Congratulations...thanks for all you do to educate and inform us about wheat!!
all the best,
jana

The date of the book arrival must be incorrect?  2001?
I am anxious to read this one!

I've pre-ordered Wheat Belly and look forward to reading it.

I'm enjoying my second summer free of hay fever--coincidentally, the first summer was right after I eliminated wheat from my diet. Hurray!

Will it be a Nook book? I love my Nook! And I've got Mercola's No Grain diet, some Primal/Paleo books on there already. Would love to have yours, too. Thanks.

OMG, I just read Lori's comment, and realize that I've been less asthmatic/allergenic this summer since ditching wheat/gluten. I've been able to scale back (stop Nasonex and cut back on inhaled steroid dosage, even) .  August-September is the worse, runny-nose-wise, so I'll get to observe and see. Hm.

Congrats on the book! Can't wait to read it!
Continuing on a comment above, I too have had no seasonal allergies since doing a diet which is wheat-free. Have you ever covered this topic in your blog, or could you in the future?

7 times Sunday/Monday tried to get  just 2 sentence post about ApoE4  in previous thread and got "Server Error", so testing again in this tread ... this lousy server did this before with me.

Anyone still checking this thread want me to continue with some ApoE4 comments here ? I went back to try previous thread and still got "server error" there. I  ask for interest because I myself don't always follow  new thread comments section  - and maybe those with ApoE4 interest are not reading here now.

Just tried to use "reply" box of  Dr. K.'s comment on previous ApoE4 thread  to contribute and got "Server Error";
let's see if I am still welcomed on this thread by the server....

Might-o'chondri-al,

Yes, I would be interested in your replies about ApoE4.  I always read your comments around the web and like many, I wish you had your own blog so I wouldn't miss any of your output.

Hi Melinda,
Please copy and post this in previous thread for ApoE4 ... .
Continuation about ApoE4:
% of ApoE4 messes dynamic inside tissue cell so that ApoB turns to use Scavenger Receptors to try to start cascade which gets signal transducer (Specificity Protein 1) to up-regulate the cell membrane transporter protein ( ABCA1, ATP binding cassette transporter A1) that puts excess cholesterol out from that cell.   I believe this is where Doc Davis' stated ApoB irregularities  add to the problem with ApoE4 (since normal human ApoE3  works all by itself to get that signal transducer to bind to ABCA1 to work shucking cholesterol) . When cholesterol gets to build up inside the cell the large LDL can acetylate and form  excessive "droplets" in that cell's cytoplasm; while the small LDL can oxidize from CuSO4- and load up inside that cell's lysosome.

Meanwhile % of  ApoE4 doesn't just dock with tissue cell LDL receptors and so the macrophage scavenger receptors pick up too much cholesterol laden ApoB/ApoE lipo-protein carrier molecules. Once in the macrophage the same problem of oxidized LDL piling up  in lysosome and acetylated LDL burdening cytoplasm occurs; and for that matter, in macrophages,  it is down to ApoB to get  the signal transducer going if any cholesterol is to be put out by cell membrane transporter protein ABCA1.  This is the recipe for  risky pro-atherogenic  "foam cell" formation; while the individual genetics of ApoE, ApoB, assorted receptor types, signal transducer and transport protein all make it hard to predict how ApoE4 plays out.

Dr. Kruse broaches ApoE4 in alzheimers and this is in large part because ApoE4 causes the brain neurons to  get less than optimal cholesterol from the brain's astrocytes. It is ApoA1 working in HDL complex that controls the astrocyte cholesterol balance and when there is inflammation there is a risk of ApoA1 mis-folding to  foster amyloid aggregations.  Low intact ApoA1 and ApoE4 together increase the risk factor for cognitive problems and dementia several fold.

Diabetics with ApoE4 have that % of ApoE4 as an  additional  limitation;  however,  irregardless of  the ApoE iso-form diabetic dementia risk arises from their glucose loads impairing kidney tubules, and thus fostering the uremic environment that stymies ApoA1 bio-synthesis. The normal role of ApoA1 is to bind to the transport protein which secures cholesterol into a safe bond with HDL; so low ApoA1 from any factor will  challenge the brain neuron over time. I suggest there are individuals whose age impaired kidneys contribute to senile dementia from impairing ApoA1 levels being made and also possibly speeding up the normal 4-6 days kidney elimination of ApoA1 ; and  so Patri's comment on limitation of high protein intake is relevant due to it's demand on aging  kidneys.

Oooops! Too many zeros and too few ones!
Yes, indeed, 2011. Thanks, BJ.

Hi, Lori-
I personally experienced the very same effect.
I remember days in which my eyes were swollen shut, sinuses achingly closed, wheezing. All now a distant memory!

Yes, great idea, Diana. I'll cover that topic, though likely more appropriate for the Wheat Belly Blog.
I will likely mirror this post in both blogs. It affects a LOT of people.

Hi, Might--
Sorry for all the posting struggles. I'm still working with working out the kinks.
The changes here are occuring with some back room changes in database software, etc., that is making for more than the usual headaches.
Please don't give up in frustration. Your comments are truly valued.

is this primarily a US problem?

Hi MJ,
ApoE4 =  14-19% Germans & Finns and  7-12% Italians & French
ApoE3 = +/- 60% of people
ApoE2 = 3-4% Japanese, Finns & Nigerians and 2-4 % Mexican Americans & American Indians

Just wondered if you were aware that for several days now (all this week, for sure) Amazon UK has been displaying the following message on the Wheat Belly page:

"Item Under Review
This product is not currently offered by Amazon.co.uk because a customer recently told us that the item he or she received was not as described.
We are working to resolve this as quickly as possible. In the meantime, you may still find this product available from other sellers on this page."

Maybe they were expecting bagel recipes? There is no explanation, and the three accompanying reader reviews are all 5*

Without in any way wishing to contradict the idea that fructose is even worse than glucose readers here may enjoy reading this article on the perils of a diet high in
fermentable carbohydrates.
Dietary Carbohydrates and Dental-Systemic Diseases"
The paper was written by a dentist after reading Taubes Good Calories Bad Calories. Readers who find GCBC hard work may like to start with this Medical News Today article based on the above paper.
If A Diet Is Bad For The Teeth It Is Also Bad For The Body

Don't forget agave syrup/nectar.  That is the latest "low glycemic" sweetener temping sugar addicts, particularly to those interested in health.  Agave sweeteners are VERY high in refined fructose, with some brands much more fructose than HFCS (I've seen figures as high as 92% fructose).

Even more worrying, agave sugar products  are labeled as safe for diabetics, who are particularly prone to damage from frequent consumption of concentrated fructose.

The people I see using or recommending agave sweetner products seem to think that because they can't detect an immediate post-prandial BG rise, that agave syrup is somehow better (therefore healthier) than sugar and safe for liberal and/or frequent use.  Not so.  All refined/concentrated sugars need to be limited in both quantity and in frequency, including concentrated fructose.

I see "moderation" used a lot in reference to sugars and agave products whenever criticism of sugars is made.  But what is "moderation"?  Do we even have a reference point anymore in our sugar-drenched culture?  "Moderation" in the 21st century is still at least a hundred pounds per capita more sugars than most humans consumed just a few hundred years ago, and much more than our paleolithic ancestors consumed. Even "moderation" needs to be considered in moderation.

Wow, that's really interesting.

In the past I've wondered if something real simple (like removal of soda/sugary drinks) from society would have a major impact on both heart and general health.  Apparently it would.

It's also weird how cardiologists (in general) overlook sugar intake almost completely. When I last saw my cardiologist, I was sort of baffled that they were offering the patients waiting for infusion therapy snacks while they wait. The nurse commented how  the patients go  first for the peanut butter/jelly sandwiches and they run out fast. And I'm there thinking... are they crazy, giving  sugary food to heart patients?  Then I remembered most cardiologists tend to be fat intake oriented only.

Question for Dr. Davis -- what amount of fructose, daily would you consider safe? Is any amount  safe? As certain fruits do provide health benefits even if they do contain fructose. Berries are still acceptable? What gycated hemoglobin level do you aim for with your patients and have you noticed any differences in plaque progression based solely on this value?

Hi Dr Davis,
Could you tell us more about beer? Do you mean that beer has fructose added to it? Or that it contains a lot of fructose naturally? In general, how high up is beer on your list of things that we shouldn't eat? I ask because I'm having some success cutting down on sweet things and on wheat, and beer is one of my chief culinary pleasures. I don't mean that I drink a lot or that I drink everyday, just that I thoroughly enjoy the 3 or 4 beers a week I do have. (I generally drink brews made with 100% barley malt.)

So low glycemic fruits (which are high in fructose) like apples, apricots, berries, cherries, grapefruit, plums, and prunes can be hazardous to our health...

I'm starting to run out of things I can eat.

Hi,
Thank you for the link to the JCI
study. I can hardly wait to see how the CRA will militantly respond. As a former research technician I am driven crazy when the CRA claims that sucrose and HFCS are essesntially similar. Take the variant HFCS-55. To the casual observer the 55% fructose: 45% glucose composition looks 5% different than the 50:50 ratio found in sucrose. That is, until you do the math.
55%:45% = 55/45 = 1.22.
This means in every can of Coke
(bottled in the USA) there is, compared to glucose, 22% extra fructose. The CRA can't deny the math; they designed the ratio. To your health.

Did anyone notice that one of the authors of the article is RM Krauss? I love chasing his articles on pubmed.  His saturated fat articles from a few years back are particularily interesting.  I think of him as "small dense krauss" in the age,rage and ldl series on Peter's blog.

Dr. Davis - there's so much great information here, but when we ask questions to try to understand the information, you don't answer them!

Thank you, Curious.

But most of my time is spent in my more-than-full-time cardiology practice, consulting to the nutritional supplement industry, research, and the practically full-time website, Track Your Plaque, in which I engage in discussions with your wonderfully savvy Members. So I have to triage my time accordingly.

Also, I read the comments and I try to cover as many of the points as possible in future posts or in the content we post on Track Your Plaque.

Remember: As I post prominently on the blog: The Heart Scan Blog accompanies Track Your Plaque; it is not meant to be a standalone source of information.

Dr, D.  Those of use who TYP ( "track your posts") on this Blog may not be as "bought in" as the members of your track your Plaque members.

If fructose is added to beer, it will be converted to alcohol so none left in the final product.  If wheat is used in the beer grist, the starches that are extracted are converted (mostly) to alcohol so no residual "toxins" to cause swelling.

It isn't high fructose corn syrup consumption or prepared meals that makes Americans one of the most overweight nations in the world, its eating more calories that you need; it comes down to pure physics

I'd like to see a post about the lie of Calories. Fat is calculated at 10 kcal/gram because if burns (bomb calorimeter) better than sugar (calculated at 4kcal/g, the same as fiber).

But of course sugar is much more available to our bodies as energy than fat or fiber.

This makes the Calorie a big lie and emphasizes even more the low-fat diet (because fat would obviously be easier to cut by calorie than carbs).

When people try to talk about the "physics of losing weight", they need to address the underlying assumptions that make the whole system a lie.

Jammer, Please, it is a fundamental law: you can not create or destroy energy.  Mechanistically the body may deal with fats, sugars and proteins differently but unless you live in an alternate dimension, calories absorbed by the gut are either expended as energy or stored in the body in one form or another.  Belief in some magical effect of being able to "eat all the xyz without putting on weight" is a matter of faith and faith is neither fact nor science.

Anonymous, on the contrary, you are expressing faith in but one interpretation of the Laws of Thermodynamics (LoT).  When tested, results often show that one can eat more calories on a restricted carb diet and be less hungry and lose more weight.  The reasons are many and I refer you to Good Calories Bad Calories should you wish to learn more.  The body is not a closed system, and your interpretation of the LoT imply that it is.  What do I mean?  â€œCalories in = energy expended + fat accumulated/depleted” is correct, but only if one realizes that some calories drive hormonal responses which have an effect on the equation.  Eat more protein, feel less hunger, be more active, thus expend more energy.  Eat more carbohydrate (measured by glycemic load in particular), feel more hunger and behave like hungry people do - rest more, thus expending less calories.

Do teenagers grow because they eat too much or because their bodies are responding to the complex interaction of hormones?

Do pregnant ladies gain weight because they eat too much or because their bodies are responding to the complex interaction of hormones?

Do post-menopausal ladies gain weight more easily because they suddenly begin to eat too much, or because their bodies are responding to the complex interaction of hormones?

Do tall thin people (ectomorphs) just magically match their consumption and expenditure (thus remaining slender despite what appears to be high food intake)?  Or are they genetically programmed to a different hormonal response than endomorphs?  

If you met two people, one tall and thin and the other shorter, wider, with a large pelvis and heavy bones – don’t you already know that one will struggle more with their weight than the other?  You do, and you know it long before you know which one is the least disciplined in the non-food arenas in their lives.  

Are you aware of the research that shows, repeatedly, that the obese consistently eat less than many or most of those who are not obese?

Do those who are heavier than we think they should be eat too much, or are they responding to the hormonal mileu they have created by eating foods which we are not designed to eat?  I think the later.  Obesity is not the result of a character flaw, it is a result of widespread consumption of foods (primarily cereal gains, sugar and agricultural products which have exceptionally high carb content) we are not genetically adapted to.  These foods drive a hormonal response the results in energy accumulation as fat.

Aplloswabbie,notwithstanding the impact on what drives people to consume or expend energy at different rates, all excellent info., the equation is still balanced in the end.

Anon, agreed, but the significance of our agreement on that fact is low, as it provides little utility in assisting ourselves or others with their health.  For me, the realization that "low fat" diets are unnatural and drive metabolic derangement gave me a chance to eat good food to satiety, but avoid the high body fat that plaques my family.  Best regards.

How much fructose does beer have then? From what I could find, the fructose content of barley malt is significantly lower than other sugars.

how about mal;tose from tapioca syrup?

Now if you could get Congress to drop the high tariffs on sugar so it becomes less expensive than HFCS, we all could live longer.

Not much longer, we predominantly have sugar from local beet rather than HFCS in the UK, yet our stats aren't much better. IMO there's little difference in the relative toxicity between sugar and HFCS within the context of a high wheat diet

性欲のピークを迎えたセレブ熟女たちは、お金で男性を買うことが多いようです。当、熟女サークルでは全国各地からお金持ちのセレブたちが集まっています。女性から男性への報酬は、 最低15万円からとなっております。興味のある方は一度当サイト案内をご覧ください

プロフ見た感想を携帯アドの方に送ってください。悪口は気が病むので止めておいて欲しいですjewely.jmtjd@docomo.ne.jp

So fruit, in moderate portions, is bad for me?
*snort*
I understand targeting HFCS just as you would large amounts of sucrose.  It's the AMOUNT of these substances that can be a problem.  The other nutrients I get from a piece fruit can far outweigh any possible negative of small amount of fructose in the piece of fruit.  Decisions are all about risk vs. benefit. I imagine there are no risk-free food choices.

No risk-free food choices, Anon?  Whole fruits and vege have little risks!

Very good post that busts everything that http://betterworldcookies.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-i-use-agave-nectar-examination-of.html says!

Wow, I had no idea of this. I should start being careful with my eating, I am really worried about my health now due to several conditions and this is a real eye opener

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

A point that Robert Luskin makes in his video "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" is that biochemically fructose does not produce Leptin in the body, the "stop eating" hormone.

A great ingredient for corporate food products - the more fructose, the more you eat/drink before feeling "full". Given that the calorie surplus that makes the US one of the fattest countries in the world is only 20 calories per day, high fructose corn syrup could account for that all by itself.

Hey there,
Really nice job, There are many people searching about that now they will find enough sources by your tips.
Also looking forward for more tips about that

Thanks very much for this nice submit;that is the type of factor that retains me going by way of these day. I¡¯ve been trying round for this web site after being referred to them from a buddy and was happy when I found it after looking for some time. Being a avid blogger, I¡¯m glad to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. Just needed to comment to show my appreciation on your article as it¡¯s very appleaing, and lots of writers do not get authorization they deserve. I'm sure I¡¯ll drop by again and will suggest to my friends.

Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..aftstr

Nice work, I would like to read your blog every day Thanks

Great tips, I would like to join your blog anyway,

HI
"Goodbye, fructose"
nice post
With Best Regards
interior design ideas
home furniture
interior design

Great information, you have a wonderful blog and an excellent article!!

Thanks for the posting. Loads of good writing here. I Wish I Had found this site Sooner