Bread is evil...?

tibor

Following a lot of bickering and some interesting reading in the "What is the healthiest meat and bread to make a sandwich with?" thread, I thought this merited further discussion, hopefully without the bickering.

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

Does anyone have links to scientific studies on the subject? Not blogs where the author compares bread to international terrorism.

I'd like to read some peer reviewed stuff on the subject.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Ask and ye shall receive

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

If your going to go against the convectional wisdom of the masses then the onus is on you to back up your arguments, which at the moment consists almost exclusively of a collection of anecdotal evidence, one paper and a link to a search engine.

Irlandczyk wrote: »

Generally, when making an argument about something, you don't say "You want proof? Go find it." Regardless of whether the search engine link contained hundreds of papers or not, if you want to make a point, provide a quote from the article (preferably a few articles) and provide the link - directly to the paper the quote is derived from - below.

I found the Cereal Sword paper an interesting read but far from a justification of the vitriolic bread demonisation some posters have engaged in. The conclusion of the paper itself states the below, and largely attributes any potential negative impacts of cereal to "excessive" consumption.

Cereal Sword wrote:

Cereal grains obviously can be included in moderate amounts in the diets of most people without any noticeable, deleterious health eVects, and herein lies their strength. When combined with a variety of both animal- and plantbased foods, they provide a cheap and plentiful caloric source, capable of sustaining and promoting human life.

The paper also admits that many of the negative theories espoused about cereal are based on shaky foundations.

Cereal Sword wrote:

In the past 10 years has come the evidence (admittedly incomplete) that certain cereal peptides may interact with the immune system to elicit a variety of autoimmune-related diseases.

Is there more scientific research into this topic or has the wheat belly author been such a convincing salesman that few have bothered to look elsewhere?

Gbear

Bread just generally contains lots of heavily processed carbohydrates. You'd be surprised how much weight you can lose by just completely cutting out bread from your diet (if you tend to eat a lot).

Brown soda bread is probably grand. I think the problem arises with plain flower or more heavily processed flours because you can metabolise them more easily.

A lot of bread you get in supermarkets has a lot of salt and sugar in it. Baking your own white bread probably wouldn't be quite as bad but it would still contain a lot of calories.

yellowlabrador

my experience is that wheat really affects my health. I've suffered from red, swollen joints and kidney problems for about 20 years, I've been diagnosed with everything from lupus to rheumatoid artheritis, skin conditions, etc . I've been wheatfree for 2 years and all my symptoms disappeared, including really nasty boils.
I came down with flu over xmas, and feeling sorry for myself, wanted some comfort food for a change. I bought a small loaf of bread and some cake. I seriously regret it now. My knees are swollen to twice their size, are red and I can barely walk or use my hands, I'm in great pain, my back is killing me and my boils are back.
I have asked doctors about it and none have an answer apart from offering anti histamine. I'd love to see some research into it , because life can be hard avoiding grains.

Merkin

I bake my own wholemeal bread. I think it's a case of everything in moderation and home-produced bread with organic ingredients is a good source of fiber. The ingredients in my average loaf are as follows:

Wholmeal organic flour
Linseed, sunflower seeds, barley flakes, kibbled rye and sesame seeds
One free range egg
Bicarbonate of soda
Two tablespoons of olive oil
Low fat butter milk
Pinch of sea salt

I don't see (unless intolerant to wheat products) how the above, in small portions, can be bad for you.

Chancer3001

Sure bread is great.

its low fat boysh.

Oisinjm

This paper makes for some interesting reading on refined grains and the health outcomes of their consumption.

Oisín

yellowlabrador

Oisinjm wrote: »

This paper makes for some interesting reading on refined grains and the health outcomes of their consumption.

Oisín

have a look at the sponsorship.

siochain

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357746

most intresting thing in this is that in the trail the refined wheat group LDL when up and the whole-grain wheat stayed the same, with the info that groups such as the Irish heart foundation promote you would expect it to do down.

Whole grain compared with refined wheat decreases the percentage of body fat following a 12-week, energy-restricted dietary intervention in postmenopausal women.

Abstract
Observational studies show inverse associations between intake of whole grain and adiposity and cardiovascular risk; however, only a few dietary intervention trials have investigated the effect of whole-grain consumption on health outcomes. We studied the effect of replacing refined wheat (RW) with whole-grain wheat (WW) for 12 wk on body weight and composition after a 2-wk run-in period of consumption of RW-containing food intake. In this open-label randomized trial, 79 overweight or obese postmenopausal women were randomized to an energy-restricted diet (deficit of ~1250 kJ/d) with RW or WW foods providing 2 MJ/d. Body weight and composition, blood pressure, and concentration of circulating risk markers were measured at wk 0, 6, and 12. Fecal output and energy excretion were assessed during run-in and wk 12. Plasma alkylresorcinol analysis indicated good compliance with the intervention diets. Body weight decreased significantly from baseline in both the RW (-2.7 ± 1.9 kg) and WW (-3.6 ± 3.2 kg) groups, but the decreases did not differ between the groups (P = 0.11). The reduction in body fat percentage was greater in the WW group (-3.0%) than in the RW group (-2.1%) (P = 0.04). Serum total and LDL cholesterol increased by ~5% (P < 0.01) in the RW group but did not change in the WW group; hence, the changes differed between the groups (P = 0.02). In conclusion, consumption of whole-grain products resulted in a greater reduction in the percentage fat mass, whereas body weight changes did not differ between the RW and WW groups. Serum total and LDL cholesterol, two important risk factors of cardiovascular disease, increased with RW but not WW consumption, which may suggest a cardioprotective role for whole grain.

siochain

Mice in the study, intresting point regardless

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647415

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A diet rich in whole grain cereals is suggested to protect against type 2 diabetes and facilitate body weight regulation. However, little is known about the impact of different cereals and the underlying mechanisms. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term metabolic effects of diets supplemented with whole grain wheat or whole grain rye in the C57BL/6J mouse.

METHODS: Mice were fed the whole grain supplements in a low-fat background diet for 22 wk. Oral and intravenous glucose tolerance tests were performed during the study and in vitro insulin secretion assays were performed at the end of the study. Body weight, energy intake, body fat content, and plasma parameters were measured during the study.

RESULTS: A dietary supplement of whole grain rye suppressed body weight gain and resulted in significantly decreased adiposity, plasma leptin, total plasma cholesterol, and triacylglycerols compared with a supplement of whole grain wheat. Also, a slight improvement in insulin sensitivity was observed in the rye group compared with the wheat group. The decreases in body weight and adiposity were observed in the absence of differences in energy intake.

CONCLUSION: Long-term administration of whole grain rye evokes a different metabolic profile compared with whole grain wheat in the C57BL/6J mouse, the primary difference being that whole grain rye reduces body weight and adiposity compared with whole grain wheat. In addition, whole grain rye slightly improves insulin sensitivity and lowers total plasma cholesterol.
2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

siochain

!
some good points on the consumption of whole grain bread obtained by an old variety

Effects of Short-Term Consumption of Bread Obtained by an Old Italian Grain Variety on Lipid, Inflammatory, and Hemorheological Variables: An Intervention Study, Francesco Sofi, Journal of Medicinal Food, June 2010, 13(3): 615-620

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of short-term dietary intake of bread obtained by a selected variety of old grain grown in Tuscany, Italy on some parameters related to the atherosclerotic process. Twenty healthy subjects (median age, 39.5 years) followed for 10 weeks a diet containing bread (150g/day) made from the test grain (test period) and for the same period a diet containing commercially available bread of the same quantity (control period). Lipid, inflammatory, and hemorheological profiles before and after dietary intervention were evaluated.

The test period showed a significant (P<.05) improvement of total cholesterol (pre-intervention, 211.2±10.8mg/dL; post-intervention, 196.5±9.8mg/dL) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels (pre-intervention, 137.5±8.1mg/dL; post-intervention, 119.5±7.5mg/dL), whereas no significant changes during the control period were observed. With regard to inflammatory and hemorheological parameters, the test period showed a significant decrease in some of the parameters investigated (interleukin-8 [pre-intervention vs. post-intervention, 67.4±10.7 vs. 43.9±4.1pg/mL], whole blood viscosity at high [4.36±0.03 vs. 4.32±0.03mPa·s, respectively] and low [26.1±0.4 vs. 24.8±0.5mPa·s, respectively] shear rates, and erythrocyte filtration [8.4±0.7% vs. 9.1±0.6%, respectively]) relative to the control period, which showed no significant changes.
Short-term dietary intake of whole grain bread obtained from an old grain variety seems to impose a favorable status with regard to lower circulating levels of markers of atherosclerosis.

Introduction

Whole grain products have been reported to have several positive effects on human health.1,2 All the major scientific associations providing nutritional recommendations to prevent major diseases put carbohydrates in the first place of the pyramid for a health diet.3,4 The benefits of carbohydrates on the risk of cardiovascular diseases are mostly determined by their structure and content.5 Carbohydrate foods contain several nutrients that may reduce risk factors for cardiovascular diseases such as several phenolic acids with antioxidant properties, vitamin E, linoleic acid, and phytoestrogens.6 Actually, bread obtained with semi-integral flour produced by “stone mill” and by acid leavening (sourdough) contains a large amount of vitamin B6 and folic acid, both B-group vitamins. Cereals, and in particular whole wheat products, are an important source of mineral and trace elements such magnesium, iron, zinc, and copper.7 These elements are mainly present in the aleuronic layer of bread wheat grains.8,9

Recently, it has been demonstrated that several beneficial components of cereals depend on the production, storage, processing, and climatic conditions of the source grains.10,11 Indeed, it has been reported that different varieties of germs contain different levels of B-group vitamins and antioxidants.12 Thus, the identification of some particular variety of germs determining particular types of cereals rich in these supposed beneficial elements seems to be of importance for optimizing diet for prevention of major chronic diseases. In this regard, old wheat varieties seem to have a more variable composition of these secondary metabolites.12 In the last 50 years breeding strategies were aimed at improving the yield production, to increase the kernel protein content, and to adapt the wheat plants at a high chemical fertilization input. This led to a progressive abandonment of the old varieties, which are not suitable for the high-input cultivation system. However, the old varieties can be found either in germoplasm collections or in seed savers. In particular, the old Verna variety is actually commercialized in Tuscany.

The aim of this crossover dietary intervention study was, therefore, to assess the possible effects of a mid-term consumption of an old selected grain variety on some atherosclerotic markers such as lipid, inflammatory, and hemorheological profiles.
...
...
The Bread Used


The bread used for the experiment was derived from the Verna cultivar, an old commercial bread wheat Italian variety grown in organic cultivation. Stone-ground (semi-integral) flour was used for the bread production. This bread was obtained by acid-dough rising for 4–5 hours. The chemical composition of Verna flour—in particular, total proteins (CHN elementary analysis), lipids (Soxhlet method), total polyphenols (high-performance liquid chromatography), and total flavonoids (colorimetric method)—was detected and compared with those of new varieties (six) of bread wheat (Table 1).




Concentrations of the principal mineral elements zinc, iron, copper, magnesium, calcium, potassium, phosphorus, manganese, and sodium in the grain digests were determined by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (Table 2). The semi-integral Verna flour was characterized by a total protein, polyphenol, and flavonoid content superior to the new varieties' content (Table 1). Moreover, the content of mineral elements—in particular, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc, which are essential for human diet—is significantly higher in the Verna flour variety in comparison to the new ones (Table 2).




Discussion

In this 10-week crossover feeding trial in clinically healthy subjects we found that consumption of semi-integral bread obtained from the Verna variety, an old variety of Italian bread wheat, is able to improve lipid, inflammatory, and hemorheological profiles. Conversely, consumption of the same duration of commercially available bread did not show such significant effects on the atherosclerotic risk profile of these subjects. This is one of the few articles showing that bread produced from a stone-ground flour obtained from an old grain variety is able produce positive effects on some patterns related to atherosclerotic disease.

The importance and health benefits of whole grain consumption in the prevention of chronic diseases such as neoplastic and cardiovascular diseases have been widely documented.1,2 However, the attention paid to grain consumption has been little compared to that for other foods such as fruits and vegetables, although nutritional guidelines put grains and grain products at the base of the food guide pyramid to emphasize their importance for optimal health.3,4 Carbohydrate intake in the Italian population is peculiar, as Italy shows the highest consumption of carbohydrates from refined cereals. The main sources of carbohydrates in the Italian population are bread and various types of pasta, accounting altogether for almost 40% of the total carbohydrate intake.13

To date, consumption of grain products with a high content of whole grain flour, milled from all edible components of grains, has been inversely associated with mortality from and incidence of diabetes and ischemic heart disease in several prospective studies.14 Conversely, intake of refined flour, which consists mainly of the starchy endosperm, was not associated with diabetes and ischemic heart disease risk in these studies. It has been hypothesized that the observed health benefits of whole grain intake may be attributable to the synergistic effects of dietary fiber and micronutrients found in whole grain foods. Indeed, the bran and germ components of whole grains are rich in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytoestrogens.

Our study shows a clear beneficial effect of intake of such an old variety of bread wheat on lipids, inflammatory markers, and hemorheological variables over a 10-week period of dietary intervention. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a possible influence of dietary intervention with this variety of bread on hemorheological profile.

Epidemiological studies have shown that increased blood viscosity is associated with several cardiovascular risk factors as well as with both prevalent and incident cardiovascular diseases.15,16 Mechanisms by which elevations in rheological factors may promote cardiovascular events are different and include increases in blood pressure, shear stress, ischemia, and blood vessel wall interactions. A relevant feature of the rheological flow is the erythrocyte morphology because the deformability of circulating cells greatly influences the rheological properties of the blood, thus playing a key role in maintaining and regulating the microcirculation. Under pathologic conditions, the erythrocyte deformability is altered, thus affecting the rheological environment at the level of the microcirculation. We previously found an influence of dietary habits on hemorheological parameters.17

In the present study a significant improvement of all the hemorheological parameters after the dietary intervention with the test bread in comparison to the placebo bread was observed, thus improving the deformability of red blood cells and of the rheological characteristics of the blood.

The mechanisms by which such whole grain bread may contribute to health benefits remain to be fully elucidated. It is known that whole grains are a rich source of fiber, minerals (magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, selenium, manganese, zinc, and iron), vitamins (B group and vitamin E), and related antioxidants.18 These compounds all may have important biological functions so that by themselves, or by interacting with other substances, they could make an important contribution to reduction in cardiovascular risk. In our study, intake of “healthy” bread was inversely associated with circulating levels of inflammatory markers. Although other observational studies of whole grains have not included measures of inflammation, several studies have estimated measures of carbohydrate quality in relation to inflammatory markers.19

Notably, in our study we found, similar to what was observed in the Framingham Offspring Cohort study,20 a beneficial effect of bread consumption on total and LDL-cholesterol. On the other hand, however, in our study we were not able to observe any influence of the test bread on HDL-cholesterol or triglycerides. These results are in line with some studies20,21 but in conflict with another study.22 The discrepancies observed can be explained by several factors. First of all, intake of grain products was estimated on the basis of servings and not quantitatively, which makes a comparison of the different results difficult; furthermore, grains consumed in these studies are different from bread consumed in our intervention study, thus likely having a different content of fiber, minerals, and vitamins, with a different effect on triglycerides.

Our study has several main limitations. An important limitation is the restricted sample size of the study. Further and larger studies need to be conducted before drawing any firm conclusion on the effects of such food products on human health. The results of the present study are just a promising basis for evaluating more completely this aspect of clinical nutrition.

Another limitation is the lack of assessment of dietary habits and physical activity in our study population. The possibility that changes in dietary and/or lifestyle habits have significantly affected parameters investigated cannot be excluded, although, before enrollment, all subjects were instructed by physicians and by an expert dietician to maintain their usual lifestyle habits.

Conclusions

Dietary short-term intake of whole grain bread obtained by an old variety seems to impose a favorable status with regard to lower circulating levels of markers of atherosclerosis. Regular consumption of such an old variety of whole grain bread may be useful for reducing the cardiovascular risk burden of the general population.

siochain

not study but if you haven't read wheat belly it will give you a summary of some of its main points

http://news.discovery.com/human/why-you-should-probably-stop-eating-wheat-121214.htm

Orla K

siochain wrote: »

not study but if you haven't read wheat belly it will give you a summary of some of its main points

http://news.discovery.com/human/why-you-should-probably-stop-eating-wheat-121214.htm

Another summary I like is http://www.lowcarbwellness.com/wheat---grain-danger.
No reading involved:D

Paddywiggum

For people trying to lose weight i believe white bread is 'evil'. It can be very difficult to cut white bread out of your diet if you tend to eat a lot of it. It can be deceivingly addictive, picking at it during the day, the calories soon mount up.
But as Gbear says above, a dramatic loss in weight can be achieved by those able to cut it from diet.

Having said that, its nowhere near as evil as Lance Armstrong.

siochain

Not specifically about wheat but good read

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1298864/

Obesity, hunger, and agriculture: the damaging role of subsidies

Short abstract.


Globally, we are producing more food than the population needs. Subsidising overproduction in Europe is affecting the health of people in both Africa and Europe


Being overweight is becoming the norm rather than the exception in most developed countries, and obesity is a serious health problem worldwide.1 Many people see obesity as a lifestyle issue. However, behavioural interventions to prevent obesity in both adults and children have generally been ineffective,2 indicating strong influences beyond individual control. Considerable resources are currently invested in developing drugs to prevent and treat obesity. However, from a societal perspective, prevention of obesity through diet and physical activity should be given priority for both economic and ethical reasons.1,3 Chopra and DarntonHill recently suggested that we need a global strategy on food similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.4 Their suggested actions are mainly aimed at reducing demand for food. But we argue it is equally important to tackle the oversupply of food, driven by agricultural subsidies.


Go to:

European common agricultural policy.

The societal changes causing the worldwide increase in body mass index include mass production of heavily marketed, energy dense foods, globalisation of trade and taste, technological developments in the workplace, a sedentary lifestyle, and the reduction in active transport.5,6 Improvements in agricultural productivity over the past decades have facilitated a massive increase in dietary energy intake.

Actually, the main problem for the agricultural sector in many developed countries is overproduction.7 Several studies have suggested that overproduction of food followed by excessive consumption is the prime cause of the increase in body mass index in the United States and elsewhere.8,9 Continued subsidy to stimulate production of food through agricultural policy is therefore paradoxical. Obesity and associated noncommunicable diseases cause costs for health care and lost productivity, and overproduction in agriculture causes environmental degradation. But these negative effects are difficult to influence through behavioural intervention because consumers do not bear the full costs. The World Health Organization has noted this problem, and its global strategy on diet, physical activity, and health recommends that “Member states need to take healthy nutrition into account in their agricultural policies.”10

The dairy sector in the European Union is an example of how agriculture subsidies can lead to negative health effects in Europe as well as in developing countries. The European Union spends almost €2bn (£1.4bn, $2.4bn) a year to maintain production levels at 20% above the domestic demand and at prices twice as high as on the world market.11 Without subsidies, production would quickly adapt to the level of demand. However, for historical reasons, and because of strong lobbying, milk production in the European Union is highly protected.

Surplus milk is converted to the storable products skimmed milk powder and butter. Butter mountains are expensive to maintain and create negative publicity. Therefore, export subsidies and domestic consumption aids are granted in order to dispose of it. Export subsidies for milk products undermine the milk sector in many developing countries such as the Dominican Republic, Kenya, India, and Jamaica.12 Domestic consumption aid for butter at a yearly cost of €500m is granted to one third of all butter produced in the European Union, corresponding to 1.5 kg of butter per European citizen a year. This butter is sold with subsidies to the food industry, which turns it into mainly ice cream and cakes (fig 1).13



Fig 1

Quantities of European Union butter receiving consumption aid from 1995 to 2003.13

The European school milk scheme is another outlet of surplus milk.11 Higher subsidies given to milk with a higher fat content has led to only 5% of Swedish school children drinking the recommended skimmed milk with their school lunches (Swedish National Food Administration, unpublished figures). In theory, a child who drinks full fat milk instead of skimmed milk receives an extra 1.5 kg of saturated fat each year from school milk alone.


Go to:

Increasing dietary energy supplies worldwide.

Figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization show that global per capita dietary energy supplies are rising and forecasted to grow for at least another 25 years (fig 2).14 A decreasing global population growth rate in combination with a strong growth in agricultural productivity has given us access to more and better food at declining real prices, in fact the lowest in history. People around the world can purchase more calories today for the same money as western Europeans could decades ago at a similar gross domestic product level. This is, of course, positive for the 850 million people who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition worldwide. However, the main reason for hunger is not a lack of global food supplies but lack of access to food, conflicts, natural and human disasters, animal and plant pests, and unfair international trade in combination with a lack of political will to eradicate it.15



Fig 2

Development of per capita dietary energy supply from 1964 until 203014

A daily energy intake of 9.2 MJ (2200 kcal) is regarded as necessary to avoid malnutrition, while more than 11.3-12.5 MJ a day will lead to obesity in people with a sedentary lifestyle.15 Income inequalities, the level of poverty and health care, and the fact that obesity shifts from the rich to the poor as income rises will determine the socio-epidemiological distribution of malnutrition, obesity, and non-communicable diseases in each country.16

In a climate of tough competition, sections of the food industry develop new and healthier value added foods at higher prices, benefiting mainly higher socioeconomic groups. But what is produced is eventually eaten by someone. Fat, sugar, and cereals are cheap and constitute the raw materials for energy dense and nutrient poor foods, which lead to passive overeating and obesity.5,17-19 Therefore, as long as the supply of energy dense foods is not reduced, the prevalence of obesity and social inequalities in health is likely to continue to increase. As a first step to reverse the obesity epidemic, agricultural market support promoting the overproduction of food has to be phased out.

The overproduction of food by developed countries also has detrimental health effects in other countries. The use of export subsidies by rich countries and tariffs on imported food is a serious obstacle for growth of the agricultural sector in developing countries.15 Agricultural growth has an important role in alleviating poverty and malnutrition because it increases food availability locally, creates employment, stimulates the rural economy, and reduces the cost of food for poor consumers.20 According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, rural development and agriculture are key to reducing poverty and hunger and reaching the millennium development goals.


Go to:

Agricultural subsidies coupled to production should be phased out.

The 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy, the main aim of which was to bring supply in line with demand, was a step in the right direction. It partially decoupled financial support from the amount of foods produced. However, the results of quantitative analysis by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development indicate only modest (less than 1%) reductions in production of most commodities such as wheat, coarse grains, oilseeds, beef, pig meat, and poultry.21 Only rice production is expected to decrease significantly. Milk production in the European Union is expected to increase slightly until 2014-5 because of increases in the quota (the amount of milk eligible for subsidies). There are consequently no plans to phase out consumption aid for butter (Swedish Board of Agriculture, personal communication). Subsidised export is assumed to decrease by 4% for wheat, 6% for cheese, 8% for skimmed milk powder, and 17% for butter. This will result in falling prices on the European market and more energy available for consumption. Economists expect European consumption of butter to increase by 0.7%, cheese by 1.5%, and wheat by 0.3% by 2008. In other words, it is assumed that the population will contribute to solving the problems of the common agricultural policy by eating more. Clearly, the policy reform is a failure from the perspective of preventing obesity.

The public health sector must now engage in reform of the common agricultural policy. Health effects have been neglected despite article 152 in the Amsterdam Treaty saying that public health should be promoted by all EU policies. The ongoing discussions concerning the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector are an opportunity not to be missed.

The resources ploughed into agriculture in developed countries are enormous. The total transfers to agriculture in countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development for 2003 amounted to $350bn (£194bn, €288bn),7 half of which comes from taxpayers and half from consumers. Eliminating all agricultural policy distortions could produce global annual welfare gains up to $165bn according to the Food and Agriculture Organization because production would move to countries with comparative advantages.14 The global cost of not eradicating hunger—in terms of conflicts, recurrent emergencies, international crime, the drug trade, terrorism, clandestine migration, and the premature death of those who are hungry—is enormous.15 To this should be added the cost of environmental damage from agriculture, which might be even higher.



Summary points

Current dietary energy supply is more than sufficient to alleviate starvation worldwide and is forecasted to grow for another 25 years

Agriculture subsidies coupled to production distort the balance between supply and demand, leading to overconsumption and obesity

Overproduction of food in rich countries using trade distorting measures undermines the agricultural sectors in developing countries, hindering the eradication of hunger and poverty

Phasing out of agricultural producer support in developed countries is the first step in the fight against both obesity and hunger

In comparison, the estimated cost for food for the 850 million people who currently are food insecure is $10.4bn a year, while the annual cost of ensuring sound nutrition and health in developing countries is estimated to be $70-80bn in addition to the $136bn currently spent.15 The official development aid needs for achievement of the millennium development goals have been estimated to be $135bn for 2006 rising to $195bn in 2015.22


Go to:

Two steps towards better health.

Phasing out of market support for agricultural producers in developed countries is necessary as a first step in the fight against obesity, poverty, and hunger worldwide. In addition, the money saved in taxes could be used for ensuring sound nutrition and health in developing countries and for reaching the millennium development goals. Agricultural market support paid from taxes can be defended only if the food is undersupplied—that is, if the market fails—which was the case when the common agricultural policy was founded in the late 1950s.

But even if subsidies are phased out, global supplies will probably continue to be higher than “healthy” demand for many years to come. The food industry will fight for its markets and try to expand them. Therefore, as a second step, internationally binding conventions like the one on tobacco are needed. These should include issues such as marketing of energy dense foods, availability to children, labelling, and tax and price measures, as suggested by Chopra and Darnton-Hill.4 Such conventions will require governments, WHO, and the Food and Agriculture Organization to take a strong role. However, government failures must be corrected before market failures can be tackled. Before we brake, we should take the foot off the gas.


Go to:

Notes.


LSE has worked at the National Institute of Public Health in Sweden since 1998. Her main areas of interest are nutrition, physical activity, obesity, policy development, health impact assessment, and agriculture policy. Sources of information are reports from the European Commission, the WHO, OECD, FAO as well as the scientific literature.

Competing interests: None declared.


Go to:

References.


1. World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Geneva: WHO, 2000. (WHO technical report 894.)

2. Mulvihill C, Quigley R. The management of obesity and overweight, an analysis of reviews of diet, physical activity and behavioural approaches. London: Health Development Agency, 2003.

3. Visscher T, Seidell J. The public health impact of obesity. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22: 355-75. [PubMed]

4. Chopra M, Darnton-Hill I. Tobacco and obesity epidemics: not so different after all? BMJ 2004;328: 1558-60. [PMC free article][PubMed]

5. World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Geneva: WHO, 2003. (Report No 916.)

6. Swinburn BA, Caterson I, Seidell JC, James WP. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of excess weight gain and obesity. Public Health Nutr 2004;7(1A): 123-46. [PubMed]

7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Agricultural Policies 2004. At a glance. Paris: OECD, 2004.

8. Putnam J, Allshouse J, Scott Kantor L. US per capita food supply trends: more calories, refined carbohydrates, and fats. Food Rev 2002;25(3): 2-15.

9. Silventoinen K, Sans S, Tolonen H, Monterde D, Kuulasmaa K, Kesteloot H, et al. Trends in obesity and energy supply in the WHO MONICA Project. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2004;28: 710-8. [PubMed]

10. World Health Organization. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: WHO, 2004.

11. Schäfer Elinder L. Public health should return to the core of CAP reform. EuroChoices 2003;2(2): 32-5.

12. Oxfam. Milking the CAP. How Europe's dairy regime is devastating livelihoods in the developing world. Oxford: Oxfam, 2002.

13. European Commission. Thirty-fifth report on intervention measures in the milk and milk products sector 2003. Brussels: EC, 2004.

14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. Summary report. Rome: FAO, 2002.

15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The world food summit five years later. Mobilizing the political will and resources to banish world hunger. Rome: FAO, 2004.

16. Monteiro C, Moura EC, Conde WL, Popkin BM. Socioeconomic status and obesity in adult populations of developing countries: a review. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82: 940-6. [PMC free article][PubMed]

17. Prentice AM, Jebb SA. Fast foods, energy density and obesity: a possible mechanistic link. Obes Rev 2003;4(4): 187-94. [PubMed]

18. Schulze MB, Manson JE, Ludwig DS, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, et al. Sugar-sweetened beverages, weight gain, and incidence of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. JAMA 2004;292: 927-34. [PubMed]

19. Pereira MA, Kartashov AI, Ebbeling CB, van Hom L, Slattery ML, Jacobs DR Jr, et al. Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet 2005;365: 36-42. [PubMed]

20. Irz X, Lin L, Thirtle C, Wiggins S. Agricultural productivity growth and poverty alleviation. Dev Policy Rev 2001;19: 449-66.

21. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Analysis of the 2003 CAP reform. Paris: OECD, 2004.

22. Sachs JD, McArthur JW. The millennium project: a plan for meeting the millennium development goals. Lancet 2005;365: 347-53. [PubMed]

Transform

lots of links provided by the likes of -
Jaminet, LaLonde, Masterjohn, Wolff, Scott, whole 9 crew, dr briffa and on and on

there is even http://paleophysiciansnetwork.com/

Every individual will have links on to other similiar minded doctors, scientists, bloggers etc and they ALL have a fairly simple message getting off the wheat/gluten as it assists with a massive range of conditions which have their origin or are made worse through gut irritation, negative changes in leptin and insulin (therefore appetite control) and fundamentally inflammation

tibor

Cheers for the links will take a while to read and, errr, digest these.

cailleach an airgid

Quick question - a number of my sports science colleagues would strongly advocate for the Mediterranean diet for health (a diet rich in fruit, vegetable, oily fish, olive oil etc). Now, I am definitely not an expert, but I would understand that, for example, the Italian and French diets would contain wheat based food as staples - e.g. bread and pasta. I understand widespread research suggests that wheat is terrible for us, but research would also suggest that a diet containing wheat based staples is good for us.

I've absolutely done none of my own research here and am basing this on information presented by sports science doctoral candidates at a recent event, so I'm actually just posting here to see what people think of the Mediterranean diet and the role that wheat based products play in it?

Transform

cailleach an airgid wrote: »

Quick question - a number of my sports science colleagues would strongly advocate for the Mediterranean diet for health (a diet rich in fruit, vegetable, oily fish, olive oil etc). Now, I am definitely not an expert, but I would understand that, for example, the Italian and French diets would contain wheat based food as staples - e.g. bread and pasta. I understand widespread research suggests that wheat is terrible for us, but research would also suggest that a diet containing wheat based staples is good for us.

I've absolutely done none of my own research here and am basing this on information presented by sports science doctoral candidates at a recent event, so I'm actually just posting here to see what people think of the Mediterranean diet and the role that wheat based products play in it?

best to look into the recent work of prof Tim Noakes, plenty to read there.

and podcast here - http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/6413/588-south-african-running-legend-tim-noakes-embraces-high-fat-low-carb-living/

He is a big name in the sports science community and literally wrote the book on running (The Lore of Running - for which he now recommends tearing out the nutrition section!!)

Regards med diet - all good as main emphasis is high qulaity foods and just take out all the wheat and its a pretty good plan so long as fat intake is not reduced in any major way.

Mr. CooL ICE

cailleach an airgid wrote: »

Quick question - a number of my sports science colleagues would strongly advocate for the Mediterranean diet for health (a diet rich in fruit, vegetable, oily fish, olive oil etc). Now, I am definitely not an expert, but I would understand that, for example, the Italian and French diets would contain wheat based food as staples - e.g. bread and pasta. I understand widespread research suggests that wheat is terrible for us, but research would also suggest that a diet containing wheat based staples is good for us.

I'm just back from a few days in Italy. We spent all days on the road and ate in roadside cafes and restaurants. It is almost impossible to avoid wheat. Anything to eat in a cafe is either a sandwich, pizza, croissant or pastry and 9/10 things on the menu in a restaurant are pasta/bread based. The country is like a coeliac's hell on earth.

When I touched down here, I had my first ever craving for fruit and vegetables.

siochain

Starting this again as it was started up due to bickering before.

Try and keep it to fact based studies and personal experiences.

No personal BS.

dor843088

Lets see the physique your no bread diet results in siochain.

siochain

I guess your finding it hard to keep on topic due to the positive personal reports and all the factual studies.

Keep on topic.

PS: as mentioned in other treads nothing to prove and what ever your into posting semi naked photos on the net ain't my thing.

Nwm2

I'm interested in this topic, and before I read it was just about on the 'anti-bread' side the argument.

[Hopefully the Mods can delete the last 10 posts or so. But back on topic:]

My conclusion from reading the thread is that almost no scientific evidence was posted to confirm the 'bread is evil' hypothesis.

Several personal anecdotes and links to blogs and appeals to authority, which don't count. Studies on mice are not irrelevant, but have force only in the absence of studies on humans.

One peer-reviewed paper showed %BF loss and stationary LDL with whole grain. Is this an argument for or against bread? Is whole grain bread ok? Or even good? Applies to post-menopausal women only?

Another review of 135 studies summarised: "The great majority found no associations between the intake of refined grain foods and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, weight gain or overall mortality. " This study was sponsored by a Grain company. Nevertheless, at the end of this paper are summaries of the 135 studies which can be pursued further.

Summary: it's the calories, stupid?

Edit: I didn't discuss the 'Double edged sword' paper, as I had fixated on weight loss which that paper does not really address. I would take 2 sentences from that paper:

"Cereal grains obviously can be included in moderate amounts in the diets of most people without any noticeable, deleterious health effects, and herein lies their strength."

and

"The downside of cereal grain consumption is their ability to disrupt health and well being in virtually all people when consumed in excessive quantity. "

Chancer3001

"Tushay"

Jesus Christ.

Personally, I think bread isnt something you should be eating too often if you want a very low body fat percentage.

But then of course, there are exceptions, I know guys who eat sandwiches every day and are in ridiculously good shape.

dor843088

Chancer3001 wrote: »

"Tushay"

Jesus Christ.

Personally, I think bread isnt something you should be eating too often if you want a very low body fat percentage.

But then of course, there are exceptions, I know guys who eat sandwiches every day and are in ridiculously good shape.

I have been to very low bf levels eating a lot of bread. Like the above poster said its about calories. Nothing to do with food choices. However some of the hardcore crew in here would have you believe otherwise. Calorie defecit = weightloss simple.

Chancer3001

I agree to a point.

But I also think it's a bit deeper than that.

There has to be a difference between how a person will look eating 1800 cals of chicken a day against a person eating 1800 cals of sugar from a packet.

siochain

Now we're getting somewhere, well just a little.

You will find that the so called anti-wheat brigade \ hard core crew here would say to anyone who comes to the forum looking for weight loss advise its all about the calories. Wheat flour is so cheap now and is included in so many products as a filler it's contributing heavily to weight gain and insulin resistance particularly in the poorest communities and countries.

I fully agree that in many cases obesity, CHD and diabetes is caused by over consumption of calories. I believe wheat, sugar and transfats which make up cheap long life products are having a negative effect on people's health.

Is one or two slices a day going to be an issue for someone? No, but as we all know it's the refined wheat containing crap people are eating every day (cereal for breakfast, the morning snack, lunch, biscuits, doughnuts) thats doing the damage to wastlines.

Let's see if we can get though a few more topics related to flour try and shoot of detailed constructive answers. If we can work through these we can add some more topics and specific studies to the mix.

What's your thoughts on the effect refined white flour has on blood sugars? What's your thoughts on the long term health effects of constant elevated blood sugars?
What's your thoughts on the role of phytic acid in the body?

Chancer3001

I don't think either of your first two questions need "our thoughts".

What they need is scientific research.

Of which there has been a lot.

dor843088

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I agree to a point.

But I also think it's a bit deeper than that.

There has to be a difference between how a person will look eating 1800 cals of chicken a day against a person eating 1800 cals of sugar from a packet.

There is a difference . The thermic effect of protein.

siochain

Chancer Wasn't really directed at you.

can we not stay away from the posts that add nothing and see if we can come to a conclusion over the next week.

Brian?

dor843088 warned for trolling.

Back on topic now, no more personal back and forth or I will lock this thread.

Chancer3001

dor843088 wrote: »

There is a difference . The thermic effect of protein.

So clearly it's NOT as simple as calories out v calories in.

dor843088

Chancer3001 wrote: »

So clearly it's NOT as simple as calories out v calories in.

It is . Net calories

metamorphosis

Lads - bread isn't some tool that's gonna be the sole determinant on low bf% / health etc

Little more to it than that

Some people can tolerate the wheat

Some cant

Some can be shredded with it

Some cant

Some can eat **** loads

Some cant.

I minimize my wheat as there's family history of GI issues and chrohns (sp) so I know its very wise for me to avoid and I always generally feel better when I minimize and cut most of it out, otherwise I generally like to ferment

At the end of the day - we aren't always aware of what's going on inside of us - better off avoiding if your tired, lethargic, know you don't deal well with the major food irritants. Basically, if its not positively contributing to your life and goals, there is no need for it to be a major contributor for you at all meals

Bread isn't good, isn't bad ... its just bread. Yes wheat is Very different now to a long time ago which is part and parcel of why the number of people reporting cases of not feeling well on it are increasing. Must people don't even realize that they are feeling sub par until they give wheat up

and then others can thrive on bread and wheat

Its just bread though, nothing more, nothing less (except in the cases of sliced pans - with all the added ingredients in them, it is hard to consider some of them bread)

The extremism of paleo / modern trends (its a great way to eat but there are some extreme proponents) are just as off putting as low fat - because its extreme and people shout 'im right im right'. Given that nutritional science is in its infancy and nutrition is completely dependent on an individual case. Yes, there are some good rules to follow (cutting back on wheat / not limiting fat too much / staying away from hydrogenated man fats and oils) but we don't live in the BC anymore.

siochain

Meta, very good post we are all unique and it's never a one fix for all. That's why I would generally recommend a trial of eliminating different foods stuffs if someone is reporting stomach, bowl, bloating, etc. The first recommendation would always be wheat as from experience this is where the most success is found if that doesn't show results after two weeks try dairy and so on.

Chefrio

siochain wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere, well just a little.

You will find that the so called anti-wheat brigade \ hard core crew here would say to anyone who comes to the forum looking for weight loss advise its all about the calories. Wheat flour is so cheap now and is included in so many products as a filler it's contributing heavily to weight gain and insulin resistance particularly in the poorest communities and countries.

I fully agree that in many cases obesity, CHD and diabetes is caused by over consumption of calories. I believe wheat, sugar and transfats which make up cheap long life products are having a negative effect on people's health.

Is one or two slices a day going to be an issue for someone? No, but as we all know it's the refined wheat containing crap people are eating every day (cereal for breakfast, the morning snack, lunch, biscuits, doughnuts) thats doing the damage to wastlines.

Let's see if we can get though a few more topics related to flour try and shoot of detailed constructive answers. If we can work through these we can add some more topics and specific studies to the mix.

What's your thoughts on the effect refined white flour has on blood sugars? What's your thoughts on the long term health effects of constant elevated blood sugars?
What's your thoughts on the role of phytic acid in the body?

I'd be more concerned about cancer, alzeihmers, parkinsons, heart health and diabetes than my waistline. Wheat makes it much more likely you will suffer from these diseases.

JonDoe

William Davis - The Dangers of Wheat (Red Ice Radio, last year)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWtsHTNhPa4&noredirect=1

Club of Rome in the 70's introduced Dwarf Wheat Hybrid under the guise of increasing production, it's not fit for human consumption, too many pairs of chromosomes. High blood sugars, acidic blood, joint swelling.

My Mum has polymialgea, a painful arthritis, switched her over to Spelt and the pain is gone, told all the specialists about it, they just don't want to know. They seemed a bit pissed actually, can't sell her as many pills.
Also over Christmas I had a few beers, 4 x 3 days in a row, pains in my knees and wrists. Yeah it's poison.

Transform

JonDoe wrote: »

William Davis - The Dangers of Wheat (Red Ice Radio, last year)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWtsHTNhPa4&noredirect=1

Club of Rome in the 70's introduced Dwarf Wheat Hybrid under the guise of increasing production, it's not fit for human consumption, too many pairs of chromosomes. High blood sugars, acidic blood, joint swelling.

My Mum has polymialgea, a painful arthritis, switched her over to Spelt and the pain is gone, told all the specialists about it, they just don't want to know. They seemed a bit pissed actually, can't sell her as many pills.
Also over Christmas I had a few beers, 4 x 3 days in a row, pains in my knees and wrists. Yeah it's poison.

nice results and thats exactly what i see with clients daily.

People just dont want to give it up as its the modern version of smoking

Banneret

It depends on the type of bread of course.

dor843088

Chefrio wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about cancer, alzeihmers, parkinsons, heart health and diabetes than my waistline. Wheat makes it much more likely you will suffer from these diseases.

And to think doctors dieticians and and the fda see nothing wrong with it. To think it is widely distributed to sick people in hospitals when it causes such a plethora of horrific diseases. To think it is a staple food the world over. The whole world has gone mad. One or two people on boards have it spot on and to think they figured it all out themselves with a few anecdotal data points.

dor843088

When Wheat Belly, by William Davis, M.D., came out in August 2011, it was an instant hit. It became a New York Timesbestseller.  Praise far outweighed criticism. Especially in the gluten-free community, it enjoyed rave reviews. The book was received essentially as gospel. Why?In my opinion, there are three main reasons:It's written by an M.D., which adds a patina of credibility to the book's claims,It's filled with endnotes of citations that reference scientific peer-reviewed publications, andIts message—to "lose the wheat, lose the weight, and find your path back to health"—already agrees with the world view of many in the GF community (that wheat and gluten equals bad).But as you'll see, those three factors are dangerous. They build a facade of trust and credibility. They cause us to let down our guard; to cease being the critically-thinking readers that we ought to be. And sometimes, that means we fail to question information that is suspect; we unknowingly accept and perpetuate a myth; we fall victim to false information.I didn't set out to write a review of Wheat Belly. I had been heavily researching another unrelated project. Coincidental timing then played a key role. After reading a number of prominent medical studies involving wheat, gluten, weight loss, and celiac disease, I found myself reading Wheat Belly, in which Davis cites some of those exact same studies. Except that there was one major problem: Davis' claims—and his conclusions based on the research studies he cites—were exactly the opposite of what I'd been reading in those very studies. Here are several important examples:Consider Chapter 3, Wheat Deconstructed, page 36 of the hardcover edition. Davis writes "if we look only at overweight people who are not severely malnourished at the time of diagnosis who remove wheat from their diet, it becomes clear that this enables them to lose a substantial amount of weight." He supposedly backs up this claim in the very next sentence by continuing, "A Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa study of 215 obese celiac patients showed 27.5 pounds of weight loss in the first six months of a wheat-free diet." Sounds pretty impressive and compelling ... until you realize he's wrong.First of all, the study didn't examine 215 obese patients. Body Mass Index for study participants ranged from underweight to normal to overweight to obese. Secondly, only 25 of those 215 patients lost weight, and the weight loss was not restricted to the obese subset of participants. (Further, 91 of the 215 patients gained weight, but I'll return to the issue of weight gain among obese celiacs in a moment.) You can read the full text of the study as reported in the original American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article here.Next consider Chapter 5, The Wheat/Obesity Connection, page 66 of the hardcover edition. Here Davis invokes a study reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. He claims that of newly diagnosed celiac disease patients, 39 percent start overweight and 13 percent start obese. Next Davis writes that "by this estimate, more than half the people now diagnosed with celiac disease are therefore overweight or obese."Not quite. Actually, the study noted that overweight and obese patients togetheraccounted for 39 percent of diagnoses. The 13 percent obese patients were a subset of the overweight group. By Davis' questionable math, underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese celiac disease patients would account for 114% of diagnoses, which is impossible.At the start of the very next paragraph, he invokes a familiar line nearly identical to that from Chapter 3: "If we focus only on overweight people who are not severely malnourished at the time of diagnosis, celiac sufferers actually lose a substantial quantity of weight when they eliminate wheat gluten."I call B.S. You know that study Davis just cited in the previous paragraph of his book to build his case? The same study from which he errantly claimed more than half of newly diagnosed celiacs are overweight? Here is what researchersactually found, and I quote directly: "Of patients compliant with a gluten-free diet, 81 percent had gained weight after 2 years, including 82% of initially overweight patients" (emphasis mine). This finding is not buried deep in the report somewhere. It's important enough that researchers also call it out directly in the top-level abstract. When Davis claims that initially overweight celiac disease patients lose a significant amount of weight on a gluten-free diet, how does he explain the fact that 82% of those patients gained weight ... in one of the very studies he uses to back up his questionable claim?To me this appears to be more than an innocent, but careless, oversight; it is more than a case of blissful ignorance. Those results are front and center in the study, and they directly contradict his claim. It would take an act of willful omission to leave it out; it's audacious that he cites the study to bolster his claim.For a third and final example, consider Chapter 4, The Addictive Properties of Wheat, page 50 of the hardcover edition. Here, Davis writes about gluten exorphins, opiate-like compounds created when stomach enzymes take a crack at partially digesting gluten. Researchers are continuing to study how they impact the human body in myriad ways. One branch of such studies uses the drug naloxone, an opiate blocker, to cancel the potential effect of gluten exorphins and other related compounds. Davis makes the claim that gluten exorphins are addictive like morphine (another opiate), and that those addictive properties cause you to eat more calories and gain weight. As the theory goes, block the gluten exorphins with naloxone, and you block the addictive properties of wheat-based foods. To back up his boast, he then cites a study, published in theAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in which binge eaters were left in a room filled with a variety of foods for one hour. Davis writes "participants consumed 28 percent less wheat crackers, bread sticks, and pretzels with the administration of naloxone." And there you have it! See? Naloxone blocked the evil action of gluten exorphins, and those binge eaters ate fewer calories as a result! Except that's not what happened.Here's the truth: While naloxone appeared to have an impact on the consumption of high fat and high sugar foods, it had no effect that correlated with gluten. In fact, while Davis claims that participants consumed 28 percent fewer wheat crackers, bread sticks, and pretzels, they actually consumed 40 percent moregluten-containing bread sticks.The three examples I've noted are hardly the sum total of the problems I found with the book. There are many others, though I've already made my point.Those of us in the gluten-free communitywant to agree with Wheat Belly because Davis' message resonates with us. But it's an overly simplified message, at times built on tenuous claims. And how would we ever know? He's an M.D. He's the expert, right? And he cites all those sexy research studies. If I had read this book at another time in my life, I likely would have been none the wiser. I would have read the book, peeked at the citations, and been satisfied. But perhaps serendipity of a certain sort is at work here ... that I read this book at precisely that moment in my life when I was best equipped with the knowledge I needed to critically evaluate it. I now pass that evaluation along to you.For certain, some of what Davis writes is valid. And I have some GF blogging colleagues/friends who know Davis personally. They say he's a very nice man, which may indeed be true.But I'm more than disappointed with Davis and Wheat Belly; I'm downright angry. This book can and should be better. We, the gluten-free community, deserve as much. It does an injustice to the very legitimate case against wheat and gluten, and it is insulting to us, the readers. Sadly, Wheat Belly looks polished from a distance, but upon closer inspection it goes belly up. Sections of the book amount to propaganda, fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims. For me, Wheat Belly is a bust.Are wheat and gluten a health problem? For many of us, undoubtedly. But there's much more to the story than meets the eye, and you're not always getting the straight story in Wheat Belly.–Pete

Just thought I'd share the truth behind the wheat belly bull****.

JJayoo

I like bread.

Nwm2

Chefrio wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about cancer, alzeihmers, parkinsons, heart health and diabetes than my waistline. Wheat makes it much more likely you will suffer from these diseases.

Again, the thread was for people to post scientific research to back up the 'bread is evil' hypothesis. So, can you post links to peer-reviewed studies to back up your claim? Posts to blogs and books don't qualify.

You claim one is much more likely to suffer cancer and other ailments if you consume wheat. So, let's see the evidence for much more likely.

j@utis

dor843088 wrote: »

And to think doctors dieticians and and the fda see nothing wrong with it. To think it is widely distributed to sick people in hospitals when it causes such a plethora of horrific diseases. To think it is a staple food the world over. The whole world has gone mad. One or two people on boards have it spot on and to think they figured it all out themselves with a few anecdotal data points.

Doctors/medicine/pharma, fda and agriculture, all are businesses and their main objective is to make money. A patient with life long prescription is their best customer. Curing sick people would lead to loss of customers and that is not good for any kind of business. Your health is your own "problem" no matter where the rest of world is headin.

Banneret wrote: »

It depends on the type of bread of course.

Exactly. I have nothing against traditionally made sourdough bread, ideally the flour should be milled just before preparing the dough, the dough should be left to rise naturally several times and bread itself should be made from three ingredients: flour, water and salt. But buying such bread is almost mission impossible. Now look at the commercially made bread: 30 ingredients, 25 of them are hard to pronounce, raised on fast action yeast, choked in plastic wrap and it's ready for the store in 2hrs . It's basically highly processed food = junk food.

Chefrio

Nwm2 wrote: »

Again, the thread was for people to post scientific research to back up the 'bread is evil' hypothesis. So, can you post links to peer-reviewed studies to back up your claim? Posts to blogs and books don't qualify.

You claim one is much more likely to suffer cancer and other ailments if you consume wheat. So, let's see the evidence for much more likely.

Sure.
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdfhttp://www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/418.abstracthttp://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365520500235334?journalCode=gashttp://gut.bmj.com/content/56/6/889.extracthttp://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2005/10000/Effect_of_Gluten_Containing_Diet_on_Serum_Zonulin.232.aspxhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007114500000271http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0033291700043312http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022172400016624http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000220416http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=immune%20cross%20reactivity%20in%20celiac%20disease%20anti-gliadin%20antibodies%20bind%20to%20neuronal%20synapsin%20i.&cmd=correctspellinghttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12409286?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensorhttp://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423158http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/9/2973S.longhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774976/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.jimmunol.org/content/176/4/2512.longhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886850/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653457/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21852815http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323203/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923621/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326203/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332085http://disweb.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/gwadley/msc/WadleyMartinAgriculture.htmlhttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015213http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2184e/x2184e05.htm#anthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02506.x/abstract;jsessionid=BCB040A11084442B8198907569C101DE.d03t01http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20136989http://jn.nutrition.org/content/116/11/2270.full.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1933252/?tool=pmcentrezhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508840 - See more at: http://robbwolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3868#sthash.XXwBoTAv.dpuf

JonDoe

Nwm2 wrote: »

Again, the thread was for people to post scientific research to back up the 'bread is evil' hypothesis. So, can you post links to peer-reviewed studies to back up your claim? Posts to blogs and books don't qualify.

You claim one is much more likely to suffer cancer and other ailments if you consume wheat. So, let's see the evidence for much more likely.

Posts and blogs do qualify and have more validity than any clinical study, it's information on tap, don't knock it. Who pays for a study to be carried out? Would it be possible to get tenure at a University after carrying out such a study? Then if you're in the corporate world who is going to fund such a study? It would lead to a loss of profits, people would live longer and not blow their life savings on the final 2 years of care. It's a scam. Dwarf Wheat is a killer, a weapon. Go back to Spelt or Einkorn if you can get your hands on some. If I eat it or drink Wheat I can feel it in my blood, do you want me to waste 7 years in college, then write a paper insuring that I never get a job. Technocrats are bought and paid for, just like all the people on the tellybox.

Nwm2

Chefrio wrote: »

Sure.
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdfhttp://www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/418.abstracthttp://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365520500235334?journalCode=gashttp://gut.bmj.com/content/56/6/889.extracthttp://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2005/10000/Effect_of_Gluten_Containing_Diet_on_Serum_Zonulin.232.aspxhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007114500000271http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0033291700043312http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022172400016624http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000220416http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=immune%20cross%20reactivity%20in%20celiac%20disease%20anti-gliadin%20antibodies%20bind%20to%20neuronal%20synapsin%20i.&cmd=correctspellinghttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12409286?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensorhttp://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423158http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/9/2973S.longhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774976/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.jimmunol.org/content/176/4/2512.longhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886850/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653457/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21852815http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323203/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923621/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326203/?tool=pubmedhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332085http://disweb.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/gwadley/msc/WadleyMartinAgriculture.htmlhttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015213http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2184e/x2184e05.htm#anthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02506.x/abstract;jsessionid=BCB040A11084442B8198907569C101DE.d03t01http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20136989http://jn.nutrition.org/content/116/11/2270.full.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1933252/?tool=pmcentrezhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508840 - See more at: http://robbwolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3868#sthash.XXwBoTAv.dpuf

Badly malformed HTTP links there, can you correct?

Nwm2

JonDoe wrote: »

Posts and blogs do qualify and have more validity than any clinical study, it's information on tap, don't knock it. Who pays for a study to be carried out? Would it be possible to get tenure at a University after carrying out such a study? Then if you're in the corporate world who is going to fund such a study? It would lead to a loss of profits, people would live longer and not blow their life savings on the final 2 years of care. It's a scam. Dwarf Wheat is a killer, a weapon. Go back to Spelt or Einkorn if you can get your hands on some. If I eat it or drink Wheat I can feel it in my blood, do you want me to waste 7 years in college, then write a paper insuring that I never get a job. Technocrats are bought and paid for, just like all the people on the tellybox.

When I look at posts and blogs, I see that magnets cure cancer, the Apollo moon landings were faked, and a conspiracy of lizards rules, or is attempting to rule, the world. I also see that wheat causes cancer, and that wheat does not cause cancer.

How does one tell the wheat from the chaff, to use an unfortunate phrase? Science, not anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote is not data.

Science is not perfect, far from it, but is pretty self correcting in the long run (even short run).

To say that "Posts and blogs do qualify and have more validity than any clinical study", well you certainly have a poor view of science, but also an awful lack of understanding of it.

The poster before you posted a list of studies which might point out the evils of wheat (don't know, can't read them yet). All those studies are nonsense too though, right?

Chefrio

Nwm2 wrote: »

Badly malformed HTTP links there, can you correct?

They are all at this link.


http://robbwolf.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3868#sthash.XXwBoTAv.dpuf

nice_guy80

weight falls off me when I stop eating bread.

I have more energy, and feel less bloated

JonDoe

Nwm2 wrote: »

When I look at posts and blogs, I see that magnets cure cancer, the Apollo moon landings were faked, and a conspiracy of lizards rules, or is attempting to rule, the world. I also see that wheat causes cancer, and that wheat does not cause cancer.

How does one tell the wheat from the chaff, to use an unfortunate phrase? Science, not anecdotes. And the plural of anecdote is not data.

Science is not perfect, far from it, but is pretty self correcting in the long run (even short run).

To say that "Posts and blogs do qualify and have more validity than any clinical study", well you certainly have a poor view of science, but also an awful lack of understanding of it.

The poster before you posted a list of studies which might point out the evils of wheat (don't know, can't read them yet). All those studies are nonsense too though, right?

Hey magnets might just cure cancer, gerson therapy results would look outstanding if the cutters didn't get there first, enzymes cure cancer. My dad went to a horse doctor with skin cancer, the guy fixed him up with a cancerous egg poultice. Cancer is basically a fungus.

Everybody knows Kubrick faked the moon landings, there was a set next door to 2001, he admitted it all in "The Shining", he was given the ball and went for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6bZzFlj35s

Conspiracy of lizards rule. Well Conspiracy does rule, not sure if they are lizards but I definitely wouldn't say that they've got the best of mental health.

Wheat makes your body acidic, the body is naturally alkaline, cancer cells cannot grow in an alkaline environment. A lemon a day in you drinking water will do a lot of good.

Science has got validity, but funding is going into the wrong areas. Anything that hurts a monopoly gets buried and copyrighted for future road-blocking of competition.