On Sep 26, 11:24*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

I think the "Wheat Belly" message is just to sell books to make a
profit.

I'm more generous about it. *Removing wheat tends to push most people
lower in carbs and to me that's enough for a lot of people who are in
the overweight range who've never been obese. *For anyone who's ever
been obese or fatter it's a forst step in the right direction.


And I've agreed with you on that point in the past. I've seen people
on
TV talking about being on the "wheat belly" diet and losing weight.
But
if you look at what they are eating, it's actually low carb or reduced
carb.
They are not just eliminating wheat. They are eliminating wheat and
OTHER REFINED CARBS and replacing it with lower carb alternatives.
I agree that if it works for them, that's a good thing.


Low carb got a bad reputation when it was hit with a fad and flooded
with extremists. *Milder approaches are appropriate.

But I think it's also important for people to understand what is
really
going on. If you villify wheat, as opposed to refined carbs in
general,
then how many people out there will think it's ok to replace wheat
crackers with corn chips, replace a wheat tortilla with a corn
tortilla,
eat potato chips because they don't contain wheat, etc?




Low carb also gets hit by vegan extremists. *Rather than returning their
hysterical fire with hysterical fire there's sense in counting them by
pointing out their preferred foods are damaging.

I really don't pay any attention them, nor do I think most
people do.




The fact that you can't provide a link to studies that
show that wheat is uniquely bad as a refined carb as compared
to other similar carbs, eg corn, rice, etc. tends to support that.
I say that if people substitute corn, rice, potato chips, etc for
wheat, they will likely have similar weight problems, blood sugar
problems, visceral fat etc.

Right. *Potato belly anyone? *Those are nightshades after all. *Both
corn and rice have been subject to similar genetic manipulation as
wheat.

Thank you. That is precisely my point.




I say similar refined carbs are just
about as bad as wheat, unless you happen to be one of the
minority of people who have problems with gluten. * *If you
have studies that say otherwise, I'm sure we'd all like to see
them.

Being one of the mildly wheat intolerant ones I regularly see people who
have some type of intolerance to some type of grain where I can see and
point out their symptoms but they deny them. *There are a lot more who
have such problems than know it. *But I am dubious that it's as widely
prevalent as Wheat Belly claims. *Studies comparing wheat against other
high carb sources like rice, corn and potatoes would be instructive.

But consider the studies that compare HFCS against sucrose. *Even though
they show that the amount of sugar consumed dominates they also show
that calorie for calorie HFCS is worse than sucrose.

There sure isn't agreement on that. Some studies looking at some
aspects of HFCS have come to that conclusion. Other studies have
not and it's one of those things that is still being debated.




The two effects
have different orders of magnitude. *I would not be surprised to learn
that going low carb has a 10X benefit while switching from wheat to
potatoes on a low fat plan has a 1X benefit.

That could very well be. That's kind of where I'm at. Which is
why I'm not keen on the whole "wheat belly" term, because IMO,
it's not specific to wheat and misleading.



*Wheat is not a beneficial
source of starch nor is any other cereal grain but what to compare it
against and why? *I don't want one of those studies that compares
frosted flakes with oatmeal to conclude that whole grains are beneficial.

I just had a short rib sandwich for lunch. I made it with
Pepperidge Farms CarbStyle 7 grain bread. It has wheat in
it and the two slices contain a whopping 10g of net carb.
Not being a diabetic, I didn't take a blood sample and measure
my BG response either. You think I'm going to hell for that?