Restaurant eating: A fructose landmine 13. January 2011 William Davis (25) There is no remaining question that fructose is among the worst possible things humans can consume. Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know this, from conversations like The LDL-Fructose Disconnect, Where do you find fructose?, and Goodbye, fructose. But fructose, usually as either high-fructose corn syrup (44%, 55%, occasionally higher percentage fructose) or sucrose (50% fructose), is ubiquitous. I've seen it in the most improbable places, including cole slaw, mustard, and dill pickles. It's reasonably straightforward to avoid or minimize fructose exposure while eating at home, provided you check labels and focus on foods that don't require labels (like green peppers, salmon, and olive oil, i.e., unprocessed foods). But when you choose to eat at a restaurant, then all hell can break loose and fructose exposure can explode. So what are some common and unsuspected fructose sources when eating at a restaurant?Salad dressings--Dressings in all stripes and flavors are now made with high-fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose. This is especially true of low-fat, non-fat, or "lite" dressings, meaning oils have been replaced by high-fructose corn syrup. It can also be true of traditional non-low-fat dressings, too, since high-fructose corn syrup is just plain cheap. Olive oil and vinegar are still your safest bets. I will often use salsa as a dressing, which works well. Sauces and gravies--Not only can sauces be thickened with cornstarch, many pre-mixed sauces are also made with high-fructose corn syrup or sweetened with sucrose. Barbecue sauce is a particular landmine, since it is now a rare barbecue sauce not made with high-fructose corn syrup as the first or second ingredient. Sauces for dipping are nearly always high-fructose corn syrup-based. Ketchup--Yup. Good old ketchup even is now made with high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, you should be suspicious of any condiment. Highball, Bloody Mary, Margarita, Daiquiri, beer--Even the before-dinner or dinner drink can have plenty of fructose, particularly if a mix is used to make it. While Blood Marys seem the most benign of all, adorned with celery, pickle, and olive, just take a look at the ingredient label on the mix used: high-fructose corn syrup. Fructose is a stealth poison: It doesn't immediately increase blood sugar; it doesn't trigger any perceptible effect like increased energy or sleepiness. But it is responsible for an incredible amount of the health struggles in the U.S., from obesity, to diabetes, to hyperlipidemias and heart disease, to arthritis, to cataracts.
A glycation rock and a hard place 12. January 2011 William Davis (15) Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs, the stuff of aging that mucks up brains, kidneys, and arteries, develop via two different routes: endogenous (from within the body) and exogenous (from outside the body). Endogenous AGEs develop via glycation. Glycation of proteins in the body occurs when there are glucose excursions above normal. For instance, a blood glucose of 150 mg/dl after your bowl of stone-ground oatmeal causes glycation of proteins left and right, from the proteins in the lens of your eyes (cataracts), to the proteins in your kidneys (proteinuria and kidney dysfunction), to skin cells (wrinkles), to cartilage (brittle cartilage followed by arthritis), to LDL particles, especially small LDL particles (atherosclerosis). At what blood sugar level does glycation occur? It occurs even at "normal" glucose levels below 100 mg/dl (with measurable long-term cardiovascular effects as low as 83 mg/dl). In other words, some level of glycation proceeds even at blood glucose levels regarded as normal. There's nothing we can do about the low-level of glycation that occurs at low blood sugar levels of, say, 90 mg/dl or less. However, we can indeed do a lot to not allow glycation to proceed more rapidly, as it inevitably will at blood sugar levels higher than 90 mg/dl. How do you keep blood sugars below 90 mg/dl to prevent excessive glycation? Avoid or minimize the foods that cause such rises in blood sugar: carbohydrates. What food increases blood sugar higher than nearly all other known foods? Wheat.
Is einkorn the answer? 11. January 2011 William Davis (14) People ask: "What if I would like a piece of bread or other baked product just once in a while? What is safe?"Eli Rogosa, Director of The Heritage Wheat Conservancy, believes that a return to the wheat of our ancestors in the Fertile Crescent, circa 10,000 years ago, is the answer. Former science teacher, now organic farmer, farm researcher, and advocate of sustainable agriculture, Eli has been reviving "heritage" crops farmed under organic conditions, some of her research USDA-funded.In particular, Eli has been cultivating original 14-chromosome ("diploid") einkorn wheat. Although einkorn contains gluten (in lesser quantities despite the higher total protein content), the group of proteins that trigger the immune abnormalities of celiac disease and other immune phenomena, Eli tells me that she has witnessed many people with a variety of wheat intolerances, including celiac disease, tolerate foods made with einkorn wheat. (The variety of glutens in einkorn differ from the glutens of the dwarf mutant that now dominate supermarket shelves.)Eli travels to Israel every year, returning with "heritage" seeds for wheat and other crops. She formerly worked in the Israel GenBank as Director of the Ancient Wheat Program. She has written a brochure that describes her einkorn wheat. Eli sent me 2 lb of her einkorn grain that nutritionist, Margaret Pfeiffer, and I ground into bread. Our experience is detailed here. My subsequent blood sugar misadventure, comparing einkorn bread to conventional organic whole wheat bread is detailed here, followed by the odd neurologic effects I experienced here. Anyone else wishing to try this little ancient wheat experiment with einkorn can also obtain either the unground grain or ground flour through Eli's website, www.growseed.org. Most recently, einkorn pasta is being retailed under the Jovial brand at Whole Foods Market. If anyone else makes bread or any other food with Eli's einkorn wheat, please let me know:1) Your blood sugar response (before and 1 hour after consumption)2) Whether you experienced any evidence of wheat intolerance similar to what you experienced with conventional wheat, e.g., rash, acid reflux, gas and cramping, moodiness, asthma, etc.But remember: Wheat effects or no, einkorn is still a grain. My belief is that humans do best with little or no grain. The einkorn experience is an effort to identify reasonable compromises so that you and I can have a piece of birthday cake once a year without getting sick.
Genetic incompatibility 10. January 2011 William Davis (29) Peter has lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), a genetic pattern shared by 11% of Americans. It means that Peter inherited a gene that codes for a protein, called apoprotein(a), that attaches to LDL particles, forming the combined particle Lp(a). It also means that his overall pattern responds well to a high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet: The small LDL particles that accompany Lp(a) over 90% of the time are reduced, Lp(a) itself is modestly reduced, other abnormalities like high triglycerides (that facilitate Lp(a)'s adverse effects) are corrected. Small LDL particles are, by the way, part of the genetic "package" of Lp(a) in most carriers. Peter also has another gene for Apo E4, another genetically-determined pattern shared by 19% of Americans. (Another 2% of Americans have two "doses" of Apo E4, i.e., they are homozygotes for E4.) This means that the Apo E protein, normally responsible for liver uptake and disposal of lipoproteins (especially VLDL), is defective. In people with Apo E4, the higher the fat intake, the more LDL particles accumulate. (The explanation for this effect is not entirely clear, but it may represent excessive defective Apo E-enriched VLDL that competes with LDL for liver uptake.) People with Apo E4 therefore drop LDL (and LDL particle number and apoprotein B) with reductions in fat intake. This is a genetic rock-and-a-hard-place, or what I call a genetic incompatibility. If Peter increases fat and reduces carbohydrates to reduce Lp(a)/small LDL, then LDL measures like LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will increase. Paradoxically, sometimes small LDL particles will even increase in some genetically predisposed people.If Peter decreases fat and increases carbohydrates, LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will decrease, but the proportion of small LDL will increase and Lp(a) may increase. Thankfully, such "genetic incompatibilities" are uncommon. In my large practice, for instance, I have about 5 such people. The message: If you witness paradoxic responses that don't make sense or follow the usual pattern, e.g., reductions in LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and small LDL with reductions in their dietary triggers (i.e., carbohydrates, especially wheat), then consider a competing genetic trait such as Apo E4.
The folly of an RDA for vitamin D 9. January 2011 William Davis (26) Tom is a 50-year old, 198-lb white male. At the start, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 28.8 ng/ml in July. Tom supplements vitamin D, 2000 units per day, in gelcap form. Six months later in January (winter), Tom's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 67.4 ng/ml. Jerry is another 50-year old white male with similar build and weight. Jerry's starting summer 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 26.4 ng/ml. Jerry takes 12,000 units vitamin D per day, also in gelcap form. In winter, six months later, Jerry's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.2 ng/ml. Two men, similar builds, similar body weight, both Caucasian, similar starting levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Yet they have markedly different needs for vitamin D dose to achieve a similar level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Why?It's unlikely to be due to variation in vitamin D supplement preparations, since I monitor vitamin D levels at least every 6 months and, even with changes in preparations, dose needs remain fairly constant. The differences in this situation are likely genetically-determined. To my knowledge, however, the precise means by which genetic variation accounts for it has not been worked out. This highlights the folly of specifying a one-size-fits-all Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. The variation in need can be incredible. While needs are partly determined by body size and proportion body fat (the bigger you are, the more you need), I've also seen 105 lb women require 14,000 units and 320-lb men require 1000 units to achieve the same level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. An RDA for everyone? Ridiculous. Vitamin D is an individual issue that must be addressed on a person-by-person basis.
Heart scan: Standard of care? 6. January 2011 William Davis (0) If coronary disease is easy to detect by measuring coronary calcium, shouldn't this represent the standard of care?In other words, if you've been seeing your doctor and he/she has been monitoring cholesterol levels and, inevitably, talks about statin drugs, then you have a heart attack, unstable angina, or die--yet never knew you had heart disease--isn't this negligence? Coronary calcium, and thereby coronary atherosclerotic plaque, are markers for the disease itself. Unlike cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc., that represent risk factors for coronary atherosclerotic plaque, coronary calcium is a measure of total plaque: "soft" elements like lipid collections, necrotic tissue, fibrous tissue, as well as "hard" elements like calcium. Because calcium occupies 20% of total atherosclerotic plaque volume, it can be used as an indirect "dipstick" for total plaque. So why isn't an unexpected heart attack, hospitalization for unstable heart symptions, emergency bypass, etc., not regarded as potential malpractice? These are not benign events, but potentially life-threatening.
The costs of doing drug business? 6. January 2011 William Davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Apo E4 and sterols: Lethal combination? 11. February 2011 William Davis (24) Phytosterols, or just "sterols" to its friends and neighbors, are a group of cholesterol-like compounds that are abundant in the plant world. Lately, however, sterols have proliferated in the processed food supply, thanks to the observation that sterols reduce LDL cholesterol when ingested by humans. This must mean that sterols are good for you. Uh oh. Wait a minute: There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia in which there is unimpeded intestinal absorption of all sterols ingested through diet. They must have really low LDL cholesterols! Nope. They develop coronary disease--heart attacks, angina, etc.--in their late teens and 20s. In other words, if sterols gain access to your bloodstream, they are bad. Very bad. Conventional thinking is that only a modest quantity of dietary sterols gain access to the bloodstream. But there are two potentially fatal flaws in this overly simplistic line of thinking:1) What happens when you load up your diet with "heart healthy" sterols, such as those in "heart healthy" margarines, mayonnaise, and yogurt, effectively increasing sterol intake 10-fold?2) What happens in people with the genetic pattern, apo E4, that is carried by 25% of the general population that permits much greater intestinal absorption of sterols? My prediction: Despite the fact that sterols reduce LDL, they may, in certain genetically-susceptible people, such as those with apo E4, increase risk for heart disease: heart unhealthy.Here are two studies that suggest that greater sterol absorption in people without sitosterolemia are at higher risk for heart disease:Alterations in cholesterol absorption/synthesis markers characterize Framingham offspring study participants with CHDPlasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study Glucomania 8. February 2011 William Davis (52) As I suggested in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, a glucose meter is your best tool to:1) Lose weight2) Cure diabetes3) Reduce or eliminate small LDL particles4) Achieve anti-aging or age-slowing effectsBut it means getting hold of a glucose meter and applying it in a very different way. Diabetics typically check fasting morning glucose and again several times during the day to assess medication effects. But you and I can measure blood glucose to assess the immediate effects of food choices--two very different approaches. The concept is simple: Check a blood glucose just prior to a food or meal of interest, then one hour after finishing. Let's take two hypothetical breakfasts. First, oatmeal, a so-called "low-glycemic index" food. Slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal with skim milk, a handful of walnuts, just a few blueberries. Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dlBlood glucose one hour after finish: 175 mg/dlI made those numbers up, but this is a fairly typical response for many adults. (This is why "low-glycemic index" is an absurd notion.) This kind of response causes 1) glycation, the adverse effects of glucose modification of proteins that leads to cataracts, kidney disease, cartilage damage and arthritis, atherosclerosis, skin wrinkles, etc., 2) high insulin response that cascades into fat deposition, especially visceral fat ("wheat belly"), and 3) glucotoxicity, i.e., direct damage to the pancreas that can, over years, lead to diabetes. Next day, let's try a breakfast of 3-egg omelet made with green peppers, sundried tomatoes, and olive oil. Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dlBlood glucose one hour after finish: 93 mg/dlThis is a meal of virtually zero-glycemic index. This kind of response triggers none of the effects experienced following the oatmeal. Repeated over time and you fail to trigger glycation, you stop provoking insulin, and visceral fat mobilizes rather than accumulates: you lose weight, particularly around the middle. We therefore aim to keep the one-hour blood glucose 100 mg/dl or less. If you start with a high fasting blood glucose of, say, 118 mg/dl, then we aim to keep the one-hour after-eating blood glucose no higher than the pre-meal. It works. Plain and simple. This makes the primary care docs crazy: "How dare you check your blood sugar! You're not diabetic." In truth, blood glucose meters are relatively simple devices to use. The test strips and lancets will cost a few bucks. (The meters themselves are either low-cost or free, just like Gillette sometimes sends you a beautiful new razor for free but expects you to buy the blades). These are direct-to-consumer products. While a prescription written by your doctor for a glucose meter and supplies helps insurance cover the costs, you can easily get these devices without a prescription. Some stores, like Target, keep their devices out on the shelves with the shampoo and bath soap.Warning: Anyone taking diabetes drugs will have to consult with their doctors about the safety of such an approach. Because this approach can actually cure diabetes in some people, if you are taking some diabetes drugs, especially glyburide, glipidize, and glimepiride, you can experience dangerously low blood sugars, just as any non-diabetic taking these drugs would. Diarrhea, runny noses, and rage: Poll results 6. February 2011 William Davis (19) Here are the results of the week-long poll asking the question:Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?Yes, undesirable gastrointestinal effects 223 (41%) Yes, asthma or sinus problems 51 (9%)Yes, joint pains and/or swelling 85 (15%)Yes, emotional or other nervous system effects 59 (10%)No, nothing, nada 107 (19%)No. Wheat is sacred and you're all nuts 13 (2%)There are several interesting observations to make from this informal poll. First, as I have observed, the most common wheat re-exposure syndrome is gastrointestinal, usually involving cramps, diarrhea, and lame explanations to your dinner partner.Second most common: joint pains and/or swelling. Third: asthma or sinus congestion. The incidence of emotional or nervous system effects surprised me a bit. I didn't expect 10% of people to share this effect. This is an effect I also experience personally, along with the gastrointestinal consequences. To be sure, this is a skewed poll, since many people likely come to this blog in the first place because of such issues. But I was nonetheless impressed with the relatively modest proportion of people who did not share such a re-exposure syndrome: only 19%.Beyond the interesting numbers provided by readers, a good many also provided some fascinating and graphic comments. Here's a sample:Sassy said:Reflux -- starts a day later and goes for up to a week. And Bloat:2-5 inches on my waistline in a day, lasting up to three. Miserable. And why, having experienced this once, have I done it often enough to verify the connection with certainty? I am working on that one. Anonymous said:Wheat increased hunger with even with only a small amount. Crackers in soup was enough to set it off.Also, when I was trying to get off wheat, I noticed that 2 eggs and 2 bacon and I could go 5 hours before hunger, or 2 eggs and 2 bacon and toast was good for three hours before hunger. That was the final step to giving up wheat. Now three years and 59 Kg [130 lbs!] loss later, there is no doubt in my mind that wheat is evil, and I do not regard it as suitable for human food. I speculate that it increases ghrelin or cortisol. Anna said:For me, in the two years since I began eating Gluten-Free (Low Carb for 6 years), the few times I've had re-exposure to wheat, I've experienced fast onset and intense abdominal pain (known exposure during the daytime) and heartburn, indigestion, intense nausea, and disrupted sleep (exposures during evening meal not discovered until the next day).My husband wants to think he's fine with wheat (though I know that he has at least one gene that predisposes to celiac), but IMO, he isn't. He eats no wheat at home because that's the default, and he's OK with that. But if he goes out to dinner at a restaurant that serves "good" artisan bread, he will indulge in a few bites (he does restrict his carb intake, so it's still a limited amount). More often than not, he will sleep fitfully on those nights, snore more, and wake in the night with indigestion. He wants to bury his head in the sand and will only acknowledge the discomfort being due to eating too many carbs, not the wheat itself. I notice he sleeps fine if he eats a small amount of potato or rice. Go figure.Our 12 yo son has been eating GF for two years also. About 6 months into GF, he unknowingly ate wheat a number of times (licorice candy laces at a friend's house), which resulted in outbreaks of canker sores in his mouth each time. He also exhibits mood and behavior changes when he eats wheat, which is what prompted me to test him for gluten intolerance in the first place. Mark said:
Apo E4 and sterols: Lethal combination? 11. February 2011 William Davis (24) Phytosterols, or just "sterols" to its friends and neighbors, are a group of cholesterol-like compounds that are abundant in the plant world. Lately, however, sterols have proliferated in the processed food supply, thanks to the observation that sterols reduce LDL cholesterol when ingested by humans. This must mean that sterols are good for you. Uh oh. Wait a minute: There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia in which there is unimpeded intestinal absorption of all sterols ingested through diet. They must have really low LDL cholesterols! Nope. They develop coronary disease--heart attacks, angina, etc.--in their late teens and 20s. In other words, if sterols gain access to your bloodstream, they are bad. Very bad. Conventional thinking is that only a modest quantity of dietary sterols gain access to the bloodstream. But there are two potentially fatal flaws in this overly simplistic line of thinking:1) What happens when you load up your diet with "heart healthy" sterols, such as those in "heart healthy" margarines, mayonnaise, and yogurt, effectively increasing sterol intake 10-fold?2) What happens in people with the genetic pattern, apo E4, that is carried by 25% of the general population that permits much greater intestinal absorption of sterols? My prediction: Despite the fact that sterols reduce LDL, they may, in certain genetically-susceptible people, such as those with apo E4, increase risk for heart disease: heart unhealthy.Here are two studies that suggest that greater sterol absorption in people without sitosterolemia are at higher risk for heart disease:Alterations in cholesterol absorption/synthesis markers characterize Framingham offspring study participants with CHDPlasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study
Glucomania 8. February 2011 William Davis (52) As I suggested in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, a glucose meter is your best tool to:1) Lose weight2) Cure diabetes3) Reduce or eliminate small LDL particles4) Achieve anti-aging or age-slowing effectsBut it means getting hold of a glucose meter and applying it in a very different way. Diabetics typically check fasting morning glucose and again several times during the day to assess medication effects. But you and I can measure blood glucose to assess the immediate effects of food choices--two very different approaches. The concept is simple: Check a blood glucose just prior to a food or meal of interest, then one hour after finishing. Let's take two hypothetical breakfasts. First, oatmeal, a so-called "low-glycemic index" food. Slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal with skim milk, a handful of walnuts, just a few blueberries. Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dlBlood glucose one hour after finish: 175 mg/dlI made those numbers up, but this is a fairly typical response for many adults. (This is why "low-glycemic index" is an absurd notion.) This kind of response causes 1) glycation, the adverse effects of glucose modification of proteins that leads to cataracts, kidney disease, cartilage damage and arthritis, atherosclerosis, skin wrinkles, etc., 2) high insulin response that cascades into fat deposition, especially visceral fat ("wheat belly"), and 3) glucotoxicity, i.e., direct damage to the pancreas that can, over years, lead to diabetes. Next day, let's try a breakfast of 3-egg omelet made with green peppers, sundried tomatoes, and olive oil. Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dlBlood glucose one hour after finish: 93 mg/dlThis is a meal of virtually zero-glycemic index. This kind of response triggers none of the effects experienced following the oatmeal. Repeated over time and you fail to trigger glycation, you stop provoking insulin, and visceral fat mobilizes rather than accumulates: you lose weight, particularly around the middle. We therefore aim to keep the one-hour blood glucose 100 mg/dl or less. If you start with a high fasting blood glucose of, say, 118 mg/dl, then we aim to keep the one-hour after-eating blood glucose no higher than the pre-meal. It works. Plain and simple. This makes the primary care docs crazy: "How dare you check your blood sugar! You're not diabetic." In truth, blood glucose meters are relatively simple devices to use. The test strips and lancets will cost a few bucks. (The meters themselves are either low-cost or free, just like Gillette sometimes sends you a beautiful new razor for free but expects you to buy the blades). These are direct-to-consumer products. While a prescription written by your doctor for a glucose meter and supplies helps insurance cover the costs, you can easily get these devices without a prescription. Some stores, like Target, keep their devices out on the shelves with the shampoo and bath soap.Warning: Anyone taking diabetes drugs will have to consult with their doctors about the safety of such an approach. Because this approach can actually cure diabetes in some people, if you are taking some diabetes drugs, especially glyburide, glipidize, and glimepiride, you can experience dangerously low blood sugars, just as any non-diabetic taking these drugs would.
Diarrhea, runny noses, and rage: Poll results 6. February 2011 William Davis (19) Here are the results of the week-long poll asking the question:Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?Yes, undesirable gastrointestinal effects 223 (41%) Yes, asthma or sinus problems 51 (9%)Yes, joint pains and/or swelling 85 (15%)Yes, emotional or other nervous system effects 59 (10%)No, nothing, nada 107 (19%)No. Wheat is sacred and you're all nuts 13 (2%)There are several interesting observations to make from this informal poll. First, as I have observed, the most common wheat re-exposure syndrome is gastrointestinal, usually involving cramps, diarrhea, and lame explanations to your dinner partner.Second most common: joint pains and/or swelling. Third: asthma or sinus congestion. The incidence of emotional or nervous system effects surprised me a bit. I didn't expect 10% of people to share this effect. This is an effect I also experience personally, along with the gastrointestinal consequences. To be sure, this is a skewed poll, since many people likely come to this blog in the first place because of such issues. But I was nonetheless impressed with the relatively modest proportion of people who did not share such a re-exposure syndrome: only 19%.Beyond the interesting numbers provided by readers, a good many also provided some fascinating and graphic comments. Here's a sample:Sassy said:Reflux -- starts a day later and goes for up to a week. And Bloat:2-5 inches on my waistline in a day, lasting up to three. Miserable. And why, having experienced this once, have I done it often enough to verify the connection with certainty? I am working on that one. Anonymous said:Wheat increased hunger with even with only a small amount. Crackers in soup was enough to set it off.Also, when I was trying to get off wheat, I noticed that 2 eggs and 2 bacon and I could go 5 hours before hunger, or 2 eggs and 2 bacon and toast was good for three hours before hunger. That was the final step to giving up wheat. Now three years and 59 Kg [130 lbs!] loss later, there is no doubt in my mind that wheat is evil, and I do not regard it as suitable for human food. I speculate that it increases ghrelin or cortisol. Anna said:For me, in the two years since I began eating Gluten-Free (Low Carb for 6 years), the few times I've had re-exposure to wheat, I've experienced fast onset and intense abdominal pain (known exposure during the daytime) and heartburn, indigestion, intense nausea, and disrupted sleep (exposures during evening meal not discovered until the next day).My husband wants to think he's fine with wheat (though I know that he has at least one gene that predisposes to celiac), but IMO, he isn't. He eats no wheat at home because that's the default, and he's OK with that. But if he goes out to dinner at a restaurant that serves "good" artisan bread, he will indulge in a few bites (he does restrict his carb intake, so it's still a limited amount). More often than not, he will sleep fitfully on those nights, snore more, and wake in the night with indigestion. He wants to bury his head in the sand and will only acknowledge the discomfort being due to eating too many carbs, not the wheat itself. I notice he sleeps fine if he eats a small amount of potato or rice. Go figure.Our 12 yo son has been eating GF for two years also. About 6 months into GF, he unknowingly ate wheat a number of times (licorice candy laces at a friend's house), which resulted in outbreaks of canker sores in his mouth each time. He also exhibits mood and behavior changes when he eats wheat, which is what prompted me to test him for gluten intolerance in the first place. Mark said: