Re: Wheat Research Thread

[Haasman29]

http://www.foodandnutrition.org/Stone-Soup/July-2015/Wheat-Has-Not-Changed/

This article claims that wheat today is similar to wheat grown 150 years ago. They also say there is "no scientific reason to avoid wheat".

They blame the rise of Celiac disease and gluten intolerance on pesticides, mostly.

[Ciabatta]

Yay!  New article. ^^

Hi Avocado, thanks for posting this.  I get to have a little fun... XD
All these articles love ignoring the very REAL fact that mutation breeding exists... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding ...and has been used consistently over the last 80 years or so, more so in the post-atomic era when it was cool to induce mutations using radiation.  Since all these mutations are based on the original plants (rather than in Genetic Modification where you can potentially add genes from another organism), they can get away with not labeling these, calling these "organic", releasing them into the food supply without testing, and claiming that they are nutritionally SIMILAR to the original plants.  But only funnel-sighted scientists would view the world in terms of nutrients -- we in the real world have to factor taste, toxicity, enhanced allergic reactions, and even just the appearance of these mutants.  Compare the tall, hearty, small-headed "amber waves of grain" wheat from colonial times to the short, stocky, fragile, large-headed, high-yield wheat grown today that can scarcely survive without human intervention, and nutritional composition seems like a very cherry-picked point of comparison.  I can also make the claim that if a mutant pygmy capybara has the same nutritional composition as a duck, then it's probably a duck. XD

But let's take a deeper dive in this article...

• I wonder what that book could be, hmmm.... XD
  Although if it's the same one I'm thinking of, that book doesn't claim that modern mutant wheat is solely responsible for all ailments known to humanity -- but that it is definitely one of the worst offenders given it's so wide-spread and culturally well-protected.  I'm sure we'd see the same if all doctors advised their patients to stuff their face with healthy whole alcohol, and all baby formulas were infused with booze. XD
  
  
• So the research is published by CEREAL CHEMISTRY and the CANADIAN NUTRITION SOCIETY, wheat being one of Canada's main agricultural exports.  Surely there can't be any bias here. XD
  
  
• Well props to this person for realizing that there are other proteins in wheat besides gluten (although would it have killed her to name some of them?).  Also, she throws around the "truth" quite liberally here... how, in fact, did the researchers get to this mythic "truth", and what exactly constitutes "little changed"... and exactly what did they compare this to? A "little" temperature of only a few degrees could mean the difference between a sweater and a jacket weather-wise, but the difference between life or death body-wise.
  
  
• Oh nevermind, I think they explain this in the next paragraph... they got to the truth by... er,... growing the wheat plants,... and then, er... comparing their nutritional composition.... right.... So if it kinda/sorta appears to give you the same ratio of carbs, protein and fat as a duck, then it doesn't cause gluten intolerance!! Yay for logic leap!!! :DD
  
  
• Well of course there is no evidence to suggest that this would cause increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, etc, because in fact THEY DID NOT TEST THIS!!!!  Where are the groups of test subjects eating from each of these fields over a long period of time, and then doing comparisons of their health outcomes, including tests of body fat, blood sugar, cholesterol, advanced glycation end products, intestinal health, allergy tests, and celiac markers?  How is it that they can infer these "facts" just by looking at the chemical breakdown of the plants?  It's like saying that Human A is equal to Human B because when you cremate both, they both leave similar amounts of ash and carbon.  
  
  
• Independent (non-industry) sources... that are either funded by industry sources, or by government sources reliant on industry.  
  
  
• Kudos to them to acknowledge gluten intolerance, although the standard mainstream media puke generally acknowledges that 10% number for only people with Celiac and allergies.  Gluten intolerance isn't really clinically-recognized, nor do most people ever think to get that checked, nor are there medical tests designed to reliably check for this anyway -- the number could potentially be a heck of a lot larger.  Also, here's one scientific reason that uses their pseudo-science... people CAN get Celiac disease!  As with most other auto-immune conditions, genetics only determines predisposition, it's not something some unlucky few are cursed with and everyone else is safe from.  Under the right "wrong" conditions, anyone assaulting their intestines to an extreme degree can develop this degenerative condition.  But research on this isn't exactly popular, so perhaps there is no "scientific reason" because there simply is no science to begin with.  
  
  
  
• Has "significantly changed" since your great grandparents ate it.  I love this overuse of soft-terms.  A very insignificant change to some human DNA can mean the difference between a girl and a boy. XD
  
  
  
• Kudos to this person for at least trying to explain away the dramatic rise in adverse reactions to wheat -- most of your trash hit pieces wouldn't even put that much effort.  But all it really does is throw theories... why don't they have their super x-ray vision researchers stare at some plants and conjure up the "truth" behind this modern health problem?
  
  
  
• Yay! An article that is not afraid to say that wheat (not gluten, wheat!!) is overused as a food additive.  This is probably the most honest they've been so far. Any chance we could, you know... get rid of this "GLU-TON" as an unnecessary additive for stupid things, like soups and lipsticks?  XD
  
  
  
• Wheat IS a FODMAP, you morons!! XDDD
  
  
  
• "That some individuals have damaged gut flora"... and said individuals have damaged gut flora..... because....? XD
  
  
  
• ORLY?  So they do admit that fermentation helps the digestibility of wheat a little.  Any chance they'll explain why, exactly? No?  XDD
  
  
  
• Here's a good example of playing loosie-goosie with your conclusion.  "First, the gluten protein in wheat has not significantly changed over the last 150 years" really should be "First, the NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITION of wheat grain has not significantly changed over the last 150 years" since that's what they harp on about throughout the entire article. The notion that the gluten protein itself hasn't changed is just a wishful interpretation of the author's already flawed pseudo-science, since... nutritionally-speaking,... protein is protein. I doubt they actually compared the chemical particles of modern gluten versus those derived from heirloom grains, in which case they might see less-than-insignificant changes to its gliadin structure.  But although gliadin is likely the main trigger for Celiac Disease, who cares about that, because... you know... THAT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT.  XD
  

And that about does it for my review of this article.  It is an industry hit piece that tries to distract from people's concerns with cool sounding names and all this cool RESEARCH, but ends up stumbling upon itself more than once as if the author really isn't sure what she's talking about. And as a great ape once said: "even a lie can hold a small sliver of truth"... and in an effort to toss in cool-sounding theories to protect wheat, she inadvertently damns it once you become fully aware of the context behind some of these "theories".  Mutant wheat relies on pesticides, it would get easily ravaged without it.  Wheat is concerned a FODMAP food, one of the worst offenders in people with a FODMAP issue.  Modern wheat is suspected of ravaging gut flora... and even if there is no direct evidence, wheat itself is a highly acidic food, and high acid environments in the gut are not good living conditions for our native gut flora.  And yes, society DOES want us to eat too much wheat, and sneaks it into a lot of our foods and processed foods, even those that traditionally didn't rely on wheat to begin with, or could taste as good or better without it.  


So the real conclusion she ends up proposing is....

"Wheat kinda/sorta is nutritionally similar to older wheat, so EAT IT so Canada can continue to earn money from this valuable cash crop.  Oh and as for why so many people are developing adverse reactions and autoimmune conditions from wheat... it's probably due to wheat. NOW GO EAT IT!  And if it we turn out to be wrong in the future, we'll let you know -- and don't expect an apology."

[Ciabatta]

Oh and Haas gets 10 points because even though this article was bad, it was hella fun to read! XD

[HanChi]

It was fun to read your response, Cia!

[Sponsored content]