands of years ago.
So.....how exactly is a protein we've been eating for about 10,000 years suddenly the source of all disease?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)got sick & died just like us. of the same diseases.
they live longer since they started eating lots of wheat. i'm sure that's the reason for their new-found longevity.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)Dangerous stuff too
Ian David
(69,059 posts)See:
http://dhmo.org/
Maineman
(854 posts)You would do well to read it. It has to do with your health and the health of your children, and it has a lot to do with the soaring health care costs in this country.
If you are foolish enough to trust large corporations to produce healthy food, then you are probably foolish enough to think that pharmaceutical companies are in business to help doctors help their patients. These entities, these profiteers are in business to maximize profit.
Why do old people swallow a dozen chemicals everyday?
Why is the US one of the sickest nations on earth?
Think about it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)A day.
What's more, you would die if you did not.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Something in your fridge that isn't a chemical.
I'll give you a billion dollars if you can do it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)That'd cause weight loss aplenty in your average American, who gorges themselves on such simple carbs all day. Obesity causes a host of other health problems, so, I can see how getting people to just 'reject wheat' would on it's own cause weight loss and a general improvement in health. But it's not necessary to cut wheat altogether.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)it wasn't invented in the 60s & 70s, either. it's a normal component of wheat and other cereal grains.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021499384
wheat is not only "an 18-inch plant," there are multiple varieties of wheat of various heights.
gliadin doesn't make you fat, isn't an opiate, doesn't look like one or act like one.
"avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables" have all been changed by selective breeding, including by that done by agribusiness.
and this doctor is a shyster looking to make a buck.
UnseenUndergrad
(249 posts)When someone was going to link that thread.
will continue to eat my shredded wheat. Hope it doesn't poison me.
DakotaLady
(246 posts)and enjoy my Kashi breakfast cereal.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)is good! tried it once. I think i'll start alternating.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)to be sure, gluten can cause a lot of problems in a lot of people, and today's wheat may not be less healthy, but the basic premise here is wrong.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)Nature engineers, within all species, a set of defenses against predation, though not all are as obvious as the thorns on a rose or the horns on a rhinoceros. Plants do not have the cell-mediated immunity of higher life forms, like ants, nor do they have the antibody driven, secondary immune systems of vertebrates with jaws. They must rely on a much simpler, innate immunity. It is for this reason that seeds of the grass family, e.g. rice, wheat, spelt, rye, have exceptionally high levels of defensive glycoproteins known as lectins. Cooking, sprouting, fermentation and digestion are the traditional ways in which man, for instance, deals with the various anti-nutrients found within this family of plants, but lectins are, by design, particularly resistant to degradation through a wide range of pH and temperatures.WGA lectin is an exceptionally tough adversary as it is formed by the same disulfide bonds that make vulcanized rubber and human hair so strong, flexible and durable. Like man-made pesticides, lectins are extremely small, resistant to break-down by living systems, and tend to accumulate and become incorporated into tissues where they interfere with normal biological processes.
Ricin is another kind of lectin BTW.
Hemagglutinating activity is found in the processed wheatgerm, peanuts, and dry cereals. Several lectins are resistant to proteolytic digestion e.g., wheatgerm agglutinin, tomato, lectin, and navy bean lectin.
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/toxicagents/lectins.html
Lectins are poisons in wheat,it is even extracted and sold.So it exists.
http://www.vectorlabs.com/catalog.aspx?prodID=340
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)it's killing us!!!
all plants have natural defenses against insects and predators. soybeans have high lectin content too. japanese eat a lot of soy & are one of the longest-lived, healthiest people on the planet (though that wasn't the case 100 years ago when they were poorer and ate less).
people don't eat ricin.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)They act as if it's impossible for wheat to have a defense mechanism,and it is preposterous we cannot clean enough lictins out of it to make it safe enough to eat as much of it as we do.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)are mostly denatured by heat, like most proteins (lectins = glycoprotein)
"Lectins are widely distributed in food items eaten by humans...most lectins are easily destroyed by the traditional methods of household cooking."
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mk-IdNTTJB0C&pg=PA334&dq=lectin+carrot&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J0OwUJrsLeGuiQLopYG4Cg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lectin%20carrot&f=false
Lectins are found in over 800 plant species, 600 of them in the legume family.
We *do* get sick from them sometimes (especially when we don't cook foods that contain high amounts or specific types thoroughly) but we've also been eating them for 1000s of years.
Carrots and bananas contain lectins. Animals do as well.
People eat lots of poisonous or semi-poisonous things.
Lupin or Lupini Beans are the yellow legume seeds of Lupinus genus plants, most commonly the Lupinus luteus or Yellow Lupin, and were once a common food of the Mediterranean basin and Latin America. Today they are primarily eaten as a pickled snack food....Lupin poisoning affects people that eat incorrectly prepared lupin beans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupin_poisoning
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)the key is to find the right balance. Some foods have higher nutrition to toxin ratio, others high toxin to nutrient ratio. It may be easy to avoid the latter but it's hard to subsist on just the former.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)it's a good idea to limit consumption of foods that have high amounts of lectins... such as the ones you list. At the same time, those foods do have positive nutrients, so it's a bit of a trade-off.
Of course, processed white flour has relatively little which is why it is easy to digest.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Wheat doesn't have any gluten.
Gluten is formed when wheat is processed in the presence of water. It forms from gliadin and glutelin. Wheat doughs are kneaded in order to convert gliadin and glutelin to gluten.
Wheat has always had gliadin. Since antiquity.
This guy is a hack, hoping to lie his way into some money.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)Why?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's a ton of different ones.
You are asking "How come nobody's talking about the dangers of all the plants in the tomato family?! Nightshade is a deadly poison!"
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)Sugar is the villain. Not wheat.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)Fuck gluten,and whatnot the problem is the WGA Lectin,and lectin is the wheat plant's defense mechanism and it is toxic.
What about lectin?
I can't eat certain beans,maybe it's because they too have lectin?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)they bind oligosaccharides.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)What if wheat lectin can't be removed? Heat removal does not work. So... we eat wheat poison.
Soybeans have toxins,you shouldn't eat them fresh that is why they get fermented to remove the poison.
So if lectin is binding to sugars on our cells couldn't it interfere with the ways sugars are absorbed,metabolized and function in a body fueled by sugars?
Sugars have a hell of a lot of functions in a body.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8490246
So if the very fuel your body lives off of is tainted by lectins couldn't that be a problem?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)If you are allergic to it don't eat it. I am not allergic to it so I will continue to eat it.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you're eating half-raw beans, maybe you have a different problem with them.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)Makes me wonder...Because Lectin is the problem.WGA Lectin.A protien.Causes inflammation,can go right through brain blood barrier,can hurt the cillia in your intestines,fucks with the body's sugars... The culprit is LECTINS.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)All you're doing is offering up your opinion. Lectin can actually help fight cancer. There are people who are allergic to certain foods. If you are allergic then you shouldn't eat it. That doesn't mean it is poisonous for the entire population of humans.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)Lectin is durable, if it cannot be cooked out of wheat than we are eating a toxin. Lectin from wheat is a tiny molicule, it can cross the blood brain barrier,that's why they use florescent forms to observe neurons etc.
If lectin is a toxin that in small doses accumulates in the body it can cause delayed effects to the body as it poisons it over time.
If lectin can't be destoyed by heat well enough to not be safe,we are poisoning ourselves slowly.
Why can't wheat seeds be toxic? We don't eat apple seeds for that reason.It's not that far fetched.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I say to each his own. If your doctor says you are allergic then obviously you shouldn't eat it. I like to wait for consensus from the entire scientific community before I make such a drastic alteration to my diet. For me whole wheat is a healthy part of my diet that helps me not eat so much processed sugar so for me that is the main concern. It works for me so I will continue to eat it. If it does not work for you then by all means don't eat it.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)But because you disagree does not mean it is hype,or totally false, and not worth researching for others who may have doubts about wheat safety.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Saying it is a poison for everybody is not correct. If you want to put out the side effects and symptoms of Celiac disease so that if people have these symptoms they can talk to their doctor that is more responsible in my opinion than just trying to scare everybody. If someone has symptoms they can get tested to see if they have Celiac disease and see if they need to avoid wheat.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lectin is a kind of protein. There's tons of them. What makes a protein a lectin is it binds to sugars.
Finding a lectin that is toxic doesn't mean all of them are. Just like tomatoes aren't toxic but nightshade is.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)But what if wheat isn't as toxin free as we think it is? What if certain types of processing does not remove the lectin sufficiently? to make it truly non-toxic?
What about allergies ? I have allergies one thing I know about allergies by personal experience and through my doctors is an allergy can change or come out of the blue to give you misery that you didn't have before. What if wheat allergies come and just appear suddenly in some people because the body has reached it's wheat lictin load capacity so the allergic symptoms appear?
I was never allergic to wheat before in my life yet my endocrinologist thinks I may have celiac disease.Where did that come from?
Consistent with a slow poisoning,regardless.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The heat of cooking would inactivate the lectin. So no, there's no need to remove the lectins.
Secondly, lectins in food aren't new.
You can be allergic to any protein.
Has several problems.
First, that allergy is easily detectable. A basic skin test would reveal it's presence. You can't only be allergic to a protein when you eat it.
Second, it's only wheat lectin when it's raw. When it's cooked, it's just a jumbled mass of protein. Think of an egg - egg white is almost all protein. When you cook it, it's radically different - and the proteins are inactive. And you can't un-cook it.
Allergies commonly appear and disappear. So do autoimmune diseases - people aren't born with lupus, for example.
More to the point, the proteins you're concerned about have been present in wheat products forever. Literally forever. And we've had plenty of societies that consumed WAAAAAAAY more wheat than we do - couldn't exactly import a variety of food from around the world until recently. So if it was such a toxin, how come those people didn't have ton of people with celiac disease?
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)and if all the proteins were destroyed after cooking there would not be much protein in foods in general. A seared well done steak still has protein value does it not?
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Prions are only dangerous in under-cooked meat. Cook beef to medium, and you can't get mad cow disease.
Destroyed does not mean vaporized.
Destroyed means rendered inactive. As I explained with the egg white example. The protein changes shape and chemistry, inactivating it. It's still made of amino acids, but it can't perform it's function. You still break it down to amino acids which you then use to make your own proteins.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)I posted in GD.While I waited for replies.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)
We can all see that you asked why people were ducking your issue after there were several replies responding to you.
Your claim people are ducking the issue: Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:41 PM
My reply to your claim (#61) Fri Nov 23, 2012, 08:36 PM.
And there were several replies before mine.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)
A few thoughts:
1. Just because it's on CBSNews.com doesn't mean that it's good science.
2. Just because this guy is a "doctor" doesn't mean that he isn't dumber than a fucking bag of hammers. The alternative to him being a total moron, is that he's a liar, lying to sell books. Which is worse? Either way, the guy's a dick.
3. Using hyperbole like "perfect, chronic poison" doesn't help the cause. In fact, it makes the guy look like even more of an asshole.
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)to not eat ANY wheat for a few months....
Hmmmm... I am willing to ...it won't be easy...
Squinch
(59,522 posts)But if you have even a little, you are back to the beginning, and you really miss it again. I kept it going for a really long time, and felt astonishingly well. But my addictions to the wheat and sugar foods have made me unable to get back onto it. (Visualize me looking like a zombie, saying, "The chocolate! The cake! I must have them!"
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)My son keeps after me though...He lost 100 lbs...No kidding.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)He claims gliadin is new, and that it now causes disease.
Is gliadin new? Nope. It's been in wheat forever. It's one of the two proteins that gets converted into gluten when you knead dough containing wheat flour.
So since gliadin isn't new, it can't be a new source of disease.
svpadgham
(670 posts)That makes me happy I eat nothing but Soylent Green.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)almost every day for the past 13 yrs. On the days I don't eat bread, it's usually because I'm gorging on pizza, or am traveling.
I'm in my mid 50's. My weight is slightly lower than what is normal for my height and build, I have very little fat on my body. My blood pressure was 128/74 on Wednesday, and that's higher than normal for me. All my vitals are normal. My lab tests were all normal. My hormone levels are the same as what is normal for a 25 yr old woman. I have no chronic diseases, or any diseases whatsoever that I am aware of. I sleep well every night. I am an extremely happy person. I have not had a cold or flu in 4 1/2 yrs, maybe longer. I do not have acid reflux or bowel problems, and my legs do not swell up. My eyesight is 20/20. I do not need reading glasses. My hair has almost no gray in it. I have no cavities. I hiked 6 miles up and down hills in the desert without even breathing hard today. I can play guitar and sing for 3 hrs straight with no physical discomfort or tiredness. My energy level is always high.
I'm not saying that maybe this new kind of wheat is good for us, I realize i could get sick and die tomorrow, but I just kind of want more proof of how bad this new kind of wheat really is before I go about changing my diet, and fixin' what ain't broke.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)I was beginning to think reason had left the building.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Every single last one, from the C6H12O6 to the Dihydrogen Monoxide and the C4H2FeO4. It's all gonna kill us.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Apparently, if you aggregate all of what is purported in the popular press to be bad for you, the list for non-toxic will be short enough to fit in large letters on your palm.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)So I'm a little skeptical
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)you have no personal evidence.. like a slow poison accumulating you have no ill effects until your carrying capacity is reached. Maybe your genetics make you more able to cope with lectin. For longer. I dunno. But if wheat IS toxic it might be good for you to research it yourself and not dismiss it out of hand.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And our average life-span is what, compared to what it was only 150-200 years ago?
I'm out of this one.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Why are so many having trouble detecting the one you've pointed out?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Now, it may be possible we could all live to 150 if we cut wheat out of our diet... but you'd have to show me the data. Something that seems startlingly lacking in a topic supposedly based on science... 
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)But, it is fun to picture their red faces and little puffs of steam coming out of their ears.
I suppose I will have to actually read the article now if the games are to continue.
undergroundpanther
(11,925 posts)At least they seem to. Good at hitting nerves I guess.Closed minds resist,but it's futile..LOL
Squinch
(59,522 posts)breathing is bad for you. If I hadn't had the experience of cutting out sugar and wheat and seeing what an enormous difference it made to the way I felt, I might have been making the same arguments.
I think also there are people who are intolerant and people who are much more tolerant. To the wheat tolerant, this must seem crazy, and perhaps those of us who are less tolerant are in the minority.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Wouldn’t it be great if there was a single villain behind the chronic health problems plaguing us, and if all it took to reverse them was to stop eating wheat? Don’t bet on it.
The article goes on to examine some of Davis' claims, such as:
Fact: For well over a century, food scientists have developed hybrid varieties of wheat to be sturdier and have higher yields, better quality and greater resistance to disease and insects. That’s true of most food crops. There’s no clinical evidence that differences between today’s wheat and older varieties have adverse effects on our health. It’s all supposition on Davis’ part, and feeds into pervasive fears of modern agricultural methods. We think this particular fear is unfounded.
OK, this is just one opinion; but, it is from an authoritative source.
Here's another negative review from a blog for patients who are gluten intolerant: Wheat Belly Busted:
The author goes on to cite a number of examples where Dr. Davis conclusions differ from the actual results of the studies he bases his conclusions on. He (the author) avoids making any ad hominem attacks on Davis, just a point-by-point discussion of his work:
When a popular study like this comes out, it's advisable to read with an open mind, and a touch of healthy skepticism. The internet can be a useful tool for finding opinions on both sides of the issue; but, it's important to look for authoritative sources.
byeya
(2,842 posts)It is written by doctors and researchers and has made very few mistkes over the past 30 or so years - advocating Beta carotene was one that comes to mind. Humans harvested types of wheat in the Levant long before any people lived year round in settlements and the best kernals were replanted for when the nomads came back next year.
The same thing happened in central America with Teosinte which was selectively bred into corn(Indian maize) over the centuries.
I'd put my money on Cal Berkeley on this one.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)Been reading this thread and still sitting on the fence...
The article link has no author cited? My inner skeptic finds that odd but maybe that's how this newsletter presents material? If I weren't feeling so lazy (no doubt a gluten induced haze) I'd look up to see who their major grant money contributors were. So not sure who the 'authority' is in the article here.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)And I made a conscious decision not to eat bread so much. Not because I thought bread was unhealthy, but rather because I didn't want the calories from carbs.
Now, if I do eat bread at all, I prefer artisanal whole grain bread.
This has me thinking.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)That's what a balanced diet is all about: not too much of X (whatever X is, be it eggs or meat or wheat or sugar or flax or olive oil, etc.) and some of Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, and so on. Lots of variety, plenty of fibre, go easy on sugar and fat (but don't eliminate them).
Few people are truly allergic to X, but if they are they should cut it out.
However, ...
Try a balanced diet first!
You'll find that if you are careful about eating a balanced diet (it's easy), health will generally improve. If you have specific test evidence against a particular food component, eliminate it or keep it eliminated, but ...
Before going nuts on food fears, try a balanced diet first.
Too many people have unbalanced diets and veer from one food fad to another, especially if there is a big food scare ongoing. They may cut out wheat (for example) entirely from their diet and by doing so they are forced to eat a more balanced diet to compensate. Voila! Better health! Not necessarily from cutting out X, but better health just from a more balanced diet.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)One of the first things I realized is that my diet increased in variety, simply by paying attention to the balance of proteins, fats and carbs.
Also knowing WHEN to eat them.
As a result, I have no "food fears" There are no "taboo foods", only a recognition that there are good foods and useless ones.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)Running in autism circles, gluten has long been a boogeyman in my world. We never did go gluten free, for various reasons. However, my sister and my best friend both went gluten free, and it has honestly helped them feel better. Placebo effect or actual science, I don't know. My sister is reading Wheat Belly right now.
My feeling is that there must be a grain of truth (pun unintentional but oh so appropriate) to some of this, at least the part that says the wheat of today is nothing like the wheat of yesterday.
I dunno. Whatever blows your skirt up. If cutting out wheat lowers your bp and helps you lose weight and regulates your blood glucose, well then go for it. No harm no foul.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)My son has autism, and we didn't go gluten free either. Just didn't feel there was enough scientific evidence to make such a drastic change, but if there are people out there that think it helps them then more power to them. I don't believe in food police either way. I have weeks or even months on end where I just give in to my sugar addiction. I don't kill myself over the guilt. I just start over and get back on my diet when I feel strong enough to do it. I don't like it when the food police try to make me feel bad for eating junk food, and I don't want to make people feel bad for eating what they feel is healthy.
Butterbean
(1,014 posts)from having a special needs kid is that what works for me and mine doesn't always work for someone else. I have friends who do the biomed thing with their kids (no chelation or hyperbaric chamber, just gf/cf and vitamin supplements) and swear they see a difference. I have a friend who's taking a gamble on a month long all organic preservative free diet with her autistic kid to see if it makes a difference. *shrug* They're not harming their kids, and if they see a difference and feel it helps, and their children are thriving, I do not judge.
Both of my kids have feeding disorders, too. The food police can take a flying leap. LOL.
Marr
(20,317 posts)ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Wonder if he's related to the doctor on the Simpsons.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)organic foods or at least non-processed, no chemicals added foods. Yes these are expensive but grow a garden---it's cheap and healthy
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)healthy products ... but with all of the additives now ...
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I watched the video and I am embarrassed for those "news" people, laughing along with this huckster.
A lot of times it's hard to tell, and you want to be open-minded, but this guy is telling everyone that gliadin is a "new protein" and as other DUers have pointed out, and which is easily confirmed, that is nonsense. The CBS booker, the producers, and either of the anchors could easily have found that out just as easily as I just did. 
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Exactly.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)but I'm not surprised that "improvements" made in the last little bit have made it all the more poisonous.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)It's not going to force me to overeat.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)Over the past few months, I've given up shrimp, brown rice, and now it looks like I'm going to have to give up wheat products.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)...up there with potatoes and brown rice.
The numbers in my signature don't lie.
I don't exhibit any allergy symptoms to wheat, so I'll enjoy it as I continue to lose weight.
www.drmcdougall.com
Squinch
(59,522 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)population has a harmful immune response to it. For those people, avoiding any wheat is a good idea. People with unexplained chronic illness should try a gluten-free diet to see if it helps. But lots of people-- probably most of the population-- tolerates wheat and gluten fine. But at the same time, everyone should avoid eating too much gluten rich food.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)Too much logic, too much moderation, not enough outrage and copied Wikipedia paragraphs that show how smart you are.
But yes. You're right.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)and dropping sugars and other starches (6 days a week). I went from overweight with the doctor nagging me that I had to lose, to a bmi of 21.
Then I tried to go back to "normal eating" this fall to fix some cholesterol problems, with the idea of just eating in moderation, and I've gained back about 10 pounds. My cholesterol corrected itself within 3 months, from high risk to optimal levels.
So at new years I'm going back to how I was eating for the last year but less eggs and bacon and maybe retain unsweetened oatmeal for breakfast. I don't know if oatmeal has the same problems as modern wheat. Since I added wheat and oats back in, I'm getting touches of arthritis that had gone away with the diet.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)I've lost 118 lbs. in 17 months and my diabetes is in remission, 9 days after giving up wheat. My cholesterol, LDL, HDL, etc. are normal. Actually, all of my bloodwork is normal, and my digestion has returned to normal. No more diverticulitis or colitis.
Do I miss it? Hell yes, but I know I'll die much sooner if I eat wheat. I love what I eat and I'm never hungry. I eat eggs, butter, dairy, cheese, meat, olive oi, cocoa powder, full fat cream and raw veggies. A few cashews a day too. Bell peppers supply vitamin C. I gave up all junk food for life. The only food that I really really miss is toast.
I have a nutritionist helping me get what I need through food and it worked.
Squinch
(59,522 posts)You're an inspiration.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)They stop us from pointing and laughing too hard at the right for being full of AGW deniers and creationists. Two groups that also pretend the science is on their side without ever offering any actual proof.
This story hits almost every single red flag for being a crackpot.
Magic bullet? Check.
Doctor speaking way outside his field? Check.
Offering absolutely no evidence? Check.
Poor understanding of science? Check.
Claiming people that oppose you are doing it for profit motive while selling a book? Check.
Insisting the plural of anecdote is data? Check.
I'll believe him when he's got some peer reviewed research to back him up. Until then he's selling The Secret with wheat having replaced bad thoughts. I won't hold my breath for that research, though, since he's completely wrong about several objective facts. (Gliadin isn't new. Gliadin is not an opiate.)
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Instead of science and math, they are relying on their "critical thinking skills".
sense
(1,219 posts)amazing changes in my health after giving up wheat. I had type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, depression and high triglycerides. I was taking 5 different drugs. I had also come to accept that I was always going to be exhausted, that my joints were going to hurt and I wasn't going to sleep well.
Within 3 weeks of changing my diet, I had only insulin resistance, not diabetes and within 3 months my blood sugars were back in the normal range and I no longer had diabetes. I was able to stop taking anti-depressants soon after that and because my weight dropped down to normal, so did my blood pressure. I feel better than I've felt in more than 20 years.
Every so often I start getting cocky and thinking that since I've fixed my health problems I can go ahead and have some wheat.....I loved bread.... but within a couple of days I come to regret that. I experience really bad acid reflux, even though that was not one of my prior problems, and my joints start aching again. I don't sleep well, I'm lethargic and begin putting on weight! After living without those problems for more than a year, it's pretty easy to see what was causing them and nothing is worth going back to feeling so old and decrepit.
I'm quite certain that there are many people for whom modern wheat is not currently a problem and will never be, but for me and for most of my family, giving it up has been one of the best decisions we ever made.