Wheat Belly Cookbook: 150 delicious wheat-free recipes for effortless weight loss and optimum health

Wheat Belly Cookbook: 150 delicious wheat-free recipes for effortless weight loss and optimum health Dr William Davis 150 delicious wheat-free recipes for effortless weight loss and optimum healthWhen Dr William Davis developed the Wheat Belly plan he was unaware that his research would go on to change the health and well-being of millions of people looking to lose weight and find answers to their health issues.Now, on the back of that success and at the request of his fans, comes the first Wheat Belly Cookbook. Crammed with recipes for any time of day from easy breakfasts such as Grainless Granola, soups, salads and main courses to tempt your tastebuds and delicious wheat-free baking and desserts to satisfy the most discerning palate, the recipes in this book will help you shed the pounds and boost your vitality.So what are you waiting for? Join the wheat-free revolution from your kitchen and start feeling the benefits right away. Copyright (#u1102f062-6df4-51bd-8ef0-1c02f42ed15e) HarperThorsons An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers 1 London Bridge Street London SE1 9GF www.harpercollins.co.uk (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk) First published in this edition by Rodale Inc. 2013 Published in Great Britain by HarperThorsons 2015 Book design by Carol Angstadt William Davis 2013, 2015 A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library Photographs © 2013 by Rodale Inc. Photographs by Mitch Mandel/Rodale Before/After photos courtesy of the test panellists William Davis asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins e-books. Find out about HarperCollins and the environment at www.harpercollins.co.uk/green (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/green) Source ISBN: 9780008117573 Ebook Edition © 2015 ISBN: 9780008117658 Version: 2014-12-16 To everyone who has come to understand the liberation that emerges with wheatlessness. Contents Cover (#ud878248f-8e3a-560c-b84a-e4574d3e87dc) Title Page (#u178b8824-0243-525e-9e39-f8856866f2e9) Copyright Dedication (#u6f0964fa-1d70-51e1-9daf-3db09d4953af) Introduction Part 1: Health, Weight and Life the Wheat Belly Way Frankengrain Why Does My Stomach Hurt? Welcome to the Wonderful State of Wheatlessness Assembling Your Wheat Belly Kitchen Part 2: Wheat Belly Cookbook Recipes Breakfasts Sandwiches and Salads Starters Soups and Stews Main Dishes Side Dishes Sauces and Salad Dressings The Wheat Belly Bakery Picture Section Appendix A: Wheat, Wheat Everywhere Appendix B: Wheat-free Resources References List of Searchable Terms Acknowledgements About the Publisher (#litres_trial_promo) Introduction (#u1102f062-6df4-51bd-8ef0-1c02f42ed15e) The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off. Gloria Steinem Wheat is not the ‘healthy whole grain’ it was pretending to be. Like a faithful spouse exposed as a philanderer and polygamist, wheat is not to be trusted. Held up as an icon of health, it is in reality a major contributor to the world’s worst epidemic of obesity and an astounding list of health problems, from simple annoyances like dandruff to incapacitating conditions like dementia. This is a cataclysmic revelation for most people: It’s unsettling, it’s upsetting, it’s downright inconvenient. The condemnation of wheat is as paradigm shifting, earth shattering and life changing as the emergence of the Internet, the packaging of collateralized debt obligations and the collapse of mortgage markets, the upheavals of the Arab Spring . . . events that shook core beliefs, upended comforting habits and changed worldviews. Wheat is the Enron of the food world, the tobacco industry all over again – frauds, both intentional and inadvertent, conducted on an international scale. Charming and engaging on the outside, sociopathic and destructive on the inside, it works its way into your life, wreaking havoc in every conceivable health-destroying way. These are, for those of you unfamiliar with the arguments set forth in Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health (Rodale, 2011), undoubtedly bold assertions that fly in the face of nutritional wisdom. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans issued by the USDA and the US Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics all agree: Healthy whole grains should make up a substantial portion of your diet. This is colossally bad advice. ‘Eat more healthy whole grains’ is among the biggest health blunders ever made in the history of nutritional advice. Modern healthcare, treating millions of people at the cost of hundreds of billions of pounds every year for hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, arthritis, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, depression, diabetes, various forms of neurological impairment and on and on, is really treating . . . wheat consumption. And the endlessly repeated advice to eat more ‘healthy whole grains’ fuels this fire, much to the appreciative applause of the pharmaceutical industry. After all, the pharmaceutical industry funds a good part of the wheat lobby promoting and propagating this message. Oh, you didn’t know that? Yes, a long list of drug manufacturers have close financial ties to the organizations that lobby Congress, help establish school lunch policy and get cosy with the USDA to maintain the lofty nutritional role of ‘healthy whole grains’. And, yes, the clinical studies documenting these arguments have already been performed, but rarely do they make the light of day in media supported by Big Food, who count wheat products among the handful of commoditized ingredients, subsidized by the US government, that serve as the basis for most processed foods. In health, as in software, we are living examples of the principle of garbage in, garbage out. Put this stuff, the creation of geneticists from the 1960s and 1970s, into your body, and you get all manner of unanticipated health effects. Since the release of Wheat Belly, I have become convinced that not only is this an incredibly big issue for health, the situation is worse than it first appeared. It has affected far more people than I originally anticipated and to such an extraordinary degree that it is difficult to overestimate the severity of this problem. This is no fad that will flare and then burn out, much as the misguided low-fat notion has. This is not a dietary precept like ‘get more fibre’. It is an exposure of the genetic and biochemical changes introduced into this common foodstuff, all in the name of increased yield-per-acre, but with no questions asked about its suitability for human consumption. We are, in effect, experiencing the consequences of a grand agricultural experiment gone sour. Hey, Marlboro Man: Have a Bagel! Remember this? ‘According to a nationwide survey: More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette’? In the mid- and latter 20th century, the national discussion went from gushing about the pleasures and health benefits of smoking, to studies documenting the health damage caused by smoking, to executives denying any wrongdoing to Congress, to uncovering concealed documents demonstrating the industry’s knowledge of the adverse health effects of smoking decades earlier. We are reliving the tobacco experience with wheat in its place. I believe that smart food scientists stumbled on the appetite-stimulating effect of the gliadin protein in wheat 25 years ago. How else do we explain why wheat is in virtually all processed foods, from tomato soup to liquorice? In 1960, you would have found wheat in bread, rolls and cakes – obvious places that make sense. Go up and down the food aisles in your local supermarket in the 21st century, and you will find that nearly all canned, packaged and frozen foods contain wheat in some form. Is wheat that necessary for taste, or for texture? I don’t think so. I think it’s put there for one reason: to stimulate your appetite and increase sales. The transformation of the gliadin protein in newly created strains of wheat was accompanied by an increase in calorie consumption of 440 calories per day. By putting wheat in everything, the food industry, especially Big Food, ensured that you come back for more. Just as tobacco manufacturers increased nicotine content of cigarettes to ensure addiction, so adding wheat to every processed food created addictive behaviour in response to all things wheat. Eating 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year – not only does that add up to a lot of calories and a lot more food consumed, it adds up to a lot more weight. (Using a simple calories-in calculation, this yields 160,000 calories, or 3 stone 3.8 pounds gained in a year. This is an oversimplification, since calories-in, calories-out is a flawed concept, but it nonetheless illustrates how substantial this effect can be.) The introduction of the new form of gliadin was followed shortly thereafter by a nationwide increase in weight. After people gained 2 stone 2 pounds, 3 stone 8 pounds, 4 stone 4 pounds or more, an explosive surge in diabetes followed. We are now in the midst of the worst epidemic of diabetes ever experienced by humans, such that the curve showing the number of people with diabetes is in a vertical climb straight upwards, a trajectory that is likely to engulf your children and grandchildren. The gliadin protein of wheat ensures that wheat products, such as whole grain or white breads, bagels and muffins, are addictive: They generate a need for more . . . and more, and more. Gliadin is an opiate, you will discover, with its own form of euphoria and its very own opiate withdrawal syndrome when wheat consumption stops that can also be provoked with opiate-blocking drugs. So the inadvertent transformation of wheat gliadin into a much more potent appetite stimulant, recognized quickly by observant food scientists, brought us here, to this overweight, diabetic situation that now plagues Americans and much of the rest of the developed world . . . while we are advised to eat more ‘healthy whole grains’. No doubt, many people profited handsomely – and continue to do so – from this message, but the public has paid the price, both with their pocketbooks and their health. There’s Power in Them Tweets Since the release of the first Wheat Belly, social media has served the role of a worldwide stage for these arguments to play out. Some things, when enacted in real life in real people, are so consistent and powerful that, despite their anecdotal nature, they serve to reinforce what we learn through scientific observation. If I hit my head with a hammer and it hurts, and my head stops hurting when I stop hitting it, do I need a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to prove that hitting my head with a hammer causes head pain? The association is so consistent and obvious that you can safely accept the premise that the hammer is the cause. Likewise, eliminating wheat has been demonstrated, through the thousands of people who have embraced these ideas, to produce life-changing transformations of health and weight that most thought were impossible, allowing them to throw away multiple medications and leave behind years of pain, wheezing, diarrhoea, cramps, swelling, fatigue – within days of saying goodbye to their bran muffins or breakfast cereal. In the Middle East, social media allowed the masses to organize, communicate and overthrow despotic dictators. In no other time in history could dissent disseminate so rapidly, revolt be organized within hours. Likewise, social media is now showing us, on an unprecedented scale and abbreviated timeline, that rejecting all things wheat is among the most powerful and liberating health strategies imaginable. We purge this Muammar Gaddafi of diet using the facility and speed of Twitter, Facebook and other electronic media, spreading the word of dietary revolution using the very same tools. This is not a popular message at the USDA, or in the halls of Big Food and Big Agribusiness. It’s not uncommon, for instance, for agribusiness giant Monsanto to spend more than $2 billion/?1.3 billion per quarter to lobby the federal government to influence policymakers – and that’s just one company. Pound for pound, we cannot even begin to compete with such forces. Ah, but we can talk to each other and share our experiences, something that these dominating corporate forces are unlikely to do with us. Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight . . . and the Acid Reflux, and the Oedema, and the Mental ‘Fog’ . . . Much like when you stop hitting your head with a hammer and the headache miraculously goes away, so eliminating all wheat from the diet is followed by the majority of people experiencing abrupt and substantial weight loss along with relief from a long list of health conditions. In other words, the proof of this concept is in your own hands, a simple rearrangement of food priorities in your own storecupboard. You don’t have to wait for a large-scale clinical trial to know whether this is relevant to your health situation. If you decide to wait for national advice to embrace this concept, you are going to wait a very, very long time. How do official agencies undo the disastrous advice of the last 40 years without losing credibility, without incurring legal liability for the unimaginable economic damages – and without losing the revenue stream that this corrupt message has generated? You don’t have to wait. You can start the process and know within days whether this thing called wheat has been to blame for your health and weight. The total effect experienced in eliminating wheat is greater than the sum of its parts: It’s a 2 + 2 = 11 phenomenon. That’s no typo. Getting rid of wheat is that big. Despite our knowing about many of the undesirable changes introduced by geneticists into modern wheat, the health changes – health transformations – experienced by most people who say goodbye to wheat are often far greater than we’d predict. It makes for some of the most compelling success stories in weight and health you could imagine. Gluten-free . . . and Other Blunders A growing number of people are declaring themselves gluten free, thereby buying and consuming gluten-free foods. Big mistake. Yes, it’s a very good thing to avoid the gluten from wheat. But this can take you down the path of gluten-free processed foods. Oddly, the majority of manufacturers of gluten-free foods have chosen to base their products – with rare exceptions – on rice starch, cornflour, potato flour and tapioca starch. While they may provide a reasonable facsimile of gluten-containing wheat flour–based products in taste and texture, they are among the few foods that raise blood sugar even higher than the high levels generated by wheat products. In other words, gluten-free multigrain bread or gluten-free pasta, from the perspective of high levels of blood sugar and its consequences, are poor choices as replacements for wheat. So we should be wheat free and gluten free, but also free of gluten-free foods made with junk carbohydrates. A bit confusing, yes. This was part of my motivation for adding the Wheat Belly Cookbook to the discussion, to help you re-create delicious foods without wheat and without the rice starch, cornflour, potato flour and tapioca starch of commercial gluten-free foods. The recipes presented herein are tasty, don’t screw with blood sugar, don’t trigger appetite and are truly healthy – a novel concept! Lettuce and Cardboard? For many people, the prospect of giving up wheat is daunting, even downright terrifying, especially since wheat comes with its very own withdrawal syndrome. Not only might you be deprived of something that yields an addictive relationship, but what foods will remain? Will you starve? Will you have to live on lettuce, cardboard and tasteless replacement foods? Not at all. As many wheat-free people will attest, foods minus wheat are actually more enjoyable. A fundamental change occurs when you remove this addictive food: You enjoy food for its own sake, not because there is an appetite stimulant present making you eat anything you can get your hands on. Taste is heightened: You are better able to discern the nuances of foods, but also more sensitive to sweetness, with formerly tasty treats now sickeningly sweet. You are less hungry to the tune of 440 fewer calories per day; what you eat, you enjoy more since you are having less. Foods can be wonderfully varied without wheat. In addition to beef burgundy and pizza, you can have muffins, biscuits, pies, scones and other former wheat-containing foods, made using truly healthy ingredients. These are among the 150 recipes in the Wheat Belly Cookbook. What this is not is a gluten-free cookbook. No food manufacturer or author of a gluten-free cookbook I know of yet understands the principles of healthy wheat-free, gluten-free eating sufficiently to craft truly healthy gluten-free food. If you want to get fat and diabetic, develop cataracts and arthritis, and grow a belly full of inflammatory visceral fat, eat gluten-free substitutes sold in shops or follow the recipes in the newest gluten-free cookbook. So the recipes I’ve developed here are indeed free of wheat and gluten, limited in carbohydrate exposure – and truly healthy. Quit Your Bellyaching! ‘Don’t you miss it?’ and ‘Aren’t you tempted to eat a doughnut?’ are among the common questions from those contemplating a life sans wheat. If, by the end of these opening chapters, you aren’t eyeing your beloved multigrain bread or onion ciabatta with suspicion or outright horror, then I haven’t done my job. I see my role as exposing these arguments to the light of day for all to see, not just the tarted-up, hunky-dory version presented to us by those who profit from influencing the message. My hope is that, by the time you have finished reading the first few chapters, you will understand that not only is this creation of genetics research awful for weight and health, it is downright deadly. Removing it is . . . liberating. It’s the rainbow after the storm, remission after cancer treatment, viewing bright colours after a lifetime of blindness. Be sure to read the success stories that I’ve peppered throughout the recipe section detailing many of the compelling tales of health and weight turnarounds that have come my way ever since this message has gained an international audience. Read real stories of dramatic weight loss, relief from crippling health conditions, transformations of children’s behaviours – all from people denying themselves the effects of this creation of modern genetics research called wheat. Part 1 (#u1102f062-6df4-51bd-8ef0-1c02f42ed15e) Health, Weight and Life the Wheat Belly Way (#u1102f062-6df4-51bd-8ef0-1c02f42ed15e) Let’s begin by surveying the wheat landscape. We find that it is no longer a field of beautiful ‘amber waves of grain’, but a field of something different. It is also a battleground of obesity, diabetes and legions of people who have succumbed to its effects. We begin the discussion on modern wheat in three parts. Frankengrain Agricultural scientists have stitched the genetics of this thing together, ­concocted from extensive, sometimes bizarre experiments to increase yield-per-acre of wheat. How has it changed? Just as the Frankenstein monster, the creature created with body parts woven together in a laboratory, terrorized the countryside, so this Frankengrain has worked its way onto your kitchen table, doing its dirty deeds on your health. This gets a bit complicated, but you will discover that the deeper we dig, the worse it gets. You will gain an understanding of just how far off course this thing has been taken from its natural state. Why does my stomach hurt? And why do my joints ache, and my bowels rumble, and my feet swell and my. . .? It’s not wheat. At least it’s not the wheat of 1950, and certainly not the wheat of centuries past. It’s no more wheat than rapper Snoop Dogg is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This creation of the genetics laboratory is different, altered in fundamental ways that increase appetite, ignite inflammation, grow visceral fat, skyrocket blood sugar, destroy intestinal and joint health and wreak a long list of other havoc on health and metabolism. Welcome to the Wonderful State of Wheatlessness If consuming modern wheat makes us fat and destroys our health, then ­removing it should undo the entire mess . . . and it does! Remove sugar and you lose a few pounds and blood sugar trends down. Remove wheat and joints feel better, acid reflux goes away, rashes disappear, mental ‘fog’ disappears, energy increases, sleep is deeper, food obsessions are gone, asthma improves or disappears, leg swelling shrinks – oh, and you lose a few pounds and blood sugar trends down. Nothing – nothing – matches the health impact of losing the wheat, the ‘healthy whole grains’, in your diet. We go one step further: If you eliminate wheat, health and weight are not necessarily ideal if you continue to consume soft drinks, gumdrops and their dietary equivalents. So we also discuss why limiting non-wheat carbohydrates is important, too, especially if you are trying to lose weight. We then tackle the day-to-day particulars in . . . Assembling Your Wheat Belly Kitchen Here we discuss everything from what to banish from your kitchen to what wheat-free flours to choose to re-create cupcakes, biscuits and cheesecake. Life is good after saying goodbye to wheat! You are healthier, more energetic and more slender – while indulging in delicious brownies and pizza. Okay, let’s get started and kiss your sorry wheat-consuming butt goodbye! Frankengrain (#ulink_47eec03a-3b66-5cfa-a666-d054eea6a439) . . . it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing. I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery . . . Mary Shelley Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus Wheat encapsulates a fundamental dilemma of our technological age: How much should we permit modern agriculture to modify our food, change its genetics, alter its biochemistry – but not tell us what they did, how they did it, why they did it and that there are potentially uncertain effects on us unwitting humans who consume it with our breakfast burrito? If your hairdresser one day decided to give you a new hairdo and dye your curls red, surely she would discuss this with you first. If your spouse decided that life would be better in John o’ Groats, wouldn’t it first come with a bit of discussion? The production of our food does not seem to adhere to such common courtesies. Food crops and livestock are changed, you buy them, you eat them – no questions asked. The changes introduced are not just that of a new colour, or an adaptation to grow under some unique condition. The food is, in many cases, fundamentally changed. More than any other common foodstuff, wheat stands apart as the most changed. Selling bread, pretzels or ciabattas to you under the guise of wheat is a deception that you would not tolerate in other areas of your life, certainly not from your hairdresser or spouse. Modern wheat represents the technological capabilities of agricultural geneticists that pre-date the age of genetic engineering and genetic modification, the use of gene-splicing technology to insert or delete a gene. Wheat represents the brainchild of genetics manipulations that were employed before such technologies were developed. Wheat represents the product of genetic methods that were crude, often stumbling, less controllable, less predictable – far worse than genetic modification. Yes, believe it or not, modern genetic modification using gene-splicing technology to insert or delete single genes, as frightening as it may be in its implications to mess with nature’s design, represents a substantial improvement over what geneticists were doing previously. Using breeding methods that pre-date genetic modification, geneticists were unable to precisely control which genes were changed, which genes were turned on or turned off and whether entirely new and unique genetic traits were created by accident. They simply looked for the characteristics relevant to their own interests, such as shorter height or greater yield, but had no real interest in nor insight into what the total package did to humans. Why would they, since none of us ever asked? And yet the products of these stumbling early efforts at creating ‘improved’ genetic variations of your food are already on your supermarket shelves. And you’ve been consuming them for something like 35 years. Healthy Whole . . . What? ‘Healthy whole grains’. It is the mantra you hear and see repeated dozens of times each day in TV commercials, on cereal boxes and bread wrappers, and by well-meaning people offering nutritional advice. The message is delivered by happy mums, sports figures, superheroes and well-dressed leprechauns, well-intentioned nutritionists and concerned doctors. Whole grains are good for everybody, they say: every man, woman and child, from infancy on up to our retirement years. Whole grains reduce weight gain, colon cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Whole grains make you regular. Whole grains should represent the biggest part of your diet every day. Just what are ‘healthy whole grains’? By ‘grains’, we nearly always mean wheat. After all, how many times a day do you sit down to a sandwich with bread made of sorghum flour, breakfast cereal made of quinoa or pancakes made with millet and buckwheat? If you are like most people, it is rare to never. It’s wheat that constitutes nearly all of what most people consider ‘whole grains’ and thereby dominates consumption. Whole wheat, along with white flour products in their many and varied forms, dominates the diets of most people, adding up to 20 per cent of all human calories. It’s wheat that’s in your pizza base, bagels, pretzels, bread, pasta, muffins, breakfast cereals, doughnuts, beefburger and hot dog rolls, dinner rolls, breadcrumbs and breading, pittas, wraps, subs and sandwiches. And those are just the obvious sources. Grains occupy the widest part of the former Food Pyramid, and now the largest segment of the Food Plate, the graphic renditions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. School lunch programmes aim to include more ‘healthy whole grains’, and educators teach children that ‘healthy whole grains’ should be a part of every child’s daily eating habits. Grains, we are told, are good for us, and without them our health will suffer. So, just what is this thing called ‘wheat’ that occupies a huge chunk of the modern diet? It’s not what you thought it was. I would argue that it’s not wheat, or at least it is far removed from the wheat of 1950 that predates the extensive genetics transformations introduced during the 1960s and 1970s. But these crude genetics efforts were successful in delivering what geneticists were striving for: increased yield. To a lesser degree, efforts in wheat breeding were aimed at cultivating characteristics like resistance to drought or high temperature, or the ability to fight infestations like moulds. But most of the genetic changes introduced into modern wheat were performed to increase yield-per-acre. And, from the perspective of yield, the new genetic strains of wheat were successful – on a grand scale. From the perspective of Third World countries, for instance, that adopted high-yield wheat strains in the 1970s, famine was converted to surplus within a year of their introduction. High-yield strains of wheat became cause for celebration. But the day after the big party brings the . . . hangover. Sure, it yielded previously unimaginable riches in yield and fed the hungry. But at what price? This modern product of genetics research looks different. Nearly all the wheat grown today in all parts of the world stands 1? feet to 2 feet tall, a semi-dwarf strain (full dwarf strains stand 1 to 1? feet tall) with a thick shaft that resists buckling in the wind and rain, a large seedhead and larger-than-normal seeds. (Seeds are harvested to make flour.) With heavy nitrogen fertilizer application, modern semi-dwarf wheat yields tenfold more per acre than its traditional 4?-foot-tall predecessor. But changes in height and yield are only the start. Outward changes in appearance are unavoidably accompanied by changes in biochemical makeup. Just one hybridization, for instance, of two parent wheat plants can yield 5 per cent unique proteins not found in either parent. Modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat is not the result of a few hybridizations, but the result of thousands of hybridization events conducted by geneticists, repeated breeding to select for qualities like height and seed size, resulting in the creation of many unique proteins and other compounds. And breeding efforts ventured much further than just crossing two plants, often employing techniques we’d consider extreme or bizarre. It means that this new breed of wheat introduces hundreds of unique compounds to consuming humans never before encountered in nature. More on that later. Problem: Geneticists assumed that, regardless of the degree of genetic changes introduced into the plant, no matter how severe the change in appearance, no matter how bizarre some of the methods used to generate those changes, it remains suitable for human consumption. Tinkering with the Dinkel Modern wheat is not wheat, any more than a human is a hairless chimpanzee. As primates, we keep company with chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and baboons. While apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 (due to the fusion of two ape chromosomes), I’m certain you would object if I brought an orangutan to your home for dinner. Despite the extensive overlap in genetics, the outward differences are obvious. And there are internal biochemical and physiologic differences hidden beneath the obvious. I have 46 chromosomes. You have 46 chromosomes. A Yanomamo tribesman from the Amazon rainforest has 46 chromosomes. A 4-foot-10-inch, dark-skinned Tasmanian Aboriginal woman has 46 chromosomes, as does a Nunavut Inuit hunter from northern Canada. There are marked outward differences among us humans, yet we all share an identical number of chromosomes. Not so with wheat. Einkorn wheat, ancestor of all modern wheat, harvested by hunter-gatherers in the Fertile Crescent 10,000 years ago, is a 14-chromosome wild grain. The wheat of the Bible, emmer wheat, also grew wild in the Middle East and bears 28 chromosomes. Strains of wheat that pre-date human genetic intervention, the crop cultivated by humans during the Middle Ages through the 19th and early 20th centuries in North America and Europe, were 42-chromosome plants. Modern wheat of the 21st century is also a 42-chromosome plant. But our modern strains, thanks to genetic changes introduced by humans for our own purposes, contain new and unique characteristics, among them an inability to survive in the wild. Modern wheat is many thousands of years and many genes apart from 14-chromosome einkorn, 28-chromosome emmer and even the 42-chromosome wheat of the 19th century. The genetic story behind the evolution of wheat has only come to be appreciated over the last 100 years. In 1913, a German scientist named Schultz developed the first genetic classification of wheat. He divided wheat into three categories: einkorn, emmer and dinkel. Five years later, a Japanese scientist performed a chromosomal analysis, making the determination that einkorn contained 14 chromosomes, emmer 28 chromosomes and dinkel 42 chromosomes. The dinkel of that day was pretty much untouched by genetic changes, representing only the crude year-over-year efforts by farmers to select for qualities such as hardiness and ability to survive a cold spell. (Since then, kamut has been identified as another 28-chromosome form of wheat and spelt another variation on 42-chromosome wheat.) It’s dinkel that now dominates the world’s wheat and has been the recipient of all the attentions of geneticists. With 42 chromosomes, dinkel proved to be better suited to the tinkering of geneticists. Now called Triticum aestivum, dinkel wheat is a hardy ‘hexaploid’ version, meaning it comes with three complete pairs of chromosomes (‘hex’ means six), unlike einkorn’s single and emmer’s two paired sets. The greater genetic potential of hexaploid Triticum aestivum means more adaptability and hardiness – and greater potential for genetic changes to be introduced by clever human geneticists. So dinkel, 42-chromosome hexaploid Triticum aestivum, is the form of wheat that geneticists fiddled with, striving to increase yield-per-acre during the 1960s and 1970s. While the Cold War was smack in the centre of consciousness at that time, the full realization of the power of science to do both good and bad had not yet focused on agriculture. Agricultural science was still young and full of promise, not yet having acquired the tarnished reputation that was to come in the future with herbicides like 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (the two main components of Agent Orange, used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, resulting in the maiming of hundreds of thousands of natives and American soldiers) and pesticides like DDT that were linked to infertility and birth defects. During those years, agricultural geneticists worked free from concerns about toxicity and the implications for humans consuming the products of their genetic redesigns. It was still the age of science for the sake of science, with little to no thought devoted to potential consequences for exposed humans. The techniques used to transform dinkel wheat involved plenty more than just mating two plants. The current strains of wheat – high-yield, semi-dwarf strains – were generated using repetitive hybridization (crossing two strains), wide crossing (crossing two very dissimilar plants, even distantly related wild grasses, to generate unique genetic combinations), repetitive backcrossing (repeatedly crossing to winnow out a specific genetic characteristic), embryo ‘rescue’ (artificially sustaining an embryo of a hybrid that would have died naturally due to mutations), and chemical, gamma ray and x-ray mutagenesis (the purposeful provocation of mutations, followed by cultivation of desired mutants). Most modern strains are the result of many, if not all, of these techniques. Semi-dwarf wheat started with the 42-chromosome mutant spawn of the Norin 10 dwarf strain from Japan and the Brevor 14 strain from Washington. Progress in developing an especially high-yield strain of wheat was accelerated with the dedication and ingenuity of Dr Nor man Borlaug and colleagues working in Mexico City at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (IMWIC). Thousands of hybridization experiments, crossing strains repeatedly, shuttling seeds back and forth between two very different climates (the high-temperature, low-altitude plains of the Yaqu? Valley and the lower-temperature, high-altitude mountains of the Sierra Madre Oriental), helped create a unique, never-before-seen strain of wheat: exceptionally high-yield (tenfold greater yield-per-acre), short (1? to 2 feet tall), with a thick stem and large seeds. Mexican farmers quickly recognized the production advantages of this super-yielding strain. It was exported to other countries, including the United States, Canada, India, China and elsewhere. Adopted reluctantly at first in the United States and Canada in the late 1970s because farmers thought it looked peculiar, word spread quickly about this new odd-looking semi-dwarf strain once the remarkable yield-per-acre became evident, and it was embraced widely by the early 1980s. By 1985, virtually all wheat grown in the United States and Canada was the high-yielding semi-dwarf strain. Today, nearly all wheat grown worldwide is the semi-dwarf strain, with only small odd pockets of older strains still under cultivation in southern France, parts of Italy and the Middle East. This brings us to the present. Today, the wheat products you are sold in the form of whole grain or white bread, bagels, biscuits, cakes, pretzels, pizza and breakfast cereals, as well as the myriad other clever ways food manufacturers have managed to transform this grain, originate with the semi-dwarf brainchild of genetics research. It’s not wild einkorn, it’s not biblical emmer, it’s not spelt or kamut of the Middle Ages, it’s not the dinkel of the 19th century. Modern wheat with its newly introduced genetic changes is uniquely and genetically suited to accommodate our demands for increased yield, more desirable baking characteristics and more pliable dough. It’s just not perfectly suited for human consumption. What Changed? While wheat has been a problematic food for as long as humans have consumed it (with records suggesting coeliac disease, or intestinal damage from wheat gluten, for instance, as long ago as AD 100), modern changes introduced by geneticists made it much worse. Now, if you take me at my word that wheat has been changed extensively at the hands of geneticists but don’t care to know all the details, then skim the heavy stuff over the next several pages. But if you desire a deeper understanding of what exactly changed, then pour yourself another cup of coffee and read on. Warning: The discussion unavoidably gets a bit complicated for the next several pages. But there are truly important details here for those of you who want to know just what happened. So what exactly changed? First, there are obvious outward changes visible to the naked eye. The knee-high semi-dwarf plant has a shorter stalk that diverts less fertilizer and nutrients from the seeds. This change in height is due to changes in Rht (reduced height) genes that code for the protein gibberellin, controlling stalk length (discussed later). The seedhead is larger, with seeds that are also bigger and different in shape. While there is variation among the 25,000 modern strains, semi-dwarf wheat also tends to have reduced protein content and higher carbohydrate content, and it yields different baking and texture characteristics. The differences in outward appearance are accompanied by internal genetic and biochemical differences. Gliadin Gliadin is among the most interesting – and most destructive – of all the many components of modern wheat. Gliadin is one of the proteins in the gluten family of proteins. Gluten is actually a combination of smaller gliadin proteins and lengthier glutenin molecules. While gluten is often fingered as the source of wheat’s problems, it’s really gliadin that is the culprit behind many health issues. Gliadin can assume many forms, with more than 200 gene variants coding for as many variations of gliadin protein. The past 50 years of genetics research has introduced extensive changes into gliadin structure, but the full implications of these changes have not been fully mapped out, as they were assumed to be benign. And, after all, this research was performed by agricultural scientists, not doctors or people with insights into human health. Changes in gliadin have therefore been dismissed as harmless, despite the fact that gliadin is capable of increasing intestinal ‘leakiness’ to foreign proteins and triggering cross-reactions with human structures (i.e., triggering an abnormal immune response to similar, though not identical, proteins in the body, a process called molecular mimicry), such as nervous system proteins like synaptin, cells of the intestinal lining (enterocytes) or the ubiquitous calcium-modulating protein calreticulin, potentially triggering inflammatory and immune responses to these proteins. The changes introduced over the past 50 years in particular have increased the expression of the Glia-?9 amino acid sequence within gliadin that has been most closely linked to triggering coeliac disease. While the genetic sequence coding for Glia-?9 was absent from most strains of wheat from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it is now present in nearly all modern varieties. Glia-?9 is a perfect fit for the transglutaminase enzyme that activates it into the form that strongly binds immune-activating (‘HLA DQ’) molecules lining the intestinal wall, activating the characteristic T-cell immune response that sets coeliac disease in motion. The dramatically increased presence of Glia-?9 likely explains why there has been a fourfold increase in coeliac disease since 1948. (Interestingly, the Glia-?9 sequence, coded for on the sixth chromosome of the ‘D’ collection of genes in modern wheat, is also absent from primitive strains of wheat that lack ‘D’ genes, such as einkorn, which contains only the ‘A’ set of genes, and emmer, which contains the ‘A’ and ‘B’ sets of genes.) Opiates, such as heroin, have been shown to activate appetite in addition to pain relief and euphoria. Likewise, the new forms of wheat gliadin have been shown to have effects on the human brain via binding to opiate receptors – yes, opiate receptors, the very same receptors that are activated by heroin, morphine and Oxycontin. The opiate-like effects of wheat gliadin, however, are less of a ‘high’ and more that of increased appetite and increased calorie consumption, with studies demonstrating a very consistent increased calorie intake of 400 or more calories per day (see ‘Wheat Gliadin and Exorphins: The Ultimate Obesogens’ (#ulink_c74316ec-4657-540d-b0fc-5de8642f937d)). Blocking gliadin with opiate-blocking drugs like naloxone and naltrexone has been shown to reduce calorie consumption by 400 calories per day and induce weight loss of 1 stone 11 pounds over 6 to 12 months. Glia-?9 represents just one change introduced into so-called ?-gliadins. Changes have also been introduced into the three other fractions of gliadin, including the ?-gliadin responsible for some forms of wheat allergy and anaphylaxis, and ?-gliadin that, along with the ? form, bind HLA DQ. The full effect of these changes, given the widely held assumption that wheat is good for health, has not been fully explored. Gluten Gluten is the stuff that confers the viscoelastic properties that are unique to wheat dough, the stretchability and mouldability that allow it to be so accommodating to bakers and shapeable into so many varied configurations, from pretzels to pizza. Gluten is also popular as an additive to processed foods like sauces, instant soups, and frozen foods, causing the average person to ingest from 15 to 20 grams per day. Gluten is a diverse collection of proteins that vary from wheat strain to wheat strain. Gluten is the recipient of much genetic manipulation, as the long chain and branching structure of the glutenin proteins within gluten determine baking characteristics (firmness, sturdiness, bendability, stretchability, crust formation). Geneticists therefore bred and crossbred wheat strains repeatedly to achieve desired baking characteristics, bred wheat with non-wheat grasses to introduce new genes, and used chemicals and radiation to induce mutations that included new and unique changes in glutenin characteristics. In addition to adding lightness to doughnuts and chewiness to wraps, gluten is also among the most destructive of proteins in the human diet, thanks to its ability to bind to what are called HLA DQ proteins (via gliadin) along the insides of the human intestinal tract. People with specific genetically determined forms of the HLA DQ proteins, such as DQ2 and DQ8, are especially prone to this effect, yielding inflammatory responses that result in coeliac disease or sensitivity to gluten. Up to 30 per cent of the population has either the DQ2 or DQ8 genes – by no means rare, though only around 1 per cent of people with either DQ gene will develop the full-blown coeliac disease syndrome, while another 10 per cent develop gluten sensitivity. (It’s not entirely clear why some people develop gluten sensitivity with symptoms of abdominal cramps, gas, diarrhoea, etc., while others develop more severe coeliac disease.) Other important changes have been introduced into gliadin proteins of gluten (see here (#ulink_7776f139-a006-5c5b-a673-63233b306ddd)), including enrichment of the more harmful Glia-?9 sequences that likely underlies the quadrupling of coeliac disease over the past 50 years. Wheat Gliadin and Exorphins: The Ultimate Obesogens Obesity research has raised an intriguing question: Are we being exposed to industrial chemicals that cause weight gain and contribute to the obesity epidemic? Bisphenol A (BPA), which is found in polycarbonate plastics and the resin lining of cans, and the pesticide atrazine, for instance, are two compounds suspected to provoke weight gain by blocking or distorting various glandular responses. These chemicals have been dubbed obesogens – compounds that cause obesity. Could something new in wheat also be an obesogen? The gliadin proteins of wheat are degraded in the gastrointestinal tract to a group of polypeptides named exorphins, or exogenously derived morphine-like compounds. Several different exorphin compounds, called gluteomorphin or gliadorphins by researchers studying these curious compounds over the last 30 years, have been identified. Not only do wheat-derived exorphins bind to the brain’s opiate receptors, but they are blocked from interacting with brain opiate receptors by the opiate-blocking drugs naloxone and naltrexone, the very same drugs used as antidotes, for example, for heroin or narcotic overdose. So what is the evidence that the opiate-binding compounds that derive from wheat gliadin, in particular the newest forms of gliadin in modern wheat, via wheat exorphins, stimulate appetite? Here’s a sampling of the research. • Coeliac disease, intestinal destruction from wheat gluten/gliadin, is traditionally regarded as a condition yielding emaciated, malnourished people, but has, over the last 40 years, become a disease of the overweight and obese. • Overweight people with coeliac disease who eliminate all wheat and gluten lose 1 stone 12 pounds to 1 stone 13 pounds of weight in the first 6 months. Growing, overweight children with coeliac disease lose fat mass and return to normal body mass index (BMI) with elimination of wheat and gluten. (These effects, by the way, tend to be short-lived because of the common mistake of resorting to weight-increasing gluten-free foods.) Note that in all of these studies, weight was lost without restricting calories, grams of fat or anything else except eliminating wheat and gluten (and thereby gliadin). • People who eliminate wheat consume, on average, 418 fewer calories per day, or 14 per cent fewer daily calories compared to wheat-consuming people in another study. • Normal volunteers injected with the opiate-blocking drug naloxone consumed 400 fewer calories in 1 day’s time compared with those administered a placebo. • People who suffer with binge-eating disorder (who often experience binge and ‘purge’ cycles and are usually obese) consume 28 per cent fewer calories during a binge after administration of naloxone. • Multiple studies have recently demonstrated the efficacy of the oral opiate-blocking drug naltrexone (in combination with the antidepressant bupropion) for weight loss. Participants receiving the combination drug lost 25 pounds over the first year and experienced substantial reduction in food cravings. (These studies served as the basis for a pharmaceutical company’s 2010 application to the FDA for a weight-loss indication for this drug.) This is perfectly in sync with what I witness in my office every day, what I’ve witnessed over the past 5 years in people who have eliminated all wheat from their diet and what I have seen unfold many thousands of times in the people who have read and followed the advice provided in Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight. Wheat, in effect, is a powerful obesogen. Exorphins from the wheat protein gliadin increase appetite and increase calorie consumption by 400 or more calories per day; blocking the morphine-like effects of wheat exorphins with opiate-blocking drugs reduces calorie consumption and results in weight loss. The introduction of modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat in the late 1970s, with widespread adoption by 1985, was accompanied by a surge in weight gain, an explosive increase in the number of Americans classified as obese, and, after a lag of a few years, the greatest epidemic of diabetes ever seen. Say goodbye to wheat, say goodbye to wheat gliadin and exorphins, say goodbye to excessive appetite and say goodbye to weight – a lot of it. The breeding methods used prior to modern techniques of genetic modification to alter gluten quality did not always result in predictable, controllable changes. For example, just one hybridization event between two different wheat plants can yield as many as 14 new glutenin protein sequences within gluten, the great majority of which have never before been consumed by humans. New genes for glutenin proteins within gluten have been described in modern forms of wheat that have never been found in older forms, such as the unique glutenin genes GluD3-3 and GluD3-12. Usually as part of efforts to change the genetics of wheat to increase yield or enhance baking characteristics, new and unique gliadin, glutenin and other proteins have resulted, none of which were tested for suitability for human consumption prior to their introduction into your food – they are just produced and sold, no questions asked. Lectins Lectins are a class of protective molecules found in plants. Lacking such things as cellular immunity and antibodies like we higher mammals have, plants instead rely on proteins called lectins to protect themselves from moulds, insects and other would-be predators. Because it is an effective defence against pests, geneticists have genetically engineered the gene for wheat lectin, wheat germ agglutinin, into other plants, such as corn, as an insecticide, given its lethal effects on the larvae of a pest known as the European corn borer. The lectin of wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, is toxic. Found at highest concentration in wheat germ that many people regard as especially healthy, it has peculiar effects at many levels in wheat predators such as humans. Unlike gluten and gliadin, whose toxic potential is amplified in the genetically susceptible through HLA DQ genes, wheat germ agglutinin can do its damage directly, no genetic assistance required. It binds to the lining of the intestinal tract, disrupting cellular structure and microvilli, the short absorptive ‘hairs’ on intestinal cells, and causing ‘hyperplasia’, i.e., abnormal cell growth, of the small intestinal lining. These phenomena increase intestinal permeability, suspected to explain why foreign substances are able to gain entry into the bloodstream in the presence of wheat germ agglutinin. Wheat germ agglutinin is unique in that it is resistant to digestion in the human gastrointestinal tract, as well as to cooking, baking, sprouting the seeds or sourdough fermentation. Because of its relatively small size, in addition to allowing other intruding compounds into the bloodstream, it is itself readily able to penetrate the intestinal lining and gain access to the bloodstream, with many people expressing antibodies against wheat germ agglutinin. Once it gains entry into the bloodstream, wheat germ agglutinin has the capacity to exert an entire range of peculiar and unhealthy effects, including amplifying the effects of insulin on fat cells (increasing fat storage) and stimulation of abnormal immune responses such as that underlying rheumatoid arthritis. Wheat germ agglutinin is believed to worsen coeliac disease; studies suggest that wheat germ agglutinin alone is sufficient to generate coeliac disease–like intestinal damage. Oddly, wheat germ agglutinin resembles the protein hevein, the lectin from rubber plants responsible for latex allergy. The three variants of wheat germ agglutinin in modern wheat, isolectins A, B and D, all contain eight copies of the hevein sequence. The full implications of this peculiar juxtaposition have not been explored in humans, though it has potential for allergic and immune consequences, given the frequency and severity of latex allergy. The genetic changes inflicted on wheat have potential for expressing altered forms of wheat germ agglutinin. The structure of this protein in modern wheat is different by several amino acids from that of the ancient wheat strains emmer and einkorn. Unfortunately, what is not clear, given the general lack of interest among agricultural scientists and the recent development of technology able to make such distinctions among molecules, is whether new forms of lectins created over the last 50 years are more harmful than older forms. (It might turn out, for instance, that wheat lectins are bad for humans no matter what form they take.) Rht Genes Nearly all of the world’s wheat is the semi-dwarf variety, a high-yield 1? to 2-foot-tall plant. Dwarfism is controlled by reduced height, or Rht, genes that reduce the production of the protein gibberellin, which stimulates growth of the stalk. Genes for dwarfism were originally obtained during the flurry of genetics research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s through repeated crossings with the mutant Norin 10 strain from Japan. As with many mutations, one ‘defective’ (or, in this case, desirable) gene is often accompanied by other genetic changes. Changes in Rht genes are accompanied by other changes in the genetic code of the wheat plant. Reduced height is also associated with thicker shafts, greater nutrient uptake in the seedheads (which are ground to produce flour), yielding larger and an increased number of seeds, and variations in other proteins expressed, such as alpha amylase inhibitors. As with much of the research of this age, some of the characteristics created were desirable to agricultural scientists, some not, but most were not even identified nor outwardly expressed or visible to the eye since the nature of the methods used did not seek to identify each and every change, just the obvious ones. (Imagine, for instance, I provoke a mutation for height in a chimpanzee. A 1-foot-tall chimpanzee dwarf might also have mental impairment, odd hair texture and colour, endocrine abnormalities, etc., some of which are apparent to the eye, many of which are not.) What consequences do these unique genes and proteins have for humans consuming various Rht mutants with their accompanying changes? Nobody knows, since the question was never asked. Alpha Amylase Inhibitors and Other Allergens Allergy to wheat is on the increase (along with allergies to peanuts, dairy and other foods). This means that more people generate an IgE (immunoglobulin E) antibody response to various protein triggers, or ‘allergens’, in wheat. Eighteen per cent more children today have various dietary allergies, including wheat, than children did as recently as 1997. Clearfield Wheat: Product of ‘Traditional Breeding Methods’ Clearfield wheat is a strain of patented semi-dwarf wheat, the product of ‘hybridization’ research at BASF, the world’s largest chemical manufacturer. Hybridization is a loosely used term. In common usage, of course, hybridization simply means mating two plants or animals to generate a unique offspring. Mate a red apple with a yellow apple, and you get a happy red-yellow hybrid. There is a presumption of safety with hybridization: The FDA doesn’t come knocking at your door asking for your animal or human test data. Hybridize to your heart’s content and you can just sell your unique vegetable or fruit, no questions asked. Clearfield wheat is resistant to the herbicide imazamox, also known as Beyond. Imazamox resistance is conferred by an alteration in the acetohydroxyacid synthase gene. The promotional literature to farmers proudly proclaims that imazamox resistance in Clearfield wheat is not the product of genetic modification: Clearfield wheat is non-GMO, unlike Roundup-resistant corn and soya. Clearfield brand wheat seed is sold to farmers in the northwestern United States. Farmers in Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, Washington and other states are now planting nearly one million acres of Clearfield wheat. So how did chemical company BASF (with the collaboration of Oregon State University), which holds the patent on Clearfield and sells the seed, create this genetic variant? Clearfield wheat was created through a process called chemical mutagenesis. Developers exposed wheat seeds to the chemical sodium azide, NaN . Sodium azide is highly toxic to animals, bacteria and humans, with human ingestion of small quantities yielding effects similar to those of cyanide. With accidental ingestion, for instance, the CDC recommends not performing CPR on the victim (in effect, just letting the victim die), since the CPR provider could be fatally exposed along with the victim. The CDC also advises not to dispose of any vomit into a sink, since it can explode (and this has actually happened). In addition to methods of chemical mutagenesis, gamma and x-ray radiation are also used on seeds and plant embryos to induce mutations. These methods of inducing purposeful, though unpredictable, mutations all fall under the umbrella of ‘traditional breeding methods’. So plants subjected to all manner of chemical- and radiation-based hybridization techniques are unleashed on the unwitting public, all presumed to be safe for human consumption, without safety testing in animals, just . . . used to create your foods. There are some efforts made to analyse carbohydrate content, fibre content and other crude measures of compositional change. Oh, you’ll be happy to know that they also did test for its ability to yield cohesive biscuits and light sponge cake. Numerous allergens have been identified in modern wheat that were not present in ancient forms like einkorn. Wheat contains alpha amylase inhibitors, probably the most common among proteins responsible for wheat allergy in children (usually resulting in hives and/or asthma, cramps and diarrhoea and eczema). The structure of alpha amylase inhibitors of modern wheat overlaps with that of alpha amylase inhibitors of ancient strains by 90 per cent, meaning that 10 per cent of the genetic code and alpha amylase inhibitor structure are different. As any allergist will tell you, just a few different amino acids can spell the difference between no allergic reaction and a severe allergic reaction, even anaphylaxis (shock). When it comes to allergy, little changes can have big consequences. Unfortunately, with the numerous protean changes introduced into the 25,000 strains of modern wheat, it is a virtual impossibility to track which strain contains which form of alpha amylase inhibitor. The loaf of bread you bought at the supermarket, the Cinnabon from the shopping centre, the bagel from the bagel shop – none are labelled, of course, with the strain of wheat they are sourced from. You can begin to appreciate the difficulty in tracking which strain of wheat might be associated with a specific individual’s allergic reaction. But one thing is certain: Modern forms of wheat, thanks to busy geneticists, are associated with increased potential for allergy, some of which are due to changes introduced into alpha amylase inhibitor genes. There are other forms of wheat allergy as well, with people in the baking industry who develop a condition called Baker’s asthma. There is also the peculiar condition called wheat-derived exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA). a severe and life-threatening allergy induced by exercise after eating wheat. Both conditions are likely due to allergy to a gliadin protein fraction. In addition, many other proteins – such as lipid transfer proteins, ?-gliadins, ?-gliadins, serpins and low-molecular-weight glutenins – have also been shown to trigger IgE-mediated allergic reactions to wheat. It is unclear whether the changes introduced in modern wheat have been associated with increased allergy to any of these wheat proteins, but clearly the potential is there. It’s Alive! ‘Come on! Wheat can’t be that bad! If it’s so bad, how come my mum ate bread every day and lived until she was 85 years old in perfect health?’ What we are being sold today is so far removed from the wheat of even 50 years ago that I challenge that it should even be called wheat any longer. Let me weave you a scary tale that helps illustrate what has been done to this thing called wheat. This story might freak you out. So put the kids to bed, close the door and make sure no nosy neighbours are watching. Okay. Imagine you and I are evil scientists. We want to know what happens when we mate a 4-foot-7 Mbenga pygmy tribeswoman from the Congo with a 6-foot-4 blond Swedish male. We obtain the offspring, a child somewhere in between the Pygmy mom and Swedish dad. Once it reaches sexual maturity, we mate this Swede-Pygmy with yet another Pygmy, but this time chosen for the shortest stature among this short race. We repeat this process several more times over several generations. We also introduce mates that have other characteristics, such as hairlessness or resistance to malaria. We also ignore some of the unexpected genetic characteristics that emerge, such as peculiar facial features, missing limbs or other body parts, or unique metabolic derangements. Then the really creepy part starts. We mate our Swede-Pygmy descendant with some non-human primates, such as an orangutan, because we’d like to see whether our creature can be made to ably climb trees. The offspring are not always viable, but that’s not our concern. We just keep our creations alive with whatever artificial means are required. It might require surgical correction, antibiotics or artificial nutrition. We also take pregnant mothers and expose them to chemicals that induce mutations in the developing fetus in utero, and use gamma radiation and high doses of x-rays, also to induce mutations. Most of the mutations are grotesque and non-viable. But every so often, we’re lucky and the mutant survives. It may be really weird looking, with odd facial features, deranged teeth and deformed bones, as well as peculiar health problems, but that’s also not our concern. At the end of this process, repeated over and over again over many years, what do we call the creatures we’ve created? We can’t call them Swedish humans. We can’t call them Pygmies. They are artificially created things that bear no name, no resemblance to anything that occurs in nature because we used unnatural methods to create them. Maybe they’re 3-foot-tall creatures that, permitted some mix of synthetic food for sustenance, provide a unique service that we’ve sought, e.g., climbing trees to harvest coconuts. Thankfully, nobody outside of Nazi Germany conducts such horrific practices in humans and our close primate relatives. But such practices are commonplace in plant genetics. Apply something similar to wheat of the early 20th century: repeated crossings to select for specific characteristics such as short stature, ease of release of the seeds, extreme oil production to discourage birds, resistance to mould and fungi; occasionally mate with non-wheat grains to introduce entirely unique genetic characteristics; salvage otherwise fatal mutants by embryo ‘rescue’; and expose the seed or embryo to the process of chemical or radiation mutagenesis to induce random mutations that occasionally are useful – well, those are the techniques that agribusiness and geneticists like to call traditional breeding methods. These are the methods that lobbyists for the wheat industry don’t talk about, choosing instead to say things like ‘modern wheat is not genetically modified’, meaning gene-splicing techniques have not been used to insert or delete a gene. So the truth of it is that ‘traditional breeding methods’ used to create modern semi-dwarf, high-yield strains of wheat were cruder, less controllable, much less predictable and prone to produce consequences outside of the intended characteristic. In short, they were far worse than genetic engineering, yet these products made it to your supermarket shelf, dinner table and gastrointestinal tract . . . no questions asked. The result: what I call a Frankengrain, the result of extensive genetic changes, unable to survive without artificial chemical support, genetically stitched together with parts from various sources, like the creature created using the pieces from cadavers and charnel houses by Dr Victor Frankenstein. Except this Frankengrain isn’t terrifying the countryside – we willingly invite it onto our dinner tables, package it in clever eye-catching ways and feed it to our children. This raises a fundamental question that has not yet been answered in agriculture or agricultural genetics: How much genetic and biochemical change can a plant like wheat undergo, after being subjected to extensive efforts to change its genetics, yet still be called wheat? At the very least, we should be informed of the degree of change introduced into our foods, but even that modest concession is vigorously opposed. For instance, witness the intense lobbying agribusiness has waged to block the Truth in Labeling Act that would require food companies to declare whether a genetically modified ingredient is contained in a product. Nobody is asking them to stop generating genetically modified crops, but just to tell us if they did it. But even this modest disclosure is vigorously opposed. No, the extreme changes introduced into the genetics of food crops like wheat are a well-kept secret, not divulged on labels, certainly not discussed in advice to ‘eat more healthy whole grains’. So we have increasing allergy to modern strains of wheat, occurring most commonly among children. Surely, such a substantial increase in allergic reactions in children would sound the alarm among geneticists and prompt some serious questions, perhaps even a moratorium on any additional changes? Nope. Changes introduced into wheat continue unabated, allergy or no. Products made from wheat flour are delicious, smell great and make for all sorts of clever variations, from pitta bread to wedding cake. But wheat flour is a delivery vehicle for all manner of compounds that exert undesirable effects on the human body, including new forms of gliadin, new and unexplored glutenin sequences, new forms of lectins, new alpha amylase inhibitor sequences and many other new forms of proteins never before consumed by humans. Surely, regulatory agencies like the USDA or FDA scrutinize each new change, study the biochemical changes introduced, examine the evidence of safety for every genetic alteration, look at animal safety testing and then ask for human safety data when necessary? Nope. No such thing. Geneticists create new strains of wheat with its collection of genetic changes, agribusiness sells it, farmers grow it, bakers put it to use and then you and your family eat it. Imagine one day the FDA announces that pharmaceutical manufacturers no longer need to file an FDA application to introduce new drugs; they can just develop and sell them, should they see fit. Pandemonium would result, of course, a scramble to introduce new drugs with uncertain side effects in the hopes of accelerating profits. Such a laissez-faire attitude, of course, would never be acceptable to the public – but that is precisely what has been going on in agricultural genetics. When you examine the health effects of the various pieces within modern wheat, you can’t help but conclude: It is a perfect poison. Why Pick On Wheat? Why am I so intent on bullying poor wheat? Surely there are other problems in the modern diet and lifestyle besides wheat. The proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, causing fructose consumption from corn sweeteners to skyrocket from an annual average per capita exposure of almost none in 1960 to 39 pounds in 2005, has undoubtedly contributed to obesity and other distortions of metabolism. Fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, as well as that in sucrose, is a uniquely metabolized sugar that does not generate satiety and is converted to triglycerides, introducing unique distortions that contribute to heart disease, insulin resistance, diabetes and weight gain. Corn, soya, beets and potatoes have been genetically modified, i.e., gene-splicing technology has been used to insert or delete single genes, while wheat has not. Roundup Ready corn and soy, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup), dominate corn and soya fields on most farms today, meaning much of the processed food now sold contains these GMOs (as well as glyphosate residues). Preliminary observations of undesirable health effects in experimental animals suggest that they contribute to health problems, including weight gain, too. Of course, the favourite explanation from ‘official’ sources for the widespread weight gain, obesity and diabetes epidemic is laziness and gluttony: You watch too much TV, spend too much time behind the computer or desk, don’t exercise enough, eat too much fat and drink too many soft drinks. In this worldview, we are a bunch of indulgent, slothful, chip- and fizzy drink-consuming people, no different from many 14-year-olds. So why is wheat different? Why is wheat so bad, especially if the wheat sold today is not genetically modified? First of all, the gliadin protein, the opiate-like compound that stimulates appetite, is unique to wheat. No other food or additive – high-fructose corn syrup, GMO corn, sucrose, fat, food colourings, preservatives, etc. – stimulates calorie consumption like wheat. Eat wheat, increase calorie consumption by 440 calories per day; remove wheat, reduce calorie consumption by 440 calories per day. The phenomenon is consistent and predictable. No other food is capable of such a phenomenon. Second, due to the unique properties of the amylopectin A of wheat, few foods increase blood sugar and thereby insulin as much as wheat. Ice cream, Snickers bars and Milky Way bars do not increase blood sugar and insulin as much as two slices of wholemeal bread. Recall that foods that increase blood sugar and insulin the highest are the most likely to stimulate growth of visceral fat, the deep abdominal fat that is uniquely inflammatory. Grow visceral fat, increase inflammation, which in turn further blocks insulin and causes worsening resistance to insulin – around and around, until you have a big swollen collection of visceral fat, a ‘wheat belly’, that underlies even more health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer. Third, the intestinal ‘leakiness’ (the increased entry of foreign substances into the bloodstream from the intestinal tract) encouraged by the lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, is unique to wheat. No other lectin in any other plant is capable of disrupting intestinal health in such a way – not the lectin in lentils, nor the lectin in elderberries, nor the lectin in peanuts. This likely explains why eating lentils does not cause or worsen rheumatoid arthritis, lupus or polymyalgia rheumatica, but consuming wheat does. Wheat lectins therefore heighten inflammation that, in turn, worsens insulin resistance, causing visceral fat to accumulate. Can We Go Back? Can a return to the old ways teach us some useful lessons about wheat? If the product of 1960s and 1970s genetics research, high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat, is the source of so many modern problems, what happens if we reject this genetic mutant and bring back some of the older, even ancient, forms? Are the predecessors of modern wheat free of all its problems? Should we ask farmers, for instance, to resurrect wheat strains (‘landraces’) popular during the 19th century, such as Russian and Red Fife, or the wheat that Moses and the Israelites carried with them in their flight from Egypt, emmer wheat? Recall that modern wheat is a 2-foot-tall strain bred primarily for exceptional yield. It is the combination of three unique genetic codes, designated the A,B and D sets of genes (genomes), the most recently added D genome being the recipient of most of the genetic manipulations and the source of unique glutens, glutenins and gliadins that make modern wheat such a nasty creature. In other words, say you, me and Sherman accompany Mr Peabody in the WayBack Machine, and we sample the wheat of bygone ages. If we go back in time, we’ll encounter: Wheat of the early 20th century – i.e., Triticum aestivum, or 42-chromosome wheat that pre-dates the extreme breeding and mutation-generating interventions of the latter 20th century, with its genetics relatively untouched. These strains of Triticum aestivum share the A,B and D genomes, but this D genome lacks all the extreme changes introduced by 20th-century geneticists. This includes strains such as Sonora, a strain that flourished in rural late-19th- and early-20th-century California, and Ladoga, which was transplanted from Russia to Canada in the late 19th century and spawned several successful 20th-century varieties. 19th-century and previous landraces – These are the strains of Triticum aestivum wheat that developed unique to specific climates and terrains, similar to wine grapes’ terroir. Strains adapt to a location’s humidity, temperatures, soil, day-night cycles and seasonal changes. This includes several thousand varieties, all of which also share the A,B and D genomes. Spelt – Spelt is a 42-chromosome A, B, D wheat dating from pre-biblical times and cultivated widely until the Middle Ages. Emmer – Emmer is the 28-chromosome A, B offspring of an ancient natural cross between einkorn wheat and a wild grass. Emmer is likely the wheat of the Bible. It lacks the D genome that contains most of the genes coding for the most disease-causing forms of gliadin. Kamut – Kamut shares genetics similar to that of emmer, i.e., 28 chromosomes, and the combined genes of einkorn wheat and a wild grass. Like emmer, kamut contains the A and B genomes, but not the D. Einkorn – The great-granddaddy of all wheat, the grain first harvested wild, and the source of the original 14 chromosomes, the A genome, of wheat. Obviously, experience with the various forms of wheat, particularly the varieties of ancient wheat, is extremely limited. But we do know a few things. Hunter-gatherer humans who first began to incorporate wild einkorn into their diets experienced a downturn in health, including more dental disease, bone diseases and possibly atherosclerosis and cancer. Likewise, modern hunter-gatherer cultures who do not consume wheat are spared these conditions. We also know that coeliac disease is not unique to modern wheat but was described as early as AD 100 by ancient Greek physician Aretaeus and by others many times over the centuries, meaning it likely occurred with consumption of emmer, spelt, kamut and Triticum aestivum landraces, though the relative frequencies were likely much lower. If we go back step-by-step from modern semi-dwarf wheat, back to the wheat of 1950 that pre-dates human genetic intervention, back to the wheat of the early 20th and 19th centuries, back to the wheat of the Middle Ages and the first millennium, back farther to the wheat of the Bible, then the wheat of pre-biblical civilizations, and finally to the einkorn wheat harvested wild, wheat becomes less and less destructive each step of the way, less likely to trigger human illness. But does wheat ever become entirely benign, perhaps healthy, the farther back we go? Here’s a tough question: How much better does a wheat strain have to be in order to be acceptable to most people – 50 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, 100 per cent better than our modern choice? What level of risk would you be willing to accept in order to consume foods made of this grain? If I had a cigarette, for instance, that posed 80 per cent less risk of lung cancer than conventional cigarettes, is that safe enough for you to consider? There are no right or wrong answers. It will be something to ponder in the coming years as information and experience with the older forms of wheat grow. In the meantime, given what we know (and don’t know) about these older forms of wheat, my commonsense advice is to steer clear of all forms of wheat, new and old, and be certain you have great health and nutrition. Fourth, and very importantly, wheat is about so much more than weight. Consumption of modern wheat is about acid reflux and irritable bowel syndrome. It’s about neurological impairment and coeliac disease. It’s about water retention and leg oedema. It’s about allergies, asthma and chronic sinus congestion and infections. It’s about inattention and behavioural outbursts in children with ADHD and autism. It’s about worsening symptoms of bipolar illness and schizophrenia. It’s about mental ‘fog’ and depression. It’s about acne, dandruff, seborrhoea, psoriasis and a whole host of other skin conditions. It’s about triggering the number one cause of heart disease, small LDL cholesterol particles. Fifth, what other food contains the gluten protein that causes coeliac disease, neurological impairment (gluten ataxia, peripheral neuropathy and dementia), dermatitis herpetiformis and non-coeliac gluten sensitivity? Yes, barley, triticale, rye, bulgur and perhaps oats overlap with the immune properties of wheat, but the gluten of wheat remains the Emperor of Gluten. Corn syrup, sucrose, sweets, ‘trans’ fats – none of these foods can cause the range of diseases caused by wheat. In other words, even if you struggle to come to grips with the appetite-stimulating and blood sugar-provoking effects of wheat, there is so much more to wheat’s effects on health that you’ve got to conclude that weight is among the least important of wheat’s effects. Yes, it’s an important effect, but the many components of modern wheat impair human health in so many other varied ways. Put all these pieces together in the form of modern wheat, and you’ve got a heck of a health-distorting foodstuff. In short, wheat is the dietary perfect storm capable of generating in humans undesirable health effects that no other plant or food can match. And it enjoys the endorsements of ‘official’ agencies, all urging us to eat more ‘healthy whole grains’. So, yes, wheat is the worst. What’s in the Future? While no current commercially produced wheat products on the market today are, in the language of geneticists, genetically modified, i.e., the product of gene splicing techniques to insert or delete a gene, they are coming. Their appearance on your supermarket shelf is inevitable. Genetically modified wheat has been around since the mid-1980s, when gene splicing techniques, such as exposure of wheat embryos to polyethylene glycol (the same as in antifreeze), electrical current and particle bombardment that force insertion of new genes, made their appearance in genetics laboratories. Monsanto has been sitting on several strains of GM wheat but has not yet marketed the seed to farmers due to public resistance – but it’s coming, public resistance or no. Semi-dwarf wheat strains with new genes for high-molecular-weight glutenins (a component of gluten) to improve visco-elasticity are in the works, as well as efforts to reduce the blood sugar-raising potential of wheat amylopectin A. Extensive work is also ongoing to generate new strains resistant to various pests, fungi and moulds by inserting genes encoding viral coat proteins, antifungal proteins and proteinase inhibitors. Characteristic of the naive thinking of plant geneticists when considering the effects on humans who consume their products, much genetic research with wheat has focused on ways to disable the adverse health effects of gluten. In their way of thinking, breeding new strains of wheat that lack the 33 amino acid sequences most likely to stimulate the immune response of coeliac disease would yield a more benign form of wheat. The problem: All the other problem components of wheat remain, including wheat germ agglutinin, amylopectin A and alpha amylase inhibitors, not to mention the unanticipated effects of altered forms of gliadin, glutenin and gluten created by these genetics efforts never before consumed by humans. With all that uncertainty, surely there will be extensive biochemical analyses, experimental animal assessments and human volunteer studies testing these products of genetic modification prior to introduction of such genetically and biochemically unique products . . . but probably not. Genetically modified wheat can be produced, marketed and sold in the supermarket, but there does not have to be any record of safe consumption in humans. After all, there hasn’t been any such effort for any genetically modified food before. And agribusiness has been spending tens of billions of dollars to lobby the federal government every year to oppose legislation that would only require that genetically modified food say so on the label. Eat It . . . and Weep Now that I’ve scared you silly with the science behind this crazy genetic monster called modern wheat, let’s now turn to understanding how this thing fiddles with your health. What happens to us humans who, unadvised of the genetic changes introduced, consume this stuff every day? Why Does My Stomach Hurt? (#ulink_f315a0e9-3ce3-5377-9d81-bc52de4f680c) And why do my joints ache, and my bowels rumble, and my feet swell, and my . . .? Eat some jelly beans, and you get a blood sugar rise, grow some tummy fat and rot your teeth. Drink a carbonated soft drink, and you get a blood sugar rise, grow some tummy fat and rot your teeth. End of story. But eat wheat, and you get a blood sugar rise, grow some tummy fat, rot your teeth – and experience increased appetite, addiction, acid reflux, bowel urgency, joint pain, leg swelling, migraine headaches, skin rashes, dandruff, moodiness, sleeplessness, depression, seizures, dementia and on and on. No other food is capable of such head-to-toe destruction of health – not jelly beans, not bag after bag of M&M’s, not soft drinks by the litre bottle, not high-fructose corn syrup. (I know of a few poisons that can do the same, however.) We consume this genetically altered (notice that I did not say genetically modified, the imprecise and elusive terminology of those wily geneticists) form of wheat. You’ve been eating it, sharing it with friends and family, feeding it to your kids. You’ve been choosing multigrain over white because you were told it was a healthier choice. You’ve been loading up with bran cereal at breakfast to keep your colon working smoothly. And pasta? A low-fat staple at the dinner table. The problem: Modern wheat is not the wheat of your mother’s day, nor is it the wheat of the 19th century. It is far removed from the wheat of the Bible and vastly different from the wheat that grew wild and was first consumed by hunter-gatherer humans. So what happens to us modern humans who’ve been consuming this stuff, told by all ‘official’ sources of dietary advice to eat more ‘healthy whole grains’ that come from high-yield, semi-dwarf strains of wheat? I’m afraid it’s not a short list. The list of effects – no, the catalogue of effects – that derive from consuming quantities of this modern creation of genetics research reads like a description of all the ills of modern life, hauntingly familiar in that it likely describes the people around you, perhaps even you. Every wheat-consuming individual will not experience all of the effects discussed. You might experience, for instance, ‘only’ acid reflux and disrupted intestinal health, or ‘only’ appetite stimulation and addictive behaviour. But no individual is entirely immune to the effects. Let me say that again: No individual is entirely immune to the effects of consuming modern wheat. In other words, no matter who you are, no matter how good you look and feel, whether you are a winner on Dancing with the Stars or a champion at horseshoes, wheat works its magic on you. Nobody escapes the effects of modern wheat, whether you perceive them or not. And, given its ubiquity and incredible potential to exert so many effects on health, it is wise always to consider wheat as the culprit in just about any health condition you develop. While most people perceive symptoms that can be blamed on consumption of wheat, some people have no symptoms at all but just have distortions of multiple metabolic phenomena beneath the surface. It might be high blood sugar or hidden inflammation from amylopectin A and gliadin; it might be increased flow of abnormal foreign substances into the bloodstream from wheat germ agglutinin – but it’s all there, smouldering away, taking its toll on long-term health. This is why I do not advocate gluten elimination only for the gluten sensitive; I am advocating wheat elimination for everybody because we all experience undesirable effects from consuming this thing, not just the relative few with coeliac disease or blood-test-proven gluten intolerance. So what does the unwitting wheat-eating individual experience by eating more wheat-containing ‘healthy whole grains’? Let’s pick the effects apart, one by one. Blood Sugar Disasters Consult any table of glycaemic index (GI) values that describes how high blood sugar ranges over the 90 to 120 minutes after consuming any food. You will see that two slices of wholemeal bread have a higher glycaemic index than nearly all other foods – higher than 6 teaspoons of table sugar, higher than a Snickers bar, higher than ice cream. GI of wholemeal bread = 72 GI of sucrose (table sugar) = 59 to 65 (The GI of sucrose varies in different studies.) GI of a Snickers bar: 41. Ice cream: 36. Whole grains, such as 12-grain or multigrain breads that contain more fibre, do indeed have a somewhat lower GI, typically in the 50 to 55 range, around the same as a Milky Way bar. Being told to ‘eat more healthy whole grains’ thereby provides advice to consume foods that send blood sugar through the roof for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. And note that the GI of foods is nearly always obtained by examining blood sugar behaviour in young, slender volunteers. The blood sugar rise is often far higher in older and overweight people. GI therefore describes the best-case scenario. High blood sugar is unavoidably accompanied by high blood insulin, since insulin is required to clear the bloodstream of sugar and move it into muscles and organs for energy, and fat cells for storage. Just as wheat products, especially whole wheat products, increase blood sugar levels higher than nearly all other foods, wheat products also increase blood insulin levels higher than nearly all other foods, too. Repetitive high levels of insulin set the stage for creating resistance to insulin, i.e., reduced responsiveness in muscle, the liver and other organs to the body’s own insulin. Insulin resistance is the fundamental process that leads to pre-diabetes and diabetes, situations in which the body can no longer cope with the carbohydrates driving repetitive high blood sugar, allowing blood sugars eventually to increase. Insulin resistance also causes the growth of deep abdominal fat, visceral fat, a form of fat that is highly inflammatory. Filled with white blood cells (like that in pus), visceral fat emits inflammatory proteins into the bloodstream, thereby increasing inflammation everywhere in the body, from your knees to your heart to your brain. By the way, this metabolically messy situation of insulin resistance, pre-diabetic or diabetic blood sugar levels, and the visceral fat of a wheat belly is nearly always accompanied by having an abundant quantity of small, dense LDL particles, by far the most common cause of coronary heart disease and heart attacks today. So high blood sugar leads to high blood insulin that, in turn, generates insulin resistance. Insulin resistance generates visceral fat that amplifies inflammation, which worsens insulin resistance and increases blood sugar and small LDL particles, starting the whole cycle over again, worse and worse and worse. And it all started with your morning bagel. Opiate of the Masses: Addiction and Withdrawal The gliadins in wheat, particularly the new forms crafted by geneticists, are opiates. Wheat is therefore an opiate. Yes, wheat keeps company with Oxycontin, heroin and morphine. It has been known for a century that opiates, when administered to laboratory animals or to humans, increase appetite. It was discovered around 30 years ago that the gliadin protein of wheat is, in effect, an opiate, as it yields digestive breakdown products that bind to the opiate receptors of the brain. Gliadin is degraded in the gastrointestinal tract to smaller polypeptides called exorphins (exogenous morphine-like compounds), such as gluteomorphin and gliadorphin, that, once absorbed into the bloodstream, penetrate into the brain and bind to the opiate receptors, exerting effects similar to those of opiates such as morphine. Wheat opiates, however, stimulate less of a ‘high’ but are more potent stimulants of appetite. The appetite-stimulating effect of wheat gliadin explains why people who eat more ‘healthy whole grains’ typically experience constant hunger: a 7:00 am breakfast of ‘high-fibre’ cereal followed by a growling stomach at 9:00 am with the need for a snack such as low-fat pretzels or crackers, hungry again at 11:00 am, hungry just a couple of hours after lunch, dinner at 6:00 pm followed by a need to snack at 8:00 pm Many people ‘graze’ all through the day or eat many small meals every 2 hours, a strategy endorsed by dietitians but representing nothing more than a pointless and counterproductive means of dealing with the constant cravings of the wheat-consumer. Stop consuming wheat and appetite plummets. People report going through the day barely hungry at all. A common experience is having breakfast at 7:00 am followed by noticing that ‘It’s 1:00 pm. Perhaps I might eat something, but I’m not really that hungry.’ The after-dinner munchies that many people struggle with disappear. Total calorie intake drops by 400 or so calories per day, documented in both clinical studies and in real life. And that’s the average experience: Some people reduce calorie intake less than 400 calories per day, while others experience far greater reduction. Four hundred fewer calories per day, multiplied by 365 days per year – that’s a lot of food, 146,000 cumulative calories, and a lot of weight that can be lost effortlessly. You can see why the failure to eliminate wheat explains why so many people struggle with weight-loss diets: because they failed to remove this appetite stimulant. Reducing calories becomes torture, like waving a syringe full of heroin at a helpless addict. Where there’s spaghetti, there are meatballs. And where there’s addiction, there’s withdrawal. Yes, indeed: withdrawal from the opiate in wheat. Don’t believe it? Try this little experiment: Stop feeding your husband or kids wheat during a 72-hour period when you can control their diet (e.g., a long weekend), then sit back and watch the emotional fireworks. You’re likely to observe crying, yelling, nausea, incapacitating fatigue, begging for a roll or pretzel, sneaking off to the nearest convenience store for a ‘hit’. (Wheat withdrawal is such an important phenomenon that I discuss it in more detail in the next chapter.) You’ll quickly realize that you’ve been living with a family of opiate addicts, consuming their drug of choice cleverly disguised as a bran muffin, breakfast cereal or pizza. Another caution: The longer you are wheat free, the more likely you will develop undesirable reactions when re-exposed, inadvertently or intentionally. I call these awful experiences wheat ‘re-exposure reactions’. (Readers and social media followers of Wheat Belly say they’ve been ‘wheated’.) Say you’ve been wheat free for 4 weeks, lost 1 stone 1 pound, been freed from irritable bowel syndrome symptoms and the funny rash that wouldn’t go away for 5 years. You eat a few of the crackers you let sit in your cupboard – what the heck, you’ve been so good! – and you’ve got yourself a case of diarrhoea and cramps, bloating, pain in your elbows and shoulders, and a recurrence of the rash, very common re-exposure reactions. Other common re-exposure reactions include headache, asthma and sinus congestion (in those prone), and emotional effects, especially sadness, hopelessness, anxiety and anger. Re-exposure reactions last from hours to days. Gastrointestinal reactions like diarrhoea tend to dissipate over a day or two, while joint pains can persist for days to weeks. You will survive, but for many of us, the experience is so unpleasant that no indulgence makes it worth the pain and hassle. Weight Gain: Grow Your Very Own Wheat Belly If the gliadin protein of wheat, changed by geneticists in their efforts to increase yield, stimulates appetite and increases calorie consumption by 400 or more calories per day, 365 days per year, what happens to us unsuspecting participants in this national experiment? We get fat. Given the unique properties of wheat’s amylopectin A to raise blood sugar and insulin levels, we gain the weight mostly around our middles, evidenced on the surface by what I call a wheat belly, and evidenced on CT scans and MRIs as deep visceral fat encircling the intestines and other abdominal organs. And we don’t just get a little bit fat. Many of us get really fat, sufficient to send our body mass indexes (see ‘What Is Your Body Mass Index [BMI]?’ (#ulink_169d96c6-1fc0-5c6d-8c85-021f1c2206e9)) to 30 and above, falling into the range classified as obese, or even morbidly or super-obese with BMIs of 40 and over, the group growing the fastest. Such classifications have only become a matter of necessity in the last 25 years, since these extreme ranges of overweight were previously uncommon, rarely seen outside of circus tents and peep shows. Recall that modern semi-dwarf strains of wheat were introduced in the mid- to late 1970s, with only a few per cent of farmers adopting this crop viewed as peculiar in 1979. As more and more farmers began to observe the startling surges in yield-per-acre of high-yield, semi-dwarf strains, this wheat was rapidly embraced in the early 1980s. By 1985, virtually every wheat product you bought – white, whole grain, organic, sprouted – came from high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat. Oddly, data collected by the USDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1985 also marks the year when calorie intake began to climb, increasing 440 calories per day, every day, 365 days a year. Increased calorie intake leads to weight gain, year after wheat-consuming year. It means we have obese adults, obese elderly, obese teenagers, obese children – more overweight, obese and super-obese people than ever before in the history of man. What Is Your Body Mass Index (BMI)? To calculate your BMI, plug your weight and height into the following equation: BMI = [weight in pounds ? (height in inches) ] x 703 Alternatively, go to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s BMI calculator at www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi (http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi). BMI is often used as an assessment of the appropriateness of weight for height, or as an index of health. It is not perfect, as it does not factor in such differences as body shape, muscle mass and other variations among us humans. Nonetheless, it is often used to compare differences in weight in populations and is often cited in clinical studies. Classifications of BMI: Recent findings in experimental models also suggest that the lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, may block the hormone leptin, meaning the body becomes unresponsive to the satiating effects of this hormone. Obese people have inappropriately high levels of this hormone when it should be low, given their overnourished state. If this holds true in future studies and wheat lectins prove to block the satiating effect of leptin, it will become clear that wheat consumption essentially equals weight gain. ‘Eat more healthy whole grains’: a perfect formula for obesity. Diabetes: You Get What You Ask For The ‘official’ explanation for the 30-year climb in collective weight and the diabetes that results from it? We are all lazy and gluttonous. We drink too many soft drinks and watch too much TV. If we would just exercise more and cut our calories, we would return to the age of slender Jimmy Stewarts and Donna Reeds. Let’s consider an alternative explanation. If the amylopectin A of wheat, what dietitians call a complex carbohydrate, increases blood sugar more than simple sugars such as table sugar and many chocolate bars, then surely it must increase the likelihood of diabetes. Wheat products increase blood sugar every time you eat them. Eating more ‘healthy whole grains’ ensures high blood sugar levels, along with all the phenomena that follow, including insulin resistance that results in diabetes. It is well-established fact that foods with a high glycaemic index promote diabetes, while foods with a low glycaemic index – or, even better, no glycaemic index – make diabetes less likely. What food has among the highest glycaemic indexes of all foods out there? Yup: Foods made of wheat. Ironically, whole wheat is worse than white (though both are bad, of course). Whole grain and multigrain products improve the situation a bit, but remain triggers of high blood sugar despite the extra fibre and B vitamins. After all, whole grain, whole wheat, white – it all comes from the same semi-dwarf wheat plant bearing the same amylopectin A. Gain 2 stone 2 pounds, 2 stone 12 pounds, 4 stone 4 pounds or more, especially in the visceral fat of the abdomen, and most people become pre-diabetic or diabetic. And, indeed, during the mid- to late 1980s, as products made with semi-dwarf wheat flour proliferated, expanding from only breads and rolls to liquorice, instant soups, frozen dinners and nearly all other processed foods, a surge in the incidence of these conditions began, accelerating through the 1990s. The numbers reflecting the incidence of diabetes are now a vertical climb, straight upwards since 2008. Conventional wisdom, of course, argues the opposite: Consuming more healthy whole grains is associated with reduced likelihood of diabetes. And that is true – if you compare whole grain consumption to consumption of processed white flour products. Study after study conducted over the past 30 years, including such ambitious studies as the Nurses’ Health Study of 80,000 women, or the Physicians’ Health Study of 30,000 professionals, all demonstrated the significant health benefits of consuming healthy whole grains . . . over white flour. Okay, so let’s follow the logic of these studies. If you replace something bad with something less bad and there is an apparent health benefit, then a whole bunch of the less bad thing must be good. If there are health benefits to consuming something less bad, what are the effects of complete removal? In other words, what happens when wheat products, white and whole grains, are completely eliminated from the diet? That, too, has indeed been studied, but the dramatic weight loss and reductions of blood sugar and HbA1c (a measure that reflects blood sugar fluctuations over the prior 2 to 3 months) are often dismissed as due to malnutrition (discussed further in the next chapter). As with many things wheat, the answers have been there all along – just not recognized for what they were. Recall that wheat is also an opiate, due to the gliadin protein that converts to exorphins upon digestion, and that this opiate acts as an appetite stimulant. It means that consumption of modern wheat sends blood sugar higher than nearly all other foods while stimulating appetite to consume more calories. Eat more calories, desire more food, send blood sugar higher again and again, and you’ve got yourself a perfect situation to cultivate diabetes. But you, your friends and your family are all accused of being gluttonous and lazy. You’ve gained weight, developed insulin resistance and become pre-diabetic or diabetic because of your love affair with chips, Mountain Dew and your sofa. I believe all that is true – for many 10- to 14-year-olds. But what about all the health-conscious adults who exercise, avoid junk foods and eat more ‘healthy whole grains’? Unwinding this metabolic disaster is powerfully accomplished by eliminating all things wheat. Additional benefit is obtained, however, by restricting other carbohydrates as well, from chocolate bars to fruit. More on that in the next chapter. The Gastrointestinal Battleground You deliver wheat products directly into your gastrointestinal tract, starting at the mouth and on down for another 30 or more feet. It therefore serves as the front line for the wheat battle. We know that many people experience gastrointestinal distress from gluten in wheat (actually the gliadin within gluten, as well as glutenin). Of course, gluten is primarily responsible for coeliac disease, a condition marked by destructive changes in the intestinal lining that result in abdominal pain, cramps, diarrhoea, impaired absorption of nutrients, haemorrhage and occasionally death; it affects approximately 1 per cent of the population. Of the approximately 2.4 million Americans who have coeliac disease, 90 per cent don’t know it, making it among the most underdiagnosed of chronic diseases. And it’s gotten worse: Over the last 50 years, we’ve witnessed a quadrupling of the incidence of coeliac disease, a doubling over the past 20 years. Gluten also disrupts the gastrointestinal tracts of people without coeliac disease, resulting in common complaints such as acid reflux, heartburn, excessive gas, abdominal cramping, diarrhoea and constipation. (See ‘Gluten Sensitivity: Is There Such a Thing?’ (#ulink_a972a91b-060d-5af5-82e5-20970c39f2f2).) Gluten sensitivity can develop in people with abnormal antibodies to gliadin; it can develop in people without abnormal antibodies to gliadin. Coeliac disease and gluten sensitivity combined affect up to 10 per cent of the American population, but the intestinal disruptive effects of wheat add up to far more than 10 per cent of the population, with more people experiencing the heartburn of acid reflux, the bowel urgency and crampiness of irritable bowel syndrome, and the worsening of symptoms (diarrhoea, cramps, gas, pain) of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. The lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, because it has a direct toxic effect on the intestinal tract, adds to the intestinal disruption of gluten. After all, lectins are potentially poisonous proteins in plants meant to protect them from insects, moulds, and other predators. Wheat germ agglutinin is the stuff that permits abnormal intestinal permeability to develop, allowing foreign substances – including wheat germ agglutinin itself – to gain access to the bloodstream in small quantities. (In larger quantities, direct injection of wheat germ agglutinin into the bloodstream of laboratory animals is rapidly fatal.) Once in the bloodstream, wheat germ agglutinin and its hordes of unwanted foreign compounds then migrate to your liver, joints, brain and just about everywhere else in the body, leading to inflammation and abnormal conditions in these organs. It means that people who consume wheat, and thereby wheat germ agglutinin, are more likely to experience inflammatory diseases or experience worsened symptoms of existing conditions, such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Sj?gren’s syndrome, polymyalgia rheumatica, polymyositis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, seborrhoea, psoriasis and a long list of other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Gluten Sensitivity: Is There Such a Thing? For years, many doctors denied that there was such a thing as coeliac disease, the intestinal destruction that develops from wheat gliadin/gluten consumption in genetically predisposed individuals. But only the most intransigent (read: ‘crazy’) among my colleagues can continue to deny that coeliac disease is a genuine – and potentially devastating – disease. Doctors are now struggling with the notion of gluten sensitivity, a reaction to the gluten in wheat but not achieving the severity of coeliac disease. While not everybody agrees on how to define gluten sensitivity, the most common definition is that of showing symptoms of sensitivity to wheat gluten, such as acid reflux, abdominal pain, cramps and diarrhoea, that disappear with elimination of wheat. Despite the apparent response to wheat/gluten removal, intestinal biopsy (which usually reveals extensive damage in coeliac patients) shows either no evidence of damage in those with gluten sensitivity, or inflammatory changes without damage. One recent and important Italian study demonstrated that 56.4 per cent of people identified with gluten sensitivity, but lacking the intestinal damage associated with coeliac disease, are positive for the IgG antigliadin antibody (i.e., an antibody to the gliadin protein in wheat), but not for other markers. In other words, many people demonstrate evidence of an abnormal antibody response to the gliadin protein in gluten but don’t have coeliac disease. Other studies have demonstrated that gluten consumption, even when subjects are blinded to what they are consuming, generates symptoms in people without coeliac disease. Gluten sensitivity can extend beyond the gastrointestinal tract, with new descriptions of neurological impairment, especially cerebellar ataxia (loss of coordination and bladder control due to destruction of the cerebellum at the base of the brain) and peripheral neuropathy (destruction of the nerves of the legs, arms and organs). In one study, 57 per cent of people with unexplained neurological impairment were positive for antibodies against gliadin, while only 5 per cent of people with neurological impairment from known diseases (e.g., stroke) showed positive gliadin antibodies. Typically, people with these forms of neurological impairment do not have coeliac disease. This is not just an academic debate. Observations suggest that gluten sensitivity not only can result in intestinal inflammation and neurological symptoms, but also increases mortality. Because it required about 40 years for the concept of coeliac disease to even begin to gain wide acceptance in the medical community, it is another leap for most doctors to believe that there is another form of intolerance to wheat gluten that extends beyond coeliac disease. Problem: If 56.4 per cent of participants in the Italian study experienced relief from abdominal symptoms with wheat removal, it means that the remaining 43.6 per cent experienced relief by saying goodbye to all foods containing wheat – but had no evidence of abnormal immune response to gliadin. Researchers from the world of gastroenterology don’t know what to do with this bothersome 43.6 per cent, dismissing it as an uncertain group, a group prone to placebo effects, or just plain nuts. Now that you have a better appreciation that wheat is about more than just gluten and gliadin, you can readily surmise that at least some of those 43.6 per cent in the Italian study who had symptoms associated with wheat consumption and experienced relief with wheat elimination included people who likely reacted to wheat germ agglutinin, or experienced reactions to glutenin, alpha amylase inhibitors or any one or more of the many other relatively uncharted and unique compounds in modern wheat. It’s not all about gluten. One lesson is clear: If modern medicine cannot identify the blood marker or the biopsy evidence that active destruction of some organ is actively occurring, then there’s nothing wrong. (You know how many people I’ve seen placed on antidepressants, pain-relieving drugs and narcotics, and antiseizure drugs, all to treat wheat consumption? I lost count long ago.) In the march of scientific progress in charting the adverse consequences of consumption of modern wheat, along each step of the way we learn that many of the people who complained of a variety of health problems, but were dismissed as cranks, nuts or undiagnosable, prove to have some form of unhealthy reaction to one or another component of wheat. In short, the human intestinal tract is poorly equipped to endure the onslaught of the dual toxic effects of wheat gluten and lectin, resulting in a battleground strewn with casualties, experienced as an astounding range of gastrointestinal and inflammatory illnesses, and managed with all manner of drugs and procedures. Neurological Impairment: Wheat Brain Among the most disturbing associations between wheat and ill health are the associations being made between consumption of this man-made grain and the deterioration of the brain and nervous system. Anecdotally, mind ‘fog’ is exceptionally common with consumption of wheat. It is likely due to the mind effects of gliadin that are also responsible for addictive behaviour, worsened by the hypoglycaemia that typically develops after amylopectin A’s extravagant blood sugar high. But the effects of wheat on the human brain go far deeper than that. While coeliac disease is usually regarded as a disease confined to the intestinal tract, over the last few years coeliac disease has become less a disease of diarrhoea and cramps, and more a disease of nervous system impairment and psychiatric problems. Rather than developing diarrhoea, people with coeliac disease more recently tend to demonstrate impaired coordination, difficulty controlling their bladders and a wide variety of other nervous system derangements. Most nervous system involvement has been confined to people with abnormal immune markers (such as increased levels of transglutaminase, endomysial or gliadin antibodies) to wheat typical of coeliac disease or gluten sensitivity, though many do not experience intestinal symptoms. Nervous system involvement is especially worrisome, as it is difficult to diagnose, since it yields symptoms that most doctors would not associate with wheat consumption, and is not fully reversible. Cerebellar ataxia, for instance, involving loss of balance and bladder control and destructive changes in the cerebellum (the region of the brain responsible for co-ordination) seen as atrophy (shrinkage) on MRI, with a typical age of onset of 48 to 53 years, has been linked to wheat consumption. Peripheral neuropathy, the loss of sensation in the legs or the loss of bladder and bowel control, may be due to wheat consumption in as many as 50 per cent of those afflicted when no other cause can be identified. Even dementia from wheat has been identified, recently documented by a study from the Mayo Clinic and identified at autopsy – yes, fatal dementia from wheat. The effects of wheat consumption on the human brain can also involve seizures, typically of the temporal lobe variety but also grand mal, and migraine headaches. You don’t have to have coeliac disease or gluten sensitivity for wheat to exert effects on your brain. We know that gliadin gains access to the brain, yielding the appetite-stimulating opiate effect that increases calorie consumption. Gliadin is also the probable cause of behavioural effects (reduced attention span and behavioral outbursts) in children with autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Gliadin is likely to blame for the worsening of auditory hallucinations, social detachment and paranoia of paranoid schizophrenia and the manic phase of bipolar illness. Gliadin effects in these conditions are reversible: They occur with wheat consumption; they dissipate with wheat avoidance. In most of us, wheat does not generate auditory hallucinations or destruction of the cerebellum. But it does induce appetite to the tune of 400 or more calories per day, every day. Think about this: What if Big Food and Big Agribusiness got hold of such information? Would they warn us – or just put wheat in everything? Inflammation: Going Down in Flames Signs of inflammatory processes gone awry in the wheat-consuming individual are common. Typical signs include painful wrists and hands, painful elbows and shoulders, worsening of arthritis in knees and hips, and tender ankles and shins when touched. If any form of inflammatory disease is present, such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus, wheat is the gasoline on the fire, typically worsening inflammation and resulting in greater pain, swelling, rash, etc. Inflammation is a fundamental process that underlies an astoundingly wide range of conditions, such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, diabetes, Sj?gren’s syndrome, scleroderma, polymyositis, polymyalgia rheumatica, coronary disease and heart attacks, even cancer – to name just a few in a long, long list. The elaborate processes of inflammation can be initiated by a variety of triggers, including nutritional deficiencies (e.g., vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids), chronic infections (e.g., gingivitis, intestinal bacterial overgrowth), ingestion of oxidized compounds (e.g., polyunsaturated fatty acids, foods cooked at high temperature), autoimmune processes in which the body’s immune defences mistakenly attack normal tissue (e.g., Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, autoimmune hepatitis), and ingestion of toxic substances. The last two paths are especially relevant to our wheat conversation. Wheat is an especially prominent player in the complex web of inflammation: The direct toxic effects of wheat germ agglutinin and the indirect toxic effects of gliadin get the fires of inflammation started; autoimmune processes are set in motion by the abnormal entry of foreign substances into the bloodstream allowed by wheat germ agglutinin; and the inflammation-stoking effects of visceral fat further fan the flames. The process starts with the direct toxic effects and intestinal leakiness created by wheat germ agglutinin. Foreign compounds gain access to the bloodstream, some of which intensify ongoing inflammatory responses, while others mistakenly generate autoimmune responses, immune responses errantly waged against the body’s own proteins, which is the signature process underlying conditions such as autoimmune hepatitis and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. Gliadin, the wheat protein responsible for coeliac disease, indirectly provokes inflammation in the lining of the intestinal tract. Gliadin triggers the entry of inflammatory T-cell lymphocytes, damaging the fine hair-like villi lining the intestinal tract, and invites a barrage of inflammatory proteins such as interferons and interleukins. People with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity show inflammation from gliadin. Although it doesn’t wreak the same degree of destruction of the delicate villous lining, inflammatory changes, such as infiltration of inflammatory lymphocytes, are seen. The visceral fat of the wheat belly that lines the intestinal tract or encircles the liver, pancreas and kidneys, thanks to repeated bouts of high blood sugar and insulin, amplifies inflammation. Visceral fat is itself inflamed. If biopsied, it appears to be riddled with white blood cells, not unlike the pus that oozes from an inflamed wound. Visceral fat, often reflected on the surface as ‘love handles’ or a ‘muffin top’, also pours inflammatory proteins into the bloodstream, proteins like tumour necrosis factor and leptin that export inflammation out from visceral fat and into all other areas of the body. All the pieces in wheat add up to an incredibly effective vehicle for generating inflammation in multiple organs, head to toe. How’d those biscuits taste? Make Your Skin Crawl The skin is the largest organ of the human body, serving functions such as temperature regulation, insulation against water loss and protection from bacteria and other potential invaders. Think of the skin as the outward reflection of internal health. Rashes, acne, itchiness, pain – all can reflect something going on inside. Skin health may especially reveal gastrointestinal health. So a rash may not simply be a rash; it may provide insight into some process gone awry in, say, the small intestine, pancreas and liver. Dermatologists typically biopsy rashes, then treat them with steroid creams and toxic drugs like dapsone, sulphameth-oxypridazine and isotretinoin (Accutane). It is not uncommon for dermatologists to have no idea why you have a rash and have no choice of treatments except to shotgun it with drugs, wear long-sleeved shirts and long trousers, and grin and bear it. Skin problems are rampant in wheat-consuming individuals. The most frequent problem is a dry red rash along the edges of the nose and on the cheeks. Dermatologists call this seborrhoea. However, it is so common and so typical of wheat consumption that I recognize this as a wheat rash. Dandruff, itchy rashes of eczema and seborrhoea-like rashes on the elbows are also common expressions of wheat consumption. The thick, silvery, scaly rash of psoriasis is another very common expression of wheat consumption. Dermatitis herpetiformis, a herpes-like rash (but not caused by the herpes virus), is the signature rash of people with a coeliac disease tendency (characterized by having abnormal immune markers to wheat, such as increased levels of transglutaminase antibodies). It is an angry-looking, itchy rash that occurs symmetrically on the body. Although it occurs in people with a genetic susceptibility to coeliac disease, intestinal symptoms of coeliac disease are not usually present. In truth, the list of skin conditions that can develop from consumption of wheat is easily four pages long. It includes such peculiar conditions as acanthosis nigricans, black velvety patches on the back of the neck, armpits and elbows; dermatomyositis, a rash that occurs along with muscle weakness and inflammation, resulting in difficulty walking and climbing stairs, and blood vessel inflammation; and alopecia, or hair loss from the head or other areas. Wheat causes so many skin conditions that I believe it makes sense to always consider wheat consumption as the underlying cause of all rashes until proven otherwise. Death, Taxes and Wheat Nobody escapes the effects of wheat. They might be visible on the surface, they might be hidden deep within your stomach, intestinal tract, bloodstream or brain, but they’re there, working their effects. If I told you that eating green peppers triggered increased appetite, wreaked havoc on your gastrointestinal tract, exerted neurological destruction in susceptible people, screwed with insulin and blood sugar, damaged joints, etc., then I’m sure you would say, ‘Well, I’ll never have a green pepper again!’ (Innocent green peppers do not do any of this, of course.) So why is it so hard to persuade people that these things happen with consumption of their beloved bagels, croissants and pancakes? Most people say convenience: Wheat products are portable and available. But I think it’s more than that. I say it’s because this thing has a hold on you, an opiate-like comfort that you crave, and distinctly unpleasant feelings when you lack it. And this effect is not lost on the food industry, which happily accommodates your addiction, making sure it includes a bit of wheat in everything. We then take medications for acid reflux and irritable bowel syndrome, drugs for joint pain, diuretics for leg swelling and water retention, cholesterol drugs for high cholesterol, anti-inflammatory drugs for inflammation and pain. . . . We are, in effect, treating the effects of wheat consumption. You cannot avoid taxes. You certainly cannot sidestep death. But you can sure say goodbye to wheat. Welcome to the Wonderful State of Wheatlessness (#ulink_809bda72-abe1-58f0-b6f0-07752e6868c3) If modern wheat is associated with addictive behaviours, appetite stimulation, and so many abnormal health conditions, then removing it completely from the diet should result in reversal of the whole kit and kaboodle. And indeed it does. The contrast is so dramatic that I give the wheat-free lifestyle a name: I call it wheatlessness. Say goodbye to wheat and you say goodbye to the appetite-stimulating protein, gliadin, that acts as an opiate on your brain. You say sayonara to the altered forms of gliadin that cause coeliac disease, such as the Glia-?9 sequence, now found in nearly all modern forms of wheat. Say adios to the lectin, wheat germ agglutinin, that directly damages the intestinal lining and acts like a Trojan horse for foreign substances to gain access to your bloodstream and organs. Say arrivederci to amylopectin A in wheat that provokes a roller-coaster ride of high blood sugar, followed by plummeting blood sugar and the mental ‘fog’ of hypoglycaemia and insatiable hunger. Say au revoir to unique alpha amylase inhibitors in wheat and lose many wheat allergies. Remove onions and . . . you remove onions – nothing more, nothing less. There is no withdrawal process, no weight loss, no relief from any pain, no religious epiphany, nothing except no onions with your fried liver or bratwurst. But remove wheat . . . and it’s like removing a poison from your body. After withdrawal subsides, health transformations result. Critics of Wheat Belly have argued that these ideas represent nothing more than a low-carbohydrate diet for weight loss in disguise. But they’ve missed the essential point: Eliminating modern wheat, this product of genetics research, is about so much more than weight loss. Sure, you lose weight – often a lot of weight – but it’s all the other stuff that results from wheatlessness that makes this approach such a powerful and life-changing concept. (For those of you interested in maximizing weight loss in as short a time as possible, or trying to undo severe carbohydrate intolerance, as in diabetes or pre-diabetes, we will discuss how going beyond elimination of wheat and restricting all carbohydrates provides additional benefits.) It’s part of what I call wheat’s ‘whole is greater than the sum of the parts effect’. Despite all we know about this destructive high-yield, 24-inch mutant, the benefits of removing it from diet exceed expectations. Although we already know plenty about the destructive health effects of gliadin, lectin, amylopectin A and other components of wheat, get rid of the whole package and health benefits enjoyed by the majority are greater than you’d ever anticipate. Let’s be clear: This is not about gluten elimination for gluten-sensitive people. Given wheat’s effects that spare no one, I am advocating wheat elimination for everybody. Downside: Tell this to the average wheat-eater and they find it a bit difficult to swallow, to say the least. You may be on the receiving end of yelling, swearing, sobbing and physical confrontation. No other food elicits such forceful reactions because no other food has such a hold over the consumer’s mind. Imagine taking a trip into the inner city and swiping the stash from a heroin addict – it wouldn’t be pretty. Remember: You are, in effect, trying to persuade a wheat-eating opiate addict that their source of comfort in times of good and bad is really undoing health, making them the unwitting victim of a ‘food’ that gains access to the brain to influence behaviour. So what can modern wheat-consuming individuals expect when they rid themselves of this thing? Let’s discuss that next. Happier Joints, Happier Bowels, Happier Minds Your body is healthier and happier when all things wheat are removed. But before we get to the ‘hard’ observations, the effects on various diseases and conditions that we can expect with elimination of wheat, let’s talk about the many ‘soft’ – but not to say insignificant – effects that develop, the subjective experiences many or most people report on saying goodbye to modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat. Subjective effects are tougher to measure but are nonetheless consistent and reproducible. I’ve personally witnessed these subjective effects unfold many thousands of times. Typical subjective observations that emerge with elimination of wheat include: Thinking is clearer. Most people describe a lifting of mental ‘fog’. (I personally experienced this effect to a dramatic degree.) The constant struggle to maintain concentration is replaced by the ability to focus for prolonged periods. Mood is improved, dark moods lessened. People are happier and less depressed. I’ve witnessed many people with lifelong struggles with depression who were able to reduce or stop antidepressant drugs. Energy increases. Not only is energy increased throughout the day, but the cycles of ups and downs diminish or disappear. Sleep is deeper. It becomes closer to the profound, restful sleep that children experience. Appetite is reduced. The predictable 2-hour cycle of hunger is replaced by eating followed by many hours of no interest in food. When you redevelop hunger, it seems to match physiologic need, providing interest in just obtaining what you need to live and function – not the bizarre excess of calories typical of modern habits and exemplified by such phenomena as all-you-can-eat buffets and food bars. The effects are especially fascinating in people who’ve been labelled with eating disorders such as bulimia, anorexia and binge eating disorder, many of whom experience normalization of appetite and food perceptions. People feel younger. Twenty years younger is the most common observation. (I truly don’t fully understand why this happens – reduced inflammation, shifts in hormones – but it is incredibly consistent.) At the very least, the perceived sense of youthfulness seems to be the combined result of increased energy, deeper sleep and reduced stiffness and pain. Menstrual cycles are milder. Women experience reduced cramping and moodiness. The ‘heartburn’ of acid reflux improves or disappears in the majority of people. Those labelled with irritable bowel syndrome typically experience less bloating, less gas and less unpredictability in bowel habits. Less joint pain and swelling. Most characteristically, this involves reduced pain and swelling in the joints of the fingers, hands and wrists, but also in the elbows and shoulders. Tenderness and swelling of the shins and ankles also recede, as do leg and ankle swelling. Naysayers, of course, jump on unquantifiable subjective benefits as mass hysteria, a group placebo effect that develops because I have such incredible powers of persuasion. But the experience that counts is yours and that of your family and friends. The wonderful thing about this is that you can decide for yourself: Just eliminate all things wheat. There are no prescription drugs, no nutritional supplements, no meetings to attend – just no wheat. But there is a complicating factor, because when you deny your body all things wheat, there is . . . Wheat Withdrawal Removing wheat, for many people, is downright terrifying. If the gliadin protein of modern wheat acts as a morphine-like opiate, then halting the flow of wheat can generate withdrawal. Aside from alcohol, I know of no other food that has a genuine addiction – and I mean actual physical addiction, not just intense desire – and withdrawal associated with it, certainly no food that you share with friends and serve your children. The addictive property of wheat is a very real phenomenon. Most people intuitively know that when deprived of their opiate of choice, they will begin to experience unpleasant effects within hours. They experience overpowering hunger that leaves them foggy and shaky. They feel the unpleasant low mood of lacking wheat, the desperation that causes you to seek relief, leading you to eat stale crackers from a year-old box, eat your children’s food or snap at the waitress because you’ve been waiting more than 5 minutes for your food. Like all addictions, it recedes with a sigh of relief when the next ‘hit’ of wheat arrives, at least for the next few hours. But what if that next hit never comes? What happens when you commit yourself to doing away with all things wheat and trigger wheat withdrawal on purpose? It means that many of the short-term phenomena of withdrawal – fatigue, shakiness, low mood, cravings for wheat and sugar – will be sustained and worsen over time. Wheat withdrawal closely resembles withdrawal from other opiates like morphine, Oxycontin and heroin, just less severe. The effect generally lasts from 24 hours to several days, occasionally weeks. But it does not last forever. I’ve witnessed it in men, women (who seem to get wheat withdrawal worse than men), Republicans, Democrats, young, old, even children. When it recedes, it can do so quite dramatically, with many describing a palpable surge in energy and mood and the disappearance of cravings. The drop in energy with wheat elimination is also partly due to the delayed conversion of metabolism from a constant flow of easily burned carbohydrates, like the amylopectin A of wheat, to that of fat oxidation, or the mobilization of fat stores. This conversion is necessary to lose weight, which generally proceeds rapidly and is mostly lost from the abdomen. Some disruption of bowel habits is also typical, with some people experiencing loose stools, others constipation. This is most likely the result of the change in bowel flora that results from depriving the bacteria in the intestinal tract of the components of wheat, amylopectin A, gliadin and lectins. (More on this later.) Not everyone is subject to wheat withdrawal. The wheat withdrawal syndrome affects around 35 to 40 per cent of people who stop consuming wheat products. Thankfully, while I won’t minimize its severity in some people, it is not as traumatic as withdrawal from, say, heroin. The process of wheat withdrawal, aside from the emotional turmoil and aches, is harmless. Everyone has survived. Despite the low mood and emotional turmoil, most people choose simply to grin and bear the process, allowing their bodies to adjust to the loss of this opiate on brain function and the slow activation of fat oxidation. Because the withdrawal process can be disruptive and unpleasant, it is worth not triggering again with a return to wheat and repeated withdrawal, thus my motto: Once wheat free, always wheat free. The Wonderful State of Wheatlessness Life without wheat is, for so many of us, so utterly different from our former wheat-consuming lives. It’s America after the Revolution, race relations after Martin Luther King, Kirstie Alley after Dancing with the Stars. The transfiguration is that dramatic. Wheatlessness means eating to meet your body’s needs, not submitting to the perverse appetite-stimulating effects of wheat gliadin. It means enjoying mental clarity and the capacity for sustained concentration unclouded by the opiate of wheat. It means being slender, happier, with fewer body aches, better bowel health and fewer rashes. It means ridding yourself of the grotesque metabolic distortions that develop in wheat-consuming people and instead enjoying marked improvements in metabolic health reflected by lower blood sugar, reduced measures of inflammation, reduced triglycerides and improvement of an entire host of other health parameters. In short, life is transformed when you say goodbye to wheat and join in the Wonderful State of Wheatlessness. Let’s consider each of these effects in greater detail. Weight Loss and the Magical Shrinking Wheat Belly What happens when you reduce calorie intake – and hunger – by 400 or more calories per day? You lose weight. Multiple studies have demonstrated weight loss of 1 stone 12 pounds, on average, in the first 6 months of being wheat free. And that is what I have witnessed over and over again (some people less, others more, but an average of 1 stone 12 pounds during the first 6 months) in people who say goodbye to the appetite-stimulating effects of wheat gliadin. The weight lost exceeds the quantity of wheat calories lost. The weight is lost primarily from the abdomen, with typical reductions of 2 to 3 inches in waist circumference within the first 4 weeks of wheatlessness. Although the reasons for such a selective, specific process around the waist are not entirely clear, it is at least partly due to the absence of amylopectin A that had previously been responsible for extravagantly high jumps in blood sugar and insulin that stimulate visceral fat accumulation. I also have to believe that receding inflammatory responses – removal of wheat germ agglutinin, restoration of leptin sensitivity – in visceral fat cells have to play a central role in the exaggerated loss of waist size. So, no, you are not overweight because you failed to eat a sufficient quantity of ‘healthy whole grains’. Chances are that you are also not overweight because you are lazy and gluttonous, as many official sources claim. If I were to peek in your family room some day, I doubt I’d catch you lying flat on your back watching Survivor re-runs, snacking on a bag of crisps and drinking Coca-Cola by the litre bottle. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if instead I caught you walking on your treadmill or riding your stationary bike, frantically trying to work off the excess pounds. You and many others are overweight because you were given bad advice – advice that actually causes weight gain. Reject that advice, remove the appetite-stimulating effects of wheat gliadin and amylopectin A, and weight loss can finally proceed without effort. But, as powerful as wheat elimination is, I can’t say that you will lose all the weight you want if you eliminate all wheat but then eat all the sweets and drink all the fizzy drinks you want, or consume ‘healthier’ equivalents of these insulin-provoking foods. Add to this the fact that the majority of adults are now diabetic or pre-diabetic (you may not even know it), meaning they have abnormal resistance to insulin, have disordered leptin signalling and are unable to properly metabolize carbohydrates. If weight loss and reversal of diabetes/pre-diabetes are on your agenda, then restricting total carbohydrates will accelerate your success (see ‘Can I Eat Quinoa? Carb-counting Basics’ (#ulink_8edc66a9-b14a-5ff5-b673-d59429b0b4d9)). Diabetes: Kiss ‘Healthy Whole Grainitis’ Goodbye Type 2 diabetes and ‘healthy whole grains’ are so tightly tied to one another that they are nearly one and the same: Eat ‘healthy whole grains’, become diabetic or pre-diabetic. Reject ‘healthy whole grains’, and diabetes and pre-diabetes improve or disappear in the majority. But that, of course, is not what you are told by ‘official’ sources of nutritional advice. Type 1 diabetes, incidentally, is also increasingly looking like a disease of wheat consumption. This is not to say that all type 1 diabetes is caused by wheat exposure, but an important minority of children who develop this lifelong condition do so because of wheat exposure if genetically susceptible. Note that children with type 1 diabetes have ten- to twentyfold greater likelihood of developing coeliac disease, and children with coeliac disease have tenfold greater likelihood of type 1 diabetes. You’ve likely heard the argument that if whole grains replace white flour products, the likelihood of diabetes is reduced. That is indeed (a little bit) true. The next step – elimination of all things wheat, especially modern wheat – is not talked about. But that is when the real magic happens and appetite drops, visceral fat recedes and waist circumference shrinks, inflammation that drives insulin resistance drops, blood sugar drops and haemoglobin A1c (a common measure that reflects the prior 60 to 90 days of blood sugars) plummets. Credit the absence of gliadin that stimulates appetite and the amylopectin A that drives blood sugar higher for improvements in diabetic blood sugars. Over time, improvements are compounded by dropping body weight and shrinkage of inflammatory visceral fat. That’s when most pre-diabetics become non-pre-diabetic and many, if not most, diabetics become nondiabetic, or at least experience marked improvements in blood sugar and reduced reliance on diabetes medication. Wheat elimination represents the exact opposite of the advice offered by the American Diabetes Association and other purveyors of health advice, who advocate that people with diabetes cut consumption of fat and, yes, eat more ‘healthy whole grains’. I’ve witnessed countless diabetics follow this advice and watched them gain weight, experience increasing blood sugars and HbA1c, resulting in increased need for diabetes drugs, then insulin, not to mention experience leg oedema, hypertension, acid reflux and the myriad other effects of wheat consumption. (And just who profits from such advice? That’s an entire conversation of its own. Suffice it to say that one of the biggest contributors to the American Diabetes Association over the years has been Cadbury Schweppes, the world’s largest sweet and soft drink manufacturer. Diabetes drug manufacturers have been quite generous, too.) It is an exceptionally common progression, one that is predicted to ensnare one in three Americans in the diabetic category in coming years. I have no question in my mind that this blunder constitutes one of the biggest nutritional crimes of the century. Can I Eat Quinoa? Carb-counting Basics It’s a frequent question: Can I eat quinoa, beans, brown rice or sweet potatoes? Or how about amaranth, sorghum and buckwheat? Surely corn on the cob is okay! These are, of course, non-wheat carbohydrates. They lack several undesirable ingredients found in wheat, including: Gliadin – The protein that degrades to exorphins, the compound from wheat digestion that exerts mind effects and stimulates appetite. Gluten – The family of proteins that trigger immune diseases and neurological impairment. Amylopectin A – The highly digestible carbohydrate that is no better – worse, in fact – than table sugar. Wheat germ agglutinin – The protein that is directly disruptive in the intestines and can generate coeliac-like destructive changes, as well as piggyback foreign substances into the bloodstream. So why not eat all the non-wheat grains you want? If they don’t cause appetite stimulation, behavioural outbursts in children, addictive consumption of foods, skin rashes, dementia, etc., why not just eat them willy-nilly? Because they still increase blood sugar and insulin. Conventional wisdom is that these foods have a lower glycaemic index than, say, table sugar, meaning they raise blood glucose less. That’s true, but misleading. Oats, for instance, with a glycaemic index of 55 compared with table sugar’s 59 to 65, will still send blood sugar through the roof. Likewise, quinoa, with a glycaemic index of 53, will send blood sugar to, say, 150 milligrams/decilitre compared with 158 milligrams/decilitre for table sugar – yeah, sure, it’s better, but it still stinks. And that’s the result in people who don’t have diabetes. It’s worse in people with diabetes and pre-diabetes. You can be wheat free and lose the appetite-stimulating effects of gliadin, but consuming larger servings of oatmeal, quinoa and rice will serve to stall or reverse your weight loss. Because it is gluten free, quinoa in particular has acquired a reputation for being problem free. Not true. Consume 177 grams (6? oz) of cooked quinoa containing 34 grams of ‘net’ carbs, for instance, and you will trigger insulin and stall weight loss. Of course, John Q. Internist will tell you that, provided your blood sugars after eating don’t exceed 200 milligrams/decilitre, you’ll be okay. What he’s really saying is ‘There’s no need for diabetes medication right now. You will still be exposed to the many adverse health consequences of high blood sugar similar to, though less quickly than, a full diabetic, but that’s not an urgent problem. You’re probably lazy and gluttonous, anyway, and can’t follow a diet programme. We’ll just keep an eye on you until you need medication’. In reality, most people can get away with consuming some of these non-wheat grains, provided portion size is limited. Limit portion size and you better manage carbohydrates to ensure that metabolic distortions, such as high blood sugar, glycation (glucose modification of proteins associated with conditions like cataracts, hypertension, heart disease and arthritis), and small LDL particles (the worst LDL particles of all, the bad of the bad), are not triggered. These non-wheat carbohydrates, or what I call intermediate carbohydrates (for lack of a better term; low glycaemic index is falsely reassuring), still trigger all the carbohydrate phenomena of table sugar. Is it possible to obtain the fibre, B vitamins and antioxidant benefits of these intermediate carbohydrates without triggering the undesirable carbohydrate consequences? Yes, by using small portions. Small portions are tolerated by most people without triggering all these phenomena. Problem: Individual sensitivity varies widely. One person’s perfectly safe portion size is another person’s deadly dose. For instance, I’ve witnessed extreme differences, such as blood sugar 1 hour after eating 175 grams/6 ounces of unsweetened yogurt of 250 milligrams/decilitre in one person, 105 milligrams/decilitre in another. So checking 1-hour blood sugars is a reliable means of assessing individual sensitivity to carbs. Many people don’t like the idea of checking blood sugars, however. Or there might be times when it’s inconvenient or unavailable. A useful alternative: Count carbohydrate grams. (Count ‘net’ carbohydrate grams, i.e., total carbohydrates minus fibre grams to yield ‘net’, or ‘effective’, carbs, i.e., the carbs that are actually digested, not just passively passing through like fibre.) Most people can tolerate 14 to 15 ‘net’ grams of carbohydrates per meal and deal with them effectively. Only the most sensitive people, for example, people with diabetes or individuals with an inherited tendency for high triglycerides, are intolerant to even this amount and do better with no more than 10 grams per meal. Then there are the genetically gifted from a carbohydrate perspective: people who can tolerate 20, 40, 50 or more grams at a sitting. People will sometimes say things like ‘I eat 200 grams of carbohydrate per day, and I’m normal weight and have perfect fasting blood sugar and lipids’. As in many things, the crude measures made are falsely reassuring. Glycation, for instance, from postprandial blood sugars of ‘only’ 140 milligrams/decilitre – typical after, say, a bowl of organic, stoneground, unsweetened oatmeal in a slender person – still works its unhealthy magic and over the long term will lead to cataracts, arthritis and other conditions. Humans were not meant to consume an endless supply of readily digestible carbohydrates. Counting carbohydrates is a great way to ‘tighten up’ a carbohydrate restriction. Reject this advice – eat more fat and eat no ‘healthy whole grains’ – and diabetes powerfully recedes. I’ve watched this happen many times. However, if you have diabetes, there is the potential for dangerous hypoglycaemia (low blood sugars) when you eliminate all things wheat and are taking diabetes medications. The risks of hypoglycaemia are even greater if you eliminate wheat and restrict other carbohydrates, regardless of the source. In other words, as you become less diabetic and consume fewer foods that raise blood sugar, you may experience low blood sugars, much as a non-diabetic person taking diabetes medication might experience. For this reason, several pre-cautions should be taken (see ‘Caution: If You Have Diabetes . . . ’ (#ulink_e7f7b5e1-bde7-5bee-a35a-5d8301abaeac)). The Happy Wheat-free Gastrointestinal Tract Ever notice how having a happy gastrointestinal tract is central to feeling good overall? If you are plagued by gas, cramps, abdominal discomfort and having to make panic runs to the toilet while making apologies to friends, it’s tough to feel good. Being free from these torments, on the other hand, with well-adjusted, happy bowels, makes all-around health more likely. Well, those of you in the former category, take heart: Relief from common gastrointestinal complaints is among the most common experiences in those who enjoy wheatlessness. Remove wheat gliadin, gluten and lectins from your diet, and gastrointestinal health improves in a number of important ways. The dramatic relief from cramps, discomfort and bowel urgency provided by elimination of wheat, followed by prompt recurrence with re-exposure in the majority of people, is a frequent and consistent phenomenon. In other words, eat wheat and struggle with abdominal cramps and intermittent diarrhoea; eliminate wheat and experience relief for extended periods. Have a re-exposure to wheat products, purposely or inadvertently, and all the cramps, urgency and embarrassment rush back with renewed intensity, only to recede again with stopping wheat – on again, off again, on again, off again. Unfortunately, many in the gastroenterology community deny that these associations exist because they cannot view the destruction at the end of their endoscopes and often ascribe the symptoms to anxiety or depression or dismiss you as nuts and advise an anti-depressant or pill for anxiety. The fact that you can trigger symptoms with exposure and obtain relief with avoidance is sufficient proof to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship, regardless of whether some gastroenterologist ‘approves’ or not. Among the most common gastrointestinal experiences with wheat elimination are: • Acid reflux. Also known as reflux oesophagitis, acid reflux improves or disappears in the majority of people within days of stopping wheat. People taking drugs like Prilosec, Pepcid, Protonix, or antacids for years describe relief within 3 to 5 days of saying goodbye to wheat. I’ve witnessed countless people kiss their drugs goodbye after years of dependence with no recurrence of symptoms. • Irritable bowel syndrome. Characterized by symptoms of excessive gas, cramps and intermittent diarrhoea and constipation, as well as bouts of bowel urgency, irritable bowel syndrome symptoms also disappear in the majority within days of saying goodbye to wheat. The drugs usually prescribed for this condition provide partial relief at best. The dietary strategy for relief – eat no wheat – works like a charm in the majority. • Improved regularity. Most people find that, minus wheat, bowel regularity is paradoxically improved. I say ‘paradoxically’ because we’ve been told over and over again by healthcare experts and the food industry that wheat products containing plenty of fibre promote regularity. And they do – in wheat-eating individuals. Take away wheat and regularity improves in the majority, even in people with something called obstipation, or severe and unremitting constipation with bowel movements delayed for up to weeks at a time. (An occasional person experiences constipation with wheat elimination, but this situation responds to restoration of bowel flora. See ‘What If My Colon Says, “No Way!”?’ (#litres_trial_promo).) • Reduced symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease. Serious inflammatory bowel conditions – ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease – are worsened by wheat consumption and improved with wheat avoidance. I find that the longer an individual with one of these conditions avoids wheat, the greater the relief, with substantial relief developing over extended periods of months or longer. The most common response is marked reduction in symptoms of cramps, diarrhoea and bleeding, though I have witnessed outright cure on several occasions. I interpret the incredible ubiquity of improved gastrointestinal health with wheat elimination as evidence that this thing called modern wheat was never meant for human consumption. Caution: If You Have Diabetes . . . ‘There is not a shred of evidence that sugar, per se, has anything to do with getting diabetes’. Richard Kahn, PhD, recently retired chief scientific and medical officer, American Diabetes Association Dr Kahn’s comment echoes conventional thinking on diabetes: Eat all the grains and sweets you want; just be sure to talk to your doctor about diabetes medications. If you eat foods that increase blood sugar, it increases your need for diabetes medications. If you reduce or eliminate foods that increase blood sugar, then it decreases your need for diabetes medications. The equation for most people with adult, or type 2, diabetes is really that simple. But several precautions are necessary if you are diabetic and are taking certain diabetes drugs. The potential danger is hypoglycaemia, Конец ознакомительного фрагмента. Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес». Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию (https://www.litres.ru/dr-davis-william/wheat-belly-cookbook-150-delicious-wheat-free-recipes-for/?lfrom=688855901) на ЛитРес. Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.