Claim that modern hybrid wheat is lacking in nutrition--True or bunk?

[Cairenn]

ttp://www.realfarmacy.com/why-80-of-people-worldwide-will-soon-stop-eating-wheat/

I can use some help on this one. I don't really know the history of the hybridization of wheat enough. This is the part I don't know enough about.

At some point in our history, this ancient grain was nutritious in some respects, however modern wheat really isn’t wheat at all. Once agribusiness took over to develop a higher-yielding crop, wheat became hybridized to such an extent that it has been completely transformed from it’s prehistorical genetic configuration. All nutrient content of modern wheat depreciated more than 30% in its natural unrefined state compared to its ancestral genetic line. The balance and ratio that mother nature created for wheat was also modified and human digestion and physiology could simply could not adapt quick enough to the changes. ...

Some experts claim if you select 100% whole wheat products, the bran and the germ of the wheat will remain in your meals, and the health benefits will be impressive. This is again a falsity promoted by the wheat industry since even 100% whole wheat products are based on modern wheat strains created by irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose X-rays to induce mutations. Whether you consume 10% or 100% of wheat is irrelevant since you’re still consuming a health damaging grain that will not benefit, advance or even maintain your health in any way.

Content from external source

I cannot find any one place their 'evidence' comes from. I wonder if they have linked some things together?

This is what I have found.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...the-cause-of-numerous-serious-health-problems

and so other sites questioning that idea.

I can't find any studies or research papers, It seems a lot of that comes from "The Wheat Belly' book by William Davis

Checking a bunch of reviews on it on Amazon seems to show that anyone that disagreed with the premise of the book seem to get their reviews downchecked. Seems a little odd to me.


This showed up on my wall today. Did I ever mention that I have entirely too many friends that are in 'quack' medicine?

I added my favorite post on 'the cause of auto immune diseases'---the evidence that a lack of intestinal parasites may the problem..

 

[Mick West]

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

 

[Cairenn]

I was having computer problems today and only posted part of it, is that more in line with the posting guidelines?

 

[Mick West]

Still needs to identify what the claim of evidence is (not just a claim). And needs a better thread title.

 

[Cairenn]

Can I change the thread title?

 

[Mick West]

Looks you you figured out the thread title change?

I see a claim, but what exactly is the claimed evidence?

 

[Pete Tar]

Found a study that compared wheat's effect on LDL with oats, but that's not what the claim about wheat is.

In a carefully observed scientific study done in 2002 at the Colorado State University, these two products were shown to have a very big impact on the overall nutrition and diet of an individual. An under accurate lipoprotein analyses with the subjects revealed that an oat diet was able to reduce LDL (bad cholesterol) by 2.5%, whereas, a wheat diet propelled the value by 8%.

Content from external source

High-fiber oat cereal compared with wheat cereal consumption favorably alters LDL-cholesterol subclass and particle numbers in middle-aged and older men.
Davy BM, Davy KP, Ho RC, Beske SD, Davrath LR, Melby CL.
Source
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523, USA.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
No studies have examined whether increased consumption of oat cereal, rich in soluble fiber, favorably alters lipoprotein particle size and number.

OBJECTIVE:
We examined the effects of large servings of either oat or wheat cereal on plasma lipids, lipoprotein subclasses, lipoprotein particle diameters, and LDL particle number.

DESIGN:
Thirty-six overweight men aged 50-75 y were randomly assigned to consume daily for 12 wk either oat or wheat cereal providing 14 g dietary fiber/d. Before and after the intervention, plasma lipid and lipoprotein subclasses were measured with proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and whole-body insulin sensitivity was estimated with the frequently sampled intravenous-glucose-tolerance test.

RESULTS:
Time-by-treatment interactions (P < 0.05) for LDL cholesterol (oat: -2.5%; wheat: 8.0%), small LDL cholesterol (oat: -17.3%; wheat: 60.4%), LDL particle number (oat: -5.0%; wheat: 14.2%), and LDL:HDL cholesterol (oat: -6.3%; wheat: 14.2%) were observed. Time-by-treatment interactions were nearly significant for total cholesterol (oat: -2.5%; wheat: 6.3%; P = 0.08), triacylglycerol (oat: -6.6%; wheat: 22.0%; P = 0.07), and VLDL triacylglycerol (oat: -7.6%; wheat: 2.7%; P = 0.08). No significant time-by-treatment interactions were observed for HDL cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol subclasses, or LDL, HDL, and VLDL particle diameters. Insulin sensitivity did not change significantly with either intervention.

CONCLUSIONS:
The oat compared with the wheat cereal produced lower concentrations of small, dense LDL cholesterol and LDL particle number without producing adverse changes in blood triacylglycerol or HDL-cholesterol concentrations. These beneficial alterations may contribute to the cardioprotective effect of oat fiber.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145006

Content from external source

Most of the talk on the internet is of the benefit of whole grains versus refined grains.

There's a pretty in-depth overview of wheat here...

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/6/1537.full

Wheat is the dominant crop in temperate countries being used for human food and livestock feed. Its success depends partly on its adaptability and high yield potential but also on the gluten protein fraction which confers the viscoelastic properties that allow dough to be processed into bread, pasta, noodles, and other food products. Wheat also contributes essential amino acids, minerals, and vitamins, and beneficial phytochemicals and dietary fibre components to the human diet, and these are particularly enriched in whole-grain products. However, wheat products are also known or suggested to be responsible for a number of adverse reactions in humans, including intolerances (notably coeliac disease) and allergies (respiratory and food).
...

Currently, about 95% of the wheat grown worldwide is hexaploid bread wheat, with most of the remaining 5% being tetraploid durum wheat.
...

Globally there is no doubt that the number of people who rely on wheat for a substantial part of their diet amounts to several billions.
The high content of starch, about 60–70% of the whole grain and 65–75% of white flour, means that wheat is often considered to be little more than a source of calories, and this is certainly true for animal feed production, with high-yielding, low-protein feed varieties being supplemented by other protein-rich crops (notably soybeans and oilseed residues).

However, despite its relatively low protein content (usually 8–15%) wheat still provides as much protein for human and livestock nutrition as the total soybean crop, estimated at about 60 m tonnes per annum (calculated by Shewry, 2000). Therefore, the nutritional importance of wheat proteins should not be underestimated, particularly in less developed countries where bread, noodles and other products (eg bulgar, couscous) may provide a substantial proportion of the diet.

Protein content
Although wheat breeders routinely select for protein content in their breeding programmes (high protein for breadmaking and low protein for feed and other uses), the current range of variation in this parameter in commercial cultivars is limited. For example, Snape et al. (1993) estimated that typical UK breadmaking and feed wheats differed in their protein content by about 2% dry weight (eg from about 12–14% protein) when grown under the same conditions, which is significantly less than the 2-fold differences which can result from high and low levels of nitrogen fertilizer application. This limited variation in conventional wheat lines has led to searches for ‘high protein genes’ in more exotic germplasm.

...



Table 1.

• • 
    Recommended levels of essential amino acids for adult humans compared with those in wheat grain and flour (expressed as mg g−1 protein)
    
    
    (aargh it's not formatting correctly, go to the page.)
    ....

Content from external source

• • 
    

This part may be the more relevant one...

Wheat as a source of minerals
Iron deficiency is the most widespread nutrient deficiency in the world, estimated to affect over 2 billion people (Stoltzfus and Dreyfuss, 1998). Although many of these people live in less developed countries, it is also a significant problem in the developed world. Zinc deficiency is also widespread, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and has been estimated to account for 800 000 child deaths a year (Micronutrient Initiative, 2006), in addition to non-lethal effects on children and adults.
Wheat and other cereals are significant sources of both of these minerals, contributing 44% of the daily intake of iron (15% in bread) and 25% of the daily intake of zinc (11% in bread) in the UK (Henderson et al., 2007). There has therefore been considerable concern over the suggestion that the mineral content of modern wheat varieties is lower than that of older varieties.
This was initially suggested by Garvin et al. (2006) who grew 14 red winter wheat cultivars bred between 1873 and 2000 in replicate field experiments and determined their mineral contents. Plants were grown at two locations in Kansas and significant negative correlations were found between grain yield, variety release date, and the concentrations of zinc in material from both of these sites and of iron in materials from only one site. Similar trends were reported by Fan et al. (2008a, b) who took a different approach. Rather than carrying out direct comparisons of varieties in field trials, they analysed grain grown on the Rothamsted Broadbalk long-term wheat experiment. This experiment was established in 1843 and uses a single variety which is replaced by a more modern variety at regular intervals. Analysis of archived grain showed significant decreases in the contents of minerals (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mg) since semi-dwarf cultivars were introduced in 1968. A similar difference was observed between the cultivars Brimstone (semi-dwarf) and Squareheads Master (long straw) which were grown side by side in 1988–1990, the concentrations of Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mg being 18–29% lower in Brimstone. A more recent comparison of 25 lines grown also showed a decline in the concentrations of Fe and Zn since semi-dwarf wheats were introduced (Zhao et al., 2009) (Fig. 3). Although the decrease in the mineral content of modern wheats is partly due to dilution, resulting from increased yield (which was negatively correlated with mineral content), it has been suggested that short-strawed varieties may be intrinsically less efficient at partitioning minerals to the grain compared with the translocation of photosynthate.

Content from external source

 

[Pete Tar]

I guess this is the statement that can be looked at...

"All nutrient content of modern wheat depreciated more than 30% in its natural unrefined state compared to its ancestral genetic line."

And maybe this one...


"Whether you consume 10% or 100% of wheat is irrelevant since you’re still consuming a health damaging grain that will not benefit, advance or even maintain your health in any way."

So they're saying if you eat wheat it has no ability to positively contribute to your health or nutrition at all. So wheat given to famine-struck populations will not keep them alive.

 

[Pete Tar]

Ah... Here's an analysis.

http://www.thegreatfitnessexperimen...ts-killing-you-you-know-one-or-the-other.html

...

Claim: “Modern wheat really isn’t wheat at all. And it’s less nutritious”

- Longo writes that “Once agribusiness took over to develop a higher-yielding crop, wheat became hybridized to such an extent that it has been completely transformed from it’s prehistorical genetic configuration. All nutrient content of modern wheat depreciated more than 30% in its natural unrefined state compared to its ancestral genetic line.”

This is a tricky question since modern wheat (like many crops) has evolved since it was first introduced in the human diet. Some strains happened naturally in the wild (as in wind, bees, animals frolicking in various fields and whatnot) while other strains – like the dwarf wheat most commonly cultivated today – were bred purposefully by humans. I think everyone would agree that all varieties of wheat today differ genetically from the mother seed (whatever that was).

But does it make it less nutritious? According to the quite extensive Broadbalk Experiments, the short answer is yes. Thanks to the shortened stalks, less sun and more shallow root systems, the most common dwarf wheat strain is more deficient in certain vitamins. As for the 30% number cited the only source I could find was Longo herself so I’m not sure where that came from.

My verdict? True.


Claim: “The Nutritional Value of Wheat is Practically Non-Existent In Its Current Form”

- Longo goes on to conclude that “the nutritional value of wheat is non-existent.” I’m not sure that it’s a reasonable leap to go from “less nutritious than the ancient not-messed-with-by-man grain” to “not nutritious at all” but I looked up some stats on wheat. It seems that everyone agrees that white flour (a.k.a. wheat processed to 60% extraction) is nutritionally void. (Sorry crusty French bread!) However, according to the George Matjellen foundation (which says on their site that they’re a non-profit with no commercial interests or advertising, a claim which I’m taking at face value since I don’t have the time to look up everything), 100% whole wheat products keep the germ and the bran attached and have “excellent to very good” health benefits and list it as one of the healthiest foods you can eat with high levels of manganese, magnesium, fiber and tryptophan.

Longo rebuts this, writing, “Some experts claim if you select 100% whole wheat products, the bran and the germ of the wheat will remain in your meals, and the health benefits will be impressive. This is again a falsity promoted by the wheat industry since even 100% whole wheat products are based on modern wheat strains created by irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose X-rays to induce mutations. Whether you consume 10% or 100% of wheat is irrelevant since you’re still consuming a health damaging grain that will not benefit, advance or even maintain your health in any way.”

If I’m reading her response correctly she’s not saying that it’s false that the bran and germ are included in the 100% whole wheat products but rather that the nutritional benefit they provide is negated by the manipulation of the grains. Whether or not irradiation mutates food (it’s used to kill pathogens) is still up for debate. The USDA considers it safe. Much of Europe does not. But all of that (including the chemical Longo references) is moot if you buy organic whole wheat. According to the USDA ”organic” means free of synthetic additives like pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and dyes, and must not be processed using industrial solvents, irradiation, or genetic engineering.

My verdict? False. Not only does whole wheat contain some vital nutrients and fiber but you can avoid the issues Longo described by buying organic.

Content from external source

 

[Mat]

The book Wheatbelly gives a plausible overview of modern wheat, as opposed to old. As I recall, it doesn't mention any nutritional difference, rather modern wheat contains significantly more anti-nutrients and well being deminishers.

(Anecdote) I've given up all wheat since reading this and the wellbeing changes are profound. I've just come back from holiday where I had lots of wheat as an experiment, and found it negitavising. More bloat, more lethargy, more craving, more abdominal lard(that could have been the beer too!).

I'm now back to Wheatfree.

 

[Cairenn]

What is his explanation for this? I need hard facts.

 

[Mat]

What is his explanation for this? I need hard facts.

I'm writing off the top of my head but as I recall:

In the fifties they bred a wheat strain that was shorter and with a bigger yield.
This strain is what is used in nigh on all the worlds wheat production.
This strain has some differences to traditional what:
It contains a type of protein (gliadin?) that seems to act like an opiate.
It contains something else that makes you eat more, or something.

I hope that's hard fact enough! If not there is a good interview on YouTube where he summarises his book and a good summary of his book on his blog. I borrowed a copy and then bought the hardback....


Note that it's stressed in the book that all wheat is not great, even spelt, it's just not as bad as modern wheat.

Anyhoooos...

 

[cosmic]

The book Wheatbelly gives a plausible overview of modern wheat, as opposed to old. As I recall, it doesn't mention any nutritional difference, rather modern wheat contains significantly more anti-nutrients and well being deminishers.

Davis's claims are explored here: Should You Worry About Wheat? (UC Berkeley)

His book is bunk-tastic.

 

[Mat]

Davis's claims are explored here: Should You Worry About Wheat? (UC Berkeley)

His book is bunk-tastic.

Maybe.... Though on his blog he answers those claims on the wheat belly blog; I think satisfactorily.

Have you read the book to make the claim you made, or are you just repeating?

I would be very happy for a clear debunking of this book.(edit: actually I'd be miffed a bit as it cost me 17 quid!)

Even so, I think I would remain wheat free because the benefits I experience so far are clear. I'm only 3 months in, mind you...

 

[David Fraser]

The book Wheatbelly gives a plausible overview of modern wheat, as opposed to old. As I recall, it doesn't mention any nutritional difference, rather modern wheat contains significantly more anti-nutrients and well being deminishers.

(Anecdote) I've given up all wheat since reading this and the wellbeing changes are profound. I've just come back from holiday where I had lots of wheat as an experiment, and found it negitavising. More bloat, more lethargy, more craving, more abdominal lard(that could have been the beer too!).

I'm now back to Wheatfree.

Antinutrients are in all foods, hence with nutrition in general it is important to have a balanced diet.

 

[cosmic]

Have you read the book to make the claim you made, or are you just repeating?

No, I haven't. I don't need to read the book to understand that the core claims he makes are unsupported. It's just another fad diet promoting irrational and unnecessary restrictions. (See: orthorexia)

 

[Cairenn]

I am not seeing any real research, just a book that has been so heavily advertised on FB and elsewhere on the web.


http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...at-stimulate-appetite-to-the-point-of-obesity

Lie #1: Gliadin is a ”new protein” being engineered into wheat. Actually, gliadin has always been in wheat.

[...]

Lie #2: Gliadin is an appetite-expanding opiate. Giadin[sic] is not actually an opiate. Gliadin polypeptides can bind to opiate receptors in the brain, but there’s no evidence that this stimulates appetite

Content from external source

I think the lack or parasites causing gluten problems has more research on it, than his does. I guess is easier to believe that 'modern wheat' is the problem, instead of not having worms-ehhhhhhhhh who wants intestinal worms? Our bodies it seems.

 

[Mat]

No, I haven't. I don't need to read the book to understand that the core claims he makes are unsupported.

My opinion is that one cannot refute something one has not engaged with.
My opinion is that one should not take on the opinion of others just because they cohere with ones own opinion.
My opinion is that both of the above mistakes are fundamental mistakes of reason.

It's just another fad diet promoting irrational and unnecessary restrictions. (See: orthorexia)

1) I don't think it is a fad, it is one doctors conclusions based on his long term observations of his and others patients.
2) The book is very well referenced, which you would not know as you have never seen it.
3) The book does not promote as diet in as much as inform about the doctors conclusions about the negitavising effects of wheat.
4) To claim the restrictions are unnecessary is assuming your conclusion.


Methinks from experience that you would never ever dare to concede that yes, you had been more opinionated than skeptical in this short debate. What would be wise of you would be to say that, "actually, rather than relying on being a repeater, I will give wheat free a go for two weeks and see if I experience any change in my wellbeing." That would no doubt entail a significant change in your principles, which is what skepticism is all about, after all.

Dare ya!

 

[Cairenn]

Since you have the book, can you give us some of the research studies he uses. He has been shown already to make major errors.

That book showed up as an ad on my FB feed for months, in spite of me downchecking it and saying not interested, and finally 'against by beliefs'. The doctor that wrote it is cardiologist, not a nutritionist. Doctor get almost no training in nutrition.

You may well feel better, but that can be easily explained with the placebo effect. Until some type of double or triple blind studies are done on folks like you, no one will know if it is real or a placebo. Going 'wheat free' is not a test, it is a trick. 'Feeling better' is subjective and not something that can be quantified.

 

[Mat]

Since you have the book, can you give us some of the research studies he uses.

As said, I don't have the book with me. I lent it to a friend who has now gone Wheatfree and is finding the same benefits. Even if I did have the book, I have no role in trying to persuade you that it is correct. You are the one who attacked it without seeing it. Ie, my continuation in this discussion with you is based on looking at your poor methodology rather than trying to persuade you of the book ( though as said last post, I heartily recommend you try Wheatfree and see of it makes a difference).

He has been shown already to make major errors.

My opinion is that this is not the case. What is the most major error he has made based on your opinion of another's conclusions.

That book showed up as an ad on my FB feed for months, in spite of me downchecking it and saying not interested, and finally 'against by beliefs'.

So you have a demonstrated emotional negative connection to the book already. If you wish to be wise about this I think you need to loose this so you can engage as objectively as possible. As skeptics this is one of the hurdles we must cross with pretty much everything we engage with reasonably. Note that I have no positive attachment to the book, I would be happy with it being properly debunked.

The doctor that wrote it is cardiologist, not a nutritionist. Doctor get almost no training in nutrition.

Sure, if you had read the book, rather than rely on someone else's ad hominem, you would see this fact as an asset to his claim. You would understand that as a heart doctor he saw real issues that needed explanation and when he found the wheat issue he realised he needed to understand what was going on. To me the fact he is a cardiologist is supporting rather than the contrary.

You may well feel better, but that can be easily explained with the placebo effect.

Absolutely! And I was saying this from the first week. I still say it now. And when I ate wheat last weak and got the negatives I also said it, in reverse, as it were. Of course it may be a placebo effect, and if that Constance's to be an explanation for my weightless and higher energy etc, than keep it on. In my mind, if a year down the line I am still Wheatfree and still seeing benefits then personally I would feel confident thinking it was a physiological, neurological and metabolic change rather than the wonderful and mysterious placebo effect.

Until some type of double or triple blind studies are done on folks like you, no one will know if it is real or a placebo.

Yes yes. Don't forget we are talking about a very speculative area of science here, nobody really knows anything. Nobody knows if salt Is good or aspartame bad or if eating breakfast is better than skipping.

Going 'wheat free' is not a test, it is a trick.

This is your opinion, and one that I wager you are not applying the methods or using the evidence to make strongly, after all, you are just a repeater of a couple of blog posts. Be more skeptical!

'Feeling better' is subjective and not something that can be quantified.

Sure. But weightloss, drops in insulin and all these are things the book cites, which you criticise without engagement, are not subjective.

Be a skeptic not a repeater.

 

[David Fraser]

Davis's claims are explored here: Should You Worry About Wheat? (UC Berkeley)

His book is bunk-tastic.

A good exploration of the claims here as well

http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/OpenDocuments/CFW-57-4-0177.pdf

 

[cosmic]

My opinion is that one cannot refute something one has not engaged with.
My opinion is that one should not take on the opinion of others just because they cohere with ones own opinion.
My opinion is that both of the above mistakes are fundamental mistakes of reason.

It's not a matter of taking others' opinions at face value -- it's that the claims made by the author are outlandish and misleading, and do not withstand scrutiny when analyzed by those with expertise in nutrition. I don't need to waste the money or time on Wheat Belly any more than I need to pore over books on breatharianism to recognize that the promoted concepts are at odds with scientific literature or devoid of substantive evidence.

1) I don't think it is a fad, it is one doctors conclusions based on his long term observations of his and others patients.
2) The book is very well referenced, which you would not know as you have never seen it.
3) The book does not promote as diet in as much as inform about the doctors conclusions about the negitavising effects of wheat.
4) To claim the restrictions are unnecessary is assuming your conclusion.

Trying to pin the blame for such a wide array of health issues on one dietary component is unfounded. That approach is quite typical of fad diets and food woo. Unless a person has to contend with specific dietary restrictions due to existing medical conditions or allergies, there's no rational reason to completely exclude beneficial foods or ingredients. Not only is that behavior potentially detrimental to proper nutrition, it crosses into the territory of eating disorders.

Methinks from experience that you would never ever dare to concede that yes, you had been more opinionated than skeptical in this short debate. What would be wise of you would be to say that, "actually, rather than relying on being a repeater, I will give wheat free a go for two weeks and see if I experience any change in my wellbeing." That would no doubt entail a significant change in your principles, which is what skepticism is all about, after all.

Dare ya!

So I should see if I can duplicate some sort of vague "positive" results, by myself, without any controls or meaningful measure of assessing claimed benefits? What does that have to do with wisdom or skepticism?

Yes, I have a strong opinion about fad diets, not because I'm uninformed on the subject or unreasonably stubborn, rather that they're rife with specious arguments and unsound methods.

 

[Mat]

It's not a matter of taking others' opinions at face value -- it's that the claims made by the author are outlandish and misleading, and do not withstand scrutiny when analyzed by those with expertise in nutrition. I don't need to waste the money or time on Wheat Belly any more than I need to pore over books on breatharianism to recognize that the promoted concepts are at odds with scientific literature or devoid of substantive evidence.



Trying to pin the blame for such a wide array of health issues on one dietary component is unfounded. That approach is quite typical of fad diets and food woo. Unless a person has to contend with specific dietary restrictions due to existing medical conditions or allergies, there's no rational reason to completely exclude beneficial foods or ingredients. Not only is that behavior potentially detrimental to proper nutrition, it crosses into the territory of eating disorders.



So I should see if I can duplicate some sort of vague "positive" results, by myself, without any controls or meaningful measure of assessing claimed benefits? What does that have to do with wisdom or skepticism?

Yes, I have a strong opinion about fad diets, not because I'm uninformed on the subject or unreasonably stubborn, rather that they're rife with specious arguments and unsound methods.

Ok, we seem to reason differently. I would imagine we both agree that to talk reasonably both parties need to use the same principles of reason, and, as we don't have this shared between us ( i am not saying my principles are better than yours, or vice versa) we cannot reasonably talk any more on this. I replied to he topic to impart some relevant information, I was nether dogmatic nor conclusive. Now I find myself getting into an ego-bout (this is my fault not yourself) over what are essentially our mere opinions. And so, with respect, I back down from the challenge of continuing this conversation with you

 

[Cairenn]

Maybe you have the money to waste of useless books, I don't. Say I am interested on buying a book on "Clothing of 10th Century Ireland" (I have been looking for that information for about 25 years). Instead of whipping out the CC and ordering it, I am going to see if it is based on any solid evidence. Are there new finds or new translations that have increased the knowledge of that era in Ireland? Or is it a rehashing of Victorian sources with additions of the author's opinions? If it is the latter, I don't need to buy it and waste space on my bookshelves for it.

I apply the same to other books as well.

 

[Mat]

Maybe you have the money to waste of useless books, I don't. Say I am interested on buying a book on "Clothing of 10th Century Ireland" (I have been looking for that information for about 25 years). Instead of whipping out the CC and ordering it, I am going to see if it is based on any solid evidence. Are there new finds or new translations that have increased the knowledge of that era in Ireland? Or is it a rehashing of Victorian sources with additions of the author's opinions? If it is the latter, I don't need to buy it and waste space on my bookshelves for it.

I apply the same to other books as well.

I am only stating this to show your mistakes.

You have assumed that this is just one health book in a Forrest of them. You're incorrect in this assumption, it is the only health book I have read this year.
You assume that I did not make an informed purchase, I informed myself about the book before reading.

Also, you should know, I had read the book once before I purchased the book. This demonstrates it was not bought frivolously or on a whim. It was expensive, too!

Finally, again you assume what you wish to conclude, namely that the book would be a waste of space one bookshelf. You have not read the book. Nor have you any real grasp on how it can be refuted. This is such a common mistake, but one I urge you to see and correct.

 

[Cairenn]

If a book doesn't have facts and or science to back it up and it is an informative book, then it is 'trash' and waste of paper pulp. If a book is shown to have major mistakes in the basis for it, why would one expect the rest to not be riddled with serious errors?

Take my example, say that the author claimed that most clothing in 10th century Ireland were made from cotton. And while cotton was known, it was not in common use, due to problems in ginning it and spinning it. That mistake would call in question any other research presented especially if that research is not well documented by others.

He makes a major error in saying that "Gliadin is a ”new protein” " when it isn't. Then he fills the book with 'research' that doesn't appear anywhere else. The book is highly promoted on the web and he attracts a lot of 'converts' who then promote the book with a lot of anecdotal 'evidence'.

 

[cosmic]

The focus should be on the claims made by the author. A personal scouring of the book isn't a prerequisite when independent experts have already exposed those claims as invalid.

Even if we overlook Davis's most outlandish claims, the claimed benefits are at odds with established, successful dietary guidelines.

Wheat Belly uses charges about the evils of wheat to tout the value of low-carbohydrate diets. While these diets have been shown to promote rapid weight loss in the medium term (6 months) and may be advantageous for individuals with metabolic syndrome and abnormal glucose tolerance, they have not been shown to be long-term solutions to obesity for most people.

In fact the diets with the greatest long-term success rates are those that include all the food groups, only in smaller amounts; recommend exercise four times per week; and offer solutions that are sustainable over the long term. A much larger proportion of people who keep weight off do so with diets that are high in fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy, lean meats, and whole grains than those who follow other types of diets.

(Jones)

Content from external source

Again, this sort of exclusionary regimen popularized by fad diets is neither accepted nor recommended by health experts. It's quite typical in the cottage industry of low-carb diet promotion. If you don't suffer from Celiac disease or other issues which would require avoiding gluten, there's no justifiable basis for unnecessarily removing it from your diet.

Some popular diets treat carbohydrates as if they are evil, the root of all body fat and excess weight. That was certainly true for the original Atkins diet, which popularized the no-carb approach to dieting. And there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet, although so far, that evidence is short term.

In two short, head-to-head trials, (16, 17) low-carb approaches worked better than low-fat diets. A later year-long study, published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed the same thing. In this study, overweight, premenopausal women went on one of four diets: Atkins, Zone, Ornish, or LEARN, a standard low-fat, moderately high-carbohydrate diet. The women in all four groups steadily lost weight for the first six months, with the most rapid weight loss occurring among the Atkins dieters. After that, most of the women started to regain weight. At the end of a year, it looked as though the women in the Atkins group had lost the most weight, about 10 pounds, compared with a loss of almost 6 pounds for the LEARN group, 5 for the Ornish group, and 3.5 for the Zone group. (18) Levels of harmful LDL, protective HDL, and other blood lipids were at least as good among women on the Atkins diet as among those on the low-fat diet.

If you read the fine print of the study, though, it turns out that few of the women actually stuck with their assigned diets. Those on the Atkins diet were supposed to limit their carbohydrate intake to 50 grams a day, but they took in almost triple that amount. The Ornish dieters were supposed to limit their fat intake to under 10 percent of their daily calories, but they got about 30 percent from fat. There were similar deviations for the Zone and LEARN groups.

What about longer term studies? POUNDS LOST (Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies), a two-year head-to-head trial comparing different weight loss strategies found that low-carb, low-fat, and Mediterranean-style diets worked equally well in the long run, and that there was no speed advantage for one diet over another. (20) What this and other diet comparisons tell us is that sticking with a diet is more important than the diet itself. (Read more about the POUNDS LOST weight loss trial.)

(HSPH)

Content from external source

When you strip away the anecdotes and testimonials, the crux of the issue is that under certain circumstances, lowering carbohydrate intake may be useful in achieving weight loss -- which, in and of itself, can help people feel better physically. Any such improvement or individual perception of "well being" cannot be definitively attributed to excluding wheat or wheat-based products from one's diet. That's simply a journey into thinly-veiled junk science, naturalistic fallacies and orthorexia.

You simply cannot hide behind the claims made in the book, charging that because people haven't read it they're in no position to challenge them. Ignoring widely available refutations of those claims simply makes you the "repeater".

 

[Pete Tar]

We mustn't forget gluten intolerance is a real thing though. So health improvements when wheat is eliminated can be due to that factor. The claims of the book are not really about gluten intolerance though.

 

[Pete Tar]

Maybe.... Though on his blog he answers those claims on the wheat belly blog; I think satisfactorily.

...

Could you link or copy/paste the relevant rebuttal?

 

[cosmic]

We mustn't forget gluten intolerance is a real thing though. So health improvements when wheat is eliminated can be due to that factor. The claims of the book are not really about gluten intolerance though.

Indeed. A small percentage of the population is legitimately affected by such issues. The problem is that "gluten free" marketing has become a fad all its own, beyond CD or NCGS.