Wheat is bad for you

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Wheat is bad for you

Postby Diemo » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:06 am UTC

ran across this in my facebook feed

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... wheat.html

Truth or bollux?
User avatar
Diemo
ENQUIRE
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby poxic » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:09 am UTC

Mostly bollocks. From Yahoo Answers, a not-terrible place for info:

Yahoo Answers wrote:Apparently, it is somewhat of a fad, and "the thing to do" these days to be cool!

That being said, however, if you are at all interested in health and the science of the human body, I'm sure you would find it advantageous to do some research on the activity of the small intestine, and certain people's reactions to grains which contain gluten.

Interesting Slideshow -
*** http://www.medicinenet.com/celiac_diseas… ***

Informative Articles -
*** http://www.celiac.com/articles/21927/1/C… ***
*** http://www.celiac.org/index.php?option=c… ***

For myself, ingesting ANY gluten will set up a chain reaction with the cilia (small hair-like protrusions) in my small intestine, and cause intense pain and prolonged diarrhea. It is not pleasant. However, this is NOT the case with most people.

Whole grains are really very healthy, although one of the concerns today is that most wheat grown and processed by big farms is not organic, nor non-GMO, and has been refined and adulterated to such a degree that it hardly resembles the same grain which was grown and tolerated by the majority of the human race only a century ago.

Gisele, if you are not a Celiac nor been diagnosed with gluten intolerance, whole grains should be a great, nourishing fiber for you.

But PLEASE do not insist on others eating grains which contain gluten if they choose not to, as they just MIGHT have severe - even life threatening - reactions.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not.
-Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Magnanimous » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:50 am UTC

Skeptoid article. The whole idea is pretty flimsy.
The card wrote:GO TO THE CIRCUS. FIREWORKS AND WHISTLES, LION TAMERS AND CLOWNS. HOO RAH.
User avatar
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:57 am UTC

The fact that wheat is "European" while rice is "Exotic" is the main drive behind this line of bullshit. It's about rejecting the status quo to make themselves look smarter than you. Genetic modification is the very fucking reason we have food and farms in the first place; every single foodstuff that is not hunted/fished/gathered has been genetically modified over the past 30,000 years, and some of the rest arguably has been as well. Yes, every single one. It's called domestication, where you take an animal or plant and you breed out the undesirable traits while maximizing desirable traits.

The more modern processes of irradiating seeds is there to speed up the otherwise natural process of mutation, allowing desirable traits to appear at an accelerated rate in order to keep up with our exponentially increasing population. Direct genetic alteration, by taking DNA from squids and adding it to canola, doesn't create any proteins that don't exist in nature already, and if you are so damn scared of some strain of canola breeding out of control, shut the fuck up and let Monsanto have their damn terminator genes to prevent that sort of scenario. Never mind that hybrid seeds already have the problem of not producing viable offspring, yet you don't hear about that problem even though hybrids have been around for millenia.

No, there are no 'super foods', no region of the world has any special produce only available to them that makes them immortal.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby ahammel » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:02 am UTC

The science does not seem to show any general health benefit in a gluten-free diet for people who do not have adverse reactions to the protein.
I also answer to 'Alex'

YES, IT'S SPACEY-WACEY!
User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Qaanol » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:49 am UTC

Now, if people move away from white flour/rice/pasta and toward whole grain staple foods, I think a lot of healthcare problems would be greatly reduced, especially diabetes/overweight.

Of course, you’ve still got to watch out for the levels of arsenic in rice…
Small Government Liberal
User avatar
Qaanol
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Telchar » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:14 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Now, if people move away from white flour/rice/pasta and toward whole grain staple foods, I think a lot of healthcare problems would be greatly reduced, especially diabetes/overweight.

Of course, you’ve still got to watch out for the levels of arsenic in rice…


That's far down the list of "things that will kill you" when switching from bad grains to good.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.
User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Red Hal » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:54 am UTC

Right below "Being shot by the farmer for stealing grain out of the silo in an attempt to reduce the amount of processing."

Edit: Despite trying several sources I can find no reference for a Dr. Marcia Alvarez outside of the articles quoting her on wheat. There is a Dr. Marcy Alvarez in Florida, but she is in general practice specialising in dermatology so it is unlikely to be her and pubmed and vitals don't mention nutrition or obesity. There is also a public health consultant in Jamaica, but she specialises in Sexual Health and is not a doctor.

Right now I'm erring on the side of "health scare bollocks", but am still researching the quoted sources.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:41 pm UTC

I was given this book by a family member and it exemplifies all that is wrong with the 'wheat makes you fat' movement. The scientific reasoning behind the theory is that westerners started getting fat around the same time that companies started genetically modifying wheat.

That's it. That's the whole argument for why all of us should go through the hassle that celiac's deal with every day. There's a healthy dose of pseudo-science like "Wheat products cause blood sugar surges which are very bad for your belly, your heart, your skin and your brain."

Unfortunately, it seems to be gaining traction because any diet that causes you to cut out 1/2 to 1/4 of your daily caloric intake will cause you to lose weight.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:15 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I was given this book by a family member and it exemplifies all that is wrong with the 'wheat makes you fat' movement. The scientific reasoning behind the theory is that westerners started getting fat around the same time that companies started genetically modifying wheat.

That's it. That's the whole argument for why all of us should go through the hassle that celiac's deal with every day. There's a healthy dose of pseudo-science like "Wheat products cause blood sugar surges which are very bad for your belly, your heart, your skin and your brain."

Unfortunately, it seems to be gaining traction because any diet that causes you to cut out 1/2 to 1/4 of your daily caloric intake will cause you to lose weight.


Not necessarily. Gluten-free products often have higher sugar and fat contents than their grain equivalents because they need to use something else to bind the food together. Gluten-free bread is not nearly as healthy as whole grain, for example.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3648
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby faranim » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:03 pm UTC

It's just another fad diet being pushed by the diet/exercise/food industry. 2 Years ago nobody knew what Gluten or Celiac disease was. Now I know a lot of people who are on gluten-free diets, but not because they have celiac disease, but simply because they read something about gluten being bad, or their doctor told them to try it.

It's just the latest craze, like fat-free, sugar-free, asbestos-free, etc.
User avatar
faranim
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:22 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:doesn't create any proteins that don't exist in nature already
..but...but..growth hormones. *flails incessantly*
faranim wrote:It's just the latest craze, like fat-free, sugar-free, asbestos-free, etc.
Antioxidants.

Although to the topic post I do remember reading a while back that a certain percent of the population of Indians can't digest wheat due to historical diets although I can't find a source. Similar to Lactose intolerance outside of Europe.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.
Fire Brns
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:37 pm UTC

I recently read an article about how rice miRNA can be found in blood for hours after consuming rice, which is kind of a sobering thought insofar as how little we understand about how our food affects us, but yeah, to echo what everone else has said, the notion that one of the very first cultivated crops is universally 'bad' is kind of silly. Modern humans are very much the evolutionary product of consuming wheat. You can make arguments for how much and in conjunction with what other foods, but eliminating wheat because some people are allergic to it is silly.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.
User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
 
Posts: 16735
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:every single foodstuff that is not hunted/fished/gathered has been genetically modified over the past 30,000 years, and some of the rest arguably has been as well. Yes, every single one. It's called domestication, where you take an animal or plant and you breed out the undesirable traits while maximizing desirable traits.
Yeah, but in a discussion about the merits of GMOs vs. domesticated plants, this isn't helpful to bring up. It's like jumping into a thread about racism to say "But really, we're all African, when you really think about it."
CorruptUser wrote:Direct genetic alteration, by taking DNA from squids and adding it to canola, doesn't create any proteins that don't exist in nature already,
And since nothing that exists in nature has ever been harmful to humans, there's nothing to worry about!!!
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:41 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:And since nothing that exists in nature has ever been harmful to humans, there's nothing to worry about!!!
When we start putting snake venom in watermelons, you'll have a point.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.
User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
 
Posts: 16735
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:57 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote: The scientific reasoning behind the theory is that westerners started getting fat around the same time that companies started genetically modifying wheat.


But that makes perfect sense doesn't it.

I'm presuming that the genetic modifying of wheat makes it more efficient to produce, and the more efficiently you can produce wheat the more of it you have access to.

and the more access you have to food, the more you can eat, and the more you eat the fatter you get.

makes sense
User avatar
sam_i_am
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Queue » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:02 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:every single foodstuff that is not hunted/fished/gathered has been genetically modified over the past 30,000 years, and some of the rest arguably has been as well. Yes, every single one. It's called domestication, where you take an animal or plant and you breed out the undesirable traits while maximizing desirable traits.
Yeah, but in a discussion about the merits of GMOs vs. domesticated plants, this isn't helpful to bring up. It's like jumping into a thread about racism to say "But really, we're all African, when you really think about it."

This hits close to home, because I endure semi-annual protest hordes camped outside my place of work shouting about the evils of GM food and so forth. And from listening to these twerps holler their beliefs, I sincerely believe that simple explanations like this are actually incredibly helpful. It provides the public with an easily-digestible (ha!) explantion of how the current and historic processes of agricultural science are more Old MacDonald and less Dr. Frankenstein.
CorruptUser wrote:Direct genetic alteration, by taking DNA from squids and adding it to canola, doesn't create any proteins that don't exist in nature already,
And since nothing that exists in nature has ever been harmful to humans, there's nothing to worry about!!!

The actual reason why you don't have to worry is because you enjoy layer upon layer of laws, and a veritable army of inspectors at all levels of food production, transportation and storage. Every time you hear about some bizarro gene-splicing in the media, try to remember the vast gulf of separation between that research and your dinner table. Most of what is done in the lab never, ever, ever gets anywhere near the farmer's field, let alone your lips.
Queue
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:08 pm UTC

Queue wrote:The actual reason why you don't have to worry is because you enjoy layer upon layer of laws, and a veritable army of inspectors at all levels of food production, transportation and storage. Every time you hear about some bizarro gene-splicing in the media, try to remember the vast gulf of separation between that research and your dinner table. Most of what is done in the lab never, ever, ever gets anywhere near the farmer's field, let alone your lips.


Some countries have considerably less stringent laws regarding food inspections than others.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3648
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:37 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:every single foodstuff that is not hunted/fished/gathered has been genetically modified over the past 30,000 years, and some of the rest arguably has been as well. Yes, every single one. It's called domestication, where you take an animal or plant and you breed out the undesirable traits while maximizing desirable traits.
Yeah, but in a discussion about the merits of GMOs vs. domesticated plants, this isn't helpful to bring up. It's like jumping into a thread about racism to say "But really, we're all African, when you really think about it."


My point is genetic modification of food is old. Like, really really old. To the point that complaining about food simply because it's modified is equivalent to arguing that we shouldn't grow anything. To use 'racism'/'weareallafricanthusnotracist', you would be right if the article was saying 'wheat strain ag23b is unhealthy because of liver damage reported in studies X Y Z' and I said 'well all food is GM!', but that's not what happened. The article brought up GM in order to say 'wheat is bad because it's GM and ALL GM IS TERRIBLE' and I said, 'that is not true at all', albeit with a bit more profanity.

CorruptUser wrote:Direct genetic alteration, by taking DNA from squids and adding it to canola, doesn't create any proteins that don't exist in nature already,
And since nothing that exists in nature has ever been harmful to humans, there's nothing to worry about!!!


Except that the people opposing the genetic alterations are complaining that it's 'unnatural' therefore 'bad', when it is 'natural', sort of. Never mind all the testing required to prove that GM corn is safe for human consumption. Never mind the golden rice project which has saved thousands if not millions of lives.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Queue » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:47 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Queue wrote:The actual reason why you don't have to worry is because you enjoy layer upon layer of laws, and a veritable army of inspectors at all levels of food production, transportation and storage. Every time you hear about some bizarro gene-splicing in the media, try to remember the vast gulf of separation between that research and your dinner table. Most of what is done in the lab never, ever, ever gets anywhere near the farmer's field, let alone your lips.

Some countries have considerably less stringent laws regarding food inspections than others.

I admit to assuming Heisenberg is American, but the answer to you is "fewer and fewer", and that's a good thing. It's also helpful to consider that the majority of seed stock almost certainly comes from nations where such safeguards exist (or was food product exported from same, or imported to same and thus being subject to those laws).

More than that, even in the worst subsistence farming areas on earth, rich nations help by providing education to local farmers. I've known of several outreach and educational exchange projects from here in Canada, where we send experts to share low-cost, locally-applicable farming techniques to representatives of developing nations, which is even better than just dropping food on them.
Queue
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:47 pm UTC

Queue wrote:The actual reason why you don't have to worry is because you enjoy layer upon layer of laws, and a veritable army of inspectors at all levels of food production, transportation and storage.
Where do you live? I live in America, and all we have is the FDA, which is entirely impotent and has been gutted over the last few decades. The amount of food inspections are laughably small, and when unsafe conditions are found, the FDA sends a nasty letter telling the manufacturer to clean up their act or else they'll send other nasty letters and never actually shut them down.
CorruptUser wrote:My point is genetic modification of food is old. Like, really really old.
You're just redefining the phrase so you can fake an equivalence between Mendel's hybrids and squid-canola. They're different processes and you know it, so can we just drop the wordplay argument?
CorruptUser wrote:Except that the people opposing the genetic alterations are complaining that it's 'unnatural' therefore 'bad', when it is 'natural', sort of.
After all, everything's "natural," I was just saying that "natural" doesn't equate to "safe" or "good."
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:53 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:You're just redefining the phrase so you can fake an equivalence between Mendel's hybrids and squid-canola. They're different processes and you know it, so can we just drop the wordplay argument?
Appealing to semantics is funny, when your argument hinges on the shock value of squid-canola.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.
User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
 
Posts: 16735
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:58 pm UTC

Of course natural doesn't mean safe. I just say it's found in nature because the anti-GMers insist it isn't. Never mind that bacteria pick up DNA from their surroundings all the time (fun fact, the bacteria in your gut contain your DNA!), though that's not the best example since, well, it's bacteria, which people hate unless added to yogurt.

As for the difference between Mendelian and DNA recombination, so? Has anyone found any evidence that DNA recombination, with the safeguards in place, is any more dangerous than the more 'natural' methods?



Also, Iz, I think I was the one who brought up squid canola. It'd be better if referred to as 'squid rapeseed', or 'giant fields of tentacle rape'.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for the difference between Mendelian and DNA recombination, so? Has anyone found any evidence that DNA recombination, with the safeguards in place, is any more dangerous than the more 'natural' methods?
I think by 'safeguards' you mean 'OH MY GOD TROUT GENES IN A TOMATO' panic. But no, inducing an organism to express a bit of DNA is no different than if you bred the organism to express a bit of DNA, except that you can't get a tomato to express trout genes by leaving a fertile tomato plant and a horny trout in the same room.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.
User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
 
Posts: 16735
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:03 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:But no, inducing an organism to express a bit of DNA is no different than if you bred the organism to express a bit of DNA, except that you can't get a tomato to express trout genes by leaving a fertile tomato plant and a horny trout in the same room.


And believe me, I've tried.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby ahammel » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:15 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I recently read an article about how rice miRNA can be found in blood for hours after consuming rice, which is kind of a sobering thought insofar as how little we understand about how our food affects us[...]
I wouldn't be especially worried about this. Even if rice miRNAs would do anything to human gene expression (and I don't think human and plant miRNAs are homologous), it would have to be in a nucleus to do it. Your cellular anti-virus defences would probably take care of it well before it got to the point where it could do anything at all.
I also answer to 'Alex'

YES, IT'S SPACEY-WACEY!
User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Red Hal » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:20 pm UTC

I am pro-GM in the sense that since we can't rely on politicians to get their shit together regarding climate change, it will fall to science to be able to produce food crops capable of withstanding the altered conditions. Yes there are pitfalls aplenty when you start crossing kingdoms (sorry, old-school Linnaean here), but there are some very clever people working in this field. Interestingly, I keep interpreting "rice miRNA" as "mice RNA".
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Aceo » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:22 pm UTC

faranim wrote:It's just another fad diet being pushed by the diet/exercise/food industry. 2 Years ago nobody knew what Gluten or Celiac disease was. Now I know a lot of people who are on gluten-free diets, but not because they have celiac disease, but simply because they read something about gluten being bad, or their doctor told them to try it.

It's just the latest craze, like fat-free, sugar-free, asbestos-free, etc.


"While a role for carbohydrates had been suspected, the link with wheat was not made until the 1940s by the Dutch paediatrician Dr. Willem Karel Dicke.[97] It is likely that clinical improvement of his patients during the Dutch famine of 1944"

From Wikipedia. Celiac disease is not some new fad, it is something that when diagnosed people have to suffer with for the rest of their lives.
GENERATION 19: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Aceo
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:33 pm UTC
Location: Hull, Yorkshire, UK

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:26 pm UTC

Aceo wrote:
faranim wrote:It's just another fad diet being pushed by the diet/exercise/food industry. 2 Years ago nobody knew what Gluten or Celiac disease was. Now I know a lot of people who are on gluten-free diets, but not because they have celiac disease, but simply because they read something about gluten being bad, or their doctor told them to try it.

It's just the latest craze, like fat-free, sugar-free, asbestos-free, etc.


"While a role for carbohydrates had been suspected, the link with wheat was not made until the 1940s by the Dutch paediatrician Dr. Willem Karel Dicke.[97] It is likely that clinical improvement of his patients during the Dutch famine of 1944"

From Wikipedia. Celiac disease is not some new fad, it is something that when diagnosed people have to suffer with for the rest of their lives.


Most people who go gluten-free these days are not Celiac. They're doing it because they think it is healthier or will help them lose weight. Neither of which is necessarily true.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3648
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:30 pm UTC

I knew what gluten was only because a girl I knew was allergic to absolutely everything (she could eat any fruit because the trace amounts of pollen would kill her), so she needed a gluten free diet among other things. She did like being able to tell off the holier-than-thou vegans, since she was allergic to tofu AND the mushroom alternative as well as so many other things, so a strictly vegan diet would kill her.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6690
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Queue » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:34 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Queue wrote:The actual reason why you don't have to worry is because you enjoy layer upon layer of laws, and a veritable army of inspectors at all levels of food production, transportation and storage.
Where do you live? I live in America, and all we have is the FDA, which is entirely impotent and has been gutted over the last few decades. The amount of food inspections are laughably small, and when unsafe conditions are found, the FDA sends a nasty letter telling the manufacturer to clean up their act or else they'll send other nasty letters and never actually shut them down.

You're leaving out a lot of people, which goes to show that you have no clue how good you actually have it living in the US. For example, you have the CDC for the control of foodborne illnesses. They work with both the FDA, and most importantly, my professional equivalent south of the border, the Department of Agriculture, which is the front line in food inspection and enforcement. It's not "just the FDA". It's also worth mentioning that where GM seed is concerned, the EPA often gets in on the act, evaluating the release of seed that may end up in the wild. That's a lot more eyes on the ball than you give credit for.

And as for the poor FDA? They have actually been strengthened in the past few years from their low point in '06, with legislature such as the Food Safety and Modernization Act, which although still fledgeling, is exactly the kind of progress you want to see.

But go back to GM foods specifically for a moment. At the end of the day, the best evidence that GM foods are safe is "no sick people". In fact, the WHO went so far as to state that, quote, "In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." I don't know about anyone else, but there's a limit to how many national and international agencies I want to argue with before I enjoy my next meal.
Queue
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:39 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I recently read an article about how rice miRNA can be found in blood for hours after consuming rice, which is kind of a sobering thought insofar as how little we understand about how our food affects us[...]
I wouldn't be especially worried about this. Even if rice miRNAs would do anything to human gene expression (and I don't think human and plant miRNAs are homologous), it would have to be in a nucleus to do it. Your cellular anti-virus defences would probably take care of it well before it got to the point where it could do anything at all.

Since it happens in the nucleus I wasn't paying very close attention to the article, but I think the primary concern is that said miRNA may be affecting gene expression by modifying RNA. The concern wasn't expression of rice genes, but rice modifying our own gene expression.

But frankly, it could cut both ways; rice is domesticated, and thousands of years of breeding has not only selected for strains that grow well and survive well, but also don't make us sick. Obviously our ancestors may not have known what was linked to what, but presumably somewhere along the line, a strain of rice that produced miRNA that interfered with something important would have been selected against, as those farmers/cultivators/villages fared more poorly. Extending this even further, maybe some of the miRNAs are actually beneficial.

The gyst wasn't so much that this is proof of something bad happening, but a sign that we had more to study, and if you want to get a bit handwavy about it, even that this may be a potential avenue for theraputic intervention.

Dudes, the take home shouldn't be that wheat is bad for you, but that spiking your blood sugar up and down is.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.
User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
 
Posts: 16735
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Angua » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:45 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Dudes, the take home shouldn't be that wheat is bad for you, but that spiking your blood sugar up and down is.
I hear mangoes are particularly bad when it comes to spiking blood sugar.
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” - Mark Twain
User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine
 
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:46 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Queue wrote:The actual reason why you don't have to worry is because you enjoy layer upon layer of laws, and a veritable army of inspectors at all levels of food production, transportation and storage.
Where do you live? I live in America, and all we have is the FDA, which is entirely impotent and has been gutted over the last few decades. The amount of food inspections are laughably small, and when unsafe conditions are found, the FDA sends a nasty letter telling the manufacturer to clean up their act or else they'll send other nasty letters and never actually shut them down.


Restaurants and Groceries are subject to local health inspection. It's not uncommon for newspapers to post notices about those who are shutdown for health code violations. In addition, there are of course limitations on the transport of most food items. There's also import/export regulations and inspectors, naturally.

So, sure, we definitely do have what Queue has suggested.
Tyndmyr
 
Posts: 5497
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby ahammel » Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:52 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Dudes, the take home shouldn't be that wheat is bad for you, but that spiking your blood sugar up and down is.
I hear mangoes are particularly bad when it comes to spiking blood sugar.
Not according to unsourced Wikipedia assertions.
I also answer to 'Alex'

YES, IT'S SPACEY-WACEY!
User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
 
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Angua » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Angua wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Dudes, the take home shouldn't be that wheat is bad for you, but that spiking your blood sugar up and down is.
I hear mangoes are particularly bad when it comes to spiking blood sugar.
Not according to unsourced Wikipedia assertions.

I only have unsourced 'experience' of some medical professionals in a Caribbean country.
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” - Mark Twain
User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine
 
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby poxic » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

So using blended mango in place of some of the sugar in muffins isn't that healthy a change? It's a tasty one, though.

Incidentally, I make my muffins wheat-free (not gluten-free). I find I weigh a few pounds less if I don't eat wheat several times a day. That I substitute vegetables for at least some of the calories that used to be bread is probably the main reason.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not.
-Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

Queue wrote:You're leaving out a lot of people, which goes to show that you have no clue how good you actually have it living in the US. For example, you have the CDC for the control of foodborne illnesses. They work with both the FDA, and most importantly, my professional equivalent south of the border, the Department of Agriculture, which is the front line in food inspection and enforcement.
The DOA's interest is in protecting "farmers" (really giant food corporations), not in protecting the average consumer. The CDC is great at figuring out who fucked up when people start dying, but I'd be interested in a food safety system that works more on prevention than detective work. Of course, if the negligent corporations who fail inspection got shut down, it would at least be a disincentive for corporations to act with utter disregard for our health. But again, while we do have a handful of inspectors doing scheduled inspections of a multi-billion dollar industry, they are effectively impotent and can't actually force companies to stop killing people.
Queue wrote:And as for the poor FDA? They have actually been strengthened in the past few years from their low point in '06, with legislature such as the Food Safety and Modernization Act, which although still fledgeling, is exactly the kind of progress you want to see.
Yeah, that probably would've increased the number of food inspectors... if they didn't blow all that money staying afloat during sequestration. Really that was just a drop in the bucket. If you want to be able to keep people from dying (which I think is a worthy goal) we'll need to hold corporations to higher standards and actually enforce those regulations by dramatically increasing inspections and punishing those corporations who defy the law.
Tyndmyr wrote:Restaurants and Groceries are subject to local health inspection.
That's a separate issue, because contaminated meat was likely contaminated before it got to your grocery store. If your butcher is doing terrible things, by all means, go after him. But when companies hire illegal immigrants for their slaughterhouses so they can avoid paying them a fair wage and then act all surprised when we find shit in the meat, no amount of grocery store floor scrubbing can overcome that.
Heisenberg
 
Posts: 3785
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby philsov » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:17 pm UTC

I find I weigh a few pounds less if I don't eat wheat several times a day. That I substitute vegetables for at least some of the calories that used to be bread is probably the main reason.


While subbing out something calorie-dense with a calorie-light vegetable will hopefully cause one to lose some mass, high carb consumption can also cause water retention much like high salt intake does. It's probably water weight more than a matter of caloric balance or change in bodyfat.

So using blended mango in place of some of the sugar in muffins isn't that healthy a change? It's a tasty one, though.


There's multiple axes of 'healthy'. The net calories are the same, but the type of sugar in fruit does take longer to digest than refined granulated, and the additional fiber + micronutrients (Vitamin C?) should be welcome.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.
User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Wheat is bad for you

Postby poxic » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:37 pm UTC

philsov wrote:It's probably water weight more than a matter of caloric balance or change in bodyfat.

That was the other reason, the one I couldn't remember the mechanism for. Four grams of water to store one gram of glycogen (stored form of glucose), iirc.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not.
-Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Next

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mutex and 11 guests