The Save The Grain Campaign

      132 Comments on The Save The Grain Campaign

I’ve written a few posts about how the Wisdom of Crowds is changing what we see offered in restaurants and grocery stores. Thanks to books like Wheat Belly, numerous blogs and discussion groups in social media, more and more people are figuring out they’re better off without wheat and other grains.

Well … you didn’t think the grain industry would take that lying down, did you? We’re talking about the most profitable sector of the food business, and one of the most profitable industries on the planet.

The grain industry is pushing back with media articles I’m going to start calling the Save The Grain Campaign. Let’s look at a couple of recent examples.

We’ll start with an online article titled 5 Unintended Consequences of Going Gluten-Free:

A gluten-free diet is becoming more and more popular for a variety of reasons. The National Foundation for Celiac Awareness estimates that 1% of the American population has celiac disease, the autoimmune disease triggered by gluten. An NPD Group study from 2013, however, showed that 30% of Americans are trying to cut back on or completely avoid gluten in their diets.

Hmm, you’d almost think there are benefits to giving up gluten even for people who don’t have celiac disease. Or maybe it’s just a fad. I don’t know.

Going gluten-free, though, isn’t without it’s downsides.

But learning the difference between its and it’s has very few downsides.

Here are 5 things to think about if you’re cutting gluten from your diet.

1. You may be missing out on important vitamins. We started enriching staples in the American diet — through flour, mostly — with iron and B vitamins for two reasons: we’re notoriously bad at getting our recommended daily value, and deficiencies cause things like birth defects and anemia.

Well, that and the fact that if you live on wheat flour that isn’t fortified, you’re prone to birth defects and anemia.

While people suffering from celiac disease physically can’t absorb most nutrients, if you’re cutting out gluten without really thinking about all the nutrients you get from wheat products, you may find that you’re not doing your body any favors. Inside Tracker explains some of the nutrients you’ll need to actively seek out when you go gluten-free:

Fiber, which helps your body slow the absorption of sugar into the blood and works to improve digestion, as well as helps you feel full for a longer period of time.

Folic acid, a B vitamin that the federal government mandates manufacturers to add to their wheat-based products.

Iron, which many U.S.-produced wheat flours are fortified with and helps the body move oxygen to your muscles and organs, but few gluten-free flours are iron-enriched. An iron deficiency can make you anemic and weak.

Got that, folks? Don’t, for heaven’s sake, eat vegetables for fiber and meat for B vitamins and iron. You need your gluten foods to get the iron and folic acid that are artificially added.

2. It can get pricey. If you’ve started a gluten-free diet, regardless of the reason, you’ve probably noticed that many of the staples in an American diet revolve around wheat. Most of the popular foodstuffs made traditionally — cereal, bread, etc. — will have a lower cost at checkout than those now being made with ingredients and processes new to their processing plants.

So don’t worry yourself about the costs of treating asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, Sjogren’s, psoriasis, arthritis, migraines or diabetes. You’ll save almost a dollar when you buy wheat bread vs. gluten-free bread.

3. You may gain weight. Many people jumping on the gluten-free train are hoping to lose weight by cutting gluten from their diets. Men’s Fitness reports that many of the replacements for wheat flour used by manufacturers — cornstarch, rice flour — are more calorically dense than their wheat counterparts.

Man, that’s enough to make me consider basing my diet on meats and vegetables instead of cornstarch.

If you do have celiac disease, you may notice a quick increase in your weight once you cut gluten out of your diet. Celiac.com explains that one of the effects of gluten on the system of someone with the autoimmune disease is that nutrients aren’t absorbed well, or at all. Removing gluten and restarting your nutrient absorption means you’re actually going to start feeding your body, and you may see some weight gain.

Okay, you silly celiac sufferers: Do you really want to start absorbing nutrients again if it means you might gain weight? Stick with the wheat and stop trying to actually feed your body. You’ll look better in a swimsuit — and remember, wheat is fortified with important nutrients your body needs even though you can’t absorb them well, or at all.

4. The slightest bit of gluten can make you miserable. Especially if you have celiac disease! While you’re eating gluten regularly, your body slogs through the reaction, but if you cut gluten from your diet, the tiniest bit can cause a major reaction.

Once again, you silly celiac sufferers, listen up! Your body has learned to slog through the reaction to a food that makes you sick. Trust your body on this one. If you stop eating the food that makes you sick and then eat it again later, you could feel really sick! So just keep eating it.

And to all you alcoholics out there, I’m warning you: If you stop drinking a pint of whiskey every day and then later decide to drink a pint of whiskey, you’ll feel really, really sick! So don’t be an idiot – keep drinking so your body doesn’t forget how to slog through the reaction.

5. Your cholesterol may rise. If you have celiac disease and your body hasn’t been properly absorbing nutrients, you may have particularly low cholesterol. At the point when you begin to normalize, though, your cholesterol may jump up.

And as we all know, cholesterol is a killer. So keep eating the food that makes you sick and prevents you from properly absorbing nutrients so you can continue to have particularly low cholesterol. (But be sure to choose fortified wheat products, because they contain important nutrients you can’t properly absorb.)

The next article in the Save The Grain Campaign comes from the CBC in Canada and is titled Wheat Belly arguments are based on shaky science, critics say. Normally I start with a quote from the top of an article, but in this case I think it’s more instructive to pull a quote that explains why the grain industry is scared @#$%less of Dr. William Davis and his Wheat Belly book:

Kellogg’s, the world’s largest cereal maker, has seen its biggest drop in sales since the 1970s. Food companies are selling off their struggling bread divisions, while wheat sales are plummeting across Canada.

That’s because millions of people are going wheat-free, influenced by best-selling health evangelists and celebrities who say wheat is responsible for everything from fat bellies to breast cancer to schizophrenia.

So yeah, I think it’s safe to say the grain industry is none too happy with Dr. Davis. When I had dinner with him in December, I told him – only half-joking – to please say out of dark alleys.

Here are some other quotes from the article:

Critics say the anti-wheat claims made by leading health crusader Dr. William Davis are based on shaky science, an investigation by the fifth estate has found.

Newsflash: Dr. Davis’ critics are criticizing him. Stop the presses.

Davis and others in the anti-wheat movement are changing the way people eat — 56 per cent of Canadians now report they’re cutting down on foods such as bread, breakfast cereals, pastas and pastries.

That can’t be good. That means the Canadians are missing out on important nutrients. And if they have celiac disease, they may gain weight and see their cholesterol rise once they begin absorbing nutrients.

But the fifth estate’s investigation found that experts in the scientific community say scientific claims made by the anti-wheat movement are questionable at best.

Joe Schwarcz, a chemist at McGill University dedicated to demystifying science and debunking big claims, says, “This is one of these arguments that has one smidgen of scientific fact to it, which is then exploded into a whole blob of nonsense.”

Schwarcz says he hasn’t seen any evidence that wheat has addictive properties, as Davis claims in his book. Schwarcz also says “opioid peptides” are produced when some foods are digested. But just because they can bind to opiate receptors in the brain doesn’t mean they produce a morphine-like effect.

It appears that Davis based this claim mainly on one study of rat brains, done on dead rats in 1979. The fifth estate could not locate any study on humans that conclusively proves wheat is addictive.

That’s a bit like saying the fifth estate could not locate any study on humans that conclusively proves orange hats cause brain cancer. The studies haven’t been done. But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that wheat isn’t truly addictive. So what? I only care if it’s good or bad for me.

Davis also links wheat to mental illness such as schizophrenia. But the study he based his research on was conducted in 1966 …

Um … meaning it’s not valid? It’s past the expiration date?

… and after almost 50 years of research, no one consulted by the fifth estate could point to any definitive study that specifically links wheat to schizophrenia.

Um …meaning researchers have spent nearly 50 years trying and failing to find a link between wheat and schizophrenia?  I’m pretty sure the accurate statement would be something like as far as the fifth estate can determine, nobody has conducted any further research on the subject since 1966.

What about Davis’s claim that today’s wheat is not wheat at all, but a “modern creation of genetics research”?

Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan have been studying the genetic profiles of 37 varieties of wheat grown in Canada since the 1800s, to discover if wheat’s basic protein structure has been altered in any way.

Wheat geneticist Dr. Ravi Chabbar is heading up the Saskatchewan project and is paid to advise the grain industry, but this particular project is being funded by the federal government.

Oh, well, if this study is funded by the federal government, it couldn’t possibly be biased. It’s not as if Canada is a major wheat exporter or anything.

Dr. Chabbar says that over time, wheat has been modified to produce high-yield crops. But when it comes to wheat’s proteins – gluten and gliadins – the basic structure of “ancient” and modern wheat is the same.

So we have this stuff that only grows two feet tall, with an abnormally thick stalk, and yields ten times as much per acre as traditional wheat. But nothing’s really changed in the proteins. Trust us on that one. The fact that rates of celiac disease have increased by 400% in the past 50 years is a coincidence.

Yoni Freedhoff, a family doctor and diet expert who runs a nutrition clinic in Ottawa, says the eating guidelines touted in Wheat Belly are similar to other carb-free diets that get results by dramatically reducing the carbohydrates and calories people eat.

He argues that the difference here is Davis, not any miracle cure: “This just took it to another level with a very charismatic doctor, who has a presentation that to me is reminiscent of an evangelical preacher.”

Dr. Davis would be flattered to know he’s considered charismatic, but the news site did its best to minimize the charisma.

More than five years ago, I wrote a long piece about how to bias a news story on my other blog. (If you read it, don’t leave a comment there. That blog is dormant until I have more time.)  The CBC article provides some fine examples, but perhaps I should have mentioned that selecting pictures is also a neat way to color a story. Media outlets do it all the time.

Suppose the president gives a speech demanding some new tax or regulation the media types support. You’ll probably see a picture like this accompanying the story:

Who could possibly oppose a tax or regulation proposed by such a confident-looking leader? We are literally looking up to him in the photo.

Now suppose that after months of the president insisting that if you like your policy, you can keep your policy, it turns out you can’t actually keep your policy – and even the media types are upset (or perhaps just embarrassed that they dutifully repeated the lie without bothering to read the Federal Register and look like shills as a result). When the president faces the press to give his version of a mistakes were made but not by me speech, you’re more likely to see a photo like this:

The confidence is gone, and unless my eyes are deceiving me, we’re even looking down on the man a bit.

Anyway, you get the idea. Picture selection is no accident. Media types choose the picture that conveys their attitude about the subject.

Hi-res video is a great source for getting exactly that picture you want, especially if the subject is talking. When we talk, our mouths adopt funny shapes, our eyes open and close, etc. Take a video of a person talking, I guarantee you can find some unflattering frames. Or some flattering frames. Take your pick.

When I wrote about my interview with Dr. Davis back in December, I chose this frame from a video clip:

Dr. Davis looks intelligent and confident. That was, of course, my intention. Now here’s the shot the CBC people chose for their article:

He looks belligerent and slightly scary … like some evil genius out to destroy the wheat industry.

Back to the article:

But the fact remains that despite the vast majority of scientists and health organizations not supporting much of what Dr. Davis says, more and more people are giving up grains.

Yup. That’s because despite what the vast majority of scientists and health organizations say, people are learning about the benefits of giving up wheat and other grains via the Wisdom of Crowds. They’re trying gluten-free diets, seeing positive results, and sharing those results with the crowd.  They’re ignoring the vast majority of scientists and health organizations because they’re tired of being given advice that doesn’t work.

And there’s nothing the Save The Grain Campaign can do about it.

Share

132 thoughts on “The Save The Grain Campaign

  1. Bob Johnston

    I actually follow Yoni Freedhoff’s facebook page, at first because I thought he was a kindred spirit and later just because I love to upset his applecart. I changed my mind about him when he ran a post recommending bariatric surgery for diabetes (your opinion on the matter makes a lot of sense). He recently posted a video from the CBC doing a hit piece on Dr. Davis, I couldn’t resist live blogging on his page as I watched.

    https://www.facebook.com/WeightyMatters/posts/807783742627209

    Reply
      1. Boundless

        re: Heck, now I may have to watch the show just to see how bad it is.

        Be sure to watch out for double standards: requiring wheat avoiders to provide supporting science satisfactory to consensus nutrition nannies, when consensus nutrition itself has absolutely nothing of the sort to support their dominant dietary dogma.

        Well, the nannies do have decades of frightening correlations for trends in non-infectious ailments, but they dismiss those with “correlation is not causation”.

        That the correlated conditions vanish when grains vanish, and rush back in with grain re-expoure, is, of course, mere anecdote.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          That’s what’s so derned frustrating about these people. They’ll tell us to avoid saturated fat — ask for the clinical studies in which restricting saturated fat reduced heart attacks and they can’t name any. But it’s still “science” because that’s the consensus.

          Reply
          1. Armando

            In regards to this show:https://www.facebook.com/WeightyMatters/posts/809157712489812

            I could only watch half and had to stop. The whole,”this only temporary and not good in the long run,” is such bs. Look how many people are obese and sick from following the government guide lines. After being off wheat, grains, and sugar, my endocrinologist said I did not need diabetes pills any more. It is true, there is war for your mind, but you will never know until you try it yourself.

            Reply
      2. Bob Johnston

        So it appears that Dr. Freedhoff saw my comment here, I am now banned from his facebook page. But at least we know he’s one of your loyal readers.

        https://www.facebook.com/WeightyMatters/posts/809157712489812

        He’s most likely correct that I was simply trying to irritate him as I know there was little chance he’d ever consider anything I ever said. Oh well, the AHA hasn’t blocked me yet so there’s still that.

        Reply
          1. JillOz

            I read his review of Wheat Belly.

            As Gordon Ramsay says: Embarrassing!

            Full of attempts to be funny at the expense of real consideration of the book and its contents.

            Reply
          2. Bob Johnston

            Truth is, after several years following him on facebook, I’m still not certain either. He’ll have some posts of which I’m supportive and then some posts that have me scratching my head… upshot being I have no clue what his true beliefs are. And he never responds to comments (except apparently by banning people) so that doesn’t provide any clues either.

            But attacks on Dr. Davis, saying it’s solely his personal charisma that is swinging the tide against wheat means he doesn’t understand the science behind removing wheat from one’s diet and I felt that needed to be commented on… which I did. And now I can’t anymore.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              Yeah, he’s making a silly argument there. Dr. Davis and his book are wildly popular because people are giving up wheat and noticing benefits, not because he’s charismatic.

            2. tony

              Dr. Freedhoff is a corrupt crypto establishment that sometimes gives the right answer to make believe he is independent. I dropped him years ago after he refused to respond to my challenge of one of his many lies.

        1. Josh

          I’ve read some of Dr. Freedhoff’s writings.

          I don’t see what there is to get all worked up about. He has a lot of good points.

          I don’t agree with him on some things, but: ” If you and I agree on everything, one of us is not thinking.”

          Reply
          1. Nowhereman10

            Josh, the problem with Dr. Freedhoff is not that the guy is disagreeing or agreeing with commenters, it is because the guy is so scared of what those commenters (many reasonable and informed) have to say about flaws, and thus Freedhoff is censuring those critics.

            If, for example, I post a counter argument with Tom in this blog forum, I am not very likely, if at all, to be blocked as a result.

            It means that Freedhoff is scared because his position is weak, and without any empirical evidence to back it up. So rather than deal with the opposing opinion or listen to the evidence the other person is providing, he cut off all discussion.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              I’ve only had to ban a few people. Not because they disagreed with me, but because they were insulting, obnoxious, demanded I answer challenging questions (which I did) but refused to answer the questions I posed in reply, etc.

              Then there was some guy named Kenny, who couldn’t stop making references to my butt. Maybe he had a boy crush on me.

  2. Chris

    But 20 years ago the wisdom of the crowds was low fat. I don’t think you can necessarily rely on it to sport an argument.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      No, that wasn’t the wisdom of crowds. That was advice handed down from The Anointed. The wisdom of crowds is what’s overturning it.

      Reply
      1. Arturo

        Plus 20 years ago, you probably would have had the bad combination of people not talking to each other, poor family structure AND no internet, so television and print media (conveying the messages of the anointed) would have had a far greater influence on public opinion.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          The traditional media absolutely, positively had a bigger influence before the internet came along. They were called “gatekeepers” of information for a reason. Now the gates are gone.

          Reply
      2. Chris

        I don’t mean to be antagonistic, because I agree with much of what you are saying. But I don’t think you can say ‘if people follow the anointed ones it’s not wisdom of the crowds’ but ‘if they don’t follow it is wisdom of the crowds’. Either you think the collective view of the crowds is correct or it’s not; it can’t be correct only if it matches your own view. Clearly sometimes people are right and sometimes they are later shown to be wrong

        The issue of information flow is relevant, as is the growing confidence of people to question.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          Watch the speech. It isn’t about how many people believe the advice or follow it. It’s about whether knowledge is handed down from on high or bubbles up from the crowd as the result of people sharing their experiences with each other. The low-fat diet was never the result of crowd wisdom. It was a theory handed down by The Anointed in government and academia, then became official government policy. People believed it and followed it because at the time, they didn’t have access to crowd wisdom. Information was still controlled by gatekeepers and flowed from the top down. Information now flows freely in all directions, which allowed the wisdom of crowds to flourish.

          Reply
          1. Nate

            Your crowd wisdom is a bit like how our ancestors figured out what to eat. Some one tried a fruit or vegetable and survived. Then, his tribe tried it and they either all survived or not. If they survived, slowly that knowledge spread.

            Of course, Mother Nature’s offering of tempting food to a man, hungry or not, is not as likely to cause such wide spread damage as the Anointed ones saying this the best and wisest choice of food.

            Reply
            1. Tom Naughton Post author

              In John Nicholson’s excellent and very funny book “The Meat Fix,” he recounts his years as a holier-than-thou vegan, then his years of failing health as a vegan, and then his return to health after adopting something like a Weston A. Price diet. By the end, he’s singing the praises of his grandparents and how wisely they ate — not because they ever studied nutrition, but because their beliefs about food and health were the result of generations of experience.

            2. Ali

              Yup. Absolutely. Wisdom that has been so achingly discarded in favour of ‘scientific expertise’.

              I find it incredbly hard to understand how on earth the human race managed to exist, let alone thrive for thousands of years before science was invented.

        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          If people aren’t interested in alternative advice, my policy is to bless ’em and let ’em go.

          Reply
      3. Josh

        But, LCHF has its anointed also. And sometimes they are wrong. GASP!!

        Nobody has all the answers. It’s foolish to think any one person or group is always right, just as it is foolish to toss the baby out with the bath water when one learns that an expert is human and makes mistakes.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          We probably have different definitions of “The Anointed.” I go into detail about my definition (which I borrowed from Thomas Sowell) in the speech. The Anointed are generally from the intellectual class, their “knowledge” is usually theoretical instead of based on experience, and yet they are so confident in their theories, they will happily impose them on other people. I don’t see anyone in the LCHF gang who fits that definition.

          Reply
          1. JillOz

            They also appeal to “authority” rather than content and peer-pressure is presented as being legitimate to the exclusion of content.
            Content is often seen as legitimate or illegitimate depending on whether The Anointed like the promoter or not.

            It’s all very high school.

            Reply
        2. Bubbles

          The big difference being, the LCHF “anointed” are not the ones in the positions of societal power to be making nutrition or food policy decisions for millions of people.

          Reply
    2. Namu

      I was around back then and distinctly remember that, at the time, “wisdom of crowds” told that bread, pasta and potatoes made you fat – something which was derisively called “grandma advice”.

      Reply
      1. Tom Naughton Post author

        Funny how grandma and grandpa managed to avoid becoming fat and diabetic following that advice, isn’t it?

        Reply
  3. Jo

    I remember seeing a tv doc being interviewed about a study showing improvements in Alzheimer’s patients consuming large doses of Vitamin B12. The interviewer asked where people would get B12 from and she said from grains. No mention of meat at all. Shows how much properly trained GPs know about nutrition.

    Reply
    1. Bryan Harris

      I don’t think there is any plant that can give B12. I have heard it is infused from B12 derived from a fungus or something. I guess vegans refuse animal products, but fungii are okay for them to eat (makes no sense to me).

      Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Proof is in the results, yes. She doesn’t like what she sees as hyperbole in the book, but agrees with the overall message.

      Reply
  4. Steven Richards

    Could it be breads leavened with yeast are bad, but naturally leavened sourdough is healthy?

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I wouldn’t consume modern wheat, sourdough or otherwise. You still get the gluten and gliadin.

      Reply
      1. Jennifer Snow

        Also sourdough uses yeast, so I’m not sure how that’s more “naturally leavened” than the “other kind” or bread that also uses . . .yeast. Sourdough starter is merely a way to keep yeast preserved and growing over time.

        Reply
        1. Elle

          A long-rising sourdough (the kind that take 8 – 24 hours in the fridge) also ferments a bit. IIRC the fermentation “pre-digests” some of the bread, removing/ neutralizing things like phytic acid and breaking down the bran.

          But how many people do you know who honestly are making sourdough at home and letting it rise for 9+ hours? Not that many.

          Reply
  5. Bruce

    One of the things the articles keep talking about is the wheat end of the problem. If they have read Dr. Davis books and blog, they would find out he is really against ALL grains. Most gluten free items that contain grains (rice, corn, oats, etc) will still raise your blood sugar

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Blood sugar, yes. That’s why he doesn’t recommend running out and buying gluten-free pasta, gluten-free cookies, etc. But blood sugar aside, it’s the gluten and gliadin fraction that causes so many autoimmune reactions.

      Reply
      1. Jennifer Snow

        From what I’ve been reading lately, there may be numerous other reasons why wheat in particular is so bad. It farks up your gut microbiome, too, which is increasingly being shown to be just solidly anti-health in every possible way.

        Reply
  6. Joan Mercantini

     I listened with interest,” The War on Wheat” February 27th. on CBC TV’s Fifth Estate Program. After doing some research have found the following which might be of interest to you.

    “Wheat protein contains a number of opioid peptides which can be released during digestion. Some of these are thought to affect the central and peripheral nervous systems.

    Fukudome S, et al. Opioid peptides derived from wheat gluten: their isolation and characterization. FEBS Lett. 1992 Jan 13;296(1):107-11.

    Four opioid peptides were isolated from the enzymatic digest of wheat gluten. Their structures were Gly-Tyr-Tyr-Pro-Thr, Gly-Tyr-Tyr-Pro,Tyr-Gly-Gly-Trp-Leu and Tyr-Gly-Gly-Trp, which were named gluten exorphins A5, A4, B5 and B4, respectively. The gluten exorphin A5 sequence was found at 15 sites in the primary structure of the high molecular weight glutenin and was highly specific for delta-receptors. The structure-activity relationships of gluten exorphins A were unique in that the presence of Gly at their N-termini increased their activities. Gluten exorphin B5, which corresponds to [Trp4,Leu5]enkephalin, showed the most potent activity among these peptides. Its IC50 values were 0.05 microM and 0.017 microM, respectively, on the GPI and the MVD assays. PMID: 1309704

    Wheat digestion releases several feel-good chemicals called opioid peptides which provide a temporary sensation of satisfaction and satiation (basically a carb dose-dependent ‘high’). Studies demonstrate that wheat can actually deliver equivalent doses of morphine (see below). The wheat chemicals are extremely short-lived and their quick drop in the blood concentrations leads to cravings for more wheat/carbs that can be difficult to control…. in fact they can be downright all-consuming and overwhelming for some
    Add in insulin surges and subsequent metabolic derangement and you’ve got a formula for an endless cycling of unsatisfying-feeding/craving. One of the most potent wheat opioid peptides B5 causes ‘man-boobs’ (as referenced by Kramer ala Seinfeld).

    Fanciulli G, et al. Gluten exorphin B5 stimulates prolactin secretion through opioid receptors located outside the blood-brain barrier. Life Sci. 2005 Feb 25;76(15):1713-9. PMID: 15698850
    It’s enough to make you hear voices ‘eat me’ ‘EAT ME’. Here’s the link with schizophrenia, one of many neuropsych conditions which are related to toxic effects of wheat and opioid peptides.
    Can food make you crazy? Apparently for many humans, yes.

    J Hum Nutr. 1980 Apr;34(2):107-12. Diet (gluten) and schizophrenia. Ross-Smith P, Jenner FA. Four aspects of clinical evidence for an association between gluten and schizophreni
    a are examined. The scientific evidence for the role of gluten is set out. Finally, reference is made to other dietary approaches. PMID: 6989901
    Peptides. 1984 Nov-Dec;5(6):1139-47. Demonstration of high opioid-like activity in isolated peptides from wheat gluten hydrolysates. Huebner FR, Lieberman KW, Rubino RP, Wall JS.

    Because of a possible relationship between schizophrenia and celiac disease, a condition in some individuals who are sensitive to wheat gluten proteins in the diet, there has been interest in observations that peptides derived from wheat gluten proteins exhibit opioid-like activity in in vitro tests. To determine the origin of the peptides exhibiting opioid activity, wheat proteins were fractionated by size (gel filtration), by charge differences (ion exchange chromatography) and by differences in hydrophobicity (reversed-phase HPLC). These fractions were hydrolyzed by pepsin or pepsin and trypsin and the resulting peptides separated by gel filtration chromatography. The separated peptides were tested for opioid-like activity by competitive binding to opioid receptor sites in rat brain tissue in the presence of tritium-labeled dihydromorphine. The peptides showed considerable differences in activity; while some peptides exhibited no activity, http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.ca/2008/05/wheat-would-you-give-your-kids-crack.htmlbinding assay. The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex. PMID: 6099562

    Why is wheat associated with so many autoimmune conditions?

    The opioid peptides from wheat appear to trigger ‘civil wars’ and ‘civil unrest’ between the immune system and different organs in our bodies (including the Thyroid — which HeartHawk is currently discussing)? Not only are wheat opioid peptides implicated in wreaking havoc on the immune system, but also in causing inordinate amounts of inflammation. And . . . inflammation leads to lymphoma (see end), cancer, and heart/vascular disease,

    More evidence that wheat is addictive
    Evidence thatopoids in wheat are addictive

    http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/93045/grain-drug/
    The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith is the first place that I remember reading that grain has opiods in it. –

    “Grains are essentially sugar with enough opioids to make them addictive,” Ms. Keith writes (page 152).
    Ms. Keith is not a scientist by profession. So I turned to the MEDLINE database of peer-reviewed medical studies. In just a few minutes I found enough to convince me that her assertion is true.

    “Four opioid peptides were isolated from the enzymatic digest of wheat gluten,” wrote S. Fukudome and M. Yoshikawa. Their research came out in FEBS Letters of the European Biochemical Societies, which publishes short reports on molecular biology.

    “Peptides derived from wheat gluten proteins exhibit opioid-like activity in in vitro tests,” wrote F.R. Huebner. His research came out in the journal Peptides.

    “Peptides with opioid activities are derived from wheat gluten or casein, following digestion with pepsin,” wrote D.D. Kitts and K. Weiler. “Exorphins, or opioid peptides derived from food proteins such as wheat and milk (e.g. exogenous sources) have similar structure to endogenous opioid peptides, with a tyrosine residue located at the amino terminal or bioactive site.” Their research came out in the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design.

    http://www.ranprieur.com/readings/origins.html
    Pharmacological properties of cereals and milk
    Recent research into the pharmacology of food presents a new perspective on these problems.

    Exorphins: opioid substances in food

    Prompted by a possible link between diet and mental illness, several researchers in the late 1970s began investigating the occurrence of drug-like substances in some common foodstuffs.

    Dohan (1966, 1984) and Dohan et al. (1973, 1983) found that symptoms of schizophrenia were relieved somewhat when patients were fed a diet free of cereals and milk. He also found that people with coeliac disease — those who are unable to eat wheat gluten because of higher than normal permeability of the gut — were statistically likely to suffer also from schizophrenia. Research in some Pacific communities showed that schizophrenia became prevalent in these populations only after they became ‘partially westernised and consumed wheat, barley beer, and rice’ (Dohan 1984).

    Groups led by Zioudrou (1979) and Brantl (1979) found opioid activity in wheat, maize and barley (exorphins), and bovine and human milk (casomorphin), as well as stimulatory activity in these proteins, and in oats, rye and soy. Cereal exorphin is much stronger than bovine casomorphin, which in turn is stronger than human casomorphin. Mycroft et al. (1982, 1987) found an analogue of MIF-1, a naturally occurring dopaminergic peptide, in wheat and milk. It occurs in no other exogenous protein. (In subsequent sections we use the term exorphin to cover exorphins, casomorphin, and the MIF-1 analogue. Though opioid and dopaminergic substances work in different ways, they are both ‘rewarding’, and thus more or less equivalent for our purposes.)

    Since then, researchers have measured the potency of exorphins, showing them to be comparable to morphine and enkephalin (Heubner et al. 1984), determined their amino acid sequences (Fukudome &Yoshikawa 1992), and shown that they are absorbed from the intestine (Svedburg et al.1985) and can produce effects such as analgesia and reduction of anxiety which are usually associated with poppy-derived opioids (Greksch et al.1981, Panksepp et al.1984). Mycroft et al. estimated that 150 mg of the MIF-1 analogue could be produced by normal daily intake of cereals and milk, noting that such quantities are orally active, and half this amount ‘has induced mood alterations in clinically depressed subjects’ (Mycroft et al. 1982:895). (For detailed reviews see Gardner 1985 and Paroli 1988.)

    Most common drugs of addiction are either opioid (e.g heroin and morphine) or dopaminergic (e.g. cocaine and amphetamine), and work by activating reward centres in the brain. Hence we may ask, do these findings mean that cereals and milk are chemically rewarding? Are humans somehow ‘addicted’ to these foods?

    |Joan Mercantini
     

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      This is why the Save The Grain campaign will fail. You dug up these studies and shared them with the rest of us. Back in the day, the CBC program would have aired and 99.9% of the people watching would have no way of knowing about the research you just cited.

      Reply
    2. JillOz

      Joan, I commented on the Wheat Belly Facebook page that people should check out your post here. I couldn’t cut and paste it due to some FB issue.

      Reply
  7. Barbara

    After watching “Fat Heads”, 3 weeks ago, I changed the way I eat. It was mentally hard, but physically easy. I’m in my 60s, and the government eating guidelines came out when I was a toddler. I started gaining weight in my early 20s and have yo-yo dieted my weight up ever since. I will say in the last 21 days, I’ve easily lost weight, stopped being constantly hungry, stopped drinking, I sleep better and my little aches and pains (which my doctor told me were just part of aging) have diminished and I never felt deprived. I want to thank you for the work you have done in your movie and your blog, steering me to more information to strengthen my knowledge and resolve.

    Hopefully the rise of intelligent eating will increase the profits of the local farmers and we’ll all be better off.

    Reply
  8. Elenor

    “fifth estate’s investigation” Whointhehell is this “fifth estate”? Do they mean the media? WHO in the media? Which paid-for shill(s) in the media “did” this “research”? (ha.)

    Maybe it’s just a Canadian phrase to NOT use “we reporters” — or maybe it’s hiding the “grass-roots” (funded by industry) “movement” (6 people getting paid to make stuff up) that provided this public relations (“news”) release?!

    Sheesh!

    Reply
    1. vargagirl

      ‘The Fifth Estate’ is a Canadian investigative reporting show, in the footsteps of ’20/20′ or ’60 Minutes’.

      Reply
  9. tw

    The show was brilliant theater. A journalist tasting two loaves of bread made with different generations of wheat…….fondling different generations of wheat…..juxtaposing Dr Davis with Dr Oz as Oz is described as a fraud before congress…….suggesting that Dr. Davis is the same.

    The editing was exceptional for the purpose which was to completely discredit Davis without actually asking some important questions about grain. Funny when you have all the experts present.

    They played for their rural audience across the country….or shall I say their dwindling audience across the country. Without government largesse this station wouldn’t exist.

    It was right out of the Soviet propaganda textbook. Brilliantly executed and vintage CBC.

    Reply
  10. Justin McCullough

    I think what stokes the wisdom of crowds in to action is phrases like, “Just try it for two weeks, if it works then great, if not go back to what you did before…” and things similar. You can quit wheat for a while pretty easily and see what happens to your body and draw your own conclusions. But, you can’t eat, say, double-power-wheat for two weeks and see if you miraculously get healthier. So, I think that is why the industry is losing their butts on this.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Agreed. We can cite this study or that study, but in the end what convinces people is their own experience.

      Reply
      1. Jennifer Snow

        That’s what worked for me. I may not have it super-narrowed-down what was making me sick, but when I eliminated The Usual Suspects, I got hella better. It cracks me up when people try to tell me it was my imagination and I show them the picture of my feet so swollen that I couldn’t even put shoes on, then show them my vastly improved non-swollen feet. “Yeah, I just IMAGINED that.”

        Reply
  11. Steve

    Dr. Chabbar says that over time, wheat has been modified to produce high-yield crops. But when it comes to wheat’s proteins – gluten and gliadins – the basic structure of “ancient” and modern wheat is the same.

    I would be embarrassed to say something that is so easily disproved by a double-blind study showing that modern wheat causes problems not found in ancient wheat:

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-study-todays-wheat-bad

    I don’t need to know the exact mechanism of damage as long as the offending culprit that causes the damage is easy to avoid.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      They are, of course, hoping the viewing public doesn’t know about that study. But that’s why their campaign will fail — all it takes now is one person to dig up the study and share it on the internet.

      Reply
      1. Boundless

        Here’s another trial of modern wheat vs. heirloom (kamut). It’s new enough that the CBC spinners might not have found it had they bothered to look.
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814614019748
        As in the prior trial, kamut was less adverse than modern.

        Interestingly, unlike the previous kamut trial, this one included a no-wheat control (rice). Despite the fact that rice is not entirely benign (it shares the wheat germ agglutinin lectin with wheat), the rice cohort had the most favorable outcome.

        Reply
  12. Firebird

    Canada certainly a wheat producing nation. They even have a junior level hockey team called the Brandon Wheat Kings.

    “… and after almost 50 years of research, no one consulted by the fifth estate could point to any definitive study that specifically links wheat to schizophrenia.”

    And I guess the women in Salem were really witches and not having allergic reactions to eating rye.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Canada is, in fact, the #1 wheat-exporting nation. So no hack reporter can convince me the Canadian government isn’t very, very interested in exonerating wheat.

      Reply
    2. Pat

      The general thinking is they were affected by ergot, which is a fungal disease of rye and grasses and contains hallucinogenic alkaloids. Quality of stored foods is always an issue, think aflotoxins in peanuts.

      Reply
  13. Wenchypoo

    Yes, by all means SAVE THE GRAIN…for beer, booze, ethanol, and other substances that won’t make it into MY body! 🙂 Perhaps we ought to start using compressed grains for insulation, fake fire logs, or something…

    Reply
      1. JillOz

        There are quite a few things made form wheat:
        building panels
        wheat heat bags (for back and stomach)
        wheatgerm oil in perfume.

        Wheat should be used more in industrial applications and it will be if anyone has any sense.

        Reply
  14. Boundless

    The CBC hatchet job is also mentioned on the Wheat Belly Blog,
    http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/02/mean-wheat-healthy/
    Commenting will probably be open for another 10 days or so.

    Perhaps not coincidentally, Bloomberg just ran a story on Kellogg’s woes:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-26/for-kellogg-cereal-sales-recovery-may-be-lost-hope
    Based on their laughable turn-around plan, it’s clear that they think this is just the market being fickle and faddish. They have zero awareness of low-carb being the destination, nor higher fat and grain-free being part of that.

    It is possible to craft a non-toxic “cereal” (and a couple are available), but Kellogg is not likely to figure that out in time to save themselves. Be on the watch for bailouts and consumer-hostile legislative initiatives. Expect it to lead off with the ever-popular weasel approach “We believe in consumer choice, but …”.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      If it’s just a fad, it’s a fad that will likely last decades. When people give up wheat and see some annoying condition such as psoriasis or arthritis go away, there’s not much Tony the Tiger can say to persuade them to eat cereal again.

      Reply
  15. Becky

    I would very much like wheatfreeness to be a temporary thing, a fad, a fake. So much so that periodically I say What the What!!! and just have some. But every time, despite my attempt to remain neutral and to expecting nothing, which I must say I carry off pretty well, I always get weird joint pains. But wait. They’re not weird. They’re what I used to consider normal.

    I do miss bread, though, especially with soups. Found a very nifty cookbook called “Bread-Free Bread” that uses seeds and vegetables to make breads. Trying the mushroom muffins tonight!

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Once per week or so, I’ll toast some Udi’s gluten-free bread to eat with my eggs. Couple slices, maybe 30-40 carbs total, I can still keep a low carb count for the day.

      Reply
  16. Brigitte

    I hope more people will do what I have been doing.

    Each time I have stopped buying a product, I take the time to locate an email address for the company and tell them EXACTLY why I no longer use their product. If Kellogg’s, etc. get millions of these emails, they can hardly stay in denial. We consumers have so much power!

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Definitely, although it would be difficult for Kellogg’s to switch to non-grain foods.

      Reply
      1. Jim Butler

        That’s true…BUT (and we all know what “BUT” means…delete everything you said before it 🙂
        What General Mills has done is recognized the shift in the crowd to gluten free alternatives. So now when you walk down the cereal aisle, you’ll see the same box of Corn Chex you’ve seen for 40yrs, except that now, on the front of the box right under the product name, in big letters…”GLUTEN FREE”, along with smaller font that says “No artificial colors, no artificial flavors, and no high fructose corn syrup.”
        (There HAS to be a joke in there somewhere about the HFCS, no? 🙂

        Anyway, how can you look at that labeling and not feel like you’re making a real healthy food choice? And for the number of people who have CD or a gluten sensitivity, this is exactly what they’re looking for, and that consumer segment of the market is growing every day.

        Clever marketing folks… 🙂

        Reply
  17. Apicius

    So, is anyone going to write an official complaint about the biased reporting to the CBC ombudsman, which will then have to be addressed on the CBC website? Here is where you can submit your complaints: http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/complaint-reviews/?d=2015. I would LOVE to see the CBC ombudsman try to defend the War on Wheat piece after the many weaknesses it has! In fact, check out the other complaints that have been addressed on previous CBC programs, including Fifth Estate.

    I really hope a very well-informed, and articulate person (like maybe you, Mr. Naughton!) gets motivated and submits an official complaint about the Fifth Estate weak and unfair piece against wheat belly and Dr. Davis!

    Oh please, please, please, pretty please…..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On my knees begging….

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Nah, my role is to blog about the nonsense. Someone already linked this post in the CBC’s comments section on the episode.

      Reply
  18. Mr. Jones

    Yes, was quite disappointed that CBC didn’t give wheat the same scrutiny as they did Dr. Davis.

    When they did the bread comparison I had to chuckle because funding aside, the University of Saskatchewan is in the heart of the Canadian bread basket.

    But one thing about the piece I did love was the succinct and almost poetic ending.
    http://youtu.be/eO3cIrNEuIc?t=36m59s

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Love it. That’s the wheat industry’s problem in a nutshell: people give it up and feel better.

      Reply
  19. Linda

    I think we’re seeing the death rattle of the wheat industry more and more and they aren’t going to give up without a fight. In Winn Dixie, my nearest grocery store, I’m seeing things like- “Buy any four Kellogg’s cereals and get a free gallon of milk.” You should’ve seen all the boxes of cereal and free milk in the checkout lane! The wheat industry must be getting desperate.

    Dagnabbit! Why don’t they do something like- “Buy any four pounds of green vegetables and get a free quart of heavy cream”???

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Chareva pointed an ad in a Costco flyer for gluten-free Chex cereal. It’s adapt-or-die time for cereal makers.

      Reply
  20. Joe Illingworth

    Notice the critics NEVER have the courage to interview people who have actually tried going grain free.

    Asking a doctor who hasn’t tried Wheat Belly or Paleo for advice about it is as foolish as asking a doctor who obviously doesn’t exercise about the benefits of exercise. Without personal experience they can’t possibly fully understand the incredible benefits.

    Real People Get Real Healthy Real Fast When They Eat REAL FOOD! #WheatBelly #Paleo diets

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      And it’s people who have tried going grain-free who are contributing to crowd wisdom. I’ve mentioned my co-worker whose wife suffered from migraines for years. A friend of a friend — not a doctor or researcher — suggested she try giving up grains. Bingo, no more migraines. No doctor is going to convince her that grains weren’t a problem for her because The Fifth Estate can’t locate any studies on the subject.

      Reply
  21. Josh

    I have read Wheat Belly, and watch Dr. Davis on the PBS specials.

    Personally, wheat does not bother me. Even refined grains in moderation don’t cause me a problem.

    So….

    Do what is right for you! No expert has all the answers. And even if they did today, tomorrow’s discoveries may prove them wrong.

    IMHO, most people would be much better off if they followed this simple rule: Just Eat Real Food.

    Reply
  22. Josh

    “Be sure to watch out for double standards: requiring wheat avoiders to provide supporting science satisfactory to consensus nutrition nannies, when consensus nutrition itself has absolutely nothing of the sort to support their dominant dietary dogma.”

    Absolutely, correct. The Low-Fat group is particularly good at doing this. Demand proof of safety for LCHF while not requiring the same thing for HCLF which they advocate. Scary.

    Reply
    1. Mike G

      I remember watching a short documentary about Dr. Atkins, and this low-fat guru’s line was “But we don’t know the long term effects of the Atkins Diet!!!” The guru did not quite grasp the fact that we didn’t know the long term effects of the low-fat diet back in 1977, but that didn’t stop McGovern and his gang of zealots from making their low-fat recommendation to all Americans over the age of two. Of course, now we DO know the long term effects of the low-fat diet: skyrocketing rates of obesity, type II diabetes, autoimmune disorders, inflammatory disorders, Alzheimer’s (type 3 diabetes), and cardiovascular disease. And when I point these things out to my primary care doc, he comes back with “Well, we have to go with the best medical evidence available…” And when I ask “And what evidence is that?” And his response is “There’s 1000’s of studies showing the link between saturated fat and heart disease.” So I logically ask “Can you name one out of those 1000’s?” He then admits he doesn’t know any of the specifics. Uhh, yea…

      Reply
      1. Tom Naughton Post author

        Lots of so-called experts repeat that line about thousands of studies have shown, blah-blah-blah. The fact is, there have only been a handful of studies and they fail to provide any convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease.

        Reply
  23. SB

    *eyeroll to #4* Yes, because there is nothing more enjoyable than living life “slogging” through lousy reactions and bad health. No no, I’d rather slog through rashes and constant itching than, gasp, go through the trouble of cooking my own food and reading labels to become informed about what is in those so-called foods.

    Related note on consumer demand: Boulder Canyon snacks now sells a 100% coconut oil fried potato chip. Now was it fried in organic virgin CO? Maybe not. Should I eat the whole bag in one go? No. But, it tasted good and is better than rancid inflammatory causing canola/soybean oils. Someone is listening to us.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      They’re listening. I recently bought some frozen meatballs that were made with no grain, no gluten, and no vegetable oils.

      Reply
      1. Nowhereman10

        Yes, Tom. Accompanying “gluten-free” labels now is the quiet “no processed vegetable” and “no added sugars” revolution. A few years ago, Trader Joe’s introduced a potato chip brand that had only salt, potatoes and olive oil in it. Then not long after, Sprouts followed suit, and most recently Boulder Canyon company added avocado, olive, and coconut oil kettle cooked chips to their selection (one upping everyone else by using sea salt, no less!). And I’ve noticed all of those brands fly off the shelf so fast, leaving behind all the other high added sugar, processed vegetable oil brands just… sitting there, almost untouched.

        I’m just waiting for the day when one of these companies finally get brave enough to reintroduce the old ol’ fashioned beef or pork lard-cooked chips back. It’s on that day our Wisdom of the Crowds revolution will give the ultimate middle finger to the USDA and CSPI!

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          I’ll know we’ve achieved victory when McDonald’s announces it will return to frying french fries in beef tallow.

          Reply
  24. tony

    With the growing number of people improving their health as they drop grains, the save the grain campaign is destined to fail.

    However, I’m concerned that big food’s annual 10 billion ad expenses will be directed to buy the government to compel us to buy more grain, which they are already doing with the school lunch programs.

    I can see onerous taxes on non grain food, tax credits for loaf of bread consumed, and eventually grain bailouts (too big to fail) extorted from the tax payers.

    Reply
  25. Walter

    I always thought that we took away the beneficial, protective effects of saturated animal fat with that fat scare (thank Jesus that Mom ignored the scientific community). Any negative effects of the biscuit Grandpa ate 110 years ago was masked by the protective effects of the lard in the biscuit along with the butter, eggs, milk, cream, sausage and cheese sitting on the breakfast table. Flour simply served as a carrier for additional animal fat.

    My favorite Saturday morning treat was Shredded Wheat topped with melted butter, sugar and cream. Would my digestive system detect the difference today, 50 years later? I don’t know.

    The wheat industry blew it decades ago by supporting the government sponsored fat scare. Instead of calories with cloudy water (called skim milk) on the cereal box, it could be calories with half & half or cream. I use a 50/50 mixture of half & half and cream on my Grape Nuts or Rice Chex (~70% fat, ~30% flour) every evening for my “dessert”. It’s not cyanide.

    It is simply too late for the wheat industry to oppose the anti-fat philosophy of the anointed sitting in the universities and government.

    Reply
      1. Nowhereman10

        Indeed. And I myself am not opposed to companies like Jovial preserving and selling einkorn or emmer wheat, nor people without serious wheat sensitivities enjoying them, especially as a proper every now and again treat.

        As a cooking experiment 6 months ago, a friend of mine and I got a bag of einkorn flour and made pizza bread dough out of it using a very old fashioned and simple recipe (eggs, butter, milk, pinch of salt, and a tiny pinch of raw sugar). We made several good-sized pizzas and everyone in our weekend get together group LOVED them! One friend exclaiming it was possibly the best pizza he’d ever had in his entire life!

        Maybe I’ll try that again, but I’d like to wait a while. Too frequently and the treat losses it’s uniqueness.

        Reply
  26. Bubbles

    “The vast majority of scientists…” is the very worst appeal to authority, and it drives me nuts to see it used so often to support dogma. “The vast majority of scientists” are not nutritionists or doctors who have published independently-funded nutrition research in peer-reviewed journals, or have not proven good familiarity with the scientific literature on the subject, so their opinion means exactly squat.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Perfect example: In the ’80s and ’90s, the vast majority of scientists were on board with the idea that we need to limit how much cholesterol we eat. Now even the goofs on the USDA dietary committee admit that was a mistake.

      Reply
  27. Grant

    I’m shocked, quite frankly, to see the grain industry behaving in such a dishonest way. Shocked! One would think that an industry, famous for being built on nothing except fair play and merit, in a market completely bereft of government favors and other sorts of meddling, would let the chips fall where they may, and let the best argument win. I can’t believe the stand-up capitalists in the grain business would stoop to this!

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      I’m shocked as well. But I object to labeling them “capitalists.” When you receive taxpayers dollars to subsidize your industry, that’s crony capitalism, not free-market capitalism.

      Reply
      1. Grant

        Sorry Tom. I completely agree that they shouldn’t be labeled capitalists. I was being sarcastic. I should have respected Poe’s Law and given you something to realize that.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          No worries. There’s a tendency to label anyone who makes lots of money a capitalist, but my definition of capitalism is a system based on voluntary exchanges.

          Reply
      2. Giuseppe Crowe

        Hi Tom, et al,

        It’s not capitalism at all, it’s mercantilism. Further, over time it never works because it causes misallocation of resources. WRT wheat and grain being counterproductive, a la Dr. Davis, do you have any critique of Dr. Davis’ work in toto? I enjoyed it and when I have the personal discipline to go grain-free, it works. But here in the hinterlands, (Sequatchie Co., TN), grain free is a challenge because bread and similar is ubiquitous. In any case, keep up the good work.

        Reply
        1. Tom Naughton Post author

          No specific critiques. More like grey areas where I think there’s guesswork involved on everyone’s part. For example, Dr. Davis says blood glucose should never rise much above 100; if it does, you need to reduce your carb intake. Paul Jaminet, on the other hand, says keep blood glucose below 140.

          Who’s right? Don’t know. Maybe it depends on the individual.

          Reply
          1. Boundless

            re: Dr. Davis says blood glucose should never rise much above 100; if it does, you need to reduce your carb intake. Paul Jaminet, on the other hand, says keep blood glucose below 140.

            What does Jaminet say about HbA1c?

            Davis says keep it below 5.0%. Perlmutter below 5.2%. I wasn’t quickly able to find a target number on the PHD site, but from one discussion it looked like it might be at 5.5%.

            HbA1c is a direct indicator for glycation, one might say the area under the always-changing BG curve (for the past 3 months, btw, and not 3 weeks as Paul wrote in one discussion).

            Reply
  28. B35X

    I honestly from what I hear feel like we are going a step forward and a step back. From what I have read about the NEW & IMPROVED 2015 nutritional guidelines, cholesterol is not as bad as it used to be, so we can now eat eggs without having a government nutritionist tell us we will die horribly if we eat that. However, the step back is that apparently now meat is being scrapped in favor of the healthy and nutritious whole grains, veggies, and fruits. Basically meat gets a footnote that says: lean meat can be part of a healthy diet too. Now if you will excuse me, I am going back to my bacon hoarding for the 2015 apocalypse.

    Reply
  29. Dan

    This reminds me of a news segment which claimed that going gluten free was unhealthy. They pointed to gluten free junk food as having more salt and calories.

    Welllll DUH! Eat processed junk and what do you expect? They didn’t mention the possibility of substituting vegetables for grains and forgoing the junk.

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Which would lead me to ask the same question I often ask when reading media articles: Is this reporter intentionally dishonest, or just stupid?

      Reply
  30. T33CH

    I love discussing the merits of going wheat free with people. The typical response involves an apoplectic look of terror, an “I could never do that,” and an “I just love it too much.” Which really means = I am addicted to wheat and it could not possible have anything to do with my poor health.”

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Yeah, I’ve seen that reaction. I told a friend I don’t eat wheat, and got a semi-shocked “But then what’s left to eat?!” in reply.

      Reply
      1. Walter Bushell

        If you are eating processed food, he is almost correct. Wheat is perhaps not as ubiquitous as sugar, but close. I would not bet against finding wheat in ice cream or at least some analog of ice cream. Wheat is in some flavored whey products as a way of sneaking in glutamate.

        We forget how the average American eats.

        Some whey products” contain peptide bound glutamine derived from wheat protein”.

        Reply
  31. Apicius

    Ok so now dr yoni freedhoff, who criticized dr Davis on wheat belly episode, has posted an apology to a nutritionist, Carolyn Kallio (who works for the beef industry), claiming now that he realizes that he was wrong about the conclusions he came to. He now realizes that publicly discrediting Kallio about the scientific evidence she brought forth regarding how healthy beef is, was detrimental to the public, in that it steers people away from healthy food choices. My hope is one day, freedhoff will also realize the damage he is doing when he mocks dr Davis on a very public forum. Here is freedhoff’s public apology:

    http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/03/an-apology-to-carolyn-kallio.html

    Reply
    1. Tom Naughton Post author

      Give the man credit for changing his mind and being willing to say he was wrong. That’s a tough pill to swallow, and lots of folks won’t even try.

      Reply
  32. GTR

    Notice the “proteins are unchanged” part just cannot be true because of gene number alone: modern wheat has 3 times more chromosomes than einkorn.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.