If you're going to base your diet on the bible, then you shouldn't be eating pork (Leviticus 11:7), and you should eat plenty of locusts and crickets (Leviticus 11:22)

Oooh, wait'll the God-deniers get a load of this one.

Actually, I've wondered about the proper interpretation of passages like those mentioned, and this post is helpful for me.

I appreciate this & putting the verses into context - but was human excrement to be used as content in the bread, or the fuel source to bake it?

I'm pretty sure the dung was not to go into the bread, it was to be used as fuel for the fire over which the bread was baked. But your point still holds very well. They also omit the lying on your side for 390 days. If eating Ezekiel bread is so healthy, so must be lying on your side for over a year.

I prefer to "kill the fattened calf."

LOL

Dung was probably not an ingredient, but the fuel used to cook the bread.  (Still pretty unsavory, though.)

1) All religion is poetry...

-- Paul Tillich

2) I have a huntch that, uh, folks from a couple thousand years ago, uh, never heard of macronutrients, glucose, insulin, etc.

3) Peace

For those who are interested in the Bible's statements on food, here's a link to a brief overview of kosher laws:

http://www.kashrut.com/articles/soul_food/

Combining a lesson in both religion and medicine, Love It!!

I agree with you, Dr. Davis, that religious issues are very important to many people concerned about dieting. And it is important to discuss them, even though some people think that religious issues should not be part of any discussion related to diet.

In fact, a lot of people who think  about diet issues from a scientific standpoint tend to think that religiosity is a product of pure stupidity. This post and the comments in response to it illustrate what I am talking about:

http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/05/atheism-is-recent-neolithic-invention.html

Waiting for my local library to get a copy of Pandora's Seed by Spencer Wells. In it, he examines the unforeseen costs of farming, which began to transform society 10,000 years ago (using a scientific timescale), such as diabetes and obesity.

Definitely one of man's worst inventions.

Interesting fact:  The Catholic church will not use anything other than wheat to make the wafers for the Eucharist.  If you have wheat intolerance, you can request a low-gluten wafer.  But a non-wheat wafer will never be used as part of that sacrament, no matter how badly one might react to wheat.

I think that stance is a bit much, but I am not a devout Catholic.

Dr. D.
As the Brits say; you are on a losing wicket.

No person of religion will be pursued to move from the crowd. That is why they follow.

Great post! I've never understood how people can take the Bible literally. As someone mentioned in the comments, it's mainly poetry, and it describes a frame of reference and customs of thousands of years ago. Would be very weird to apply all that literally to our high-tech society.

I looked the Bible fragment up in Dutch. It says he has to bake it on human dung (i.e. using the dung as fuel). The fun thing is that a couple of verses later Ezechiel complains and says he has never eaten anything impure in his life and then God gives in and says, 'OK then, you can use cattle dung instead of human dung.'

Sounds to me like the beginning work on "fecal transplant".

But, here's the question: do you think the Ezekiel Bread is worth eating for health reasons?

Other translations have the dung as a source of fuel.  
As much fat as I eat, you'd probably have to put a wick in it.
I don't think that would give it a nice smoke flavor or anything.

I think some of these comments are missing the point. Whether the dung was used as fuel or incorporated into the recipe makes little difference to the interpretive thrust of the passage. According to Mosaic ceremonial law (which was typological, not perpetual), excrement was to be covered with dirt. You don't touch it, and you certainly don't cook with it. The point is that the bread was polluted, and this served as a typological symbol of Israel's pollution and rejection. Israel, the elect and "clean" nation, has become filthy.

God didn't make Ezekiel write this stuff down so we could whip up a great recipe 2400 years later. And by the way, the same goes for the book of Daniel. Just because Daniel and his buddies ate nothing but vegetables and water for ten days doesn't mean that vegetarianism is the best diet. That's not even close to the original intent of the passage. Yet I see these kinds of non-contextual claims all the time. It saddens me when I see fellow Christians using the Bible this way.

FYI: The "Wheat and the Bible" article can be accessed in its entirety on my website here: http://www.reforminghealth.com/Wheat_and_the_Bible.pdf

David

Thanks, David.

For anyone else interested, David's article provides a very nice overview of the broader topic of Wheat and the Bible.

Dr. Davis, I appreciate your courage in tackling this difficult subject. Dr. Kurt Harris has also discussed the fact that even traditional methods of processing wheat do not eliminate all of its negative qualities: http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/12/28/avoid-poison-or-neutralize-it.html.

Religious concerns are undoubtedly one of the trickiest issues that biologically appropriate diets raise. Everyone on the planet is not going to abandon what they see as their religion principles for health reasons, so I try to meet people where they're at. For those Christians who tell me that wheat must be healthy because it's in the New Testament and the Levitical diet, I say, sure, the Levitical diet is older and healthier than the SAD of today, but there was an even earlier diet in the Bible that's even healthier. It's composed of God-made foods instead of man-made foods. It usually occurs to them that this is the diet of wild foods available at the time of humanity's creation, which I also refer to as the "Garden of Eden diet", which was free of wheat bread, even unleavened, and certainly wouldn't contain any pizza, pasta or processed breakfast cereal. This doesn't always convince people, but it rarely fails to give them pause.

Plus, in Genesis 3:17-19, bread is part of a curse, not a blessing. So wheat could be regarded as a blessing compared to starvation, but a curse or penance compared to the original Biblical foods of the Creator's making.

Also, at times in the Bible, suffering is treated as an opportunity for penance or purification. It doesn't mean the bad stuff that causes the suffering (ie wheat) is "good" in and of itself. Perhaps this could be a way to explain Jesus' direction to eat bread in remembrance of Him? I generally avoid this subject as potentially too touchy, so I'm curious for input from wheat-avoiding Christians on how they deal with this.

On top of all the above, bread is no longer necessary for survival in wealthy modern cultures, like it may have been in some of the regions and times covered by the Bible. So the contexts are very different.

Hope this helps.

Paleo Phil,

As a wheat-avoiding Christian, I deal with this issue by actually trying to return the focus to the intent of the Biblical text(s). Was it the biblical author's intent to communicate wheat/grain as perpetually appropriate and required foods for all time (unlikely), or was it rather simply that the biblical narrative existed within an agricultural context and was thus accommodated to those times? I think the latter option is the reasonable one.

In the biblical account, all of creation is said to be "good" (as opposed to Gnosticism, which says that matter is intrinsically evil) but I think it is a mistake to take this as synonymous with "harmless," and it is important to remember that despite being "good," elements within creation can be either appropriate or inappropriate depending on the use and context. Plant toxins are "good" in the creational sense in that they make for a balanced and workable ecosystem, but are relatively "bad" for the unwary animal that eats them. The wheat/grain issue is no different. Grains might be creationally good and play an important role somewhere in the broader order of things, but this doesn't mean they're harmless if the circumstances are right (e.g. genetic modification, improper preparation methods, etc., etc.).

Appealing to the "Garden of Eden diet" might work for some Christians, but I think there's a deeper problem going on. Too many modern Christians see the Bible as a sort of "prescription" for what they should or should not eat. For instance, the Levitical diet (clean vs unclean foods) is often pointed to as the ultimate "healthy diet." However, the health aspects had nothing to do with the actual declared purpose of the restrictions. The diet was purely typological and temporary, and any health benefits were merely coincidental side-benefits. These typological requirements have had an antitypical fulfillment, however, so the diet should have no bearing on anyone today.

Likewise, many Christians point to the supposedly vegetarian diet in Genesis as the "original" diet that mankind was created for. But again, this misses the point of the author's literary intent. What was going on in the Genesis creation account? Was Moses telling us how to eat, or was he telling us something completely different? Most Christians are clueless here. As it turns out, the creation story has nothing to do with scientific explanations or dietary prescriptions. It was written in an ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context where creation myths abounded, and Moses was contrasting the Hebrew God with the surrounding deities of the ancient world. The account is not relating scientific facts, but is rather a literary polemic written to combat other ANE pagan religions point for point. The God of Israel is not like Ptah, or Shu, or Marduk, or Baal. The Genesis account powerfully overturns the Enuma Elish and other ANE creation stories. That was its historical intent.

Unless one is familiar with ANE culture, many of the subtleties within the Genesis account will not make sense, and you will end up with an interpretive disaster, like Young-Earth Creationism or Vegetarianism, for instance. The Bible does say that God created, but it does not tell us how He created. This is nowhere near the intent of the original author.

(Continued)

As I read the chapter, it looks more like Ezekiel is instructed to act in a symbolic manner.  He is instructed to symbolically lay seige to a model of Jerusalem that is drawn or built on a tile--even building miniature seige engines. In essence, the call to moral behavior in the book is a "seige" against the transgressions done within the city.  Thus, the "bread" is also to be made and eaten as a symbol.  The context is fairly plain.  Nowhere is there any statement that Israel, or even just Jerusalem, is to make or eat the stuff.  Ezekiel is told to bake and eat the bread "in their sight" or "in the sight of the people" and then tell anyone who sees him that this is the level of wretchedness they will be reduced to, I presume because of their faithlessness and obstinacy after many warnings, given the general context of the Book of Ezekiel.

Thus, "Ezekiel bread" is actually a symbol of the wrath of God against the obstinately faithless and not a "recipe" for what God wants a faithful believer to eat daily.

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