A Lay Review of the AACCI “Analysis”
A Lay Review of the AACCI “Analysis”
Edition: 2016-12-07
Originally posted to Wheat Free Forum: 2013-06-23
Temporary Note:
This content is now mirrored on Cureality,
due to Wheat Free Forum going off-line for
several days on or about 2016-12-03
For Cureality non-subscribers, the discussion
threads are still open at WFF.
Note: This article is maintained for historical purposes, as
Dr. Davis' current position on nutrition and
health is captured in the 2014 book Wheat
Belly Total Health. The AACCI site appears
to no longer host the PDF of the paper being responded
to here. Their page redirect goes into an apparently
infinite loop. You may be able to find the PDF on
various internet archives.
In September 2012, the grain industry*,
via the Plexus publication of the American
Association of Cereal Chemists International
(AACCI), [formerly] at:
www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/OpenDocuments/CFW-57-4-0177.pdf
published “Wheat Belly - An
Analysis of Selected Statements and Basic Theses
from the Book” by Julie M. Jones.
* By “grain
industry”, I mean the processors, packagers,
chemists, geneticists, lobbyists and academics with
financial ties to these. I don't mean the wheat growers,
local elevators, or even the machinery manufacturers.
All of the latter are generally unaware of what's
been going on, and what's about to happen.
Wheat
Belly Blog readers periodically rediscover this
AACCI paper, and wonder if it makes any valid points
(it doesn't). This Review was written so that we can
direct such questions to answers. It was originally
posted on Wheat
Free Forum (WFF) because it was far too
long for a WBB Reply, and there was no appropriate
thread to attach it to, and would be easier to find
and search on WFF. It was even too long for a single
WFF reply, although it is a single page as now hosted
on the Cureality forum. I have left numbered footnote
cites in the quotes.
Dr. Davis has not directly responded to this AACCI paper,
and seems unlikely to. If that's because he considers it
to be so inept as to not to be worthy of a response on
its merits, I concur. But like spurious negative feedback
comments in an eBay seller's record, leaving it unanswered
can confer a gravitas it does not actually possess.
So, I got curious and decided to examine it.
Those interested in how robust the WB arguments are,
may thus want to read the AACCI paper and my review of
that “Analysis”. The AACCI paper may represent
the best that grain advocates can come up with to answer
Wheat Belly. If so, their case is not just weak. I don't
see any case at all.
While this AACCI publication, and the Analysis article,
are not aimed at the general public, the article may be
cited in blogs and other publications. It may be postured
as a “rebuttal”, “refutation”
or “debunking” when referenced. It is no
such thing.
AACCI may have been expecting professional readers to
take note of the Analysis, but perhaps not to deeply
examine it. If they trouble to read it carefully,
grain industry professionals may be shocked.
Lay readers might be intimidated by the formal
language and impenetrable cites. I'm a lay reader
(who did not chase down the cited references, for
reasons that will become apparent). Let's see what
a lay reader thinks.
Only 1 footnote (above). I promise.
Context
About the Plexus publication in its own words from that period:
“The online network of CFW Plexus
offers a broad range of opportunities for advertising
and sponsorships. Beyond traditional online and print
advertising, CFW Plexus also plans to launch a
Product Showcase to feature information about new
products and services available in the cereals and
grains market.”
This may be a marketing and lobbying publication,
and not a dry journal of dispassionate discourse on
public health. The articles are not necessarily
peer-reviewed.
The Analysis article is cast as a scientific style paper.
It's a general principle in scientific discourse that
one counters a defective scientific argument with
correct data and logic, and not by ad hominem
(discrediting the author). But, as you'll see,
this Analysis paper works hard to discredit itself,
and the present “debate” is not
merely scientific. It is more a case of a huge
industry, selling what may well be a human toxin
as food, and whose very existence is threatened
by a popular book. This is frankly economics vs.
public health. We need to follow the money, and
consider the players, to understand what's afoot.
Wheat Belly was published in August 2011. It was
not the first book/paper/article to identify the
hazards of gluten-bearing grains, nor the first
to advocate a low-carb diet. It may have been
the first to do so comprehensively, and is pretty
clearly the first to become a best-seller, and a
persistent best-seller at that. The grain
industry could afford to ignore the earlier
efforts. They've evidently decided they can't
ignore Wheat Belly. It took them just over a
year to obtain the “Analysis”
response. Why so long? Waiting to see if WB was
just a fad? Couldn't find anyone willing to
write it? I wonder.
Conflicts of Interest
Readers of the WB book or blog already know
who Dr. Davis is: he's a cardiac physician
whose WB initiative promises to dramatically
reduce the demand for his specialty, and the
practice of acute care generally; not usually
an auspicious medical career strategy. He has
published several books, and operates several
websites. The financial incentives, if any,
for the WB initiative seem somewhat risky
at best. No critics raise it as an issue, to
my knowledge.
Dr. (Ph.D.) Julie M. Jones is, in the article,
identified only as being from St. Catherine
University, St. Paul MN.
A quick search finds that she is a board
certified and Licensed Nutritionist, and a
professor of nutrition in the Department of
Family, Consumer and Nutritional Sciences
at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul.
She is a scientific advisor for the Joint
Institute of Food Safety and Nutrition for
the University of Maryland and the US
Food and Drug Administration. She is a
scientific advisor to the carbohydrate
committee of the International Life
Sciences Institute. She is on the
scientific advisory panel for the
Grains Food Foundation and Chartwell.
She is on the General Mills speaker's
bureau, speaking to health professionals
nationwide. She has co-organized
conferences on whole grains. She is
Chair of the AACCI's Whole Grains
Working Group.
None of this was disclosed in the article,
which would be fine if she were just countering
a similar article by Dr. Davis in the
Journal of Esoteric Endocrinology.
Was Dr. Jones compensated for the article?
Does her department get industry grants and
funding? Does she receive other compensation
as an advisor, and was any of that at risk
had she declined to author the article?
None of this is disclosed or disclaimed.
And professionally, what's at stake for
Dr. Jones? What have her advocacies been
on grains? What is her role in the prominence
of grains in the USDA “MyPlate”?
Part of her professional focus is food safety.
What if her “food group” is
inherently a hopeless human toxin? If the
central thesis of Wheat Belly is correct,
has her entire career been a fundamental error,
with needless and catastrophic consequences
for public health? Can Dr. Jones afford,
in all senses of the word, for the WB theses
to be correct?
OK, so who am I then? I'm a follower of the
Wheat Belly blog. This review was unsolicited.
I was not compensated in any way for authoring it.
(2015 Update: 2 years after authoring this review,
I entered a professional
relationship with Dr. Davis, wherein
I handle routine questions on his blog. This
review was not authored in contemplation
of that happening.)
I read Wheat Belly when a family member
independently discovered wheat sensitivity
and was looking for wheatless recipes in a
book store. I found WB compelling, follow
the recommendations, and haven't looked back.
We own a small farm, and are wondering how to
re-purpose our former wheat ground. I [was]
work[ing] in the agricultural machinery business
[now retired]. I expect that if the WB theses
are correct, or consumers merely think they are,
a cultural diet shift is going to dramatically
change the market for my former company's products,
and in ways that are going to be financially
and technically challenging.
I have not quoted the AACCI paper in its
entirety, primarily due to space considerations.
Much of it is actually non-responsive to each topic
at hand. I encourage the reader to find it, down-load it,
and view or print it, Have your copy of Wheat Belly
at hand too.
The Analysis
Discussion Legend
Topic - and Point - identify sections of the paper.
The “Points” are almost entirely restatements,
in Dr. Jones words.
Quotes from the Analysis are prefaced with
JJ: (for Julie Jones).
Doing this was a bit of work, because the
AACCI web PDF is encrypted, and has Content
Copying set to Not Allowed. Although
setting no-copy is often unintentional in
PDF generation, it could be construed as a
ploy to allow the public to read the article,
but frustrate discussion and comment on it.
So there may be some transcription errors
in my quotes.
Dr. Jones, alas, rarely uses exact quotes from
the Wheat Belly book, and entirely fails to
identify WB page numbers. So we are usually
left reading her characterization of what the
book says (which I often found to be misleading,
inaccurate or completely false). In one case,
I couldn't figure out what she was referring
to at all. If my comments seem snarky at times,
thank Dr. Jones for provoking that.
BN: leads my remarks.
DD: leads stand-alone
quotes from Dr. Davis work.
“Wheat Belly - An Analysis
of Selected Statements and Basic Theses from
the Book”
The title of the article says “Selected”,
and that's not surprising, as the alternative
would be to quote the entire book or paraphrase
sentence-by-sentence.
The opening paragraph declares:
JJ: “… a variety of the positions
discussed in the book will be analyzed using
scientific literature by first stating Davis'
point and then providing an analysis of the
point. The statements can be divided into four
categories:
1) those which are based on good, sound
nutrition science;
2) those that are controversial, i.e.,
there are studies supporting both sides of the issue;
3) those that are theory, i.e., they have no
data to support or refute them; and
4) those that run counter to widely supported
data reported in the scientific and medical literature.”
BN: OK, she's going to nitpick just the text.
Fair enough.
But notice what is entirely absent in the
approach:
reality.
The AACCI had a year to work on this.
They could have run simple, easy, inexpensive
experiments. They could have asked volunteers
to try the WB approach to diet. The author
could have personally tried it. Either no
testing was done, or the results were
“unsatisfactory”, and left
unreported.
Point: Obesity
BN: Dr. Jones initially concurs, and actually
fleshes out Dr. Davis' general claim with
supporting numbers, for example:
JJ: “The obesity rate has increased
214% since 1950 (2).”
BN: The critique of the selected point then moves
on to a nitpick.
JJ: “However, the implication that women
did not exercise is not fully accurate, in that
Davis does not mention that lifestyles in general
were much more active in the 1950s….”
BN: When I first read this, my first thought was:
what is Dr. Jones up to here? This point wasn't
even worth arguing. Women were also more likely
to be at home in the '50s, a further confounding
factor Dr. Jones neglects. Was she being paid
by the counter-claim, no matter how weak?
Point: Elimination of wheat from the
diet is the “holy grail” of weight loss.
BN: The first three sentences, not quoted here, are
flat out agreement with Dr. Davis. Dr. Jones
then builds a straw man, and throws in some
fallacious logic for good measure:
JJ: “While it is true that such diets
have been shown to cause more rapid weight loss
than other diets in the initial 6 months
following such a regimen, they do not result in
greater weight loss over time and result in more
dropouts than other diet types that are more
balanced and do not eliminate entire food groups.”
BN: Dr. Jones made no effort to compare and
contrast (much less actually test) long term
compliance and/or sustained weight loss on
unspecified low carb diets vs. the WB
recommendations. WB is different. I've been on
it nearly two>years (now over five),
and followed the blog for that long. I'm not
seeing any indication of compliance or
sustained weight loss issues. Many low
carb trials fail to exclude gluten-bearing grains,
which Dr. Davis has identified as both
addictive and appetite-stimulating, and which
I would thus expect to make compliance a needless
challenge. See Glycemic Confounding
below.
The unspecified “entire food group”
is presumably My Plate grains and amounts to a
begging_the_question fallacy. Grains are only a
food group to USDA dietary masterminds, and their
unwitting victims. Grains need to be removed from
the official diets. That they are currently featured
there may be evidence of unsettling politics, but
is hardly supporting evidence to the contrary.
Grains might be a “food group” for some
ruminants, but not humans.
Point: Elimination of wheat from
the diet is associated with disease cure and mitigation.
JJ: “The reductions in type 2 diabetes
mellitus and metabolic syndrome cited fit with
weight loss (5), while Davis' attribution that
disease mitigation was due to wheat removal is not
supported.”
BN: Note: “not supported” is apt
to be ambiguous to the lay reader (it was to me).
It could mean “has no data one way or the other”,
“data is scarce”, “is contradicted
by the data”, or “I didn't find the
supporting data satisfactory on this point”.
If the lay reader assumes that “not supported”
means “not true”, well, that might be a
serendipitous bit of academic smoke.
JJ: “Reduction in calories and loss of
weight by any method is the number one recommendation
of diabetes associations around the world (8,9).”
BN: What a fascinating sentence; it starts with a
straw man fallacy, then makes a tacit admission
that the WB recommendations result in weight loss
and diabetes relief. The fallacy is due to the
fact that WB does not recommend calorie reduction
or restriction. So why does a WB compliant diet
usually result in reduction of caloric intake?
Dr. Jones doesn't seem interested in that.
JJ: “Other claims that the elimination
of wheat from the diet reduced disease are interesting,
…”
BN: Not interesting enough for a suggestion of
further research, apparently. Here we have a
cheap cure at hand for a wide variety of ailments,
but because the library stacks aren't bending
under the weight of supporting raw data, we can
dismiss the anecdotes. New discoveries usually
have no supporting data in the stacks. Chronically
ignored discoveries might have that data, but
then, they are chronically ignored by the
scientific establishment.
JJ: “…but in the end are
simply testimonials.”
BN: Prior to 1982, claims that 70-90% of
ulcers were caused by bacteria and cleared
by antibiotics, were also “simply
testimonials”. If you think
that academics are any less likely to be
denialist today than during historic
health horrors, you are mistaken.
BN: Glycemic Confounding
A challenge for those proposing to
critique Wheat Belly is the sorry state
of what appear to be contrary data.
Implicit in the WB macronutrient recommendations
is an indictment that 99% of the human race is
following an incorrect metabolic diet
(full-time glycemic). Most existing nutrition
trial, survey and outcome data is about glycemic
diet. Guidance teased out of that data may be at
best misleading. At this moment in history,
it's true, there may be insufficient statistical
data on grain-free low-carb to satisfy committed
glycemic advocates. In some areas, like nutritional
ketosis (NK) during pregnancy, for example, there
is reportedly almost no data. We're breaking new
ground here. We'd like to correct/avoid the same
ailments as the official diets, but the official
diets don't seem to work, and may even be causing
the problem. Dr. Jones is not helping with
our digging, and seems convinced that no gold
is to be found. How many more will be maimed
and killed before satisfactory data reaches
her in-basket?
Which of her statistics do you want to be?
JJ: “Studies show …”
BN: Translation: “Biased analysis, of
flawed data, from entirely unrelated trials,
leading to incorrect interpretation
shows…”. I did not dig into
the cites here, because I suspected they
are all confounded by glycemic diets. They
may also have other problems that will take
more time to dissect than this AACCI paper
merits. And as, you'll see, Dr. Jones
can't even correctly restate WB arguments,
so I have low confidence that her
interpretation of her own cites is accurate.
JJ: “In terms of improvement in
physical performance, there are only testimonials
and popular press books such as the recent book
authored by tennis player Pierre Dukan.“
BN: This statement may just summarize our status,
and makes no real argument. It's early. Athletes
are still fine-tuning low-carb and/or nutritional ketosis.
Many are failing to recognize the peculiar hazards
of grains, so the anecdotes require close examination.
JJ: “The facts Davis presents about
central obesity are true and warrant concern.
What is not true is that wheat causes this
condition and that elimination of wheat will
cure this condition. It is well documented
that no one food or food group is responsible
for VAT. …” … and
then cites a study that I won't chase down.
BN: Straw man: the quote above materially
misrepresents Dr. Davis, who says, on
page 9 of WB (hardcover, my emphasis):
DD: “That's right: Diabetes in
many cases can be cured - not simply managed -
by removal
of carbohydrates, especially wheat”.
The present AACCI paper makes no assertion that
the cited study was even able to isolate results
that were entirely grain free, or isolate low-carb
results. If someone else wants to dig it up and
analyze it, I have no problem being mistaken.
Point: The proliferation of wheat
products parallels the increase in waist size.
JJ: “Although the association may be true,
this is an example of the misuse of correlations
to imply causation.”
B:
1. Straw man. Dr. Davis didn't imply causation.
2. If the WB theses are correct, they should
match the historical record. This is not about causation.
This is about a look at data that could falsify the theory.
Falsification does not occur.
JJ: “Davis does not report the more
important information from the USDA-ERS paper (19),
however, which notes “A big jump in average
calorie intake between 1985 and 2000 without a
corresponding increase in the level of physical
activity (calorie expenditure) is the prime factor
behind America's soaring rates of obesity and
Type 2 diabetes…. Consumption in 2000
was 12 percent, or roughly 300 calories, above the
1985 level.”.
BN: The presented quote practically discredits itself,
although diggers can go hunt that down if they like.
No question is raised about what caused the
“big jump”. They apparently just blame
the victims for not making a corresponding big jump
in exercise to compensate for it.
Point: Whole-wheat bread has a glycemic index
of …
JJ: “Whole-wheat bread does have a GI higher
than table sugar.”
BN: Well hello. That's a jaw-dropping admission.
Just how long have you known this, grain industry?
When were you planning to warn us?
I'll call these “confessional moments”
as we hit them in the paper.
JJ: ”One aspect of GI that is frequently
misunderstood is that the measure is often used to
compare very different amounts of food. Fifty
grams of sucrose or glucose (approximately
3 table-spoons) would yield fifty grams
of available carbohydrate. Fifty grams of
available carbohydrate from whole-wheat bread
is much more than fifty grams of bread since
bread is not all carbohydrate, and all the
carbohydrate is not available. Thus, it would
take 144 g of whole-wheat bread
(5.1 slices at 28 g per slice) or
111 g of white bread (3.9 slices)
to yield 50 g of available carbohydrate.”
BN: The above is 100% straw man, and frankly
appears to be deliberately intended to mislead
a lay reader into thinking that it takes
5 slices to do what Dr. Davis
claims it takes 2 slices to do.
Dr. Davis has never claimed that bread
equals sugar gram for gram, and his point was
not “has as much available carb”;
it was “raises blood sugar as much as”.
Point: The starch in wheat is different …
JJ: ”Davis states that while wheat
has an A structure, bananas and potatoes
have a B structure, and legumes have a
C structure.”
BN: This looks to me like a misrepresentation.
On page 33 of WB, Dr. Davis says
“… amylopectin A, is found
in wheat”. He didn't say that wheat is
only A, or the A is unique to wheat, as
she contends later. Ditto for the other foods.
JJ: ”Root starches such as cooked
potato and taro are also readily converted to
blood glucose. Furthermore, some cereals bred
to have higher amounts of amylose, such as
high-amylose wheat or maize, are digested
slowly (20) and may actually not be digested
at all, becoming resistant starch instead.”
BN: And WB recognizes this, and classifies foods
based on their actual blood sugar consequences,
not just on the type of carbs they contain.
JJ: “Type A starches are not unique to
wheat, as Davis implies, but are found in most
cereals and have branch chain lengths of =23-29
glucose units.”
BN: I wish she had quoted exactly what Dr. Davis
said to lead to that asserted implication, because
I can't find it.
Point: The relationships between
blood glucose, insulin response, and GI, …
JJ: “Davis' statements regarding the
relationships between blood glucose, insulin
response, and GI are inaccurate and misleading.”
BN: “inaccurate” apparently
means: I found a few products that were exceptions
to the general rule.
“misleading” apparently
means: The truth about wheat may lead you away from grains.
JJ: “Whole-wheat bread consumption does
produce the same glucose response as white bread
consumption. This statement by Davis is accurate;
…”
BN: Another confessional moment.
JJ: “… however, most users of the
GI and glycemic load (GL) are unaware that the
amount of bread is different. It takes more
whole-wheat bread than white bread to obtain
the same glucose response. Although it is also
correct that whole-wheat breads have a higher GI
than a candy bar such as a Mars or Snickers bar,
as previously mentioned the GI compares 50 g
of available carbohydrate, which is about
4 slices of whole-wheat bread and about
2.5 oz of Mars bar, so the volume of food
is different.”
BN: I'm not sure Dr. Davis ever specified
the exact size of Mars Bar, and Dr. Jones
now neglects to tell us how much of a bar
2.5 oz is. Is she actually disputing
the Davis numbers, or just trying to make
it appear so?
JJ: “In addition, there are several
factors involved in available carbohydrate
levels, including the fat content of the food,
which impedes amylase activity; other components
such as nuts, a naturally low-GI food; and the
rich phenolics and antioxidants in the chocolate,
which lower the GI of the candy bar.”
BN: Do antioxidants lower GI? A quick search
suggests that high GI impairs antioxidant capacity.
JJ: “In short, because the calories and
nutrients delivered by the two products are so
vastly different, it is not possible to make a
direct comparison that is meaningful. It should
also be pointed out that not all whole-wheat
breads yield higher GIs; for example, some
sourdough whole- wheat breads (23) have
a GI < 56, which is the value quoted
for a Mars bar.”
BN: Evidently Dr. Jones is having a problem
understanding some part of:
DD: “Eating 2 slices of whole wheat
bread increases blood sugar more than a candy bar.”
BN: The message, however, is not lost on those who
were avoiding candy bars for health reasons,
but heretofore had assumed that whole wheat
bread was “healthy”.
JJ: “Pasta does have a lower GI than
bread because the dense structure of the pasta
impedes amylases from readily accessing the
carbohydrate and, therefore, does not increase
blood sugar rapidly (24).”
BN: Agrees with Dr. Davis, but goes on to
wallow in dogma:
JJ: “Davis implies there is a problem
because the pasta delivers glucose over a longer
period of time. However, slow, steady delivery
of glucose into the bloodstream is considered
advantageous because it avoids large swings
in blood sugar.”
BN: Note the “is considered”,
without even a cite in sight; an appeal to an
unmentioned authority of some sort. This is
fallout from the current “grazing”
dogma, which apparently has adverse real-world
consequences beyond mere chronic elevation of
blood sugar.
JJ: “Further, there is a ready supply
of glucose for the brain and for use by cells
throughout the body.”
BN: More dogma from the sugar-frosted ivory towers
of glycemia. Dr. Jones is presumably aware
of nutritional ketosis (NK, or KD: ketogenic
diet), and that brain and that body cells can
operate either on glucose or on ketone bodies
(it is now thought that the brain can operate on
up to 60% ketone bodies, and it is known that the body
can make all the glucose needed, even on a zero-carb
diet), but for some reason she
declines to even acknowledge NK. It may be that
she confuses it for metabolic ketoacidosis (see
later of this Review), as many still do.
JJ: “To state that an omelet causes no
rise in blood sugar reveals a misunderstanding of
the relationship between foods and their effects
on blood sugar. Although it is true that foods
that do not contain carbohydrate do not raise
blood glucose to a significant degree, …”
BN: Here she is arguing about the non-difference
between “no” rise and
“non-significant” rise.
I'll count that as a quibble, arising from
the fact that WB is a popular book and not
a scientific paper.
JJ: “…the ingestion of protein
can impact blood glucose by causing insulin
release and through its digestion produce
amino acids that are glucogenic.”
BN: Semi straw man: I don't think WB gets into
glucogensis of protein at all, and I'm not sure
it needs to. But the point is interesting, if
somewhat self-defeating. If glucose from protein
is significant, and cells have to have only
glucose, why would we need the aforementioned
pasta carbs?
JJ: “Further, stating that an omelet
does not raise insulin is incorrect. All food
proteins stimulate insulin release (25),
although not all stimulate its release to the
same degree.”
BN: Is this arguing “no” vs.
“insignificant” again? I can't tell.
It does raise a separate interesting question
that I don't know the answer to: Is it a problem
if some food provokes an insulin response without
actually causing a corresponding rise in blood sugar?
JJ: “Foods such as milk, which has a
very low GI, have a great capacity to stimulate
insulin release through the release of incretin
hormones and the presence of insulinotropic
amino acids.”
BN: Semi straw man: this is a major reason WB
is cautious on unfermented dairy (page 180).
JJ: “Whole-wheat bread does yield higher
blood sugar than kidney beans or potato chips
for several reasons. First, beans are a great
source of dietary fiber, some of it soluble,
which lowers blood glucose response. Second,
the carbohydrate in beans is less available.
Potato chips have a lower glycemic response
than whole-wheat bread because they contain
more than 35% fat, and fat impedes amylases.
Further, starch in potato chips has been cooked
and cooled, causing the starch molecule in the
food to crystallize and produce a lower
glycemic response.”
BN: Another confessional moment. The above is
disputing nothing.
Topic: Addiction and Mental Function
Point: Wheat is the “world's
most destructive dietary ingredient, …
exorphins …"
JJ: “Studies conducted by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) show that pepsin hydrolysis
of wheat proteins can produce peptides that interact
with opioid receptors (26).”
BN: Confirmation: the effect is real.
JJ: “However, the same NIH study that
verifies Davis' claim about the production of
such peptides from the breakdown of wheat also
shows that other food proteins also produce
peptides with the capacity to interact with
opioid receptors (27). In other words,
the claim that wheat is unique in this regard
is incorrect.”
BN: Do these other foods produce them in comparable
dosages at typical consumption levels?
Is the effect the same? Is the effect altered
on a low-carb grain-free diet? In other words,
do the other peptides matter? No answer given.
Anyone care to dissect the study?
JJ: “Further, the studies indicating
wheat's possible opioid potential were conducted
either in vitro or by feeding the preformed
peptides (29), not the wheat itself.
The authors of the 1979 NIH in vitro study
conclude by stating that peptides derived from
some food proteins may be of physiological
importance, but that further studies must show
that these peptides are absorbed and delivered
intact to the various opioid receptors at dose
levels that can have an impact (30).
Experiments feeding wheat foods, not hydrolysates,
must be conducted to determine the actual effects
of peptides from gluten breakdown.”
BN: Yes, a real trial would be valuable. With what
is now known or suspected about wheat, is it even
possible to run an ethical trial today? Who wants
to volunteer for the wheat-eating group?
JJ: “Some studies have also shown
beneficial effects of these peptides. If available
to the body, they have the potential to improve
learning performance and to help control blood
pressure (31-33).”
BN: OK, can we get them without the wheat?
Will the FDA and DEA allow it? Or can we
simply get the same benefits from an entirely
different diet?
Point: Wheat opioids are so
addictive they cause people to be unable to
control their eating, and removal of wheat
from the diet causes withdrawal.
JJ: “The control of eating and the
onset of satiety are affected by many mechanisms,
from physical feelings of fullness (distention)
to neuroendocrine, psycho/emotional, social, and
sensory factors. While some suggest certain foods,
such as sugars and fats, are addictive, the subject
is very controversial. Supporting evidence is weak
and scarce, with no data on humans (30,34).
Human data on withdrawal effects from foods or
their components, except for caffeine, are nonexistent.
There is no evidence to substantiate Davis' claims
about withdrawal symptoms resulting from removal
of wheat from the diet.”
BN: So if you had uncontrollable munchies before
giving up wheat, then withdrawal symptoms, and
now have no cravings, and only eat what you
actually need, remember: that's not evidence
of anything to Dr. Jones, who doesn't even
propose that this be trialed. The results could
be a problem, I suppose.
JJ: “In addition, Davis' claims that
wheat causes uncontrollable overeating conflict
with existing data, which show release of
satiety hormones resulting from the ingestion
of wheat. Proteins stimulate cholecystokinin
and glucagon-like peptide 1 release, and
wheat and pea proteins show a stronger ability
than other sources to stimulate the release of
both hormones (35). The ability of gluten
to stimulate two satiety hormones calls into
question Davis' claim that it spurs eating.
In fact, some data suggest that consumption
of proteins such as those in gluten may be a
good dietary strategy for weight
management (39).”
BN: OK, but what actual eating behavior accompanies
“release of satiety hormones”.
That non-denial denial is fully consistent with
an outcome of:
“well Harry, we see the SH rises in
these subjects, but they keep gobbling up all
the pastries in spite of that”.
Note that Dr. Jones does not actually
claim that eating wheat has no appetite effect,
nor causes you to eat less.
JJ: “There is little data showing that
wheat consumption alters mood or mental acuity.”
BN: Note that the sentence is not followed by
“much data show the opposite”.
It's apparently just a not-a-lot-of-data-either-way
situation, to Dr. Jones.
JJ: “In a study with a small number of
patients with celiac disease, gluten restriction
failed to improve the neurological
disability (36).”
BN: Note the change of topic: Dr. Davis speaks
of wheat consumption. Dr. Jones speaks of
gluten restriction. And this was a study, not a
trial. Anyone care to dive into that one and see
what the original experiments or trials were actually
testing for, and controlling for, what else was in
the diet, and what neuro function was measured.
So, if back when you were eating wheat, you could
not read this AACCI paper without your eyes glazing
over, but now you can see right through as if you
had X-ray vision, that's not evidence of improved
neurological condition due to wheat elimination.
JJ: “In contrast, increased serotonin is
associated with a sense of well-being and elevates
mood.”
BN: Until the craving starts in again, anyway. How
did serotonin enter this discussion anyway? It's
not in the WB book. It's derived from tryptophan,
and wheat is not a major source of that. There's
2x as much in turkey, and 8x as much in eggs.
JJ: “Wheat biscuits added to the diets
of malnourished Indian primary school-aged children
actually improved cognitive ability (37).”
BN: Pick. Up. Jaw. Any kind of food would have had
a similar result. This is probably the same late
paleo faustian bargain that got humans into glycemic
trouble in the first place. Sure, if certain death
by starvation is the alternative, eat wheat.
JJ: “There is data suggesting that adding
lysine to grain-based diets may reduce measures
of anxiety.”
BN: Folic acid deja vu. If you don't eat wheat,
you'll be folic acid and lysine deficient! Umm,
wheat doesn't contain those. Wheat flour contains
folates, but only because it was added, and at what
net price to our health? How about we just eat
actually healthy foods that contain those, or
take supplements?
JJ: “Another study shows that the ingestion
of many proteins, including wheat gluten, lowers
tryptophan levels. However, wheat also contains
carbohydrate, which causes insulin release and
changes the ratio of tryptophan to other neutral
amino acids, causing an increase in tryptophan and,
thus, an increase in serotonin levels (39,40).”
BN: Ah, here's the serotinin hand waving. How about
we just eat some eggs?
Wheat Breeding and Genetics
Point: Wheat is the product of genetic
research, and today we are eating genetically altered wheat.
JJ: “Modern cultivated food plants are the
product of thousands of years of plant breeding,
and wheat is no exception. Breeding programs have
enabled a number of positive outcomes in terms of
plant yield, food quality, and nutritional value.”
BN: Note: “a number” - a tacit
admission that not all outcomes are positive, as
indeed they are not. Note that food safety is not
on the putative list of positive outcomes.
JJ: “Wheat breeding is not, as Davis
suggests, a new technology that has occurred
since 1940, although efforts such as those by
Norman Borlaug and others have resulted in
significant advances.”
BN: Straw man. I doubt Dr. Davis suggests
that wheat breeding per se is new. Accelerated
breeding is new. Chemical and radio mutagenesis
is new. Embryo rescue is probably new. These
“non-GMO” techniques have introduced
genetic changes that might take millennia in the
wild, or might be flat out impossible. Dear grain
industry, please show us the results of the long
term food safety testing. You did do that, didn't you?
JJ: “In 1970 Borlaug won the Noble Peace
Prize for his wheat and grain breeding programs.”
BN: Yasser Arafat also won that prize (which is
granted through a process utterly distinct from
the scientific Nobel prizes). I don't mean to
equate Borlaug with Arafat, but I personally
would be embarrassed to win the Peace Prize.
Fallacy: Appeal to authority
Grade: Fail
JJ: “Programs such as his produced grains
with high yields that grow under a wide variety
of conditions and help address world food supply
challenges.”
BN: There is no dispute about this. What Borlaug
did exploded the availability of wheat as a food,
but was that actually a net benefit? Or did it
turn a starvation crisis into a disease crisis?
JJ: “Despite the implication in the book,
these varieties were produced using traditional
plant breeding techniques.”
BN: Translation: “traditional” See:
WORSE than Genetic Modification
Dr. Jones has an opportunity here to
elaborate on the grain industry's definition of
“traditional breeding techniques”,
but declines to do so. If you assume that it means
merely controlled pollenization and annual selective
breeding, you'd be mistaken, and the industry has no
apparent desire to enlighten you.
JJ: “Currently, there are no commercially
available, genetically modified wheat varieties sold.”
BN: No dispute there either, although Dr. Davis
is often falsely accused of claiming the opposite,
usually implicitly, by clever people making unqualified
statements just like that quote. Articles that rely
on this AACCI paper often lead with this particular
straw man. I do note the qualifier
“Currently”.
Thanks for the ominous warning.
Point: There are currently
22,000-25,000 varieties of wheat, which are all
the result of human intervention, …
JJ: “ … Following Davis' logic,
most of the foods we eat, not just wheat, have
the potential to put us at risk, since nearly all
of the food crops grown today are the product of
plant breeding. He also implies that the new
varieties and the proteins they express are
either unique or in some way harmful.”
BN: And she stops at that point. No argument.
No refutation. No discussion. So presumably,
she assents: yes, the proteins may be unique,
and yes, they may be harmful.
Point: Dwarf wheats now comprise
99% of the wheat grown worldwide, and their
safety has never been tested on humans or animals.
He claims that agricultural scientists scoff at
the idea that hybridization could generate hybrids
that are unsafe for human consumption.
BN: Dr. Jones says nothing in this section
to contradict the above (which may or may not
accurately characterize Dr. Davis' position).
I call another assent.
Point continues: He states that
5% of the proteins are unique, meaning they are
found in neither parent. He further claims that
this unexpected genetic rearrangement results in
altered proteins with potentially toxic effects.
BN: Dr. Jones goes on to say nothing that
denies the risk of toxic effects:
Another assent.
JJ: “Short-straw, naked wheats have been
readily adopted by farmers around the world because
more wheat can be harvested from less land with
fewer inputs. A short straw is a particularly
desirable trait in that it makes the seed head
less likely to lodge (a condition where the heavy
head falls to the ground and remains unharvested),
thus preventing loss of grain during harvest.
In a world with an ever-increasing human population
that is searching for sustainability, the requirement
for fewer inputs and the need for less land is
vital.”
BN: I was going to omit that quote as non-responsive,
but it's revealing in its own way. Note that none
of it addresses the topic, so why was it included?
Was it perhaps threatening the reader with starvation
if they eschew wheat? Was it correcting an earlier
industry gaffe, outside the paper, on why farmers
adopted semi-dwarf hybrid wheat?
JJ: “In addition, plants can only express
proteins they have the DNA code to produce. Creating
a unique protein requires a mutation of the DNA or RNA.
Environmental conditions can cause or inhibit the
expression of certain proteins, but it cannot code
for proteins that aren't in the genome; …”
BN: This is not addressing any dispute.
JJ: “… thus, hybridization of
wheat does not create unique proteins (41).”
BN: Hello? Use of the word “thus” does
not convert an incomplete string of elementary
tautologies into a logical proof. So how is it
that modern wheat expresses proteins different
from einkorn, if only “traditional”
breeding methods have been used?
Mutations occur. They occur naturally because parents
aren't clones, through errors in replication,
environmental factors, background radiation, etc.
This causes offspring to have different DNA/RNA vs.
parents. In the natural world, it's a slow process,
and any fragile offspring usually don't get to pass
it on. In the wheat lab, chemical and high-dose
radiation mutagenesis can produce larger (if more
severe and more random) variations, and more quickly.
Fragile embryos can get artificial assistance to
survive to reproductive age. What kind of proteins
are thus expressed? Largely unpredictable, I'm
thinking, and often radically different from the
ancestor plants. Toxic? Well, that is the question,
isn't it. We need only see those long term food
safety test results.
Point: Ancient wheats such as
einkorn contain 28% protein compared to average
protein contents of 12-15% in modern wheats.
Further, ancient wheats did not cause the symptoms
that new varieties do.
JJ: “The USDA World Wheat Collection
shows an approximately threefold variation in
protein content (from 7 to 22%),
with about one-third of this under genetic
control and the remaining two-thirds controlled
by environmental conditions (42).”
BN: “variation in protein”
in what? ancient wheat? modern? What's her point,
and is it a point without a point? And is the
USDA WWC the optimal reference for heirloom wheat?
Finally, notice that no response is given to the
claim that ancient wheats didn't cause the
symptoms that the new varieties do.
I'll call one quibble and one assent.
Topic: Celiac Disease
Point: Celiac patients lose weight
when they eliminate wheat from their diet.
BN: This borders on academic fraud. Dr. Davis
does not say this. He says that celiac patients
may lose or gain weight after wheat removal,
depending on factors like whether they were
malnourished and underweight before going
wheat-free. It is this kind of misrepresentation
that persuaded me that chasing down Dr. Jones'
cites would be a waste of time (in addition to the
likelihood of glycemic confounding).
JJ: “Numerous studies have shown that
adults and children with celiac disease who stick
to a gluten-free diet have higher BMIs than those
who do not (43-46). This is due in part to
the highly available starch in diets based on
tapioca, potato, and corn starches. The average
gluten-free diet yields 6 g of dietary fiber
per day, compared to the 12-15 g/day of
average Americans and the recommended 25 g/day
for women and 38 g/day for men.”
BN: Translation: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Dr. Jones decides to ignore Dr. Davis'
Mayo study, which yielded weight results, and substitute
her own, which speaks of BMI. Her apple does not
automatically contradict his avocado.
I'm also going to assert that, just like the rest
of us, the weight outcomes for wheat-free celiacs
are going to be heavily influenced by what they
eat instead. So the whole argument here is a
quibble in a bowl of quinoa.
Point: Glutenins have been selected
by plant breeders, and these proteins in the
D genome of wheat trigger celiac disease.
JJ: “Breeders do select for a number of
characteristics in wheat. These include increased
yield, disease resistance, tolerance to drought
and other agronomic conditions, improved nutrient
content through measures to increase total protein
or the amino acid lysine, and improved
breadmaking quality.
When talking about breadmaking capability, Davis
is correct in stating that glutenins are sought
for their desirable properties. The presence of
certain high molecular weight (HMW) glutenins
helps to produce higher volume and other desirable
baking properties (47). Studies have shown
that immune system T cells do react to the
deamidated breakdown products of HMW
glutenins (48).”
BN: An assent there.
JJ: “However, data are needed to test
Davis' assertion that these proteins trigger
more reactions than those of ancient wheats or
even wheat varieties from 50 years ago.”
BN: To borrow a line from Dr. Strangelove
(an hour before doomsday): “Well, I'd
like to hold off judgment on a thing like that,
sir, until all the facts are in.” You
out there in the public can keep eating wheat,
getting fat, getting sick, and dying early,
until we have unambiguous data.
JJ: “Also, as mentioned previously,
certain gliadins are found in higher amounts
in modern wheats.”
BN: Oh, do tell. She doesn't.
JJ: “There are a few studies that
indicate that some older diploid varieties
are less likely to cause symptoms. One study
showed distinct differences in intestinal
T-cell responses to diploid species versus
tetraploid and hexaploid species (49).
Specifically, protein fragments equivalent
to the immunodominant 33mer are encoded by
alpha-gliadin genes on wheat chromosome 6D
and are absent from the gluten in diploid
einkorn (AA) and even certain cultivars
of tetraploid (A ABB) pasta wheat.
One recent paper (41) looked at celiac
disease-associated epitopes and found that one,
the glia-a9 epitope, was higher in modern
compared to domestic (landrace) varieties.
The glia-a20 epitope was lower.”
BN: Another confessional moment? I read this as:
yes, modern wheat might trigger celiac.
JJ: “Although Davis seems to argue against
wheat breeding, it may be possible to use breeding
to block various reactions that lead to celiac
breakdown of the villa and the sequelae of
adverse effects and symptoms (50).”
BN: “seems to argue” seems
made up to me. My guess is that Dr. Davis
thinks, as I do, that further tinkering with the
wheat genome is a waste of time, not just because
the modern crop is beyond rehabilitation, but
because making it into a safe and desirable human
food would turn it into yet another genetic alien
further distant from triticum aestivum than t.a.
is removed from einkorn, and flat out not
“wheat”.
“it may be possible” is
apparently addressed to the actual target audience
of Plexus, and/or to whoever commissioned this
paper, if anyone. Folks, the grain industry
thinks they can bio-engineer their way out of
this poison pit. Well, good luck with that.
Excuse me if I decline to join the focus group
taste-testing the result.
Point: The incidence of celiac
disease has increased four-fold over the last
50 years. This finding is related to the fact
that celiac-triggering proteins are expressed
at higher levels in current wheat varieties
than was found 50 years ago.
JJ: “Celiac titers in blood samples from
recent U.S. Air Force recruits were compared by
Mayo Clinic gastroenterologist Joe Murray and
colleagues (51) with stored blood samples
taken from recruits more than 50 years ago.
The analysis shows that 0.2% of recruits had the
gene in 1950 compared with 0.9% of recent recruits,
which as Davis reports is a quadrupling of the
incidence rate. Data from Finland also show an
increase from 1 to 2% or a doubling
of the rate of celiac incidence in that
population (52). Part of the reported
increase may be due to better identification
and awareness of the disease, as well as a
myriad of other dietary, immunological, and
environmental changes.”
BN: A confirmation of Dr. Davis data,
and note: dead silence on the cause-effect claim.
I'll call an assent.
Point: Celiac patients show increased
cancer rates.
JJ: “People with celiac disease have a
higher risk for developing lymphoma and small
bowel cancers, but most studies have found no
higher risk of colorectal cancer. A case-control
study showed that celiac disease is not associated
with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia (53).
A recent review suggests that cancer risks are
lower than was once thought (54).”
BN: A concur which then goes off the rails into
a quibble. And no discussion of the situation
that 90% of celiacs (the undiagnosed) are in,
not to mention the acutely gluten-sensitive
non-celiacs.
Aside: Here's a cultural slap in the face:
Phenylketonurics, who comprise only 0.007% of
the population, get a warning on all products
containing aspartame. What warning is on wheat
products for the 6% who are undiagnosed celiac
or acutely non-celiac wheat-sensitive?
Dr. Jones doesn't go there.
Point: Wheat is a source of allergens.
JJ: “The role of wheat as an allergen is
not news, as bakers asthma has been known since
Roman times, and wheat is categorized as one of
the “Big Eight” allergens, i.e.,
the most common allergens in Western countries.
Many wheat proteins can cause allergic reactions.
Allergies frequently are related to seed storage proteins,
and thus, glutenins are the most frequent allergens.
However, gliadins, particularly g-gliadin, result
in the most severe allergic reactions. The w-5
gliadin is responsible for wheat-dependent,
exercise-induced anaphylaxis and may be the
offending protein in the wheat allergies of
young children (55-58). In addition, there
are also allergies to albumins, globulins, and
enzyme inhibitors. (Interestingly, late
introduction of grains such as wheat and rye
and other solid foods into the diet has been
found to be responsible for greater allergic
sensitization in young children[59].)”
I'll call that a swarm of confessional moments,
unless I missed the Surgeon General's warning
on the bag of flour.
Point: Wheat is associated with
and may be a major cause of schizophrenia.
JJ: “It is true that schizophrenia
admissions during World War II decreased, as
observed by Dohan (60). Dohan (60)
theorized that this decrease correlated with
decreased wheat consumption and postulated links
between wheat, celiac disease, and schizophrenia.
Part of the theory suggests that wheat ingestion
affects tight junctions and reduces the gut's
capacity to prevent the entry of exogenous
substances, thus allowing the development of
schizophrenia and other mental conditions (61).
It is also known that schizophrenia incidence
increases with a combination of any autoimmune
disease and a history of severe infections (62).
It is thought that the antibodies produced can
impact the brain. In some studies a subset of
schizophrenia patients showed elevated gliadin
antibodies (63). However, anti-gliadin
immune response and anti-TG2 antibody or
HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 markers seen in celiac
patients were not found in individuals with
schizophrenia (64).
A comprehensive review looking at the connection
between gluten and schizophrenia showed that
gluten withdrawal resulted in a drastic reduction
or full remission of symptoms - but only among a
small subset of schizophrenia sufferers (65,66).
Thus, in a small subset of schizophrenia patients
removal of wheat might be helpful but would not
be the miracle cure described by Davis.”
BN: Another flurry of confessional moments,
followed by a blatant straw man. Dr. Davis
does not, to my recollection, or browsing in the
book just now, contend that wheat removal is a
miracle cure for all schizophrenics. The message
that I took from that section of the book was that
wheat removal is likely to provide some relief,
in many cases, and is easily worth trying.
Dr. Jones makes no recommendation. So,
I surmise, she wants you to keep popping your pills
(and eating wheat) until all the facts are in.
Point: Wheat is the cause of autism
and is associated with worsening symptoms or
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
JJ: “Case reports and other narratives
suggest there may be a link between autism and
celiac disease (67-70).”
BN: Note the changing of subject, from wheat to
celiac. This could be deliberate, or subconscious.
Until quite recently, grain advocates would not
acknowledge that their product was a hazard to
anyone but celiacs. So their Pavlovian response
to any discussion about wheat and toxicity may
be that only celiac/gluten issues are on the table.
JJ: “However, data are scarce. With
regard to autism, there is only one randomized
clinical trial. Its findings were nonsignificant
and were summarized in a Cochrane review (the gold
standard for reviews), which states there is a
need for large randomized-controlled trials (71).
Fasano, a noted celiac researcher, and a staff of
gastroenterologists, pediatricians, dietitians and
nurses at the Center for Celiac Research in
Baltimore, MD, suggest that although the
gluten-free, casein-free regimen advocated
as a “treatment” for autism is one
of the most popular diets its popularity may
stem from its low cost compared with other
“treatments.” The data in the
scientific literature showing the efficacy of
gluten-free, casein-free diets is inconclusive
(A. Fasano and Center for Celiac Research
staff, personal communication, 2011).
Similarly, studies examining associations between
wheat and hyperactivity in humans are lacking,
even though sensitivity to a number of foods,
including wheat, has been suggested in a number
of case reports on ADHD. Studies with very small
numbers of subjects show no improvement in ADHD
symptoms with a gluten-free diet (42).
In fact, one study showed a worsening of
behavior with a gluten-free diet.”
BN: More “wait until all the facts are in”.
Dig if you like, but expect to find high-glycemics
confounding what few results are available. And
note the condescending tone above resulting from
the fact that a GF diet is a low cost treatment.
Got an autism or ADHD challenge at your house? The
WB recommendation is:
DO try this at home (eliminate wheat, go low carb).
Point: The increase in celiac disease
parallels increases in other diseases such as
diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
JJ: “Celiac disease incidence has increased,
as has the incidence of other autoimmune diseases.
There are a number of theories about this phenomenon,
ranging from factors in the environment and oxidative
stress to the “hygiene theory” and
changes in the gut microbiome. In addition, there
is an increased likelihood of all autoimmune diseases
in patients with any other autoimmune disease. Family
members appear to share a genetic susceptibility
predisposing them to these diseases or autoimmune
diseases in general.”
BN: Confirmation of Dr. Davis data, with further
rambling that responds to claims not made.
Point: The risk for type 2 diabetes
is 20-fold higher for celiac patients. Children with
celiac disease are more likely to develop
type 1 diabetes and 20 times more
likely to have antibodies to wheat.
JJ: “There is a relationship between
celiac disease and type 1 diabetes (72).
The risk for type 1 diabetes is
5- to 20-fold higher in celiac
patients than in the general population (73,74).”
BN: I'll record that as a quibble.
Point: The elimination of wheat gluten
causes the incidence of [Type I]
diabetes to decrease from 64 to 15%
in genetically susceptible mice.
BN: I added the [Type I]. This is from the inset on
page 113 of Wheat Belly.
JJ: “Removal of wheat gluten from the
diet of non-obese diabetic mice has been found
to reduce the rate of type 1 diabetes.
Davis mentions that such studies have not been
done in humans.”
BN: A data
confirmation.
JJ: “However,
in one study with children elimination of
gluten from the diet of high-risk children
(first-order relatives of subjects with
type 1 diabetes) did reduce IgG
gliadin antibody titers, but specific
autoantibodies associated with
type 1 diabetes were not
affected (75). The 5 year follow-up
showed that gluten elimination did not in
fact delay or prevent the development of
type 1 diabetes. As a result, the
existing data do not fit Davis' claim that
removal of gluten from the diet will reduce
the incidence of diabetes (76).”
BN: That's pretty close to libel, or merely
egregious white paper incompetence. In the
context of T1D, Dr. Davis makes no claim
that eliminating wheat will reduce T1D, but
that “it's a question that truly needs
answering”. His focus is on testing for
celiac in pre-disposed families. And the closing
“incidence of diabetes”
again fails to distinguish T1D and T2D, which
might falsely lead the casual reader to think
that removing wheat has no effect on T2D.
JJ: “Furthermore, in a cohort of children
at risk for type 1 diabetes exposure to
cereals, including wheat, before 3 months or
after 7 months of age resulted in a significantly
higher risk for the appearance of islet cell
autoimmunity than exposure to cereals between
the ages of 4 and 6 months (77).
Thus, early or late first exposure to gluten
may have an impact on development of auto-immune
diseases. Breastfeeding at the time of gluten
introduction appears to impact disease outcomes.
There is, however, some concerning data about
type 1 diabetes and gluten. In a small
sample of type 1 diabetes patients,
mucosal inflammation was observed in jejunal
biopsies, and there was a deranged mucosal
immune response to gliadin in vitro (78).”
BN: This looks like two more confessional moments to me.
Point: Nobody becomes diabetic by gorging
on the wild boar they have hunted, berries they
have gathered, or wild salmon they have caught.
Ancient cultures such as the Natufians had no
diabetes.
JJ: ”First, there is no data on the
incidence of diabetes in cultures such as the
Natufians. The problem for most ancient cultures
was getting adequate calories to support their
calorie-demanding lifestyles. Although rare,
overweight did occur, so they may have had the
factors associated with the predisposition of
persons to type 2 diabetes. Further,
the average lifespan was quite short, so people
did not live to the ages at which
type 2 diabetes is most prevalent.
Finally, too much of any food, wild boar
included, can cause overweight and abnormalities
in blood lipids and glucose.”
BN: The WB book does not have any references
regarding the Natufians and diabetes (WB
page 97), but then, Dr. Jones doesn't
provide any either. I'm not personally familiar
with how diabetic inferences might be teased out
of the fossil record and ancient pictographs. So,
without further data, I'll call this tentatively
undecidable, and probably academic, as those peoples
are all now dead, whatever the cause. Of more
interest might be the experience of 20th and
21st century primitive, uncontacted and
culturally low-carb populations, but
Dr. Jones doesn't go there.
Point: Zonulin regulates intestinal
tight junctions, and gliadins trigger zonulin release.
JJ: The signaling protein zonulin controls
the opening and closing of tight junctions
between the cells of epithelial and endothelial
tissues such as the intestinal mucosa, blood
brain barrier, and pulmonary epithelia. It is
thought that gliadin allows the release of
zonulin, accounting for its role in leaky gut
associated with autoimmune diseases.”
BN: Confessional moment.
Point: Rheumatoid arthritis has been
cured with removal of gluten from the diet.
BN: More misrepresentation: what Dr. Davis
actually said (WB page 128): “Perhaps
it's a stretch to suggest that wheat gluten was
the initial inciting cause of the arthritis
…” and “In my experience,
arthritis unaccompanied by celiac antibodies
often responds to wheat elimination”.
Do you trust Dr. Jones paraphrasing?
I don't.
JJ: “Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease
with periods of remission. A study of food
intolerance in nearly 350 people with rheumatoid
arthritis showed that the number of people
reacting to gluten was not different from
the numbers in the normal population (79).”
BN: Dr. Jones didn't respond to Dr. Davis
cited (vegetarian) study, but lofted her own.
I haven't studied her study, but would need to
check it for glycemic confounding at least.
JJ: “Furthermore, among first-degree
relatives of celiac patients, rheumatoid arthritis
was not significantly increased, although juvenile
forms of arthritis were increased. In contrast to
Davis' claim, in one study a fermented wheat germ
extract actually reduced the need for arthritis
medication (80).”
BN: Dr. Davis specifically excluded celiacs
from his conjecture about arthritis, but
Dr. Jones drags them back in as useful
straw men.
JJ: “Weight loss is also known to
decrease the adverse effects of arthritis,
so some reports of rheumatoid arthritis
patients being “cured” may
be due to weight loss.”
BN: Even if I concede the point on cause and
effect here, what's causing the wheat-free
weight loss again?
Point: The human body prefers
an alkaline diet, which is obtained from fruits
and vegetables and makes it more difficult
for osteoclasts to dissolve bones, to an
acidic diet.
JJ: “First, there is much controversy
about the need for a diet that is alkaline to
prevent osteoporosis. However, even if this is
true, Davis' recommendations are inconsistent.
He eschews grains because they produce acid,
…”
BN: False. Dr. Davis eschews grains due to
their payload of other, more serious stealth toxins.
The acid just incrementally adds to the payload.
When reading the book, I took it as just another
charge on the rap sheet.
JJ: “… yet he recommends …
which are also acid producers, and bans foods
such as … that are high in alkali-producing
compounds.”
BN: What I take from WB is that the various foods
are encouraged or discouraged primarily based on
toxin load, carb load, fat type and other factors
more significant than Ph. Ph doesn't
seem to be a major focus of the dietary recommendations.
The new Cookbook, for example, includes macronutrient
data, but not Ph.
Point: Animal protein increases IGF-1
production and helps with bone growth, while
gluten causes bone resorption.
JJ: “IGF-1 does indeed help with bone
growth. However, although there are some studies
that show that diets high in animal protein help
with bone mineral content and density (81,82),
others show that diets high in animal or meat
protein are associated with loss of bone mineral
and density (83,84). Two studies cited by
Davis do not actually support his claims.”
BN: I haven't chased down either the WB cites,
or those here. Do so if you like, readers.
By this point, I had learned that Dr. Jones'
restatements of what other people say are not
to be trusted, unless they are direct quotes,
in context.
JJ: “One shows that there should be
more vegetable foods and fewer animal foods
consumed for optimum bone growth (85).
The other (86) shows that the
“vegetable protein gluten does not appear
to have a negative effect on calcium balance
despite increased urinary calcium loss.”
(There is some concern that Western diets
increase IGF-1 and may increase the incidence
of some types of cancer [87].)””
BN: I'm not sure what to make of these remarks.
So where is the spilled Ca coming from? And
with the emerging news about glucose and cancer,
any IGF-1 link is probably irrelevant.
Point: Dietary carbohydrate, especially
carbohydrates from wheat, result in advanced
glycation end products (AGEs). AGEs are involved
in the disease complications of diabetes and
cause everything from dementia to erectile
dysfunction. Less glycation slows aging.
Levels increase with increased inflammation.
JJ: “AGEs are considered biomarkers of
aging and are associated with several degenerative
diseases. AGEs form at higher levels in people with
prediabetes and diabetes. They can build up in any
tissue and can cause complications when they do.
Davis correctly notes that ingestion of too much
of any carbohydrate has the potential to do this.
He also correctly notes that AGEs increase as
inflammation increases, as occurs with most
disease and chronic conditions. Although some
data show that low-GI carbohydrates are associated
with lower production of AGEs (88), fructose,
despite its low GI, can also cause AGEs - a point
Davis makes in his book.”
BN: Data confirmation
JJ: “However, there is no basis on which
to single out wheat.”
BN: And Dr. Davis doesn't single out wheat on AGE.
Dr. Jones made that up. The book also counsels
against fructose with equal fervor on the AGE issue,
and closes the topic by advising a diet low in
“some foods
that trigger AGE formation more vigorously”.
AGE is just another charge on the rap sheet.
JJ: “… Further, the diets Davis
advocates, which are high in meats, also increase AGEs.
… Thus, Davis' recommended diet, which is
high in animal products and excludes wheat products,
does not fit with the existing data on AGEs.”
BN: So in the references Dr. Jones is relying on,
what were the cooking temperatures? WB, on page 141,
addresses this is issue of AGE and meat directly.
Cook in water. Avoid high temps.
BN: Dr. Davis didn't say that. Dr. Jones
made it up. Dr. Davis (WB page 151) blames
“… carbohydrates.
Chief among the carbohydrates? Wheat, of course”,
and later (WB page 159) says: “Dramatic
reductions in small LDL particles can be accomplished
by eliminating wheat products, provided your diet is
otherwise healthy …”. Wheat isn't
singled out on small LDL, it's just the leader of
the gang. Recall that unlike other comparably fast
carbs, it's also addictive and appetite stimulating.
JJ: “Diets high in carbohydrate do
increase small dense, atherogenic LDL particles.
However, diets containing recommended carbohydrate
levels and preferred fats result in the more
desirable large LDL particles.”
BN: Why not just reduce the small LDLs? Not addressed.
JJ: “In addition, the carbohydrates in
wheat do not cause a size change in LDL particles
any more than any other carbohydrate type.”
BN: Straw man. Dr. Davis never asserted that.
JJ: “Weight loss and exercise are the
best way to decrease small, dense LDL
particles (90).”
BN: And how does WB compare to My Plate on weight
loss? Not addressed. The “exercise”
I read as: blame the victim.
JJ: “The key to managing the ratio of
large to small LDL particles, especially in the
overweight or those with metabolic syndrome, is
to make certain there is adequate n-3 fatty
acids in the diet and to focus on a diet that
contains moderate levels of carbohydrate, such
as the Mediterranean diet (90,91).”
BN: This seems to imply that high small-LDL is
OK as long as high large-LDL is present.
I suspect that's not true.
“moderate” is unspecified mantra.
Point: A re-analysis of Colin Campbell's
data shows it to be biased and that coronary heart
disease (CHD) is related to wheat flour consumption.
BN: This is the Minger re-analysis (WB page 160).
JJ: “… The China Study (92).
… There are several problems with Davis'
claim that the data are biased. First, re-analysis
would be difficult, and any re-analysis should be
subject to the rigors of the scientific review
process.”
BN: That's actually Minger's re-analysis, and
Dr. Jones declines to even mention Minger.
JJ: “Second, rice, not wheat, is the
dominate staple in most areas of China, so it
is not possible to draw conclusions about wheat
from these data.”
BN: I see a chart that is specifically
“wheat flour”. Why didn't
Dr. Jones call it into question?
JJ: “Third, there are a number of
studies showing the advantages of plant-based
diets (93).”
BN: Unresponsive.
Point: Elimination of wheat cures acne
and related disfigurations, other skin problems,
and alopecia areata. … When Bantus move
to the West, they develop acne. …The
high GI of sucrose and wheat in doughnuts and
cookies causes acne.
JJ: “This type of deductive reasoning
is troubling. There are many problems with such
logic and conclusions drawn from it.”
BN: Except that anyone with acne can run a very
simple, no risk, low cost experiment to see if
the high correlation is causality in their case,
and get results in days or weeks (and re-challenge
if they dare). Once again, DO try this at home.
JJ: “First, there is no documentation
that Bantus have no acne. Moving to the West
means many dietary and lifestyle changes, so
it is simplistic to say that wheat is the only
change that matters. When many move to westernized
countries, they gain weight and usually eat more
red meat, fat, and total calories.”
BN: Note that Bantus were only one of seven groups
that Dr. Davis identified as being acne-free
on the native diet. Why did Dr. Jones pick
on the Bantu reference to hang her “wait
until all the facts are in” complaint about
scarce data?
JJ: “In terms of dietary carbohydrates,
GI, and acne, the few studies that exist fail
to show a relationship between these (94).”
BN: I can imagine how well controlled that data is.
I'm willing to be mistaken.
JJ: “In terms of documented evidence,
there is one reference in Med-Line (www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pmresources.html)
that appears when the search terms are
“wheat” and “acne”
(searched in January 2012). The data
in this study actually show that compounds
in wheat seed may protect against acne (95).
Two entries appear when the search terms are
“gluten” and “acne.”
These references refer to dermatitis
herpetiformis, the type of dermatitis
associated with celiac disease and gluten
sensitivity. Searching for “dermatitis”
and “wheat” results in 270 references
related to associations with allergies or gluten
intolerance.”
BN: Were those isolated compounds from wheat seed?
What else was in the diet? I read the rest of
that as “darn, I can't quickly find solid
data to refute Davis”.
This is also the first use of the phrase
“gluten sensitivity” in
her responses. This is new for the grain
industry in the last two years. Prior to
that, they would only acknowledge celiac
as a problem. Now they only admit to gluten
as a potential problem with wheat. Acute
non-celiac wheat sensitive doesn't yet
exist for them, and all the other highly-correlated
chronic conditions that vanish with the wheat,
and recur harshly on re-exposure, are apparently
mere anecdotes, of no particular interest.
So what advice does Dr. Jones have going forward
on this? Doesn't even suggest more study or trials.
Again, the WB advice is: DO try this at home.
You will shortly learn if Dr. Davis is correct.
Nutrition Considerations
Point: “Wheat deficiency”
is a condition that develops when wheat is
removed from the diet and results in ….
JJ: “Wheat deficiency” is a term
newly coined by Davis. Diets that eliminate wheat
may indeed be lower in calories since the
limitation of wheat intake severely curtails
overall food intake, automatically limiting
food choices and calories because wheat is a
component in so many foods.”
BN: Utterly false, but let me translate the
“lower in calories” anyway.
It means:
“The grain industry has managed to
contaminate so many products
with this toxin that there's almost
nothing left for you to eat [evil cackle],
and your little dog too”.
WB is not a calorie-restricted diet,
so how again does that result in weight loss?
This household has plenty to eat, thank you
very much.
JJ: “There is no data suggesting
that wheat elimination, in and of itself,
causes people to eat less.”
BN: So for all you book, blog and forum readers
who had exactly that experience: ditch wheat,
eat less, loose weight, crave nothing; bid
adieu to health problems, just remember - the
grain industry says your results are not
“data”, and you shouldn't
be relying on your "anecdotal" personal
real life experience to guide your eating choices,
even if you've accidentally or deliberately
challenged it by re-consuming wheat, and had
a nasty reaction.
Point: No nutritional deficiency
will occur if you stop consuming wheat, wholegrains,
and other processed foods. The American Heart
Associations recommendation for whole grains
is “NONSENSE, absolute, unadulterated,
180-proof, whole grain nonsense.”
JJ: “It is true diets without wheat
can be nutritious.”
BN: Major confessional moment. This means, dear
munchers, that wheat does not need to be in
the USDA My Plate, spoken by an actual steward
(if not an architect) of that official dogma.
That said, there's an attitude seen in the
following “analyses” that seems
to suggest that Dr. Jones is convinced
that readers will take the subtitle of the
book, “lose the wheat”, to heart,
and then ignore everything else the book has
to say about what you replace it with.
JJ: “The verb “can be”
is used because wheat-free diets, like all diets,
need to be carefully constructed. Unfortunately,
the average gluten-free diet contains only
6 g of dietary fiber per day (96).
This is considerably lower than the
25-38 g/day recommended by the Institutes
of Medicine. In addition, a number of benefits
are associated with cereal fiber. For Western
diets, wheat and its bran are the main sources
of cereal fiber, so the elimination of all wheat
products makes meeting fiber requirements more
difficult.”
BN: Straw man. The WB recommendation is massively
not an “average gluten-free diet”.
Fiber is not limited. The recipes typically contain
at least 6 grams per serving, and Dr. Davis
declares as below …
Point: The replacement of wheat with
vegetables and nuts can result in an increase in
fiber intake.
JJ: “Vegetables and nuts are important
sources of fiber, but fiber intake depends on
dietary choices. Substitution of 1 oz of
nuts or a serving of carrots for two slices of
whole-wheat bread provides about the same amount
of dietary fiber, but a serving of greens
(1 cup of raw spinach) provides much
less fiber.”
BN: Translation: if you care about what you eat,
then you have to care about (pay attention to)
what you eat. I think I can handle that.
But notice - no dire warning that wheat-free
is automatically, or even at high risk of,
being low-fiber.
Point: Foods fortified with various
vitamins would not be required if people eliminated
wheat and processed foods and consumed real foods.
JJ: “Fortified foods, except those with
folate, would not be required if people ate foods
that follow a dietary pattern recommended by the
USDA Dietary Guidelines and MyPlate. However,
only 3-8% of the population follows the USDA
MyPlate guidelines (97,98).”
BN: I'll put that down as a qualified no contest.
JJ: “Data from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and other
dietary surveys do not support Davis' claim.
Fortified foods contribute significantly to
diet quality (99).”
BN: Straw man. Those results are based on typical
America diets, I'd guess, and have no relation to
the WB dietary recommendations.
JJ: “Those eating fortified breakfast
cereals meet more of the nutrient requirements
than those who eat noncereal breakfasts or no
breakfast at all and show other better health
endpoints (100,101).”
BN: What if we ate the add-ins, and left the
cereal in the box? Why do we have to consume
your poison to get needed nutrients? And
comparing cereals to no food at all is just
laughable.
Dr. Davis' point is that we can get all
we need from “real” food, but we
have to be deliberate about it. Dr. Jones
appears to be advocating: let the industry
handle that for you. Swallow the advertising,
and the wheat, and we'll see that you get
enough vitamin X.
JJ: “Contrary to the implication that
processed foods impede the attainment of a
nutritious diet, they in fact enable many to
procure a nutritious diet. There are numerous
examples of the use of frozen fruits and
vegetables and other foods that can be
combined to create an economical, sustainable
diet. Removing processed foods from the diet
does not necessarily mean the diet chosen
will be balanced or healthy.”
BN: “processed foods impede the
attainment of a nutritious diet”
is (once again) not a quote from Dr. Davis,
who merely points out their hazards. My experience
is that it is possible for a processed food to be
healthy, and I expect the choices of such to
expand, but right now, the default presumption
is: guilty until proven innocent by rigorous
cross-examination of the NF panel.
Then we get yet another straw man. Are not frozen,
otherwise unprocessed veggies “real”,
as recommended by Dr. Davis? What wool is
being pulled here? We close with yet another
vague warning about dietary heresy (yet no
concern is raised about the 92% non-compliance
with MyPlate).
Point: Folates in foods are superior
to folic acid added to fortified foods. A handful
of sunflower seeds, 1 cup of spinach, or
4 asparagus spears yield more folate than
most breakfast cereals.
BN: More misrepresentation. Dr. Davis says
“natural sources may be superior”.
Dr. Jones also neglects to mention Dr. Davis'
advice for certain people who still need supplements.
JJ: “Folate naturally occurring in foods
often needs to be deconjugated by an enzyme in the
body. The capacity to do this varies from person
to person. Thus, free folate is actually better
absorbed than folate in many foods (102).
Even though the foods Davis mentions contain
more folate than cereals, the folate may be
less well utilized when in the bound form
found in vegetables.”
BN: It's true that Dr. Davis didn't mention
the above, but then …
JJ: “In addition, many individuals
unfortunately do not eat folate-rich foods.
The per capita consumption of spinach is
1.9 lb/year (103) and that of
asparagus is 1.6 lb/year (104)
or <1 oz/day for each of them.
Obviously, most Americans do not get their
folate from vegetables.”
BN: Most American are eating wheat, too.
The goal of WB is to change all of that,
but Dr. Jones seems to think, but
doesn't say, that you'll just drop the
wheat, and ignore the rest of the WB
message.
Point: Elimination of wheat from
the diet enhances absorption of B12, folate, iron,
zinc, and magnesium since gastrointestinal health
increases.
JJ: “This statement is true only in the
case of people with gluten sensitivity or celiac
disease.”
BN: Let me restate how I actually read that:
“I can only allow this statement to
be true in the case of people with gluten
sensitivity or celiac disease.”
Note the implicit denial that there could be any
problems with wheat other than gluten. And what
Dr. Jones will probably never admit,
is that all humans are wheat-sensitive, it's
just a matter of degree and decades.
JJ: “For those with a normal gut, …”
BN: Recall that back at the zonulin topic
Dr. Jones confirmed that gliadins cause
leaky gut - no dispute, no debate, no discussion
of the implications. This means, in the present
topic, that the wheat-eating gut is not a
normal
gut, entirely apart from gluten effects.
Connect your own dots, Dr. Jones.
JJ: “… the absorption of minerals
can be impaired by the phytate in grains, but
there is also phytate and oxalate in the foods
Davis recommends.”
BN: Yep. Dr. Davis has said that this is a
“pick your battles” matter.
JJ: “Eating vegetables, legumes, and nuts
can also impair mineral absorption. B12 is found
only in animal products or fortified foods.
Fortified cereals are a major source of B12
for those who are vegetarians.”
BN: This is not a disputed matter, but I've left
the quote in for the benefit of vegetarian and
vegan readers. B12 is one of your challenges
on a grain-free, low carb diet.
JJ: “Furthermore, wheat is
being considered as a possible vehicle for further
fortification with B12 (105). In general, foods
that are fortified have been chosen because they can
provide nutrients to a target group.”
BN: Translation: we're going to fix our product
if it's the last thing we do.
Tip: don't waste your time.
Point: Fasting is a powerful tool for
weight loss. It decreases blood pressure and
improves insulin.
BN: Once again, Dr. Jones restatement materially
misrepresents what the book actually says
(WB page 199). Weight loss is only one, and not
the first, benefit listed, and the inset goes on to
say that it's an “ordeal” if you are a
wheat eater, and causes “little or no
discomfort” if you aren't.
JJ: “Fasting is usually not recommended
as a method for weight loss because most dieters
fail to maintain weight loss long term.”
BN: Because they are eating your product when
they aren't fasting, Dr. Jones.
JJ: “Furthermore, fasting is particularly
problematic for those with diabetes or other
diseases where blood sugar must be controlled.
Ketones produced from the breakdown of fat can
cause the body to go into a dangerous condition
called metabolic ketoacidosis.”
BN: Yes, Dr. Davis might have cautioned
about that, on that page, but he didn't raise
the topic in the context of diabetes, and I would
expect that anyone with a diagnosis of diabetes
has already been counseled about DKA. I do
wonder if Dr. Jones knows the difference
between NK and DKA - many physicians don't.
If she doesn't, she's a woefully uninformed
(i.e. typical) nutritionist. If she does,
that would suggest more sinister motives.
JJ: “In his statements about fasting,
Davis adds an aside that wheat eaters find
fasting painful, while nonwheat eaters fast
regularly. Such statements have no basis
in fact.”
BN: So all you wheatlesss-bellyers, low-carbers
and keto explorers who report exactly what
Dr. Davis describes: your experience
doesn't count as fact. Dr. Jones doesn't
tell us if there is contrary data, or scarce
data, or that there will never be facts to
support Dr. Davis, another “wait
until all the facts are in” situation
I suppose.
Point: Reduce intake of all carbohydrates,
including alternative and gluten-free grains, even
though they do not produce opioids.
JJ: “The same experiment indicting gluten
also indicated that gluten-free grains do not
produce opioids. The same in vitro NIH study
showing that wheat produces opioids showed that
rice and soy also produce these peptides, but
there is still no information on the effect of
these peptides in vivo.”
BN: Dr. Jones does not argue with the low-carb
recommendation. She then addresses the opioid issue
with two entirely contradictory statements, and
ends with another implicit “wait until all
the facts are in” for good measure. I can't
tell what to make of those two sentences, and
Dr. Jones isn't helping. In many ways,
this whole analysis reads like a freshman term
paper, written in a hurry by someone who was
partying all term, instead of burrowing in the
stacks.
Point: The range of vegetables consumed
should be expanded to allow for the consumption of
nearly unlimited amounts of vegetables of many types.
People are encouraged to enjoy a range of tastes
and textures and add a wide variety of vegetables
to their diet.
JJ: “This is sound advice that concurs
with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,
USDA MyPyramid, and USDA MyPlate recommendations,
as well as a wide variety of public and private
efforts such as the Produce for Better Health
Foundation. Most nutritionists are trying to
trumpet this important message to all segments
of the U.S. population.”
BN: A concur.
JJ: Fruits should be included in the diet but
far less liberally than vegetables because they
are too rich in sugar that raises blood sugar.
Further, available fruits in North America are
treated with herbicides, fertilized, cross-bred,
gassed, and hybridized.
BN: Misrepresentation. The book (WB page 207)
says “But fruit, especially herbicided,
fertilized, cross-bred, and hybridized fruit,
has become too rich in sugar.”
JJ: “The U.S. Dietary Guidelines
recommend slightly more vegetable intake than
fruit intake, so there is some agreement with
Davis' statement. However, there is no agreement
with his reasoning regarding the sugar content
of fruit. While it is true that all sugars have
the capacity to raise blood sugar, research
shows that the inclusion of fruit actually
improves the quality of a diabetic diet (106)
and reduces incidence of metabolic syndrome and
related conditions (107).
BN: “fruit actually improves the quality
of a diabetic diet”
compared to
what, and how is “improves”
defined? I wouldn't be surprised if an ounce of
fruit sugar, delivered by fruit, might be less
toxic than an ounce of a pure granulated sugar
(assuming the same fructose load), just because
the fiber will slow the blood sugar rise. So we
have another straw man.
JJ: “As to Davis' statements about the
production of fruit in the United States, it is
interesting that he makes such claims only about
fruits and not vegetables, as both types of
produce can receive the same types of treatments.”
BN: Presumably Dr. Jones makes this
observation of alleged inconsistency because
she entirely missed Dr. Davis' point on
WB page 207 (and the Point summary above
is consistent with this diagnosis).
Point: Minimize heat injury while cooking
foods and never deep fry foods.
JJ: “It is recommended that frying as a
method of food preparation be used sparingly
because of the amount of fat it adds to the
diet and its potential to produce AGEs.”
BN: A concur.
Point: Eat 1-2 servings of full-fat
cheese per day, but limit cottage cheese, yogurt,
and dairy other than cheese.
JJ: “For most adults, 2 or more servings
of dairy per day are recommended, and cheese and
other dairy products is one way to meet recommendations
for dairy and obtain the calcium, vitamin D,
and riboflavin they contain. Most dietary guidelines
recommend consumption of low-fat cheeses, however,
because full-fat cheeses may be high in both
saturated fat and calories.”
BN: Wheat Belly's message is that “Most
dietary guidelines” are incorrect,
that “saturated fat” is
irrelevant (especially on a low carb diet),
and that “calories”
intake is largely irrelevant and self-regulating
on a low-carb grain-free diet.
JJ: “The call to limit cottage cheese
and yogurt does not have much literature to support it.”
BN: But some, apparently.
JJ: “In fact, there are several reviews of
numerous studies that show the importance of milk
and fermented milk products such as yogurt in the
diet (108,109).”
BN: In what kind of diet again? If I dug, I would
not be surprised to find ambiguous, possibly
misleading conclusions being teased out of
the high glycemic noise.
Point: Soy foods, as well as all foods
containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
should be avoided. Roundup-ready soybeans compared
with regular soybeans cause alterations in liver,
pancreatic, intestinal, and testicular tissues,
which can be directly shown to be caused by DNA
rearrangement at the insertion site. Foods
containing GMOs contain altered proteins that
have toxic effects.
BN: On this politically hot topic, I expect to see
a grain industry consultant at full battle stations.
JJ: “Reviews on this topic do not necessarily
reach the same conclusions as those in the review
cited by Davis (110). In contrast, the review
conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
draws the following conclusion about genetically
modified (GM) plants with improved agronomic
characteristics like herbicide tolerance and/or
insect resistance (111): “The majority
of these experiments did not indicate clinical
effects or histopathological abnormalities in
organs or tissues of exposed animals. In some
cases adverse effects were noted, which were
difficult to interpret due to shortcomings in
the studies.” In vivo nutrient bioavailability
for a range of GM plants was not significantly
different from that of isogenic non-GM lines and
commercial varieties. Further, the EFSA analysis
discusses the problem of applying methods designed
for testing the toxicity of microconstituents to
whole foods derived from GM plants. In many cases
large amounts of the food administered according
to standard toxicity methods leads to nutritional
imbalances and overfeeding. Thus, some of the
reports of adverse effects may not be due to GM
foods, but rather to disordered diets.”
BN: My lay person opinion on this: ambiguous
results from the high-noise glycemic diet framework.
Re-run the tests in a low-carb grain-free context.
If that, and long-term safety testing, appears to
exonerate the GM crop, I might consider eating it.
Point: Allow ground flaxseed, but limit
legume consumption to 1 cup (30-50 g)
in order to not have an undo impact on blood sugar.
JJ: “Both flaxseed and legumes have a
very low GI and have high levels of dietary fiber.
Health professionals and dietary guidelines
recommend increasing the intake of legumes as
a source of fiber, protein, folate, B vitamins,
and minerals, as well as for their ability to
lower cholesterol and control blood sugar.
Traditional medicine has long recommended
beans for these benefits as well (112).”
BN: A concur.
Point: Avoid figs and dates because they
have high GIs and are high in starches. Dried
fruits should be consumed rarely or never.
JJ: “Dried fruits have a range of GIs.
Like all carbohydrate-rich foods, their carbohydrates
need to be considered by diabetics as part of a
diet plan. Dried fruits are excellent sources of
dietary fiber and help with laxation. They also
contribute to mineral intake, including potassium,
a nutrient of concern.”
BN: A concur.
JJ: “Data from NHANES actually show that
those who eat dried fruits have better nutritional
profiles and eat more fruits and vegetables
overall (113). As a point of clarification,
neither figs nor dates contain starches.”
BN: Glycemic confounding, followed by a non-responsive remark.
Topic - Summary
JJ: “Wheat Belly uses charges about the evils
of wheat to tout the value of low-carbohydrate diets.
While these diets have been shown to promote rapid
weight loss in the medium term (6 months) and may
be advantageous for individuals with metabolic
syndrome and abnormal glucose tolerance, they
have not been shown to be long-term solutions
to obesity for most people.”
BN: This, once again, implicitly equates WB
with unspecified low-carb diets, not even
necessarily grain-free low-carb diets, and
concludes with “wait until all the facts
are in”. Having routinely misrepresented
what WB recommends, and why continued compliance
is easy, it's not surprising that the attitude
leaking out here is “this will fail too”.
JJ: “In fact the diets with the greatest
long-term success rates are those that include
all the food groups, only in smaller amounts;
recommend exercise four times per week; and
offer solutions that are sustainable over the
long term (114). A much larger proportion
of people who keep weight off do so with diets
that are high in fruits, vegetables, low-fat
dairy, lean meats, and whole grains than those
who follow other types of diets (115).”
BN: No effort was apparently expended to run a
short trial with university staff or students,
or to my knowledge, request any clinical results
from Dr. Davis, which probably extend back
several years now with his cardiac patients.
Instead we get the same dogma that has either
made the American belly, and public health
generally, what it is today, or has totally
failed to prevent it. If you do what you've
always done, you're going to get what you've
always got.
JJ: “It is quite probable that the strict
removal of wheat from the diet would result in weight
reduction, as wheat is incorporated into so many
foods that its elimination would likely cause a
significant reduction in calorie intake.”
BN: That sinister argument was addressed earlier.
JJ: “However, as with all weight loss plans,
it is calorie reduction, not food groups omitted,
that cause weight loss.”
BN: Begging the question again. Obstinate avoidance
of the fact that WB does not propose calorie restriction.
JJ: “Based on the recommendation to
eliminate wheat from the diet, the recipes
suggested in the book are extreme …”
BN: If you are a high priest of wheat, you bet
they're extreme.
JJ: “… and include items such
as wheat-free pizza, which is described by the
author as “not sturdy enough to hold in
your hand.”“
BN: That particular challenge had been met by the
time this paper was published. And I would never
give WB recipes low marks for failing to precisely
mimic popular dishes that were themselves major
errors to begin with.
JJ: “Consumers, even dieters, need the
sensory qualities of the foods they eat to meet
a basic standard, and sensory dissatisfaction
limits the long-term sustainability of a diet.”
BN: And the book was a great start on that. The
new Cookbook delivers even more satisfactory mimics.
This seems to be an argument of: You can't sell a
personal computer. There's no software for it.
And that's why, in 2013, computers are still found
only in corporate back rooms. It's also consistent
with: "Wheat based processed foods are very
carefully designed and extensively tested to make
you want more and more of them. Wheat snacks have
a 50-year head start on wheatless. Try wheat
products. Betcha can't eat {just} one."
JJ: “This book differs from other
low-carbohydrate diet books in that it names
wheat as the worst carbohydrate offender.
Further, the book claims that wheat is a
special problem because it forms an addictive
peptide.”
BN: Not just, but Dr. Jones worked hard to
ignore the other problems, since they don't fit
the “only gluten might be a problem”
posture of the industry.
JJ: “While wheat contains a number of
proteins that form peptides that interact with
opioid receptors in vitro, there is scant evidence
that these are effective in vivo or in the human
body. There is also little evidence to support
claims that wheat causes the withdrawal-like
symptoms associated with classic chemical
addictions.”
BN: Translation: Please keep eating wheat until
all the facts are in. Pay no attention to your
difficulty in controlling your appetite, or your
waistline.
JJ: “Davis also claims that elimination
of wheat from the diet results in the cure of many
conditions, from diabetes to rashes. Nearly all
of the conditions he claims are made better by
wheat removal are also improved by weight loss,
so his attribution of improvement to wheat removal
is overly simplistic and is likely an inaccurate
deduction.”
BN: Translation: Keep eating wheat, but work on that
weight loss thing (cackle). Yes, it's hard, but that's
just because you're weak and don't exercise enough
(snicker). Whatever you do, don't stop eating wheat
and go low carb for a month to see if your multiple
ailments go away. You might break the addiction
cycle, and that would be bad.
JJ: “In Wheat Belly, Davis also points out
the increase in the incidence of celiac and other
autoimmune diseases observed recently. He associates
this with genetic changes in wheat varieties and
gluten quality.”
BN: Not just, there's also dosage to consider. We have
the simultaneous problem that, in contrast to the
period prior to runt wheat, refined wheat now
contaminates the majority of prepared foods,
which Dr. Jones clumsily acknowledges when
she says things like “as wheat is
incorporated into so many foods that its elimination
would likely cause a significant reduction in
calorie intake”.
JJ: “A. Fasano and his group
at the Celiac Research Center in Baltimore list the
latter reason as one of a number of possible causes
for the increased incidence of celiac disease and
possibly other autoimmune diseases. Possible causes
include better detection and identification, genetic
predisposition, the too early addition of gluten to
infant diets and less breastfeeding, changes in baking
procedures such as shorter fermentation times, greater
addition of gluten to bakery products (especially due
to increased interest in whole grains), the clean
theory, i.e., that our lifestyles are too clean and
are increasing autoimmune reactions, increased use
of antibiotics, and changes in the micro-biome
(gut bacteria) with changes in the diet and
environment (A. Fasano and Center for Celiac
Research staff, personal communication, 2011).”
BN: Translation: Fellow wheaties, we may actually
have a problem with our product. In the meantime
here's a new blame-the-victim gambit (over-cleanliness)
to use. This is becoming a more widespread bit of
It Can't Be The Wheat propaganda,
under the name “hygiene hypothesis”.
JJ: “Wheat Belly makes assertions about
changes in modern wheat varieties and blames these
for many ailments. Plant breeders have met the call
for higher yields with less inputs, making modern
wheat varieties more “green,” and are
prepared to feed a global population of 9 billion,
which is predicted to be reached by 2050.
Short-straw, low-input wheat and other crops like
this will be necessary to meet environmental and
population challenges. Suggestions that growers
return to low-yield crops is not viable as a
sustainable agricultural plan.”
BN: Straw man: Where does WB suggest returning to
lower yield crops? It doesn't.
JJ: “For cereal chemists the book is
provocative, making many assertions. We as an
industry must work to ensure that we are up on
current information and be constantly vigilant
that changes in varieties and food products do
not have unintended consequences. We also need
to be able to counter unfounded theories and
charges about wheat and wheat products with
sound science and unbiased, critical reasoning.”
BN: Payload.
This is a big “uh oh” to the industry.
And notice that the “unintended consequences”
is very
carefully phrased so as to not provide any hint of
whether this thought has ever occurred to them
before, or that they've ever done anything about
it before.
JJ: “While some of the charges in the book
are disturbing, a recent review on refined grains is
reassuring. After a complete analysis (116)
of 135 studies in the literature, the authors
conclude that “The great majority found no
associations between the intake of refined-grain
foods and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, weight
gain, or overall mortality.”
BN: Translation: So keep on fooling yourselves with
these studies from high glycemic scenarios.
JJ: “A few studies found that very high
intakes might be associated with some types of
cancers, but at moderate levels of consumption
the risks were not significant.”
BN: So what was the supposed mechanism, Dr. Jones?
The paper doesn't say.
JJ: “The totality of evidence shows that
consumption of up to 50% of all grain foods as
refined-grain foods (without high levels of added fat,
sugar, or sodium) is not associated with any increased
disease risk.” The review also affirms that
eating more whole-grain foods remains an important
health recommendation.”
BN: That's nice. It ends with a reverent, if
self-delusional, chant of the dogma - from Chromosomes 14:42,
I'd guess.
Final Score
I see multiple confessional moments, numerous concurs,
confirmations and assents. I see a few quibbles, and
a pervasive, disturbing level of misrepresentation.
Unless one or more of Dr. Jones' cites is on-point,
correctly interpreted by her, controlled for glycemic
confounding, and not impeached by biases or other flaws,
I tally:
debunks: 0
refutations: 0
disproofs: 0
eagerness to actually test the WB theses: very close to 0
Whether you are a grain skeptic or a grain advocate,
this AACCI Analysis is not what you might have
assumed it was.
Bob Niland
[disclosures]
[topics]
Tags: AACCI,Julie Jones,Julie Jones,Plexus,Wheat Belly