Wheat addiction: 140 lbs lost

27. May 2008 William Davis (14)
Here is detailed comment from a reader who figured out the wheat (and dairy) issue on her own with impressive results.

Though it seems an unpardonable over-simplification of diet, this concept of eliminating wheat-based products (along with obvious unhealthy foods like candy and soda) yields unexpectedly large results, as our reader relates.


Hi Dr. Davis,

Several years ago, chronic untreated asthma infections hospitalized me. I thought it was recurring bronchitis as I'd never had asthma in my life. Killed much of the alveoli... took awhile to de-crap the lungs and regrow the alveoli. Got assigned a cardiologist sort-of by accident while in the hospital for that (couple days of constant heated steroid, stress, a pain + situation combined, elevated my heart rate to 298 for a brief time). When I went to see him, he wrote me a prescription for the Eades' PPLP [Protein Power LifePlan] book.

It's taken awhile, since it's required radical gradual changes in most aspects of my overly Type-A life, but I'm now about 140 lbs lighter, and hopefully much more in the future.

Miraculously, after 10 days on a hard meat-eggs-cheese-veggie-berry approach (which I sadly confess was mostly pepperoni & mozz nuked... I was busy! ;-)), all my medical symptoms disappeared too. Acid reflux, acne, brain-fog, rashes, 'severe asthma', allergies, etc. etc. By trial and error I realized I wrongly attributed that to lowcarbing when it was getting off gluten that actually did it for me. Which since I'm lowcarb also means all the crap my celiac boyfriend can eat, I can't. Lowcarb does many great things for me (just dropping all the bloating and increasing the energy level are awesome), but getting off wheat was critical.

I've since found that a single tablespoon of "milk" in the morning, or something with wheat (say a tortilla), will make me ravenous *specifically for milk and wheat* all day. Conversely, I can be eating lowcarb and then eat total junk--but something without gluten--and not have it bother me much at all. But one pumpernickel slice at Outback and I am DOOMED. It doesn't always happen that instant; will-power has some sway; but the odds of my making a 'poor decision that leads to cascade failure and totally abandoning my eating plan' in the next 48 hours is astronomically higher if milk or wheat were involved. Oddly, cheese does not seem to affect me this way.

When I was younger (I'm 42 now) I had to stop drinking milk. If I drank some I wanted more. If I drank more I needed more. If I drank more, that was it: I'd be stumbling to the kitchen in the dark at 3am, drinking out of the carton, falling gasping against the refrigerator after several long gulps, like a heroin addict who just got a fix. I finally realized that since I'd lived on a ton of milk my whole life, maybe this was a milk problem; so I usually stayed away from it. So then it turned out wheat/gluten were an issue too. Which made me realize how much of my life was filled with not-eating most of the time (very busy, workaholic, but very sedentary), but when I did eat, ingesting amazing amounts of wheat products. I'm astounded that my whole life I mostly ate things I am apparently intolerant to "or something." Sometimes I wonder how much different even my brain would be if it'd been different.

This might contribute to my ending up weighing 500# at one point. The only amazing thing is that I didn't get a disease. (Well I did--obesity--but I mean any others.) I'm from a family of people who are mostly fat, mostly alcoholic, and mostly dead of cancer. I'm just fat, worse than the others but otherwise seemingly ok. Now I'm starting to think that maybe my whole family may have some 'issue' with the primary foods of our culture.

I tell friends that my horrible chronic acid reflux was solved merely by getting off gluten. They nearly all say, "I could never give up bread!" (Isn't it funny, you never hear people say, "Oh man, I could never give up broccoli!") I tried to convince one young friend to try it; her doctor told her eating more protein and fat was unhealthy, and gave her a prescription (this is lifetime--it doesn't cure it, merely treats the symptom) to a drug to help with acid reflux. I said you're kidding me, you think taking a drug the rest of your life is healthier than trading your pasta for a steak?? Go figure.

I still haven't figured out the milk connection (or why I seem ok with cheese for some reason; maybe there is a dosage-difference, or the sugar combined with it has some effect), but I think it's pretty clear that dropping milk and wheat has very radically changed my life for the better. I may actually live, which being a single mom to an awesome 11 year old girl, is a good thing.

Best,
P.
Tags :

Comments (14) -

  • Anonymous

    5/27/2008 6:15:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    What a great story to share!

    Just an aside, most people have no idea the impact of particular foods or the excess of foods on their blood sugar. Still we go about our daily lives, some of us with very high blood sugar after a meal on a daily basis. I think if non-diabetics (the general population) were encouraged to learn to use a glucose meter (that you don't have to be a diagnosed diabetic to use one), some chronic health ailments would diminish.

  • Brian

    5/27/2008 9:35:00 PM |

    I find it interesting when wheat and dairy get mentioned at the same time when talking of food addiction. Some years ago I came across information on the opiate- like nature of gluten and casein (proteins in wheat and milk). A quick web search will return lots of leads.

  • Angela Coppola

    5/27/2008 10:00:00 PM |

    So why is it that cheese seems ok to some people? What about yogurt? Is it the lactose or something else? I have always wondered about these things.

  • Anne

    5/28/2008 1:37:00 AM |

    One reason that you may be able to tolerate cheese but not milk is because milk contains lactose and hard cheeses are almost lactose free. Lactose intolerance is caused by the lack of the enzyme to digest this milk sugar.

    Cheese is high in casein, a major protein in dairy.

    Both lactose intolerance and/or casein intolerance are often associated with gluten intolerance.

    I am glad that you turned your health around with lifestyle eating changes.

  • Anonymous

    5/28/2008 3:35:00 PM |

    I had a major gut episode yesterday after eating rice cereal with milk. I've previously tolerated milk, and cheese as well. But I've read that a gluten-sensitive gut can be sensitive to other foods until the gut heals (by avoiding gluten). I'm not sure if it's the casein or lactose, but I'm leaning towards lactose since I've been able to tolerate fermented cheese.

    The lady in this post, and your last post mentioned strong cravings for wheat after eating some. I've read theories (at alternative sites) about most people having at least a small amount of candidiasis. I wonder if that might be part of the reason for the strong cravings. I don't crave wheat anymore, but if something causes severe pain enough times, one tends to get over it quickly.

    S

  • Nyn

    5/28/2008 4:10:00 PM |

    Very inspiring to read. I would have to know more about how this 'Type A' personality managed to eat so low-carb and eliminate wheat long enough to lose that kind of weight. I am at a loss as to what to eat in place of wheat, and while it seems like an easy answer, I have almost zero time for meal prep. I eat 2 of 3 meals a day at my office or in the car, and some days even all 3. No way to slow down my schedule either. Anyone know of a elimination-wheat-blog/diary I can follow to get some ideas? Still a wonderful story, and glad you shared it.

  • PJ

    5/28/2008 11:35:00 PM |

    Wow, thanks for posting my email comments doc. When I gave permission I didn't realize it'd be front page news. Though I noticed you did leave out my ravings about how wonderful you and my cardiologist are I noticed... very humble of you!

    I'm no expert on anything, and my blog isn't a nutrition blog, but I'm at The Divine Lowcarb for anybody who likes layman blogs.

    PJ

  • Sue

    5/29/2008 1:25:00 AM |

    Just eat a green salad or low-carb vegies in place of wheat.  Salad and vegies easy to prepare if you get them packaged - already washed and cut.

  • Gyan

    5/30/2008 11:48:00 AM |

    Is that so that carbs are less harmful to physically active people and more harmful to sedentary people?

    Since the active muscles of physically active people with tend to utilize glucose more efficiently than not-so-active muscles of sedentary people.

    Also does it make any difference if one consumes freshly milled flour of 100% extraction
    (the way our ancestors used to eat) with plenty of butter?
    (By fresh I mean less than one week old).

  • jpatti

    6/4/2008 10:28:00 PM |

    Carbs are more harmful to people with the genetic propensity for metabolic syndrome, whether they are active or not!  

    Of course, exercise helps whether someone is perfectly normal or flatout diabetic.  

    As for wheat, I don't personally think if you're not diabetic and don't have gluten intolerance that it is necessarily bad.  But as far as grains go, it's relatively nutritionally bankrupt.  Barley or buckwheat are the best grain choices.  I think even rice or oats are better choices than wheat.

    And, of course, veggies are better bang for your carb buck than any of the grains.

    I really think that those who tolerate wheat and choose to eat it should prefer whole wheat berries (they cook up to a nice hot cereal overnight in a crockpot with some apples and cinnamon).  Second best choice is bread or pasta made from freshly ground flour - you can grind it yourself with either a dedicated grinder or some appliances can grind wheat like the Vitamix.  Far behind those choices is freshly baked bread made from preground whole wheat flour.

  • jpatti

    6/6/2008 10:40:00 AM |

    I just want to add - even for those who have no problems with wheat and eat it as a whole grain... the problem is it's a staple in people's diets.  Same problem with corn.

    There's not enough nutrition in wheat or corn foods to make them worthwhile as a significant part of your diet.  Even if you tolerate them just fine now and then, you just don't need them to be at the base of your food pyramid.  Vegetables should be at the base, whether you eat grains or not.  

    And if you eat grains regularly, there's so many better choices than wheat or corn.  Barley and buckwheat are the best.  But even oats or whole grain rice are way better than wheat or corn.

    Wheat and corn are pretty much "filler" foods at best - they mostly provide calories.  In places  and times where there are food shortages, they're very useful foods cause they prevent starvation pretty well.  They're cheap, store well, and fill bellies, but that's really the best you can say for them.

    But in the western world today where we have a wide variety of foods available to us, the primary benefit of wheat and corn is to food manufacturers who make a fortune out of processing such cheapo ingredients into forms that tempt us to pay big bucks for them.

    I don't agree that wheat is somehow worse than all other carby foods, but realistically, cutting wheat out of your diet *mostly* results in a much healthier diet cause most folks eat so much crap made from wheat.  

    Personally, if I had to give *one* piece of diet advice to *everyone*, it wouldn't be to avoid wheat.  Rather, it would be to eat at least half of your food intake as fresh vegetables.  

    Eating loads of veggies provides a wide range of nutrients, probably ones we haven't discovered yet too.  And it also crowds most of the worst foods out of your diet, regardless of what they are.

  • Anonymous

    6/3/2009 4:45:37 PM |

    A recent study using Italian cheese made from ewes milk showed some very strong heart health benefits.

    The cheese mentioned in this study is an Italian cheese called Pecerino.
    The most popular type in the US is called Pecerino Romano,an aged cheese with a salty taste.

    CLA-rich cheese may boost heart health: Study


    Quote:
    Consuming cheese from ewe’s milk, rich in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), may reduce markers linked to heart disease, suggest results from a small Italian study.

    Researchers from the University of Florence report that ewe’s milk rich in cis-9, trans-11 CLA produced favourable changes in inflammatory cytokines and platelet aggregation, both of which are associated with atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries due to the build-up of fatty deposits on artery walls.

    Atherosclerosis is the primary cause of coronary heart disease (CHD), which costs the British public health system more than €5bn per year.

    “These observations, although preliminary and obtained in a limited study group, seem to be of relevance for the practical implications in terms of nutrition and health of the general population,” wrote the researchers in Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases.

    “If the effects of dairy products naturally enriched for their contents of cis-9, trans-11 CLA are confirmed by further examinations, this will likely have important implications for human nutrition and food industry.”

    Cheese – ewe decide

    Researchers, led by Francesco Sofi, recruited 10 subjects with an average age of 51.5 and randomly assigned them to consume a diet containing 200 grams per week of cheese from ewe’s milk (pecorino cheese), naturally rich in CLA, or cheese from cow’s milk (placebo), for 10 weeks.

    Sofi and his co-workers report that consumption of the CLA-rich ewe’s cheese produced significant reductions in inflammatory markers, including a 43 per cent reduction in interleukin-6 (IL-6), a 36 per cent reduction in IL-8, and a 40 per cent reduction in tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). No significant changes were observed following 10 weeks of placebo, they added.

    Furthermore, a 10 per cent reduction in the extent of platelet aggregation, induced by arachidonic acid, was observed for the CLA-cheese group, compared to placebo.

    “CLAs have been previously reported to attenuate inflammatory cytokine expression in animals and humans, and it has been recently reported that they are able to inhibit the expression of cytokine-induced adhesion molecules on endothelial and smooth muscle cells,” wrote the researchers.

    “Thus, it is conceivable to hypothesise that CLAs are able to attenuate the atherosclerotic process through inhibition of the initiating inflammatory cytokines, such as those measured in our study, as well as through inhibition of the stress signalling cascades these cytokines elicit,” they added.

    Source: Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases
    Published online ahead of print, doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2009.03.004
    “Effects of a dairy product (pecorino cheese) naturally rich in cis-9, trans-11 conjugated linoleic acid on lipid, inflammatory and haemorheological variables: A dietary intervention study”
    Authors: F. Sofi, A. Buccioni, F. Cesari, A.M. Gori, S. Minieri, L. Mannini, A. Casini, G.F. Gensini, R. Abbate, M. Antongiovanni

  • Chrissy

    7/6/2010 9:55:19 PM |

    I wanted to lose weight so I decided to keep it simple.  cut out wheat is the only rule.  However I am not in the obese category, and don't drink soda's or much sugar, most of the sugar I eat is in with the wheat foods (eg: cake).  I also eat fruits ad vegetables every day and very little fast food (now and again when travelling for example)  by day three and four of the no wheat diet, I am WAY less hungry and eat less.  But I am having cravings for toast - previously my staple food.  I used to eat up to six slices of toast a day, plus other wheat based foods, biscuits and such.
    The reason I know it's a craving for wheat, is because I look at other foods I like, and I have no appetite for them whatsoever, because I am not ACTUALLY HUNGRY.  It's easy to over-eat on wheat based products, but if you're not allowed them, you just don't want to eat anything.  so your appetite becomes regulated.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 7:29:34 PM |

    Just an aside, most people have no idea the impact of particular foods or the excess of foods on their blood sugar. Still we go about our daily lives, some of us with very high blood sugar after a meal on a daily basis. I think if non-diabetics (the general population) were encouraged to learn to use a glucose meter (that you don't have to be a diagnosed diabetic to use one), some chronic health ailments would diminish.

Add comment

Loading
All posts by william-davis

Statin stupid

19. March 2010 William Davis (0)
If we followed the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and my cardiology colleagues, we would all subscribe to the "statins for all" philosophy. There is now $2 billion of clinical "research" to back up this "evidence-based" practice.

I do not endorse this "statins for all" philosophy. I believe it is a product of the raw profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry, who are adept at recruiting physicians to their cause.

But lost in the confusion of tainted studies and over-the-top media saturation is the fact that there are small groups of people who likely do obtain benefit from statin drugs. They would certainly benefit from better informed scrutiny of their lipoprotein and metabolic abnormalities. But treatment may involve statins.

This is entirely distinct from the "statins for all" argument, the simpleminded rule that primary care physicians and cardiologist are told to follow.

Groups who may indeed benefit from statin therapy include:

Homozygous or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia--Lacking a receptor for LDL particles, LDL piles up to very high levels in these people. LDLs of 300+ are common and lead to heart disease and stroke at relatively young ages.

Combined mixed hyperlipidemia--Among the one or more genetic defects underlying this condition involves excessive production of apoprotein B and VLDL particles. This leads to high risk for heart disease.

People unable to follow a diet to correct their lipid disorder--I have 80+-year old patients, for instance, who say, "I've eaten this way for 82 years. I'm not going to change now!" In the absence of diet and other efforts (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil), drugs may be the answer.

In other words, of the $27 billion annual bill for statin drugs, perhaps a tiny fraction is truly necessary. The majority of people taking statin drugs would not really need them if they had the real answers. But don't let that confuse us: There are some people who do indeed benefit.

Butter and insulin

19. March 2010 William Davis (83)
In a previous post, Atkins Diet: Common Errors, I commented on butter's unusual ability to provoke insulin responses. I offer this as a possible reason why, after a period of effective weight loss on a low-carbohydrate program, inclusion of some foods, such as butter, will trigger weight gain or stall weight loss efforts.

This develops because of butter's insulin-triggering effect, doubling or tripling insulin responses (postprandial area-under-the-curve). If insulin is triggered, fat gain follows.

Here's one such study documenting this effect: Distinctive postprandial modulation of ß cell function and insulin sensitivity by dietary fats: monounsaturated compared with saturated fatty acids

López et al 2008


From Lopez et al 2008. Mean (± SD) plasma glucose, insulin, triglyceride, and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations during glucose and triglyceride tolerance test meal (GTTTM) with no fat (control), enriched in monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) from refined olive oil (ROO meal), with added butter, with a mixture of vegetable and fish oils (VEFO) or with high-palmitic sunflower oil (HPSO). N = 14.

The postprandial (after-eating) area-under-the-curve is substantially greater when butter is included in the mixed composition meal. This effect is not unique to butter, but is shared by most other dairy products.

Fat, in general, does not make you fat. But butter makes you fat.

Vitamin D as a cardiovascular risk factor gains ground

18. March 2010 William Davis (0)
If you were reading The Heart Scan Blog back in 2007, or read my Life Extension article on vitamin D deficiency as a cardiovascular risk factor, you already knew that vitamin D deficiency is rampant and adds to cardiovascular risk.

Results of a study from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Utah bolster the concept that vitamin D deficiency is a cardiovascular risk factor, vitamin D normalization/supplementation reduces cardiovascular risk.

Science Daily reported:

For the first study, researchers followed two groups of patients for an average of one year each. In the first study group, over 9,400 patients, mostly female, reported low initial vitamin D levels, and had at least one follow up exam during that time period. Researchers found that 47 percent of the patients who increased their levels of vitamin D between the two visits showed a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease.


In the second study, researchers placed over 31,000 patients into three categories based on their levels of vitamin D. The patients in each category who increased their vitamin D levels to 43 nanograms per milliliter of blood or higher had lower rates of death, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, high blood pressure, depression, and kidney failure. Currently, a level of 30 nanograms per milliliter is considered "normal."


Over the past 4 years, people in our program have been enjoying the extravagant benefits of vitamin D restoration. Cardiovascular benefits are becoming better documented and the bone health, cancer-preventing, insulin-normalizing, mood-adjusting, and anti-inflammatory effects likewise.

Atkins Diet: Common errors

18. March 2010 William Davis (74)
No doubt: The diet approach advocated by the late Dr. Robert Atkins was a heck of a lot closer to an ideal diet than the knuckleheaded advice emitting from the USDA, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and the Surgeon General's office.

But having just spent a week with Atkins low-carbers, here are some common errors that I see many make, errors that I believe have long-term health consequences, including impairment of weight loss.

Excessive consumption of animal products--Non-restriction of fat often leads to over-reliance on animal products. Higher intakes of red meats (heme proteins?) have been strongly associated with increased risk for colon and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. It is not a fat issue; it is an animal product issue. We should consume less meat, more vegetables and other plant-sourced foods.

Consumption of cured meats--Cured, processed meats, such as sausage, hot dogs, salami, bologna, and bacon, have a color fixative called sodium nitrite, an additive that has been confidently linked to gastrointestinal cancers. Risk is likely dose-dependent: The more you ingest, the greater the long-term risk.

Overconsumption of dairy products--Dairy products, especially milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, and butter, are potent insulinotropic foods, i.e., foods that trigger insulin release. There can be up to a tripling of insulin (area-under-the-curve) levels. This is not good in a world populated with tired, overworked pancreases, exhausted from a lifetime of high-carbohydrate eating.

Too many calories--While I agree that "a calorie is a calorie" and "calories in, calories out" are faulty concepts, I have anecdotally observed that long-time low-carbers often trend towards unlimited consumption of food, a phenomenon that seems to result in weight gain, especially in the sedentary. I wonder if this is a reflection of the insulinotropic action of dairy products and other proteins, compounded by the poor insulin responsiveness that develops with lack of physical activity. Factor into this conversation that lower calorie intake extends life, probably substantially (Sirt-2 activation and related phenomena, a la resveratrol). If lower calorie intake extends life, unlimited calorie intake likely shortens life.

Please don't hear this as low-carb bashing--it is not. It is a call to improve diets and not stumble into common traps that can impair heart health, weight loss, and longevity.

Fat Head: Tom Naughton's manifesto for low-carb eating

12. March 2010 William Davis (16)
I just got back from Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise to the Bahamas.

Among the many interesting people I met on the cruise was the creator of the documentary film, Fat Head, Tom Naughton.

Tom brings both creative insights into low-carbohydrate eating as well as humor. Low-carb eating can be a pretty contentious issue, but Tom made it fun. He will make you laugh about many of the odd notions we have about diet.

Among the best parts of Fat Head is Tom's portrayal of the effects of carbohydrates on insulin and fat metabolism:






Fat Head joins the ranks of films like Food, Inc, that make nutrition information entertaining. For anyone interested in a unvarnished look at diet, weight loss, along with a few laughs along the way, Tom Naughton's Fat Head is worth viewing.

Oatmeal: Good or bad?

11. March 2010 William Davis (67)

You've heard it before: oatmeal reduces cholesterol. Oatmeal producers have obtained permission from the FDA to use a cholesterol-reducing claim. The American Heart Association provides a (paid) endorsement of Quaker Oats.

I've lost count of the times I've asked someone whether they ate a healthy breakfast and the answer was "Sure. I had oatmeal."

Is this true? Is oatmeal heart healthy because it reduces LDL cholesterol?

I don't think so. Try this: Have a serving of slow-cooked (e.g., steel-cut, Irish, etc.) oatmeal. Most people will consume oatmeal with skim or 1% milk and some dried or fresh fruit. Wait an hour, then check your blood sugar.

If you are not diabetic and have a fasting blood sugar in the "normal" range (<100 mg/dl), you will typically have a 1-hour blood glucose of 150-180 mg/dl--very high. If you have mildly increased fasting blood sugars between 100 and 126 mg/dl, postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars will easily exceed 180 mg/dl. If you have diabetes, hold onto your hat because, even if you take medications, blood sugar one hour after oatmeal will usually be between 200 and 300 mg/dl.

This is because oatmeal is converted rapidly to sugar, and a lot of it. Even if you were to repeat the experiment with no dried or fresh fruit, you will still witness high blood sugars in these ranges. Do like some people and pile on the raisins, dried cranberries, or brown sugar, and you will see blood sugars go even higher.

Blood sugars this high, experienced repetitively, will damage the delicate insulin-producing beta cells of your pancreas (glucose toxicity). It also glycates proteins of the eyes and vascular walls. The blood glucose effects of oatmeal really don't differ much from a large Snickers bar or bowl of jelly beans.

If you are like most people, you too will show high blood sugars after oatmeal. It's easy to find out . . . check your postprandial blood sugar.

In past, I recommended oat products, specifically oat bran, to reduce LDL, especially small LDL. I've changed my mind: I now no longer recommend any oat product due to its blood sugar-increasing effects.

Better choices: eggs, ground flaxseed as a hot cereal, cheese (the one dairy product that does not excessively trigger insulin), raw nuts, salads, leftovers from last evening's dinner.

Mustard: Super health food?

6. March 2010 William Davis (32)
Could mustard--yes, the yellow condiment you smear on hot dogs--be a super heart healthy food in disguise?

Consider that mustard contains:

Vinegar

Turmeric

No appreciable sugar


The vinegar slows gastric emptying, resulting in slower absorption of any carbohydrates and a reduced glucose area-under-the-curve. Of the little fats contained (about 3 grams per 1/4 cup), most are desirable monounsaturates. Mustards are relatively rich in selenium, with 20 mcg per 1/4 cup, helpful for protection against cancer and thyroid disease, and magnesium, 31 mg per 1/4 cup.

Turmeric is added to most mustards. One of the constituents of turmeric, curcumin, the substance that confers the bright yellow color, has been a focus of interest for its anti-inflammatory effects. Curcumin has been documented to reduce activity of the inflammatory enzymes cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), lipoxygenase, and reduce activity of inflammatory signal molecules, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a), interleukin (IL)-1,2,6,8, and 12, and monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP). Curcumin also has been shown to reduce LDL oxidation, a potentially important step in atherosclerotic plaque formation. Turmeric is used as a tea by Okinawans. (Hmmmm . . . )

Turmeric content of mustard can vary, of course. Likewise, sugar content. Look for mustards that are not sweetened, so avoid honey mustard in particular. Look for hot, brown, horseradish, Dijon, etc. If there is a downside to mustard, it's sodium content, though the 709 mg per 1/4 cup should only be a problem for those who are sodium-sensitive (African Americans, in particular).

So perhaps mustard isn't exactly a super health food. But it may have some bona fide health effects and should be used generously especially if you are concerned about blood sugar and inflammatory phenomena.

Exercise and blood sugar

5. March 2010 William Davis (30)
There is no doubt that exercise yields benefits across a spectrum of health: reduced blood pressure,  reduced inflammation, reduced blood coagulation, better weight control, stronger bones, less depression, reduced risk for heart attack.

Exercise also influences blood sugar. Diabetics understand this best: Exercise reduces blood sugar 20, 30, 50 or more milligrams. A starting blood sugar, for instance, of 160 mg/dl can be reduced to 80 mg/dl by jogging or riding a bicycle. (I recently had brunch at an Indian restaurant with my family. Blood sugar one-hour postprandial: 134 mg/dl. I was sleepy and foggy. I got on my stationary bike and pedalled at a moderate clip for 60 minutes. Blood sugar: 90 mg/dl.)

Could the reduction of blood sugar with exercise be THE reason that exercise and physical activity provide such substantial benefits?

Think about it. Reduced blood sugar:

1) Reduces risk for future cardiovascular events.
2) Reduces glycation of proteins, i.e., reduced glucose binding to proteins like the ones in artery walls and the lenses of your eyes.
3) Reduces blood coagulation
4) Reduces endothelial dysfunction (abnormal artery constriction that leads to atherosclerosis)

This might explain why it doesn't require high levels of aerobic activity to derive benefit from exercise, since even modest efforts (e.g., a 15-minute walk after eating) reduce blood sugar substantially.

The incredible 33-year, 18,000-participant Whitehall study tells us that a postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar of an impossibly-difficult 83 mg/dl is required to erase the excess cardiovascular risk of blood sugar. Could this simply be telling us that physical activity or exercise is required to suppress blood sugars to these low levels?

It makes me wonder if an index of the adequacy of exercise is your post-exercise blood glucose.