CBS: Modern wheat a "perfect, chronic poison," doctor says

[The Evil Genius]

I've heard that Gluten allergies are commonly reversed over a long period of avoiding gluten. Is this true? I mainly ask because I've so tired of preparing "special" meals for my strange sister every time our family gets together.

Reversed isn't really the proper word. The inflammation of the small intestine that gluten causes in some people might be lessened if they avoid gluten for long periods of time. However, I suspect the immediate introduction of gluten into a diet that hasn't had any for quite awhile might not be the best thing.

[MattFancy]

Until next week when a study concludes that brown rice, quinoa, and millet are poison just like everything else is.

Pretty sure I read something not long ago that there were traces of arsenic in rice. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm319827.htm

So yeah, just don't eat or drink anything but water

[renaissance]

If you've been complaining of gout and abdoninal/intenstial problems for years to doctors, and they didn't put it together for you, you haven't been going to very good doctors.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The two people I personally know with celiac's, both suffered for years before any doctor was able to identify their issue.From what they tell me, this was a common issue until more recently, when there is more awareness about the disease.

[Botched]

Pretty sure I read something not long ago that there were traces of arsenic in rice. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm319827.htm

So yeah, just don't eat or drink anything but water

Just make sure not to drink tap water, and definitely make sure not to drink water from a plastic or metal container. Ridiculous amounts of contaminants in those.

As far as food, I'm switching to a diet of organic vitamin-fortified oxygen breathed in through a HEPA filter.

[PeterMP]

I don't think this is necessarily true. The two people I personally know with celiac's, both suffered for years before any doctor was able to identify their issue.From what they tell me, this was a common issue until more recently, when there is more awareness about the disease.

How old are they?

If they have full blown celiac's disease, and they weren't diagnosed, then that is being a poor doctor.

The general symptoms, "treatment" (in terms of avoiding gluten), and a biopsy diagnosis for celiac has been around for at least 25 years.

If your doctor can only diagnose "common" issues, then you don't have a very good doctor IMO.

I backed off my previous statement because of things like the possibility of having a difficult or un-detectable allergy (an inconsistent test on an allergy test) or some non-allergy, but very uncommon and therefore undescribed disease.

If I knew somebody was a doctor and even fifteen years ago, they failed to diagnose full blown celiac's disease in a patient over a period of time, I wouldn't go to that doctor.

At a certain point in time, a failure to properly diagnose is a failure as a doctor.

[Jumbo]

In this matter, he's an idiot and just making **** up (his claims of "we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds.." and implying this is not only happening but is strictly due to removing wheat from the diet---gahhh). That doesn't mean knowing your individual metabolism well, not OVER-eating anything, ingesting less processed grains (or other foods) and eating a variety of grains (good ones mentioned already) aren't all typically healthy practices. They are.

Stories like this are why I always take health food advice with a grain of salt. (see what I did there?)

I endorse skepticism, but I'd amend it to "Stories like this are why I always take Stories like this with a bucket of salt." When you have such an out-of-the-norm contention such as this, the burden of proof is great. Getting attention for your extreme and provocative claims is not only easy in today's media, it definitely helps book sales (like the agnostic neurosurgeon promoting a story that he saw mystical God stuff while in a coma, and became a believer, just in time to push book sales).

[Stadium-Armory]

My grandmother, father, and two of my sons are Celiacs. Although me, my wife and my daughters aren't, we live in a gluten free household and swear by it. Even the non celiacs eat gluten free and are in our opinion better for it. I would also add that its not out of the norm to be skeptical of wheat. Celiac disease is real and its not hard for doctors to draw conclusions about what wheat flour does even to non celiacs. Lucky for us, we live in an area where 'wheat free' is normal. Most restaurants including pizza joints offer gluten free alternatives. All of the grocery stores carry wheat free pasta, flour, everything.

My only wheat intake is alcohol related.

[Jumbo]

Nothing wrong with gluten free, even if you don't have a real medical condition that benefits from removing wheat (very real), or aren't simply eating too much (people have issues with too much soy too--like in protein sources or in other foods--which is healthy for most folks, in normal amounts.

It also doesn't take TOO much brains to see that there's a lot of money to be made with "alternative foods", and to remember that people get themselves to believe all sorts of things, and that they feel all sorts of things, that may or may not be based in objective reality.

But if it's real for them and they're healthy doing what they do, who cares? Go for it. :cool:

I have anecdotal stories too (and they vary considerably), but who doesn't? I respect them all.

I also have been involved with a very respected research program on weight loss, at a major university, that has huge nutritional component (of course) for almost 5 years.

One "trick" with what anyone experiences and reports in dietary and resulting body (shape and sensations) change is in if it lasts. Five years is a good minimum to gauge a consistently applied change against the results.

Personally, I felt I was eating too much wheat (even though it was "100% whole wheat") and cut back and substituted more of what's been mentioned in here (as the program I work with usually recommends). But it's not because wheat is something to avoid. It's still a very respected source of good nutrition, as it should be, for most people. Just don't consume mass quantities (for you coneheads ).

[Hubbs]

I've been about 20-30 pounds above where I'd like to be since my junior year of college, but had never really started looking seriously into nutrition until a few months ago, largely because it just seemed a bit overwhelming to me. I've never really known anything about how to cook, and like others have mentioned, it seemed like there were always new "fad" diets popping up every few months, so I didn't even really know where to begin. But eventually I just... did. I don't even remember what I started with, I just decided to start reading up and see what conclusions I could eventually reach based on what information I could understand from a variety of sources. And so far, those conclusions have all revolved around the notion that one of the best things you can do is dramatically cut down on the grains in your diet, especially wheat. I think the "paleo" community makes a lot of sense there, and that's without even getting into the genetically-modified stuff of the past century. Humans have only been eating large amounts of grains since the invention of agriculture about 10-15,000 years ago after millions of years of evolution, so it seems unlikely that our bodies would be "designed" to eat that way. The number of people who report dramatic improvements in their health—not just their weight, but their overall health—after mostly cutting wheat/grains out of their diet is remarkable.

[Special K]

In this matter, he's an idiot and just making **** up (his claims of "we're seeing hundreds of thousands of people losing 30, 80, 150 pounds.." and implying this is not only happening but is strictly due to removing wheat from the diet---gahhh). That doesn't mean knowing your individual metabolism well, not OVER-eating anything, ingesting less processed grains (or other foods) and eating a variety of grains (good ones mentioned already) aren't all typically healthy practices. They are.

I'd agree with your assertion that many of these claims are very likely over-exaggerated. I find it to be a shame because it is a very important public health topic. But when the topic discussion begins with unbelievable claims, people automatically tune out and disregard the entire discussion.

Obviously everyone has unique nutritional needs and there are a number of people out there who cannot tolerate wheat-based products. While some of the "facts" thrown out there are outrageous and highly suspect, the basic premise of the argument remains in tact as far as I'm concerned. I think there is substantial evidence out there that shows a diet rich in whole foods and minimally -processed food products are best for optimal health. Do people need to go overboard and cut out every single wheat product in their diet, or cultivate their own crops and gardens, or eat exclusively organic foods? Absolutely not. But, I think there is mounting evidence out there starting to show how some health issues may be exacerbated by foods harvested from genetically engineered crops....

Ultimately, I think it's useful to look at these claims and these types of studies in a generalized context and retrieve the fundamental lessons from each. Most of the time, the lessons are that it is healthier to go back to the basics as far as real and un- or minimally-processed. Will that diet cure cancer though? Likely not

[Jumbo]

Yup, K, and I also know when not to beat my head against some things. I read someone writing something (not Armory btw) where it's clear they're just parroting claims they've read or heard as opposed to citing actual studies that support the numbers they claim (which I don't hear with all the weekly discussion I hear from people pouring over dozens of them), or "deciding" they know stuff about evolutionary biology, nutrition, and digestion that they don't (and that I don't either, though I wager I know way more than most of them), but they "figured it out" (make unfounded assumptions that seem "logical" to them and the state them as likely facts).

So, I just don't argue much with anyone on this stuff and I remain open-minded, though skeptical, trained, and demanding. It is worth continuing to learn and study.

[Hubbs]

Yup, K, and I also know when not to beat my head against some things. I read someone writing something (not Armory btw) where it's clear they're just parroting claims they've read or heard as opposed to citing actual studies that support the numbers they claim (which I don't hear with all the weekly discussion I hear from people pouring over dozens of them), or "deciding" they know stuff about evolutionary biology, nutrition, and digestion that they don't (and that I don't either, though I wager I know way more than most of them), but they "figured it out" (make unfounded assumptions that seem "logical" to them and the state them as likely facts).

Seeing as this seems wholly relevant to what I just posted (), I suppose I should reiterate that I'm still in the very early stages of learning what I can about nutrition, and nobody should take what I'm saying as advice. Just thought I'd add to the conversation as someone who's going through the process of trying to get myself some edumacation.

[Jumbo]

Seeing as this seems wholly relevant to what I just posted (), I suppose I should reiterate that I'm still in the very early stages of learning what I can about nutrition, and nobody should take what I'm saying as advice. Just thought I'd add to the conversation as someone who's going through the process of trying to get myself some edumacation.

I see that now Hubbs

Great thing is I hadn't even read your post and even though I worded it in general, I was thinking (specifically, at that moment) of some family members and one who e-mailed me and is always trying to argue with me and I won't play

[Special K]

Yup, K, and I also know when not to beat my head against some things. I read someone writing something (not Armory btw) where it's clear they're just parroting claims they've read or heard as opposed to citing actual studies that support the numbers they claim (which I don't hear with all the weekly discussion I hear from people pouring over dozens of them), or "deciding" they know stuff about evolutionary biology, nutrition, and digestion that they don't (and that I don't either, though I wager I know way more than most of them), but they "figured it out" (make unfounded assumptions that seem "logical" to them and the state them as likely facts).

So, I just don't argue much with anyone on this stuff and I remain open-minded, though skeptical, trained, and demanding. It is worth continuing to learn and study.

Yeah, people who report assumptions about nutrition as facts without peer-reviewed evidence to support their claims are pretty frustrating to deal with. And, they do significant damage to the legitimacy of the overall nutritional discussion.

I have a "friend" on facebook who is a self-proclaimed dietician or nutrition guru or whatever title she's given herself this week. Her nutritional and medical expertise in all matters health was derived from an online certificate course...which I don't even know if the "school" she earned this certificate from is accredited. The bullcrap nutritional cum medical advice she posts on facebook is routinely ludicrous. I don't argue with her there because, well, one, it's facebook and that's just idiotic to argue there and two, she's a family friend and there's no need to even get into a discussion about it.

I just laugh and shake my head at her claims that removing all wheat and all soy from the diet can reverse ANY medical condition (cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, etc.). Even scarier is the fact that she actually has real, live, human being clients who think she knows what the hell she's talking about (despite her having no undergrad training in this area, and absolutely no post-grad education).

People like this actually, IMO, do a disservice to this entire nutritional debate because they advocate extreme and unrealistic nutritional rules that everyday people cannot incorporate into their lives and sustain for the long term. By pinpointing one or 2 ingredients as "poison" and to avoid at all costs, they confuse the general population to the point they just give up altogether. So, while I feel tthere is probable merit to at least some extent with many of these claims, I think the bottom line is that a diet based on whole foods and moderation of wheat products, soy, etc. should be preached to the general population. But like you said, there is a lot of money to be made in trumpeting a niche aspect of nutrition...

[Enter Apotheosis]

No doubt in my mind that nutritionists, dieticians, and health nuts are easily the least trustworthy "experts" on the planet. :pfft:

One very interesting documentary I encourage people to watch is "Forks Over Knives." It interviews some of the top cardiologists in the country, including the physician who invented the CABG procedure, and the evidence is pretty overwhelming that having a plant-based diet is the best for cardiovascular health and greatly decreases risk of developing other chronic diseases. When I had my sister and her boyfriend (who's a cardiologist) watch the documentary, they decided they were switching almost exclusively to a vegetarian diet.

I'm not saying everyone should switch to real food/plant food based diet, that's just the decision I made for myself after a lot of research and testimonies I've heard from various cardiologists and public health physicians. I would, however, encourage watching the "forks over knives" documentary, it's very enlightening.

I'm all for healthier eating (particularly cutting back on grains, opting to go with organic fruits and veggies, and choosing grass fed/pasture fed meat). I still don't like the idea of vegetarianism being regarded by some as THE healthy option, though. It's fine if you do it for ethical reasons or just because you enjoy eating that way but pushing it as superior to a diet that includes meat is absolutely misleading. Now, I will say that Forks Over Knives is... interesting. They do a good job of pulling out a lot of correlative facts and figures but the evidence they rely on to stake their case is far from being causative. The best breakdown of it to that end that I've seen is here:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/

Warning: The page takes forever to load and the size of the scroll bar is awfully intimidating. Over 90% of the page is comments, though, so it's really not that bad. The piece itself still isn't short but it is an extremely well done counter to some of the information presented in FOK.

And so far, those conclusions have all revolved around the notion that one of the best things you can do is dramatically cut down on the grains in your diet, especially wheat. I think the "paleo" community makes a lot of sense there, and that's without even getting into the genetically-modified stuff of the past century. Humans have only been eating large amounts of grains since the invention of agriculture about 10-15,000 years ago after millions of years of evolution, so it seems unlikely that our bodies would be "designed" to eat that way. The number of people who report dramatic improvements in their health—not just their weight, but their overall health—after mostly cutting wheat/grains out of their diet is remarkable.

I like the paleo movement as it's pretty similar to how I like to eat and it's a group of people that at least tries to be thorough in vetting its sources and keeping up with the science. Still, it's best to take the whole thing with a grain of salt and recognize that there is merit to other approaches (including higher carb, lower fat diets).

[Koolblue13]

Before I turned vegetarian, I only bought organic poultry and meat as well, due to the hormones pumped into the livestock.

Always strange to see people who I'm fairly certain have made cracks about my dietary habits and views on food come around and see the light.

[KingGibbs]

Man. This is somewhat disconcerting to me because I try to incude the "healthy" whole wheat as part of my diet.

Any opinions on gluten-free bread? Yes, I know it is costly.

[Koolblue13]

Man. This is somewhat disconcerting to me because I try to incude the "healthy" whole wheat as part of my diet.

Any opinions on gluten-free bread? Yes, I know it is costly.

Whole wheat bread is usually just the same sugar filled gooey bread, with a tiny bit of grains on top and dye to make the bleached flour look white.

Sour dough is the healthiest of breads, but most bread is terrible for you. Especially if you want to lose weight. Bagel and pretzel bread is the worst.

[Hubbs]

Bagel and pretzel bread is the worst.

Why do you say that?

[Koolblue13]

Why do you say that?

Just things I've read about the way it breaks down in your body very slowly. It's harder for your body to metabolize for some reason. I don't have any links for you, so I'm not going to take a definitive stand, but I have seen it come up several times.

[dfitzo53]

Man. This is somewhat disconcerting to me because I try to incude the "healthy" whole wheat as part of my diet.

Any opinions on gluten-free bread? Yes, I know it is costly.

My wife recently had to experiment with gluten-free. In terms of our baking at home, things seem to turn out fine. I made a berry cobbler for Thanksgiving that everyone loved. The gluten eaters said they couldn't tell the difference and were just as satisfied as the gluten-free folks.

In terms of store-bought bread, it's hit or miss. We've found the Udi's brand to be pretty good, and the Ener-G brand to be mediocre.

Edit: Also, if you want to truly go gluten-free you have to think about a lot more than bread. Wheat is worked into a lot of food additives, plus there's the concern of contamination in a factory that processes wheat alongside say, rice or oats.

[KingGibbs]

Thanks dfitzo.

Couple of things. We all know how bad processed foods are for us, but aren't gluten-free products HIGHLY processed?

Also. From what I've been gathering, there is no reason to go gluten-free unless it is for medical reasons. Without doing too much research I am guessing that some are gluten intolerant and others are not? Kind of reminiscent of lactose intolerance?

I am not one that would dismiss this gluten-free push, but like anything else, I am skeptical when products come out of nowhere at a high cost to take advantage of the latest headlines.

[The Evil Genius]

Thanks dfitzo.

Couple of things. We all know how bad processed foods are for us, but aren't gluten-free products HIGHLY processed?

Also. From what I've been gathering, there is no reason to go gluten-free unless it is for medical reasons. Without doing too much research I am guessing that some are gluten intolerant and others are not? Kind of reminiscent of lactose intolerance?

I am not one that would dismiss this gluten-free push, but like anything else, I am skeptical when products come out of nowhere at a high cost to take advantage of the latest headlines.

From what I have read, like lactose, everyone is intolerant of gluten. It's the degree of intolerance that causes the problems.

With gluten, you have 4 different types of people.

1.) People who eat gluten and have no problems digesting it.

2.) People who have auto-immune diseases (like Celiac's) where their small intestines become damaged over time with the consumption of gluten products.

3.) People who have wheat, yeast, gluten allergies.

4.) There is a growing (partly from proper diagnosis and partly from super gluteny wheat products) population of people who have a wheat (gluten) intolerance. These people make up the bulk of population who are going gluten free.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've been about 20-30 pounds above where I'd like to be since my junior year of college, but had never really started looking seriously into nutrition until a few months ago, largely because it just seemed a bit overwhelming to me. I've never really known anything about how to cook, and like others have mentioned, it seemed like there were always new "fad" diets popping up every few months, so I didn't even really know where to begin. But eventually I just... did. I don't even remember what I started with, I just decided to start reading up and see what conclusions I could eventually reach based on what information I could understand from a variety of sources. And so far, those conclusions have all revolved around the notion that one of the best things you can do is dramatically cut down on the grains in your diet, especially wheat. I think the "paleo" community makes a lot of sense there, and that's without even getting into the genetically-modified stuff of the past century. Humans have only been eating large amounts of grains since the invention of agriculture about 10-15,000 years ago after millions of years of evolution, so it seems unlikely that our bodies would be "designed" to eat that way. The number of people who report dramatic improvements in their health—not just their weight, but their overall health—after mostly cutting wheat/grains out of their diet is remarkable.

Has it worked for you?

[The Evil Genius]

As for shelf ready gluten free products, yes some of them can be highly processed. Although most use alternatives to wheat flour (like rice flour, sorghum, tapioca starch, etc)...so in the end they are no more processed than other products you can buy off the shelf.