Fast-forward information

The internet has accelerated the conversation in health . . . enormously.

The discussions we have in Blogs, places like the Track Your Plaque Forum, and websites have accelerated the exchange of information and ideas so much that it is making traditional "official" sources of information IRRELEVANT.

Dr. John Cannell's unfailingly interesting and insightful comments in his most recent Vitamin D Newsletter brought this issue to mind. In his discussion of the vitamin D needs of pregnant women and his frustration with the failure of the National Institute of Health to take action despite the evidence, he states:

Whenever you see a child with asthma, diabetes or autism, just think: American Medical Association, American Pediatric Association, Institute of Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, or Food and Nutrition Board.

Dr. Cannell is upset with the misguided advice of these agencies for mothers and babies to totally avoid sun while failing to provide advice on vitamin D supplementation, a combination of unhealthy factors that will increase the incidence of both type I and II diabetes, childhood asthma, and perhaps even childhood autism.

But this got me thinking: Here we are listening to a very credible source in Dr. Cannell, who has proven a discriminating judge of the evidence, along with vitamin D experts like Tufts University's Dr. Michael Holick, who has written a book on vitamin D (The UV Advantage: The Medical Breakthrough that Shows How to Harness the Power of the Sun for Your Health) ; University of Toronto's Dr. Reinhold Vieth, whose wonderful webcast on vitamin D was certain to convince you of many aspects of this nutrient's vital importance in health (unfortunately, it must have been taken off the hosting server, since I can no longer locate it); among others.

We all have access to this information. They are providing discussions on the topic that have long ago made the comments of "official" agencies like the FDA or the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (charged with setting RDA's for vitamins) irrelevant. While information is conveyed at lightning speed through internet media sources, discussion boards, and chats, the committees of "experts" often sit on their hands, fearful of speaking out, often themselves unfamiliar with the scientific literature or the conversations being conducted, not uncommonly having hidden agendas of their own that might interfere with their impartiality.

Information on health (and other subjects, as well) is being conveyed to the interested public faster and faster. The FDA, the USDA, the Food and Nutrition Board, the American Heart Association are increasingly being viewed as behind the times. They often also provide tainted information. Among the most glaring examples of biased information is the Heart Association's endorsement of "heart healthy" products in its Heart Check Mark program, including Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp cereal, and Berry Kix, pure unadulterated junk foods thinly veiled with the Heart Association stamp of approval. Or the American Diabetes Association failure to speak out on the increasing penetration of carbohydrate and sugary junk foods in the American diet, while maintaining relationships and funding from its number one financial contributor, Cadbury Schweppes, the number one candy, soft drink, and snack manufacturer in the world.

The collective knowledge we are gaining through our own efforts will supplant the mis-information provided by official agencies. Just as Wikipedia represents collective knowledge on a broad range of topics, such a collective wisdom will develop in health, as well.

Comments (11) -

  • John

    10/24/2007 2:31:00 PM |

    We at www.uvtalk.com agree.

    We loved for you and others to join us for further debates and the sharing of information regarding the positives of uv expsosure.

  • Anonymous

    10/24/2007 4:35:00 PM |

    Great post! Thanks for writing your thoughts and sharing your knowledge on this blog, it is very useful.

    I have just ordered some 2000 ui gelcaps vitamin D supplements because of what I have read here.

    I used to take 1000 ui/day, but from dry tablets.

  • Anonymous

    10/24/2007 8:15:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    November's issue of Scientific Amercian has a great article on vitamin D. The article was about how important vit. D is in fighting autoimmune diseases, cancer, and other inflamatory disorders. It also stated that many people are deficent in vitamin D and they are paying the price.
    I read your blog and info on TYP so I was aware of most of what was written. What is good about the article is that more people will read it and start thinking for themselves and realize the AHA et al don't know what they are talking about. They are IRRELEVENT!

  • Dr. Davis

    10/24/2007 8:41:00 PM |

    Amen!

  • Anonymous

    10/25/2007 2:04:00 AM |

    Webcasts about MS & D3 by Reinhold Vieth:
    http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

    Someone named narkia has some links saved in their del.icio.us tagged as Vieth:
    http://del.icio.us/narkia/Vieth

    S

  • Mo

    11/2/2007 11:54:00 PM |

    In England the problem I've surmised is that the JBS (an alliance of the British Cardiac Society, the British Hypertension Society, Diabetes UK, HEART UK, the Primary Care Cardiovascular Society and the Stroke Association) base their guideline proposals based on research that most likely comes from drug companies that advocate their own products. And worse still we probably just ape US evidence without examining it.

    And there clearly is need for some doctors to learn more about vit D. One endocrinologist I know (but an otherwise very good one) suggests that any value between 9-125nmol/L is fine and proposed 400IU, whereas another recognised that 50nmol/L+ is sufficiency. However both prescribe D2. I'm not even sure D3 is available via prescription here - but go to a basic health food shop and you can find 1000IU D3 and not behind the counter.

    Some people don't have families that show patterns of symptoms related to vit D deficiency, but mine overwhelmingly does. All that I've heard from the vit D council makes complete sense because it's true. It makes me angry that we're still prescribed by outdated texts.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/3/2007 1:25:00 AM |

    Thank goodness we are entering the age of rapid information dissemination and self-empowerment!

  • Anonymous

    11/5/2007 11:19:00 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis!

    Thought I would revisit this blog posting because of my positive findings.  I purchased the UV Advantage book and in it the author talks about other substances created in the body by sun light - other than vitamin D.  I personally had found this true as I not only take vitamin D but also will use a sun lamp a few times a week, and have noticed using the lamp caused a euphoric feeling, much as described by the author.  

    In the book there is a chapter dedicated to sun boxes and how they help with the winter blues.  I thought with fall weather here I would buy a box & give it a try - and I'm glad I did.  I've only been using the box for a few days but what a difference, I feel more energetic, have slept better, eat less, and in general feel warm and sunny all over.  I don't know how to describe it other than amazing.  

    Since it has been mentioned that a positive upbeat demeanor is very helpful in the TYP program thought this mentioning might help others.  

    I'm going to experiment some more.  I've talked with the boss about bringing the light box to work - will see if others get the same "high" as I've gotten.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/5/2007 12:44:00 PM |

    That's great! Let us know how it goes at work.

  • Anonymous

    11/9/2007 10:13:00 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    Thought I would ring in with what was found with the light box at work.  Basically it helped better our mood we all though.  The light was used during our morning meeting, which is easy to do since there are just 3 of us.  And we all thought that we had more energy and felt "sunny" through the day.  I plan to continue bringing the box to work.    

    I also told my 83 year old grandmother of the light box and she wanted to try as she has trouble sleeping - (and eventually wanted it for her own.  I was more than happy to buy a new one.)  She tells me that it has helped with her sleep.  God bless her soul, like many at her age, grandma is ornery, and I was/am hoping the light will help with her mood, as is advertised on the box.  It's only been a week and results might change but so far results havn't been what was hoped for.  Grandma has been grumpy and prone to believing odd conspiracies for a few years now, but she normally keeps them to her self only mentioning them in private.  She now seems to have more energy and it was noticed by several family members as she called a few members out of the blue accusing them of such and such acts against her.  So in all honesty, the box worked for her too, but not with the upbeat demeanor hoped for.  

    My personal observation is that the box works great for sleep - and it worked pretty much right away for me.  I use it again in the evening around 5:30 as I have trouble staying awake when the sun goes down, but then would wake up very early in the morning - and as a result of using the light my sleep has been wonderful.  I have been going to bed at 10:00 and wake up at 5:00 with out waking up during the night.  I find this further confirmation of the importance of sunlight on our body’s health.  I plan to continue using it, and am glad you mentioned the book.  

    As a side note - I signed up for the trial fish oil capsules.  Received them - fantastic packaging, the capsules are some of the best we have ever seen.  (Both my father and I used to work in the health food industry and have seen many soft gels before.  Also dad used to work for encapsulator RP Scherer in the early 80s as head of marketing.) I gave the fish oil to my father to use as he follows the TYP program somewhat - and i wish he would become more involved.  

    He is reporting that the fish oil capsules have a very very strong fish after taste - much more so than the regular fish oil capsules he was previously using.  We are afraid the peroxide values might be high.  Dad mentioned that he is going to have the capsules tested, but i don't know when or if he will do that.

  • G

    11/13/2007 2:33:00 AM |

    If you store the fish oil caps in the freezer and take out as you need, there is less of a 'fishy' taste and burps.  Really works according to my patients... and cheaper than the enteric coated stuff! Heard that from the cardiologists I work with...

Loading
Bread equals sugar

Bread equals sugar

Bread, gluten-free or gluten-containing, in terms of carbohydrate content, is equivalent to sugar.

Two slices of store-bought whole grain bread, such as the gluten-free bread I discussed in my last post, equals 5- 6 teaspoons of table sugar:








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some breads can contain up to twice this quantity, i.e., 10-12 teaspoons equivalent readily-digestible carbohydrate.

Comments (36) -

  • A.B. Dada

    6/22/2011 4:35:12 PM |

    Whoa, that's a lot of photos of spoons, hah.

    I definitely get a worse effect from eating bread (historically, I don't anymore) than I have from eating table sugar (say in coffee or sprinkled on strawberries, neither of which I do anymore, either).

  • Chris Cornell

    6/22/2011 5:07:56 PM |

    And... is sugar bad?

  • Kristie Campbell

    6/22/2011 6:40:28 PM |

    I can think of tastier options for consuming that much sugar, but only on my cheat days! -Kristie

  • Carl

    6/22/2011 6:40:34 PM |

    Wrong. Table sugar is 50% fructose. Does bread starch break down to 50% fructose? Fructose and glucose are metabolized quite differently. The former only in the liver if I understand correctly.

  • Mary

    6/22/2011 7:04:49 PM |

    What about bread made from sprouted grains -- e.g., Ezekiel Bread?  I understand there's still gluten in it, but this particular bread actually has a short, easily understandable ingredient list -- seems far better than the highly processed "whole wheat" bread out there.  Any thoughts?

  • Jack Kronk

    6/22/2011 7:52:54 PM |

    Bread does not equal sugar. This is a too simplistic Doc, and you know it.

    Of course we all know that bread starch does indeed break down as glucose in the body, but there is so much more to bread than just that. Of all people, in the entire blogosphere, I would expect this post from you the least. You know ALL about wheat and bread. You post more on wheat than any other blogger. Yet you say bread equals sugar. I know what you mean, for sure. I get it, but I would like to suggest to you that sometimes people seriously take you word for word, especially when you have a large following of daily readers that know you're a Doctor and maybe don't understand the differences. Then they are gonna run out and tell their friends and family that eating bread is just like eating sugar.

    As another commenter mentioned, sugar is half fructose, and although the fructose is mostly bound to the glucose, some of it still definitely goes into your liver. A huge sugar overload is going to have drastically different effects on metabolism as a huge bread overload. Neither are good for you in any way. The bread comes with all kinds of problems that the sugar doesn't have. I'm not sure which is worse, but they're not equal to each other.

  • Princess Dieter

    6/22/2011 8:46:29 PM |

    I think I just spurted out a bunch of insulin looking at those pics. ; )

  • Cary

    6/22/2011 9:46:45 PM |

    Wow, take a chill-pill folks.

    It states in the very first sentence that he is speaking in terms of carbohydrate content.

    I don't believe for a second that the good doc's readers only read the headline and then run off making nutritional recommendations to their friends and family.

    Thanks for another great post. Smile

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/23/2011 1:18:30 AM |

    Thanks, Cary.

    It never ceases to amaze that talking about food is like insulting your mother: virtual fist fights inevitably break out.

    I was lumping wheat bread and gluten-free bread together. That is indeed misleading, because wheat-containing bread is far WORSE than sugar. The point I was trying to make, perhaps awkwardly, was that both wheat bread and gluten-free bread are, in effect, large carbohydrate loads. And I didn't insult your mother.

  • Shiveka

    6/23/2011 1:29:23 AM |

    Although 2 slices of bread are generally equivalent to 30 g carbohydrate (although some are less and some are more), they are not necessarily equal to 6 tsp of sugar/2 tbsp of sugar.  The carbohydrate in bread is not all sugar.  Bread, especially whole grain bread has fiber which is an indigestible carbohydrate.  2 slices of whole grain bread have 4g of fiber generally, which you will not find in table sugar.  Additionally, this fiber helps to slow down the absorption of the carbohydrate or sugar in the bread.  Therefore, plain table sugar (just glucose + fructose) is far more easily digested than 2 slices of whole grain bread.  Therefore, from the pov that whole grain bread is not 100% composed of sugar nor is it digested in the same manner as sugar (in terms of their glycemic index/how long it takes for the sugar to enter the bloodstream), it seems incorrect to say that 2 slices of whole grain bread= 6 tsp of sugar.  I understand the logic of your reasoning in the sense that all digestible carbohydrate eventually breaks down into glucose, however, fiber (found in whole grain bread) does not and therefore its erroneous to say that they are equivalent to each other and may be misleading to individuals reading this article.

  • huh

    6/23/2011 7:02:18 AM |

    Was there no point to this post but to keep the blog going and selling stuff?  What is going on here?

  • Stipetic

    6/23/2011 8:43:44 AM |

    What was that you said about my mother?

  • Moo

    6/23/2011 1:35:17 PM |

    Did you look at a table of glycemic indexes? Most bread, including whole wheat bread, has approximately the same glycemic index as table sugar.

  • Tyns

    6/23/2011 3:51:01 PM |

    Reduced/absence of fructose makes the bread less toxic, but I'm guessing this post was written from the perspective of the resulting insulin response - in which case, referring to six teaspoons of sugar is accurate for comparison purposes.

    I watched Nurse Jackie this week (or maybe last week?) and the head nurse was 'educating' overweight children.  She named a bunch of candy bars/candies and asked what they all had in common.  A child responded "Sugar?".  "Correct!" she replied.  She then told them that when she wants a snack, she eats "These" - then holds up a box of raisins.  Oh, and the children were all holding apples.

  • Jack Kronk

    6/23/2011 4:07:05 PM |

    you've covered this general concept in many of your other posts about bread and/or wheat in general. everybody knows that bread is carb heavy. but a carb is a carb is a carb is simply not true. besides that, i think the nasty ingredients in most gluten free breads are far worse than the carbohydrate content of the starch.

  • EMR

    6/23/2011 5:22:21 PM |

    We are just blind to many other foods when trying to avoid sugar to save us from diabetes.I think we must consult a specialist to formulate our diet which would be healthy and accurate.

  • Annabel

    6/23/2011 7:03:07 PM |

    If only it were true that "everyone" knows that bread is carb-heavy, or that starches convert to sugar, or even that fruits are carbs! I asked my brother to tell me what he eats in a typical day. "I don't eat a lot of carbs... For breakfast, two breakfast tacos on flour tortillas and a Sprite, for lunch I just eat an apple and another Sprite, and dinner is maybe chicken-fried [breaded] steak and some cornbread, or maybe mashed potatoes." I asked him if he thought soft drinks don't have carbs, and he said he thought clear sodas "don't count"--just colas have carbs. To say nothing of the flour, potatoes, corn, or fruit.

    That's a more typical (mis)understanding of carbs than we want to think. And that's why I dont mind reading posts like this.

  • HS4

    6/23/2011 10:52:09 PM |

    There are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes.  I, for one, appreciate Dr Davis attempts to get the message across by putting it out there in many different ways and using different analogies.  You never know which description will hit home with someone or at least make him stop and think.

    Many times I've come across exactly what Annabel describes - so many people lack even a basic understanding of which foods are carbohydrate-rich.  I was astounded when my husband mentioned that he'd always thought fruits were not carbs (and he's a scientist!).   To him, carbs are starches, only - bread, pasta, maybe potatoes, etc...

  • Jim Anderson

    6/24/2011 2:01:16 PM |

    I used to eat a lot of bread.  Now, none.  I don't have a problem passing up ordinary, store-bought, mass-produced loaves, but when I'm in a deli or restaurant with quality breads -- well, that's harder.  Still, I know I will get a lot hungrier a lot sooner if I eat the bread than if I don't, and so I don't.  It seems paradoxical that eating more food makes you hungrier sooner; knowing that is the key.

  • steve

    6/24/2011 3:59:02 PM |

    Doctor Davis:  It would be helpful to see a post of how you would construct a daily diet for heart health that minimizes the carbs.  There seems to be a full range of low carb alternatives ranging from Atkins like to Rosedale(high fat), etc.  Thanks,

  • Stcrim

    6/24/2011 6:46:03 PM |

    When I first started following Dr. Davis and the TYP eating guidelines, I had a hard time giving up wheat - hell it's in everything!!!  Plus it's a hard addiction to break.  

    Now that I'm wheat free thanks to Dr. Davis' recommendations you couldn't pay me any amount of money to go back.

    The debate over glucose vs. fructose is interesting but the only thing that's really important is how I feel.

    -s-

  • nightrite

    6/25/2011 1:34:53 PM |

    I used to be a wheat addict but no anymore.  I've had one wheat product in the last 6 months and since then have lost 30 pounds.  I've done nothing different in my diet or exercise program - just ditched the wheat.  The weight dropped off easily.  Dr. Davis rocks!!!

  • lucky Angel

    6/25/2011 8:39:45 PM |

    That is messed up
    fresh apples are better for children.  All of us.  Everyone.

    But, raisins are a better alternative to candy/packedged/processed food...even organic.  or hydroponic.  I say kids.  Eat the apple.

  • Marianne

    6/26/2011 1:14:45 AM |

    I stumbled across this blog quite a while ago and remain a casual reader of it.  What attracted my attention is how eliminating wheat was what I needed to do to get rid of my belly.  I have been sorely disappointed!  I am a 60 yo female, 5'7", weigh 132, small frame, have always been thin but started gaining weight around midsection in my 50s.  One year ago I gave up my daily glass of wine, and 8 months ago eliminated wheat from my diet.  That was hard!  I agree that I feel better and the hunger is not as intense, but I have long zero weight.  I walk briskly, as briskly as my bad knees allow (former jogger) every morning.  I eat fruit, yogurt and nuts for breakfast, a bowl of raw veggies for lunch (no dressing) and some protein and more veggies for dinner.  Will I ever lose this 5 to 7 pounds around my middle?  Thank you for letting me vent!

  • Lori

    6/26/2011 4:29:51 PM |

    Marianne, you're still running on carbs instead of dietary fat. Most fruit and yogurt and sugar bombs. And without dressing or other fat, you won't absorb the vitamins A, D, E or K in your vegetables. Eliminating wheat is great--and I admire your dedication--but I don't see much fat or protein in your diet. Try adding a boiled egg or two and some dressing to your salad for lunch, some fatty fish or other fatty meat and buttered veg for dinner, and leftovers for breakfast. Give it a two-week trial.

  • Joe

    6/26/2011 4:54:58 PM |

    I agree with Lori...not enough fat and protein, too many carbs.

    You might enjoy reading Dr.(s) Eades book, "The 6 Week Cure For The Middle Aged Middle."  You should be able to get rid of those 5-7 pounds in a couple of weeks.  At your age, it may be mostly visceral fat, not subcutaneous fat, and visceral fat is far more worrisome to your overall health because it's connected to inflammation.

    Joe

  • Lori

    6/26/2011 6:47:41 PM |

    Another thing: various studies and a lot of anecdotal evidence have shown that aerobic exercise is ineffective for losing weight. IME, it's just as overrated for weight loss as whole grains are for health. Weight training is better for improving your physique and possibly improving insulin resistance. The Eadeses also wrote a book, along with Fred Hahn, called Slow Burn; Dr. Davis has some posts on this.

  • majkinetor

    6/27/2011 11:03:46 AM |

    That doesn't give us any information about metabolic effects of the food.

  • majkinetor

    6/27/2011 11:10:03 AM |

    Don't eat fruit.  Use some caffeine creme.  Have a cheat day.
    When things get confusing, you have to log everything - you will be surprised, thats for sure.

  • majkinetor

    6/27/2011 11:15:18 AM |

    Yes, that seems to be truth. I would go for high intensity training as fast twitch muscles drain glucose much faster then slow twitch muscle, plus, its much more doable given the modern time constraints.

    There is a problem tho  - high probability for injury, with any type of exercise. Injury equals to even more sedentary life then before exercise.

    In Marrianes case, I guess, however, that lots of effort needs to be devoted to solving menopausal hormonal disturbances which promote weight gain. This is, to my knowledge done with concentrating to food quality rather then quantity.  Supplementation is essential.

  • Joe

    6/27/2011 5:05:11 PM |

    Lori, I don't think even weight training will rid her of her "middle-aged middle." Only a proper diet can do that (and pretty quickly, too), especially if it's all visceral fat, as is likely.

    Weight training will give her a stronger mid-section, of course, but it'll mostly remain hidden under the fat.

    Joe

  • Lori

    6/27/2011 5:57:30 PM |

    Agreed--weight training won't get rid of fat, but it'll make you generally firmer.

    One thing I really like about Fred Hahn's weight training method is that it's easy on the joints. In the doorknob squats, for instance, your feet are a little in front of your knees and you hold a door knob for support, making for a challenging exercise that doesn't hurt your knees.

  • Joe

    6/27/2011 7:33:56 PM |

    Still, I don't think she could do enough ab work to get rid of her "middle-aged middle," which she claims is her remaining objective.

    That's going to require a special diet, like the one the Eades recommend, for example.

    By the way, the best ab workout, in my opinion, is sprinting. Spend a little less time walking or jogging, and a little more time sprinting (provided you're already in relatively good shape). I'm about to enter my 8th decade, and I'm still sprinting.

    Works for me.

    Joe

  • jpatti

    7/9/2011 6:46:40 AM |

    I disagree that wheat is worse than sugar, generally.  

    Sure it's worse for celiacs, and others with gluten intolerance.  And sure it will raise worse than the equal "net carbs" of sugar since starch is a glucose polymer.

    But sugar is half fructose which is a LOT of fructose.  And fructose is very bad for fatty liver, for diabetes, for triglycerdies, for adiposity, for everything...

    On the other hand, this is sort of like arguing whether arsenic or cyanide is worse... doesn't really matter.

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/9/2011 2:41:02 PM |

    Hi, Jpatti--

    This is a confusing issue. It is the reason why I wrote Wheat Belly that will be hitting bookstore shelves in early September, 2011.

    I believe that, once you hear the entire rationale, you will agree that, not only is wheat worse than sugar, it is the most incredibly bad thing ever created by modern genetics and agribusiness and is responsible for more disease and suffering than any war ever waged.

  • Joe Lindley

    7/26/2011 6:19:16 PM |

    I'm looking forward to your book.  I had heavy whole wheat bread (plus butter and jam) for breakfast for years thinking I was being health conscious (mostly because it was fibrous enough that I didn't snack till lunch).   How wrong I was!  Now that I've gotten educated on the metabolism of carbohydrates plus the dangers in wheat, I realize how unhealthy that was.

Loading