The Grain Producers Respond to ‘Wheat Belly’

Not surprisingly, the U.S. grain industry isn’t happy with Dr. William Davis and his just-released book Wheat Belly. The Grain Foods Foundation responded to the book with a press release and a blog post explaining why we all need grains to be healthy. Here are some quotes from their blog post.

Don’t be fooled by catchy terms like “wheat belly” and “bagel butt”….a fad diet is still a fad diet, no matter how you dress it up.

That’s why I’m no longer on a low-fat, grain-based diet. What a stupid fad that was.  Granted, I’d love to think avoiding the grains that make us fat and sick is the hottest new fad, but I’m pretty sure getting a tattoo on your (bagel) butt is still comfortably in the lead.

That’s exactly the story behind the new book Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health that was released today.

Actually, the story behind Wheat Belly is that wheat (especially today’s genetically modified wheat) pretty much sucks from a health standpoint.

As the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

What exactly is “too good to be true” about telling people they’ll have to give up a food that makes up a major portion of their diets – a food many of them love? Dr. Davis has had people leave his office in tears after telling them they couldn’t handle wheat and needed to stop eating it. I doubt many of them were thinking, “Well, this is just too good to be true!”

Cutting out one specific food is not only unrealistic, it’s dangerous.

Really? So if I cut refined sugar from my diet, that would be dangerous? I’m a dead man walking.

Omitting wheat entirely removes the essential (and disease-fighting!) nutrients it provides including fiber, antioxidants, iron and B vitamins.

Ahhh, that would explain why humans became extinct during the hundreds of thousands of years we didn’t consume wheat. Thank goodness those friendly aliens came to earth, planted wheat fields, then resurrected human life from some DNA samples they’d kept frozen.

Besides this, the advice dished out by Dr. Davis is completely counter to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the gold standard of scientifically-sound nutrition advice.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

Last time I checked, the gold standard in research consisted of randomized clinical studies in which the data actually supports the investigators’ conclusions. But if you folks want to re-define “gold standard” to consist of observational studies that often contradict the very advice they’re cited to support, be my guest … although I’d consider that more of a tin standard.

The Guidelines call for the average healthy American to consume six one-ounce servings of grain foods daily, half of which should come from whole grains and the other half from enriched grains.

So the government agency whose mission is to sell grains is telling us to eat grains. Well, that’s all the proof I need.

Wheat is the basis for a number of healthful whole and enriched grain foods including breads, cereal, pasta and wheat berries that provide valuable nutrients to the American diet and have been shown to help with weight maintenance.

Can’t argue with that one. Wheat will definitely help you maintain your weight … at, say, 40 pounds above where you’d like to be.

So, let common sense prevail. When it comes to nutrition advice, look to the real experts and remember that weight control is all about one key equation: calories in must equal calories out.

Use common sense? Look to the real experts? I thought you said you wanted us to listen to the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee! Make up your minds already.

The good news is that there were dozens of comments on the post, nearly all of them negative, with many citing examples of how eliminating wheat caused health problems to vanish. Others pointed out that the Grain Foods Foundation didn’t actually dispute any of the science in Wheat Belly, which is true.

Dr. Davis wrote his own reply a few days later, which you can read here. As in the book, he made his arguments with logic and science. That prompted another reply by the Grain Foods Foundation:

Over the weekend we received a number of comments in response to our previous post, Our Perspective on “Wheat Belly” and we’d like to take a moment to address them.

Then why didn’t you? The rest of your post doesn’t answer any of the many criticisms leveled by people who left comments.

First, your comments weren’t being ignored. Comments on this blog are reviewed before they appear to prevent the posting of spam or profanity. There was no attempt to censor this feedback – our team was simply enjoying the long holiday weekend.

I’ll bet it was kind of depressing to enjoy a long weekend, then go to work on Tuesday and read dozens of comments left by people who basically kicked your bagel butts.

Second, there were comments questioning GFF’s funding sources. The Foundation is funded through voluntary donations from private grain-based companies and industry associations. However, any nutrition information we share is rooted in sound science and reviewed by independent nutrition experts from our Scientific Advisory Board.

Yes, I’m sure if your advisory board discovered, say, that celiac disease is five times more prevalent now than 50 years ago, they’d inform you immediately so you could bang out a press release announcing that you’ll stop producing mutant wheat.

Finally, some of you question the merit of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are the gold standard of nutrition guidance in America.

The only reason we question those guidelines is that there’s nothing scientific about them, as even one of the committee members later admitted.

They are the most comprehensive review of the existing literature and are updated every five years to reflect new research. Every recommendation we share is based on these Guidelines. It is the most credible information available and we will continue to rely on them for our recommendations.

Let’s see … a government agency whose mission is to sell grains releases new guidelines every five years telling us to eat lots of grains … boy, I’m just stunned that the Grain Foods Foundation would continue to rely on the USDA for dietary advice.

So here’s how I’ve got it on my scorecard: Dr. Davis landed a flurry of punches in the form of hundreds of studies and dozens of case histories from his own medical practice. The Grain Food Foundation’s only counter-punch was to remind us that the USDA recommends eating grains.

If this were a fight, the ref would’ve stopped it halfway through the first round.


If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Share

210 thoughts on “The Grain Producers Respond to ‘Wheat Belly’

  1. Galina L.

    I am sure if that Grain Foods Foundation placed their piece on CNN web-site, it would generate more than 50% support from bread lovers. It feels like it is more than just honest misjudgment on their (CNN) part. Every health advice there contains the whole grain tune. Dr.Sanjay Gupta is not stupid. Just today I saw some commercial by Kellogg on CNN Chanel about health benefits of Cocoa-Puffs, Lucky Charms and some more crap for children consumption because such cereals provide healthy grains. With childhood obesity on the rise it feels like I witnessed some criminal activity. It will be low-suits the the future!

    They know better than to honk off their advertisers.

    Reply
  2. WildFlower

    If Dr. Davis had his patients remove wheat ALONE from their diets and saw these supposedly miraculous improvements, that would be significant. However, wheat avoidance is just one change among many he has his patients make. He takes people who mostly have been eating the disgustingly unhealthy standard american diet and has them avoid refined sugar, vegetable oil, and processed food of all sort. He has them increase their omega-3 intake. He emphasizes exercise. And perhaps most importantly he puts them on a diet low in all carbohydrate.

    And what a surprise, their health improves. Must be that mutant wheat, haha.

    Have them eliminate wheat, but let them carry on with their soda, french fries, ice cream and deep-fried factory farmed chicken wings. We’ll see how much their health improves then.

    It is laughable to use his multifactorial lifestyle recommendations, and the improvements they achieve, to conclude that wheat is destroying our health. That brings new meaning to uncontrolled variables. You of all people shouldn’t be touting this, Tom. Unless you have something meaningful – like a controlled study in humans comparing the health effects of modern wheat vs. heritage wheat, or non-gluten grains – you should probably cease the nonsensical scare tactics.

    Yes, Tom, we all know you eliminated grains and became LESS fat. You also suffered self-diagnosed insulin resistance, and chose to go on a low-carbohydrate diet. Your story doesn’t offer the slightest flicker of evidence that wheat is unhealthy for people with proper glucose control.

    You once took a look at the public and questioned the existence of the “obesity epidemic”. Perhaps you should look around and see all the skinny, healthy people eating turkey sandwiches and pasta salad. If wheat is toxic, it’s for a minority of the population. The same can be said about any food. I get congestion and inflammed skin if I eat to much grass-fed beef – I haven’t the slightest clue why – does that mean beef is toxic in general?

    Call me naive, but I still think most people would benefit from switching from wonderbread – bleached flour with HFCS, soy oil, and a number of unpronounceables -to organic, unbleached or whole-grain, sourdough artisan bread.

    It can at least be said the ‘Wheat Belly’ is a serious case of exagerration and sensationalism.

    I have a wild, crazy, out-there suggestion for you: read the book before critiquing it. Dr. Davis has had many of his patients remove wheat ALONE from their diets (as stated clearly in the book) and still saw remarkable health improvements.

    Reply
  3. Peggy Cihocki

    I’m looking forward to a long plane ride tomorrow during which I plan to finish reading “Wheat Belly” in the Kindle App. on my iPhone. I also told my sister about it and will probably order a copy for her. I hope it becomes a #1 best seller on the NY Times list and and every other best seller list there is.
    It was very heartening to see all the anti comments on the GFF blogs. I think I could count the number of supportive comments on one hand and not need all my fingers! People are listening–to you, Dr. Davis, Dr. Eades, Jimmy Moore, Gary Taubes, and the list is growing. Wonderful!
    I’ve been cutting out specific foods one by one for several years now and my health isn’t deteriorating–it’s getting better. Grains, especially wheat are out now, too, and I expect even more improvement in health and weight. I also put one food back in. Well two, actually. Meat and fat.

    I hope the grain producers are scared out of their wits right about now.

    Reply
  4. WildFlower

    If wheat is toxic at one point did it become so? Let’s look at the possibilities beyond evil, goverment tampering:

    – White flour is the basis for many, if not the majority, of processed junk food engineered for overconsumption with a quite a few questionable ingredients.

    If that doesn’t explain it, and wheat flour itself is toxic, let’s look at the variables there:

    – Most of the white flour we eat is bleached with a number of additives with known health effects.
    – We add iron and other minerals to the flour – an unnatural process that is perhaps detrimental.
    – We don’t prepare wheat the way we used to.

    Tom likes to flaunt his n = 1 improvements from wheat elimination. I’ll offer my experience for those listening. I eat organic pasta and sourdough unbleached white bread in amounts that I crave. I have no problems whatsoever. I’m lean, have good complexion, great energy, no joint pains, and not a hint of autoimmune issues.

    Admittedly, if I eat too much cake, doughnuts and cookies I don’t feel so hot, but I somehow doubt evil government experiments are to blame for that.

    Don’t read “Wheat Belly” and automatically embrace Tom and Dr. Davis’ orthorexic superstition. Simply listen to your body.

    Some people can smoke two packs of cigarettes per day and live to be 95. There are always exceptions, and your experience is also n=1. You may do fine with organic pasta. Others may as well. But the anthropological evidence makes it clear that many of our health problems began with the advent of grain-eating, and those weren’t bleached, mutant grains. Listen to your body, absolutely.

    Reply
  5. bec

    How hilair that they are saying “cutting out one whole food group is dangerous”. Are they having a laugh as they say this? Because the idea of the same group of people who told us saturated fat is a killer now telling us to be cautious about cutting out another foodgroup is making me give massive bitch side-eye in response.

    I don’t think they’re laughing. I think they’re desperately clutching at straws.

    Reply
  6. Peggy Holloway

    My daughter ordered Wheat Belly and will loan it to me when she has finished reading it. I am very curious to see if there is any mention of the Mennonites who emigrated from Russian in the 1870s and settled the “wheat belt,” from Canada to Mexico. They brought Russian turkey red wheat, which is a type of winter wheat, and that is what turned this stretch down the middle of the continent into a wheat-growing region. (Winter wheat allowed wheat to lie dormant through the harsh winters and have an early start in the spring so it could mature and be harvested before fall frosts). My SOs ancestors were part of that Mennonite group. In the 1950s, his mother developed a de novo gene mutation that resulted in Huntington’s Disease ( a devastating neurological condition). Although her Huntington’s came from the mutated gene, she passed the gene down to one daughter who has the condition, and two of her children are now showing early signs of it. It may be a stretch, but since there are theories now linking insulin resistance to other neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s (Ken’s mother also had Alzheimer’s), I am wondering if wheat consumption (the Mennonite diet was heavily wheat based, since that is what they grew on their self-supporting farms) could cause a gene mutation? (Ken would not be at all pleased to have me suggest that his ancestral livelihood caused this horrendous family affliction, but it has crossed my mind so I’m bringing it up) I’m interested in what Dr. Davis has to say about wheat and neurological disorders.

    He deals with that topic pretty thoroughly in the book.

    Reply
  7. Prunella

    “Omitting wheat entirely removes the essential (and disease-fighting!) nutrients it provides including fiber, antioxidants, iron and B vitamins.”

    Yeah, and deadly nightshade has antioxidants, too. Good thing we have other ways to get those nutrients.

    Exactly. There’s zero biological need for grains.

    Reply
  8. Peggy Cihocki

    I’m looking forward to a long plane ride tomorrow during which I plan to finish reading “Wheat Belly” in the Kindle App. on my iPhone. I also told my sister about it and will probably order a copy for her. I hope it becomes a #1 best seller on the NY Times list and and every other best seller list there is.
    It was very heartening to see all the anti comments on the GFF blogs. I think I could count the number of supportive comments on one hand and not need all my fingers! People are listening–to you, Dr. Davis, Dr. Eades, Jimmy Moore, Gary Taubes, and the list is growing. Wonderful!
    I’ve been cutting out specific foods one by one for several years now and my health isn’t deteriorating–it’s getting better. Grains, especially wheat are out now, too, and I expect even more improvement in health and weight. I also put one food back in. Well two, actually. Meat and fat.

    I hope the grain producers are scared out of their wits right about now.

    Reply
  9. Elenor

    “although I’d consider that more of a tin standard.”

    You’re insulting tin!

    I apologize to tin.

    Reply
  10. Sif

    I hate the “but we have been eating wheat for hundreds and thousands of years” argument, because we have not. Go though any medieval cookbook – and those books were made for the society elite – and you won’t find wheat as a base ingredient for anything but bread and pastry crusts. And these were the people who could afford to scarf it down every day. But they didn’t, they ate meat and barley. Bread was mostly used as a plate and then discarded or given to the poor.
    And the poor ate rye bread and barley and oats and kale and onions. Right up until the “agricultural revolution” they call the 1900’s, wheat was a difficult and low yielding crop. Wheat has never been essential to a human diet. Grain, yes (for the poor), wheat, no.

    I love wheat, but I hate it when people play the ancestry-card. It’s almost always based on ignorance. The only food we have always been eating, on every continent, though all of history of mankind, is meat. And fish.

    Reply
  11. Laura

    I just finished ‘Wheat Belly’ and I’m not surprised the industry is hitting back. They must be scared to death and I agree; I’d like to see the book become a #1 best seller.

    Since being on Atkins, I’ve never felt better, lost weight and a lot of the issues I used to have went away when I eliminated wheat, processed sugar products and lowered my carb intake.

    I’ve also experimented a couple of times with a small portion (couple of tablespoons) of my old favorite whole wheat cereal, Uncle Sam, and, while it didn’t rev up my carb cravings, I paid the price a couple days later when it caused shooting pain in my belly and came out undigested. That tells me that I cannot tolerate wheat, even in small quantities.

    Thanks for recommending the book, Tom!

    I’ve had a similar experience when eating pizza. Eat the crust, and an hour or so later I end up taking an ibuprofen because the arthritic pains in my shoulder pay a return visit. Skip the crust and eat just the toppings, and I’m fine.

    Reply
  12. BP

    All I can say is: I have such a great appreciation for all of this info. Simple, concise, FACTUAL, and without any agendas…except for educating folks on the dangers of diet/nutrition to our health. That being said, I have lost about 30lbs in the last year starting first with p90X, and now maintaining (with a little more weight loss here and there) without ANY exercise only by nutritional lifestyle over the past 3-4 months. Current daily goals: 1800-2000 cals/day, 50-75g carbs/day. Sure I could probably lose more if I adjusted these numbers…but the facts are that I am much more satisfied with how I eat, I am much happier, and I generally have a steady amount of energy every day. Oh, BTW, my BP and resting heart rates are lower than they have been in years!

    Thank you Tom Naughton, Gary Taubes, Dr. Davis, and the many others.

    Reply
  13. WildFlower

    “Dr. Davis has had many of his patients remove wheat ALONE from their diets (as stated clearly in the book) and still saw remarkable health improvements.”

    I still seriously doubt that was the only change that was made. My guess is that they also moved towards a more whole-foods diet in general, and perhaps undertook some of his other recommendations such as omega-3 supplementation and exercise. Are you saying they eliminated wheat, but kept eating coke, ice cream, deep-fried chicken wings, margarine, and french fries and still saw these improvements? If they didn’t keep eating those things, they most definitely moved toward a more whole-foods diet in general and that leaves major uncontrolled variables.

    [You suggested he should try having people just eliminate wheat — because you haven’t read the book. He did have some patients remove wheat alone, as he stated specifically. If you choose not to believe him because that threatens your beliefs, go ahead. But you may as well just say you don’t believe his patients experienced any of the health improvements, or that there’s no such person as Dr. William Davis.]

    If they did eliminate just wheat and saw improvements, that doesn’t mean that modern, mutant wheat is to blame. Wheat avoidance would mean eliminating the majority of processed food – doughnuts, pizza, cake, cookies, McDonalds hamburgers. Many restaurant foods would be inaccesible, as would the majority of fast foods places such as McDonalds. So once again, wheat elimination cannot be interpreted as simply wheat elimination.

    [The more you critique a book you clearly haven’t read, the more foolish you look. Dr. Davis had patients who were health nuts, avoided all junk foods and sugary snacks, but still had health problems because they fell for the b.s. about “healthy whole grains.” You’re clearly more interested in defending wheat (why, I don’t know) than in possibly learning something, so go ahead and shut that mind of yours as tightly as you can … or you could read the book.]

    “But the anthropological evidence makes it clear that many of our health problems began with the advent of grain-eating, and those weren’t bleached, mutant grains.”

    In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s we were eating far more wheat than we do today, yet obesity and diabetes were far less prevalent, some say almost inexistent.

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/consumption.htm

    In his post ‘Wheat: In Search of Scientific Objectivity and New Year’s Resolutions’,
    Chris Masterjohn mentions the high wheat consumption in Crete during the 1960’s:

    “On Crete, the traditional diet is based largely off wheat and dairy. Studies in the 1960s suggested their rate of myocardial infarction in men over the age of 45 was 0.7%. See here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14263030 . There was a somewhat higher rate of murmurs that were considered possible evidence of arrhythmia due to aortic atherosclerosis (7-8%), but they also had a very high rate of smoking — 55% of the men smoked and 35% smoked more than a pack per day. I think these numbers are pretty impressive and consistent with their wheat-based diet being most likely healthy for them.

    [Now you’re trying to have it both ways. Dr. Davis blames modern, mutant wheat for the rise in obesity and diabetes. His own tests showed that modern wheat spiked his blood sugar much higher than traditional wheat. Quoting health statistics from the days before modern wheat came along doesn’t help your case.

    That being said, when we adopted agriculture some 12,000 years ago, we became shorter and began developing health problems that were rare before, such as dental caries and arthritis. And by the way, heart disease was apparently relatively common in ancient Egypt.]

    There may be other examples. It’s difficult to say, because heart disease has not been studied with any rigor until the modern era, when the spread of wheat has occurred in the form of a global spread of white flour and sugar. Even worse, during the first half of the century when this spread was rapidly initiated, wheat was treated with nitrogen trichloride, which created toxic inhibitors of biosynthesis of glutamine and glutathione and led to hysteria in dogs. It was abandoned in US and UK due to concerns of potential human hysteria and in Canada because it was explosive and thus a risk to mill workers. Trying to tease out all these factors using a historical or epidemiological worldview would be incredibly difficult, so we need rigorous science in the form of publication-worthy literature, self-experimentation, and careful clinical practice.”

    He also had this to say about Dr. Davis in the comments section:

    “Dr. Davis impresses me very much as a clinician and I find his blog very useful, but I’m not very impressed with his experimental techniques. I think it is possible that wheat is atherogenic but I don’t think he has provided much evidence of this.”

    In the 1960’s, it is also possible that in Crete they were consuming hybridized ‘mutant’ wheat. In either case, whether you like it or not, at one point wheat was good for us.

    [You do understand the difference between “good for us” and “not especially bad for us,” don’t you?]

    So if you’re going to argue that wheat is inherently toxic, and the main cause of the modern obesity epidemic, you’ll have to argue that it only became toxic after the government tampered with it. That leaves other variables that need to be explored as well. Was it hybridization that made wheat toxic? Or was it increases in bleached flour consumption (they once used some nasty chemicals in the bleaching process, and still use questionable ones)? Or could it be the exorbitant amount of pesticides they spray on wheat, it’s growth on nutrient depleted soils, or the iron they add to it?

    [I’m not arguing that wheat is the main cause of the modern obesity epidemic. I believe the main cause of the obesity epidemic is the increase of all kinds of refined carbohydrates in our diets. Nor did I say the government tampered with wheat. The grain industry tampered with it.]

    Or, once again, was it that wheat – combined with refined sugar and vegetable oil – became the basis of countless processed junk foods engineered for over consumption. Occam’s razor would certainly suggest that is the case.

    [Occam’s razor doesn’t explain why health-conscious people who already avoided sugar and processed foods (including Dr. Davis himself) developed health issues that went away once they stopped eating those “healthy whole grains.”]

    Perhaps home cooked foods made with organic, unbleached modern flour is perfectly fine for most people to eat. It certainly is for me. I get heartburn and rashes if I eat too much bleached flour wonderbread though.

    [Yes, you may be fine with organic, unbleached flour. I would expect organic, unbleached flour to produce fewer health problems than white flour. That doesn’t mean organic, unbleached flour is good for us.]

    Reply
  14. Sif

    I hate the “but we have been eating wheat for hundreds and thousands of years” argument, because we have not. Go though any medieval cookbook – and those books were made for the society elite – and you won’t find wheat as a base ingredient for anything but bread and pastry crusts. And these were the people who could afford to scarf it down every day. But they didn’t, they ate meat and barley. Bread was mostly used as a plate and then discarded or given to the poor.
    And the poor ate rye bread and barley and oats and kale and onions. Right up until the “agricultural revolution” they call the 1900’s, wheat was a difficult and low yielding crop. Wheat has never been essential to a human diet. Grain, yes (for the poor), wheat, no.

    I love wheat, but I hate it when people play the ancestry-card. It’s almost always based on ignorance. The only food we have always been eating, on every continent, though all of history of mankind, is meat. And fish.

    Reply
  15. Laura

    I just finished ‘Wheat Belly’ and I’m not surprised the industry is hitting back. They must be scared to death and I agree; I’d like to see the book become a #1 best seller.

    Since being on Atkins, I’ve never felt better, lost weight and a lot of the issues I used to have went away when I eliminated wheat, processed sugar products and lowered my carb intake.

    I’ve also experimented a couple of times with a small portion (couple of tablespoons) of my old favorite whole wheat cereal, Uncle Sam, and, while it didn’t rev up my carb cravings, I paid the price a couple days later when it caused shooting pain in my belly and came out undigested. That tells me that I cannot tolerate wheat, even in small quantities.

    Thanks for recommending the book, Tom!

    I’ve had a similar experience when eating pizza. Eat the crust, and an hour or so later I end up taking an ibuprofen because the arthritic pains in my shoulder pay a return visit. Skip the crust and eat just the toppings, and I’m fine.

    Reply
  16. Galina L.

    I wouldn’t be scared if I were in a food production business. They will switch on crap made out of corn, soy, potato starch , label it “gluten-free”,charge more money and thank Dr.Davis for advertising the damage from gluten. They will survive that minor bump. If many people start eating LC, it would be harder for them to adjust. They are not worried much yet, otherwise they would find somebody smarter to answer to Dr.Davis.

    It could be they don’t realize how stupid they sound.

    Reply
  17. BP

    All I can say is: I have such a great appreciation for all of this info. Simple, concise, FACTUAL, and without any agendas…except for educating folks on the dangers of diet/nutrition to our health. That being said, I have lost about 30lbs in the last year starting first with p90X, and now maintaining (with a little more weight loss here and there) without ANY exercise only by nutritional lifestyle over the past 3-4 months. Current daily goals: 1800-2000 cals/day, 50-75g carbs/day. Sure I could probably lose more if I adjusted these numbers…but the facts are that I am much more satisfied with how I eat, I am much happier, and I generally have a steady amount of energy every day. Oh, BTW, my BP and resting heart rates are lower than they have been in years!

    Thank you Tom Naughton, Gary Taubes, Dr. Davis, and the many others.

    Reply
  18. darMA

    @ Wildflower
    I have to disagree in part with “just listen to your body”. Unfortunately there are so many “silent” diseases that could be sneaking up on you no matter how aware you think you are of what your body is telling you. Some examples: hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases are just a few. How many people have you known who say, gee, today I feel like I’m going to have a stroke or heart attack? Most people think they’re humming along just fine until the unseen/unfelt damage reaches the critical point, at which time it may just be too late to do anything about it.

    Reply
  19. WildFlower

    “Dr. Davis has had many of his patients remove wheat ALONE from their diets (as stated clearly in the book) and still saw remarkable health improvements.”

    I still seriously doubt that was the only change that was made. My guess is that they also moved towards a more whole-foods diet in general, and perhaps undertook some of his other recommendations such as omega-3 supplementation and exercise. Are you saying they eliminated wheat, but kept eating coke, ice cream, deep-fried chicken wings, margarine, and french fries and still saw these improvements? If they didn’t keep eating those things, they most definitely moved toward a more whole-foods diet in general and that leaves major uncontrolled variables.

    [You suggested he should try having people just eliminate wheat — because you haven’t read the book. He did have some patients remove wheat alone, as he stated specifically. If you choose not to believe him because that threatens your beliefs, go ahead. But you may as well just say you don’t believe his patients experienced any of the health improvements, or that there’s no such person as Dr. William Davis.]

    If they did eliminate just wheat and saw improvements, that doesn’t mean that modern, mutant wheat is to blame. Wheat avoidance would mean eliminating the majority of processed food – doughnuts, pizza, cake, cookies, McDonalds hamburgers. Many restaurant foods would be inaccesible, as would the majority of fast foods places such as McDonalds. So once again, wheat elimination cannot be interpreted as simply wheat elimination.

    [The more you critique a book you clearly haven’t read, the more foolish you look. Dr. Davis had patients who were health nuts, avoided all junk foods and sugary snacks, but still had health problems because they fell for the b.s. about “healthy whole grains.” You’re clearly more interested in defending wheat (why, I don’t know) than in possibly learning something, so go ahead and shut that mind of yours as tightly as you can … or you could read the book.]

    “But the anthropological evidence makes it clear that many of our health problems began with the advent of grain-eating, and those weren’t bleached, mutant grains.”

    In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s we were eating far more wheat than we do today, yet obesity and diabetes were far less prevalent, some say almost inexistent.

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/consumption.htm

    In his post ‘Wheat: In Search of Scientific Objectivity and New Year’s Resolutions’,
    Chris Masterjohn mentions the high wheat consumption in Crete during the 1960’s:

    “On Crete, the traditional diet is based largely off wheat and dairy. Studies in the 1960s suggested their rate of myocardial infarction in men over the age of 45 was 0.7%. See here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14263030 . There was a somewhat higher rate of murmurs that were considered possible evidence of arrhythmia due to aortic atherosclerosis (7-8%), but they also had a very high rate of smoking — 55% of the men smoked and 35% smoked more than a pack per day. I think these numbers are pretty impressive and consistent with their wheat-based diet being most likely healthy for them.

    [Now you’re trying to have it both ways. Dr. Davis blames modern, mutant wheat for the rise in obesity and diabetes. His own tests showed that modern wheat spiked his blood sugar much higher than traditional wheat. Quoting health statistics from the days before modern wheat came along doesn’t help your case.

    That being said, when we adopted agriculture some 12,000 years ago, we became shorter and began developing health problems that were rare before, such as dental caries and arthritis. And by the way, heart disease was apparently relatively common in ancient Egypt.]

    There may be other examples. It’s difficult to say, because heart disease has not been studied with any rigor until the modern era, when the spread of wheat has occurred in the form of a global spread of white flour and sugar. Even worse, during the first half of the century when this spread was rapidly initiated, wheat was treated with nitrogen trichloride, which created toxic inhibitors of biosynthesis of glutamine and glutathione and led to hysteria in dogs. It was abandoned in US and UK due to concerns of potential human hysteria and in Canada because it was explosive and thus a risk to mill workers. Trying to tease out all these factors using a historical or epidemiological worldview would be incredibly difficult, so we need rigorous science in the form of publication-worthy literature, self-experimentation, and careful clinical practice.”

    He also had this to say about Dr. Davis in the comments section:

    “Dr. Davis impresses me very much as a clinician and I find his blog very useful, but I’m not very impressed with his experimental techniques. I think it is possible that wheat is atherogenic but I don’t think he has provided much evidence of this.”

    In the 1960’s, it is also possible that in Crete they were consuming hybridized ‘mutant’ wheat. In either case, whether you like it or not, at one point wheat was good for us.

    [You do understand the difference between “good for us” and “not especially bad for us,” don’t you?]

    So if you’re going to argue that wheat is inherently toxic, and the main cause of the modern obesity epidemic, you’ll have to argue that it only became toxic after the government tampered with it. That leaves other variables that need to be explored as well. Was it hybridization that made wheat toxic? Or was it increases in bleached flour consumption (they once used some nasty chemicals in the bleaching process, and still use questionable ones)? Or could it be the exorbitant amount of pesticides they spray on wheat, it’s growth on nutrient depleted soils, or the iron they add to it?

    [I’m not arguing that wheat is the main cause of the modern obesity epidemic. I believe the main cause of the obesity epidemic is the increase of all kinds of refined carbohydrates in our diets. Nor did I say the government tampered with wheat. The grain industry tampered with it.]

    Or, once again, was it that wheat – combined with refined sugar and vegetable oil – became the basis of countless processed junk foods engineered for over consumption. Occam’s razor would certainly suggest that is the case.

    [Occam’s razor doesn’t explain why health-conscious people who already avoided sugar and processed foods (including Dr. Davis himself) developed health issues that went away once they stopped eating those “healthy whole grains.”]

    Perhaps home cooked foods made with organic, unbleached modern flour is perfectly fine for most people to eat. It certainly is for me. I get heartburn and rashes if I eat too much bleached flour wonderbread though.

    [Yes, you may be fine with organic, unbleached flour. I would expect organic, unbleached flour to produce fewer health problems than white flour. That doesn’t mean organic, unbleached flour is good for us.]

    Reply
  20. FormerTNGuy

    Just started reading the book and it is very interesting. After he explained how wheat really adds the weight around the belly i thought it my self how many inches have I lost around my belly since i have gone low-card (have cut out sugar and from now on wheat).

    I had actually measured by belly once before i started my low-card diet (about 6 years ago) I weighed 320 pounds and was only 6’2″ tall and had a belly circumference of 52 inches and wore a 46 inch pant around my waist. Now 6 years later I am 213 pounds and have a belly circumference of 38 inches. 14 inches of belly gone wow.

    Those are great results.

    Reply
  21. Galina L.

    I wouldn’t be scared if I were in a food production business. They will switch on crap made out of corn, soy, potato starch , label it “gluten-free”,charge more money and thank Dr.Davis for advertising the damage from gluten. They will survive that minor bump. If many people start eating LC, it would be harder for them to adjust. They are not worried much yet, otherwise they would find somebody smarter to answer to Dr.Davis.

    It could be they don’t realize how stupid they sound.

    Reply
  22. darMA

    @ Wildflower
    I have to disagree in part with “just listen to your body”. Unfortunately there are so many “silent” diseases that could be sneaking up on you no matter how aware you think you are of what your body is telling you. Some examples: hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases are just a few. How many people have you known who say, gee, today I feel like I’m going to have a stroke or heart attack? Most people think they’re humming along just fine until the unseen/unfelt damage reaches the critical point, at which time it may just be too late to do anything about it.

    Reply
  23. FormerTNGuy

    Just started reading the book and it is very interesting. After he explained how wheat really adds the weight around the belly i thought it my self how many inches have I lost around my belly since i have gone low-card (have cut out sugar and from now on wheat).

    I had actually measured by belly once before i started my low-card diet (about 6 years ago) I weighed 320 pounds and was only 6’2″ tall and had a belly circumference of 52 inches and wore a 46 inch pant around my waist. Now 6 years later I am 213 pounds and have a belly circumference of 38 inches. 14 inches of belly gone wow.

    Those are great results.

    Reply
  24. WildFlower

    “He did have some patients remove wheat alone, as he stated specifically. If you choose not to believe him because that threatens your beliefs, go ahead. But you may as well just say you don’t believe his patients experienced any of the health improvements, or that there’s no such person as Dr. William Davis.”

    His patients CLAIMED to be extremely health-conscious. For all I know they were gorging on Cheerios and Wonderbread thinking it was healthy. So excuse me if I don’t take those anecdotes too seriously. You pick apart every uncontrolled study you see that condemns saturated fats and animal products, and dismiss every observational study on earth – which are more informative than these anecdotes. Yet here you are touting this uncontrolled information.

    [So once again, you’re simply choosing to dismiss the case histories you don’t like. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, you’ve decided nobody — and I mean NOBODY — could possibly have bad reactions to your precious organic, unbleached wheat, therefore anyone who claims to have cured a health issue by giving up wheat must be lying to Dr. Davis, or Dr. Davis is lying, or I’m lying, but somebody is lying, damnit, because WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!!

    Is that your position in a nutshell? That’s how it comes across.

    Yes, I pick apart uncontrolled studies and dismiss observational studies for the junk they are. Case histories aren’t observational studies. They’re a valuable source of information.]

    And while they were eating wheat on their supposedly health-conscious diet, was it bleached industrial wheat or organic unbleached/whole wheat? As I illustrated before, there’s a key difference there.

    [When Dr. Davis ran his experiment on modern wheat versus traditional wheat, he made both loaves of bread himself from organic whole-grain wheat — no bleaching, no chemicals. The traditional wheat raised his glucose by 24 points; the modern wheat raised it by 83 points.]

    When they eliminated the wheat, what did they replace it with? I think we can both agree that health-conscious diets are often anything but healthy. Perhaps they started eating more meat and seafood, or fruits and vegetables, and took in key nutrients that they were lacking beforehand. No matter which way you turn, there are major uncontrolled variables here. This is bad science. As I said, you are the last person who should be broadcasting it. It seems you are the one who is trying to ‘have it both ways’. I guess shabby science is okay for you, when it supports your philosophy.

    [Riiiiight. The countless stories I’ve heard from people who saw health problems vanish after they gave up eating grains — including the story I related about the co-worker’s wife whose pounding headaches went away — are all the result of people eating more broccoli and shrimp to replace the wheat. Couldn’t possibly be the wheat, because according to you ORGANIC WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY!! Right?]

    Imagine a woman from the AHA came on your blog and told you the entire low-carb movement is misguided, because she had a few patients lower their fat intake and they told her their health improved. You would have a fit.

    [No, I’d want to know what kind of fat they were eating and what other changes they made in their diets, as you suggested. But again, you haven’t read the book and therefore haven’t read about people who were told to make one change: stop eating wheat. And if you did read those stories, based on your responses, you’d simply refuse to believe them because ORGANIC WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY!! NOBODY HAS AN INTOLERANCE TO GLUTEN AND LECTINS!! Right? I’m just trying to restate your position for you so everyone can understand it.]

    “Now you’re trying to have it both ways. Dr. Davis blames modern, mutant wheat for the rise in obesity and diabetes. His own tests showed that modern wheat spiked his blood sugar much higher than traditional wheat. Quoting health statistics from the days before modern wheat came along doesn’t help your case.”

    I was mostly responding to your statement earlier that grain consumption destroyed the health of early agriculturalists. That may have been the case, but I don’t think that’s comparable to the sort of health problems Dr. Davis claims wheat is supposedly causing. Those early agriculturalists likely were eating grain as their sole source of calories and suffered all sorts of vitamin, mineral and amino acid deficiencies. I seriously doubt they added a few slices of bread to their pig roasts and started deteriorating.

    [Dr. Davis doesn’t blame wheat for all of our health problems either. He points out that many health problems are apparently related to grains, and also points out that celiac is apparently five times more prevalent now than 50 years ago, based on blood samples taken from soldiers then and soldiers now. Unless the soldiers 50 years ago were all coming to your house to consume organic, unbleached wheat, it’s a good guess that changes in the wheat we grow have something to do with it.]

    In either case, there are plenty examples of cultures eating ample amounts of grain as part of a mixed omnivorous diet today and in the not-too-distant past. I’m a tad more concerned about those statistics than anthropological evidence from 10, 000 years ago. Perhaps I could dig up anthropological findings showing that apes had a rough transition from a mostly fruit based diet to one high in flesh, and then tell you that disproves the paleo diet.

    [You’re referring, of course, to the not-too-distant past when people weren’t consuming mutant dwarf wheat. Those people also didn’t generally consume white flour, which Dr. Davis would agree is worse than whole grain flour.]

    “And by the way, heart disease was apparently relatively common in ancient Egypt.”

    Yet here we have the data I gave you showing a very high wheat consumption in the United States during a time when heart disease, obesity and diabetes were virtually inexistent. Once again, a touch more interested in that.

    [The word you’re looking for is “nonexistent.” And again, you’re referring to the days before mutant dwarf wheat was developed. I don’t blame wheat exclusively or even primarily for heart disease or diabetes — I blame the increase in refined carbohydrates in general, as I said before.]

    And I’m fairly certain the Egyptian mummies they base those findings on were all affluent royals – correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case, they were likely very inactive, and feasted on the gourmet food of their time on a constant basis. If you’re at all interested in the food reward hypothesis, it’s not hard to imagine how they got so unhealthy.

    [Inactivity and a diet that included lots of grains and honey.]

    “You do understand the difference between “good for us” and “not especially bad for us,” don’t you?”

    I do, I suppose, but I don’t care. Perhaps wheat isn’t restoring my iron levels, or giving me a complete protein, or providing long-chain omega-3, but if it’s isn’t bad for me I don’t mind including it as part of a mixed diet. It tastes good and is convenient. And for me it digests very well, far better than meat. I do much better eating ample amounts of wheat than I do eating ample amounts of beef.

    [If it’s working for you, go for it. That’s what I tell anyone who says any diet is working for them.]

    And you may understand the concept of “good for us” and “not especially bad for us”, but beyond the basics, you haven’t the slightest clue as to which foods fit into which category for any single person on any given day. You can’t tell people wheat is bad for them. Not with any intellectual honesty, considering the science you’re using to back that claim.

    [So again, let me re-state your position: ORGANIC WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY!! NOBODY HAS BAD REACTIONS TO GLUTEN OR LECTINS, AND NOBODY EXPERIENCES WILD GLUCOSE SURGES IN RESPONSE TO WHEAT!! DR. DAVIS LIED WHEN HE SAID ORGANIC WHOLE WHEAT RAISED HIS BLOOD SUGAR BY 83 POINTS!!

    Does that pretty much sum it up? Or is it possible that wheat produces negative health effects in a large segment of the population? If it is possible, are you suggesting we’re doing people a disservice by warning them about the possibility?]

    “so go ahead and shut that mind of yours as tightly as you can … or you could read the book.”

    I’ve read his blog for the past two years, I have a pretty good idea where he’s coming from. And your attempts to defend his reasoning have yielded nothing but questionable science.

    [I’ve read his blog for the past two years as well, and yet the book was full of information I’d never read anywhere else before. You’re critiquing a book you haven’t read. You’ve decided ahead of time that you already know all there is to know about the genetic structure of today’s wheat and the possible health effects — because you eat organic wheat and it doesn’t bother you. So yes, you’re being closed-minded.]

    Reply
  25. WildFlower

    darma,

    “I have to disagree in part with “just listen to your body”. Unfortunately there are so many “silent” diseases that could be sneaking up on you no matter how aware you think you are of what your body is telling you. Some examples: hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases are just a few. How many people have you known who say, gee, today I feel like I’m going to have a stroke or heart attack? Most people think they’re humming along just fine until the unseen/unfelt damage reaches the critical point, at which time it may just be too late to do anything about it.”

    People become accustomed to poor health. They feel like shit and they keep humming along until they shut down.

    Davis recommends a low-carb diet for optimum health. I tried a low-carb diet and developed severe hypothyroid symptoms that vanished when I reintroduced carbs.

    Should I go my whole-life ignoring a low-body temperature, fatigue, hair loss and a weakened immune system because Dr. Davis says carbs will jack up my small LDL? No, I listen to my body. I eat as much unbleached wheat as I desire and I’m in great health.

    I’m sure I’ve just developed some mutant, one of a kind adaptation to the harmful hybridized wheat though. There couldn’t possible be anyone else out there reading this blog who probably tolerates it just as well, who will read ‘Wheat Belly’ and add yet another item to the laundry list of orthorexic obsessions that plague their mental well-being and social life.

    The hundreds of thin, healthy people I see eating wheat day-by-day are just a mirage I suppose.

    So let’s apply some of your own logic to you: was wheat the only food you gave up on your low-carb diet? Was it the only food you started eating again? Do you have evidence or case histories of people who were suffering from health problems and cured them by adding wheat ALONE back into their diets? If not, how can you attribute your renewed health to wheat? Maybe you just don’t do well on restricted carbs. (Dr. Davis has stated on his blog that some people don’t.)

    Meanwhile, there are thousands of case histories of people who waved goodbye to various health issues after giving up wheat. Do you believe wheat wasn’t the cause of their health problems? That is, do you believe everyone tolerates wheat as well as you? If the answer is no — if you’re willing to admit wheat may induce arthritis, asthma, depression, migraines, weight gain, skin rashes, etc. in many people — then why the hell are you so offended by a book that warns people who are constantly bombarded with the “healthy whole grains!” message of those possible effects?

    I didn’t say (and neither did Dr. Davis) that no one tolerates wheat. Some people tolerate smoking — as in your example of the population in Crete. That doesn’t mean smoking is good for us, and it doesn’t mean we do anyone a disservice by pointing out the many possible health hazards of smoking. As for the hundreds of thin people you see eating wheat every day, do you honestly believe that proves wheat doesn’t promote weight gain in many people? I work in a large company now. I see thin people eating wheat every day. I also see thin people drinking Coca-Colas every day. And I see lots and lots of fat people eating wheat every day.

    Reply
  26. WildFlower

    “He did have some patients remove wheat alone, as he stated specifically. If you choose not to believe him because that threatens your beliefs, go ahead. But you may as well just say you don’t believe his patients experienced any of the health improvements, or that there’s no such person as Dr. William Davis.”

    His patients CLAIMED to be extremely health-conscious. For all I know they were gorging on Cheerios and Wonderbread thinking it was healthy. So excuse me if I don’t take those anecdotes too seriously. You pick apart every uncontrolled study you see that condemns saturated fats and animal products, and dismiss every observational study on earth – which are more informative than these anecdotes. Yet here you are touting this uncontrolled information.

    [So once again, you’re simply choosing to dismiss the case histories you don’t like. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, you’ve decided nobody — and I mean NOBODY — could possibly have bad reactions to your precious organic, unbleached wheat, therefore anyone who claims to have cured a health issue by giving up wheat must be lying to Dr. Davis, or Dr. Davis is lying, or I’m lying, but somebody is lying, damnit, because WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!!

    Is that your position in a nutshell? That’s how it comes across.

    Yes, I pick apart uncontrolled studies and dismiss observational studies for the junk they are. Case histories aren’t observational studies. They’re a valuable source of information.]

    And while they were eating wheat on their supposedly health-conscious diet, was it bleached industrial wheat or organic unbleached/whole wheat? As I illustrated before, there’s a key difference there.

    [When Dr. Davis ran his experiment on modern wheat versus traditional wheat, he made both loaves of bread himself from organic whole-grain wheat — no bleaching, no chemicals. The traditional wheat raised his glucose by 24 points; the modern wheat raised it by 83 points.]

    When they eliminated the wheat, what did they replace it with? I think we can both agree that health-conscious diets are often anything but healthy. Perhaps they started eating more meat and seafood, or fruits and vegetables, and took in key nutrients that they were lacking beforehand. No matter which way you turn, there are major uncontrolled variables here. This is bad science. As I said, you are the last person who should be broadcasting it. It seems you are the one who is trying to ‘have it both ways’. I guess shabby science is okay for you, when it supports your philosophy.

    [Riiiiight. The countless stories I’ve heard from people who saw health problems vanish after they gave up eating grains — including the story I related about the co-worker’s wife whose pounding headaches went away — are all the result of people eating more broccoli and shrimp to replace the wheat. Couldn’t possibly be the wheat, because according to you ORGANIC WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY!! Right?]

    Imagine a woman from the AHA came on your blog and told you the entire low-carb movement is misguided, because she had a few patients lower their fat intake and they told her their health improved. You would have a fit.

    [No, I’d want to know what kind of fat they were eating and what other changes they made in their diets, as you suggested. But again, you haven’t read the book and therefore haven’t read about people who were told to make one change: stop eating wheat. And if you did read those stories, based on your responses, you’d simply refuse to believe them because ORGANIC WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY!! NOBODY HAS AN INTOLERANCE TO GLUTEN AND LECTINS!! Right? I’m just trying to restate your position for you so everyone can understand it.]

    “Now you’re trying to have it both ways. Dr. Davis blames modern, mutant wheat for the rise in obesity and diabetes. His own tests showed that modern wheat spiked his blood sugar much higher than traditional wheat. Quoting health statistics from the days before modern wheat came along doesn’t help your case.”

    I was mostly responding to your statement earlier that grain consumption destroyed the health of early agriculturalists. That may have been the case, but I don’t think that’s comparable to the sort of health problems Dr. Davis claims wheat is supposedly causing. Those early agriculturalists likely were eating grain as their sole source of calories and suffered all sorts of vitamin, mineral and amino acid deficiencies. I seriously doubt they added a few slices of bread to their pig roasts and started deteriorating.

    [Dr. Davis doesn’t blame wheat for all of our health problems either. He points out that many health problems are apparently related to grains, and also points out that celiac is apparently five times more prevalent now than 50 years ago, based on blood samples taken from soldiers then and soldiers now. Unless the soldiers 50 years ago were all coming to your house to consume organic, unbleached wheat, it’s a good guess that changes in the wheat we grow have something to do with it.]

    In either case, there are plenty examples of cultures eating ample amounts of grain as part of a mixed omnivorous diet today and in the not-too-distant past. I’m a tad more concerned about those statistics than anthropological evidence from 10, 000 years ago. Perhaps I could dig up anthropological findings showing that apes had a rough transition from a mostly fruit based diet to one high in flesh, and then tell you that disproves the paleo diet.

    [You’re referring, of course, to the not-too-distant past when people weren’t consuming mutant dwarf wheat. Those people also didn’t generally consume white flour, which Dr. Davis would agree is worse than whole grain flour.]

    “And by the way, heart disease was apparently relatively common in ancient Egypt.”

    Yet here we have the data I gave you showing a very high wheat consumption in the United States during a time when heart disease, obesity and diabetes were virtually inexistent. Once again, a touch more interested in that.

    [The word you’re looking for is “nonexistent.” And again, you’re referring to the days before mutant dwarf wheat was developed. I don’t blame wheat exclusively or even primarily for heart disease or diabetes — I blame the increase in refined carbohydrates in general, as I said before.]

    And I’m fairly certain the Egyptian mummies they base those findings on were all affluent royals – correct me if I’m wrong. If that is the case, they were likely very inactive, and feasted on the gourmet food of their time on a constant basis. If you’re at all interested in the food reward hypothesis, it’s not hard to imagine how they got so unhealthy.

    [Inactivity and a diet that included lots of grains and honey.]

    “You do understand the difference between “good for us” and “not especially bad for us,” don’t you?”

    I do, I suppose, but I don’t care. Perhaps wheat isn’t restoring my iron levels, or giving me a complete protein, or providing long-chain omega-3, but if it’s isn’t bad for me I don’t mind including it as part of a mixed diet. It tastes good and is convenient. And for me it digests very well, far better than meat. I do much better eating ample amounts of wheat than I do eating ample amounts of beef.

    [If it’s working for you, go for it. That’s what I tell anyone who says any diet is working for them.]

    And you may understand the concept of “good for us” and “not especially bad for us”, but beyond the basics, you haven’t the slightest clue as to which foods fit into which category for any single person on any given day. You can’t tell people wheat is bad for them. Not with any intellectual honesty, considering the science you’re using to back that claim.

    [So again, let me re-state your position: ORGANIC WHEAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY!! NOBODY HAS BAD REACTIONS TO GLUTEN OR LECTINS, AND NOBODY EXPERIENCES WILD GLUCOSE SURGES IN RESPONSE TO WHEAT!! DR. DAVIS LIED WHEN HE SAID ORGANIC WHOLE WHEAT RAISED HIS BLOOD SUGAR BY 83 POINTS!!

    Does that pretty much sum it up? Or is it possible that wheat produces negative health effects in a large segment of the population? If it is possible, are you suggesting we’re doing people a disservice by warning them about the possibility?]

    “so go ahead and shut that mind of yours as tightly as you can … or you could read the book.”

    I’ve read his blog for the past two years, I have a pretty good idea where he’s coming from. And your attempts to defend his reasoning have yielded nothing but questionable science.

    [I’ve read his blog for the past two years as well, and yet the book was full of information I’d never read anywhere else before. You’re critiquing a book you haven’t read. You’ve decided ahead of time that you already know all there is to know about the genetic structure of today’s wheat and the possible health effects — because you eat organic wheat and it doesn’t bother you. So yes, you’re being closed-minded.]

    Reply
  27. WildFlower

    darma,

    “I have to disagree in part with “just listen to your body”. Unfortunately there are so many “silent” diseases that could be sneaking up on you no matter how aware you think you are of what your body is telling you. Some examples: hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases are just a few. How many people have you known who say, gee, today I feel like I’m going to have a stroke or heart attack? Most people think they’re humming along just fine until the unseen/unfelt damage reaches the critical point, at which time it may just be too late to do anything about it.”

    People become accustomed to poor health. They feel like shit and they keep humming along until they shut down.

    Davis recommends a low-carb diet for optimum health. I tried a low-carb diet and developed severe hypothyroid symptoms that vanished when I reintroduced carbs.

    Should I go my whole-life ignoring a low-body temperature, fatigue, hair loss and a weakened immune system because Dr. Davis says carbs will jack up my small LDL? No, I listen to my body. I eat as much unbleached wheat as I desire and I’m in great health.

    I’m sure I’ve just developed some mutant, one of a kind adaptation to the harmful hybridized wheat though. There couldn’t possible be anyone else out there reading this blog who probably tolerates it just as well, who will read ‘Wheat Belly’ and add yet another item to the laundry list of orthorexic obsessions that plague their mental well-being and social life.

    The hundreds of thin, healthy people I see eating wheat day-by-day are just a mirage I suppose.

    So let’s apply some of your own logic to you: was wheat the only food you gave up on your low-carb diet? Was it the only food you started eating again? Do you have evidence or case histories of people who were suffering from health problems and cured them by adding wheat ALONE back into their diets? If not, how can you attribute your renewed health to wheat? Maybe you just don’t do well on restricted carbs. (Dr. Davis has stated on his blog that some people don’t.)

    Meanwhile, there are thousands of case histories of people who waved goodbye to various health issues after giving up wheat. Do you believe wheat wasn’t the cause of their health problems? That is, do you believe everyone tolerates wheat as well as you? If the answer is no — if you’re willing to admit wheat may induce arthritis, asthma, depression, migraines, weight gain, skin rashes, etc. in many people — then why the hell are you so offended by a book that warns people who are constantly bombarded with the “healthy whole grains!” message of those possible effects?

    I didn’t say (and neither did Dr. Davis) that no one tolerates wheat. Some people tolerate smoking — as in your example of the population in Crete. That doesn’t mean smoking is good for us, and it doesn’t mean we do anyone a disservice by pointing out the many possible health hazards of smoking. As for the hundreds of thin people you see eating wheat every day, do you honestly believe that proves wheat doesn’t promote weight gain in many people? I work in a large company now. I see thin people eating wheat every day. I also see thin people drinking Coca-Colas every day. And I see lots and lots of fat people eating wheat every day.

    Reply
  28. Dawn

    Read the book, then passed it on to my mom. Interesting information to all sorts of groups. I have a son who has the gene for celiac but no active disease (found out after an endoscopy), stuff to think about even without intestinal damage occurring. Thanks for the review!

    From what I understand, to be diagnosed with Celiac, the damage has to be pretty extensive. You can have issues with gluten or lectins without being diagnosed with Celiac.

    Reply
  29. Dawn

    Read the book, then passed it on to my mom. Interesting information to all sorts of groups. I have a son who has the gene for celiac but no active disease (found out after an endoscopy), stuff to think about even without intestinal damage occurring. Thanks for the review!

    From what I understand, to be diagnosed with Celiac, the damage has to be pretty extensive. You can have issues with gluten or lectins without being diagnosed with Celiac.

    Reply
  30. Tammy

    Well – I just finished reading the book over the weekend and thought is was great, very informative and easy to understand. I’ve read other books about avoiding wheat/grains but they’ve mostly been centered around Celiac. All I know is that wheat does make me sick and that’s a fact. I’ve been without it and much healthier since January 1 this year.

    Yup, there’s way more to this book than Celiac.

    Reply
  31. Tammy

    Well – I just finished reading the book over the weekend and thought is was great, very informative and easy to understand. I’ve read other books about avoiding wheat/grains but they’ve mostly been centered around Celiac. All I know is that wheat does make me sick and that’s a fact. I’ve been without it and much healthier since January 1 this year.

    Yup, there’s way more to this book than Celiac.

    Reply
  32. earthmom

    Excellent work here! I do believe the grain manufacturers are scared by all this – but I believe their reaction will not be what is expected (or desired) but us. They won’t be shamed, or fix anything, they will launch a very expensive new marketing campaign ‘proving’ how healthy, safe and utterly delicious their poison products are!

    😛

    I think you can count on that.

    Reply
  33. WheatNoMore

    I’m one of Dr. Davis’ patients and I’m thrilled to see that he’s completed this book. I was one of the many people who testified to the benefits of eliminating wheat from their diet.

    I’m not at all surprised at the backlash in defense of the beloved wheat. It is so thoroughly entrenched in our culture that the truth about it will be hampered for quite some time. Hampered by those who innately fear change and from those who benefit financially directly and indirectly from the pro-wheat dogma.

    To those of you protesting the loudest that wheat is beneficial or benign, I’ll wager that most of you would be unwilling to spend 90 days totally wheat-free and be honest about how you feel. You’d rather spend countless hours over the same 90 days spewing pro-wheat venom and citing every source, study, and argument that you can find on the internet, all in a hopeless attempt to convince those who have already experienced the benefits.

    You’re like a drunken alcoholic who is preaching to the recovered that they’re not really feeling better because the booze is gone from their lives and that they should just start drinking again.

    Good luck with that.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.