MedCapsules Forum
Is wheat really bad? - Printable Version

+- MedCapsules Forum (http://medcapsules.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Main Lobby (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Ask James (/forumdisplay.php?fid=287)
+--- Thread: Is wheat really bad? (/showthread.php?tid=5259)



Is wheat really bad? - mtl777 - 10-14-2013 03:50 PM

Hi James, what do you think of this article? ...

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/dark-side-wheat-new-perspectives-celiac-disease-wheat-intolerance-sayer-ji

Is wheat really bad even for people who are not allergic to gluten?

Thanks so much!


RE: Is wheat really bad? - James - 01-06-2014 02:48 AM

(10-14-2013 03:50 PM)mtl777 Wrote:  Hi James, what do you think of this article? ...

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/page/dark-side-wheat-new-perspectives-celiac-disease-wheat-intolerance-sayer-ji

Is wheat really bad even for people who are not allergic to gluten?

Thanks so much!

The article is to long to sit and read in depth so I kind f skimmed through it.

From what I see though I do feel that the author is confusing Celiac disease with a gluten intolerance, which are not the same thing but often lumped together. Celiac disease is a rare inherited disorder. A gluten intolerance is a non-hereditary allergic reaction to glutens.

I also see some hype. In the article the author states:

"toxic lectins, phytates and oxalates, alpha-amalyase and trypsin inhibitors, and endocrine disrupters."

The author says we should be consuming quinoa, buckwheat and amaranth apparently not realizing that these seeds also contain phytates, lectins, oxalate, trypsin inhibitors, etc.

Phytates are not near as dangerous anyway as all the hype around them suggests. Phytates cannot rob of the body of minerals as claimed since they would have to give up the minerals they already bound to in the plant to take up any minerals from the body. In addition, phytates have a higher affinity for heavy metals and toxic free iron that they do beneficial minerals.

Many of these compounds are also reduced or eliminated by drying, cooking, fermenting, etc.

I also find this claim rather interesting:

"Other factors such as exposure to NSAIDs like naproxen or aspirin can profoundly increase intestinal permeability in the non-celiac, rendering them susceptible to gliadin’s potential for activating secondary adaptive immune responses."

This really makes no sense since intestinal permeability is increased by inflammation. NSAIDs though are anti-inflammatories and thus would reduce intestinal inflammation, opposite of what the author is claiming.

Over all I see the article as being mainly hype.

Even using some common sense considering how commonly consumed wheat is around the world if the author's hype was true then most of the world would have neurological damage from the excitotoxins, kidney failure from the lectins, intestinal damage due to the glutens, etc. This is not the case in reality though.


RE: Is wheat really bad? - mtl777 - 01-06-2014 04:28 PM

Thanks James. What about the claim that the modern wheat we eat today is no longer the good einkorn wheat that our ancestors consumed, because --
Quote:decades of cross-breeding and hybridization (to create high-yield crops) have created a shorter, stockier “dwarf wheat” that now makes up almost all of the wheat we consume
-- so we are now eating this unhealthy wheat which is called "Frankenwheat"? Please see:

http://www.wellandgoodnyc.com/2012/11/07/is-frankenwheat-haunting-your-diet/


RE: Is wheat really bad? - James - 02-17-2014 01:40 AM

(01-06-2014 04:28 PM)mtl777 Wrote:  Thanks James. What about the claim that the modern wheat we eat today is no longer the good einkorn wheat that our ancestors consumed, because --
Quote:decades of cross-breeding and hybridization (to create high-yield crops) have created a shorter, stockier “dwarf wheat” that now makes up almost all of the wheat we consume
-- so we are now eating this unhealthy wheat which is called "Frankenwheat"? Please see:

http://www.wellandgoodnyc.com/2012/11/07/is-frankenwheat-haunting-your-diet/

I don't buy in to it. Plants have been bred for their properties and even naturally in nature for thousands of years. Just because they have been bred for certain properties does not make them inherently dangerous.

People make hyped up claims all the time about this or that being dangerous. Just like the doctor I once listed to for two hours claiming how oxalic acid caused cancer. This is false to begin with, but I found it interesting in his diet he recommended spinach and kale both high in oxalic acid. When I called him on it he had no idea how to respond. So there are some people who just make up whatever to make a name for themselves, to get in front of a camera or whatever. We have seen it over and over with bogus claims from some claiming fiber is dangerous, that cancer is a survival mechanism, etc. Therefore, unless the author can come up with some real convincing research rather than unsubstantiated claims I am not going to even attempt to take the claims seriously.