Wheat Belly

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.

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.

100% nailed it.

Wheat belly?? please. How about: fast food, high fat, high sugar, high soda intake, high dessert belly ?? How about: never get the f' off the couch belly?

People have been eating wheat for 1000's of years. And people were not obese for 1000's of years. The last 30-40 years, with the explosion of cheap fast food and snacks, and sedentary lifestyles is what has obviously led to obesity epidemic and big fat stomachs.

This is just another clown who doesn't know what he is talking about, out to a make a buck of dad dieters looking for a new MAGIC CURE! You don't need to exercise! You need to cut calories! Just cut out wheat and voila! You've lost weight.

He says wheat today has been so engineered that there's a lot more gluten and that that's why it's so bad for us now. Also, most fast food, most snacks, and most desserts would have wheat as an ingredient. Also, his claim is that by eating wheat, it increases your craving for food so much that you can't eat a healthy well-balanced diet.

He does recommend fasting (water only) for several days even, and that seems extreme.

I am not supporting him. I'm just curious what you all have to say about this.

The Super wrote:

What do you think about this book?

Basically he says to get rid of all wheat and that pounds drop off.

The science in the book is sound, if over-argued and not sensitive to individual differences. People vary greatly in their response to high carb diets and the evolutionarily novel foods of agriculture. If what you are doing now works, why change? But if you are allegedly doing everything "right" but aren't seeing the results of your ectomorph fellows, why not try something different?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

100% nailed it.

Wheat belly?? please. How about: fast food, high fat, high sugar, high soda intake, high dessert belly ?? How about: never get the f' off the couch belly?

People have been eating wheat for 1000's of years. And people were not obese for 1000's of years. The last 30-40 years, with the explosion of cheap fast food and snacks, and sedentary lifestyles is what has obviously led to obesity epidemic and big fat stomachs.

This is just another clown who doesn't know what he is talking about, out to a make a buck of dad dieters looking for a new MAGIC CURE! You don't need to exercise! You need to cut calories! Just cut out wheat and voila! You've lost weight.

So what you are saying is that, although one factor has changed in our lifestyles (we are more sedentary) that we have been doing for thousands of years, it has no benefit to change another factor in our lifestyles (stop eating wheat) because we have been doing that for thousands of years?

I'm not supporting the contention (I've never even heard of this diet before) - just pointing out that your logic makes absolutely no sense.

Typical magic bullet claims.

There are good nutritional reasons to avoid eating refined white flour, at least in the quantities that many people eat it, and especially since it is typically combined with refined sugars, vegetable oils, etc. It may also an effective diet technique for some people to eliminate wheat from their diet because it can be a source of unneeded calories (cakes, cookies, crackers) or be combined with fatty foods that people tend to eat too much of (pastas, pizza, hamburgers, etc.). But the villain there is not wheat itself, but overeating unhealthy calories.

However, eating whole grain wheat products in moderation is not the cause of anyone being obese.

Cordain wrote:

The science in the book is sound

WRONG. as usual.

All carbs are sugar.

Very odd that whole grains are considered to be the important healthy staple of human diet when it is a tiny blip in human evolution. No whole grains in human diets until 10k years ago.

Again, T Rex, tell me why one needs carbs beyond glycogen storage/usage? What happens to it?

This isn't new or fringe science - tons of scientists were against the fat demonization rush of the 70s but the real people making a buck here are not people writing books, but big agriculture trying to normalize empty starch calories (which, of course, sustain a large, but unhealty popultion).

Eating without reliance on modern ag starches or food science is hardly a "magic cure". It is eating real food.

The only grain I eat is moderated portions of rice (a pure starch with no phylates or anti-nutrients because I have a glycogen demand to run 80 mpw - I would eat no grains if I were sedentary). Weird how it is considered fringe to eat fruit, meat, nuts, tubors, vegetables, oils not created in a lab.

I am 6'4, 42 years old, 70-80 mpw, 155 pounds and can bench a set of 10 at that (and when not injured still running 33:00 for 10k). I only eat about 30-40% of my cals from carbs. I eat lots of meat and fatty cuts at that. My blood chemistry is great - I get a fasting test every year.

I don't or rarely (as in a treat) eat:

sugar of any sort, grains, legumes, dairy (well, I have added back in a touch of dairy).

I eat plenty of fruit, vegetables, avacadoes, coconut oil, nuts, meats of various leanness, fish, tubers

I don't see what is fringe about any of that or "magic cure" about it.

Sedentary people don't use any glycogen, so a sedentary person simply has no need to eat carbs (our body has 3 ways of synthesizing glucose, as surely you must know if you have the nutritional training you claim to have.

Cordain wrote:

I eat plenty of fruit, vegetables, avacadoes, coconut oil, nuts, meats of various leanness, fish, tubers

How many of the fruits, vegetables, avocados, coconut oil, and tubers were part of the human diet in their current form 10k years ago. Not many. Why is wheat special?

GenericID wrote:

So what you are saying is that, although one factor has changed in our lifestyles (we are more sedentary) that we have been doing for thousands of years, it has no benefit to change another factor in our lifestyles (stop eating wheat) because we have been doing that for thousands of years?

What?? It's really hard to understand what you are asking, but I think I can finally see the point you are trying to make.

Firstly I didn't say that only one factor (becoming more sedentary) has changed for humans that has made them obese (and I guess you didn't say that I said "only" one). I said that being sedentary was one major factor, and the OTHER major factor was way too many calories, mainly from high fat/high sugar low nutrient fast foods and snacks/desserts (think bacon double cheeseburgers, greasy french fries, cookies, ice cream, candy bars, sodas) partly due to how cheap they are, and how prevalent they are on every corner (and advertising, and people have natural love of sweet and fat).

So your "much more logical" argument is: if a couple things have drastically changed in our lifestyles that logically would lead to obesity (being sedentary and increasing calories on low nutrient, calorie dense foods. NO ONE argues that this is not a combination for obesity), then instead of trying to reverse those trends, we should change something entirely different, like eating wheat, something we have been doing for 1000's of years without obesity problems ???

oooookay. If people tend to ruin their lives by doing hard drugs like coke, meth, or heroin, instead of encouraging them to stop doing those things, let's tell them to, oh, I don't know, stop watching nature shows on PBS. I'm going to write a book called: Nature Show Homeless. It will detail the connection between those on the streets and their nature show watching habits. Oh yeah.....

Is this bad science, T. Rex? Bold emmphasis is mine (if html tags work - not sure if they do):

A month later, participants were placed on one of three diets for a month: a low-fat diet limiting fats to 20% of total calories; a low-carbohydrate diet modeled on the Atkins diet, limiting carbohydrate intake to 10% of total calories; and a low-glycemic-index diet, which contained 40% of total calories from carbohydrates, 40% from fats and 20% from protein. Participants were then switched to the other two diets during two additional four-week periods.

"The low-fat diet had the worst effect" on energy expenditure, Dr. Ludwig said. Participants on that diet also had increases in triglycerides, a type of fat, and lower levels of so-called good cholesterol. "We should avoid severely restricting any major nutrient and focus on the quality of the nutrient," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490943279845790.html

So why would the lowest fat diet have the biggest increase in triglycerides?

Or how about this?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/

Je suis un bon avocat wrote:

Cordain wrote:

I eat plenty of fruit, vegetables, avacadoes, coconut oil, nuts, meats of various leanness, fish, tubers

How many of the fruits, vegetables, avocados, coconut oil, and tubers were part of the human diet in their current form 10k years ago. Not many. Why is wheat special?

Wheat (and grains in general) are quite special because:

1)your statement is wrong

2)The dwarf wheat we eat now (last 50 years) is very different genetically from einkhorn wheat eaten for most of evolutionary history (this is mostly what wheat belly is about, if you haven't read it). It has far more gluten, more gliadin, etc.

3)We eat too many calories from carbs generally, particularly sedentary people who burn almost no glycogen. Carbs are not the body's "preferred" fuel for general metabolism.

The average American diet is lower in fat (and higher in carbs) than it has ever been.

I can see at least two products on that list which contain significant amounts of wheat, and several others which have hidden wheat content - so stopping eating wheat would immediately remove those "bad" foods from your diet. Would that be a bad thing?

Here's the crux of the issue - and the point I think you are missing - the wheat we are eating is not the wheat our parents ate, nor is it the wheat our grandparents ate, so the claim that we have been eating wheat for thousands of years is specious at best.

You are clearly clueless about agriculture, go and educate yourself before making any more dumb claims.

Cocaine and heroin have been around for thousands of years, yet nature documentaries have only been around about 50-60. Just sayin' ...

Well, I got this book for Christmas, and I've read it cover to cover already. It appears probably that "wheat belly" doesn't happen to everyone, but I think this is me. I exercise. I eat what I've thought was a healthy diet. Fruit. Vegetables. Very little sugar or desserts or fatty foods, and only lean meat, but also whole grain food, mostly wheat. I actually eat a lot of wheat as a percentage of my diet. I don't drink beer and I'm not one of those who sits and eats a bag of potato chips. And, I'm too fat. Doesn't make sense.

Dr. Davis says you have to go back 50 years before the common "wheat" of the day didn't cause what it does now. Today's wheat is so bad for you that two slices of whole wheat bread are higher on the Glycemix Index than two teaspoonsful of sugar. The gluten in today's wheat is broken down into molecules that bind to opiate receptors in the brain, making some people (most people) crave more and more. Today's wheat also breaks down into Amylopectin A as opposed to B and C varieties. The A variety is the one that is most easily stored as fat.

Other than a little fiber and some B vitamins, Davis says whole wheat offers nothing and is the biggest nutritional fallacy on the planet. As far as weight loss goes, you would be better off eating white bread than whole wheat bread.

According to the book, the original 1992 version of the food pyramid -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif

is the main reason Americans are so fat today.

He references thousands of cases he has seen come into his office where he tells them to cut out wheat from their diet and they end up losing a significant amount of weight, even over 100 pounds without doing anything else. No counting calories. No additional exercise and in some cases no exercise at all. No portion control. Simply get rid of wheat and the pounds come off. He does warn not to replace the wheat with other starches that are commonly used in gluten-free products such as potato starch, tapioca starch, rice starch and a few others. Simply eliminate the wheat and then eat as you were. He says you will see faster results if you also don't binge eat on other things or eat a lot of sugar, but he maintains the elimination of wheat from the diet greatly pares these cravings and that most people already know not to drink lots of sugary drinks or eat a bag of potato chip. He says stopping wheat is less intuitive.

I'm definitely going to give dropping wheat from my diet a try. I started yesterday. I made sure to eat enough so I wasn't hungry at all, and I even had dessert. Just no wheat.

I haven't read the book, but just about everything in your post is wrong. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Wheat Belly.

Ho Hum wrote:

I haven't read the book, but just about everything in your post is wrong. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Wheat Belly.

Care to tell me what exactly you think is wrong so that I can look it up to see if you're right?

I agree with Super.

I hope Ho hum has read the book before saying anything.

I also think T Rex is uneducated

It is great to learn about everything and in great detail. I think focusing on wheat allows to fully understand it. This book allows for that.

Super do not forget that most posters are an inch deep and a mile wide. They know very little about everything. Their opinions, advice and knowledge is ignorant.

Redneck runner wrote:

I've read one book so that makes me an expert on the subject. Everyone else is an idiot, especially if they have a different opinion than the mine...which I got from one book.

Well at least you're being honest with yourself.

Trying to deal wrote:

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

What the hell is that supposed to mean, except the cliche nonsense that a little of everything is healthy?

The author is right. Humans are equipped to eat primarily meat, supplemented by gatherable vegetable items. Not primarily grains. The agricultural manufacture of grains results in a situation where most people must eat mostly grains, or starve. As a result, most people in highly developed countries are fat and unhealthy.

Eating more than 60 percent carbohydrate by calorie inevitably results in fat gain and/or muscle loss, depending on the calorie total. The body can't utilize all that glucose at once, and can't convert it to lean tissue, and so must convert it to fat. It also causes insulin levels to spike and crash, slowing the synthesis of lean tissue.

American nutritionists recommend merely 11 percent calorie by protein. They also suggest restricting calorie by fat to 20 or 25 percent. That leaves 64 to 69 percent by carbohydrate. They have all kinds of trumped-up theories to justify this, but the abysmal health of the American populace disproves them all.

The real reason nutritionists still love carbs is simple. Economically, there is no alternative, as protein is just too expensive for everyone to afford switching to a better by-calorie ratio like 25/20/55. If they recommended more protein and fewer carbs, the price of protein would get even higher and the price of carbs would tank even further. Tuna would be eradicated and there would be huge piles of unused grain across the country. So they pretend that 11/20/69 is a sensible way to eat.

A little bit about digestion and evolution. Energy from meat is abundant and extremely bioavailable. It is digested entirely in the stomach and small intestine. Energy from grains and vegetables has low-bioavailability, relying on symbiotic fermentation in the large intestine. Eating meat is what allowed early humans to develop big brains. Because of our large brains, humans require more energy for base metabolism than equal-sized grazing animals. To avoid becoming sedentary to conserve energy, like gorillas, humans need to either eat meat, or evolve smaller brains.

Eat meat, or become lazy and/or stupid.