Wheat Belly

I read half of the book in November and started going gluten-free the day after Thanksgiving. I am in my 50s and was always feeling tired and hungry. I also had hip labral tear surgery a year and 1/2 ago and still was feeling discomfort in my joint that limited my running. I wanted to see if my food was causing inflammation and I feel tons better since I started. I have lost weight and my hip tightness has eased up and I am running 1/2 -1 minute per mile faster than my best times last summer when I was trying to run more miles despite the tightness and I am back to my old training pace despite a lack of fitness. I have made it through Christmas without eating all that wheat stuff. If I do eat something like a piece of apple pie, I start feeling crappy real soon. It seems to work for me, so I will keep up the experiment. The thing that influenced my choice was reading how wheat has changed in the last 50 years. It even has a different number of chromosomes now.

Dr. Sheehan used to call this an experiment of one. I can add some more though, but that will not provide the evidence posters would agree works.

You need to look at the big picture of Monsanto and GMO's, big corporations and processed foods and start making decisions of what is good for your body. As we continue to loose farm land in large measure, the only way to replace less land and more food is to put create food that will grow on cement. Labor costs are huge when you grow thousands of acres of crop. Most Americans will not go into the fields and maintain the crop or harvest it. So huge corporations are finding ways to increase food production other ways (GMO). But at what expense? No long term testing on GMO products. Wheat is very much different now than it was 50 years ago. Fish are now being "grown" in much larger sizes and on farms, instead of being caught wild. Think about all that. The feed, the seeds, the weed killers (Roundup), the fertilizer, all chemicals that go into your body.

Athletes, in particular distance runners, have the sense to recognize this and can do something about it. 1. Eat local and organic if at all possible 2. Grow your own food whenever you can. This is not as hard as it seems 3. Boycott major corporations and their attempts to take over small farmers like the guy in Michigan. 4. Eat sensible and unprocessed foods whenever possible.

Wheat, Canola oil, soybeans and corn are at the top of the GMO list, tainted by chemicals in whichever way you look at it. Make good choices and you will have a healthy, lean body.

I'm drinking beer.

I'm pretty sure cutting out any major food group (wheat, dairy, and meat are pretty common examples) leads to weight loss in the majority of people because they are restricting their intakes. Doesn't make it good. I could also lose weight by starving myself.

As runners, shouldn't we be more concerned with what we should eat for optimal performance?

TDF wrote:

The thing that influenced my choice was reading how wheat has changed in the last 50 years.

So do you not eat foods that we've changed recently? How about bananas, do you eat bananas? Wild bananas are pretty much unpalatable. The seeds will break your teeth. And how about corn? We domesticated the sh*t out of corn.

It seems most of the people commenting have not read the book.

Some fellow traveler websites you might find interesting:

Humans thrive on eating meat/fish/eggs, vegetables, root vegetables, some nuts and fruit, and some dairy if tolerated. Three foods we should avoid are 1- Vegetable oils (excessive rancid omega 6), 2- Grains (especially gluten from wheat/rye/barely), and 3- Excess sugar. These three foods are a huge part of the processed foods and junk we eat, and are the three main causes of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Obviously lack of exercise can cause weight gain over the years, but diet plays a much more important part. Eating carbs in the quantities people do today, espeically from grains, cause these new age diseases. Eating too many vegetable oils, which are rancid and oxidize even more during heating are another cause of these diseases. They cause inflammation from a huge imbalance of omega 6 to omega 3.

Just eating healthy fats like avocado, butter, cream, coconut oil, and animal fat is very healthy and natural. Eating starch from tubers and root vegetables, and white rice (since there are no anti-nutrients) is healthy. If you are an active person, you can afford to eat these carbs, especially around workout time.

[citation needed]

max219 wrote:

Humans thrive on eating meat/fish/eggs, vegetables, root vegetables, some nuts and fruit, and some dairy if tolerated. Three foods we should avoid are 1- Vegetable oils (excessive rancid omega 6), 2- Grains (especially gluten from wheat/rye/barely), and 3- Excess sugar. These three foods are a huge part of the processed foods and junk we eat, and are the three main causes of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

You forgot salt.

Check most of the links Lol Lol Lol Lol posted. Also, here's some good ones.

http://chriskresser.com/9-steps-to-perfect-health-1-dont-eat-toxins

http://lewrockwell.com/miller/miller38.1.html

Refer to many Asian diets: high in carbs (white rice), low amounts of animal fat, a lot of seafood when practical, a lot of vegetables. Refer to many African diets: highly reliant on sugar and corn meal or various tubers, often >70% carbohydrate. Result: next to no obesity, low heart disease. Clearly "carbs" are not the sole determinant of obesity and heart disease, or even a major player.

Example: on Okinawa, containing one of the longest-lived groups of people on the planet, diet is >85% carbohydrate.

Redroom wrote:

Refer to many Asian diets: high in carbs (white rice), low amounts of animal fat, a lot of seafood when practical, a lot of vegetables. Refer to many African diets: highly reliant on sugar and corn meal or various tubers, often >70% carbohydrate. Result: next to no obesity, low heart disease.

Result: short stature, sparse musculoskeletal structure.

If they avoid obesity, heart disease and diabetes, it's because they have overall low caloric intake. In any case, that "next to no obesity" nonsense is a myth. There are plenty of fat Japanese and plenty of fat Kenyans. They aren't all marathon runners.

Example: on Okinawa, containing one of the longest-lived groups of people on the planet, diet is >85% carbohydrate.

This is too ridiculous to be believed without a solid reference. It would mean protein + fat combine for less than 15%. Considering the Okinawans eat a lot of fish, that's not likely. Even if they ate nothing but rice, it would still be under 85 percent carb. Some hippie has seriously deluded you.

They are also a relatively small and isolated population, meaning their longevity is as likely genetic as anything else. Maybe they all live to be 100 despite their diet.

max219 wrote:

Check most of the links Lol Lol Lol Lol posted. Also, here's some good ones.

http://chriskresser.com/9-steps-to-perfect-health-1-dont-eat-toxinshttp://lewrockwell.com/miller/miller38.1.html

Sorry, those are far from reliable sources. I'm talking about science.

The author of Wheat Belly doesn't say "carbs" are the issue. He says it is specifically wheat. Americans eat the most wheat. He says cut the wheat and lose the weight without any other dietary changes.

Redroom wrote:

Refer to many Asian diets: high in carbs (white rice), low amounts of animal fat, a lot of seafood when practical, a lot of vegetables. Refer to many African diets: highly reliant on sugar and corn meal or various tubers, often >70% carbohydrate. Result: next to no obesity, low heart disease. Clearly "carbs" are not the sole determinant of obesity and heart disease, or even a major player.

Example: on Okinawa, containing one of the longest-lived groups of people on the planet, diet is >85% carbohydrate.

xenonscreams wrote:

I'm pretty sure cutting out any major food group (wheat, dairy, and meat are pretty common examples) leads to weight loss in the majority of people because they are restricting their intakes. Doesn't make it good. I could also lose weight by starving myself.

As runners, shouldn't we be more concerned with what we should eat for optimal performance?

The author says not to purposefully restrict your diet other than simply removing wheat. This doesn't mean that if wheat is 60% of your calories that you are now eating 60% fewer calories. You are allowed to replace those lost calories with other sources.

His main points are that because of how wheat is metabolized that it allows for more fat storage than just about any other food, and that it also creates an addictive reaction in most people because it breaks down into molecules that bind with opiate receptors in the brain.

Cut the wheat and you lose the best source to make you gain fat and also the best source to make you want to over eat. Win-win.

The Super wrote:

The author says not to purposefully restrict your diet other than simply removing wheat. This doesn't mean that if wheat is 60% of your calories that you are now eating 60% fewer calories. You are allowed to replace those lost calories with other sources.

His main points are that because of how wheat is metabolized that it allows for more fat storage than just about any other food, and that it also creates an addictive reaction in most people because it breaks down into molecules that bind with opiate receptors in the brain.

Cut the wheat and you lose the best source to make you gain fat and also the best source to make you want to over eat. Win-win.

But cutting out wheat is (for the vast majority of people) a huge dietary restriction inherently. Chances are if you cut out wheat you will accidentally eat at a deficit unless you make a very big effort to eat at maintenance. Hence weight loss. Same goes for many people when they first become vegetarian or cut out dairy products. I wouldn't advocate for any of the three.

xenonscreams wrote:

But cutting out wheat is (for the vast majority of people) a huge dietary restriction inherently. Chances are if you cut out wheat you will accidentally eat at a deficit unless you make a very big effort to eat at maintenance. Hence weight loss. Same goes for many people when they first become vegetarian or cut out dairy products. I wouldn't advocate for any of the three.

Bingo.

"lol lol" "bad science", (er bad wiggins"), "max" and the rest of the paleo kool-aid drinkers are full of it. I am sorry to be rude, but it's the truth. They've invested 100% philosophically in the paleo concept, and I guess there is no turning back for them, no matter what the evidence, so they will continue to non-stop push the notion that Sat fat is great for you (BUTTER!!) and whole grain carbs are the devil. It's complete nonsense. (they are sort of the like the "vaccines cause autism" crowd. )

It is now known that we were eating grains and wheat during the paleo period that they are so obsessed with.

So we've been eating grains for at least 100,000 years. Evolutionarily novel my a$$. And even if we weren't, we've figured out, for 10,000+ years, a way to obtain nutritious plant food (which we've ALWAYS eaten in some form) more easily, and get nutrients without having to chase down animals in the wild and risk our lives. Yay for us.

Humans can exist on many diets. Humans can exist on an all meat/fish diet, or eat a diet with ZERO fish and meat, and do quite well if active and not eating too much sat fat, and not overeating calories. But strong evidence continually shows vegetarians with much lower heart disease and overall mortality than non-vegetarians. And the obesity epidemic has only really happened in the last 30 years or so, and yet we've eaten grains for centuries and centuries, but somehow these two things are connected??? Yes, the same could be said about meat (eating it forever, but only recently getting fat), and that's true, and that's why 99% of being overweight is calories in calories out. But the fact remains that a high meat diet that is ALSO high in sat fat (which is often the case, but not always) is certainly going to be more deleterious for one's health than a high whole grain diet that is very low in sat fat, if the two diets are matched in calories, and close to matching the caloric needs of the people eating them.

Facts about sat fat:

* more likely to be stored as fat rather than oxidized as energy compared to carbs and unsat fat, thus leading to weight gain

* has been shown to be toxic to beta cells, leading towards, along with excess calories and sedentary lifestyles, T2D (unsat fats are protective)

* leads to inflammation and plaque build-up and raising of total and ldl cholesterol, which is directly linked to arteriosclerosis

Now of course, if you are very active and not eating too many calories, and genetically pre-disposed to NOT having heart disease, than moderate amounts of sat fat are fine. But for the average person, that's a lot of "if's."

But keeping spreading the nonsense paleo-people.

Trying to deal wrote:

Obviously it is a book which espouses a lie in order to make the author profit.

Eat a healthy, balanced diet and you will be good to go.

Does that mean an equal amount of fat, carbs, and protein?

On another note: I have read where the bulk of the wheat that is grown today is not the same as the wheat of 100 years ago or more. Apparently our modern wheat variety has been specially developed to produce more per acre. Celiac disease is much more prevalent today than 30 or 40 years ago.