FORUMS > News & Politics Forum Rules

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

I'm definitely no doctor and definitively no biology student. This intrigued me.

Anyone who actually knows about this stuff want to weigh in?

I find it disturbing that food allergies are so common these days.

I have heard about this sinister protein which makes us crave more carbs and calories. A friend of mine who does tons of research on this stuff alerted me to it a few months ago.

Gliadin is also present in oats, buckwheat, rye, and bulgar.

Here's a little more info:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/447622-gliadin-free-diets/

I'm concerned about his claim that when was cultivated in the '70s. GMO wheat, perhaps, in which case this is yet another nail in their coffin, and more support for organic. However, wheat was one of the first cultivated plants, something like 20 000-15 000 kya. It's been our primary calorie source for a very, very long time.

Leo basically, I'm reading this as a statement of the obvious. GMO wheat bad, regular wheat okay.

"Modern what wheat a 'perfect, chronic poison,' doctor says"

Edit your subject line with Edit Post.

"Despite the time crunch, I did manage to squeeze in Wheat Belly over the weekend (most of it), and read the rest last night.

No, I don't like it.

No, I don't eat wheat as a rule, and I am not a grain industry shill.

But I don't feel I have to put my name out in support of a shoddy, sloppy book just because the overall message "wheat sux" agrees with my thoughts that wheat gluten and other wheat proteins likely are inflammatory in many people and cause problems for more than just those with celiac disease. I think most physicians and researchers with critical thinking skills will find this book useless and full of hyperbole. For those not taken in by the confident tone, it may do more harm than good.

Why don't I like Wheat Belly? In short, it is the carelessness and simplicity of the message. Hyperbole and poorly supported, confident claims. Obesity and chronic illness is a complicated subject. It doesn't come down to wheat. Wheat isn't responsible (entirely) for "moobs" or the other too-cute phrases Dr. Davis churns out ad nauseum throughout the book.

An example? In chapter 4, Dr. Davis spends a bit of time discussing the evidence linking wheat to schizophrenia and addiction. I've discussed this issue at some length and noted the obvious circumstantiality of the evidence and the need for more research. (see Wheat and Schizophrenia and Wheat and Serious Mental Illness). And while Dr. Dohan (who was the major researcher who championed the wheat causes schizophrenia meme) felt he had evidence that schizophrenia has increased incidence in wheat-eating populations, most modern schizophrenia researchers make note that schizophrenia is pretty consistent in incidence across many populations - around 1%-1.3% incidence, in the developing world and in the Western world, in rice eating Chinese areas and the wheat-eating American Midwest.

Dr. Davis says: "while it seems unlikely that wheat exposure caused schizophrenia in the first place, the observations of Dr. Dohan and others suggest that wheat is associated with measurable worsening of symptoms." I don't get that quote at all. Is the incidence of schizophrenia higher in non-wheat eating countries or not? Do exorphins cause psychotic symptoms or not? Schizophrenia, after all, is defined by the symptoms. Something that "worsens" schizophrenia will cause schizophrenia, a symptomatically defined illness, as I've discussed earlier in my posts on cannabis.

But where I find the book to be critically annoying is in the discussion of addiction and opiates. Wheat, as we know, has break-down components that are exorphins, which activate the opiate receptors in the brain and nervous system (the same receptors that are activated by our natural endorphins, opium, morphine, heroin, percocet, and other opiate painkillers). The opiate pathway is part of the reward pathway in the brain, and is actually activated by anything "rewarding" - such as sex, exercise, drugs, gambling, and rock and roll.

Where I agree with Dr. Davis is that I have seen clinical evidence that some people seem to be "addicted" to wheat. Particularly night bread binge-eaters. They talk about bread much like one of my opiate addict patients would talk about oxycontin. They can't stop eating it even after they are full, and even when they desperately want to lose weight. They will leave their cozy house and pick up crackers, pretzels, fast food with fluffy bread, or a fresh loaf to eat at night. Critically, in certain cases (where more evidence-based methods have been tried), I've managed to stop these cravings and binge behaviors with naltrexone, which blocks the opiate receptors and short-circuits reward. The problem is, ALL reward is mediated through opiate and dopamine, so using naltrexone doesn't tell you that you've blocked specific wheat exorphins - maybe the person has a real jones for fresh steaming lovely bread for simple reward sake - like some people love chocolate, Pringles, or cocaine.

It's a good message, though, and something that should be researched. But then Dr. Davis comes up with this sentence (and also states he has seen the withdrawal and "brain fog" from wheat in "thousands of people"then later "I've personally witnessed hundreds of people…"), which is incredibly jarring and ruins the credibility of the message: "Let's pretend you're an inner-city heroin addict. You get knifed during a drug deal gone sour and get carted to the nearest trauma emergency room. Because you're high on heroin, you kick and scream at the ER staff trying to help you. So these nice people strap you down and inject you with a drug called naloxone, and you are instantly not high."

Naloxone (and it's orally administered cousin, naltrexone), is an opiate blocker, or "opiate antagonist." It will immediately knock opiates off the opiate receptor and put someone high on opiates into instant withdrawal. This is not only extremely unpleasant, it tends to make people very agitated, unhappy, and even violent. If you have to do it to save someone's life, you do it. If someone is overdosing on opiates and loses the chemical signal to breathe, it will be lifesaving. If someone is alert and active and still high on heroin, injecting someone with naloxone would be a galactically stupid thing to do, particularly if you were just injured in a knife fight and needed some painkilling. Injecting someone with naloxone will mean that the strong painkillers will not work in someone who will have a high tolerance to hospital painkillers.

Any emergency room physician, nurse, or doctor with a shred of ER experiecne will read that sentence in "Wheat Belly" and go, "huh? What is this guy talking about, and is he galactically stupid?"

Honestly, I think it is a throwaway line that was carelessly written and carelessly published. And other "paleo" books like "The Vegetarian Myth" are full of lines like that. But you know what, I have a much higher standard for a cardiologist than I do for a non-scientist like Lierre Keith. I want real science, real risks, real data. Not hyperbole and nonsense.

So no, I don't recommend Wheat Belly. And I don't recommend eating wheat either."

ART_DECO said"Modern what wheat a 'perfect, chronic poison,' doctor says"

Edit your subject line with Edit Post.

Thanks

PGroove said

ART_DECO said"Modern what wheat a 'perfect, chronic poison,' doctor says"

Edit your subject line with Edit Post.

Thanks

You're very welcome. I dislike playing grammar & spelling Nazi, but that typo confused me when I read it, and I assume others, as well.

Thank you for the quote, Calibro.

Quick summary: if wheat is bad for you, don't fucking eat it. It is not, however, the cause of modern man's woes, nor is it poisonous to most humans.

hyperbole to sell books, plain & simple.

[quote][cite]Alpha13 said[/cite


]I'm in phase two Paleo which is no wheat and no dairy. It's ridiculous how ripped you can get without a lot of exercise and middle age stiffness is noticeably reduced. It's interesting to note how many people remark emphatically how they would never , never give up their bread . It's does sound like they are addicted.

My daughter says her running has noticeably improved and brain fog -mild depression disappeared and she says she is free of fat chick syndrome. She is not on Paleo diet.

The author of The Paleo Solution was sick and his mother was dying in the hospital before they realized they were both allergic to wheat. Stuff like this didn't happen when I was a kid.

Alpha13 saidThe author of The Paleo Solution was sick and his mother was dying in the hospital before they realized they were both allergic to wheat. Stuff like this didn't happen when I was a kid.

While your perspective adds to the discussion, nobody in this thread has suggested that there is no such thing as a wheat allergy, nor that some people get fat off of it. Removing wheat from your diet is one form of calorie restriction, just as removing sugar and meat are. I predict someone will chime in that their reduction in dairy products helped them to slim to their current Olympic god proportions...and it's totally conceivable that it did. All while maintaining their current bread consumption.

Stuff like this DID happen when you were a child. You just didn't have a charismatic foodie book telling you about it. Remember, just because something is news to you doesn't mean it's new.

PGroove saidhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

I'm definitely no doctor and definitively no biology student. This intrigued me.

Anyone who actually knows about this stuff want to weigh in?

Sounds a little far fetched to me, especially since gliadin has been present (along with gluten) in wheat for thousands of years. The problem isn't the wheat itself, it's what we make with it (like refined vs. whole grain or complex) and how much of it we eat (calories), all exacerbated by how easy it is to obtain (compared to just 100 years ago) and our sedentary lifestyles.

He doesn't provide enough scientific evidence to bolster his conclusions that gliadin is some kind of poison. In fact, gliadin has been show to be useful in protecting certain sensitive enzymes from breaking down in stomach acid. I'd like to see exactly what negative impact he feels it has on the body.

Nick30 said

xrichx saidI find it disturbing that food allergies are so common these days.

I agree with you bro...

Are food allergies more common, or more commonly known/understood?

[quote][cite]mickeytopogigio said[/cite]

Alpha13 saidThe author of The Paleo Solution was sick and his mother was dying in the hospital before they realized they were both allergic to wheat. Stuff like this didn't happen when I was a kid.

While your perspective adds to the discussion, nobody in this thread has suggested that there is no such thing as a wheat allergy, nor that some people get fat off of it. Removing wheat from your diet is one form of calorie restriction, just as removing sugar and meat are. I predict someone will chime in that their reduction in dairy products helped them to slim to their current Olympic god proportions...and it's totally conceivable that it did. All while maintaining their current bread consumption.

Stuff like this DID happen when you were a child. You just didn't have a charismatic foodie book telling you about it. Remember, just because something is news to you doesn't mean it's new.[/quot


I had Adele Davis who was hugely criticized at the time for suggesting that vitamin deficiencies could cause disease. I remember my mother's s doctor telling her that high blood pressure could not be cured only treated with drugs.

I have a client who's son was finally institutionlized because of behavior problems.....ADD etc. After trying eveything including drugs she finally found a" ranch" where kids can live in the wild on wild food, spring water ,no electricity etc . He was cured in around 9 months . We have probably come to the perfect storm scenario. Dozens of factors that didnt exist in the day have come together to wreck havoc on today's kids.

Alpha13 said[quote][cite]mickeytopogigio said[/cite]I had Adele Davis who was hugely criticized at the time for suggesting that vitamin deficiencies could cause disease. I remember my mother's s doctor telling her that high blood pressure could not be cured only treated with drugs.

I have a client who's son was finally institutionlized because of behavior problems.....ADD etc. After trying eveything including drugs she finally found a" ranch" where kids can live in the wild on wild food, spring water ,no electricity etc . He was cured in around 9 months . We have probably come to the perfect storm scenario. Dozens of factors that didnt exist in the day have come together to wreck havoc on today's kids.

Adelle Davis is still hugely criticized to this day, but not for those suggestions. What shamed her was the criticism of her unsubstantiated--and largely fraudulent--claims about nutrition. That and the lawsuits.

Oh, and that thing you're doing there, called "anecdotes," is not the singular form of "data," you know, the kind used in science.

sfbayguy said

Nick30 said

xrichx saidI find it disturbing that food allergies are so common these days.

I agree with you bro...

Are food allergies more common, or more commonly known/understood?

food allergies are rare.

Food intolerance or sensitivities are a wholly different thing. The wheat issue up for debate here could not be classified as a allergy.

calibro said"Despite the time crunch, I did manage to squeeze in Wheat Belly over the weekend (most of it), and read the rest last night.

No, I don't like it.

No, I don't eat wheat as a rule, and I am not a grain industry shill.

But I don't feel I have to put my name out in support of a shoddy, sloppy book just because the overall message "wheat sux" agrees with my thoughts that wheat gluten and other wheat proteins likely are inflammatory in many people and cause problems for more than just those with celiac disease. I think most physicians and researchers with critical thinking skills will find this book useless and full of hyperbole. For those not taken in by the confident tone, it may do more harm than good.

Why don't I like Wheat Belly? In short, it is the carelessness and simplicity of the message. Hyperbole and poorly supported, confident claims. Obesity and chronic illness is a complicated subject. It doesn't come down to wheat. Wheat isn't responsible (entirely) for "moobs" or the other too-cute phrases Dr. Davis churns out ad nauseum throughout the book.

An example? In chapter 4, Dr. Davis spends a bit of time discussing the evidence linking wheat to schizophrenia and addiction. I've discussed this issue at some length and noted the obvious circumstantiality of the evidence and the need for more research. (see Wheat and Schizophrenia and Wheat and Serious Mental Illness). And while Dr. Dohan (who was the major researcher who championed the wheat causes schizophrenia meme) felt he had evidence that schizophrenia has increased incidence in wheat-eating populations, most modern schizophrenia researchers make note that schizophrenia is pretty consistent in incidence across many populations - around 1%-1.3% incidence, in the developing world and in the Western world, in rice eating Chinese areas and the wheat-eating American Midwest.

Dr. Davis says: "while it seems unlikely that wheat exposure caused schizophrenia in the first place, the observations of Dr. Dohan and others suggest that wheat is associated with measurable worsening of symptoms." I don't get that quote at all. Is the incidence of schizophrenia higher in non-wheat eating countries or not? Do exorphins cause psychotic symptoms or not? Schizophrenia, after all, is defined by the symptoms. Something that "worsens" schizophrenia will cause schizophrenia, a symptomatically defined illness, as I've discussed earlier in my posts on cannabis.

But where I find the book to be critically annoying is in the discussion of addiction and opiates. Wheat, as we know, has break-down components that are exorphins, which activate the opiate receptors in the brain and nervous system (the same receptors that are activated by our natural endorphins, opium, morphine, heroin, percocet, and other opiate painkillers). The opiate pathway is part of the reward pathway in the brain, and is actually activated by anything "rewarding" - such as sex, exercise, drugs, gambling, and rock and roll.

Where I agree with Dr. Davis is that I have seen clinical evidence that some people seem to be "addicted" to wheat. Particularly night bread binge-eaters. They talk about bread much like one of my opiate addict patients would talk about oxycontin. They can't stop eating it even after they are full, and even when they desperately want to lose weight. They will leave their cozy house and pick up crackers, pretzels, fast food with fluffy bread, or a fresh loaf to eat at night. Critically, in certain cases (where more evidence-based methods have been tried), I've managed to stop these cravings and binge behaviors with naltrexone, which blocks the opiate receptors and short-circuits reward. The problem is, ALL reward is mediated through opiate and dopamine, so using naltrexone doesn't tell you that you've blocked specific wheat exorphins - maybe the person has a real jones for fresh steaming lovely bread for simple reward sake - like some people love chocolate, Pringles, or cocaine.

It's a good message, though, and something that should be researched. But then Dr. Davis comes up with this sentence (and also states he has seen the withdrawal and "brain fog" from wheat in "thousands of people"then later "I've personally witnessed hundreds of people…"), which is incredibly jarring and ruins the credibility of the message: "Let's pretend you're an inner-city heroin addict. You get knifed during a drug deal gone sour and get carted to the nearest trauma emergency room. Because you're high on heroin, you kick and scream at the ER staff trying to help you. So these nice people strap you down and inject you with a drug called naloxone, and you are instantly not high."

Naloxone (and it's orally administered cousin, naltrexone), is an opiate blocker, or "opiate antagonist." It will immediately knock opiates off the opiate receptor and put someone high on opiates into instant withdrawal. This is not only extremely unpleasant, it tends to make people very agitated, unhappy, and even violent. If you have to do it to save someone's life, you do it. If someone is overdosing on opiates and loses the chemical signal to breathe, it will be lifesaving. If someone is alert and active and still high on heroin, injecting someone with naloxone would be a galactically stupid thing to do, particularly if you were just injured in a knife fight and needed some painkilling. Injecting someone with naloxone will mean that the strong painkillers will not work in someone who will have a high tolerance to hospital painkillers.

Any emergency room physician, nurse, or doctor with a shred of ER experiecne will read that sentence in "Wheat Belly" and go, "huh? What is this guy talking about, and is he galactically stupid?"

Honestly, I think it is a throwaway line that was carelessly written and carelessly published. And other "paleo" books like "The Vegetarian Myth" are full of lines like that. But you know what, I have a much higher standard for a cardiologist than I do for a non-scientist like Lierre Keith. I want real science, real risks, real data. Not hyperbole and nonsense.

So no, I don't recommend Wheat Belly. And I don't recommend eating wheat either."

I do agree that the book is overplayed.

I did give up wheat (and most cereal grains) earlier this year none the less. I'm not dogmatically strict, though. When my colleague's 70 year old Greek mother makes baklava from scratch, by hand, I eat a piece. I did have some fried chicken at the San Francisco RJ Meetup. Wheat is now more the exception, rather than the rule for me.

sfbayguy said

Nick30 said

xrichx saidI find it disturbing that food allergies are so common these days.

I agree with you bro...

Are food allergies more common, or more commonly known/understood?

This phenomena is similar to cancer being more common in more developed countries: people are getting sick with cancer or food allergies before they get sick from other viruses more prominent due to lack of proper medical attention.

"Wheat contains considerable amounts of gluten and gliandins among its proteins. Although many other grains contain them as well, the immune system's cross reactivity with wheat gliandins is higher than in other grains. Gluten and gliandin sensitivity are major secondary influences in digestive health.

Fully one half of all people complaining of digestive problems have demonstrable antibodies to gliandin in their serum. The majority--as many as 9 to 1--of gluten intolerant subjects...do not manifest any complaints, although they are shown to lack protective intestinal mucosa.

The lectin in wheat, called wheat germ agglutinin, or WGA,is a dietary problem for many people. WGA resists digestion. It also exerts metabolic and hormonal effects. Wheat germ lectin mims the effect of insulin on the insulin receptor. Consequently, it is one of the most commonly employed molecules used to study the dynamics of insulin metabolism. Though an accepted fact in molecular biology, [significance is missed in the outside world]. For example, there is a study that showed that about 20% of the patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) had antibodies to wheat germ lectin in their blood.

Your susceptibility to the negative effects of WGA is dependent on your blood type. There is some evidence that the Type A antigen in the gut binds to wheat germ agglutinin in a somewhat modest manner, giving Type A and Type AB secretors an ability to dampen the effects of wheat germ lectin. They do this by binding the lectin to their free blood type antigen in digestive juice before it gets a chance to do any damage. (This would not be the case for non-secretors [where blood type characteristics are present in other bodily fluids].)"

- Peter J. D'Adamo

I have to admit that I, personally, feel better when I avoid wheat. I have not been medically diagnosed with celiac disease but I do notice odd symptoms develop when I eat wholewheat pasta.

Unfortunately, a few servings of wholewheat pasta can provide me with roughly thirty or more grams of plant-based protein daily (which helps since I'm vegetarian and I need all the plant protein sources I can get), provides a lot of fiber and it really makes my musculature plump out to the point where I appear pumped up all the time.

But from personal experience the eventual brain fog that compounds itself over time, the discomfort during elimination (defecation), the cold sore outbreaks (happens every time when I eat wholewheat yet never returns when wheat free) and the overall achy joints I tend to experience have all lead me to significantly reduce my wholewheat intake.

StephenOABC said"Wheat contains considerable amounts of gluten and gliandins among its proteins. Although many other grains contain them as well, the immune system's cross reactivity with wheat gliandins is higher than in other grains. Gluten and gliandin sensitivity are major secondary influences in digestive health.

Fully one half of all people complaining of digestive problems have demonstrable antibodies to gliandin in their serum. The majority--as many as 9 to 1--of gluten intolerant subjects...do not manifest any complaints, although they are shown to lack protective intestinal mucosa.

The lectin in wheat, called wheat germ agglutinin, or WGA,is a dietary problem for many people. WGA resists digestion. It also exerts metabolic and hormonal effects. Wheat germ lectin mims the effect of insulin on the insulin receptor. Consequently, it is one of the most commonly employed molecules used to study the dynamics of insulin metabolism. Though an accepted fact in molecular biology, [significance is missed in the outside world]. For example, there is a study that showed that about 20% of the patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) had antibodies to wheat germ lectin in their blood.

Your susceptibility to the negative effects of WGA is dependent on your blood type. There is some evidence that the Type A antigen in the gut binds to wheat germ agglutinin in a somewhat modest manner, giving Type A and Type AB secretors an ability to dampen the effects of wheat germ lectin. They do this by binding the lectin to their free blood type antigen in digestive juice before it gets a chance to do any damage. (This would not be the case for non-secretors [where blood type characteristics are present in other bodily fluids].)"

- Peter J. D'Adamo

He discredits himself with the blood-type hypothesis. I would say that i concur with MuchMorethanMuscle, I definitely feel better not eating wheat.

MuchMoreThanMuscle saidI have to admit that I, personally, feel better when I avoid wheat. I have not been medically diagnosed with celiac disease but I do notice odd symptoms develop when I eat wholewheat pasta.

Unfortunately, a few servings of wholewheat pasta can provide me with roughly thirty or more grams of plant-based protein daily (which helps since I'm vegetarian and I need all the plant protein sources I can get), provides a lot of fiber and it really makes my musculature plump out to the point where I appear pumped up all the time.

But from personal experience the eventual brain fog that compounds itself over time, the discomfort during elimination (defecation), the cold sore outbreaks (happens every time when I eat wholewheat yet never returns when wheat free) and the overall achy joints I tend to experience have all lead me to significantly reduce my wholewheat intake.

I have noticed some of this, too. I just recently started the Paleo Diet and every once and a while when I am in a rush I end up grabbing a slice of toast with peanut butter. I notice I end up feeling a bit bloated, just general discomfort in a few hours.