'Wheat Belly, Busted'

Nutrition
41

[quote]anonym wrote:
To add to that original post, two other issues come to mind:

  1. Rat study. 'nuff said.
  2. The abstract states that “the separated peptides were tested for opioid-like activity by competitive binding to opioid receptor sites in rat brain tissue in the presence of tritium-labeled dihydromorphine.” Now, lifty is correct in saying that these peptides compete with tritium-labeled dihydromorphine for the available receptors; however, where he drifts from sound conclusions based on the information available from abstract to just parroting the authors’ conclusions without supporting evidence is the point at which he infers this somehow equates to activity. It should be noted that receptor affinity does not necessarily equal activity. There is a whole slew of drugs that act as receptor antagonists – many of them competitive, as studied in this paper – that, by virtue of their design, elicit minimal, if any, response after binding to the active site.

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]
I would expect anyone who throws around studies to at least come up with a similar analysis (based on the information in the abstract).

I will add a couple points though:

  1. The study was address links between schizophrenia and celiac disease. Because of the celiac disease component, the authors can assume partially digested peptides make it into the circulatory system.
  2. It is an in vitro study using rat brain homogenate. This does not, in any way, represent a physiological system to study opioid-like activity. This is the primary reason why this study does not mean jack.

BTW, Anonym, the authors do cite references addressing the opioid-like activity. However, they are, again, in vitro assays.

42

[quote]OzyNut wrote:
I would expect anyone who throws around studies to at least come up with a similar analysis (based on the information in the abstract).

I will add a couple points though:

  1. The study was address links between schizophrenia and celiac disease. Because of the celiac disease component, the authors can assume partially digested peptides make it into the circulatory system.
  2. It is an in vitro study using rat brain homogenate. This does not, in any way, represent a physiological system to study opioid-like activity. This is the primary reason why this study does not mean jack.

BTW, Anonym, the authors do cite references addressing the opioid-like activity. However, they are, again, in vitro assays.[/quote]

Aah, I figured this had to have been an in vitro experiment, but since this sort of stuff is unrelated to my area of education (micro), I didn’t want to presume based on the limited info. The Celiac observation makes sense, and while I don’t feel it is the case, I know the argument for a high prevalence of intolerance/inflammation would probably be cited to apply that phenomenon to a (much) larger portion of the population. But even if that was so, I’d imagine that the amount of peptides making it into circulation would be quite a bit smaller than what is seen in full-blown Celiacs.

What’s your opinion on the Wheat Belly movement? I would bet from your past posts you’ve got a better perspective than most here (myself included).

43

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]OzyNut wrote:
I would expect anyone who throws around studies to at least come up with a similar analysis (based on the information in the abstract).

I will add a couple points though:

  1. The study was address links between schizophrenia and celiac disease. Because of the celiac disease component, the authors can assume partially digested peptides make it into the circulatory system.
  2. It is an in vitro study using rat brain homogenate. This does not, in any way, represent a physiological system to study opioid-like activity. This is the primary reason why this study does not mean jack.

BTW, Anonym, the authors do cite references addressing the opioid-like activity. However, they are, again, in vitro assays.[/quote]

Aah, I figured this had to have been an in vitro experiment, but since this sort of stuff is unrelated to my area of education (micro), I didn’t want to presume based on the limited info. The Celiac observation makes sense, and while I don’t feel it is the case, I know the argument for a high prevalence of intolerance/inflammation would probably be cited to apply that phenomenon to a (much) larger portion of the population. But even if that was so, I’d imagine that the amount of peptides making it into circulation would be quite a bit smaller than what is seen in full-blown Celiacs.

What’s your opinion on the Wheat Belly movement? I would bet from your past posts you’ve got a better perspective than most here (myself included).[/quote]
I am utterly disgusted by the book. There is just too much information in there that is falsified; Dr Davis blatantly lies or over-exaggerates. Because of this, the whole concept cannot be taken seriously.

Gluten insensitivity/intolerance, on the other hand, is much more interesting. There is debate in the literature as to whether a pure gluten insensitivity, that is not autoimmune or allergy based, actually exists. In recent years quite a number of mechanisms have been suggested to explain the etiology. Although, I am not sure if there is any consensus on the pathophysiology. Having said that, I believe that gluten intolerance would be secondary to some other primary metabolic lesion.

BTW, I enjoy reading the systematic breakdown of logic when you analyse studies/hypotheses. Very entertaining.

44

I swore this thread was going to be deleted considering Chris’s adherence to the book.

45

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I swore this thread was going to be deleted considering Chris’s adherence to the book.[/quote]

there’s been several discussions about this book on here

46

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[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, IÃ?¢??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.
[/quote]

Not really sure whether wheat or gluten is bad for you or not but I do follow a lower carb AD type diet and feel more alert probably due to the steady blood sugar levels etc., but getting to my point I tried the Paleo bread because I was sick of having my poached eggs without bread. Anyway I tested my blood sugar throughout just out of curiousity and it didn’t spike one bit. Going to test it again to make sure.

47

[quote]as wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[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, IÃ??Ã?¢??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.
[/quote]

Not really sure whether wheat or gluten is bad for you or not but I do follow a lower carb AD type diet and feel more alert probably due to the steady blood sugar levels etc., but getting to my point I tried the Paleo bread because I was sick of having my poached eggs without bread. Anyway I tested my blood sugar throughout just out of curiousity and it didn’t spike one bit. Going to test it again to make sure.[/quote]

thanks for posting that. Up for doing just the bread with maybe a little butter and no other protein//fat source

48

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]as wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[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, IÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??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.
[/quote]

Not really sure whether wheat or gluten is bad for you or not but I do follow a lower carb AD type diet and feel more alert probably due to the steady blood sugar levels etc., but getting to my point I tried the Paleo bread because I was sick of having my poached eggs without bread. Anyway I tested my blood sugar throughout just out of curiousity and it didn’t spike one bit. Going to test it again to make sure.[/quote]

thanks for posting that. Up for doing just the bread with maybe a little butter and no other protein//fat source[/quote]

grass fed butter, john meadows style. lol.

49

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
An interesting take on the book.

In the comments section, he goes on to say other studies the book used were incorrectly stated also. [/quote]

i read this review too and I have read the bok.
I don’t know about the second two points he makes, but in the first one he very carefully talks about “wheat free” and then trashes Dr Davis’ comments about GLUTENfree, also neglecting to mention Dr D’s take on junk carbs.
probably thought we would not notice the term change.

It’s not a great review. Even if those two studies were wrong - and i don’t know that they were - he ignores the rest of the book which is very valuable.

50

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

What is the ENTIRE message? [/quote]

The entire message is that modern wheat has been unwittingly mucked about with so much in order to increase yields , thereby changing the gliading protein in wheat, that it has been rendered unfit for human consumption.
the gliadin protein has been turned into an opiate such that it does not give us a high, it acts as an appetite stimulant, causing people to overeat about 440 calories a day, always feel hungry and causes a great deal of imflammation in the body and permeability in various parts of the body such as the intestine wherein peopel can get Crohn’s IBS.
The amylopectin A in wheat causes blood sugar to skyrocket on ingesting it.

There’s a bit more to it but that’s the gist.

51

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[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]

If you want more direct info go to wheatbellyblog.com, where these issues are discussed all the time, and read the reviews on Amazon, where many people discuss their health improvements in great detail.

53

[quote]Shane.H wrote:
I don’t understand The benefits of being Gluten free unless you suffer from eating wheat products. I don’t eat TONS of pasta. But when I do it is ONLY 100% whole grain with milled flax seed, or a higher protein blend using eggs etc. I suppose before making this arguement that I should post a picture of myself.

I eat nearly only Natural organic foods. I Eat chips made of black beans and brown rice. Quina, whole wheat, hemp protein NEVER whey or Casein. Only antibiotic free/free range chicken and eggs and NEVER beef.

I weight about 175 LBS and I am in EXtremely good shape. I also don’t work out. I make sure that every meal I eat is off set with more Plant protein then meat. (Turkey burger- Turkey 99% fat free smushed with black beans, onions, garlic, olive oil on a 7 grain sprouted bun) Things of that nature.

I don’t understand the benefits of being gluten free unless it really does make you sick. Whole grains are great sources of natural vitamin E, Fiber, Omega 3 fatty acids and omega 6 (3 gets preference when being converted depending on the source) and TONS of other minerals. Someone explain.[/quote]

So, you do not workout but, you are in extremely good shape? First off, why are you here? Second, what is extremely good shape.

54

[quote]Shane.H wrote:
I don’t understand the benefits of being gluten free unless it really does make you sick. Whole grains are great sources of natural vitamin E, Fiber, Omega 3 fatty acids and omega 6 (3 gets preference when being converted depending on the source) and TONS of other minerals. Someone explain.[/quote]

Even a non celiac can have an intolerance to gluten.

If you are young you may not have any noticeable symptoms of gluten intolerance.

Over time this may change.

The only way to know is to completely remove it for a month or so and then add it back in to your diet to see how you feel. If you are going to do that you might as well remove dairy, alcohol, and fructose at the same time.

As far as getting nutrients from grains you would be better off eating colorful vegetables that are way more nutrient dense as well as have their nutrients bioavailable. Part of the problem with grains is that they come with antinutrients in their fiber that chelate with the chemicals in food to lock them up so you cannot get their nutrition.