[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I just realized most people who call themselves gluten free still eat shitty “gluten free” products that are made of processed crap.
Gluten avoidance is only one aspect of a healthy diet. Removing it and not replacing it with “gluten free” substitutes should be a disclaimer.[/quote]
Yup, gluten-free will become or already is the same as “low-fat” in it’s hayday
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
Poliquin, John Meadows, Sisson, etc…
Poliquin also suggests that Dominican Mangoes can allow for steroid like muscle growth. As for Meadows, he has had a large portion of his intestinal tract removed, so I expect him to be more dogmatic about nutritional choices. As for Sisson, I can’t really comment as I haven’t read much of his stuff.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
Poliquin also suggests that Dominican Mangoes can allow for steroid like muscle growth. As for Meadows, he has had a large portion of his intestinal tract removed, so I expect him to be more dogmatic about nutritional choices. As for Sisson, I can’t really comment as I haven’t read much of his stuff.[/quote]
Dominican Mangoes you say? sounds like the next Dr. Oz miracle food, where can I get some
^Try your local Dominican republic. Otherwise, the mangoes won’t be Dominican and I can’t be responsible for yo lack of gains.
I’m not embarrassed to admit I now have a man crush on anonym.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]
“The peptides showed considerable differences in activity; while some peptides exhibited no activity, 0.5 mg of the most active peptides were equivalent to 1 nM of morphine in the binding assay. The most active peptides were derived from the gliadin fraction of the gluten complex.”[/quote]
1nM = 1 x 10^-9 M.
Morphine has a molar mass of 285.34 g/mol; this means that every .5mg of the “most active peptides” are equivalent to .28534 x 10^-6 grams (.0002834 mg) morphine.
Let us assume a high-end estimate of 65.4 mg/g gliadin in wheat, per:
From this, we see that every gram of wheat has the “hit” of (65.4/.5x.0002834 = ) .037mg of morphine.
Now, assuming a typical starting dose of 5mg (po) q4h for morphine (drugs.com), we see that 5/.037 = 135g wheat in the “best case scenario” (i.e., all gliadin are the “most active peptides”) will elicit this “high”.
135/56 = 2.4 servings of spaghetti to achieve this (extremely modest) effect. 14.4 servings per day to achieve the total dose (almost two boxes of spaghetti).
Now, I know for a fact that no one has actually read this study, so I won’t be getting any details as to what the “realistic” breakdown for these gliadin peptides are; so, let’s assume it’s .34 “no activity”, .33 “some activity”, and .33 “high activity”.
Let’s define “some activity” as half as potent as “high activity”.
We then modify our equation so that (65.4x.33/.5x.0002834 = ) .0122mg morphine from the “most activity” peptides and (.0122mg/2 = ) .006mg from the “some activity” ones.
For every gram of wheat, this gives the “hit” of .0122 + .006 = .0182mg morphine.
We now need (5/.0182 =) 274g wheat – 5 servings – to achieve this effect, even with the (still generous) estimations.
Now, if we consider the graph I posted on page one of the “Ain’t So Bad! … for Real?” thread, and see that the average per capita wheat consumption in the US is ~750 kcal, we conclude that the Average Joe gets about (750x100/1096 = ) .68 x 5 = 3.5mg opioid activity per capita per day.
Once we factor in tolerance (innate and acquired), we see that this opioid activity is trivial even as a single dose… over the course of a day, it is almost nonsensical to even pretend it is an issue.
As well, when we consider that that graph I posted was said to be food “availability” rather than “consumption”, the realistic opioid intake for the typical American plummets even further, and then even more so when we keep in mind that our gliadin/gram content was the highest-end estimate from the posted study.
I’ll find something else to lose sleep over tonight.[/quote]
[quote]hungryone wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Don’t forget the effect that high carbohydrate foods tend to increase serotonin (the happy neurotransmitter) levels!
And regarding the blog post - it may be very well likely that Davis took some liberties (or perhaps made some errors in his recounting) with regards to certain studies; however does this equate to disregarding his ENTIRE message within the book? I don’t think so…[/quote]
I love getting high, but this blog still made me think.
While I never thought of wheat or grains as unhealthy gluten free nuts did push me to believe that cutting it out would make me drop weight. I just wondered why everybody I know looked the same months later. He did point out that several other studies listed were false too but he didn’t feel like addressing the whole list.
What is the ENTIRE message? [/quote]
Well unfortunately weight and fat loss doesn’t have a single “magical” cure… Though cutting out grains and gluten is definitely a step in the positive direction. And just because a food is gluten free, doesn’t mean it won’t make you fat - take potatoes for example; very high in starches with a high glycemic index.
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.
Ultimately it comes down to being a very personal thing (as many people have mentioned). Some will get great results from it. Other will cut out breads and pastas, but still eat things with hidden gluten sources, and claim that going gluten-free does nothing. Still others will need to address different issues with weight loss (ie. insulin or cortisol, for example).
The sad truth is, there’s no easy answer to weight loss. If there was a solution that worked for everyone, we’d have found it by now. Weight loss is a puzzle, of which, going gluten free seems to be a large piece.
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
The primary reason for my post is that he has very little evidence of this. With nearly all his studies having major flaws what is he using to back his claim? Outside of those with celiac disease can you really say grains is of major concern to the human population, or is he just making waves?
What are these great long term results that some are getting? If you have an opinion that it’s bad what made you draw this conclusion? Did you or somebody you know gain energy? feel less bloated? reduction in gas? lose weight? long term from loss of grains alone. I’m not disputing you just asking, as I haven’t seen it.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I’m not embarrassed to admit I now have a man crush on anonym.[/quote]
Well, shucks… what took ya so long??
To add to that original post, two other issues come to mind:
So, before we even take the authors at their word that the “activities” were comparable to the degree they specified, we would first need to check how they came to that conclusion. Simply showing that they bound to the receptors isn’t enough, though, I imagine there IS actual evidence of opioid activity floating about. Whether it’s significant is the big question.
And this is why I hate it when people flash abstracts without actually having read the study. No point even bringing it up if it can’t be adequately reviewed.
[quote]anonym wrote:
As well, when we consider that that graph I posted was said to be food “availability” rather than “consumption”, the realistic opioid intake for the typical American plummets even further, and then even more so when we keep in mind that our gliadin/gram content was the highest-end estimate from the posted study.
I’ll find something else to lose sleep over tonight.[/quote]
Maybe if you only worry about wheat - and very impressive analysis, btw - but what about other foods people consume along with wheat that do the same thing? Does sugar have the same effect or even worse?
What if some people are more sensitive to its effects?
What if addiction to substances require an even lower dose than what would be needed to experience a “therapeutic” effect?
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site 
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site :([/quote]
I missed this post earlier, but I’m glad it was quoted (are you on delay?)… I was confused about what prompted the loliquin comments.
Have any of them compared wheat to battery acid recently?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Maybe if you only worry about wheat - and very impressive analysis, btw - but what about other foods people consume along with wheat that do the same thing? Does sugar have the same effect or even worse?
What if some people are more sensitive to its effects?
What if addiction to substances require an even lower dose than what would be needed to experience a “therapeutic” effect?[/quote]
Thanks for the kind word, good sir.
I just went with the minimal therapeutic dose (rather than a “happy” dose) for adults because it was the easiest reference to come across, but my impression was that addiction – particularly to opioids – almost always coincides with an increasing tolerance. So, even if the initial dose was low, people would be driven to consume more and more regardless. But, I’m not an addiction specialist, so I’m really just relying on stereotype for that.
I’ll have to get back to you a little later on the other stuff.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site :([/quote]
I missed this post earlier, but I’m glad it was quoted (are you on delay?)… I was confused about what prompted the loliquin comments.
Have any of them compared wheat to battery acid recently?[/quote]
The mentioning of Loliquin as a valid figure of authority prompted a dredging up of his non-sense. Obviously, Meadows has now been chosen as the ambassador because he has more credibility to his name.
Also, as JM has never claimed to go from 198-209 in 5 days with Dominican food, he is a not as ripe for parody.
Edit: 198-209 and a reduction in body fat.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site :([/quote]
I missed this post earlier, but I’m glad it was quoted (are you on delay?)… I was confused about what prompted the loliquin comments.
Have any of them compared wheat to battery acid recently?[/quote]
yea my posts are on like 20 minute delay.
nope, no comparison to battery acid. from what i could find of meadows’ posts the reason HE avoids wheat is due to his surgery that removed most of his lower intestine.
his stuff says IF the client is gluten sensitive, to avoid wheat.
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site :([/quote]
I missed this post earlier, but I’m glad it was quoted (are you on delay?)… I was confused about what prompted the loliquin comments.
Have any of them compared wheat to battery acid recently?[/quote]
yea my posts are on like 20 minute delay.
nope, no comparison to battery acid. from what i could find of meadows’ posts the reason HE avoids wheat is due to his surgery that removed most of his lower intestine.
his stuff says IF the client is gluten sensitive, to avoid wheat. [/quote]
yet some will say that unless one has celiac there is no need, which is different than gluten sensitive
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site :([/quote]
I missed this post earlier, but I’m glad it was quoted (are you on delay?)… I was confused about what prompted the loliquin comments.
Have any of them compared wheat to battery acid recently?[/quote]
yea my posts are on like 20 minute delay.
nope, no comparison to battery acid. from what i could find of meadows’ posts the reason HE avoids wheat is due to his surgery that removed most of his lower intestine.
his stuff says IF the client is gluten sensitive, to avoid wheat. [/quote]
yet some will say that unless one has celiac there is no need, which is different than gluten sensitive
[/quote]
gluten/celiac issues aside, i believe another point david brought up in his book was that wheat “spikes” blood sugar faster than other carbs.
this is what bodybuilder and prep coach george farah has to say about bread.
"by: george farah - June 13th, 2009
Ezekiel bread suck! I would never use it nor anyone of my clients especially for their prep. If you want to eat bread, just have a piece of bread. So many people worry about glycemic index etc… who cares about that? when the last time any of you guys had any carbs alone without a piece of meat, protein powder or if you’re a vegan, some type of green or fiber?? As soon as you mix any high GI carbs with a piece of protein or veggies etc… it automatically modifies the glycemic index. I give most of my clients table sugar with their fatty meat like the steak or Salmon’s meals for example. Are you kidding me !!You all are agreeing that Ezekiel bread taste good and rocks etc… that stuff tastes horrible compared to a nice whole wheat bread and not to mention that it has beans and any bodybuilder with some dietary education knows to stay away from it if he or she wants to have the thin skin. And please don’t tell me Jay Cutler uses it; you and me aren’t Cutler ;). Good luck with your Ezekiel, Iâ??m having my pro complex and 2 pieces of whole wheat bread toasted with light jelly on them as I’m typing this and they taste awesome LOL. "
so the point davis makes that wheat spikes blood sugar is nullified because NOBODY that is serious about their physique eats just a piece of bread with nothing else, except maybe post workout when a blood sugar spike is warranted.
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]hungryone wrote:
Anyways, Davis’ message is that you should limit, if not eliminate grains from your diet. Not just for weight loss, but for a myriad of other health related reasons.[/quote]
Davis’ message is a messy wad of absurdly moronic, scaremongering tripe. For someone boasting a medical degree as his intellectual soapbox, it is both shameful and embarrassing that he is either as inept at interpreting peer-reviewed literature, or so willing to whore out his intellectual integrity for a quick buck/flash of the limelight, as his inane ramblings suggest.
I would bet it is about 50/50.[/quote]
What about other “authority” figures that suggest limiting wheat?
John Meadows
[/quote]
good question. i wish i had a subscription to his mountain dog site :([/quote]
I missed this post earlier, but I’m glad it was quoted (are you on delay?)… I was confused about what prompted the loliquin comments.
Have any of them compared wheat to battery acid recently?[/quote]
yea my posts are on like 20 minute delay.
nope, no comparison to battery acid. from what i could find of meadows’ posts the reason HE avoids wheat is due to his surgery that removed most of his lower intestine.
his stuff says IF the client is gluten sensitive, to avoid wheat. [/quote]
yet some will say that unless one has celiac there is no need, which is different than gluten sensitive
[/quote]
gluten/celiac issues aside, i believe another point david brought up in his book was that wheat “spikes” blood sugar faster than other carbs.
this is what bodybuilder and prep coach george farah has to say about bread.
"by: george farah - June 13th, 2009
Ezekiel bread suck! I would never use it nor anyone of my clients especially for their prep. If you want to eat bread, just have a piece of bread. So many people worry about glycemic index etc… who cares about that? when the last time any of you guys had any carbs alone without a piece of meat, protein powder or if you’re a vegan, some type of green or fiber?? As soon as you mix any high GI carbs with a piece of protein or veggies etc… it automatically modifies the glycemic index. I give most of my clients table sugar with their fatty meat like the steak or Salmon’s meals for example. Are you kidding me !!You all are agreeing that Ezekiel bread taste good and rocks etc… that stuff tastes horrible compared to a nice whole wheat bread and not to mention that it has beans and any bodybuilder with some dietary education knows to stay away from it if he or she wants to have the thin skin. And please don’t tell me Jay Cutler uses it; you and me aren’t Cutler ;). Good luck with your Ezekiel, Iâ??m having my pro complex and 2 pieces of whole wheat bread toasted with light jelly on them as I’m typing this and they taste awesome LOL. "
so the point davis makes that wheat spikes blood sugar is nullified because NOBODY that is serious about their physique eats just a piece of bread with nothing else, except maybe post workout when a blood sugar spike is warranted.[/quote]
yeah, that’s a fair point on all accounts. Ezk bread does suck, but then again so does wheat when you’re used to white bread… so one can get used to Ezk just anything else really. Why not choose the least processed bread one can find if they are able to adjust.
There was a Paleo bread that just hit the market that claims 1g net carbs and mostly fiber (using coconut flout IIRC), though Jimmy Moore said he ran an n=1 experiment where it still spiked his blood sugar like crazy.
just liked to add ive just consumed 2 pieces of wheat toast with a touch of butter, and a bowl of greek yoghurt mixed with whey. i can feelz my blood sugarz soarin, dr davis.