# Could you be addicted to Wheat?



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

My nephew was sensitive to wheat and until this was diagnosed, he could eat a loaf of bread toasted, or a big stack of pancakes, and want more wheat product at the next meal. Yet he wasn't a lick over weight. Same with milk, lactose sensitive. Once both were rmoved from his diet, he felt better and his mood improved and he was no longer belligerent.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

I had a very interesting time back packing. In a month I ate chocolate maybe three times, rarely had sugary drinks, had no processed meats, had no bread and less times than I can count on a hand did I have dairy...

My diet was veg, fruit, fish, eggs, meat.

I think I had a pizza once.

My skin was brighter, I definitely had more energy and my stomach wasn't bloated. I was doing a lot less exercise than I'd normally do, but felt so much better within myself.


But since getting back, I've put on 5kg going back to my sugar filled, carb reliant and coffee needed days. 

Thanks for the interesting read.


I'm trying to eat things like bulgur wheat with salads to make them more interesting and keep clear of bread and pasta!


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

greentree said:


> "Wheat is addictive in the sense that it comes to dominate thoughts and behaviors. Wheat is addictive in the sense that, if you don’t have any for *several hours*, you start to get nervous, foggy, tremulous, and start desperately seeking out another “hit” of crackers, bagels, or bread, even if it’s the few stale 3-month old crackers at the bottom of the box. "


Confused by this because it is my understanding you should graze most of the day and not go more than 3 to 4 hours without eating _something_ because it keeps your blood sugar more level and keeps your metabolism revved up .... and that has nothing to do with eating wheat or not. (Ex: Ask a body builder!!)




greentree said:


> "Ask your friends and neighbors who try to include more “healthy whole grains” in their diet. They exercise, eat a “well-balanced diet” . . . yet gained 10, 20, 30, 70 pounds over the past several years. "


I find this paragraph .... disturbing? 

If you do indeed eat a well-balanced diet and eat your food from whole sources (including wheat), I see no reason why you would pack on up to 70 pounds in a few years. :icon_rolleyes:

There's definitely a large difference between real whole wheat, and processed bleached nutrient-depleted wheat. Unfortunately, not a lot of people have been educated on what to look for.



Saddlebag said:


> My nephew was sensitive to wheat and until this was diagnosed, he could eat a loaf of bread toasted, or a big stack of pancakes, and want more wheat product at the next meal. *Yet he wasn't a lick over weight.* Same with milk, lactose sensitive. Once both were rmoved from his diet, he felt better and his mood improved and he was no longer belligerent.


Sounds like your nephew has Celiac Disease?

Those with CD who are still consuming gluten products will often LOSE weight because they are essentially malnourishing themselves. The villi in the intestine are damaged and unable to absorb any nutrients. So even though they may be eating, eating, eating, it's just all passing through. 

I think this is a completely different thing that the article is trying to tout.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I will say, Beau, that for some folks, who have addictive tendecies, either with food, or alchohol, or drugs, or ? . . that any kind of bread/cake/cookie products will continue to stimulate the insane urge to over eat said foodstuffs. such persons seem UNABLE to eat those foods in moderation. and the complete abstinance of consuming wheat products can bring about a freedom from those insane urges. 

if you CAN eat them in moderation, be my guest. myself, I have never been able to eat wheat products but that it didn't start to accelerate and snowball into eating that caused weight gain.

whether or not this applies to ALL grains is what I find debatable.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Beau, if you do not spike your blood sugar with carbs, your blood sugar will remain level on it's own. 

As for the disturbing comment....I have said this before....I got to the point where I could NOT shake the 40+ lbs. I know how to lose weight, it has been a lifelong struggle, and I have managed a fitness center, and helped many women lose weight. 
This was verified by my doctor and Body Bugg, the predecessor to a fit bit. 

I was consuming 900 calories a day, and burning 4500. That should result in a loss of almost 1 lb per day. Instead, my weight went up. Had blood work...nothing wrong. So, I gave up and quit worrying about it, until November, 2014. As SOON as I gave up "healthy, whole grains", the weight fell off. I felt like riding and hiking and dancing, ALL in the same day. At once, my body knew how much food to eat. I was NEVER hungry. I was no longer getting fuzzy vision in the afternoon, or at night. After 45 days, I had my optometrist's appointment, and he backed my Rx off .50 and lowered my add .50. My balance improved immediately. 

I no longer take ANY OTC pain killers. 

We have drastically changed the composition of our grains, and they are now wreaking havoc with our ENTIRE body. If this had only been MY result, I would question it....but I watched the results in my DH and my 30 yo DS. 

What have you got to lose by giving it up to see if it helps? Nothing. Maybe a fatty liver and inflammation, but there is no RDA for carbohydrates. There are no nutrients that you will miss by giving them up. (A few vitamins that are ADDED to them is all, nothing natural....)


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

It has always made me wonder why we started eating wheat, we do so much processing to make it edible...I mean pick some fruit, or a veggie, most of them you pretty much just eat.....kill an animal, yeah, you can eat it, then we got fire and BBQ arrived and the world was a better place!

I do believe that we can survive pretty well with minimal grains, I also believe that the wheat we had 100 years ago bears no resemblance to the wheat we grow today. I know for sure and certain that the wheat grown then was never grown with the battery of chemicals that it is now, and I speak as a wheat farmer.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept a few things..

We are, each of us, beautifully unique, and our bodies react differently to different things. I am lucky I don't think I have any food allergies, but I do know from keeping the diary, that my body reacts when I add wheat and/or sugar back in..I need to track this and see if I can work out which is the reactor. My DIL is allergic to milk protein, medical fact, which is how we found out that they use milk in some red wines to help make it clear, who knew?


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> I will say, Beau, that for some folks, who have addictive tendecies, either with food, or alchohol, or drugs, or ? . . that any kind of bread/cake/cookie products will continue to stimulate the insane urge to over eat said foodstuffs. such persons seem UNABLE to eat those foods in moderation. and the complete abstinance of consuming wheat products can bring about a freedom from those insane urges.
> 
> if you CAN eat them in moderation, be my guest. myself, I have never been able to eat wheat products but that it didn't start to accelerate and snowball into eating that caused weight gain.
> 
> whether or not this applies to ALL grains is what I find debatable.


Not trying to say that those that ARE doing a wheat-free diet are wrong. If something works for you, by all means, go for it. Do what works.

But I am just questioning some of the logistics. I too am questioning the result on other grains as well as the different SOURCES of wheat. Why does moderate intake of good wheat sources have to be "bad"?

I find myself much LESS hungry when I incorporate a whole grain source into a meal, than if I do not. Of course, in a moderate amount.




greentree said:


> Beau, if you do not spike your blood sugar with carbs, your blood sugar will remain level on it's own.


That mode of thinking would then say to NEVER eat carbs ... or fruit for that matter (which contains natural sugar which will affect your blood sugar). Some types of red meat can also affect your blood sugar, as well as certain dairy products.

There are many other food sources that have an affect on your blood sugar. (Check out the Glycemic Index.) Yes, carbs are a big one; no doubt about it. But I personally don't find it healthy to completely eliminate an entire nutritional food group, unless you have an allergic or medical reason that requires you to do so. Especially when (for example) stone ground whole wheat bread has a low glycemic index.





greentree said:


> As for the disturbing comment....I have said this before....I got to the point where I could NOT shake the 40+ lbs. I know how to lose weight, it has been a lifelong struggle, and I have managed a fitness center, and helped many women lose weight.


Again, I'm not trying to diminish you or anyone else's weight loss story. If it worked for you, fantastic! Do what you need to do.

But the article seems to be claiming more that EVERYONE needs to stop eating wheat, and that is the part I have a problem with.



greentree said:


> I no longer take ANY OTC pain killers.


Devils advocate question: Is that_ really_ because of giving up grains, or is it because you dropped the excess weight?



greentree said:


> We have drastically changed the composition of our grains, and they are now wreaking havoc with our ENTIRE body.


I see that Dr. Davis spouts this all the time, yet I cannot seem to find a link to RESEARCH that states more specifics on this. Do you have anything?

What about flax? Barley? Oats? Durum? 

What about spring wheat? Winter wheat? White? Red? Hard? Soft? There are so many different varieties of wheat.

What about the increase in wheat yield from the 1930's to the 1970's? What was different about 1970 and going forward?

How is the yield separated from better planting and harvesting methods, and from genetic plant breeding?

Etc. 

These are all questions I have about the claims.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I agree with you Beau. it is not a simple thing. 

some folks say, regarding bread, that since bread nowadays is made with yeast instead of the fermented type (real sourdough) , that it is not as digestible to us. I don't remember the specifics, but it had to do with the fermentation process breaking down the grains, whereas the simple yeast does not..


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Yes, we bred for ONE thing...yield. No regard for the effect any of this hybridization or genetic manipulation may have. 

There is also the dramatic rise of the same diseases in canines and felines, (diabetes, IBD, obesity) directly related to the rise in a wheat based diet, and the same insulin resistance now seen in horses, who at least are properly equipped to digest the grains, since we began feeding pellets made from wheat.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

greentree said:


> Yes, we bred for ONE thing...yield. No regard for the effect any of this hybridization or genetic manipulation may have.
> 
> There is also the dramatic rise of the same diseases in canines and felines, (diabetes, IBD, obesity) directly related to the rise in a wheat based diet, and the same insulin resistance now seen in horses, who at least are properly equipped to digest the grains, since we began feeding pellets made from wheat.



really?

I think a lot of the obesity epidemic has to do with being so sedentary. when I was a kid we ate all kinds of wheat products, but we were moving most of the time. just things like walking to school, or over to a friend's house, riding bikes, swimminmg in the lake, etc. every hour that is spent on a computer (like right now!) is an hour spent being sedentary.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> really?
> 
> I think a lot of the obesity epidemic has to do with being so sedentary. when I was a kid we ate all kinds of wheat products, but we were moving most of the time. just things like walking to school, or over to a friend's house, riding bikes, swimminmg in the lake, etc. every hour that is spent on a computer (like right now!) is an hour spent being sedentary.


Yes, really, but as with most things it is not one easy answer to any of these issues, yes sedentary life style, but also rise in portion sizes, and the rubbish that we now have in our food....

Wheat though as has been said has been changed greatly, more so than other grains.

Basic fact, anyone who doesn't think wheat is an issue, eat it, no one says you shouldn't. Anyone who thinks it is an issue, then keep a food diary and see if there is a cause and affect there..

You don't need to eat wheat to have a healthy diet, so it is completely voluntary


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

When I gave up wheat, I purposefully did not exercise, just to see what happened, because I had done aerobics and weights in the past to lose. It was winter, so not a lot of additional horse exercise.....I lost the weight. 

I did not start dancing and Zumba until early May, and I had lost 20 lbs.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> Yes, really, but as with most things it is not one easy answer to any of these issues, yes sedentary life style, but also rise in portion sizes, and the rubbish that we now have in our food....
> 
> Wheat though as has been said has been changed greatly, more so than other grains.
> 
> ...



of course it's not just one factor.

do YOU eat wheat?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> of course it's not just one factor.
> 
> do YOU eat wheat?


I'm trying very hard not to, I do believe that it causes my bloating, I can gain pounds in days when I do eat it. I also believe that it is addictive, and it makes me hungry, so although I feel better when I exclude it, I cave every now and again.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I was wheat free for two months. Lost weight, then allowed circumstances to derail me and am eTing wheat and regained weight. Same old story .


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

greentree said:


> Yes, we bred for ONE thing...yield. No regard for the effect any of this hybridization or genetic manipulation may have.
> 
> There is also the dramatic rise of the same diseases in canines and felines, (diabetes, IBD, obesity) *directly related to the rise in a wheat based diet,* and the same insulin resistance now seen in horses, who at least are properly equipped to digest the grains, since we began feeding pellets made from wheat.


???

I don't know that I would agree there is a "rise" in diabetes, obesity, etc in pets. People in this day and age are much more likely to spend money on their "pet" which is like another family member to them, which was not the case 25-50 years ago. People are spending more money on their pets and taking them to the vet and managing them, whereas they didn't before. How do we know this "rise" (although I don't know if I agree that there is such an epidemic) isn't just because people are more willing to spend the vet care on their pet than years past?

For humans, what about the fact that most households got a MICROWAVE in the 1970's? Why is it the fault of wheat? Why isn't it the fault that now food started coming pre-packaged and all you had to do what pop it in the microwave?

I think part of the problem with America's health problems is that everything too quickly went "ready to eat" and "fast food" when all these modern day advances came out. And our bodies can't keep up with that drastic change. Hardly anyone seems to cook things from scratch anymore. Things come out of box now. ..... And why is that the fault of WHEAT? 

Is it really because the wheat kernel itself has changed?
Or it is because AFTER it is harvested, the processes to prepare it for food have changed.

There are SO many other factors to consider. 




greentree said:


> When I gave up wheat, I purposefully did not exercise, just to see what happened, because I had done aerobics and weights in the past to lose. It was winter, so not a lot of additional horse exercise.....I lost the weight.
> 
> I did not start dancing and Zumba until early May, and I had lost 20 lbs.


I think most trainers would agree that weight loss is 80% about what you eat, and only about 20% exercise. 

So I guess it depends what exactly you were eating before you chose to give up wheat. 

I could spend 4 hours doing cardio at the gym every single day, but if I choose to eat a Big Mac from McDonalds .... well I probably won't lost any weight even if my cardio says it is burning more calories than I eat.

Just more devil's advocate thoughts. :wink:



Golden Horse said:


> I'm trying very hard not to, I do believe that it causes my bloating, *I can gain pounds in days* when I do eat it. I also believe that it is addictive, and it makes me hungry, so although I feel better when I exclude it, I cave every now and again.


Of course, most likely the pounds that come on in days are water weight and not "real" pounds.

Does it seem to matter what type of grain source you eat? (white/processed versus whole for example?)


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

beau159 said:


> Of course, most likely the pounds that come on in days are water weight and not "real" pounds.
> 
> Does it seem to matter what type of grain source you eat? (white/processed versus whole for example?)


Well of course it is water weight, but that 'water' causes joint pains and affects my mood, still working on that last one, need to track food intake a bit longer.

Oats are fine, I eat plain oatmeal most every day, oats are also pretty unaltered, the stuff grows like a weed, it doesn't need to be heavily fertilized, and will beat off a lot of weed competition in the field. The reason we don't grow it? Well it is a low value crop, so you have to grow a lot of it, and that gives us issues for storage.

I don't eat a great deal of any other grain to be honest, and when I add wheat it tends to be in 'white' form, because that is what is readily available.



http://www.horseforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> I don't eat a great deal of any other grain to be honest, and when I add wheat it tends to be in 'white' form, because that is what is *readily available.*


Bingo. :wink:

Kinda comes back full circle on my point of is it really the wheat that is bad, or the fact that most readily available products have been processed to death? 

Or the fact that some things are incorrectly labeled "whole wheat" when if you simply read the ingredient list, you'll see it's not whole at all. "Enriched" means it was stripped during processing, and nutrients had to be put back in for the final product.

Food for thought anyway. (Literally!!)

About the only time I'll splurge on "white" wheat products is if we are out to eat somewhere. At home, everything is truly whole wheat or whole grain.

As far as "readily available" things, it's a problem when they add syrup into the juice in a can of fruit. People find it easier to grab the can, than buying real fruit, and don't realize the extra junk put into the can. Or chicken that has salt pumped into it to make it weigh more. Or grabbing the breaded fish fillets instead of plain fish. Etc. Etc. Too many things that are readily available have so much other garbage put into it!


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

Earning a crust
We seem to have had a fair number of diabetic dogs come through work recently. Most of them have presented in ketoacidosis. This is a direct consequence of catastrophic insulin deficiency. Hypoinsulinaemia leads to unrestrained lipolysis with production of ketone bodies to the point of profound metabolic acidosis, vomiting, dehydration and risk of rapid death. Oh, and weight loss.

I keep reading snippets about the unimportance of insulin in the control of weight loss from various sources in the blogosphere, so it's sort of tempting to inhibit lipolysis with a couple of big, high calorie blocks of butter or maybe by an Intralipid infusion (yeugh, soyabean oil intravenously, disgusting). But, what the hell, I'm still a bit of a traditionalist on occasion, so I still shut down lipolysis with insulin.

It doesn't seem to matter how much insulin you inject. Once upon a time I would have reached for soluble neutral insulin and bunged it in by intramuscular injection. I had been considering changing to using a GIK (glucose/insulin/potassium) infusion for ketoacidosis but the loss of any soluble insulin preparation from the veterinary market in the UK has stopped my thoughts along those lines.

So now it's lente insulin (the only formulation we have left) by subcutaneous injection and aggressive fluid therapy to allow its absorption. Ultimately it doesn't matter. Any old insulin at almost any old dose rate will inhibit lipolysis well enough to get ketone production under control. You then start seriously supplementing with potassium while catching the hypoglycaemia with an iv glucose infusion as soon as the insulin level in the blood gets high enough to start doing things other than inhibit lipolysis..........

Replacing the missing insulin inhibits lipolysis first. As the blood insulin level increases it then shifts potassium from plasma in to cells. Still higher levels get GLUT4s on to cell surface membranes and facilitate glucose transport.

This is utterly basic A&E work.

Of course the lipolysis of weight loss might just be different from the lipolysis of ketoacidosis. I dunno. Stranger things have happened.





The other thing which has happened is that I have accumulated a couple of these patients who have turned out to be unstable diabetics. They are fascinating cases. You have to understand that as a heretic I try keep my nose out of other clinician's cases, especially diabetic dogs. The basic standard veterinary approach to diabetes is to feed your patient a meal of utter crap, mostly made of sustained release carbohydrate, and cover it with an industrial dose of 12 hour acting lente insulin. Repeat every 12 hours. You can book the cataract surgery for a year's time on the day you make the diagnosis.

The first patient, I'll call her Grace, is a spaniel with a two year history of dry eye, failure to produce tears. A sort of type one diabetes of the eye... What does dry eye have to do with diabetes? Dr Penny Watson of Cambridge Vet School gave a very perceptive presentation about chronic pancreatitis leading to diabetes at the 2010 BSAVA congress. In dogs pancreatitis is often a chronic inflammatory disease which can end up as a "type one like" diabetes syndrome or, alternatively, as an exocrine secretion deficiency giving a failure to digest food. Occasionally both. Which happens to occur in a given individual is probably a genetic lottery.

This dog had had dry eye well before her pancreatic beta cell failure. Dr Watson pointed out that dry eye is an autoimmune attack on the tear producing glands and the attack is aimed at ductal tissue. Stem cells for pancreatic beta cells are derived from pancreatic ductal tissue, which is similar enough to tear gland ductal tissue to produce an association, both diseases in the same patient. Cocker spaniels are far more commonly affected than other breeds. She had some absolutely amazing immunohistochemistry slides.

A sort of Sjögren’s Syndrome of the pancreas, probably another gift of gluten.


The other patient is a middle aged terrier, let's call him William. He has a two year history of chronic hepatopathy before presenting as a type-one-like diabetic. I'd guess he has a combination of non alcoholic fatty liver disease combined with non alcoholic fatty pancreatic disease. He was on a diet of commercial ultra crap, rice mixed with a mess of enzymically degraded protein to limit pre existing skin allergies. Imagine trying to catch the glucose spike from a bowl of white rice with a slow onset sustained release insulin. That initial spike of blood glucose was being caught, too late, with an enormous dose of lente insulin. Two hours later he would have a blood glucose of around 10mmol/l, but dropping like a stone. Suddenly the next reading would be back above 30mmol/l. Dr Bernstein doesn't have a lot of time for the Somogyi overswing. I do, certainly for this dog. The liver is loaded with glycogen, it panics and dumps a fair dose of glucose to (over) correct the incipient hypoglycaemia.

With the standard management approach both dogs had immediately come out of ketoacidosis and had gained weight over several weeks. Did I mention that insulin inhibits lipolysis? Ok, I'll drop it in to casual conversation again. Insulin inhibits lipolysis. Weight gain? Now there's a surprise. Of course there is no ketosis but also no suggestion of normoglycaemia at any stage of a 12 hour glucose curve either.

For some reason Grace had been dropped in to the middle of an afternoon consulting session for a random, post absorptive blood glucose check with me, presumably to adjust her insulin dosage. I wasn't her clinician. I think this reading was somewhere around 25mmol/l. She was ravenous, depressed and polydipsic. Next morning I had her admitted, halved her insulin and fed her a can of cat food with a carbohydrate content of approximately zero, except whatever cooked liver was in the can. The curve came down from somewhere over 35mmol/l to about 14mmol/l and stayed there. We've incremented her insulin up and are aiming for peak blood glucose below 10mmol/l and post absorptive levels below 7mmol/l. Probably the best we can do with lente insulin.

William came to me because lente plus ultracrap was giving completely random blood glucose levels. His owner had been offered referral to an endocrinologist or to see the weird in-house vet who didn't feed sugar to diabetics. That's me. They chose to see me for some reason.

He behaved similarly to Grace when fed all meat cat food and half dose insulin, which is good but we probably need better glycaemic control if we are going to get his hepatopathy to halt. We're getting post absorptive glucose levels between 5mmol/l and 7mmol/l but there is a post feeding spike to over 14mmol/l, which suggests there is a lot of liver in the cat food to provide significant glycogen in the diet. But so far he's a lot more stable now than he ever was on ultracrap.


So why low carbohydrate? Why not simply adjust insulin to cover normal diabetic crap-in-a-bag?

This comes down to the difference between exogenous insulin and pancreas secreted insulin.

Let's recap the two main functions of insulin. First is the inhibition of lipolysis, I may have mentioned this before. This bit is easy. 

The next is the suppression of glucose release from the liver. This is utterly core to normoglycaemia. This is not quite so easy.

This is because insulin is normally produced by the pancreas and it travels directly to the liver. There is first pass metabolism by the liver, lots of it. The liver extracts between 50% and 80% of all of the insulin produced by the pancreas. Relatively little ever gets to the systemic circulation. This residue is what should be controlling adipocyte function.

If we turn this on its head we can say that we need to provide relatively high levels of insulin by subcutaneous injection to achieve those levels at the liver which would normally be delivered from the pancreas. But we end up not just bathing the liver with this specific high concentration of insulin. To reach "pancreatic" concentrations at the liver, from a subcutaneous injection site, we will have to hit the adipocytes far harder than we want to. We might well achieve adequate control of hepatic glucose output but at the cost of suppressed lipolysis. Weight gain. And hunger of course.

You could add in a third role for insulin as the management of dietary carbohydrate, ie portal vein glucose sequestration in to the liver and its metabolism by muscles when it spills over in to the systemic circulation. Generally I regard this as what Douglas Adams described in the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy as an SEP. This is a "Somebody Else's Problem".

You want to do that? Fine, you sort out the mess.

I really have to discuss this in some detail because it is perfectly clear that non diabetic humans, so long as they have a functional physiology, can generally deal with massive amounts of carbohydrate rather well. So well that they can lose weight, rather a lot of it, by eating a diet of potatoes alone. This perfectly compatible with why LC is the logical and necessary approach to diabetes. That needs a separate post with a few links to pubmed rather than me rambling on about how I earn my living.

Peter
POSTED BY PETER AT SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2011 33 COMMENTS: 
LABELS: EARNING A CRUST


----------

