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
  #11  
Old September 27th, 2011, 08:20 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default On the evils of wheat

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. 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. They'd get equal
benefit from replacing potatoes with cauliflower. People with Crones,
Celiac, IBS benefit from removing wheat but that's because they benefit
from removing any grain. People intolerant to spelt and kamut benefit
from removing wheat but it's not because of the differences in modern
wheat grains. And then there are the ones who actually are intolerant
of modern wheat but who don't get symptoms from spelt or kamut - These
are the ones who Dr Davis benefitted correctly.

I've encountered people who have problems with modern wheat but not with
spelt or kamut. They exist. Dr Davis is not wrong in the benefits of
his plan to them, nor is he wrong in his explanation of why his plan
works to them. They are a small segment of those who benefit from low
carbing.
  #12  
Old September 27th, 2011, 08:35 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default On the evils of wheat

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
  #13  
Old September 27th, 2011, 09:38 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default On the evils of wheat

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Thus creditting the wrong thing just like I wrote.


I don't understand what that means.


Right. Getting cause and effect wrong by ignoring a ton of other
contributing causes.

Remove wheat, feel better. Credit the most recent mutations in the
wheat genome. Bzzt. Fail to take into account the carbs, the fact that
people have long been intolerant of wheat in specific and grains in
general.

Consider the observations that appear in the bibliography of the Protein
Power book series - When any society switched from hunting to grain
farming the general health of the skeletons went down the toilet.
That's been happening to various societies for ten thousand years so
blaming mutations of the last 50 years misses a lot.

Pretty close to the same percentage of the population will get the same
effect from removing potatoes, and a small percentage of them will
benefit because they didn't know they are nightshade intolerant. But
just like wheat most will improve because of carb count.

Remove rice, feel better. Same pattern and again it have little to do
with recent mutations in the wheat genome.

Many times I've read statements like -

There never used to be all this wheat intolerance.

Sometimes the conclusion is - So it's nonsense. Wheat isn't bad.

Sometimes the conclusion is - So it must be recent changes. Because all
previous observations are completely reliable and wheat was never bad
before.

But both conclusions miss the exact same points. Wheat is one of
several sources of high carb in our diets and most of us used to eat way
too much carb. And some of us were wheat intolerant without ever
knowing it because we were told that wheat is never a problem so we kept
looking elsewhere for what was wrong.

Should we go low carb? Yes. Cauliflower beats any sweet or starchy
food. Should we limit grains in general and consider them no more
valuable than any other vegetable carb gram for carb gram? Yes. Carb
gram for carb gram root vegetables tend to beat grains. Should we
avoid wheat more than other grains? Yes. There are more people who have
problems with gluten bearing grains than people who have problems with
other types of grain, carb gram for carb gram. Should be avoid modern
wheat more than heirloom wheat? Yes. There exist people who, while
already low carbing, found they tolerate spelt, kamut and other heirloom
wheats but get symptoms from modern varieties. Those are sorted in
order of how many people benefit from what cause, yet Dr Drew only
focused on the least common cause.

"Wheat Belly" is a stunt to make it sound like it's not Atkins. The
book could have been "French Fry Belly" and had much the same result.
  #14  
Old September 27th, 2011, 11:11 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default On the evils of wheat

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:38:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Thus creditting the wrong thing just like I wrote.


I don't understand what that means.


Right. Getting cause and effect wrong by ignoring a ton of other
contributing causes.


Not if you do the experiments on yourself, as I described.

Remove wheat, feel better.


Well, isn't that reason enough?

If you also want to find out why you feel better, and how you can
prevent the potential for disease by doing it, read the book.

Credit the most recent mutations in the
wheat genome. Bzzt. Fail to take into account the carbs, the fact that
people have long been intolerant of wheat in specific and grains in
general.


Again...if you eliminate wheat, and then, say, replace the wheat carbs
with other carbs, it can't just be carbs in general, can it?

Before you reply, think about that one for a minute or two, okay?

[...]
Should we go low carb? Yes. Cauliflower beats any sweet or starchy
food. Should we limit grains in general and consider them no more
valuable than any other vegetable carb gram for carb gram? Yes.


But wheat is not just another carb. That's the point you keep talking
around. READ THE BOOK.

[...]
"Wheat Belly" is a stunt to make it sound like it's not Atkins. The
book could have been "French Fry Belly" and had much the same result.


You're wrong, Doug. Read the book. Plus, it's actually pretty silly of
you to argue against the book without having read it.



--
Dogman
  #15  
Old September 28th, 2011, 02:31 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default On the evils of wheat

On 28/09/2011 8:11 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:38:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
Doug wrote:

Thus creditting the wrong thing just like I wrote.

I don't understand what that means.


Right. Getting cause and effect wrong by ignoring a ton of other
contributing causes.


Not if you do the experiments on yourself, as I described.

Remove wheat, feel better.


Well, isn't that reason enough?

If you also want to find out why you feel better, and how you can
prevent the potential for disease by doing it, read the book.

Credit the most recent mutations in the
wheat genome. Bzzt. Fail to take into account the carbs, the fact that
people have long been intolerant of wheat in specific and grains in
general.


Again...if you eliminate wheat, and then, say, replace the wheat carbs
with other carbs, it can't just be carbs in general, can it?

Before you reply, think about that one for a minute or two, okay?

[...]
Should we go low carb? Yes. Cauliflower beats any sweet or starchy
food. Should we limit grains in general and consider them no more
valuable than any other vegetable carb gram for carb gram? Yes.


But wheat is not just another carb. That's the point you keep talking
around. READ THE BOOK.

[...]
"Wheat Belly" is a stunt to make it sound like it's not Atkins. The
book could have been "French Fry Belly" and had much the same result.


You're wrong, Doug. Read the book. Plus, it's actually pretty silly of
you to argue against the book without having read it.


You can easily argue against a book without reading it, though your
argument might be more convincing if you can quote specific areas of
dispute. Anyone can argue against a the précis of a book without reading
the book itself. Look at how many argue against the Bible without
reading it.

That aside, without reading any books, a decade or two back, after
initially changing to a low carb diet (NOT ATKINS) just cutting empty
carbs (those that offer little other nutritional value) I have slowly
evolved into a wheat avoider. I discovered by accident that when what
few remaining wheat containing items in my diet were eliminated my
general health improved noticeably. The only things that openly were
wheat based remaining in my diet were unleavened flat-breads - thin
roll-ups. I ate small quantities of these for several years as a
convenient midday meal. Usually with chicken, prawns or other seafood
and salad. One day my store was out of them, but had pure Rye
flat-breads. I bought a bunch of them and after a few days felt better
than normal. Next time I shopped, wheat was back in stock so I bought
them. A few days later, my energy levels and mood dropped a little. The
next time I shopped, I remembered the Rye and tried them again. Bingo! I
have not gone back to any wheat based product since.

Rye doesn't seem all that different to wheat, but for me the difference
is unmistakeable.


  #16  
Old September 28th, 2011, 06:21 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default On the evils of wheat

On 28/09/2011 2:33 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:31:19 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
"Wheat Belly" is a stunt to make it sound like it's not Atkins. The
book could have been "French Fry Belly" and had much the same result.

You're wrong, Doug. Read the book. Plus, it's actually pretty silly of
you to argue against the book without having read it.


You can easily argue against a book without reading it, though your
argument might be more convincing if you can quote specific areas of
dispute. Anyone can argue against a the précis of a book without reading
the book itself. Look at how many argue against the Bible without
reading it.


Well, one can argue against anything, I suppose (No, the earth is
flat!), but it's pretty silly (and futile) to argue against what's in
a book without actually reading it first.

As far as those who argue against what's in the Bible goes, again,
it's usually the ones who have never read it.


I have read it from cover to cover and I'll take great delight in
arguing against it. Having read it and have an eidetic memory I can have
more fun with chapter and verse demolition.


That aside, without reading any books, a decade or two back, after
initially changing to a low carb diet (NOT ATKINS) just cutting empty
carbs (those that offer little other nutritional value) I have slowly
evolved into a wheat avoider. I discovered by accident that when what
few remaining wheat containing items in my diet were eliminated my
general health improved noticeably.

[...]

That's pretty much Dr. Davis' point, in a nutshell.


That is fine, I am not arguing against it, but if he had been claiming
that wheat was vital to good health I would argue against his claim but
have no interest at all in reading his book. I read several books per
day and I don't need to include patently obvious junk in the mix.


  #17  
Old September 28th, 2011, 10:04 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default On the evils of wheat

On 28/09/2011 3:53 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:21:08 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
As far as those who argue against what's in the Bible goes, again,
it's usually the ones who have never read it.


I have read it from cover to cover and I'll take great delight in
arguing against it. Having read it and have an eidetic memory I can have
more fun with chapter and verse demolition.


Reading it and understanding it are two different things.


I am sure that you have been told that many, many times. I have an
excellent understanding of it, I minored in Biblical studies - just for
fun and because it was easy. (And to be better able to annoy GodBotherers.)

You always seem way too full of spittle to ever really understand
anything.


Spittle? What a strange comment. Makes no sense at all.


That aside, without reading any books, a decade or two back, after
initially changing to a low carb diet (NOT ATKINS) just cutting empty
carbs (those that offer little other nutritional value) I have slowly
evolved into a wheat avoider. I discovered by accident that when what
few remaining wheat containing items in my diet were eliminated my
general health improved noticeably.
[...]

That's pretty much Dr. Davis' point, in a nutshell.


That is fine, I am not arguing against it


Then why even stick your head into this thread?

Oh, yeah...I forgot.

You're a troll.


No, I have something to say. You should try that approach sometime.


  #18  
Old September 28th, 2011, 04:17 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default On the evils of wheat

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:04:56 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

On 28/09/2011 3:53 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:21:08 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
As far as those who argue against what's in the Bible goes, again,
it's usually the ones who have never read it.

I have read it from cover to cover and I'll take great delight in
arguing against it. Having read it and have an eidetic memory I can have
more fun with chapter and verse demolition.


Reading it and understanding it are two different things.


I am sure that you have been told that many, many times.


When it comes to the Bible, indeed I have.

I have an
excellent understanding of it, I minored in Biblical studies - just for
fun and because it was easy. (And to be better able to annoy GodBotherers.)


Your understanding of it will be tested again one day, and I have a
hunch that He won't be grading on the curve.

You always seem way too full of spittle to ever really understand
anything.


Spittle? What a strange comment. Makes no sense at all.


That's because there's no there there.

That aside, without reading any books, a decade or two back, after
initially changing to a low carb diet (NOT ATKINS) just cutting empty
carbs (those that offer little other nutritional value) I have slowly
evolved into a wheat avoider. I discovered by accident that when what
few remaining wheat containing items in my diet were eliminated my
general health improved noticeably.
[...]

That's pretty much Dr. Davis' point, in a nutshell.

That is fine, I am not arguing against it


Then why even stick your head into this thread?

Oh, yeah...I forgot.

You're a troll.


No, I have something to say.


No, you don't. You just enjoy stirring the pot.

Thus, you're a troll.

I remember back when trolls were witty and actually added something of
value to a discussion.

--
Dogman
  #19  
Old September 28th, 2011, 04:31 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Sock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default On the evils of wheat

On 29/09/2011 1:17 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:04:56 +1000,
wrote:

On 28/09/2011 3:53 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:21:08 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
As far as those who argue against what's in the Bible goes, again,
it's usually the ones who have never read it.

I have read it from cover to cover and I'll take great delight in
arguing against it. Having read it and have an eidetic memory I can have
more fun with chapter and verse demolition.

Reading it and understanding it are two different things.


I am sure that you have been told that many, many times.


When it comes to the Bible, indeed I have.

I have an
excellent understanding of it, I minored in Biblical studies - just for
fun and because it was easy. (And to be better able to annoy GodBotherers.)


Your understanding of it will be tested again one day, and I have a
hunch that He won't be grading on the curve.

You always seem way too full of spittle to ever really understand
anything.


Spittle? What a strange comment. Makes no sense at all.


That's because there's no there there.

That aside, without reading any books, a decade or two back, after
initially changing to a low carb diet (NOT ATKINS) just cutting empty
carbs (those that offer little other nutritional value) I have slowly
evolved into a wheat avoider. I discovered by accident that when what
few remaining wheat containing items in my diet were eliminated my
general health improved noticeably.
[...]

That's pretty much Dr. Davis' point, in a nutshell.

That is fine, I am not arguing against it

Then why even stick your head into this thread?

Oh, yeah...I forgot.

You're a troll.


No, I have something to say.


No, you don't. You just enjoy stirring the pot.

Thus, you're a troll.


Oh, I get it. A troll is anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Your life must be absolutely riddled with trolls. Have you ever
considered growing up?



  #20  
Old September 28th, 2011, 04:42 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default On the evils of wheat

Dogman wrote:
Susan wrote:

Doug is an Atkins acolyte.


If he has to follow someone, he could do worst than Dr. Atkins.


He is the starting point for all of the modern low carb movement. To
say that any book author since is not an Atkins acolyte is unrealistic.
Without Atkins there is no low carb movement. Saying some low carb book
author is not a low carb acolyte is like saying a sailor is not aware of
the ocean.

Just to check - Are the reviews incorrect when they say Dr Davis's book
"Wheat Belly" focuses on wheat as the primary cause of the modern
obesity epidemic? That's something that has been true since the
invention of modern milling that separates the bran, endosperm and germ.

Billy wrote:

And Gary Taubes mentions in his book (GCBC) that sugar cane workers
consume considerable amounts of sugar cane to no apparent ill effect,
but they also work like dogs (mucho trabajo).


Degree of refinement matters.
 




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 12:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.