Wheat Research Thread

[Ciabatta]

Calling all helpful people!

Even though Dear Cia is closed, I have in no way ended my quest to learn more about nutrition and health. And as many of you know, one of my biggest grievances in the food world is wheat, and specifically modern wheat.  But there is a big difference between my own personal explanation of why modern wheat is dangerous, and mainstream or professional literature explaining the same thing.  The only problem is that there is SO MUCH OUT THERE, that it's often rather hard to narrow down what I need to make my case.

And this is where I will need help.  ^^

I'm going to enlist the help of any players and staff that want to help me, or earn Cheese (or Points, in the case of staff).  Basically, I want people to find me as many news articles, magazine articles, blog articles, research articles, observational studies, clinical studies, podcasts, seminars, and Youtube videos as you can find having to do with wheat.  While I'm specifically looking for negative aspect articles, I'll even take positive articles glorifying wheat as these are always good to analyze and compare.

I'll be using these to compile a neat little Reference that I can use in the future -- if you'd like to help me further, please write a little blurb briefly explaining what the article is about so I can easily categorize it.  It's not necessarym, but it would be a huge time-saver.

As far as pricing, I'll go through each article posted over time and evaluate on a scale of 1 to 5 Points for both Players and Staff (each point equivalent to 2 in-game Cheese blocks) depending on how valuable it is for my purposes.  So for instance, opinion pieces may not be worth more than one Point, but awesome video lectures or important studies may be worth up to 5 Points.  

There won't be any limit on how many you post, but since I will be checking them one-by-one, you may not be credited right away for it.  Please be patient while I turn your contributions into something awesome. ^^

Thank you!

REFERENCE SHEET COLLECTION
Anti-Wheat
Acne
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maura-henninger-nd/gluten-and-acne_b_2601648.html

ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorders:
http://www.wheat-free.org/wheat-gluten-allergy-autism-adhd.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/02/gluten-contribute-to-adhd.aspx
http://www.amenclinics.com/blog/gluten-sensitivity-linked-to-autism-the-brain-gut-connection/

Aspergers:
https://www.goodnessdirect.co.uk/blog/gluten-free-diet-can-help-with-aspergers-syndrome/

Bipolar Disorder:
http://kellybroganmd.com/article/two-foods-may-sabotage-brain/

Celiac Disease:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2015/08/04/an-inside-look-at-celiac-disease-in-children

Depression & Anxiety
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201410/is-gluten-causing-your-depression
https://www.anxiety.org/gluten-free-diet-improves-depression-and-anxiety-symptoms

Epilepsy
http://www.drperlmutter.com/epilepsy-gluten-sensitivity/

Gut Microbiome Disruption
http://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Low-Incidence-of-Spontaneous-Type-1-Diabetes-in-Non-Obese-Diabetic-Mice-Raised-on-Gluten-Free-Diets-Is-Associated-with-Changes-in-the-Intestinal-Microbiome.pdf

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24521561?dopt=Citation
http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-study-todays-wheat-bad

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

All Issues:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryfood10.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705319/
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-ways-wheat-can-destroy-your-health/

Recovery:
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2013/06/how-quickly-does-wheatlessness-unfold/

Testimonials:
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/08/5768/


Pro-Wheat
Thoughtful Rebuttals:
http://www.thebestgrains.com/wheat-is-not-unhealthy-a-rebuttal-to-recent-claims
http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/opendocuments/cfw-57-4-0177.pdf

Hit Pieces:
http://cropprotectionnews.com/stories/510634019-report-says-anti-wheat-fad-diets-threaten-consumer-health
http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/benefits-and-downsides-gluten-free-eating
http://www.foodandnutrition.org/Stone-Soup/July-2015/Wheat-Has-Not-Changed/


Informational
"Gluten-Free" Junk Food
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3114740/Gluten-free-foods-recalled-having-gluten-Five-supermarket-chains-strip-shelves-products-watchdog-warns-breads-contain-allergen.html


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


Humor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZIAlKFRY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5KpeRt-LmY
https://youtu.be/Oht9AEq1798

[Ciabatta]

Here's a quick example...

http://cropprotectionnews.com/stories/510634019-report-says-anti-wheat-fad-diets-threaten-consumer-health

This is a pro-wheat article discussing some study saying how bad wheat-free diets are because... they compose a huge portion of our world's calories.  I suppose we should all consume or keep consuming alcohol because... they compose a huge portion of our world's drinks.

Other points of contention worth noting:

- The article posts no links to the study it's referencing, so we have no way to see how the study is conducted.

- The study was funded by British cereal-maker Weetabix, so there is a clear conflict of interest as far as what they would like the study to prove.

- There is no explanation of the "pseudo-science" claims, as far as what they prove and why they're wrong.

- They claim that "whole grain wheat" is good for health, but they don't explain how.  Plus it's interesting that they mention whole wheat as being a good promoter of health, since this is generally only possible when comparing it to white flour.

[Ciabatta]

A fairly recent article on Celiac Disease, or an autoimmune condition where your body essentially attacks your own intestinal tract...

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2015/08/04/an-inside-look-at-celiac-disease-in-children

The article continues to tow the line that Celiac Disease sufferers are the only people that SHOULD follow a wheat-free (or as they call it, "gluten-free") diet, and that this is only a trivial number of people that do so... but it doesn't take much of a leap of logic from the conditions they describe to figure out that Celiac Disease is the last stage in a veritable assault on the body by a long-term irritant.  There is a genetic component, but it mainly determines how robust your body is to get to this debilitating stage... some won't experience it in their lives, others later in life, some during the prime of their lives, and a very unfortunate few develop it as children.  

Either way, given how dangerous this condition is, I don't see the need to poo poo others from consuming the same "gluten-free" lifestyle if it means making life easier for those who suffer from Celiac Disease as there ends up being a newfound demand for these products and proper restaurant procedures, as well as a respect for what they have to live through in a wheat-obsessed world.

[Spitfire]

http://www.thebestgrains.com/wheat-is-not-unhealthy-a-rebuttal-to-recent-claims

This article I found here is a response to anti-wheat consumption. The article argues against wheat belly and the paleo diet. I was interested in hearing what you thought about it. The article seems credible at a glance.

[HanChi]

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/08/5768/

Here's an article I found... This shows someone who not only lost weight but also gained health... It's really interesting, I thought you should read this

[Ciabatta]

http://www.thebestgrains.com/wheat-is-not-unhealthy-a-rebuttal-to-recent-claims

This article I found here is a response to anti-wheat consumption. The article argues against wheat belly and the paleo diet. I was interested in hearing what you thought about it. The article seems credible at a glance.

Hi Spit!

Wow, that's a really nice article!  ^^
Granted it's hell-bent on calling me crazy, and it's of course written by a clearly-interested organization, but biased articles are fine if they at least try to present their case in a plausible manner, and this one in particular is long, juicy on detail, sufficient (if a bit sparring) on references, and at least manages to address several of the points made by Dr. Davis' book (things that your typical hit piece choose to ignore, making them sound like they've never read it).  

This will offer me a chance to reply in depth, although bear in mind I'm simply an "uniformed" indivdual and not part of some majestic grain commission.  It's up to you to compare this to many of the other literature that we will post later.  ^^

- Off the bat it starts with a scathing critique of people's low for easy, uncomplicated answers, clearly a slap in the face of those who do their research, or TRY to do their research based on mainstream or alternative health concepts.  But even if this were universally true, it is a bit hypocritical given that some complicated issues HAVE been solved by simple answers in the past.  Washing your hands to reduce death rates in hospitals, carrying limes to reduce death rates in voyages, and, yes, even their own advice to CUT OUT HEARTCLOGGINGSATURATEDFAT is allegedly a simple answer to a complicated epidemic of lifestyle illnesses.


- Also hypocritical is an admonishment of Dr. Davis' for "speaking loudly", making "sweeping claims" and "cherry-picking dat", ignoring the fact that the current mainstream nutritional advice was founded on that very same fiery brand of popularism and selective science, despite criticism from the serious scientific community of that era.  I don't know enough to say whether these are true, and I certainly do recognize that he does have books to sell so some of unbalance is to be expected.  But this is more of a practical decision... he was a practicising cardiologist at the time he wrote his book, and with little time and resources to fund any kind of studies that would never get published in scientific papers anyway.  His main goal was to put into paper all his clinical observations he's come across over the years to save more lives than he could in his private practice.  This may not be scientific, but the McGovern Commission findings were also rushed to the US public using that same mantle of saving lives, and at least Wheat Belly was just an optional book to buy, not an immutable government mandate.

Besides, Gary Taubes' book are wonderfully balanced, excellently-researched and devoid of major sweeping claims, and yet he is equally reviled... and worse, much easier to ignore.  If you're goal is to be heard by the population as a whole, you have to accept some degree of "unscientificness".  And considering I feel Dr. Davis saved my life, I'm thankful that he did not wait to make his book sensitive to the needs of the wheat industry.


- The article commits the common mistake of assuming that if wheat were eliminated from your daily calories, you will starve and die because apparently you're too stupid to replace those calories with something else.  That may be true if you ARE stupid enough to leave the gap in your diet unfulfilled, but even Dr. Davis recommends filling that void with other better foods... not only more vegetables, nuts and some tubers, but also saturated and monounsaturated FAT which, given the fact that they are light in your standard American diet, can very easily supplant the missing calories.  The article is very careful not to mention fat anywhere, and given their purpose I can see why.


- The article seems to think that Wheat Belly pegs wheat consumption as the direct and sole cause of rising obesity, diabetes and other health problems.  This is a fair claim given that the book does describe modern wheat as a gateway to bad nutritional health, which is why any effective diet starts with its reduction or elimination.  But the book never ignores the health implications of OTHER junk items that are present in our standard American diet, and in fact his second book, Wheat Belly: Total Health, goes into more detail on addressing the impact of other grains, sugar, vegetable oils, soy, AGE-producing cooking methods, and so forth.  


- The author probably never read Gary Taubes' work or purposefully ignores it, but he clearly adheres to the calories in, calories out theory of weight gain, which would give wheat a clean bill of health if it were true since it's calorie intake is relatively light compared to its accompaniments.  He even goes so far as to quote SuperSize Me, which automatically deducts 1000 points from this article.  His Moroccan comparison seems like a huge cherry-pick of its own, and doesnt seem interested in looking for other confounding variables -- like, say, there being more junk food in the US versus Morocco... and if the opiate effect of modern wheat is true, there is a LOT more carbage for Americans to get fat off of, versus Moroccans. Plus the Moroccan diet is possibly greater in nutrient dense foods, fermented foods, and other nutritional choices that provide healthier gut microbiomes.  There is also a lot of cherry-picking of lethargy and overconsumption being THE problem, when in fact i have seen studies proving the contrary... and then there's France to confound him also. XD


- It's ironic that the article makes only a casual mention of fructose, and also incorrectly states that it can be transformed into glucose.  Fructose cannot be used in our bodies, at least not more than a few grams of it at any time, and a lot of it is inefficiently excreted from our bodies as a kind of waste product.  While doing so, it could be said that fructose gunks up our system, and can result in a huge health problem.  Wheat has some fructose of its own, but if it is truly an appetite stimulant, then its contribution is to make you crave foods which DO have lots of fructose in them.


- Wheat may have many more nutrients and fiber than table sugar, but that's not a hard comparison.  Wheat should be compared with other foods that we SHOULD be eating, of which it would easily get blown out of the water (except perhaps for insoluble fiber, since proper vegetables and fruits would generally have SOLUBLE fiber which is healthier).


- Amylopectin-A is briefly admitted to being a problem and an actual cause for conern, albeit conveniently ignoring its highly-insulogenic (and thus, fat-storing) property.  The EASY solution?  Eat a balanced diet in sensible amounts.  Even though the author lambasts Americans for being incapable of doing this.  So... would it not make sense for a food-obsessed culture to reduce or avoid things that could harm them?  I mean they do the same with saturated fat. XD


- Theres a lot of dancing around the answer to whether modern wheat is an opiate, and in the end I don't get the impression that he actually answered the question.  He makes the claim that other foods have similar opiods, but so does Dr. Davis in his book (especially with regards to chocolate and cheese), and so the statement is phrased in the context of degree of influence on the brain.  


- I dont actually recall the book saying that gliadins are new, but it does state that there are other new proteins.  Even so, the article dwells on the straw man argument that gliadins are NOT new, and thus all of Dr. Davis' claims are invalid as a result.  There is also apparently the claim that semi-dwarf wheat is a myth and was never used and we're all eating traditional forms of wheat,... possibly... maybe... that whole section is written with such extreme techno-babble, it may be intentionally obfuscating the question.  How else could he explain all the amazingly-incredible yields of wheat today versus a few generations ago, and the fact that genetically-manipulated wheat is still marketed by tech growers as their intellectual property?  Something really doesn't sell right about this author's assertions on modern wheat.


- The author agrees with the four-fold increase of Celiac disease, but poo poos the impact of this with the usual "IT ONLY AFFECTS 1% OF THE POPULATION" argument.  Well what's to say that diagnostic capabilities now are as good as they can get, and maybe the disease is still remarkably-underreported?  After all, according to the author, it took 40-50 years for doctors to properly identify Celiac disease, there may still be more work to be done.  In the meantime, erring on the side of caution clearly is wrong on the part of the author... so again, I have to say, why doesn't this argument also apply to fat?  If only some percentage of the world gets heart attacks, why do we all have to cut out saturated fat, and not enjoy it up until it becomes a problem (as in the case of wheat?). 


- The author incorrectly states that Dr. Davis claimed that all Celiac patients lose weight -- this is definitely false, as Dr. Davis regularly lambasts gluten-free foods as having other junk carbohydrates, and even points to overweight Celiac patients as being a clear example that there is more to good health than just eliminating wheat.  Because this article exists in a nutritional vacuum, it cannot make that association, nor can it assume that people find greater or better sources of fiber than wheat.


- And the biggest mistake of all, the author tries to paint Wheat Belly as being a diet.  In fact, Wheat Belly is a learning tool, and its primary goal is to educate -- it only includes recipes on the insistence of the publisher, but Dr. Davis' goal was, first and foremost, to educate the public about the problems with modern wheat.  Nor would I describe his recommendations for wheat elimination as "simple" -- anyone in the know knows that it can be one of the hardest diets in existence as the withdrawl process can be brutal, temptations are plenty, and doctors/family/friends can all sabotage your efforts.  


- Moving onto the Paleo Diet, this is such an afterthought that it really should have been omitted from the article in general as it really just makes it out to be rather petty.  Moreover, it seems to assert that the Paleo Diet follows Wheat Belly, when in fact Wheat Belly came out after the Paleo Diet was proposed.  It also whips out the usual "ancestors didn't live long" excuse, although this is generally a contentious issue since this is largely a very Euro-centric claim, and one that's 8000 years old which is still within the agricultural era.  Moreover, the vast majority of this death rate was composed of children suffering from the many childhood complications, or as a result of poor sanitary conditions, disease, lack of medical expertise, war, slavery, being devoured by wild animals, and lots of other extrinsic factors.  Those who would survive this gauntlet of early human complications could potentially live as long a life as most modern humans.  Moreover, the quantity of life is not always equal to the quality of life... many older Americans live barely able to walk, or eat, or remember their loves ones, and it should be the goal of good eating habits combined with modern medical care to secure both good quantity AND quality of life.


- The article also poos poos literal assumptions of adhering to pre-agricultural foods as do many other articles, despite the fact that a general precept of Paleo dieting is that it recognizes that not everything is the same as it once was, but that you can get close to this through the reincorporation of traditional diets.  The author assumes that early humans would starve, but this could easily be negated if bugs were a huge staple of early human diet, in which case they would be a VERY viable calorie and nutrient source, certainly more than grains which would be inedible without fire.  


- Lastly, I should note that the article unfairly asserts that Wheat Belly never acknowledges the health and nutritional benefits of cereal grains and wheat (ignoring the paleo diet here since the author's inclusion of it in this article is sweeping and informal and thus bunk by his own standards), when in fact Dr. Davis does make a socio-economic purpose for wheat (a food of desperation during times of famine, especially given its long shelf life), devouts some sections explaining the compromisory benefits of some safer grains and psuedo-grains (such as rice, buckwheat, chia, etc), and devouts a rather impressive section on the lesser ill effects of heritage grains like einkorn and emmer.  So in that respect I think the doctor was more than fair, and the author is not willing to reciprocate on some of the good claims that Wheat Belly makes with respect to modern dietary habits or AGE-producing effects of things like deep-frying.  While this article continues to be better than average, it's heart is most definitely not in the right place, and as such it fails to be more than a training exercise on how to read debunking literature.


Even so, Spit did an amazing job finding this piece, and so for that I will award him a juicy 5 points!! Congratulations! ^.^

[Ciabatta]

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/08/5768/

Here's an article I found... This shows someone who not only lost weight but also gained health... It's really interesting, I thought you should read this

Thank you Hannah! ^^

This article is a posting of a testimonial piece of a young woman who engaged in a wheat-free diet (with little detail of anything else done, as far as adding more saturated fat or cutting out other grains), and did lose a good deal of weight.  However, it is mentioned as an afterthought, with the focus being on her recovering her health, feeling good, and from the picture, losing a lot of the inflammation, redness and swelling on her face.  She also correctly describes this as a lifestyle rather than a diet.

Sadly, the testimonial itself is light on details, leaving Dr. Davis to supplement the rest with his own personal thoughts that got a lot further than what the young woman's note describes.  It's a good, if typical, testimonial piece, but still a welcomed addition to my collection no less.  

Hannah will be awarded 2 points as a result. ^^

The current Point total so far:
Hannah: 2
Spit: 5

[Ciabatta]

Spit and Hannah have both been paid so the current total stands at zero for everyone.  Yay!  ^^

[Ciabatta]

A quick article from a biased source briefly describing the effect of wheat (gluten protein) and dairy (casein protein) on ADHD, autistism and other autistic spectrum disorders.

http://www.wheat-free.org/wheat-gluten-allergy-autism-adhd.html

It's primarily informational and insists to the reader that it should not be taken as primary medical advice.  However, it's a good starter for this line of inquiry, and it does touch on the potential role of Gliadorphins (or alpha-gliadin) in causing these conditions.

[Ciabatta]

A very interesting and recent news article about a recall of "gluten-free" foods from UK supermarkets due to... surprise surprise... the foods containing "gluten", or probably some form of wheat, rye, barley or general taint from one of these foods.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3114740/Gluten-free-foods-recalled-having-gluten-Five-supermarket-chains-strip-shelves-products-watchdog-warns-breads-contain-allergen.html

While merely wheat-intolerant people such as myself can choose to risk some minor exposure to wheat, give or take the robustness of our gut health or are personal threshold of pain following reexposure symptoms, people with true wheat allergies or Celiac Disease can't really afford this casualness. Depending on the severity of their condition, even minor exposure can be debilitating or even deadly, and I feel the article doesn't really convey the severity properly (saying that symptoms can range from vomiting to migraines only, rather than something like complete intestinal failure).

This also brings up a point I often make to online and IRL friends who go wheat-free.  If wheat (or, ugh, "gluten") containing foods are at fault for our many ailments, why on earth would we keep trying to eat foods that look like the foods that harmed us in the first place? This seems to needlessly put ourselves at risk to accidental wheat exposure (say, for instance, if cross-contamination to a ladle occurred, or if an employees sandwich fell into a vat, or you name it), not to mention additional junk carbs such as corn starch and rice starch that can still persistently elevate our blood sugar, and induce obesity and metabolic syndrome anyway.  

As an occasional indulgence they are fine, and once in a while I will enjoy some GF pizza at a restaurant with friends... but these "gluten-free" foods should not become staple food items as they are simply the industry's way to keep us addicted to their junk food in the event we can no longer continue to eat their darling cash crop.

[Ciabatta]

An article on acne in relation to wheat (or "gluten"):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maura-henninger-nd/gluten-and-acne_b_2601648.html

You'll rarely see these articles implicate wheat directly, so if you want to find anything damning in the popular literature, always look under "gluten" (ugh).

In any event, although the article is from the popular press, it is impressively in-depth for your average mainstream article.  Granted it is mostly hypothetical since it admits that a direct connection between gluten and skin acne conditions has yet to be researched (good luck with that!), and it also implies that only people sensitive to gluten are affected by this (which could be almost everybody if we really wanted to be honest XD ).  

But it at least sheds light on this rarely talked about connection, and even goes into the two distinct ways that wheat can produce acne... both an inflammatory way and an insulinogenic way.  I mean if we already popularly-blame a food group for causing acne (fat), might as well interrogate other food groups, especially those commonly paired with fat.  

[Ciabatta]

A video on wheat (gluten) in association with epilepsy.  I can't view it at this very time so I'm simply reserving the spot... But considering that ketogenic diets have been used to treat epilepsy for many decades, some dietary cause and effect (and treatment) is certainly within the realm of possibility.

http://www.drperlmutter.com/epilepsy-gluten-sensitivity/

[Ciabatta]

Again, rather too tired to read through this at this time, but I'll check it out tomorrow... but thoroughly goes over why gluten and casein (from dairy) are too major suspects for the cause (or at least aggravators) of bipolar disorder, in addition to depression and schizophrenia.  

http://kellybroganmd.com/article/two-foods-may-sabotage-brain/

[KillerPenguin7]

Hello I have found a very interesting video about the concepts about how big cereal and other food companies are struggling with the aspects of "anti-wheat"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO3cIrNEuIc

[An Infinity of War]

Basically, I want people to find me as many news articles, magazine articles, blog articles, research articles, observational studies, clinical studies, podcasts, seminars, and Youtube videos as you can find having to do with wheat.

I'm not sure exactly what type of reference material you are looking for but to give you a stronger argument, when you debate your side to other parties, you might want to stick to hard studies only. While YouTube videos, podcasts, magazine articles are fine and all you would not want to use them as direct sources; more or less as a place to obtain their sources from & use as your own. Medical journals would be a good alternative for magazines. This is mainly due to that I see you're looking for solid source material for the pros, cons, & middle area of this entire area to present both sides & show your side in equal momentum.

Human anatomy is generally the same across the board with only the chemistry differing per person. Which makes me wonder why you are enlisting us to help build you an arsenal of reference material suited to debates? That is my only question before I help any further as I want to know if you are going to only push your side and not the other. : )

[Ciabatta]

@Penguin:  Thank you, Penguin, and thanks for finding this thread.  I'll check this out tomorrow and grade you the necessary points. ^^

@Grandpa:  I'm actually not looking for debate material, since I'm naturally biased and would see this on the same morale plane as debating the pros and cons of cigarette smoking.  I'm essentially looking for EVERYTHING in order to build a kind of library for people to learn and explore these themes; and as such it can include anything from the lowliest hit piece to the most prestigious clinical study. People of different educational levels can find value in whatever best corresponds their level of understanding, and can either attempt to scale up with more advanced literature, or scale down to attempt to understand popular rhetoric.

And as far as I can recall, I'm not enlisting anyone... I'm actually PAYING people to find me these things.  No one has to help and I can certainly build it up on my own over time (reflecting my own biases of course); but if people want to take advantage of the opportunity and join in the crowd-sourced research, then we'll all benefit a little.

[An Infinity of War]

@Grandpa Ammutseba:  I'm actually not looking for debate material, since I'm naturally biased and would see this on the same morale plane as debating the pros and cons of cigarette smoking.  I'm essentially looking for EVERYTHING in order to build a kind of library for people to learn and explore these themes; and as such it can include anything from the lowliest hit piece to the most prestigious clinical study. People of different educational levels can find value in whatever best corresponds their level of understanding, and can either attempt to scale up with more advanced literature, or scale down to attempt to understand popular rhetoric.

Makes more sense now. Don't pay/point me anything though. Though I'd argue this is not as dangerous as tobacco manufactured products. Some materials may be directly post due to copyrighted sources given via unindexed .onion libraries.>.>

Edit I.
For the .onion links I'll message you them. Would rather the libraries stay online instead of a web crawler picking it up here and sending it to corporate.

[Ciabatta]

Lol, sorry, if I can't pay you, I can't accept anything (I'm guessing you don't do charity either, even if it's for Cheese).  

Thank you for the consideration, though.

[Ciabatta]

Hello I have found a very interesting video about the concepts about how big cereal and other food companies are struggling with the aspects of "anti-wheat"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO3cIrNEuIc

Thank you Penguin,

I actually heard about the War On Wheat program a while ago, but I never got around to checking it out.  Having seen it, I definitely found it a very fascinating hit piece that lends to a lot of commentary -- and in fact, I will go ahead and write a few observations of my own... and also award you 5 points which I've already paid out, so we're g2g!  ^^

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

- Just off the bat, I should note that Canada is one of the largest wheat exporters in the world, and the CBC is government owned (techncially a "crown corporation"), so there is going to be a drive towards protecting their interests.  That can be seen not only in the automatic disdain for Dr. Davis and Wheat Belly (along with an ample use of weasel words), but also in the use of the "war" framework.  Wheat elimination is not and should not be a "war", since I'd imagine that as consumers with freedom of choice we can choose to eat whatever we want.  I don't recall fat elimination ever being framed as a "war on fat" -- this is only used to sensationalize something of great interest to them.

- I see the "simple" solution argument used here again, which I've already talked about in my earlier rebuttals.  This is used to belittle the message by Dr. Davis, but anyone who's read the book or tried a wheat elimination diet knows that it's far from simple. Cutting out fats and blaming cholesterol for all the woes of humanity are simple explanations -- doing the same for everyone's darling love grain is NOT.  Moreover, a big portion of the curative process involves actually learning about the issues, and other beneficial things that may help improve health such as vitamin D supplementation or the selection of nutrient dense foods.  

- A very obvious technique they use is to frame the anti-wheat argument as a high-class, petite-bourgeois concept, even though the interest in wheat-free stretches across all socio-economic levels simply on the prerequisite that one be able to inform him/herself.  The goal here is probably to paint "gluten-free" advocates as snobby and elite, belittling the food of the messes... very ironic given that a few centuries ago it would have been the exact opposite in many parts of the world. It would have have not been the same impact had Dr. Davis, for instance, been filmed eating at a lower-end restaurant; I imagine since the CBC host and camera crew were clearly in the restaurant with him, there's the possibility he was probably invited there to create the setup.  I might be reading too much into it, but that's the certainly the impression I get given the music and wording used.

- One point in this program's favor... they rightfully don't call Wheat Belly a diet book.  They still call it a "manifesto", though, continuing on with the war theme... but at least someone's making progress. XD

- A lot of things are taken out of context, but this isn't such a big deal since all news and special reports like this one do that quite often, sometimes for time constraints, other times to fit the story to their narrative.  It's just hypocritical given they damn his book for the same reason.

- "Genetically modified" is not the same as "genetically manipulated", at least as stipulated in the book which is very careful to draw the distinction.  GMO wheat has been attempted and generally has failed to catch on -- I imagine because they attempt to produce a strain without gluten, but it's impossible to do so without forfeiting everything people love about the grain.  But as long as they can frame the argument around "Genetically Modified" it becomes easier to debunk; it helps too that they never once mention the work by Dr. Norman Borlaug, the creator of the semi-dwarf, high-yield wheat strains that Dr. Davis refers to as the "frankenwheats".  

- Another point in favor is that they do regularly talk with Dr. Davis, again making mincemeat of some of his words, but at least retaining some complete soundbites to give you the hint that he is not your average sensationalist.  

- "That means cutting out 1/3 of all food"... yes, because without wheat, your average Canadian will find himself without enough food to fill in those calories.  Heaven forbid they switch to rice or nuts or vegetables or,... le gasp... fat.  D:

- But to the credit of that informational segment of Canada's wheat woes, it does highlight what this program is REALLY about... protecting those ailing Canadian industries.  To be fair, everyone needs to earn a buck,.. but don't go on telling me it's safe and should be put into everything as it is today... cigarette makers have not gone out of business and are still making money even if most people know they're bad for them.  ^^

- GLUTEN-FREE CRAP, NUUUUU!!! XD
And like with the upper-class aspect, they still stick in gluten-free products to derail Dr. Davis' argument, and perhaps make you suspicious of his motives.  In reality, the book is very damning towards gluten-free products as well, and for good reason -- that fact that some people consume these junk foods even after being acquainted with wheat elimination has more to do with their own personal addictions to baked goods and sweets rather than something Dr. Davis is trying to promote for better health.

- Another trick... framing Dr. Davis' book as an "I'm right and everyone else is WRONG" argument.  For one, Dr. Davis does not exist in a vacuum, and there are countless other professional who promote similar lifestyles and nutritional advice, even since long before the Lipid Hypothesis came into effect over 50 years ago.  Second, the language in the book is surprisingly cautious, especially given the fact that wheat is so rarely studied in the negative sense, and so there is a purposely-small amount of mainstream studies that Dr. Davis can use to scientifically prove that mainstream scientists are wrong.  Aside from the so-called cherry-picked research referenced in his book, he also relies significantly on his own clinical experience with his patients.  Other researchers like Gary Taubes or doctors like Paul Jaminet MD offer far more compelling scientific literature to back their claims, but they don't get their own TV programs.  ;P

- We get another segment reminding people that wheat in Canada (well, the province of Saskatchewan) is king, perhaps indirectly inferring that an attack on wheat is an attack on Canada.  It's certainly the imagery I get, although I would say the Harper government has been a lot more effective at attacking the heart of Canada more than Dr. Davis has. XD

- Another poo-pooing of people with celiac disease and allergies.  Let them eat cake! 
Maybe a small explanation of why people get sick with celiac disease and wheat allergies would highlight some alarming facts.

- Opiate peptides are admitted to be in wheat, in addition to spinach, milk and other foods that are also talked about in Wheat Belly.  They believe simply mentioning that other foods have these peptides is enough to debunk this claim, but there is no mention of quantity or qualitative impacts of these molecules... alpha-casein does different things in the brain than alpha-gliadin.  As for claiming there is no evidence to demonstrate food addiction... clearly he ignores the Naloxone tests in the determination of food addiction.

- The study referenced wasn't so much dead rats as rather killed rats (bastards! poor little rats...), and I should remind them that the entire Lipid Hyopthesis rallied around a single study involving herbivorous bunnies injected with cholesterol.  As for no other studies existing since then... that may not be true, but even if it were that doesn't necessarily prove the association doesn't exist, but simply that no one has shown interest [or been allowed] to study it.  Scientists and researchers interested in thinking outside the nutritional box can very often find themselves without grant money.

- The cancer connection won't be clear if they discard the appetite and caro-stimulating effects of the opiate peptides in wheat, or don't make mention of its Amylopectin A blood sugar impact on the body, or the inflammatory visceral fat accumulation.  Although they won't admit to a cause for cancer, they will at least admit that glucose feeds cancer cells, so by that fact alone wheat and other refined carbs have a role in sustaining this terrible disease.  And generally no scientific study will ever be done on the causes or potential cures of cancer that don't coincide with their world-view; in other words, only studies implicating fat or glorifying wheat will ever be done, while studies implicating wheat or researching the use of Amygdalin will be ignored or outlawed respectively.  In this respect, mainstream science becomes a catch-22... you can only use scientific studies to prove you're right, but you have to be right to produce scientific studies. 

- Dr. Perlmutter is the bigger expert on linking grains with mental illness, but of course no mention of him.  And the earlier point about the rat study applies to the Schizophrenia study too... lack of studies does not prove lack of evidence, simply lack of interest.  They also seem to imply that its an old study and thus invalid... so I guess by that fact, we can finally invalidate the 6 and 7 Countries study as well for being old and selective. XD

- Dr Davis is notorious for not really inferring the reasons behind all this bad nutritional advice, aside from a few insinuations that there is money to be made from a sick population, especially with doctors encouraged to peddle pills.  He certainly is very tame against notions of eugenics or conspiracy, so assertions to the contrary in this program are very disingenuous.

- Ewww. dat taste test xD

- Yay, they admitted it's high yield... Also, "for all intents and purposes" can mean many different things, so I'll consider this a weasel word.  Plus, just comparing the proteins is ineffective because ultimately our bodies can't make use of these proteins if there are too many lectins to impair their absorption... and there's no mention whether modern wheat has more anti-nutrients.

- More high class people who keep using that damn "gluten-free" word.  The irony, and a point to the show's credit, it does rightfully use "wheat-free". XD

- Yum, coconut bacon... although that package looks nasty.  It seems to imply that if you don't get tested for Celiac or gluten sensitivities, you shouldn't get off wheat -- again, why are we asked to eliminate all saturated fat without getting tested for cardiovascular disease or fat sensitivities?  There appears to be a clear double-standard as far as food choices are concerned, as if wheat were somehow mandatory eating.  

- Being asked to try wheat elimination to witness results is not magic... it's a simple p=1 experiment with yourself.  Nor is talking about the issues in a public forum evangelical if these are practical and measured solutions,... true, it does give people SOME hope, but it also makes them aware of the many problems they can encounter along the way as well as offers information on how to deal with these as best as possible.  I wonder, who is making the sweeping claims here?

- Healthy whole grains are protective of health... COMPARED TO WHAT? WHITE FLOUR? XD

- Most of the associations listed have to tow the mainstream line, so of course they won't endorse anything that potentially threatens their existence.  After all, we could end up with a population that will never get to suffer Celiac Disease, Diabetes or Heart Disease, and could put all cardiologists out of business.  He partially put himself out of business, which is why he is focusing on his books and lectures now rather than his practice.

- Again, as part of the elite mentality, Hollywood actors and other celebrities are depicted as their only champions, rather than other doctors such as David Perlmutter or Paul Jaminet, or institutions such as the Weston A Price Foundation.  They are simply the only ones showcased on TV, for much the same reason as the "sensationalist" Wheat Belly gets its own hit piece program while other more ironclad scientific books on similar subjects get the cold shoulder.  It's not ideal, but it's precisely the fault of the CBC and other mainstream media outlets for shaping the disdain and mistrust of science this way, while simultaneously glorifying useless rich people.

- A collection of anecdotes does not good data make... fair enough.  Does that mean we can toss away decades of anti-fat, pro-wheat advice for being based on shoddy observational studies? XD

- Another mention of science in a catch-22 bind... but it is true that the general public no longer listens to scientists anymore. But that's not because they're led astray necessarily (although I think that's partially true), but rather because they've seen for themselves, after decades of obesity and disease and lost loved ones, that scientists and experts are quite possibly wrong in these assertions.  When you grow larger and larger following your doctor's advice to exercise and eat lots of HEALTHWHOLEGRAINS, and then get chided by him for not following his advice, that does breed distrust and resentment over time.  

- Another thing to the show's [partial] credit, they do at least try to interview Dr. Davis.  It's heavily edited and cut, and filled with annoying voice-overs, but again... they leave in enough to give you a sense of his personality versus the host's.  If that host protruded that jaw anymore, I'd swear it could be used to land planes on it. XD

- There is clear disdain for the anecdotes, but Dr. Davis makes a good point... if the book were more scientific, it would not be as widely read.  You don't see Good Calories, Bad Calories make the NY Times Bestseller list.  This is unfortunate, but not bad in itself as it at least gets the conversation started with people who knew absolutely nothing on the subjects to begin with.  Wheat Belly for me served as a gateway to a whole body of literature I hadnt known existed, and which I've invested a lot of time and energy to learn -- it's even got me to review counter arguments such as this program to see if my accumulated knowledge and newfound scepticism holds up to rebuttals.  

- And many points go to the show's ending, which lightens up on the Wheat Belly bashing for a bit and finally makes the case for people trusting their body's and making the choice to NOT consume wheat, which [contrary to their own wishes] is not some essential food.  There are other foods, and even other grains, that people can choose to eat if they want.  There are older strains of wheat that they can choose to eat if they want to get down to their roots.  And above all else, if they want to see for themselves if this wheat elimination business holds any water for them, they have every right to try, and certainly any right to go back to wheat if they want, or be free of it forever if they prefer.  

- And super points for offering a Comments section -- it's closed now, of course, but you can still check it out here for some entertaining supplemental reading:  http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2014-2015/the-war-on-wheat

[Mimi]

Found this funny video called What Happens When You Tell People You Can't Eat Gluten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMZIAlKFRY4

[Ciabatta]

Thank you Mimi!!  Well its a silly little parody, but quite true as far as how people with CELIACS are treated.  Believe me I've come across the Bread Offered all the time... The kind of people who, upon hearing "no wheat", will avoid whole wheat bread and stick to white bread instead (pfff).  XD

And actually today I met a gluten sensitive type like the one pictured here, so I had a hard time stifling a chuckle while talking to her.  She was sweet, but dense as a rock, and boy did she pile on the sugar...  XD

Anyway, its not informative but it's good to have a laugh too, so I'll award you a nice little point for it.  Thank you!  ^.^

[HanChi]

Another comedy vid from collage humor is gluten free duck, which ironically is another video about gluten free.

[Ciabatta]

HAHAHA!! I love that one, and I'm pretty sure some of my coworkers see me as an annoying duck like that (even though I never actually do that). XD

Thank you Hannah!  +1 point for you too, I'll pay you and Mimi both tonight. ^.^

[Mimi]

Oh, found another informative one on wheat:

[Ciabatta]

Pfff, oh Mimi, y u so sarcastic.  XD

Although this is parody, I guess it does highlight what you should probably avoid doing when going on a wheat elimination diet, as you certainly don't want to come off as a total arse.  XD

[Sponsored content]