The Dangers of Wheat

[phoenix]

The bleaching of flour was made illegal in the UK in 1997 so you don't have to worry about that.
I think it is important to discriminate between UK and US sources.
UK/ European wheat varieties are not the same as those used in the UK.
Paradoxically the Chorleywood process was devised to enable Britain to become self sufficient in wheat. From the 19C onwards most flour used for bread in the UK came from N America. European flour is too soft (low gluten) to produce the high rise preferred by the British consumer. That's where I benefit , you just don't get high risen bread here , French wheat is also soft wheat.
Since then some European varieties have been hybridised to be higher in gluten. They have been dwarfed and so contain the dwarfing gene but from what I can gather (certainly no expert) they are also descended from European rather than N American varieties.

 

[hanadr]

It's my belief that we should base our diet around foods which an be eaten raw,wheter or not we choose to cook them. Wheat certainly DOES NOT come into that category. A little of other stuff is probably OK for most people, but not All.
My rationale is that we did not evolve with cooked or processed foods and mostly are not equipped tro digest them.
Hana

 

[Scardoc]

Borofergie: "That's a non-sequitur. The grain is fuelling the population growth, not the other way around. Are you suggesting we keep developing more and more genetically modified grains so that we can keep growing the world population? Don't you see a problem with that?"

You've missed my point. Wheat is not fuelling population growth at all, the success of the human race is. Wheat is being used to help sustain the population we have. The advances in science, medicine, and technology have created a situation where the life expectancy of humans is rising all over the World. Communicable diseases are being vaccinated and people living in the poorest areas of the World are being helped to live longer through medicine, education and aid. Not only are people living longer but infant mortality rates are so much lower for the same reasons. Natural disasters are better understood, can be predicted and we can build buildings to withstand earthquakes for example. This means we can populate dangerous parts of the World and live in relative safety.

We've tipped the balance of nature and as a result we have a population explosion. However, the wonderful thing (or perhaps the curse) about humans is that we keep learning and keep making technological advances to help sustain this population. Renewable energy, for instance, will eventually power the country. Going back to wheat, I think it is inevitable that GM grains (and other food stuffs) will become more widespread in the future. I'm not saying I believe it is the right thing to do but I think it will happen. I think todays scientists have the ability to do it and to enhance the product as well. However, selling it is an entirely different story and that will take cast iron guarantees on safety, or a crisis, to move it forward.

Humans can and will adapt to food changes, look at milk. The evolution of lactose tolerance in Europe some 7000/8000yrs ago has enabled to us to drink non human milk which is both sustainable and high in nutrients. We are living with agricultural diets and we are thriving as a species. 7 billion people can't be wrong!

I am certainly not saying that the dietary advice being dished out by the Government is 100% correct. Given the shocking statistics on obesity in this country it is something that should be very very high up on their agenda. However, as Lucylocket said "Our bodies are very delicate things with tiny amounts of chemicals needed to keep balance. If we introduce something not natural, it throws the balance out." Diet is just one area where we are introducing something "not natural". Sedentary lifestyle is another and just as major a topic, especially in evolutionary terms. But, wheat was the issue so I'll leave that alone. No, the Government is not great, no we didn't evolve millions of years ago to be agricultural. We are agricultural however and there's enormous pressure on being agricultural.

 

[Grazer]

Humans can and will adapt to food changes, look at milk. The evolution of lactose tolerance in Europe some 7000/8000yrs ago has enabled to us to drink non human milk which is both sustainable and high in nutrients. We are living with agricultural diets and we are thriving as a species. 7 billion people can't be wrong!

I think you're right. We are incredibly adaptable and hence our ability to survive. However, some people are still lactose intolerant (not uncommon in babies until we help therm to "grow out of it") and others wheat intolerant. Diabetics are generally carbohydrate intolerant, although sadly it often isn't seen that way. So, adapting is fine until a person isn't a run-of-the-mill 100% "normal" individual, or perhaps hasn't 100% adapted. For these people who are affected by diet, we perhaps have to seek primary food sources rather than adaptations. I guess this means adaptation doesn't always equal best. We adapt to pollution, doesn't mean it's good.
Having said that, I have no doubt that you're right and wheat will continue to fuel the vast population for the forseeable future.

 

[borofergie]

You've missed my point. Wheat is not fuelling population growth at all, the success of the human race is. Wheat is being used to help sustain the population we have.

I haven't missed the point at all. If you don't feed people cheap, robust, grain, then they starve to death and don't reproduce, and the population doesn't increase, ultimately reaching an equiblibrium level where the population is more or less equal to the available food resources.

Over-population of the planet isn't "success". If the current rate of growth continues unchecked it'll damage the entire ecosystem and threaten the survival of the entire species.

 

[xyzzy]

You've missed my point. Wheat is not fuelling population growth at all, the success of the human race is. Wheat is being used to help sustain the population we have. The advances in science, medicine, and technology have created a situation where the life expectancy of humans is rising all over the World. Communicable diseases are being vaccinated and people living in the poorest areas of the World are being helped to live longer through medicine, education and aid. Not only are people living longer but infant mortality rates are so much lower for the same reasons. Natural disasters are better understood, can be predicted and we can build buildings to withstand earthquakes for example. This means we can populate dangerous parts of the World and live in relative safety.

We've tipped the balance of nature and as a result we have a population explosion. However, the wonderful thing (or perhaps the curse) about humans is that we keep learning and keep making technological advances to help sustain this population. Renewable energy, for instance, will eventually power the country. Going back to wheat, I think it is inevitable that GM grains (and other food stuffs) will become more widespread in the future. I'm not saying I believe it is the right thing to do but I think it will happen. I think todays scientists have the ability to do it and to enhance the product as well. However, selling it is an entirely different story and that will take cast iron guarantees on safety, or a crisis, to move it forward.

Humans can and will adapt to food changes, look at milk. The evolution of lactose tolerance in Europe some 7000/8000yrs ago has enabled to us to drink non human milk which is both sustainable and high in nutrients. We are living with agricultural diets and we are thriving as a species. 7 billion people can't be wrong!

+1 Scardoc.

I was trying to persuade Stephen (borofergie) of that on another thread yesterday. In many ways I see the human wheat thing as a symbiotic relationship in that grains and grasses are maybe the most successful plant species whereas humans are the most successful animal species and without that symbiosis both species would suffer.

Saying a 7 billion plus world population is a bad thing may well be a true statement but it doesn't alter the fact there is a 7 billion plus population which has been able to evolve by the symbiosis between humans and grasses. In the end it will all come crashing down at some point of course as things like catastrophe theory have shown that to be the case time and time again with other organisms etc. The only get out of jail card we humans (or grasses) have is our intelligence which will hopefully allow us to develop the capability to leave our planet and continue that near viral growth elsewhere.

 

[noblehead]

Borofergie: "That's a non-sequitur. The grain is fuelling the population growth, not the other way around. Are you suggesting we keep developing more and more genetically modified grains so that we can keep growing the world population? Don't you see a problem with that?"

You've missed my point. Wheat is not fuelling population growth at all, the success of the human race is. Wheat is being used to help sustain the population we have. The advances in science, medicine, and technology have created a situation where the life expectancy of humans is rising all over the World. Communicable diseases are being vaccinated and people living in the poorest areas of the World are being helped to live longer through medicine, education and aid. Not only are people living longer but infant mortality rates are so much lower for the same reasons. Natural disasters are better understood, can be predicted and we can build buildings to withstand earthquakes for example. This means we can populate dangerous parts of the World and live in relative safety.

We've tipped the balance of nature and as a result we have a population explosion. However, the wonderful thing (or perhaps the curse) about humans is that we keep learning and keep making technological advances to help sustain this population. Renewable energy, for instance, will eventually power the country. Going back to wheat, I think it is inevitable that GM grains (and other food stuffs) will become more widespread in the future. I'm not saying I believe it is the right thing to do but I think it will happen. I think todays scientists have the ability to do it and to enhance the product as well. However, selling it is an entirely different story and that will take cast iron guarantees on safety, or a crisis, to move it forward.

Humans can and will adapt to food changes, look at milk. The evolution of lactose tolerance in Europe some 7000/8000yrs ago has enabled to us to drink non human milk which is both sustainable and high in nutrients. We are living with agricultural diets and we are thriving as a species. 7 billion people can't be wrong!

I am certainly not saying that the dietary advice being dished out by the Government is 100% correct. Given the shocking statistics on obesity in this country it is something that should be very very high up on their agenda. However, as Lucylocket said "Our bodies are very delicate things with tiny amounts of chemicals needed to keep balance. If we introduce something not natural, it throws the balance out." Diet is just one area where we are introducing something "not natural". Sedentary lifestyle is another and just as major a topic, especially in evolutionary terms. But, wheat was the issue so I'll leave that alone. No, the Government is not great, no we didn't evolve millions of years ago to be agricultural. We are agricultural however and there's enormous pressure on being agricultural.

Great post Scardoc :thumbup:

 

[Scardoc]

Interesting points Borofergie but you have still missed my point. Over-population is not success, in no way shape or form. It is a by-product of the success of the human species. We wouldn't need to find cheap and robust foods to feed the World if we weren't so God darn clever!! All the diseases we have wiped off the face of the planet would keep the population down for us if we didn't have vaccines. Likewise, if we were less evolved and socially aware then we'd turn a blind eye to the droughts in Africa and say "let them get on with it, they live in an inhospitable climate so what do they expect". Or we'd ignore the AIDS problem but we can't because what if it effects us? What if the retrovirus mutates and becomes airborne???

The turn back point for equilibrium was centuries ago, we're dealing with the aftermath.

I think the key thing our bodies are not adapting to is the sedentary lifestyle which has, in my opinion, really taken off in the last twenty years. Activity levels are lower than ever in our society. I see it in my own children who would spend hours (if allowed) in front of a selection of screens doing nothing. They don't have to go out to see their friends anymore, they don't even have to go out to see if their friends want to come out!! Adults are working in less active jobs, housewives/husbands have more gadgets and let's face it.... a large part of our society are handed an easy life of doing nothing!! Humans need to be active. We have evolved to store fat when there is plenty of food and use it when there's a shortage. All we have now is plenty and it comes nicely displayed to us and we don't even have to walk to get it.

"Diabetics are generally carbohydrate intolerant". I'm going to tentatively disagree with that but have no fact or figures behind me. I think, as with the overweight issue, it's a correlation which does not, as was pointed out to me on a previous thread, equal causation.

 

[Grazer]

"Diabetics are generally carbohydrate intolerant". I'm going to tentatively disagree with that

On the basis that NO T2 on diet/metformin can eat GDA levels of carbohydrates and maintain good BG control, and NO diabetic on other meds can eat them without adjusting their meds to that level of carbs, I think that pretty much defines us as not being able to eat carbs without medical assistance - an intolerance to carbs. Can't see how you can disagree with that, unless you're going down the route of "it's all just insulin resistance caused by being overweight". If that IS the route, explain why I, struggling to keep my BMI up to 22, can't eat carbs in quantity without unnacceptable BG peaks?

 

[Scardoc]

Sorry - quick clarification, I replied to two posts there at once, from Borofergie and Grazer, mistakingly thinking it was all from Borofergie!!! Sorry Grazer, you had interesting points, not Borofergie!!

Also, I agree adaptation is not always best, sometimes it prevents us from actually looking at the problem. But, humans will do what they need to do to get on. The Industrial Revolution was a major human error in terms of looking after our planet but we didn't know any better. Now we do know better we preach it to developing countries like China who are simply doing what we did. Anatomically, I don't think we've adapted at all to pollution. The last time I looked my country dwelling nose hair still rivalled that of a city dweller!!! However, there have been studies to show that the human brain is gradually getting smaller through evolution with the theory being that we are now less reliant on ourself. Thus our brain can concentrate on fewer things and has become smaller.

 

[Scardoc]

Grazer "On the basis that NO T2 on diet/metformin can eat GDA levels of carbohydrates and maintain good BG control, and NO diabetic on other meds can eat them without adjusting their meds to that level of carbs, I think that pretty much defines us as not being able to eat carbs without medical assistance - an intolerance to carbs. Can't see how you can disagree with that, unless you're going down the route of "it's all just insulin resistance caused by being overweight". If that IS the route, explain why I, struggling to keep my BMI up to 22, can't eat carbs in quantity without unnacceptable BG peaks?"

Intolerant = unable to eat a food without adverse effects. These forums have clearly demonstrated that T2's can eat carbohydrates, in lesser quantities than the Governments GDA, and maintain good BG control. Being carbohydrate intolerant in my eyes is lacking an enzyme (ie lactase) or having suffered from a disease which has led to intolerance and not being able to eat them at all without consequence.

Would "no diabetic on other meds" count me as a T1? I'm not clear on that but I do adjust my insulin to suit the carbs I am eating as I am, in effect, trying to replicate what my body would naturally do. I see that as an insulin deficiency, as opposed to carb intolerance. However, if you're not talking T1 and I've picked that up wrong then I'll shut up

I won't, and don't need to, go down the road of saying it's "all insulin resistance caused by being overweight" but I will go down the road, as I have done many times before, of saying that an unhealthy lifestyle is the major factor lurking behind practically everything. There's an inextricable relationship going on between weight, insulin resistance, T2 diabetes and the impairment of the bodies ability to process carbs. By unhealthy lifestyle we can include the grains that are commonly used and lack of exercise amongst others.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule, such as yourself, and no one likes to be labelled. However, when 80% of T2's are overweight at the time of diagnosis it can't be ignored. Studies have shown that an increase in exercise leads to a reduction in not only T2 diabetes but practically everything! From what I've read on these forums I have been won over that the message for T2 and low carbs should be heard at Westminster. However, when it comes to prevention, then we should all be looking more closely at the Government guidelines for exercise as well as diet and I am sure if we reversed the trend towards obesity in this country we would see a decline in diabetes. Then we could have more resources to find the causes of both T1 and T2.

 

[Grazer]

Intolerant = unable to eat a food without adverse effects. These forums have clearly demonstrated that T2's can eat carbohydrates, in lesser quantities than the Governments GDA, and maintain good BG control. Being carbohydrate intolerant in my eyes is lacking an enzyme (ie lactase) or having suffered from a disease which has led to intolerance and not being able to eat them at all without consequence.

You're probably right in a strict definition, and i should probably say "intolerant to NORMAL levels of carbohydrate", but I and others tend to use the phrase "intolerance" because it's a good graphical way of explaining to others, particularly most newly diagnosed T2s, how to view their diet and how to approach a modified carb intake. This isn't preaching low carb at them; I'm on 150'ish grams carbs per day, and suggest sometimes that people try cutting their carbs by 50% (to 150 for a man) as an initial step, and then test to see how they get on. But in simple terms, eating too many carbs makes us ill, so I would consider that a type of "intolerance", whether that's a strict definition or not. And in fact, I have two friends who are Coeliacs who tell me they can eat a very small amount of product with Gluten and be ok, so i guess they are an example of my definition, albeit their tolerance of their problem food is much lower than mine, and the impact of too much is much more immediate.

Would "no diabetic on other meds" count me as a T1? I'm not clear on that but I do adjust my insulin to suit the carbs I am eating as I am, in effect, trying to replicate what my body would naturally do. I see that as an insulin deficiency, as opposed to carb intolerance. However, if you're not talking T1 and I've picked that up wrong then I'll shut up

I wasn't really talking T1, but in a loose sense, I guess your insulin deficiency also means that if you didn't have access to outside sources of insulin, you would be carbohydrate intolerant! However, that's semantics and, as I say, I wasn't really talking T1. Your point of using insulin does, however, give another reason why I use the term "intolerance". You can to a degree use your insulin doseage to allow you to tolerate any level of carbohydrates. As I don't use insulin, I can't, and am thus intolerant of carbs at higher levels.

 

[Scardoc]

I didn't think you were talking T1. You're right it's semantics..... and a million miles away from wheat and it's impact on the planet!! :lol:

 

[borofergie]

Intolerant = unable to eat a food without adverse effects. These forums have clearly demonstrated that T2's can eat carbohydrates, in lesser quantities than the Governments GDA, and maintain good BG control. Being carbohydrate intolerant in my eyes is lacking an enzyme (ie lactase) or having suffered from a disease which has led to intolerance and not being able to eat them at all without consequence.

That's a made up definition. Here is a real one:

Food intolerance is negative reaction, often delayed, to a food, beverage, food additive, or compound found in foods that produces symptoms in one or more body organs and systems, but it is not a true food allergy.

I can eat carbohydrates only in very, very small quanitites. The Government says that I should get 50% of my food energy from carbs, in reality I get less than 3%. If I eat any more than that, then my BG spikes above 7.8mmol/l, and I expose myself to the risk of complications.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule, such as yourself, and no one likes to be labelled.

:thumbup:

However, when 80% of T2's are overweight at the time of diagnosis it can't be ignored.

Altogether now: "correlation does not imply causation".

Most very tall people have big feet. Having big feet is not a cause of "excessive tallness".

Studies have shown that an increase in exercise leads to a reduction in not only T2 diabetes but practically everything!

That's interesting. Which studies?

However, when it comes to prevention, then we should all be looking more closely at the Government guidelines for exercise as well as diet and I am sure if we reversed the trend towards obesity in this country we would see a decline in diabetes. Then we could have more resources to find the causes of both T1 and T2.

It's not about exercise . Sure it probably helps a bit (and has lots of other health benefits), but the numbers don't add up when it comes to weight loss. I burn 200kcals a mile when I run. That'd mean that I'd have to run 17 miles to burn a single pound of fat (without eating anything extra because of it). You've probably heard all the Taubes stuff, but even the people on the other side of the debate agree. In her new book Marion Nestle says:

The number of calories [expended due to exercise] are likely to add up to a small percentage of those required for basal metabolism. Their number is also small compared to the number of calories that most people expend in a day.

She has an interesting theory as to why the establishment continues to promote exercise as a weight loss strategy:

This however does not stop food companies and government agencies from emphasizing physical activity as the primary strategy for losing or maintaining body weight. From a political standpoint, the advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not effect the economic interests of the food companies or any other powerful industry. In contrast, as we keep reminding you, simply eating less is bad for business.

I can easily lose a lb of fat in a week on a low-carb diet. To do the same with exercise I'd have to run 17 miles on an empty stomach (and then some, because exercise reduces your basal metabolic rate).

 

[lucylocket61]

Scardoc said:
However, when 80% of T2's are overweight at the time of diagnosis it can't be ignored.

How about if it proves to be that overweight is a symptom of Diabetes, not a cause?

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Scardoc said:
However, when 80% of T2's are overweight at the time of diagnosis it can't be ignored.

How about if it proves to be that overweight is a symptom of Diabetes, not a cause?

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php

That would very much depend on whether someone has been obese all their adult life or just for a brief period before diagnosis, I would guess that most have been overweight for a considerable percentage of their lives and in that case one cant really argue that it is diabetes that made one obese. Chicken and egg? Only in certain cases IMO.

I would say that weight is definitely a factor or a marker in a pre disposal towards diabetes but it is NOT a cause of diabetes

 

[lucylocket61]

That would very much depend on whether someone has been obese all their adult life or just for a brief period before diagnosis, I would guess that most have been overweight for a considerable percentage of their lives and in that case one cant really argue that it is diabetes that made one obese. Chicken and egg? Only in certain cases IMO.

But what if people have been slowly losing their insulin ability over a number of years and have slowly gained weight they couldnt shift? That would result in some of the obesity we see. For some people who are Type 2's they have been slowly losing pancreatic function for many years before they cross the threshold doctors have decided to use to make Diabetes official.

What if this slow increase is actually a first warning that something is going wrong?

I personally dont know of anyone who is now Type 2 or pre-diabetic who have been obese all their adult lives. In fact, that idea doesnt work because it is the years of gradual pancreatic loss which count, not the years one has been alive.

I also think the Type of obesity can serve as a marker. In women, particularly, putting weight on ones middle whilst still being relatively slim around the legs and behind and bust is often seen many years before full-blown diabetes is diagnosed. The women's hormones are checked and found to be normal, so they are told off by the HCP's and put on the standard diet. They either starve themselves to plateau their weight, or slowly continue to gain weight. Then they get diagnosed as T"'s and told it is their fault.

So no Chicken and Egg situation. Maybe obesity is the symptom of undiagnosed or pre-diabetes, not the cause.

 

[Defren]

I didn't start to gain weight until I became almost housebound due to exceptionally restricted mobility. All my life up to and including my 20's I was as thin as a rake. It was illness, and then restricted mobility with me, so no, absolutely not overweight all my life, perhaps marginally underweight infact.

 

[Grazer]

Never overweight, before or since, ever

 

[lucylocket61]

But Grazer,

You are one of the 20% exceptions who mysteriously, havent caused your T2 by stuffing your face with unhealthy food.

You are one of the many, many exceptions which proves the above theory :lol: :crazy: