Category: Articles

The Mystique of Protein and Its Implications

60

There are three macronutrients in food: carbohydrates, fat and protein, ‘macro’ in the sense that they comprise almost all of the weight and calories of food. Vitamins and minerals are the micronutrients.

Protein, ever since its discovery in 1839, has been considered by many people to be an exceptionally important nutrient, often assuming that the more we consume the better. Its name comes from the Greek word, proteios, meaning ‘of prime importance’—an auspicious and almost mystical beginning for the future of this nutrient! Add to this importance the long standing impression by most people that protein is exclusive to animal source foods.

We now know, however, that this importance is exaggerated, to mythical proportions. For a starter, protein is not exclusive to animal-based foods. In the late 1800s protein was also found to be present in plant foods. Yet the myth of its being tightly or even exclusively linked to animal-based foods still lingers. Simply ask a non-meat eating vegan how many times they are asked, “But where do I get my protein?”

This bias implying that meat is the sole source of protein was encouraged over these many decades by ‘science’. Research findings, for example, were showing that animal-based proteins are utilized by the body more efficiently. This efficiency of utilization referred to increased body growth rate among other effects, with greater efficiency being described as greater ‘biological value’ or higher quality. But it was only animal-based proteins that have high quality.

Because most people obviously like high quality, animal-based protein became the protein of choice. In effect, this history evolved through the prism of linguistics to give a profound self-perpetuating paradigm.

The problem with this proposition is that high quality does not necessarily mean better health. Increasing body growth may be useful for farm animal production and growing children faster, but it also means growing cancer cells faster, improving conditions for heart disease and speeding up aging—each of which has been documented. Growing young girls more rapidly means earlier sexual maturation, higher circulating levels of estrogen and, eventually, elevated breast cancer risk.

My laboratory in a long series of studies conducted over more than two decades showed that the growth of experimental cancer is markedly stimulated by the consumption of animal-based casein, the main protein of cow’s milk. This occurs in part because this animal source protein stimulates the production of the same growth hormone that spurs childhood growth. Plant based proteins tend not to promote these events, not at least when fed at levels typically found in the whole foods, plant based (WFPB) diet. These findings beg the next important question of what is the proper amount and kind of protein for individuals to consume for optimum health.

To answer this question, let’s first consider the officially created recommended daily allowance (RDA). It was first determined and published in 1943 by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences for the purpose of supporting good nutrition for the American military during wartime.

This assessment begins with a determination of the amount of protein to be consumed to compensate for the amount of protein (as nitrogen) excreted. This estimate, called the minimum daily requirement, was about 0.5 gms/kg of body weight, equivalent to about 6% of total diet calories. Because this estimate was determined on a small, random sample of individuals (from the larger population), it was adjusted upward by about two standard deviations to insure adequate intake for everyone in the larger population. This became 0.8 gm/kg body weight—the well known recommended daily allowance (RDA). For a 70 kg (144 lb) adult male, this is 56 gms; for a 60 kg (132 lb) female, 48 gms. Assuming a daily consumption of 2000 calories (cal) and an energy content of 4 cal/gm protein, this corresponds to 11.2 % dietary protein for a 2000 cal diet, or 9.0% dietary protein for a 2500 cal diet. To round it off for convenience, a diet of 10% protein (the RDA) easily represents enough protein for good health. This estimate, first made official in 1943, has since been officially reviewed 14 times by an expert panel of scientists, thus fixing it as a well-established figure.

But because we revere protein in general, especially animal-based protein, an average American diet contains about 17% dietary protein—not the RDA of 10%. The key question then is what kind of diet provides this RDA of 10% protein? A whole food plant based diet easily provides the 10% protein (even the low protein potato has 8% protein) while also including the countless other nutrients required for good health. But 90-95% of us consume substantially more protein than the RDA. Almost all of the protein in excess of this RDA comes from animal-based foods which brings with it two types of adverse health consequences, including 1) the adverse effects of the protein itself and 2) the displacement of the health benefits of the nutrients of plant-based foods.

Our animal protein rich diets result from our unquestioned enthusiasm for protein, especially of the animal kind. As a result, our diets are more flawed than we realize, not because of the over consumption of any one nutrient like animal-sourced protein but because of the under consumption of countless other plant-sourced nutrients.

Here’s a small sample of especially damning evidence on animal-based protein itself, some of which has been available for a very long time. Much of this evidence, selected because of its scientific rigor and its implications, was reported as the effects of single nutrients or groups of nutrients but keep in mind that most of this evidence also will reflect parallel changes in other nutrients that add to these ill effects.

Although preceded by several reports on the association of dietary fat with cancers in the 1960s and 1970s among different countries, a 1986 report1 showed that the almost linear increased cancer rates often observed with high fat diets are primarily attributed to animal-based food (total dietary fat and animal-based protein are highly correlated, that is, >90%).2

A 670-page, 1997 report3, prepared by a group of 16 scientists from 10 countries, reviewing the world’s literature on the diet and cancer relationship concluded, as a first recommendation, to consume a plant-based diet.

Heart disease has long been associated with animal fat consumption4 and serum cholesterol5although this early focus on these two dietary factors has now expanded to a much more comprehensive analysis. In rural China, for example, an aggregate group of ‘Western’ (affluent) diseases (inclusive of heart disease) are highly correlated with serum cholesterol, which is highly correlated in turn with animal protein.6 Thus the early reports of heart disease being associated with dietary total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol is much more likely to have been as association with animal based protein.

As early as 1922 and 1923, increased animal protein consumption was more effective in increasing the early stages of atherosclerosis than dietary fat.7,8 In 19409 and 194110, the same results again appeared. Casein, an animal-based (milk) protein, was about five times more effective(!) than a plant-based protein (soy) in causing an increase in serum cholesterol in experimental animal studies, as later summarized in 1983.11 Similar results were obtained for another animal-based protein, lactalbumin of cow’s milk,12 when it was compared to two plant based-proteins, corn and wheat.

In human studies in 197713 and 198014, animal-based protein affected serum cholesterol much more substantially than did dietary fat. Animal-based proteins, as a group, increase serum cholesterol while plant-based proteins, as a group, decrease serum cholesterol.15 Also, when animal-based proteins and plant-based proteins are switched, serum cholesterol levels switch accordingly,16, 17 going high with animal-based proteins and going low with plant-based proteins. In short, these and other studies convincingly show that animal-based protein is much more significant than plant-based protein or dietary fat in promoting high serum cholesterol and early atherogenesis. However, this effect that has been largely ignored, even though the first observations of this effect appeared almost a century ago and have been repeated many times since.

A similar phenomenon exists for the effects of animal-based protein consumption on experimental cancer.18, 19 The animal-based protein, casein, has been shown in many studies,20, 21 especially in my own laboratory,22 to increase the development of cancer in experimental animals while plant-based proteins, soy and wheat protein, decrease its development. These extensively published findings, too, have been subsequently ignored even though mechanisms responsible for this effect have been documented.

An expert panel of 13 scientists convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences produced a 478-page, 1982 report on diet, nutrition and cancer20 and emphasized “the importance of including fruits, vegetables, and whole grain cereal products in the daily diet”. It also was the first expert panel to recommend that dietary fat be decreased only to 30% of total calories, and not lower as the evidence warranted because the panel believed that it might suggest curtailment of the consumption of animal protein-based foods (meat, milk and eggs) and put the report’s credibility at political risk.

In 2009, a review (meta-analysis) of 10 major cohort studies (433,070 participants) showed a highly significant 26% increase in type-2 diabetes cases with an increase of 120 g red meat/day and a 41% increase in type-2 diabetes cases (380,606 participants) when comparing high to low intake of processed meats.23 This is an unusually large number of participants and a huge effect for studies that did not include for comparison a whole food plant-based study group with no meats and/or other animal-based foods.

In 2012, researchers from the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study summarized findings on red meat consumption and mortality from two big, well-known studies, the Nurses and the Physicians studies (23,926 deaths, including 5901 cardiovascular diseases and 9464 cancers, and almost 3 million years of follow-up). They concluded that “red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD [cardiovascular] and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.” They estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women…could be prevented…if all individuals consumed <0.5 serving/day of red meat.”

In a network of case-control studies, reported in 2013, 11,622 cases of 10 different types of cancer were reported for the years 1991-2009 in Italy and Switzerland. An average 32% cancer risk increase was observed for those consuming an equivalent of 50 g red meat/day.24

These three major degenerative diseases (heart, cancer and diabetes) are associated with increased red meat consumption. The sizes of these effects are statistically quite remarkable, especially when these studies did not include a comparison with the WFPB diet where the observed effect would very likely be much larger, based on the ability of the WFPB diet to reverse the majority of the diabetes and heart disease cases.25, 26

Yet another relatively common disease associated with animal protein-based diets is osteoporosis. Comparing countries, very impressive positive correlations exist for bone fracture rates with dietary calcium27 and animal protein.28 Together these two nutrients explain the increased risk for osteoporosis with increased dairy consumption.22

Very recently, the results of several large studies or meta-analyses of groups of such human studies have become available. Each of these studies has its own unique experimental characteristics, which include 1) number of participants, 2) length of observation period, 3) relative numbers and ages of men versus women, 4) ethnicity, 5) different exposure metrics (food consumption, disappearance, recall and blood biomarkers), 6) disease outcomes (all-cause or disease-specific mortality rates) and 7) criteria for food group specifications (e.g., processed or unprocessed red meat, other meat groups, dairy, eggs). Each report, therefore, will be unique and will provide its own disease risk estimate as a function of these many lifestyle qualifiers (a range of estimations is to be expected). The findings of these studies were peer-reviewed and were authored by highly competent and experienced researchers with little or no hidden conflicts of interests.

Without becoming entrapped in experimental minutiae (as important as they are), the reported findings of a sample of the more notable of these studies show that processed and unprocessed red meat consumption is significantly associated with increases in total mortality by 10-44%,29, 3031 cardiovascular disease mortality by 18-28%29 and cancer mortality by 10-32%.24, 31 Although these results of increased disease risk for meat consumption are generally statistically significant, they may seem somewhat modest for many observers.

In contrast, intervention studies show that switching from a meat based diet (also rich in refined carbohydrates) to a WFPB diet reverses cardiovascular disease in 90-100% of subjects.26, 32Similarly, inter-country cross-sectional studies show a similar magnitude of effect for several cancers and cardiovascular disease. That is, cancer rates approach 0-10% in the lowest dietary fat countries, where dietary fat (as total, saturated and polyunsaturated fat) is a surrogate marker for animal and plant food consumption.1 Also, heart disease is rare in rural China when meat and other animal products are very limited or are not used.

The question then arises why do intervention and cross-sectional studies indicate a huge 90-100% control (even reversal) of disease mortality by avoiding animal-based foods while large prospective studies suggest that by avoiding meat disease risk is reduced only by 10-40%. There are several explanations although the ability of prospective cohort studies to detect a larger, true effect is limited by the usual design of the study.

First, not a single large cohort study includes WFPB diet individuals, thus the effect of this dietary lifestyle cannot be observed. Second, the analyses of the prospective cohort studies focus on estimating risk for single foods or nutrients. The true disease risk for meat will mostly likely remain hidden when diets are relatively rich in animal-protein based foods. Replacing red meat with chicken or dairy, for example, is likely to show only a modest effect for red meat because disease risks for each of these foods are similar.

One conclusion is clear. The consumption of red meat convincingly increases the risk of multiple life-threatening diseases, an effect that is matched by other animal-based foods and by the displacement of plant-based foods.

In summary, these few studies are only a small sample of a much larger number of studies further confirming this conclusion. Diets containing animal based protein, thus red meat, are associated with a huge disease burden, far more than most people realize. Often, too, such diets also include ‘junk foods’ which are high in refined carbohydrates (sugar, refined flour), fat and salt and which add to the disease burden. Switching away from these diets not only prevents but also treats and reverses remarkably quickly further progression of most for these diseases.

Regrettably, evidence of this exceptional outcome of a non-meat, WFPB diet is mostly obtained from a comprehensive assessment of studies that are often statistically constrained by not having WFPB participants. This is because very few investigations of the WFPB diet are conducted and reported, either because 1) investigators themselves are relatively unaware often disbelieving of this effect, 2) funding for such research is almost non-existent and/or because 3) there are far too few participants for such studies. Much of this problem exists because of the enthusiasm expressed for protein wherein about 95% of the population consumes more protein than they need, thus leading to a diet compromised for many other nutrients as well. By adding more and more protein to our diets, and almost always getting it from animal source foods, we create multiple nutritional problems that then become hard to investigate disease causation. It starts with meat, spreads to other animal source foods and quickly involves the depletion of health giving plant source nutrients. We then focus on individual nutrients and their contributions, in numerous ways in our everyday life. But also we do the same in professional research, only to increase confusion and diminish our ability to see the ‘elephant in the room’.

This misunderstanding is a serious problem and is a major reason why so many people find it so difficult to acknowledge the power of nutrition to heal, that is, when nutrition is applied wholistically as in using a diet of whole, plant-based food. Were we to properly understand and experience the benefits of nutrition, our ability to conquer societal and environmental problems is almost beyond comprehension.

  • T Colin Campbell, PhD
  • Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus
  • Of Nutritional Biochemistry
  • Cornell University

Subway Chemicals- What next?

Subway agrees to end use of controversial chemical after food blogger Vani Hari’s protest

Sandwich maker’s move follows petition in social media

By Chantal Da Silva, CBC News Posted: Feb 06, 2014 10:25 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 10:25 AM ET

Food blogger Vani Hari led a campaign asking Subway to remove azodicarbonamide from its bread.Food blogger Vani Hari led a campaign asking Subway to remove azodicarbonamide from its bread. (Courtesy Vani Hari )
Email

External Links

(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

Subway says it will be discontinuing use of a chemical found not only in its bread, but also in yoga mats, shoe soles and rubber caps after an online petition made waves across the web.

Food blogger Vani Hari — who successfully petitioned Kraft to remove the neon orange dye responsible for its signature Macaroni & Cheese colouring last year— is behind the effort. With more than 50,000 signatures, her petition demanding that Subway stop using azodicarbonamide as a food additive helped convince the food chain giant to comply.

The chemical agent has already been banned across Europe, as well as in Britain and Australia and while Hari says Subway does not include the additive in those countries, it’s still used in sandwiches distributed across North America.

Subway said it is already in the process of phasing out the chemical’s use in its products in the U.S. and Canada.  “The complete conversion to have this product out of the bread will be done soon,” the food chain said in a statement Wednesday to the Associated Press. A timeline hasn’t yet been provided.

Hari said that while this isn’t the first time she has tried to reach out to Subway regarding its use of the chemical, she commends the company on its decision. “Their swift action is a testament to what power petitions can have,” she said, adding that she would still warn consumers to stay away from their sandwiches until the chemical’s use is removed.

The Charlotte, N.C. blogger started investigating Subway sandwich ingredients on her popular blog, FoodBabe.com in 2012, when she discovered the company’s use of azodicarbonamide.

“I had been eating Subway my whole life, thinking it was healthy fast food until I found out that it’s not eating ‘fresh’ at all,” Hari said, playing on the food chain giant’s “Eat Fresh” slogan.

The food blogger’s decision to petition Subway was made as soon as she learned that the U.S. president’s wife,  Michelle Obama, would be teaming up with Subway to promote its sandwiches in a campaign marketing healthy foods to children.

“The bottom line is that they save more money using this ingredient because they can produce the bread faster and cheaper,” the food blogger added. The petition has since reached more than 65,000 signatures.

In Control of Cancer

In Control of Cancer

By Allison Murphy
Health and wellness teacher and graduate of the CNS Plant-Based Nutrition Program

I sat in sheer terror as my brain surgeon diagnosed me with the identical tumor that killed my father:

A right frontal lobe glioblastoma. Although there were no symptoms to speak of I was told that “it must come out right away”. My immediate response was, “What do you mean? I just had two spine surgeries and I can’t go through something like this now!?”

I had always maintained a healthy lifestyle, unlike my parents, so I truly believed that cancer and its traditional western treatments (radiation, chemical therapy, and/or surgery) would not be the impetus that would end my life. Both of my parents passed away from cancer/chemical therapy. I watched my mother live with her ovarian cancer but it was the chemical therapy that turned off her immune system. Her failing kidneys are what put her into her final hospital stay. Then followed the morphine regimen that led her into her deepest slumber. I watched and listened as doctors behaved in a typical, “She has no other choices” fashion. I recall my mom’s fear; she was not ready to pass and I was not ready to let her go. She did die one year after my father passed from his brain tumor.

So when I sat in front of my own brain surgeon, his (very western) medical response was similar; “It must come out”. I immediately said, “No!” as I began sobbing. My surgeon got up and pulled down the blinds so I could cry in privacy. I finally got up to leave and went home. Working as a teacher in an affluent suburb of New York City allowed me to connect with all sorts of resources so I immediately called a parent in our community who was a surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering. He was kind enough to make me an appointment for me the very next day.

Sloan’s response to my brain tumor was that it was something that “we should keep our eyes on” and not resort to surgery. I was thankful. I remember reading T. Colin Campbell’s , The China Study , a few years back and realizing that if the patient reduces his/her consumption of animal protein that most tumors will actually shrink and the body will heal itself. 1

I was and am a Health Educator and Nutritional Consultant and re-read the book. Soon after that I read about and enrolled in the eCornell certificate course, “Plant-Based Nutrition Course” which re-fueled my decision to eliminate animal protein from my diet.

After that initial diagnosis and taking “Plant-Based Nutrition Course”, I decided to perform my own experiment at which I began consuming a plant-based diet, eliminating most if not all animal products. Within 1 year after I made the change to a plant-based diet I received the news that my tumor was shrinking. However slow, it lost its ability to thrive and that’s due to the nourishment my body was receiving from all of the plant foods I’ve been eating and taking away the tumor’s primary growth factor, animal protein! I must also mention how many other things in my life began to change: my ability to focus improved, my mood stabilized, my skin cleared, and I had much more energy. I felt so much better in all areas of my life.

Recently I met and fell in love with someone who loves to eat animal protein. We both LOVE food and I must admit that since we have been together, I began to increase my intake of animal products, knowing certainly that my next MRI would show either an increase in tumor size or at least no more of a reduction in size and I was right. My last MRI illustrated that my tumor remained the same size. Although grateful there was no growth I knew the result would not show any reduction due to my increased intake of animal protein. Of course since then I have been eating almost no animal products and cannot wait to hear that my tumor is once again shrinking!

References

Excess sugar may triple risk of heart problems: U.S. study

Can sugar overload stress your heart?

Eating too much sugar may wreak havoc on your heart, a new U.S. study finds. (Loris Eichenberger / shutterstock.com)

Lindsey Tanner, The Associated Press
Published Monday, February 3, 2014 4:26PM EST
Last Updated Monday, February 3, 2014 6:18PM EST

CHICAGO — Could too much sugar be deadly? The biggest study of its kind suggests the answer is yes, at least when it comes to fatal heart problems.

It doesn’t take all that much extra sugar, hidden in many processed foods, to substantially raise the risk, the researchers found, and most Americans eat more than the safest amount.

Having a cinnamon roll with your morning coffee, a super-sized sugary soda at lunch and a scoop of ice cream after dinner would put you in the highest risk category in the study. That means your chance of dying prematurely from heart problems is nearly three times greater than for people who eat only foods with little added sugar.

For someone who normally eats 2,000 calories daily, even consuming two 12-ounce cans of soda substantially increases the risk. For most American adults, sodas and other sugary drinks are the main source of added sugar.

Lead author Quanhe Yang of the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention called the results sobering and said it’s the first nationally representative study to examine the issue.

Scientists aren’t certain exactly how sugar may contribute to deadly heart problems, but it has been shown to increase blood pressure and levels of unhealthy cholesterol and triglycerides; and also may increase signs of inflammation linked with heart disease, said Rachel Johnson, head of the American Heart Association’s nutrition committee and a University of Vermont nutrition professor.

Yang and colleagues analyzed national health surveys between 1988 and 2010 that included questions about people’s diets. The authors used national death data to calculate risks of dying during 15 years of follow-up.

Overall, more than 30,000 American adults aged 44 on average were involved.

Previous studies have linked diets high in sugar with increased risks for non-fatal heart problems, and with obesity, which can also lead to heart trouble. But in the new study, obesity didn’t explain the link between sugary diets and death. That link was found even in normal-weight people who ate lots of added sugar.

“Too much sugar does not just make us fat; it can also make us sick,” said Laura Schmidt, a health policy specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. She wrote an editorial accompanying the study in Monday’s JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers focused on sugar added to processed foods or drinks, or sprinkled in coffee or cereal. Even foods that don’t taste sweet have added sugar, including many brands of packaged bread, tomato sauce and salad dressing. Naturally occurring sugar, in fruit and some other foods, wasn’t counted.

Most health experts agree that too much sugar isn’t healthy, but there is no universal consensus on how much is too much.

U.S government dietary guidelines issued in 2010 say “empty” calories including those from added sugars should account for no more than 15 per cent of total daily calories.

The average number of daily calories from added sugar among U.S. adults was about 15 per cent toward the end of the study, slightly lower than in previous years.

The authors divided participants into five categories based on sugar intake, from less than 10 per cent of daily calories — the safest amount — to more than 25 per cent.

Most adults exceed the safest level; and for 1 in 10 adults, added sugar accounts for at least 25 per cent of daily calories, the researchers said.

The researchers had death data on almost 12,000 adults, including 831 who died from heart disease during the 15-year follow-up. They took into account other factors known to contribute to heart problems, including smoking, inactivity and excess weight, and still found risks for sugar.

As sugar intake increased, risks climbed steeply.

Adults who got at least 25 per cent of their calories from added sugar were almost three times more likely to die of heart problems than those who consumed the least — less than 10 per cent.

For those who got more than 15 per cent — or the equivalent of about two cans of sugary soda out of 2,000 calories daily — the risk was almost 20 per cent higher than the safest level.

Sugar calories quickly add up: One teaspoon has about 16 calories; one 12-ounce can of non-diet soda contains has about 9 teaspoons of sugar or about 140 calories; many cinnamon rolls have about 13 teaspoons of sugar; one scoop of chocolate ice cream has about 5 teaspoons of sugar.

Dr. Jonathan Purnell, a professor at Oregon Health & Science University’s Knight Cardiovascular Institute, said while the research doesn’t prove “sugar can cause you to die of a heart attack”, it adds to a growing body of circumstantial evidence suggesting that limiting sugar intake can lead to healthier, longer lives.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/excess-sugar-may-triple-risk-of-heart-problems-u-s-study-1.1668738#ixzz2sNDnQm6i

The Smoke and Mirrors behind Wheat Belly and Grain Brain

GrainBrain 570x299 The Smoke and Mirrors Behind <em>Wheat Belly</em> and <em>Grain Brain</em>

The Smoke and Mirrors behind Wheat Belly and Grain Brain

The Atkins Diet lives on in the current bestselling books Wheat Belly by William Davis, MD and Grain Brain by David Perlmutter, MD.

Robert Atkins, MD, creator of the Atkins Diet, was upfront with his recommendations to eat a diet almost exclusively made up of meat, poultry, cheese, butter, fish, and eggs, with very little plant-foods. The first Atkins Diet book was published in 1972; since then well-informed people have come to understand (through their own readings and personal experiences) that eating an animal-based, high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet is wrong. They have learned that following this eating pattern causes epidemic diseases, including type-2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and common cancers; and that the livestock industry is at the root of climate change. Many people are also wrestling with their conscience as they deal with the moral issues of animals being killed unnecessarily for food, supporting the horrors of factory farming, and depleting our oceans. Therefore, a diet book titled Eat More Animals to Lose Weight would meet a mostly unfriendly audience.

Wheat Belly and Grain Brain take a backdoor approach to the Atkins low-carbohydrate method. As the titles of these books suggest, wheat causes a big belly and grains damage the brain. Within their pages you learn that all starchy foods, including rice, corn, and potatoes—the traditional foods consumed by billions of people throughout human history—are now unhealthy and must be minimized or, better yet, avoided altogether. If you believe these authors, then what is left to eat in order to meet your energy requirements? Meat, dairy, fish, and eggs (the original Atkins Diet).*

In order for the authors of these two books to pull off the monumental task of luring otherwise intelligent people into inherently dangerous diet plans, they have had to (1) ignore the bulk of the science, (2) exaggerate the truth, and (3) make false associations.

Ignoring the Science: Low-Carbohydrate Diets Contribute to a Higher Risk of Death and Disease

Low-carbohydrate diets can cause weight loss, but weight loss should not be the primary goal of individuals, medical doctors, dietitians, insurance companies, or governments. The goal is to live longer and stay healthy. Three major scientific reviews show that low-carbohydrate diets increase the risk of sickness and death.

1) The 2010 Annals of Internal Medicine published the article “Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality.” Their conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based, low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

2) The 2012 British Medical Journal published the article “Low-Carbohydrate, High-Protein Diet and Incidence of Cardiovascular Diseases in Swedish Women: Prospective Cohort Study.” Their conclusion:Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

3) The 2013 Public Library of Science journal published the article “Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.” Their conclusion: Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence.

There are no comparable studies suggesting high-carbohydrate (starch-based) diets increase mortality, cardiovascular disease, or other common diseases. (Any negative references to carbohydrates in these articles apply to simple sugars, not starches.)**

Exaggerating the Truth about Inflammation

Promoters of low-carbohydrate diets, those high in meat, dairy, fish, and eggs, claim dietary carbohydrates are packed with inflammatory ingredients, and that inflammation is at the heart of virtually every disorder and disease. The evidence linking carbohydrates to inflammation is convoluted, theoretical, and largely limited to an uncommon condition, Celiac disease.

Inflammation is the consequence of injury, such as from a cut, burn, or infection. The pain, redness, swelling, and heat that follow are natural, necessary processes for healing. These symptoms and signs of inflammation resolve after the single event. However, with repetitive injury, inflammation can become long-standing, referred to as “chronic inflammation.” One common example of chronic inflammation is bronchitis from inhaling cigarette smoke 20 times a day. Stop smoking and the inflammation stops, and the lungs heal (scar tissues and other residuals of the damage can be left behind).

For dietary diseases, including atherosclerosis, primary sources of repetitive injury are meat, cheese, and eggs. Once the injury is stopped, then healing occurs and the inflammation resolves. Reversal of coronary heart diseaseis seen on follow up examinations.

Research does not support the theory that carbohydrates from wheat, other grains, or starchy vegetables are the source of injury that leads to chronic inflammation. In contrast, scientific research does solidly support that the source of injury leading to chronic inflammation is animal foods.

Animal Foods, Not Plant Foods, Cause Inflammation

Animal Foods Increase Inflammation

The 2013 European Journal of Nutrition published the article “Consumption of Red Meat and Whole-Grain Bread in Relation to Biomarkers of Obesity, Inflammation, Glucose Metabolism, and Oxidative Stress.” Their conclusion: The results of this study suggest that high consumption of whole-grain bread is related to lower levels of GGT, ALT, and hs-CRP, whereas high consumption of red meat is associated with higher circulating levels of GGT and hs-CRP. (Lower inflammatory markers, like CRP, are associated with better health.)

The 2013 Nutrition Reviews published the article “Dietary Pattern Analysis and Biomarkers of Low-Grade Inflammation: a Systematic Literature Review.” A major conclusion: Patterns identified by reduced rank regression as being statistically and significantly associated with biomarkers of inflammation were almost all meat-based or due to “Western” eating patterns.

The 2014 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published the article “Associations Between Red Meat Intake and Biomarkers of Inflammation and Glucose Metabolism in Women.” Their conclusion: Greater red meat intake is associated with unfavorable plasma concentrations of inflammatory and glucose metabolic biomarkers in diabetes-free women.

Grains (Including Wheat) Do Not Increase Inflammation

The 2010 Journal of Nutrition published the article “Whole Grains Are Associated with Serum Concentrations of High Sensitivity C-reactive Protein among Premenopausal Women.” Their conclusion:Women who consumed >or= 1 serving/d of whole grains had a lower probability of having moderate (P = 0.008) or elevated (P = 0.001) hs-CRP, according to the AHA criteria, compared with non-consumers.

The 2012 Nutrition Reviews published the article “Effect of Whole grains on Markers of Subclinical Inflammation.” Their findings: Epidemiological studies provide reasonable support for an association between diets high in whole grains and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations. After adjusting for other dietary factors, each serving of whole grains is estimated to reduce CRP concentrations by approximately 7%.

The 2013 Nutrition Journal published the article “The Potential Role of Phytochemicals in Whole-Grain Cereals for the Prevention of Type-2 Diabetes.” Their findings: Diets high in whole grains are associated with a 20-30% reduction in risk of developing type-2 diabetes… biomarkers of systemic inflammation tend to be reduced in people consuming high intakes of whole grains.

There are no comparable studies suggesting meat decreases inflammation or that whole grains, including wheat, increase inflammation. (CRP is a reliable marker of inflammation.)

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how animal foods injure our bodies. For example, atherosclerosis (chronic inflammatory artery disease) has been explained by the “cholesterol hypothesis” and by the “TMAO hypothesis.” Another sound mechanism identifies cow’s milk as the culprit. Most important for the consumer to understand is that these mechanisms consistently blame meat, dairy, and/or eggs as the source of the repeated injury and chronic inflammation. No debate here.

Relevant to the argument that inflammation is not the underlying cause of obesity and disease is the fact that treating inflammation with powerful anti-inflammatory medications does not favorably change the course and progression of the disease. To quote respected researchers, “In fact, to our knowledge, no anti-inflammatory therapy cures the majority of patients with a disease in which inflammation plays a major contributory role…” To repeat, inflammation is the result of injury, not the cause of disease.

Making False Associations: Using Celiac Disease to Demonize All Carbohydrates for All People

The main take-away that readers will get from Wheat Belly is that wheat is the major cause of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and almost all other major health problems that people suffer from. Wheat can be very troublesome for a small percentage of the population. Celiac disease is a condition that affects fewer than one in one hundred people following the Western diet. These people must avoid gluten, found in high concentrations in wheat, barley, and rye. However, to put this real concern into a global, historical perspective, consider the importance of these three grains: they have served to fuel the development of civilizations throughout human history and still are a major source of calories, protein, vitamins, and minerals for billions of people. People without celiac disease, or the few other conditions that warrant elimination of these three specific grains, will find them an excellent source of nutrition.

Whole Grains Are Consistently Found to Be Healthy

A recent review of 45 prospective cohort studies and 21 randomized-controlled trials (RCT) compared people who rarely or never consume whole grains with those reporting an average consumption of three to five servings per day and found by comprehensive meta-analysis that those consuming the grains had a 26% reduction in the risk of type-2 diabetes and a 21% reduction in the risk of heart disease (independent of known CVD risk factors). Furthermore, there is an inverse relationship between whole grain intake and weight gain. Examples of whole grains included whole wheat, dark bread, oats, brown rice, rye, barley, and bulgur.

Even those few people intolerant of gluten (wheat, barley, and rye) can healthfully consume non-gluten rice, corn, oats, and other grains. Low-carbohydrate promoters enthusiastically demonize these grains too.

Making False Associations about Diabetes and Carbohydrates

The main take-away that readers will get from Grain Brain is that grains and other starchy foods are the cause of type-2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, and most of the other chronic health problems suffered in the Western world. The truth is that people with type-2 diabetes are ill with many disorders of the body and brain. But grains and other starchy vegetables do not cause type-2 diabetes. The Western diet, loaded with meat, fat, and empty calories, makes people overweight and diabetic.

Type-2 diabetes is cured by a starch-based, high-carbohydrate diet. To take this point to the extreme, the Rice Diet, consisting of white rice, fruit, fruit juice, and table sugar (more than 90% of the calories are from carbohydrate) has been shown to cause profound weight losses in the severely obese, cure type-2 diabetes, and reverse heart disease. Dietary fat increases blood sugar levels and causes people with type-1 diabetes to require more insulin.

Regardless of the effects on blood sugar, the underlying animal-based, low-grain, low-starchy-vegetable diet consisting of those very foods recommended in the books Wheat Belly and Grain Brain, is the major reason people with type-2 diabetes are so sick with heart and other diseases.

Looking Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors

The truth is that the rich Western diet makes people fat and sick. Steering people away from the few healthy components of our diet (grains and other starchy vegetables) and toward the unhealthy foods (meat, dairy, fish, and eggs) makes matters worse. People are desperate for a solution to their weight and health problems, and many of them are easily deceived. Especially when told that prime rib and cheddar cheese are good for them—people love to hear good news about their bad habits. Just as important for the rising popularity of low-carbohydrate diets, books like Wheat Belly and Grain Brain enhance the profits of the meat, dairy, egg, and fish industries.

Although these industries spend hundreds of millions of US dollars advertising “their science” and influencing national nutrition and health policies, the truth is simple and easy to understand: All large successful trim healthy populations of people throughout human history have obtained the bulk of their calories from grains and other starchy vegetables. Consumption of meats along with other rich foods in any significant quantity has been limited to the diets of fat, sick aristocrats (kings and queens)—until recently. To regain our lost health and save planet Earth, the smoke and mirrors behind popular diet books must be exposed.

*In an effort to partially compensate for important nutritional deficiencies, like dietary fiber, vitamin C, and thousands of other phytochemicals found only in plants, non-starchy green, red, and yellow vegetables (for example, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, celery, kale, lettuce, parsley, peppers, and zucchini), and a few fruits are commonly added to these low-carbohydrate diets, including newer versions of the Atkins Diet. Only plants make carbohydrates, thus “low-carbohydrate” is in practical terms synonymous with meat, poultry, cheese, butter, fish, and eggs.

** Simple sugars, like glucose and fructose, are refined ingredients found in sodas, cakes, cookies, and table sugar. Starches (sometimes referred to as complex carbohydrates) are foods with “natural sugars,” such as, barley, corn, millet, oats, potatoes, sweet potatoes, rice, and wheat.

Gluten-free Diets Are Harmful for the General Population (Except for one percent)

The current gluten-free diet craze is unhealthy for those who do not need it—those without celiac disease. In search of weight loss and/or feeling better, millions of Americans risk becoming sicker and fatter by increasing their intake of gluten-free products. Estimates are as high as 15 to 25 percent of consumers in the US want gluten-free food, with the global market of gluten-free products approaching $2.6 billion in 2010.
Gluten Free
Three Potential Problems from Wheat

Celiac Disease:

Celiac disease results from damage to the intestines caused by eating gluten, found in wheat, barley, and rye, in genetically susceptible people. The resulting malabsorption prevents the small intestine from efficiently absorbing necessary nutrients. Diarrhea, abdominal pain, flatulence, weakness, and weight loss are frequent. Gluten damage to the intestinal barrier creates a “leaky gut.” Now “foreign proteins” from microbes and food are indiscriminately allowed to pass through the intestinal wall, causing all kinds of trouble. People with untreated celiac disease have a two to six times greater risk of dying, mainly due to an increase in the risk of lymphoma, and a much greater risk of suffering from autoimmune diseases, such as type-1 diabetes and thyroiditis (leading to hypothyroidism).

The definitive diagnosis of celiac disease is made by a bowel biopsy showing damage to the intestinal lining (villous atrophy). Blood tests (endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibodies) help support the diagnosis. The cornerstone of treatment is lifelong adherence to a strictly gluten-free diet.

Wheat Allergies:

Wheat allergies are classically found as two conditions: baker’s asthma and rhinitis (runny nose). However, allergies to components of wheat may cause, and contribute to, many other problems, including inflammatory arthritis.

Wheat Sensitivity:

A new category of problems classified as “wheat sensitivity” or “non-celiac gluten intolerance” has recently become widely recognized. This form of gluten intolerance is diagnosed when both celiac disease and wheat allergy have been excluded. Symptoms include abdominal discomfort, bloating, pain, and diarrhea. In addition, many people relate headaches, “foggy mind,” depression, fatigue, muscle cramps, joint pain, numbness, and skin rash to wheat sensitivity. The actual incidence of non-celiac gluten intolerance is unknown.

Because this condition is so non-specific, my guess is that most of these people are simply sick from their unhealthful diet of meat, dairy foods, vegetable oils, and other junk food. Blaming gluten or wheat is wrong, and as a result, their efforts on gluten-free eating are misplaced. Benefits seen while attempting any new more restrictive diet regimen are from simply removing foods recognized to be unhealthful, irrelevant to their containing gluten or not.

Gluten-free Can Be a Disguise for Low-carb Eating

The national best-selling book, Wheat Belly, by William Davis, MD, has fueled the current rage for gluten-free foods. The book’s subtitle is “Lose the wheat, lose the weight, and find your path back to health.”Misquoting the research and ignoring the bulk of the scientific evidence, Dr. Davis has convinced people, as well known as Fox News TV co-host Bill O’Rielly, that avoiding wheat is the solution to America’s obesity and health crises. Dr. Davis says “modern wheat is a perfect chronic poison; it causes diabetes, it causes inflammation, it causes heart disease, it causes high blood pressure….” He goes on to claim in aCBS News interview that the elimination of wheat will cure these conditions and cause people to stop their medications.

Although I applaud Dr. Davis for bringing problems with wheat to greater public awareness, I consider this fad a serious diversion away from what I believe to be the real solution to obesity and common diseases: a starch-based diet. Traditionally my kind of high-carbohydrate eating has been the diet of people throughout recordable human history, and a large share of these civilizations, ancient and modern, have relied on generous amounts of wheat, barley, and/or rye for survival.

While exaggerating the benefits of a wheat-free diet, Dr. Davis makes clear his alliance with the low-carb movement, typified by the popular Paleo and Atkins diets. He recommends people eat unlimited amounts of eggs, full fat cheese, other dairy products, meat, fish, chicken, and vegetable (olive) oils; and reducing or eliminating favorite (even non-gluten) “comfort foods,” like corn, rice, oats, quinoa, millet, buckwheat, potatoes, and beans. My opposite conclusion is that Dr. Davis’s prescription for filling the dinner table with rich foods, those once reserved for the tables of opulent kings and queens, is actually the cause of the current epidemics of obesity and common illnesses in the developed world, not the solution.

The AACC International (formerly the American Association of Cereal Chemists), a global nonprofit organization of 2,500 grain scientists and professionals studying the chemistry of cereal grains and their products, also disagrees with Dr. Davis and has responded with a scientific analysis of a few of his claims.

Gluten-free Diets Cause Weight Gain

Patients with celiac disease are usually suffering with malnourishment because of the problems created by damage to their intestines from gluten. Following removal of the wheat, barley, and rye, the GI track usually heals, and only then are calories and other nutrients efficiently assimilated. Weight gain is the desired and expected result for underweight people with celiac disease. Some people with documented celiac disease, however, are overweight, and even obese, before starting a gluten-free diet. You might expect that the dietary restrictions imposed by a strict gluten-free protocol alone would cause weight loss for them. Unfortunately, weight gain is a common occurrence in overweight and obese adults and children with celiac disease who go on gluten-free diets. A 2012 study of 1018 patients with biopsy confirmed celiac disease found significant weight gain; with 16 percent of patients moving from a normal or low BMI (body mass index) class into an overweight BMI class, and 22 percent of the patients who were overweight at the time of diagnosis gaining weight after starting their strict gluten-free diet.

Let me be more to the point for the growing masses looking for the answer: “There are no published reports showing that a gluten-free diet produces weight loss in persons without celiac disease or gluten sensitivity.” To reiterate this point, a 2011 article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Associationstates, “At this time there is no scientific evidence supporting the alleged benefit that a gluten-free diet will promote weight loss.”

The primary reason for unwanted weight gain found in people buying gluten-free products is that these imitations often contain more calories, fat, and sugar, and fewer important nutrients (dietary fiber, complex carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals) than the original gluten-containing foods. Even the causal observer can see the folly in eating gluten-free cakes, cookies, and pies, and expecting weight loss and better health. A trip through your local health food store or supermarket reveals rows of desserts where the wheat has been replaced with another grain (flour); and fats, vegetable oils, simple sugars, dairy products, and eggs are abundant on the ingredient lists.

Percent of Fat Calories from Popular Gluten-free Foods
Falafel
Cheese Pizza
Brownies
Cupcakes
Chocolate Cake
Chocolate Chip Cookies		 71%
36%
38%
37%
38%
50%
These foods also can contain saturated fats, free vegetable oils, simple sugars, refined flours, nuts, soy, dairy products, and eggs.

When an expert dietitian, knowledgeable about proper food choices for a healthy gluten-free diet, devoid of cakes, cookies, and pies, is involved in patient care, then weight loss is accomplished. In one studyoverweight and obese patients were advised to choose a high quality gluten-free diet with naturally gluten-free foods (fruits and vegetables) and alternate non-gluten containing grains (quinoa and buckwheat). These properly counseled patients consistently lost excess weight. There is unfortunately a paucity of dietitians and medical doctors available for the proper management of celiac disease.

This Fad Ultimately Harms Many Celiac Patients

If you are one of the few people with celiac disease, then avoiding gluten is crucial to your health. You cannot cheat! With the popularity of “going gluten-free,” for unsubstantiated reasons, the importance of this dietary restriction for the truly needy has been diminished. Waiters at restaurants become used to customers asking for “gluten-free dishes” and then failing to object when a few whole wheat bread crumbs appear as a decoration on top of their potato soup. Since wheat, barley, and rye did not cause any apparent distress in the previous 99 customers, the waiters and chefs think, “It can’t be all that important.” But it is for that one percent.

Dr. McDougall’s Recommendations:

If you suspect that you have celiac disease, get tested by your physician. Avoidance of gluten foods is a lifelong restriction. If you are unsure about your diagnosis, but still suspect gluten, then go on a starch-based diet, with no wheat, barley or rye. For example, you can base your diet on rice, corn, sweet potatoes, white potatoes, and beans, with fruits and green and yellow vegetables. The connection between gluten and celiac disease is so close that the diagnosis can often be made when the patient experiences dramatic improvement of symptoms upon following a gluten-free diet. Confirmation of your diagnosis can be made by carefully adding back any suspected foods.

If you, like two-thirds of adults in the US, are sick and overweight, and of the vast majority whom are also without celiac disease, wheat allergy or wheat sensitivity, then I strongly recommend that you include these good starches—wheat, barley and rye—in your diet because these foods are known to cause desirable weight loss and medical benefits.

McDougall Foods Acceptable for Celiac Disease: 

Grains: 
Amaranth
Buckwheat (or kasha)
Corn
Job’s tears
Millet
Quinoa
Rice
Sorghum
Teff
Wild rice
Oats*

Other Foods:
All root vegetables, like potatoes, yams, sweet potatoes, and cassava-root (tapioca)
All legumes**, more specifically, beans (including soy and chickpeas), peas and lentils
All green, yellow, and orange vegetables
All fruits

* Oats have been demonstrated in multiple studies to be free of toxic proteins and can be tolerated by most, but not all, people with celiac disease; but there is worry that commercial oat products may be contaminated with wheat.

**Legumes create extra gas, sometimes causing bloating and bowel discomfort. This reaction may be confused with symptoms of celiac disease and wheat sensitivity.

Wheat Belly Low Carb with Fat,Cream, Meat and Cheese

Wheat Belly: Theory with a Dash of Low-Carb

Cardiologist William Davis, author of The New York Times bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health, thinks that all modern wheat (no matter the healthy label on it) is so sinister it can cause your body to practically self-destruct. Davis believes that about 80 percent of us would benefit from eliminating all wheat from our diets, and up to 50 percent of us would experience the positive results of wheat elimination right away. What’s new in Wheat Belly is the idea that modern wheat is a monster, and not just because it can make you fat. It can drive the daggers of illness deep into your body.

Is Davis on to something, or on something?

First of all, you have to realize that the wheat we eat today isn’t the same wheat our ancestors grew. During the last century, wheat was genetically altered. I suppose no one ever wrote a press release about it though. Those folks who altered our wheat did so without testing how it might affect all of us rats who eat it. And that’s why Wheat Belly appears to have such appeal. Dare I call it a conspiracy theory?

 

Can anyone really prove that the genetic changes to wheat aren’t making us all sick and fat? Probably not, but at the same time, Davis may not be able to make his case that this Frankenstein wheat is, in fact, making us ill.

Davis has lots of theories about how wheat affects us. It may be the cause of the rise in gluten sensitivity and celiac disease we see today. Compounds like gliadin or amylopectin A in wheat make us hungry and trigger all kinds of atrocities like sharper spikes in blood sugar, inflammation and even behavioral disorders.

Anecdotal Evidence

The author’s “proof” is that he’s watched his patients lose weight, experience less joint pain, improve their blood test results, and no longer need inhalers, all from eliminating wheat. This is what’s known as “anecdotal evidence,” and it’s good enough for some readers.

– See more at: http://calorielab.com/news/2012/07/11/wheat-belly-william-davis/#sthash.sjPBzhIJ.dpuf

Wheat Belly Fabricator

Wheat Belly, Busted

When Wheat Belly, by William Davis, M.D., came out in August 2011, it was an instant hit. It became a New York Times bestseller.  Praise faroutweighed criticism. Especially in the gluten-free community, it enjoyed rave reviews. The book was received essentially as gospel. Why?

In my opinion, there are three main reasons:

  • It’s written by an M.D., which adds a patina of credibility to the book’s claims,
  • It’s filled with endnotes of citations that reference scientific peer-reviewed publications, and
  • Its message—to “lose the wheat, lose the weight, and find your path back to health”—already agrees with the world view of many in the GF community (that wheat and gluten equals bad).
But as you’ll see, those three factors are dangerous. They build a facade of trust and credibility. They cause us to let down our guard; to cease being the critically-thinking readers that we ought to be. And sometimes, that means we fail to question information that is suspect; we unknowingly accept and perpetuate a myth; we fall victim to false information.
I didn’t set out to write a review of Wheat Belly. I had been heavily researching another unrelated project. Coincidental timing then played a key role. After reading a number of prominent medical studies involving wheat, gluten, weight loss, and celiac disease, I found myself readingWheat Belly, in which Davis cites some of those exact same studies.
Except that there was one major problem: Davis’ claims—and his conclusions based on the research studies he cites—were exactly the opposite of what I’d been reading in those very studies. Here are several important examples:
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.
Next consider Chapter 5, The Wheat/Obesity Connection, page 66 of the hardcover edition. Here Davis invokes a study reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. He claims that of newly diagnosed celiac disease patients, 39 percent start overweight and 13 percent start obese. Next Davis writes that “by this estimate, more than half the people now diagnosed with celiac disease are therefore overweight or obese.”
Not quite. Actually, the study noted that overweight and obese patientstogether accounted for 39 percent of diagnoses. The 13 percent obese patients were a subset of the overweight group. By Davis’ questionable math, underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese celiac disease patients would account for 114% of diagnoses, which is impossible.
At the start of the very next paragraph, he invokes a familiar line nearly identical to that from Chapter 3: “If we focus only on overweight people who are not severely malnourished at the time of diagnosis, celiac sufferers actually lose a substantial quantity of weight when they eliminate wheat gluten.”
I call B.S. You know that study Davis just cited in the previous paragraph of his book to build his case? The same study from which he errantly claimed more than half of newly diagnosed celiacs are overweight? Here is what researchers actually found, and I quote directly: “Of patients compliant with a gluten-free diet, 81 percent had gained weight after 2 years, including 82% of initially overweight patients” (emphasis mine).
This finding is not buried deep in the report somewhere. It’s important enough that researchers also call it out directly in the top-level abstract. When Davis claims that initially overweight celiac disease patients lose a significant amount of weight on a gluten-free diet, how does he explain the fact that 82% of those patients gained weight … in one of the very studies he uses to back up his questionable claim?
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. It would take an act of willful omission to leave it out; it’s audacious that he cites the study to bolster his claim.
For a third and final example, consider Chapter 4, The Addictive Properties of Wheat, page 50 of the hardcover edition. Here, Davis writes about gluten exorphins, opiate-like compounds created when stomach enzymes take a crack at partially digesting gluten. Researchers are continuing to study how they impact the human body in myriad ways. One branch of such studies uses the drug naloxone, an opiate blocker, to cancel the potential effect of gluten exorphins and other related compounds.
Davis makes the claim that gluten exorphins are addictive like morphine (another opiate), and that those addictive properties cause you to eat more calories and gain weight. As the theory goes, block the gluten exorphins with naloxone, and you block the addictive properties of wheat-based foods. To back up his boast, he then cites a study, published in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in which binge eaters were left in a room filled with a variety of foods for one hour. Davis writes “participants consumed 28 percent less wheat crackers, bread sticks, and pretzels with the administration of naloxone.” And there you have it! See? Naloxone blocked the evil action of gluten exorphins, and those binge eaters ate fewer calories as a result! Except that’s not what happened.
Here’s the truth: While naloxone appeared to have an impact on the consumption of high fat and high sugar foods, it had no effect that correlated with gluten. In fact, while Davis claims that participants consumed 28 percent fewer wheat crackers, bread sticks, and pretzels, they actually consumed 40 percent more gluten-containing bread sticks.
The three examples I’ve noted are hardly the sum total of the problems I found with the book. There are many others, though I’ve already made my point.
Those of us in the gluten-free community want to agree with Wheat Bellybecause Davis’ message resonates with us. But it’s an overly simplified message, at times built on tenuous claims. And how would we ever know? He’s an M.D. He’s the expert, right? And he cites all those sexy research studies.
If I had read this book at another time in my life, I likely would have been none the wiser. I would have read the book, peeked at the citations, and been satisfied. But perhaps serendipity of a certain sort is at work here … that I read this book at precisely that moment in my life when I was best equipped with the knowledge I needed to critically evaluate it. I now pass that evaluation along to you.
For certain, some of what Davis writes is valid. And I have some GF blogging colleagues/friends who know Davis personally. They say he’s a very nice man, which may indeed be true.

But I’m more than disappointed with Davis and Wheat Belly; I’m downright angry. This book can and should be better. We, the gluten-free community, deserve as much. It does an injustice to the very legitimate case against wheat and gluten, and it is insulting to us, the readers. Sadly, Wheat Belly looks polished from a distance, but upon closer inspection it goes belly up. Sections of the book amount to propaganda, fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims. For me, Wheat Belly is a bust.

Are wheat and gluten a health problem? For many of us, undoubtedly. But there’s much more to the story than meets the eye, and you’re not always getting the straight story in Wheat Belly.
–Pete

Red and Processed Meat Endangers Health

Breaking Medical News
bacon and sausage

Red and Processed Meat Endangers Health

Red and processed meat products increase women’s disease risk, according to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Researchers from Harvard analyzed the diets and blood of 3,690 participants from the Nurses’ Health Study and found that as total red meat consumption increased, C-reactive protein (CRP, a biomarker of infections and diseases including heart disease and cancer), hemoglobin A1c (an indicator of diabetes risk), and stored iron (a mineral which in excess is associated with heart disease, cancer, and diabetes) also increased. Weight and calorie intake also increased with increased intake of red and processed meat products.