[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Health issues or not, I’ll gladly buy meat sans pink slime. I don’t care if it costs more.
[/quote]
i agree, theres a reason why pink slime is banned in the EU and UK.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Not sure about the SA load, but I thought it was well accepted that grains create an acidic load in the body, and also bind with calcium absorption? [/quote]
It doesn’t matter what is “well accepted” or what is not.
".[/quote]
As in studies done on pee 
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Health issues or not, I’ll gladly buy meat sans pink slime. I don’t care if it costs more.
[/quote]
i agree, theres a reason why pink slime is banned in the EU and UK. [/quote]
Not to derail this thread from what has become a wheat/gluten discussion, but I think TC’s point about the pink slime is not that the slime is better than ‘regular’ meat, or even a particularly appetizing or desirable product, but that it has value in feeding masses of people, and makes economic sense. If you have the money to spend, buy what you want, but for a lot of people around the world, finding cheap alternative protein sources is pretty damn important.
I don’t get why it should be banned, when gummy bears, twinkies, and other such products are deemed to be just fine. Those products, IMO, are much more repulsing than the ‘slime’ when you look at what really goes into them.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Not sure about the SA load, but I thought it was well accepted that grains create an acidic load in the body, and also bind with calcium absorption? [/quote]
It doesn’t matter what is “well accepted” or what is not.
".[/quote]
As in studies done on pee ;)[/quote]
What I mean is, OF COURSE that has been shown to be the case (not the calcium binding part, but bone resorption due to the acidity is fairly well illustrated).
But, that doesn’t give one a license to take that info and start misrepresenting data just to sell a book.
Regardless of whether or not a point of contention has been proven true or false, you CANNOT ethically just start making shit up to spin either side more strongly in your favor.
If the facts spoke for themselves, one wouldn’t have to.
Yet… he did.
anonym- thoughts on LDLb? And the idea that wheat or other processed carbs will increase it
And hey – don’t think I don’t notice how you refuse to acknowledge what a huge party foul this guy is guilty of.
But really, the issue of food acidity/bone health would require a little more discussion than Davis gave in order to do it justice. It’s beyond the scope of this thread, but people should look into it if they are curious. I only wanted to point out the discrepancies in the ‘facts’.
While I’m feeling pretty sure that the closer I look at this book, the more issues I’ll find, until I see some COMPELLING evidence to justify the Wheat Belly hype, I’m not gonna look into it anymore. I don’t have the time to dismantle it chapter by chapter or reference by reference.
If the discussion picks up, I’ll jump back in. But, it’s looking a little one-sided so far.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Health issues or not, I’ll gladly buy meat sans pink slime. I don’t care if it costs more.
[/quote]
i agree, theres a reason why pink slime is banned in the EU and UK. [/quote]
Not to derail this thread from what has become a wheat/gluten discussion, but I think TC’s point about the pink slime is not that the slime is better than ‘regular’ meat, or even a particularly appetizing or desirable product, but that it has value in feeding masses of people, and makes economic sense. If you have the money to spend, buy what you want, but for a lot of people around the world, finding cheap alternative protein sources is pretty damn important.
I don’t get why it should be banned, when gummy bears, twinkies, and other such products are deemed to be just fine. Those products, IMO, are much more repulsing than the ‘slime’ when you look at what really goes into them.[/quote]
Are you trying to say sugar and HFCS aren’t good for us? Stay tuned for next week when the “haters that hate haters” comes out with a new article saying gummies daily is fine 
Interview with Dr. Davis
another one is here (I’ve listened to this one, pretty good)
http://www.askthelowcarbexperts.com/2012/01/3-healthy-whole-grains-dr-william-davis/
transcript of the 1st link
so because you found some errors (intentinoal or not) you’re going to dismiss the idea that wheat/gluten isn’t detrimental to health? or at least for a significant portion of the US population?
btw- how often do you eat wheat products?
[quote]anonym wrote:
And hey – don’t think I don’t notice how you refuse to acknowledge what a huge party foul this guy is guilty of.
.[/quote]
I can’t speak on that which I have no answers for I’ll leave those parts up to people that are way smarter than me with this stuff… MODOK, Chris Kresser, etc
ugg- posts are taking a while to show up.
You have any info on the increased prevalence of Celiac’s diseaase? In the book he talks about studies where blood taken from soldiers in the past show that it’s not just better testing, but the incidence is actually increasing.
Denise Minger has a fantastic review of the “China Study”, and in her review she points out that while Dr. Campbell blames animal protein for having some corelation (a weak one) to disease and death, wheat has the highest among any food source and a statistically significant (again just correlation), with cervix cancer, heart disease, stroke and heart attacks.
It’t not just Dr. Davis that is showing ill effects of high wheat consumption
"Despite the time crunch, I did manage to squeeze in Wheat Belly over the weekend (most of it), and read the rest last night.
No, I don’t like it.
No, I don’t eat wheat as a rule, and I am not a grain industry shill.
But I don’t feel I have to put my name out in support of a shoddy, sloppy book just because the overall message “wheat sux” agrees with my thoughts that wheat gluten and other wheat proteins likely are inflammatory in many people and cause problems for more than just those with celiac disease. I think most physicians and researchers with critical thinking skills will find this book useless and full of hyperbole. For those not taken in by the confident tone, it may do more harm than good.
Why don’t I like Wheat Belly? In short, it is the carelessness and simplicity of the message. Hyperbole and poorly supported, confident claims. Obesity and chronic illness is a complicated subject. It doesn’t come down to wheat. Wheat isn’t responsible (entirely) for “moobs” or the other too-cute phrases Dr. Davis churns out ad nauseum throughout the book."
Read the rest if you can. This is a pop-science diet book masquerading as serious investigative work.
[quote]Cr Powerlinate wrote:
"Despite the time crunch, I did manage to squeeze in Wheat Belly over the weekend (most of it), and read the rest last night.
No, I don’t like it.
No, I don’t eat wheat as a rule, and I am not a grain industry shill.
But I don’t feel I have to put my name out in support of a shoddy, sloppy book just because the overall message “wheat sux” agrees with my thoughts that wheat gluten and other wheat proteins likely are inflammatory in many people and cause problems for more than just those with celiac disease. I think most physicians and researchers with critical thinking skills will find this book useless and full of hyperbole. For those not taken in by the confident tone, it may do more harm than good.
Why don’t I like Wheat Belly? In short, it is the carelessness and simplicity of the message. Hyperbole and poorly supported, confident claims. Obesity and chronic illness is a complicated subject. It doesn’t come down to wheat. Wheat isn’t responsible (entirely) for “moobs” or the other too-cute phrases Dr. Davis churns out ad nauseum throughout the book."
Read the rest if you can. This is a pop-science diet book masquerading as serious investigative work.[/quote]
So, you don’t disagree with the idea that whole wheat isn’t the health food it’s claiemd to be. You just find the book isn’t an accurate one?
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
And hey – don’t think I don’t notice how you refuse to acknowledge what a huge party foul this guy is guilty of.
.[/quote]
I can’t speak on that which I have no answers for I’ll leave those parts up to people that are way smarter than me with this stuff… MODOK, Chris Kresser, etc[/quote]
Are you serious? You don’t need a doctoral degree to connect these dots.
“Wheat is among the most potent sources of sulfuric acid, yielding more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat.”
- He says that wheat yields more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat
- He posts a source
- The source has a table that SPECIFICALLY states the comparisons are per 100g OF PROTEIN… NOT 100g OF “FOOD”.
- But… pork ranks higher than wheat on that table
- He specifically lied about no meat ranking higher than wheat.
Also:
- He says that wheat yields more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat
- He posts a source
- The source has a table that SPECIFICALLY states the comparisons are per 100g OF PROTEIN… NOT 100g OF “FOOD”.
- People will read his sentence and think that 100g of wheat will yield more sulfuric acid than 100g of tuna.
- He mislead people into thinking #4 is correct by misrepresenting the information.
Also:
“Wheat is surpassed only by oats in quantity of sulfuric acid produced.”
The table CLEARLY shows that egg, walnut and pork rank higher than wheat.
What is so confusing about this???
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
All I know is, I feel SO much better with wheat OUT of my diet.
No more bloated gut, no more tiredness in the afternoon, no more itchy scalp.
[/quote]
x2, though with me it was an actual intolerance so I had a lot more side-effects. After reading Wheat Belly I convinced my girlfriend to cut wheat, because in the book it talks about it being a possible cause of acne. The acne problem she had been struggling with for years improved significantly after quitting as well as feeling better in general.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
so because you found some errors (intentinoal or not) you’re going to dismiss the idea that wheat/gluten isn’t detrimental to health? or at least for a significant portion of the US population?
btw- how often do you eat wheat products?[/quote]
Let’s see what my options are here:
Intentional error
He is lying to make his case as strong as possible. At this point, every single thing he says is suspect. I will need to review every single source he cites because he has shown that he is not above lying to sell his case.
If his case was THAT compelling, he wouldn’t need to do shady shit like this to drive it home.
Unintentional error
Sloppy researcher. Poor reading comprehension. Can’t trust any other source to actually confirm his bogus assertions.
Either way, he sucks. If you are going to put your name on a book that promotes a radical dietary change and shout from the rooftops that it is nutritional gospel… check your fucking facts. The book ain’t that long.
I eat wheat every so often. Nowadays, it’s more oats than anything else.
Take this in a slightly different direction… does anyone deny the ill effects wheat/corn are having on dogs? If we look at the current crop of dog foods, they are primarily wheat/corn… dogs not being designed for this, and now 1/3 dogs die of cancer… many other dogs are suffering heart problems, diabetes, obesity… So, I ask, if what is ill for our dogs, could possibly be ill for us?
maybe a leap on that one, but it’s undeniable the damaging effects of commercial dog foods
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I can’t speak on that which I have no answers for I’ll leave those parts up to people that are way smarter than me with this stuff… MODOK, Chris Kresser, etc[/quote]
But, see, this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
There are numerous Wheat Belly disciples on this forum who ALL bought into the message hook, line and sinker. Any time they see a reference to wheat, they recommend the book and make some snarky comment like, “you’ll thank me later.”
And yet, when some mid-tier college student takes an afternoon out of his day to start poking holes in it… these wheatiephobes are nowhere to be found.
Gone.
Silence.
Crickets chirping.
Tumbleweeds rolling.
Cobwebs forming.
You know why that is? They are waiting for someone “smarter” to step in and do their thinking for them.
Which is EXACTLY what they did when they unhinged their jaws and deepthroated Davis’ message without even asking him to buy them a drink first.
“He’s smarter, so he MUST be right!”
They don’t want to be exposed for not having vetted the contents of this book before buying into it.
I’m seeing it right now.
It’s hilarious.
And no one is fooled.