Wheat five times a day

20. April 2007 William Davis (3)
Terri couldn't understand why her weight wouldn't drop.

At 5'3", 208 lbs., she had the typical mid-abdominal excess weight that went with small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, a post-prandial (after-eating) fat clearance disorder, high blood sugar, increased c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

She claimed to have tried every diet and all had failed. So we reviewed her current "strict" diet:

"For breakfast, I had Shredded Wheat cereal in skim milk. No sugar, just some cinnamon and a little Splenda. For lunch, I had low-fat turkey breast sandwich--no mayonnaise--on whole wheat bread. For snacks, I had pretzels between breakfast and lunch, and a whole wheat bagel with nothing on it before dinner. For dinner, we had whole wheat pasta with tomato sauce and a salad. While we watched TV, I did have a couple of whole wheat crackers.

"I don't get it. I didn't butter anything, I didn't sneak any sweets, cakes, I didn't even touch cookies. And I love cookies!"

Did you see the pattern? I pointed out to Terri that what she was doing, in effect, was eating sugar 5 or more times a day. Many of her meals, of course, contained no sugar. All were low fat. But the excessive wheat content yielded quick conversion to sugar--glucose--immediately after ingestion.

Repeated surges of blood sugar like this trigger the excessive insulin response that yields low HDL, higher triglycerides, small LDL, etc., everything that Terri had.

Terri was skeptical when I suggested that she attempt an "experiment": Try a four week period of being entirely wheat-free. This meant more raw nuts and seeds, more lean proteins like low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese, chicken, fish, lean red meats, more vegetables and fruits.

After only two weeks, Terri dropped 5 1/2 lbs. She also reported that the mood swings she had suffered, afternoon sleepiness, and uncontrollable hunger pangs had all disappeared. The mental cloudiness that she had experienced chronically for years had lifted.

What happened was that the load of sugar from wheat products, followed by an insulin surge then a precipitous drop in sugar, and finally fogginess, irritability, and cravings for food all disappeared. With it, the entire panel of downstream phenomena (small LDL, CRP, etc.) all faded.

Though she started out intending to complete a four week trial, I believe that, having seen the light, she will continue to be wheat-free, or nearly so, for a lifetime.
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • Anonymous

    4/27/2007 9:20:00 PM |

    This description fits me to a 'tee' - including the unsuccessful attempts at dieting.

    I was a low-fat vegetarian with a wheat-heavy diet for 12 years.  I was convinced of the healthiness of my eating plan, despite the slow weight gain, ever-higher blood pressure, tryglicerides and cholosterol numbers.  It wasn't until my doctor shocked me with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes that I realized the problem was how I was eating.

    After 9 months of a wheat-free and starch-free diet, a re-introduction of animal proteins from free-range poultry and wild seafoods, and much organic produce and nuts and seeds, I have shed 60 pounds - almost effortlessly.  My waist circumference is back to normal as are all my 'numbers'.  Without any medication.

    But no one could have convinced me prior to the diagnosis shock:  I was that successfully brainwashed by the conventional low-fat wisdom.

  • Dr. Davis

    4/28/2007 2:22:00 AM |

    Eloquently said.

    I fear that there's an entire nation that would concur, if they were aware. Sound the alarm!

  • Jonathan Byron

    4/22/2009 1:41:00 PM |

    You have repeatedly mentioned wheat and corn starch as culprits in a wide variety of disease factors. How much of this is specifically those two foods, and how much is the carb content (and the fact that these are so widely consumed in the west)? Our household is wheat-free (hashimoto's disease in one member), but we eat corn chips, corn tortillas and and corn noodles. Would switching from corn to rice be a logical next step, or would a low-carb diet with fewer grains of all types be better??

Add comment

Loading
Chicken Little

Chicken Little

11. August 2007 William Davis (1)
Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • jpatti

    9/11/2007 10:26:00 AM |

    There's another issue with double-blind studies, for things other than drugs or supplements, they're impossible.  

    Your example of the number of eggs in a person's diet is a good example; there's no "placebo" for eggs.  Similarly, if I increase my level of exercise, I notice that - it can't be blinded.  For diet and other lifestyle changes, we will never be able to gain the amount of evidence as for drug trials.

    I think this is why many doctors don't think so much about prescribing these types of things, except for a cursory instruction to "eat better, lose weight and exercise," they're just not as strongly convinced of the benefit of these changes because they can't be proven as strongly.  But... not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's not important to health!  

    As a diabetic, I measure my bg multiple times a day and make changes to my food intake, exercise and medication dosage to hit established bg goals.  While I think tightly-controlling bg is probably the number one thing I can do for my heart health, it can never be proven in a double-blind study.

Add comment

Loading