On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:20:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

On the order of 30-40% of the population benefits from reduced total
carb intake and reduced glycemic load.

The percentage of the population that could benefit from reduced total
carb intake and reduced glycemic load is ~ the same percentage of the
population that is overweight, pre-diabetic, and/or already diabetic.

Exactly. Much larger than the percentage of population who have
symptoms specific to any one food.

The size of the effect of intolerances to the modern varieties of wheat
in specific is simple to calculate.

The best way to do it (actually, the only way to do it) is to stop
eating grains and see what happens.

n=1.

Thus creditting the wrong thing just like I wrote.

I don't understand what that means.

People who benefit
from lower carb in general are going to benefit from replacing wheat
with cauliflower, but it's not because it was wheat.

According to Dr. Davis' book, there is a health benefit (meticulously
researched and referenced) to eliminating wheat. Period. For
everyone. You can, of course, disagree, and believe the wheat
industry.

You need to be able to look at eliminating wheat, and cutting carbs,
as two different things.

Eliminating wheat is one strategy: n=1

Restricting carbs (in general) is another strategy: n=1

Doing both (at the same time) would be yet another strategy: n=1

And each strategy might produce different results, and which can
easily (and individually) be tested.

Doug, I don't know why you're trying to make this more complicated
than it really is.


--
Dogman