Ain't So Bad! ... for Real?

Nutrition
121

[quote]anonym wrote:

[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 :wink: 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.”

  1. He says that wheat yields more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat
  2. He posts a source
  3. The source has a table that SPECIFICALLY states the comparisons are per 100g OF PROTEIN… NOT 100g OF “FOOD”.
  4. But… pork ranks higher than wheat on that table
  5. He specifically lied about no meat ranking higher than wheat.

Also:

  1. He says that wheat yields more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat
  2. He posts a source
  3. The source has a table that SPECIFICALLY states the comparisons are per 100g OF PROTEIN… NOT 100g OF “FOOD”.
  4. People will read his sentence and think that 100g of wheat will yield more sulfuric acid than 100g of tuna.
  5. 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]
How about its relevance?

122

[quote]anonym wrote:

[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.[/quote]

:slight_smile:

123

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[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.[/quote]

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

that made me LOL

124

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

+1000 interwebz to you, good sir

125

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[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]

I think one can attack the problems of the typical American diet, as Weston Price and related groups have, without relying on spurious claims. As overconsumption of carbohydrates is likely one of the central deficiencies in said diet, yes, I would likely agree with that botion - with the caveat that controlled nutrient timing, for a small set of individuals such as bodybuilders, can be useful for optimal muscle gain and that in such cases the impacts of large dose carbohydrate consumption might be significantly different.

In short, blanket statements about whether a food is ‘bad’ or ‘good’ in general disinterest me. I’m more concerned with the applications of particular foods or macronutrients. (Or, if I’m having the occasional night out, what tastes best.)

126

[quote]man bear pig wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[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 :wink: 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.”

  1. He says that wheat yields more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat
  2. He posts a source
  3. The source has a table that SPECIFICALLY states the comparisons are per 100g OF PROTEIN… NOT 100g OF “FOOD”.
  4. But… pork ranks higher than wheat on that table
  5. He specifically lied about no meat ranking higher than wheat.

Also:

  1. He says that wheat yields more sulfuric acid per gram than any meat
  2. He posts a source
  3. The source has a table that SPECIFICALLY states the comparisons are per 100g OF PROTEIN… NOT 100g OF “FOOD”.
  4. People will read his sentence and think that 100g of wheat will yield more sulfuric acid than 100g of tuna.
  5. 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]
How about its relevance?[/quote]

The relevance was the fact that this guy either is a crappy researcher so everything he says needs to be carefully picked apart. Or he is a liar in which case how much other stuff is he lieing about or misleading people about?

127

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I can’t speak on that which I have no answers for :wink: 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.[/quote]

Like this well said. Althought i wouldnt call you mid teir lol

128

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
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]

Really comparing humans to dogs now? big leap

129

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

+1000 interwebz to you, good sir[/quote]

x2

130

or we could go the direction of WAPF “what rots the teeth is also bad for the rest of the body”… so I ask, does bread/wheat type products lead to tooth rot?

131

Weil’s thoughts

http://www.drweilblog.com/home/2012/4/25/gluten-intolerance-video.html

132

Dogs are not omnivores.

133

Wait a minute, just looked it up and apparently they are omnivores. My bad.

134

Where is my by large projector of a tooth so i can get PX in here

135

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Wait a minute, just looked it up and apparently they are omnivores. My bad.[/quote]

felines are pure carnivores :wink: some would argue that dogs are too and they don’t need anything but meat/bone/organs, but many vets say some produce for dogs is a good idea

136

Here is a guy who looked at several more of the studies Davis presents as supportive evidence. I’m sure everyone can take a wild guess as to what he found…

"To me this appears to be more than an innocent, but careless, oversight; it is more than a case of blissful ignorance. Those results are front and center in the study, and they directly contradict his claim. [b]It would take an act of willful omission to leave it out; it’s audacious that he cites the study to bolster his claim."[/b]

What a joke.

And I’m still hearing crickets.

137

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Wait a minute, just looked it up and apparently they are omnivores. My bad.[/quote]

felines are pure carnivores :wink: some would argue that dogs are too and they don’t need anything but meat/bone/organs, but many vets say some produce for dogs is a good idea[/quote]

Yeah, dogs have a digestive tract similar to pigs (also omnivores) and are most definitely not pure carnivores.

138

[quote]Consider Chapter 3, Wheat Deconstructed, page 36 of the hardcover edition. Davis writes “if we look only at overweight people who are not severely malnourished at the time of diagnosis who remove wheat from their diet, it becomes clear that this enables them to lose a substantial amount of weight.” He supposedly backs up this claim in the very next sentence by continuing, “A Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa study of 215 obese celiac patients showed 27.5 pounds of weight loss in the first six months of a wheat-free diet.” Sounds pretty impressive and compelling … until you realize he’s wrong.

First of all, the study didn’t examine 215 obese patients. Body Mass Index for study participants ranged from underweight to normal to overweight to obese. Secondly, only 25 of those 215 patients lost weight, and the weight loss was not restricted to the obese subset of participants. (Further, 91 of the 215 patients gained weight, but I’ll return to the issue of weight gain among obese celiacs in a moment.) You can read the full text of the study as reported in the original American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article here.[/quote]

Wow.

People should take some real classes. If you follow some of these guys like gospel, you sort of deserve to be a little misled.

139

any thoughts on the Weil vid I posted above, he attempts to give his thoughts on why other countries may not have a problem with gluten like us.

140

[quote]anonym wrote:
Here is a guy who looked at several more of the studies Davis presents as supportive evidence. I’m sure everyone can take a wild guess as to what he found…

"To me this appears to be more than an innocent, but careless, oversight; it is more than a case of blissful ignorance. Those results are front and center in the study, and they directly contradict his claim. [b]It would take an act of willful omission to leave it out; it’s audacious that he cites the study to bolster his claim."[/b]

What a joke.

And I’m still hearing crickets.[/quote]

Very interesting, thanks for that. I hope at some point Dr. Davis will get wind of this stuff and have some sort of reply/response.