A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

On the evils of wheat



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 21st, 2011, 05:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default On the evils of wheat


William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practises in Milwaukee,
Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your
health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/20/o...ke-you-skinny/

--
Dogman
  #2  
Old September 21st, 2011, 08:14 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default On the evils of wheat

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practises in Milwaukee,
Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your
health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/20/o...is-so-addictiv
e-and-how-shunning-it-will-make-you-skinny/


It so happens that a low carb diet has little or no room for wheat,
anyway.

--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
  #3  
Old September 21st, 2011, 08:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default On the evils of wheat

Dogman wrote:

William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practises in Milwaukee,
Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your
health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/20/o...ke-you-skinny/


Interesting that he mentions einkorn. I only know about that species of
grain because it was found in the stomach contents of "Otsi the Iceman"
the ancient frozen mummy that was discovered in the Apls in the 1990s.

Einkorn is now obscure but was actively cultivated millennia ago. It's
a gluten bearing grain but the gluten is different enough that it might
not be harmful to wheat intolerant folks. I've tried spelt and kamut
and those trigger symptoms in me. I've tried rye, barley and oats and
those do not trigger symptoms in me. Everyone who has intolerance
reactions can expect to get different results when doing personal
experimentation.
  #4  
Old September 22nd, 2011, 12:25 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default On the evils of wheat

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practises in Milwaukee,
Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your
health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/20/o...t-is-so-addict
iv
e-and-how-shunning-it-will-make-you-skinny/


It so happens that a low carb diet has little or no room for wheat,
anyway.


What room there is should be occupied by whole grains, not highly
refined grains.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would have cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/

[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And it¹s not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That¹s hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don¹t get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis
  #5  
Old September 22nd, 2011, 04:57 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default On the evils of wheat

On 2011-09-21 18:25, Billy wrote:
In ,
Walter wrote:

In ,
wrote:

William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practises in Milwaukee,
Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your
health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/20/o...t-is-so-addict
iv
e-and-how-shunning-it-will-make-you-skinny/


It so happens that a low carb diet has little or no room for wheat,
anyway.


What room there is should be occupied by whole grains, not highly
refined grains.



One of the comments of Dr. Davis is that the glycemic index of whole
wheat bread is a few points higher than that of white bread. Suggests
that "Whole Grain" is not automatically healthy.

Another one of his points is that the glycemic index of sugar is less
than either white bread or whole grain bread.

His patient responses led him to do the literature research on wheat
which led to his book. Of course he gives example case histories, as
most "diet" books customarily do, but the history of wheat illnesses,
including those derived from gluten and other proteins, are the primary
reasons to consider reading the book.

I had a recent diabetes scare when a single fasting blood glucose came
in at 135. I bought a meter and supplies and began home testing. The
book came out and I read it and adopted the wheat free notion.
Previously my fasting glucose numbers were "prediabetic" between 100 and
120 mg/dL.

My readings fell with time, and now over half of the readings are in the
80's and 90's. Going down into the "healthy" range. The next lab blood
test is next week, and that will hopefully calibrate the home glucose
meter somewhat.

I no longer have the "cookie" or sugar urges. It is too easy, now, to
skip meals if I am doing something interesting.

Is this real or placebo? Who cares, I like the current status.
  #6  
Old September 22nd, 2011, 06:39 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default On the evils of wheat

Jim wrote:

His patient responses led him to do the literature research on wheat
which led to his book. Of course he gives example case histories, as
most "diet" books customarily do, but the history of wheat illnesses,
including those derived from gluten and other proteins, are the primary
reasons to consider reading the book.

I had a recent diabetes scare when a single fasting blood glucose came
in at 135. I bought a meter and supplies and began home testing. The
book came out and I read it and adopted the wheat free notion.
Previously my fasting glucose numbers were "prediabetic" between 100 and
120 mg/dL.

My readings fell with time, and now over half of the readings are in the
80's and 90's. Going down into the "healthy" range. The next lab blood
test is next week, and that will hopefully calibrate the home glucose
meter somewhat.

I no longer have the "cookie" or sugar urges. It is too easy, now, to
skip meals if I am doing something interesting.

Is this real or placebo? Who cares, I like the current status.


Being wheat intolerant myself I am biased against eating wheat. That
said I think the current wheat scare is mostly a veiled push for low
carbing in general. Blaming wheat gets people to eat less carbs and
most people do better with less carbs.

The number of people who are wheat intolerant or gluten intolerant is
only a few percent of the population. Enough that it's vastly more than
the ones who know they have the issue. A percentage that is far too
small to tell people blindly to avoid wheat.

My view is the current push against wheat gets a lot of people to lower
their carb intake. That helps a very large minority of the population.
Among them is a small percentage who benefit from actually removing
wheat rather than just from reducing carbs.

It's not a bad approach but it misses the point that what is happening
in most cases is lower total carb intake and lower glycemic load. Pick
any high glycemic load food that's a sizable percentage of the typical
diet. Convince people to not have that. The result is good because the
typical diet is so high in carbs it's a problem. Convincing people to
drop sodas would generally have the same result.

Simple minded, effective, beneificial, but based on an idea that points
in the wrong direction.

One really good lesson - Glycemic load matters. Talk of "simple versus
complex carbs" has little to do with actually measuring glycemic load.
Very carby foods aren't beneficial in a culture that has already pushed
many of us to the point our bodies treat very carby foods as problems.
  #7  
Old September 22nd, 2011, 08:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
FOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default On the evils of wheat

But I think his most important point is that the wheat we get now is not the
wheat of our ancestors, in fact, not even the wheat of 50 years ago.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
|
| Being wheat intolerant myself I am biased against eating wheat. That
| said I think the current wheat scare is mostly a veiled push for low
| carbing in general. Blaming wheat gets people to eat less carbs and
| most people do better with less carbs.
|
| The number of people who are wheat intolerant or gluten intolerant is
| only a few percent of the population. Enough that it's vastly more
| than the ones who know they have the issue. A percentage that is far
| too small to tell people blindly to avoid wheat.
|
| My view is the current push against wheat gets a lot of people to
| lower their carb intake. That helps a very large minority of the
| population. Among them is a small percentage who benefit from
| actually removing wheat rather than just from reducing carbs.
|
| It's not a bad approach but it misses the point that what is happening
| in most cases is lower total carb intake and lower glycemic load.
| Pick any high glycemic load food that's a sizable percentage of the
| typical diet. Convince people to not have that. The result is good
| because the typical diet is so high in carbs it's a problem.
| Convincing people to drop sodas would generally have the same result.
|
| Simple minded, effective, beneificial, but based on an idea that
| points in the wrong direction.
|
| One really good lesson - Glycemic load matters. Talk of "simple
| versus complex carbs" has little to do with actually measuring
| glycemic load. Very carby foods aren't beneficial in a culture that
| has already pushed many of us to the point our bodies treat very
| carby foods as problems.

  #8  
Old September 22nd, 2011, 10:06 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default On the evils of wheat

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:57:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

[..]
One of the comments of Dr. Davis is that the glycemic index of whole
wheat bread is a few points higher than that of white bread. Suggests
that "Whole Grain" is not automatically healthy.

Another one of his points is that the glycemic index of sugar is less
than either white bread or whole grain bread.


A phenomemon that can eassily be tested on oneself.

n=1.

--
Dogman
  #9  
Old September 23rd, 2011, 05:48 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default On the evils of wheat

On 2011-09-22 14:23, FOB wrote:
But I think his most important point is that the wheat we get now is not the
wheat of our ancestors, in fact, not even the wheat of 50 years ago.



FOB,

You are right, I failed to point out that basic fact of the discussion
of Genetics that Dr. Davis gave on the 14, 28 and 42 chromasome stages
of wheat development, and the intensive mutations in the 20th century
to try to solve the grain shortage problems 0f developing countries such
as Mexico by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. That
work began in 1943 by a collaboration between the Rockefeller Foundation
and the Mexican government at a research site near Mexico City. By 1980,
these efforts had produced thousands of new strains of wheat, the most
high-yielding of which have since been adopted worldwide in third world
countries and industrial countries.

There are no longer any "Amber Waves of Grain" as this refers to the
older four foot (4' )high thin stalk strains. Growing more seeds on
these tall slender stalks simply lead to the buckling of the stalk and
the wheat plants would bend way over, and adding more grains to the
stalk tip would result in a plant very difficult to harvest, if it
wouldn't suffer from the horrible geometry.

So the solution was to breed for short two foot (2')stiffer and thicker
stalks and bigger seed bundled on those stronger plant tops.

So it is absolutely correct that the modern dwaft wheat plants are not
the plants that an old person like myself grew up with and ate as a
child. And, I am reasonably sure that my grandmother never at any of
this dwarf wheat in her entire life.

Dr. Davis comments on the protein modifications produced by a wheat
hybrid when compared to the proteins of the parents. While approximately
95% of the proteins expressed in the offspring are identical to the
parents, about 5% are unique, found in NEITHER parent. Wheat gluten
proteins undergo considerable structural change with hybridization- to
forms never seen before.

These high-yield dwarf strains of wheat increased yields up to ten-fold.
Guess why they caught on and are planted around the world..

There were never any tests for detrimental effects of these modern major
modifications for human safety. It was axiomatically accepted that
"wheat was wheat", and therefore safe.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Doug never needs facts to write his stuff. I am sure that some of these
issues were covered in the article linked to in the original post.

And NO DOUG---IT"S NOT JUST ABOUT GLUTEN INTOLERANCE.

So, you begin "off the mark".





Doug Freyburger wrote:
|
| Being wheat intolerant myself I am biased against eating wheat. That
| said I think the current wheat scare is mostly a veiled push for low
| carbing in general. Blaming wheat gets people to eat less carbs and
| most people do better with less carbs.
|
| The number of people who are wheat intolerant or gluten intolerant is
| only a few percent of the population. Enough that it's vastly more
| than the ones who know they have the issue. A percentage that is far
| too small to tell people blindly to avoid wheat.
|
| My view is the current push against wheat gets a lot of people to
| lower their carb intake. That helps a very large minority of the
| population. Among them is a small percentage who benefit from
| actually removing wheat rather than just from reducing carbs.
|
| It's not a bad approach but it misses the point that what is happening
| in most cases is lower total carb intake and lower glycemic load.


You are missing the point of everything about this subject, because you
are denying anything outside of what you currently think is trivial. You
have practiced that for a long time.


| Pick any high glycemic load food that's a sizable percentage of the
| typical diet. Convince people to not have that. The result is good
| because the typical diet is so high in carbs it's a problem.
| Convincing people to drop sodas would generally have the same result.
|
| Simple minded, effective, beneificial, but based on an idea that
| points in the wrong direction.


You are a good illustration of a "Wrong Direction" kind of guy.

|
| One really good lesson - Glycemic load matters. Talk of "simple
| versus complex carbs" has little to do with actually measuring
| glycemic load. Very carby foods aren't beneficial in a culture that
| has already pushed many of us to the point our bodies treat very
| carby foods as problems.



  #10  
Old September 26th, 2011, 06:28 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default On the evils of wheat

Jim wrote:

Dr. Davis comments on the protein modifications produced by a wheat
hybrid when compared to the proteins of the parents. While approximately
95% of the proteins expressed in the offspring are identical to the
parents, about 5% are unique, found in NEITHER parent. Wheat gluten
proteins undergo considerable structural change with hybridization- to
forms never seen before.


Yet it's a given that wheat intolerance and gluten intolerance existed
in some percentage of the population before these mutant varieties. In
my own case I get the same symptoms from spelt and kamut that I do from
modern wheat. Among those who get symptoms from modern wheat some
tolerate spelt and kamut some don't.

And NO DOUG---IT"S NOT JUST ABOUT GLUTEN INTOLERANCE.


I get that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I'll recap.

On the order of 30-40% of the population benefits from reduced total
carb intake and reduced glycemic load. This is an estimate that many of
us could disagree on. Dr Atkins at some points asserted it was 100% of
the population. I definitely disagree with him on that point. There is
no one size fits all diet plan.

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

1) Start with those who are intolerant to various types of grain while
otherwise low carbing. This will include people who have no problem
with ancient grains but do get symptoms with modern wheat (Dr Davis's
target audience) as well as those who are intolerant to additional
grains and ancient varieties as well.

2) Subtract those who get Celiac like symptoms from a wide vareity of
cereal grains.

3) Subtract those who get symptoms from the other gluten grains rye,
barley and oats because their symptoms are not specific to modern
wheat.

4) Subtract those who get symptoms from spelt and kamut as all as from
modern wheat, because their symptoms are to something that existed
before the mutant varieties.

5) Ideally find folks who grow heirloom wheat and find out the
percentage who get symptoms from them. It's the same concept as
dropping those who get symptoms from spelt and kamut. This step would
take a sizable study so it's probably not going to happen.

6) Now take the percentage who get symptoms from modern wheat in
specific given best effort elimination of ancient wheat varieties and
other gluten bearing grains. This is the percentage of the population
who have problems with modern wheat specifically.

7) Compare it to the 30-40% number of the general population who
benefit from reducing carbs from any sort. Feel free to debate how many
in the population benefit from lowering carbs in general but the number
is going to be in the 20-100% range. Those two numbers tell the degree
to which the idea that it is the mutations in the modern wheat
varieties contribute to the problem.

The percentage we don't know is how many people got symptoms before the
advent of modern wheat varities. That's because -

There were never any tests for detrimental effects of these modern major
modifications for human safety. It was axiomatically accepted that
"wheat was wheat", and therefore safe.


So I offered an obvious way to calculate it. The numbers say to what
degree Dr Davis is correct that mutant wheat causes the modern epidemic
of obesity. He isn't wrong in the sense of pointing to a trend in
symptoms that don't exist. He is wrong in not taking other reasons into
account. By not taking other reasons into account he has vastly over
estimated the impact of his favorite reason.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wheat Straw, Wheat Bran mehranbiz Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 December 25th, 2006 02:17 PM
The Evils of Exercise -- Revealed At Last Jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 4 June 1st, 2006 12:41 AM
Blogging on the evils of High Fructose Corn Syrup nanner Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 May 24th, 2006 12:47 PM
Today I did my part to battle the evils of cigarette smoking LCer09 Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 23rd, 2004 10:18 AM
The evils of alcohol? MadJock General Discussion 22 November 15th, 2003 07:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.