In search of wheat: We bake einkorn bread

12. June 2010 William Davis (6)
With the assistance of dietitian and health educator, Margaret Pfeiffer,MS RD CD, author of Smart 4 Your Heart and very capable chef and breadmaker (previously, before she gave up wheat), we made a loaf of bread using Eli Rogosa's einkorn wheat. Recall that einkorn wheat is the primordial 14-chromosome wheat similar to the wild wheat harvested by Neolithic humans and eaten as porridge.

The essential question: Has wheat always been bad for humans or have the thousands of hybridization experiments of the last 50 years changed the structure of gluten and other proteins in Triticum aestivum and turned the "staff of life" into poison? I turn to einkorn wheat, the "original" wheat unaltered by human manipulations, to figure this out. While einkorn wheat is still a source of carbohydrates, is it something we might indulge in once in a while without triggering the adverse phenomena associated with modern wheat?   

Here's what we did:

This is the einkorn grain as we received it from Eli's farm. This was enough to make one loaf (approximately 3 cups).











The einkorn grain is a dark golden color. I tried chewing them. They taste slightly nutty. They soften as they sit in your mouth.





Here's Margaret putting the einkorn grain into the electric grinder.









We tried to grind the grain by hand with mortar and pestle, but this proved far more laborious than I anticipated. After about 15 minutes of grinding, this is what I got:



Barely 2 tablespoons. That's when Margaret fired up the electric grinder. (I can't imagine having to grind up enough flour by hand for an entire family. Perhaps that's why ancient cultures were thin despite eating wheat. They were just exhausted!)

We added water, salt, and yeast, then put the mix into an electric breadmaker to knead the dough and keep it warm.

We let the dough rise for 90 minutes, much longer than conventional dough. The einkorn dough "rose" very little. Margaret tells me that most dough made with conventional flour rises to double its size. The einkorn dough increased no more than 20-30%.

The einkorn dough also distinctly smelled like peanut butter.





After rising, we baked the dough at 350 degrees F for 30 minutes. This is the final product.

Because I want to gauge health effects, not taste, the bread we made had no added sugar or anything else to modify taste or physiologic effect.

On first tasting, the einkorn bread is mildly nutty and heavy. It had an unusual sour or astringent taste at the end, but overall tasted quite good.

Next: What happens when we eat it? I'm going to give the einkorn bread (I've got to make some more) to people who experience acute reactions to conventional wheat and see if the einkorn does the same. I will also assess blood sugar effects since, after all, hybridizations or no, it is still a carbohydrate.



Margaret Pfeiffer's book is available on Amazon:

Tags :

Comments (6) -

  • Jim Purdy

    6/12/2010 1:41:24 PM |

    QUOTE:
    " I'm going to give the einkorn bread (I've got to make some more) to people who experience acute reactions to conventional wheat and see if the einkorn does the same."

    Who knows?  You may have a promising and prosperous future as an einkorn baker.

    Jim Purdy
    The 50 Best Health Blogs

  • Anonymous

    6/12/2010 1:52:29 PM |

    Mortar and pestle are not the best implements to grind flour. It's no wonder you couldn't get it done. Take a look at this. I have played with this kind of grinder in my childhood and its eminently doable and good exercise.

    Please post on the blood glucose effect findings.

  • Anna

    6/12/2010 2:47:33 PM |

    Have you considered incorporating wild yeasts and long fermentation time (as in days days, not minutes or hours) instead of using a single commercial strain of yeast?  In addition to the wheat having changed in recent generations, so has the yeast.  While this bread may have an ancient strain of wheat, it still seems pretty modern in other ways.

    Long fermentation times with wild yeast sourdough starter allows for fuller breakdown of the gluten protein.  Many, if not most sourdough breads on the market aren't truly sourdough fermented, but merely enhanced with sourdough starter or sour flavoring.  Commercial yeast is still used to speed dough rising and production times.  

    I haven't yet tried the "bread man's" bread below (as I also have to consider the CHO/BG issue in addition to the gluten) but if I was going to eat wheat bread again, this is the kind of bread I would try to make (he does conduct workshops, btw).  This year I drive  through LA regularly so if the timing works out on one of my trips, I may stop and try the bread sometime.  

    www.cheeseslave.com/2009/03/31/top-10-reasons-to-eat-real-sourdough-bread-even-if-youre-gluten-intolerant/

    www.yelp.com/biz/bezians-bakery-los-angeles

  • DogwoodTree05

    6/12/2010 3:13:30 PM |

    $24 + labor to yield one loaf of bread.  One would have to be a diehard bread lover to spend that time and money.  When I consider the flavor and nutrient opportunity cost of that loaf in the form of pastured meats, fresh cream, ripe berries and cherries all deliciously in season right now, that golden brown loaf doesn't look so appealing.

    I am interested in knowing how your subjects react to einkorn wheat.

  • David

    6/12/2010 3:16:56 PM |

    Fascinating experiment. I'm looking forward to seeing more on this.

  • Anonymous

    6/15/2010 2:01:42 AM |

    Too bad you didn't try making sourdough bread with it instead of conventional yeast bread.

Add comment

Loading
You've come a long way, baby

You've come a long way, baby

3. June 2011 William Davis (16)
In 1945, the room-sized ENIAC vacuum tube computer was first turned on, women began to smoke openly in public, and a US postal stamp cost three cents. And this was the US government's advice on healthy eating:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green and yellow vegetables; oranges, tomatoes, grapefruit; potatoes and other vegetables and fruits; followed by milk and milk products; meat, poultry, fish, or eggs; bread, flour, and cereals, butter and fortified margarine.

In 2011, the computing power of the ENIAC can be performed by a microchip a few millimeters in width, smoking is now banned in public places, and a first class postage stamp has increased in price by 1466%. And this is the new USDA Food Plate for Americans:



 

 

 

 

 

Have we made any progress over the past 65 years? We certainly have in computing power and awareness of the adverse effects of smoking. But have US government agencies like the USDA kept up with nutritional advice? Compare the 2011 Food Plate with the dietary advice of 1945.

It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions introduced into wheat, corn, and soy; the dangers of fructose; exogenous glycoxidation and lipoxidation products yielded via high-temperature cooking; organic, free-range meats and the dangers of factory farming, etc. None of this, of course, fits the agenda of the USDA.

My advice: The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. They also have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.

 

 
Tags :

Comments (16) -

  • Tyson

    6/3/2011 1:52:03 AM |

    I dunno, just take the orange wedge out completely and shift the diary rec's to full fat instead of low fat and it would be a pretty good plan!  I notice that they recommend both eggs and beef in the protein section!!!

  • Glenn

    6/3/2011 2:02:51 PM |

    Hard to justify all those subsidies if you don't recommend eating the product you subsidize.

    Pharmacology depends on an unhealthy diet as well.

    Now excuse me while I polish my tin foil hat some more.

  • Bill

    6/3/2011 3:30:45 PM |

    The idea that we should get nutritional advice from the Department of Agriculture should tell everyone the purpose behind the advice is nothing but promoting the increased sell of agricultural products. Now there was a time when that might have been acceptable - say around the 1700's or so - but with the devolution of farming in the US and the bastardization of foods and farmin and farm animals alike - it is akin to buying in big on the eve of the Market Collapse of 1929.

    The clue to perpetuating sickness is to oversimplify, never provide details, supply conflicting information incessantly and encourage people to trust the "experts" - most of which haven't a nickels worth of common sense left in their brain account or haven't done a nickels worth of research on a topic.

  • Amy

    6/3/2011 4:41:34 PM |

    "The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. "

    I love it!  I wrote about this today too.  I do think the plate is an improvement over the pyramid.  But I did some tweaking and made my own plate that I like a lot better: http://knitfitter.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-usda-nutrition-plate-and-my.html

  • Joe Lindley

    6/4/2011 2:43:05 PM |

    "It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. "

    I agree, this is like the fox guarding the hen house.  There's no way the government should be allowed to advise us on what to eat since the agricultural business segment has such a powerful lobby.   I actually liked this plate, only because it was far better than the food pyramid, which mistakenly emphasized more carbs and less fat.  At least now they have shifted the direction to fewer carbs and more fat.  I think of it as the lesser of evils - so the MyPlate isn't right but it's better than the food pyramid.  I wrote a post on it at http://cravingsugar.net/the-new-food-pyramid-myplate-usda-says-eat-less-carbs-more-fat.php.

  • Helen

    6/4/2011 4:06:01 PM |

    I agree that the USDA is bad at it, and that there are powerful interests influencing the message.  For instance, when the last food "pyramid" was unveiled,  advice to avoid sugar that was originally included had been taken out, thanks to the sugar lobby.

    On the other hand, there are some well-meaning people involved, trying to get a message out.  They may be misguided in some ways, but not everyone promoting this is corrupt.  With the current obesity epidemic, there's a lot of genuine public health interest in getting a good "message" out about nutrition.  Having worked somewhat in that field, I know the impulse in an earnest one.  

    Here's what Pee Wee Herman would call the "Big But": your readers, who can converse intelligently about AGEs and sdLDL are a world apart from *most Americans,* who first must get their hand out of the potato chip bag and their lips off the 64oz value-sized Dr. Pepper.  The USDA, whatever its faults, is trying convey a message that can be understood, and a goal that can be achieved.  

    I think messages like "eat a rainbow," "eat your colors," or "fill half your plate with vegetables" are better slogans - partly because I don't think grains and dairy are necessary*, and that improperly prepared grains and all gluten grains are problematic (I take a more nuanced position than Dr. Davis).  But I do think part of the reason the USDA's "plate" is so dumbed-down is that complex messages just don't work in public health.  

    (*Though I do feel dairy's necessary for me!)

  • Helen

    6/4/2011 6:16:58 PM |

    P.S.  I love how butter and fortified margarine used to be their own food group!

  • Paul Lee

    6/5/2011 9:53:19 AM |

    Was wondering if anyone had looked at the effect on farming if everyone switched from wheat and grains? Obviously the effect on the processors, Nabisco, Kellogg's would be disastrous which is why it probably won't happen, but would there be enough, beef, pork, chicken, egg, diary, production to go round?  Could wheat fields be switched over to cattle or rearing or should they produce bio-fuel instead? Arguably we all eat too much so we could just dump the grains portion and maintain existing meat/fish/dairy. But our diet has been somewhat determined by being able to produce enough food for a booming population on a small planet. "Food for thought" anyway.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    6/6/2011 1:57:39 AM |

    Hi Paul Lee,
    Maybe  global protein needs could be met 100% by converting the grain fields over to growing substrate feed stocks for poultry or iguana meat.  A diet of always only  protein  would  not be  great,  so you need to figure out what  you intend to complete human  nutritional needs with.  Cereal grains are just so convenient  for energy calories that most nations rely on them; they don't need refrigeration,  transport easily and have long storage.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/6/2011 2:05:22 AM |

    Agribusiness has undoubtedly increased yield and thereby enhanced accessibility and reduced price. But I fear they have also created a house of cards that, in many ways, many be unsustainable or will yield unintended effects.

    The painfully familiar food recalls from E. coli or Salmonella contamination that result from factory farming and other mass production practices will inevitably catalyze a return to organic, old-fashioned farming methods with higher prices, a concentration on necessary foods and not "luxury" junk foods.

    That sounds like a good thing to me.

    Paul raises a crucial point: How do we make the switch to a world without modern high-yield wheat without a cataclysmic shift in economics? I don't know. But it will be much like the gradual shift from mass produced eggs to free-range, organic eggs, just on a much larger scale. It will be a process that won't occur next Tuesday, but hopefully over the next 50+ years. In the meantime, tens of millions of people will unknowingly suffer from consumption of this thing being sold to use called "wheat."

  • Paul Lee

    6/6/2011 11:23:29 PM |

    Interesting stuff, and Might-o'chondri-AL, I try and get at least 50% of total calories from fat. Without wanting to drift OT,  I don't know whether you have seen this news in the States there has been major problems with German grown (organic) vegatables (cucumbers, tomato's etc) with E.coli (Spanish veg was blamed at first). Literally thousands of tons of veg are being dumped. Salad is certainly off the menu in Europe this week!

  • Abhi

    6/7/2011 10:16:35 PM |

    "The painfully familiar food recalls from E. coli or Salmonella contamination that result from factory farming and other mass production practices will inevitably catalyze a return to organic, old-fashioned farming methods with higher prices, a concentration on necessary foods and not “luxury” junk foods."

    I am loving this! I hope this becomes the reality-- sooner the better.

  • Jennifer Bell

    6/8/2011 12:00:39 AM |

    It's bad that the government is wrong, but the media multiplies it many times over by parroting these guidelines to public. For example, the US News Diet Rankings:

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

    Some of my comments on my blog:

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

  • Curmujeon

    6/8/2011 12:54:32 PM |

    My advice: The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. They also have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.

    I don't think they will stop offering advice since so many people seek guidance.
    Your advice should be:  Ignore the nutritional advace offered by the USDA.  It is very bad advice because they have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.  Seek nutritional advice from more reliable sources.

    Unfortunately, how do we know which sources are reliable?  Vegetarianism makes sense.  What do they have to say?

  • Annie

    6/10/2011 7:17:50 PM |

    I think the grain section should be dumped entirely and fruit section should a sliver at best or there should be some mention that those with blood sugar issues may want to greatly reduce ALL fruit.  I find that the tolerance to fruit is highly individual.  Since I lowcarb and my fasting sugars are usually mid 80s unless I've had an unusually large late night meal in which case it can be mid 90s -- I was shocked to see what the allegedly lower sugar fruits such as raspberries and blackberries (both high fiber too) are really doing to my sugar since I started self testing.  I am beginning to think that with my genetics and age, even the so-called healthy berries can be the devil.

    I am 5'2.5" and weighed 107.5 this morning.  I'm in my late 40s and only medication is armour/cytomel for hypothyroid.  Both parents and only sibling are type 2s -- dad was a slender type 2.  Ex: This morning fasting sugar was 86.  I had a black coffee and skipped breakfast and went on a long brisk walk (1.25 hour) in the heat.  At brunch at 1:00PM consisting of 3 soft boiled pastured eggs; a few ounces (2 or so) of leftover grassfed ribeye; 6 olives (I sweated a lot outside and needed more salt despite salting eggs and steak-- I eat no processed food except canned sardines and find I need extra salt sweating in hot sun or I get extremely weak, very low blood pressure etc); and now for the grand mistake -- 1 cup of mixed blackberries/raspberries.  I took my sugar 15 minutes later and it was 128; 15 minutes later; 138; 15 minutes later 123; 15 minutes later 118 etc

    I have eaten similar to the above meal minus fruit but adding large amounts of raw freshly shelled hazelnuts and my blood sugar will not spike anywhere near 138 despite adding several hundred more calories.  I've even checked numerous hours later to see if there is a late spike and while the highest point does take longer with large meal containing big amounts of nuts (slow digestion) and no spike -- a slow steady rise generally never going over 115 and coming back down over the next few hours.  

    So fruit sugars can be the devil for some of us and given the diabetes epidemic -- I think the fruit wedge should be much much smaller or come with a caveat.  Or better yet, given the disasterous history of government dietary recommendations, perhaps the government should stay out of our kitchens entirely.

Add comment

Loading
Fish oil and the perverse logic of hospitals

Fish oil and the perverse logic of hospitals

4. January 2007 William Davis (6)
Hospitals are now starting to carry prescription fish oil, known as Omacor, on their formularies. It's used by some thoracic surgeons after bypass surgery, since fish oil has been shown to reduce the likelihood of atrial fibrillation (a common rhythm after heart surgery).

Why now? The data confirming the benefits of fish oil on atrial fibrillation has been available for several years.

It's now available in hospitals because it's FDA-approved. In other words, when fish oil was just a supplement, it was not available in most hospitals. Whenever I've tried to get fish oil for my patients while in hospital, you'd think I was trying to smuggle Osama Bin Laden into the place. The resistance was incredible.

Now that FDA-approved Omacor is available, costing $130 dollars per month for two capsules, $195 for the three capsule per day dose for after surgery, all of a sudden it becomes available. Why would this irrational state of affairs occur in hospitals?

Several reasons, most of which revolve around the great suspicion my colleagues have towards nutritional supplements. In addition, there's the litigation risk: If something has been approved by the FDA, their stamp of endorsement provides some layer of legal protection.

However, I regard those as pretty weak reasons. I am, indeed, grateful that fish oil is gaining a wider audience. But I think it's absurd that it requires a prescription to get it in many hospitals. Imagine, as the drug companies would love, vitamin C became a prescription agent. Instead of $3, it would cost far more. Does that make it better, safer, more effective?

Of course, no drug sales representative is promoting the nutritional supplement fish oil to physicians nor to hospitals. I now see people adding the extraordinary expense of prescription fish oil to their presription bills.

In my view, it's unnecessary, irrational, and driven more by politics and greed than actual need. Take a look at the website for Omacor (www.omacorrx.com). Among the claims:

"OMACOR is the only omega-3 that, along with diet, has been proven and approved to dramatically reduce very high triglycerides..."

This is a bald lie. Dozens of studies have used nutritional supplement fish oil and shown spectacular triglyceride-reducing effects.

Their argument against fish oil supplements:

"Dietary supplements are not FDA-approved for the treatment of any specific disease or medical condition. Get the Facts: nonprescription, dietary supplement omega-3 is not a substitute for prescription OMACOR."

Does that make any sense to you? Should you buy a GM car because only GM makes genuine GM cars? This is the silly logic being offered by these people to justify their ridiculous pricing.

How about: "The unique manufacturing process for OMACOR helps to eliminate worries about mercury and other pollution from the environment."

Funny...mercury in fish tends to be sequestered in the meat, not the oil. Independent reports by both Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab found no mercury, nor PCB's, in nutritional supplement fish oil. But just suggesting a difference without proving it may be enough to scare some people.

Just because something is used by a hospital does not make it better. The adoption of fish oil is hospitals is a good thing. Too bad it has to add to already bloated health care costs to enrich some drug manufacturer.
Tags :

Comments (6) -

  • Cindy

    1/4/2007 3:38:00 AM |

    I'm not surprised at all. I've "met" people on forums that are on this, and they rave about how much better it is than non-prescription fish oil.

    Reminds me of years ago, when patients were given (in my area) "Anacin" in the hospital, then would ONLY take it for pain....other brands, or heaven forbid generic just didn't work as well!

    Amazing, huh?

    On the other hand, like you say, at least now they're giving it to patients.

    Now how about Mg? CoQ10? Are they starting to show up too?

  • Soundhunter

    1/4/2007 9:31:00 AM |

    Not sure if you find this interesting or not, but after stumbling on your blog not knowing anything about Pectus Excavatum, I went googlin' and got a bit depressed, as it's not as benign a malformation as I was led to believe.

    But I found this site http://www.ctds.info/pectus_excavatum.html which suggests that Vit D deficiency/rickets causes the malformation in many cases, and also that celiac disease might cause rickets in some due to malabsorbtion of vitamins/minerals etc.  I thought it was interesting as you've been posting about wheat and vitamin D and heart health, while perhaps they are also necessary for chest wall health.  I take heparin and low dose aspirin while pregnant to prevent fetal demise due to antiphospholipid antibody syndome (aware of that? causes blood clots), but I'm wondering if it somehow inhibited Vit D absorbtion in me when pregnant, couldn't have been a normal deficiency I was gardening in the sun during the entire pregnancy and I don't use sun block. I assume some of your patients are on blood thinners as I was? I know it effects calcium.

    As for fish oils, Udo's blends are supposed to be incredible, several moms I know use it on themselves for exhaustion and over all health, and many moms swear that fish oils have helped their toddlers with speech delays.

    Let me know if you'd rather I didn't yammer at your blog, I've linked to it from my little blog because I find your blog fascinating.

    Happy 2007

  • Soundhunter

    1/4/2007 10:08:00 AM |

    As for hospitals, well, there's a reason homebirthers and women into birth politics are as passionately anti-hospital as they are, many bad medical practises continue in the litigation crazed society of the USA medical system, from what I read. Forward thinking countries like Germany and Sweden incorporate natural remedies and holistic medicine right in with the mainstream medical system...great role models for us north americans, but impossible in a litigation-mad culture. But, the pharmaceutical companies are to blame too, though that discussion requires tin oil hats.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/4/2007 4:45:00 PM |

    Coenzyme Q10, no. Magnesium, yes. In fact, magnesium is pretty routinely checked and replaced via intravenous supplementation to avoid diarrhea. However, magnesium levels are checked because of heart rhythm disorders, not for general health.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/4/2007 4:46:00 PM |

    I know of no interaction between blood thinners and vitamin D. However, you're absolutely right on the increased likelihood of vitamin D deficiency in the presence of bowel diseases like celiac.

  • Cindy

    1/6/2007 5:47:00 PM |

    I use RxList.com to check any and all medications I am prescribed (or friends/family are prescribed).

    This about Omacor on their site:
    The empirical formula of DHA ethyl ester is C24H36O2, and the molecular weight of DHA ethyl ester is 356.55. Omacor®  capsules also contain the following inactive ingredients: 4 mg α-tocopherol (in a carrier of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils including soybean oil), and gelatin, glycerol, and purified water (components of the capsule shell).

    I mentioned in another comment that I am intolerant to soy, so I avoid it whenever possible.....but to put hydrogenated oils in a preparation touted as "pure"????

    I realise it's a very small amount....but from what I've read on trans-fats, the only amount of transfat that is good for us is NONE!!!

    Of course, the AHA also promotes foods that contain transfats in their "No Fad Diet" (see Regina Wilshire's blog post here: http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2005/07/aha-includes-trans-fats-in-heart.html)

Add comment

Loading