Wheat Belly

Less than 1% of the population of the US suffers from coeliac disease. The rate is much lower among non-white people. Is this really something worth worrying about? For a disease with a 1% prevalence rate?

What's likely happening is not that rates of coeliac are rising, but that diagnoses are rising because it's a more well-understood (and trendy) disease than it used to be.

Ghrelin wrote:

Less than 1% of the population of the US suffers from coeliac disease. The rate is much lower among non-white people. Is this really something worth worrying about? For a disease with a 1% prevalence rate?

What's likely happening is not that rates of coeliac are rising, but that diagnoses are rising because it's a more well-understood (and trendy) disease than it used to be.

Word. The blood screening we used today wasn't around until '97 apparently:

If you go to a doctor nowadays complaining of chronic stomach pain, one of the first things they'll do is screen you for celiac. The test isn't perfect, but we've come a long way.

The Super wrote:

What do you think about this book?

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

Here's one data point: I read the book and tried it (eliminating wheat), without any effect on my weight or on the appearance of my belly.

I strongly suspect that if eliminating wheat (or any other fad diet) works for some people, the mechanism is NOT what is claimed but rather that the diet has a side effect of getting people to reduce calories and pay attention to what they put in their mouth - so eat less junk.

OJ wrote:

The Super wrote:

What do you think about this book?

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

Here's one data point: I read the book and tried it (eliminating wheat), without any effect on my weight or on the appearance of my belly.

I strongly suspect that if eliminating wheat (or any other fad diet) works for some people, the mechanism is NOT what is claimed but rather that the diet has a side effect of getting people to reduce calories and pay attention to what they put in their mouth - so eat less junk.

I'm sure that everyone is different. I'm sure that everyone is fat for different reasons. I don't eat a lot of sweets for example, but I was eating a lot of wheat. I'm 5 full days into this, and I've noticed one main thing; when I eliminate wheat, I don't become ravenously hungry as I was when I was eating wheat. I'm not attempting to eat less, but that is surely the result that I have seen. It's after 11 p.m. where I am right now, and I had my meal of chicken, almonds, black beans and apple slices 6 hours ago, and I'm not hungry at all. I've already lost 4 pounds though I'm sure a lot of that is water weight and I don't expect to lose 4 pounds every 5 days. I also had one of the best night's sleep last night that I can ever remember having.

I've tried other modifications to my eating, and I've never been able to hold hunger at bay like this new way of eating appears to have done for me.

For now, I'm all in. I think he's got something, and it appears to help me.

Ghrelin wrote:

Less than 1% of the population of the US suffers from coeliac disease. The rate is much lower among non-white people. Is this really something worth worrying about? For a disease with a 1% prevalence rate?

No.

But that's not the argument Davis makes.

For a disease with a 1% prevalence rate?

1% of the US population is ~3,110,000 people, not worth worrying about really.

Cancer only has a 3.85% prevalence rate - should we stop worrying about that too?

Cancer may only have a 3.85% prevalence rate at any given time, but something like 50% of people will develop cancer during their lives. Not exactly the same thing.

Ghrelin wrote:

Cancer may only have a 3.85% prevalence rate at any given time, but something like 50% of people will develop cancer during their lives. Not exactly the same thing.

The author doesn't say that everyone has Celiac Disease or that even most do. His book mentions Celiac Disease, but this book is for people anyone who is overweight mostly or has Type II Diabetes. His contention is that eating wheat is a main cause of Type II Diabetes and that it makes people fat because the Amylopectin A that results is more easily stored as fat than the B and C versions and that wheat stimulates appetite by binding to opiate receptors in the brain.

Sheesh... 50 replies so far and only one poster (TDF) has cited first hand experience. ANYONE else out there who has actually tried this for at least a week? If so, what was your experience? Anyone?

fisky wrote:

Sheesh... 50 replies so far and only one poster (TDF) has cited first hand experience. ANYONE else out there who has actually tried this for at least a week? If so, what was your experience? Anyone?

OJ wrote:

Here's one data point: I read the book and tried it (eliminating wheat), without any effect on my weight or on the appearance of my belly.

I strongly suspect that if eliminating wheat (or any other fad diet) works for some people, the mechanism is NOT what is claimed but rather that the diet has a side effect of getting people to reduce calories and pay attention to what they put in their mouth - so eat less junk.

The Super wrote:

Ghrelin wrote:

Cancer may only have a 3.85% prevalence rate at any given time, but something like 50% of people will develop cancer during their lives. Not exactly the same thing.

The author doesn't say that everyone has Celiac Disease or that even most do. His book mentions Celiac Disease, but this book is for people anyone who is overweight mostly or has Type II Diabetes. His contention is that eating wheat is a main cause of Type II Diabetes and that it makes people fat because the Amylopectin A that results is more easily stored as fat than the B and C versions and that wheat stimulates appetite by binding to opiate receptors in the brain.

Are there any large scale high quality clinical studies to support the authors viewpoint? Because anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much. For every person who has a story saying how much a wheat free diet helped them you can come up with plenty of others who have no issues with wheat. For example I'm in my 50's, have around 10% body fat and can bench 50% over my body weight and run a 19:30 5k. Cholesterol and lipid profile is great. And yet I eat large amounts of bread and pasta and ice cream.

Ice cream doesn't factor in here, unless it has pretzel pieces or cookies or other things made of wheat in it, so I'm not sure why you mentioned ice cream. Pasta made from durum wheat is still bad, but it's not as bad as the wheat (dwarf wheat) used to make most other things that are made of wheat. Beyond that I guess it would be interesting to know how much wheat you eat. The USDA Food Pyramid from 1992 says 6-11 servings. Many Americans easily eat that and then some.Anyway, his book cites several studies on all sorts of things, all relating to wheat and how it affects people. He also says that wheat consumption isn't a problem for everyone (just like the first hit of an addicting drug isn't a problem for everyone, but it is for some), so perhaps you're one of those. Sounds like you are doing all you need to do.I need to lose weight, and I've had little luck with calorie counting and simply eating what I was told was a healthy diet mostly of fruit, vegetables, lean meat, and whole grains. So far the change to the Wheat Belly way has lost be 4 pounds in 5 days and I've not been very hungry since.

If you lost 4 pounds in 5 days, odds are you messed up measuring somewhere along the line. Do the math on the calorie deficit required to lose 4 pounds of fat: 14000 calories, over 5 days = -2800 calories/day = you were insanely active while eating very little. Which would mean that you didn't just sub out wheat, but went on some kind of extended fast.

More likely you just lost some water weight and took a dump somewhere along the line.

Ho Hum wrote:

If you lost 4 pounds in 5 days, odds are you messed up measuring somewhere along the line. Do the math on the calorie deficit required to lose 4 pounds of fat: 14000 calories, over 5 days = -2800 calories/day = you were insanely active while eating very little. Which would mean that you didn't just sub out wheat, but went on some kind of extended fast.

More likely you just lost some water weight and took a dump somewhere along the line.

Definitely the latter. Fluctuations of 5 pounds or so are pretty normal even within the same day and don't mean much. What's meaningful is the long-term trend of your weight over a long period of time.

Ghrelin wrote:

Cancer may only have a 3.85% prevalence rate at any given time, but something like 50% of people will develop cancer during their lives. Not exactly the same thing.

It's exactly the same thing; you don't get to pick and choose your stats. If you only quote the prevalence rate for coeliac, then you can only use the prevalence rate for cancer to make the same determination. To do otherwise is a dishonest argument.

GenericID wrote:

\

It's exactly the same thing; you don't get to pick and choose your stats. If you only quote the prevalence rate for coeliac, then you can only use the prevalence rate for cancer to make the same determination. To do otherwise is a dishonest argument.

No it's not. Cancer is a disease of aging that affects many people AS THEY AGE, and is often cured, which means it's misleading to cite rates of cancer at a given instant.

Coeliac is not a disease of aging but an inflammatory disorder that's with you for life. 50% of people will get cancer at some point in their lives. 1.2% get Coeliac. See the difference? You could've made the same argument about the influenza virus, which would be a similarly inane comparison.

Coeliac is not a disease of aging but an inflammatory disorder that's with you for life.

Coelic isn't necessarily something you are born with, it is also something you can develop later in life. While it isn't cureable, it is definitely dishonest to claim that only 1.2% of the population will be affected during their lifetime.

50% of people will get cancer at some point in their lives. 1.2% get Coeliac.

That's simply untrue (and that's why mixing the prevalence rate with the lifetime rate is dishonest).

See the difference?

Yes I do, and that's the point I was making. What is obvious is that you don't.

OK, what percent of people get Coeliac disease in their lifetimes? Link me a study, not Mark's Daily Apple.

Ghrelin wrote:

OK, what percent of people get Coeliac disease in their lifetimes? Link me a study, not Mark's Daily Apple.

Isn't that your job? You are the one claiming that coeliac isn't worth bothering about, so shouldn't you have that sort of information to hand before you make that sort of comment?