The Save The Grain Campaign

      238 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

238 thoughts on “The Save The Grain Campaign

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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

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

      Reply
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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

      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
  12. 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
  13. 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

      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

          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

          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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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

      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
  20. 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

      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
  21. 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
  22. 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

      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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.