Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar

Latest topics
» BAN THE PERSON ABOVE YOU
Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:00 pm by Spookster

» Whitelist Application Troubles
Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:00 pm by monica4

» Whitelist Applications
Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:03 pm by Spookster

» Name changing warning
Sun May 28, 2017 10:10 am by Oo_ProHunterz_oO

» FML error help
Fri May 26, 2017 10:37 pm by bryceio

» Forge not working!
Wed May 03, 2017 11:55 am by bryceio

» Graphics Driver Issues
Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:48 pm by bryceio

» Every time I try to join I get the "Failed to login: Bad login" message.
Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:31 pm by Spookster

» Veteran Requests
Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:09 pm by TheEnderSorcerer


Wheat Research Thread

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:55 pm

WOW!!! YAY!!!  Hannah posted six articles!!!  I swear you'd think it was my birthday today. ^__^

[and because my birthday falls on a Tuesday, family is celebrating it now to avoid not being able to see me then because of work] XD

Woohoo!!  Imma dive into these as soon as I can!  ^.^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:37 pm

1) This is mostly an anecdotal article so take it with a grain of salt. But while it does highlight gluten [wheat] elimination as being what helped their son combat Asperger's to the point it no longer interfered with his life, what's interesting is that the diet itself is described as a "starch-free" diet, which sadly can incorporate a wide array of things, from cutting out all other grains, to cutting out anything that has a high glycemic index (such as potatoes or bananas).  I don't feel we have to go THAT far, although anyone also suffering from sugar intolerances (such as a FODMAPS disease) could accidentally benefit from this shotgun approach.  In any case, it makes it hard to diagnose wheat as the culprit, and whether the family could have replicated these benefits JUST by eliminating wheat, or whether they also benefited from the lower intake of sugar as well [which also imparts its own effects on the brain].  In any event, kudos to the family for doing this together, and thus eliminating temptations... most families prefer to remain addicted to wheat even while their afflicted son or daughter is forced on a diet they're not familiar with, causing feelings of ostracization and resentment.  When the whole family participates, these special diets become more plausible.

+3 for Hannah for the thought-provoking, albeit anecdotal, article!!


2) Some people like Dr. Mercola and others hate him to bits.  I'm more of the latter camp, although I do recognize that he is in the business of selling things.  But kudos to him for at least providing lots of follow-up reading in his articles, and for being very thorough in his detail (and noting that spelt and einkorn aren't as impactful as modern wheat, which is a nice nod to the concept of ancestral foods).  Love the reference to grains being overlooked when sugar is pointed as the enemy and "dietary villain" of ADHD -- while it is true, it's easy to forget that grains act more like sugar than sugar itself when digested in the body; and certainly worse in many respects given they also come with large amounts of plant lectins (excepting some rare exceptions, such as polished white race, which are JUST sugar).  Extra kudos to Dr Mercola for offering many tangible solutions on how to reduce or eliminate ADHD, that go well beyond just eliminating wheat (including eliminating high fructose sources and soft drinks, eliminating sludge oils, and increasing conception of healthy fats, especially omega-3 fatty acids.  Many articles assume that wheat elimination is all there is... and while that is helpful, it is only the start... wellness involves SO MUCH MORE, and certainly a good paradigmn shift!

+5 for Hannah


3) A small article on gluten's relation to Autism spectrum disorders by another doctor I havent heard of before; its similar in tone to Dr. Mercola's article on ADHD, only much smaller and primarily focused on the "gluten-free diet" aspect rather than on the holistic approach.  It admits that studies on this association haven't really been done -- in fact now some have been done, but they're so poorly done (where the control for gluten-free diets are whey diets, I mean COME ON!!) that it's hard to say this position has been changed.  Big kudos to the section on the brain-gut connection as I feel that plays a huge role in the prevalence of these diseases, both as kids grow up, and sadly before they're born while in the mother's womb.  The what to do now section gets to the point and highlights that it is essentially "free" (just cut out all bread), but fails to indicate just how HARD this is to do in our modern society, plus it doesn't really detail what to replace that "gluten" with.  That is the biggest challenge for families who don't know what to do, and who still abide to popular health conceptions, such as the fear of fat, or admiration of other grains.

+2 for Hannah


4) Well this article is essentially trying to make sense of a LOT of contradictory research data... naturally contradictory since real scientists are always at war with more successful scientists funded by big food firms.  It also falls into the same mental traps... belittling of people with allergies and celiac disease, and assuming that "gluten-free" literally means flocking to gluten-free junk foods -- which does happen, but not by people who really know what they're doing.  There is mention of FODMAPs, which is essentially a sugar intolerance, and the assumption being that people who experience relief from wheat elimination are really experiencing a minimizaiton of FODMAPs issue (though don't know why, considering the same "gluten-free" foods are loaded with FODMAP food items, such as apples and garlic).  I think much of their alleged "confusion" has to do with their own desperation to not implicate wheat, as they are literally scraping along the barrel to find any indication that all the people experiencing relief from wheat elimination in a whole host of physical and mental conditions are, in fact, hallucinating.  What is interesting is that if FODMAPS is such a big issue as they assume it is, why isn't THAT being talked about?  You would think they can say that obesity, depression, anxiety, ADHD, etc is all caused by FODMAPS, they would shout across the loudest rooftops to ask for people to stop eating sandwiches and burgers because it will make them terribly sick... oh and most salads too!  But they do at least admit that wheat can cause some depression due to impact on gut health, which is what many of us have been saying all along -- in fact the worst impacts of wheat on the body are in the gut.  They also do admit that while they're iffy on whether gluten is the true villain of our modern times, they will concde that the issue may have to do with processed food more than anything -- and considering most processed food are high in wheat and sugars, that seems like a fair compromise as just eliminating that can mean a huge difference in health even while consuming some wheat (especially ancestral wheat, like einkorn or emmer).  Kudos to them for referencing a lot of articles to follow up on later. ^^

+4 for Hannah


5) well this article just assumes that the anxiety is only for people with celiac disease and allergies, and what they call "undiagnosed celiac disease".  So it falls on the trap of believing only people with these conditions are affected by wheat, but well... it's the closest you can get to their admission. While it does happen a lot with people experiencing CD, this is pretty much during the last stage of wheat intolerance where the diet is basically killing your gut... of course they're going to be depressed if their body's are dying, and the entire world is out to kill them (with really poor gluten-free practices).  I would compare this article to being akin to worrying about poor fire safety practices while the building is half-burnt and on the verge of collapse -- you want to take care of these things BEFORE they become a problem and BEFORE the person develops Celiac Disease or some serious allergy!

+2 for Hannah


6) Not actually an article about gluten and some neurological disease, but one pretty much parodying the drive towards this association, and again using the same straw man arguments... a) only celiac sufferers need to worry, b) people going "gluten-free" are actually making fun of celiac sufferers, c) people going gluten-free ALWAYS go to gluten-free foods, and d) eliminating wheat is a BIG DECISION WITH MANY REPERCUSSIONS TO YOUR HEALTH BECAUSE OF COURSE WHEAT IS ESSENTIAL TO YOUR DIET, ZOMG!!!!!!  Anyway, kudos to them for at least trying to detail more of the science behind Celiac Disease, even though in this context it's unnecessary since they are actually talking about people who do not have Celiac Disease... if anything this achieves the opposite as it would only scare people away from becoming Celiac, and that can only be achieved by eliminating wheat early on -- not really sure if they've ever considered that possibility.  They also say that gluten snesitivity does not cause damage to the intestinal lining... but they forgot to say "yet", and that "yet" is what eventually can lead to Celiac Disease or an allergy, or many allergies to other foods, not to mention other GI conditions.  Also, whenever gliadin and other proteins pass through the intestine, they wreak havoc on other parts of the body, INCLUDING the brain.  And what of its high sugar content?  Because this article exists in a thought vacuum, it doesn't stop to consider that people may eliminate wheat to control blood sugar or combat diabetes.  As for its final warning... they are valid... IF we all flock to gluten-free foods which are just as high in blood sugar impacts and other lectin sources, and CAN make us fat.  If they flock to more responsible eating habits, then that will not only not happen, but overall health will improve dramatically, and their warning becomes mute.

+2 for Hannah

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Spitfire on Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:53 pm

I found an in depth analysis on statements made in Wheat Belly with responses to them based on research. Most of them argue against it.

http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/opendocuments/cfw-57-4-0177.pdf

_________________
avatar
Spitfire

Posts : 132
Join date : 2015-05-09
Age : 23
Location : Chicago, Illinois

RP Character Sheet
Name: Dusty
Personality Trait: Devious
Character Description:

View user profile http://steamcommunity.com/id/captspit/

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:56 pm

Oh wow, that's going to take me a while to read through, but read I shall. I'll post here when im done (might not be today, though, Hannah's article parade knocked me out). XD

Thank you though! ^.^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Haasman29 on Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:54 pm

I found an interesting little source talking about how modern wheat is genetically modified and mutated.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryfood10.htm
avatar
Haasman29

Posts : 244
Join date : 2014-03-08
Age : 18
Location : Lon Lon Ranch

RP Character Sheet
Name: Haas
Personality Trait: Aggressive
Character Description:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:41 am

Excellent work, Avocado!  I will queue this up as well!  Smile

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:16 am

Oh darnit, I was starting to write replies when I inadvertently fell asleep, guess I was more tired than expected. ^^;

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:46 pm

Hello again,

Sorry for taking so long to get through this, but now especially I want to spend my time reading all these beautiful things you've all written to me.  ^^

In any case, so as to not delay things further, I'll just go ahead and pay first and review these later (possibly during the weekend). ^^

+5 to Spit
+5 to Avocado  

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Spitfire on Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:04 pm

Here is an article on the effects of wheat consumption. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705319/

_________________
avatar
Spitfire

Posts : 132
Join date : 2015-05-09
Age : 23
Location : Chicago, Illinois

RP Character Sheet
Name: Dusty
Personality Trait: Devious
Character Description:

View user profile http://steamcommunity.com/id/captspit/

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:21 am

Thank you Spit. ^^

I came home late tonight (for good fun reasons) and am a little tired, so we'll postpone this just a little bit longer.  But this one looks very promising, so again I'll queue up another +5 points for this.  So in total so far...

+10 for Spit
+5 for Avocado

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Spitfire on Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:13 pm

Here is an article on how quickly positive health shows after stopping the consumption of wheat. 
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2013/06/how-quickly-does-wheatlessness-unfold/

_________________
avatar
Spitfire

Posts : 132
Join date : 2015-05-09
Age : 23
Location : Chicago, Illinois

RP Character Sheet
Name: Dusty
Personality Trait: Devious
Character Description:

View user profile http://steamcommunity.com/id/captspit/

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:23 am

Alrighty, finally I get to take care of this backlog.  ^^

Anyway, we're going to look at the first of Spit's articles, the one by Julie Jones.  First I wanted to make sure who's work I was reading -- and in fact she is a food scientists and nutritionist for several decades, and is a fellow in various (or more like a lot of) cereal grain organizations.  For an example of one of her press articles....

http://www.wheatfoods.org/newsroom/2013-02-11/carb-expert-takes-wheat-misinformation-discoverycom

So while she is going to be very knowledge about grains, I would be hard pressed to not find any bias in this.  Of course we're all welcomed to have our biases, but we can't then disguise this as the ultimate word of fact... in fact, sometimes the fact checkers need to be fact checked.

Does this mean Im the best person to do that?  Of course not, I'm an idiot! XD
I definitely can't go throughout the entire article, it would take forever, and that's time I don't have.  Plus even Dr. Davis himself has admitted that the book makes heavy use of anecdotes to keep the book interesting and accessible to the public, and thus is not the heaviest on hard scientific fact, so of course some statements may not be bullet-proof.  Gary Taubes and Paul Jaminet have written far more scientifically-rigorous studies, but I don't see these getting the same treatement by carb experts (probably because they're not as popular).  So for items that are in agreement with Dr. Davis or that point out flaws in some of his interpretations, I'll let these slide.

I will at least point out things that don't quite pass the bias smell test, however...

1> Regarding energy expenditure in the 1950's, that would work with a standard "Calories In, Calories Out" concept of energy expenditure, since it can be said we, on average, produce less work than our ancestors.  Then again, I'm not quite sure how much more energy expenditure is used washing dishes versus training for a marathon.  Besides, as someone who did almost all those things growing up (ie, cooking, washing dishes, hauling laundry to the laundromat), and still inflated like a balloon even WITH exercise on top of that, well... I have to call BS on that interpretation.  Besides, Dr. Davis was very specific about singling out exercise versus just standard manual labor if only because exercise (or "play" energy expenditure) now is billed as the ultimate way to control weight and combat obesity, despite the fact that few people in the past (when everyone was typically slimmer) actually exercised this way, and certainly not this obsessively.  If in fact the key to losing weight is to give up all your modern conveniences and switch back to rubbing your laundry by the river, why aren't they proclaiming this from the highest rooftops, and have us stop doing all these silly and dangerous exercises in favour of some actual PRODUCTIVE energy expenditure.  Razz

But of course, this section here is not sourced, so this is simply her interpretation of Dr. Davis' interpretation -- and to each her own interpretation of the past.  ^^


2> There is technically no "Wheat Belly" diet, Dr. Davis was clear to make the distinction since his original book was meant to be more to instruct the reader rather than to tell him/her how to follow a strict diet regime.  Plus "low carb diets" can mean many things to different people -- it can mean 200g of carbohydrates a day for some people (which is still very high), or it can mean low-fat AND low carbohydrate, the latter making life very uncomfortable for anyone following this.  Dr. Davis is careful to make recommendations that can be followed essentially for life to ensure long-term success, and the consumption of saturated fat is one of them -- and interestingly-enough, fat is almost barely mentioned in this article at all, except for a few brief mentions in the negative.  

And I've said this before and say this again... we, as a society, already NOW eliminate an entire food group (fat, organ meants, egg yolks, etc) as the basis for "sound" nutritional advice, so it reeks of hypocrisy to use this argument in defense of wheat, which is just ONE of several grains and high-carbohydrate foods.  


3> The article she cites as supporting the weight loss theory of diabetes reduction is not free, but the abstract can be seen here...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11892-006-0053-4

Seems like a meta-analysis of old data just from a glance.  Well, in that case, here's a newer study that actually adds a bit more punch to the notion that its the type of diet that counts more than adherence or weight loss, which are more incidental than causative:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2

It's not free either, but at least its abstract is helluva lot more informative!

In any case, her idea would fly if obesity were a disease in and of itself that causes things like diabetes, sleep apena, rashes, etc,... and upon losing weight, all these issues subside.  But if you view obesity as simply a SYMPTOM of the same underlying cause of all these issues (ie, chronic inflammation), then her argument is essentially the tail wagging the dog.  A long time ago I tried a standard semi-starvation diet and yes I did succeed in losing a lot of weight... but I was still chunky, and I was still depressed and had my sleeping issues, and when I couldnt keep the diet for much longer I sling-shotted back to my original weight + interest, and all my old issues were still there.  Anecdotal, yes, but the point is... Weight loss follows the reduction of diabetes BECAUSE they both share the same cause, not because weight loss causes diabetes -- and any successful diet that treats the underlying issue will see the elimination or reduction of MUCH more than just extreme weight.  


4> She states that "those who had the least visceral fat accumulation ate two servings per day of refined grains and three servings per day of whole grains", and with these statements you must learn to ask this question... COMPARED TO WHAT?!

And thankfully that study is free, so we can find out...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20881074

And the answer: compared to white flour.  Why not design the study to compare people who consume whole wheat and white flour... AND no flour at all?


5> She seems to imply that eating 5.1 slices of whole wheat bread or 4 slices of white bread is somehow an EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT needed to match 50g of sugar.  But while we may scoff at the thought of eating four tablespoons of sugar, how many of us eat (or ate) a breakfast sandwich in the morning, a PBJ sandwich at lunch, and a couple of dinner rolls in the evening?  Heaven forbid you ate a foot-long at a Subway, that alone would set you back two days!  ALL DA SUGARZ!! XD


6> "However, slow, steady delivery of glucose into the bloodstream is considered advantageous because it avoids large swings in blood sugar", which is accurate if you assume that our primary fuel source is sugar [glucose] and you have zero consideration for the effects of insulin in the body. If that sounds right to you, then enjoy trying to lose that body weight with all that sugar being continuously released throughout the day. It's no wonder they advise people to exercise all the time! xD


7> How amazing that she mentions that protein can stimulate insulin and cause an increase in blood sugar (despite belittling the degree aspect of it), but she fails to mention what impact fat has on insulin release and blood sugar (essentially none).  With regard to the omelette comparison, Dr. Davis was actually referring to the fat in the omelette rather than the protein... even so, I'd be hard pressed to see if a single omelette can contain enough protein to, hours later, cause some enormous blood sugar spike.  Maybe if it were paired with some toast and marmalade perhaps?


8> She belittles wheat's potential role as an opioid and appetite stimulant because other foods can potentially produce the same peptides.  That is true and Dr. Davis says so himself in his book (that's how we know about the issues with cheese and spinach), but that misses the point.  First we have to factor in the degree of the effect on the brain... the opiates derived from spinach are so incredibly weak that they're essentially inconsequential.  Next, we just have to take this in the full context -- if wheat does all these terrible things in our bodies, the last thing we want it to do is to mess with our brains instead -- in comparison, cheese is a relative light-weight of ill-health.  But at least she recognizes that studies need to be done to determine the effects of the peptides from wheat on the brain... and how to do this without research grants not wanting to fund this, and without being sued, is certainly a challenge. Wink

The last statement about these peptides having the potential to improve learning performance and help control blood pressure....

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/food.200390081/abstract

....might be valid if we can purify the opiates before having them injected directly into us... and if we were rats.


9> Because of her fat phobia, protein and not fat is shown as the sole means of stimulating satiety hormones needed to control over-eating. Strangely-enough, she completely ignores the role of Leptin, and Dr. Davis' assertions that components of wheat (not necessarily the protein) can interfere with Leptin... and it just so happens that Leptin directly stimulates the release of GLP-1, and works in conjunction with CCK to produce satiety.  Without Leptin, the other two hormones are either ineffective, useless or absent altogether.  So while the study shows something inside a controlled environment with isolated proteins...

http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/312664

...one begs to wonder how this would actually play out in real life?  After all, that's the same argument for negating Dr. Davis' assertions on the opiate-like effects of wheat peptides since the study was conducted solely in a clinical environment... what's good for the goose.


10> Kudos to her for at least MENTIONING Dr. Borlaug, but she follows the same trend of glossing over his responsibility in developing the semi-dwarf wheat strains.  She doesn't even address the concerns that Dr. Davis raises regarding the use of chemical mutagenesis and other methods that seem a far cry from "traditional plant breeding techniques" in order to induce genetic mutations that can accidentally yield the "positive outcomes" they were targeting, in their case high yield and ease of harvesting.  I'm pretty sure the colonists of the New World didn't breed their wheat with sodium azide.  This raises a huge red flag for me since I see this happen again and again,and it begins to strike me as an attempt to rewrite history.

It's worse with the assertion on genetic manipulation... Dr. Davis was very specific in saying that wheat is not genetically-modified, and indeed currently there are only a few experimental strains of GMO wheat that aren't yet popular.  To bring this up as a negative against Dr. Davis is just setting up a straw man argument.


11> She also at least makes mention of the semi-dwarf wheat (calling it short-straw naked wheat, haha,.. I guess that's the insider name, lol), and lauds it for its practical build, which i guess for her would take front seat before any health considerations.  She also plays the world hunger card even though the yield of this thing is so vast, that enough wheat alone is produced to feed the world, maybe even twice over or more. They can develop wheat that is 100x more high-yielding than this mutant strain, and there would STILL be world hunger -- that is, has and will always be a distribution problem, not a supply problem. 

Besides, the assertion that growing these grains that heavily deplete the soil is SUSTAINABLE is wishful thinking... and the kind of thinking that makes the world of Interstellar prophetic.  If she really wants a sustainable food that requires fewer inputs and much less land than even crops need, she should promote insect farms.  

Also, she admits that unique proteins CAN be created with mutations of DNA, but fails to mention Dr. Davis' assertions that the "short-straw naked wheat" was created with just that VERY KIND OF GENETIC MUTATION.  So she's not lying at least, just conveniently withholding the truth.


12> She stoops to using the standard straw-man argument that gluten-free products make you fat.  Of course they do, if anything, because Dr. Davis says so himself -- he hates commercial gluten-free junk products for a very good reason, since they're just replacing one very bad carbohydrate for other slightly less-bad ones that can still make you fat.  Hence the urge to not eat these junk foods, which all these analysts choose to ignore.


13> She asserts that ancient cultures had trouble getting adequate calories from a demanding lifestyle... which could be true if you assume they had to have plant matter.  Waiting around for crops to grow is a great way to live on the edge of starvation.  More than likely they were fine with eating wild plants, fruits, nuts, mushrooms, lizards, rodents, insects, and fish that they could find, and depending on the area and the preservation methods, it probably wasn't always an issue to get enough calories.  Also a broad sweeping assumption that everyone "back then" had shorter lifespans -- but just like there's no data on the incidence of diabetes in the Natufians, there is similarly no data on average lifespans for humans 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago and 100,0000 years ago.... these are all just guesstimates.  And again, due to fat phobia, she asserts a "too much of anything can make you fat" argument towards the end -- the dyammic changes when you consume something your body is designed to digest properly.


14> The Alkaline/Acidic thing was only briefly discussed in the book since Dr. Davis himself asserts this is a tenuous thing at best.  Even so, he did not say that a diet must be all alkaline (if anything because this would create a terrible imbalance in the opposite direction); and it's because of that potential for imbalance that he mentions grains, because they are so highly acidic.  When you consider that alkaline fruits and vegetables properly balance out acidic meats and fish (he's always cautious about dairy), then you don't need a whole new food group called "grains" to shift the balance over heavily to the acidic size.  And if you consider something like, say, a hamburger, the entire American staple is heavily geared towards the acidic side.  This should not be seen as the only reason to eschew grains, but it's certainly another nail in their coffin.  Also, he doesn't "ban" dried fruit, he simply cautions against them -- the book is not a diet book, so is there to offer recommendations, not lead you around like a baby.  I feel that the author is projecting a little in some cases.


15> It is true that wheat does not increase the prevalence of small oxidized LDL particles any more than other carbohydrates do... but by shear volume of its prevalence in our standard American diet, it is definitely a huge contributor.  This is why he makes certain to say that wheat elimination is just the start to good health... there is still more to be done to achieve total health, and that is touched on his first book, dedicated in his second book, and talked about frequently in his blog.

Also, obesity doesnt cause small LDL particles... obesity is just a symptom of the same problem causing small LDL particles.  I feel tempted to shoot back that "correlation does not equal causation" thing she had the nerve to use somewhere in this article.


16> Because of fat phobia, she infers that eliminating wheat SEVERELY limits food choics and calories because of course, nothing can ever replace your wheat calories.  This is silly in light of the fact that even if one doesn't want to increase fat consumption, there are still other grains and carbohydrates that can easily replace wheat.  Granted it does limit your commercially-available choices, but almost all diets say to limit processed junk foods anyway, so it's not like the advice is any different.


17> Again, fat phobia makes her assume that wheat-free diets are complicated to construct.  She also sounds like she's saying that fiber doesn't exist anywhere in the world besides wheat... so other grains and psyllum husk are surely just chopped liver.  And is she talking soluble or insoluble fiber?  Which is necessary to maintain proper health?  Why is it important to begin with?  If I can't eliminate wheat because I have to have that fiber, it must be REALLY DAMN IMPORTANT that I would sacrifice decent total health simply to make it easier to poop... and because I'm too lazy to switch to another source of fiber.


18> She assumes the USDA guidelines are the gold standard for good health... and that there is a problem in and of itself given the guidelines are more designed to keep the food stamp program going rather than to improve personal health and well-being.  Also, her defense of cereals being superior to anything else is based on...

A food survey meta-analysis comparing cereal eaters against "breakfast skippers" and "other eaters" (which, given these are food surveys, could just as easily be Pop-Tarts or Snickers bars):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822310002439

A food survey meta-analysis comparing fortified cereal eaters against... other fortified food eaters:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/131/8/2177.short

Her defense of processed foods seems to run contradictory to her earlier assertion that we're all fat lazy slobs who don't cook our own food anymore.  Perhaps if we learned to cook our own food and not rely on processed junk food, we could get the nutrition we need without the need for shady fortification of shady foods.


19> She asserts that natural folate is less bioavailable than fortified folate, and thus you should eat fortified folate (I imagine from wheat) because this article says so...
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=902060&fileId=S0029665104000722

Actually it admits that they're not sure why natural folate can not always be bioavailable,... you would think they were not factoring in some harmful and ubiquitious food item that has a a way of inhibiting absorption of nutrients!


20> And that being said, if she wants to play the bioavailability card, why on earth is she dancing around the fact that wheat has phytates that can impair absorption of nutrients?  She claims it only affects people with gluten sensitivity or celiac disease, but sources no data to back this claim (for me to tear apart, haha).  And she doesn't reassure us that this doesnt happen for us... simply that phytates exist in other vegetables, legumes and nuts that Dr. Davis recommends.  That's not the point, though... per her own earlier assertion, we don't eat enough of those foods anyway, so the degree is just not there -- plus not all phytates are created equal.  The phytates in spinach and oxylates in coconut are very weak, not at all as strong as grain anti-nutrients.  Instead she tangents off into some ramble about Vitamin B12, as if fortified foods were the gold standard for vitamin B12... when in fact, it is animal products that are the superior source for this.  Vegetarians would be better served taking a supplement than eating fortified cereal with only a token amount of vitamin B12, which the phytates will probably steal away from you anyway (you know, in case you're celiac or gluten sensitive, lol).


21> She doesn't appear to have read the portion of his book that deals with intermittent fasting (which is short-term, not unlike fasting before going to the doctor's office for a blood test); and because she has no conception of fat, she doesn't understand his assertion that non-wheat eaters can find intermittent fasting painless. Also she makes a very common mistake of confusing Ketosis (a metabolic state of fat-burning) with Ketoacidosis (a severe diabetic complication involving both high blood sugar AND high blood ketones as the body's last ditch effort to stay alive) which have nothing to do with each other systematically.  If it did, we'd risk dying every time we'd sleep or fast for religious reasons or get stranded on a deserted island.


And that should be enough.
This is still a good article in its own right, but just as many people accuse Dr. Davis of cherry-picking research to construct his own narrative, so too do I see her do the same, perhaps even unwittingly given some of these biases are long-standing, and run so deep to the very foundation of her professional career. And it's not like there isn't anything that can be learned from this article... it certainly got me hitting up the research, much more than I would normally do for your run-of-the-mill newspaper hit piece.  

So I definitely commend the article for a valiant effort at keeping Dr. Davis on his toes, I think it's important to do that too -- just don't expect us to take everything said here at face value, especially in light of the fact that we, like Dr. Davis, have plenty of real-life experience to suggest that things aren't always as described in the published scientific literature.  

I'll get through the other articles tomorrow. ^^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:49 am

Anyway, I'll wrap the rest of this stuff quick... ^^

@Avocado's Article
==================

Natasha Longo certainly seems a lot less credentialed than Julia Jones, and has a knack for quoting Dr. Davis a lot (which the Dr. Jones would probably mark as a big no-no). But she still has a background in nutrition, and she definitely talks a lot more about the actual physical problesm with the modern incarnation of wheat (the "short-straw naked" wheat as described in the previous article).  This is something Jones danced around a lot but never specifically addressed.

Granted, Natasha also on occasion seems to confuse genetically-manipulated with GMO, although since she dos mention chemical mutagenesis later in the article, it's more likely she's just using the term interchangeably.  She also specifically mentions some of the health impacts, including other non-gluten components of wheat such as WGA (wheat germ agglutinin), which is a nasty little chemical.  ><

Her section on alternative to wheat is much appreciated, even if these are only meant to eliminate wheat, and not necessarily to bring down blood sugar. >v<


@Spit's Second Article
======================

Yay! Free study [and more specifically, a meta-analysis of previous studies]! ^^

It is in fact VERY long and technical, and it literally put me through sleep -- plus it's not an experiment on its own but simply a review of the  literature, looking both at clinical trials and epidemiological studies.  Even so, it's an amazing piece of work that consolidates a list of valuable references damning to wheat and other cereal grains, and in a prestigious .gov website no less!  It's not surprising that this was published long after Jones' article, as this certainly helps poke holes in her "it's all in the weight, so keep eating wheat!" conception of all human health problems.  It also lays a lot of attention on WGA and Gliadin, two things particularly worse than gluten that are very easily overlooked by just about everyone that refuses to educate themselves on this matter.  ^^;


@Spit's Third Article
=====================

I of course love Dr. Davis to bits, everyone knows that by now. XD
Still, even I accept that a lot of what he says is anecdotal.  That's not to say that these conditions don't go away at the timeframes indicated, many times they do (I can attest to a few); but everyone is different, has different problems, and has different difficulties in their attempts to eliminate wheat that may make these symptoms manifest far longer than estimated here.  So in that respect, the article is admittedly a little on the soft side because of its broad scope.

Even so, kudos to him for posting something positive that may offer incentives to people to withstand the withdrawal effects. Sometimes it's important to know what to expect in order to help determine later what else could be wrong -- stalled weightloss, for instance, could be a sign of a malfunctioning thyroid, or brittle nails could be the result of Vitamin D deficiency (something else Dr. Davis recommend you get plenty of). And it still can't be denied the article is fairly informative, and the kind of thing that would appeal to people affected by one of the conditions stated.  ^^

I'll give Spit 3 points for this article, bringing the current running score to...

+3 Spit
+10 Avoacado

[I already paid out Spit's earlier +10 points earlier]

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Spitfire on Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:39 pm

Here is a sleep deprived, before bed article on negative effects of wheat consumption.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/04/can-eating-this-common-grain-cause-psychiatric-problems.aspx

_________________
avatar
Spitfire

Posts : 132
Join date : 2015-05-09
Age : 23
Location : Chicago, Illinois

RP Character Sheet
Name: Dusty
Personality Trait: Devious
Character Description:

View user profile http://steamcommunity.com/id/captspit/

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:22 am

Thank you Spit!  ^^
And I'm just as sleep deprived as you are, so I'll make this short. ^^

I've mentioned my opinions about Dr. Mercola before, but I always enjoy his articles since they are accessible to read and sufficiently referenced where you can get at additional articles to look up...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6609726

A huge thank you to him for spending a good deal of time talking about WGA (wheat germ agglutinin) rather than everyone's favorite punching bag gluten... if people talked more about what that nasty little lectin known as WGA can do, they'd probably be asking for "WGA-free" products instead. XD

There is also a section devoted to the gut-brain connection, which has been discussed before but it certainly is worth repeating.  Take very good care of your gut, people!

Anyway, I'll give you 4 points for this article. ^^

And due to the earlier payout, we stand at...

+4 Spit
+5 Avocado

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:41 pm

ZOMG!!! That science is thick!!  D:
But it's an honest-to-goodness clinical study... admittedly on lab rats, but this would be the kind of study that would be very hard to find human volunteers for.  Plus the implications aren't astounding and definitely something that deserves follow up research! ^^

Although the study is focused on spontaneous Type 1 Diabetes, it is primarily about the gut microbiome (intestinal flora), and in particular the impact of gluten on disturbing gut flora.  

And the article is hosted on Dr. Perlmutter's site, who's latest book is just amazing -- I am totally gushing through it!!  ^^

+5 for Hannah for this incredible find!

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:36 am

Wanted to drop by and post this on palsy and its wheat connection... granted it also covers other neurological conditions as well, but palsy is something rarely thought of as possibly having a dietary connection...

http://jeffreydachmd.com/wheat-gluten-part-three-autoimmune-and-neurological-disease-by-jeffrey-dach-md/

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:22 pm

And I paid Avocado today, so all debts have been settled!  Thank you! ^^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Dalton1680 on Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:27 am

found an informational video about gluten by scishow.

Hank gives us some of the history of gluten and describes what it is. Not exactly in-depth research, like something you'd use on a paper, but definitely something you'd wanna show to people that are just now learning what gluten is. Still worth a watch, even if one is a food scientist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6CK_QlagWA

Dalton1680

Posts : 5
Join date : 2015-05-10
Age : 22

RP Character Sheet
Name: Dalton Ray
Personality Trait: Logical
Character Description:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:30 am

Oh I like me a little SciShow from time to time.  Hank touches upon some cliché arguments such as the whole "only celiac matters and that only affects a TINY section of the population", and the "cutting off wheat can cause nutritional problems". But he also covers other aspects that are important to note, such as how we, as a culture, OVERUSE wheat, how we don't process it like we used to (such as through natural fermentation as it waits to be collected in the field) and have also heavily hybridized it.  The hybrid part he only glossed over, sadly, and that's unfortunate given that plays a HUGE part over why modern wheat is bad (and why wheat allergies and sensitivities seem to be on the rise in the past 50 years, coinciding with the emergence of semi-dwarf wheat strains).  But all in all, it was an admirable effort to show balance, so kudos to him. . Smile

The comments were probably just as fun to read, and you get to see just how obscenely passionate people feel against wheat elimination.  It always seems odd to me given that wheat really is just ONE grain out of a ton we have (such as corn, rice, oats, millet, etc). And there are a lot more wheat strains that we could be using (such as spelt), but don't because people are already trained to eat and recognize the modern variant.  They could simply be reflecting arguments that they hear on TV or they genuinely find strange things annoying or they're heavily addicted and invested in wheat, or a combination of all of the above and more. But I would hardly doubt we'd get the same response if we said we were giving up oats, or we were giving up pork or we were giving up cabbage.  

Now granted, some people DO treat wheatlessness as a fad, and these are the types who genuinely stock up on those horrid "gluten-free" products or who regularly "cheat".  But this is mainly a learning problem, not a diet problem, as some people choose to be conscientious about their lifestyle choice but others don't -- and this is something that affects many other things besides dieting.  I think also the term "gluten-free" does a huge disservice since it implies "gluten" is the only thing wrong with wheat -- AND it's, admittedly, a rather stupid name (glooooooooooooo-tin). Ultimately it all boils down to caution with processed foods, and wheat [and pretty much almost all grains] are inherently processed foods because they are completely inedible without some sort of processing involving heat and/or water at the very least (but also a boatload of chemicals and additives to make them actually palatable).  And if you eat something that our bodies are not evolutionarily-experienced enough to handle, there CAN be some problems... and you only increase the probability and intensity of those problems if you increase your exposure to said processed foods (say... EVERY FREAKIN HOUR OF EVERY DAY!). And it needn't be limited to wheat (toxic vegetable oils, fake soy meats and some ultra-pasteurized milk products are examples of problem foods for lots of people), although wheat is definitely a big culprit given how prolific, entrenched and well-defended it is.

Anyway, thank you Dalton, this one made me think. ^^

Now Ive been thinking of closing down this thread due to inactivity, but I'll be sure you're properly credit at least.

+5 for Dalton. ^^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by a4955 on Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:01 pm

I was researching stuff and found this:
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-ways-wheat-can-destroy-your-health/

Also, this is talking a bit about a study showing how people with IBS got much less pain and bloating after changing to a wheat-free diet.
http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-study-todays-wheat-bad
This is the actual study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24521561?dopt=Citation
avatar
a4955

Posts : 638
Join date : 2014-09-27
Age : 16
Location : Canada

RP Character Sheet
Name: a4955
Personality Trait: Cowardly
Character Description:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:07 am

Wow!  Suddenly this thread is getting nice necroposts!  I better leave it be after all! ^^

Thank you a4!  I will read all of this tomorrow and give you my thoughts. ^^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Ciabatta on Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:07 am

Yay! Once again, thank you a4 for helping to keep the thread alive! ^^

Now you picked up some really nice pieces... a bit old, but still VERY useful and relevant!

The first article is essentially an abridged, un-controversial, lighter-hearted version of the points addressed in Wheat Belly, and it gets the point across without scaring the reader or subjecting him/her with a lot of medical jargon.  The reader can come off with seven takeaway points regarding wheat:

=============

1> As is common with all such mainstream pieces, it talks about GLUten. Granted Dr. Davis goes into a ton of details regarding all the horrible proteins and particles that wheat has besides gluten, but it's inevitable that this is the biggest focus... and with good reason given its association with the horrible Celiac Disease.  Of course, we know that it's not all about Celiac Disease, though... Celiac Disease is simply one of many unfortunate end-games for a person suffering from wheat damage, and certainly the one that the medical establishment has the hardest time covering up since it's directly linked with wheat.

Also the notion that if we can tolerate it, it's okay to eat it,... is still in there.  I suppose this is true... up until the person ceases to tolerate it.  Just because the person only "appears" to tolerate it now, doesn't mean it will be true tomorrow, or even a tolerance today, especially if they misinterpret the symptoms for something else (e.g., growing old, not getting enough exercise, having too many pimples, runs in the family, etc).

2> But KUDOS for this article talking about the effects of wheat on blood sugar, most other mainstream articles prefer to ignore this.  This is a BIG issue, and one that pretty much complicates the use of sugar as the main dietary scapegoat, when in fact grains probably affect blood sugar rollercoastering even more than sugar (if for anything, because at least plain table sugar is ACKNOWLEDGED to be bad, even while "healthy whole grains' are recommended to be shoveled into your mouth by the gross).  

3> Also kudos for mentioning phytates, the bio-"un"availability of its proteins, and its disruption of Vitamin D.  This makes up for the over-emphasis on gluten earlier by highlighting a real serious biochemical implication of wheat consumption that most people may not realize exists.  Now granted, wheat is not alone in pumping your gut full of antinutrients; but it's certainly one of the most problematic given how often we eat it throughout the day, AND how difficult the anti-nutrients of wheat are to neutralize.  Even after fermenting, soaking, sprouting, roasting, etc, a lot of anti-nutrients in modern wheat are still present to wreck digestive damage, unlike those in, say, spinach.

4> Bless the article for linking to studies,... although this is a very scant section, the additional reading is definitely appreciated.  Granted it must say that wheat can only be treated as a potential contributing factor and not a cause, and that's fair enough... even I won't go so far as to say wheat is the sole killer of humanity, when in fact there are other problematic foods and substances out there that often masquerade as harmless or even "healthy" things for us that will certainly contribute THEIR part to chip away at our health.  

5> Yep, it's theoretical because no one will actually conduct this study (although in fairness, it would be a VERY hard and ethically-difficult study to make),... but kudos fo rthe article for bringing up the issue of addiction.  Of course wheat isn't the only opiate-releasing food out there, but I don't believe we put spinach in EVERY PROCESSED PRODUCT IN THE WORLD, nor do I recall that kids and babies are given alcoholical beverages in every meal from a very early age.  Wheat is certainly afforded a LOT more opportunities to become our "fix". 

6> Very interesting that this article would bring up cholesterol given it really didn't have to, and it could have used this space to talk about glycation,... but whatever... we'll take what we can get.  In any case, it's nice to actually have a study to reference the impact of wheat on LDL-b particles and triglycerides, although it was probably not statistically significant because the study compared wheat with... another high-glycemic grain.  A better study would have, at least, added a third control group that ate NO grains at all, and then compared the results... while the improvement in oat eaters is there, the improvements might have been sky-high with the no-grainers.

=============

All in all, an enjoyable article. 
But the fun doesn't stop there!  Smile

You provided an article AND study that details how modern wheat could potentially be more problematic than the traditional heirloom wheats that our society actually grew up with (up until the 1950's or so).  Granted wheat has always been a little problematic for us, since modern diseases did begin to crop up around the time grains began to be cultivated... you have incidences of appendicitis and celiac disease described in ancient Greek medical texts, for instance.  But on top of the MUCH smaller yield and availability, as well as the different preparation methods, the ancient varieties of wheat were not as structurally-problematic either.  Spelt, an old hybrid of Emmer wheat and goat grass that is still around today, not only has more nutrients than modern wheat, but it's gluten protein is a lot different, being water-soluble and weaker. This makes for weaker, less sticky bread, but on the flipside it also makes for happier guts too!

However, the study only focuses on IBS, AND only when comparing modern wheat (or specifically mixed in with a semolina type which seems a bit cheaty, heh) with Kamut... which, honestly, has a checkered history.  They should have compared with something older like Einkorn, or Spelt, or, even better, a combination of various ancient wheats.  

That sort of leads me to my biggest gripe with the study... it was comparing apples to crab apples.  Granted it's still important and its results coincided with Dr. Davis' assertions, but in terms of overall wellness they SHOULD have included a lot more controls.  They definitely should have chosen more ancient wheat varieties to see if some improved symptoms even faster than the kamut... they should have also tested a non-wheat grain group to see if a diet full of grains that ARENT wheat can still offer some release.  I would have volunteered rice and millet.

And why stop with grains?  Why not have a control group [or groups] dedicated to non-grain eaters?  Maybe one control on a conventional style diet, another on a high fat, low carb diet, and maybe another on a vegetarian diet... who knows?  Just be creative, and see just HOW far diet can improve symptoms of IBS, and you MIGHT just learn something new!

Here's hoping someone can do such a study in the future.

But for now, great work A4!!
Because of all the wealth of high-quality articles you posted, I will award you 10 points!
Congratulations! ^^

_________________
avatar
Ciabatta
Admin

Posts : 3885
Join date : 2014-01-03
Age : 27
Location : On the road

RP Character Sheet
Name: Ciabatta Sylvia
Personality Trait: Busy
Character Description:

View user profile http://bigsister.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Wheat Research Thread

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum