Opiate of the masses

Although it is a central premise of the whole Wheat Belly argument and the starting strategy in the New Track Your Plaque Diet, I fear that some people haven't fully gotten the message:

Modern wheat is an opiate.

And, of course, I don't mean that wheat is an opiate in the sense that you like it so much that you feel you are addicted. Wheat is truly addictive.

Wheat is addictive in the sense that it comes to dominate thoughts and behaviors. Wheat is addictive in the sense that, if you don't have any for several hours, you start to get nervous, foggy, tremulous, and start desperately seeking out another "hit" of crackers, bagels, or bread, even if it's the few stale 3-month old crackers at the bottom of the box. Wheat is addictive in the sense that there is a distinct withdrawal syndrome characterized by overwhelming fatigue, mental "fog," inability to exercise, even depression that lasts several days, occasionally several weeks. Wheat is addictive in the sense that the withdrawal process can be provoked by administering an opiate-blocking drug such as naloxone or naltrexone.

But the "high" of wheat is not like the high of heroine, morphine, or Oxycontin. This opiate, while it binds to the opiate receptors of the brain, doesn't make us high. It makes us hungry.

This is the effect exerted by gliadin, the protein in wheat that was inadvertently altered by geneticists in the 1970s during efforts to increase yield. Just a few shifts in amino acids and gliadin in modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat became a potent appetite stimulant.

Wheat stimulates appetite. Wheat stimulates calorie consumption: 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year, for every man, woman, and child. (440 calories per person per day is the average.) We experience this, sense the weight gain that is coming and we push our plate away, settle for smaller portions, increase exercise more and more . . . yet continue to gain, and gain, and gain. Ask your friends and neighbors who try to include more "healthy whole grains" in their diet. They exercise, eat a "well-balanced diet" . . . yet gained 10, 20, 30, 70 pounds over the past several years. Accuse your friends of drinking too much Coca Cola by the liter bottle, or being gluttonous at the all-you-can-eat buffet and you will likely receive a black eye. Many of these people are actually trying quite hard to control impulse, appetite, portion control, and weight, but are losing the battle with this appetite-stimulating opiate in wheat.

Ignorance of the gliadin effect of wheat is responsible for the idiocy that emits from the mouths of gastroenterologists like Dr. Peter Green of Columbia University who declares:

"We tell people we don't think a gluten-free diet is a very healthy diet . . . Gluten-free substitutes for food with gluten have added fat and sugar. Celiac patients often gain weight and their cholesterol levels go up. The bulk of the world is eating wheat. The bulk of people who are eating this are doing perfectly well unless they have celiac disease."

In the simple minded thinking of the gastroenterology and celiac world, if you don't have celiac disease, you should eat all the wheat you want . . . and never mind about the appetite-stimulating effects of gliadin, not to mention the intestinal disruption and leakiness generated by wheat lectins, or the high blood sugars and insulin of the amylopectin A of wheat, or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat.

Comments (22) -

  • Judy B

    4/20/2012 4:23:26 PM |

    Unbelievable!  When are doctors going to get a clue?  Thank you, Dr. Davis for giving us the truth.

  • Joe

    4/20/2012 4:31:44 PM |

    Dr. Davis, somehow I've managed to get my Vitamin D, 25-hydroxy level to 90 ng/ml! It's the first time I've had it tested since taking your advice. Is this too high? Or about right?

    I take about 8000 IUs per day (in the form of drops) and get 20-40 minutes of daily sun (in Florida, that's pretty easy to do). That's year-round.

    Nota bene: My HDL/TC ratio was 0.241 (64/265), and TRGS/HDL ratio was 1.4 (94/64), which are pretty good numbers, I think. My LDL was mostly Pattern A (large bouyant), which is also good, I think. Since my doctor said my TC of 265 was still too high, he recommended statin therapy, which I declined.  I've lost ~80 pounds in the past 12 months eating a low-carb paleo diet (and no freakin' WHEAT!), and I've heard that a large weight loss can screw up cholesterol levels for a while.  Could that be the reason the TC is still "high." Should I be concerned? I think my good ratios and large bouyant LDL trump TC, but my doctor thinks otherwise.


  • Galina L.

    4/20/2012 9:50:48 PM |

    I have a question for you as a cardiologist. Does a ketogenic diet affect an edema associated with a heart failure?  I understand that congestive heart failure is a very serious condition, one of my husband's coworkers wife is in a hospital right now with such condition, they removed one gallon of fluid from her legs there, and I am just curious. I had a pitting  edema  at 46 when my pre-menopause issues started, and it got cured with a carb. restriction (together with the rest of pre-menopause issues and asthma). What about edemas associated with other health conditions? Does carb restriction could help to some degree?

  • Eva

    4/25/2012 8:39:55 PM |

    This is interesting info. I am not a big fan of wheat for a number of reasons, the obvious being lack of nutrition and evidence of negative response in celiacs.  Those issues seem fairly certain and I am also open to other arguments.  However, I would like to see some of the research on these particular accusations against wheat, specifically the evidence that wheat is a addictive and that wheat makes you hungrier.  

    If it were merely addictive, then we could just eat more wheat and less other foods.  But then, wheat has lack of nutrition so maybe the desire for nutrition drives us to eat more food in addition, thus leading to more overall food consumption.  In that nutrition is probably somewhat 'addicive' as well, ie the body craves it.  Seems to me that pure addiction could account for a lot.  

    If were were addicted to sugar and addicted to wheat, we'd eat a lot of them both, which on average is what Americans are doing.  Then on top of that, the body might still try to get some scraps of nutrition, so that means yet more food is consumed.  Seems to me, the prob could be a simple issue of being addicted to foods that pack a lot of calories but do not give nutrition in return.  Then you have to eat even more on top of that just to survive and get at least minimal nutrition.  

    So I guess what I am pondering is a subtle variation on the theme of 'hunger' in that  perhaps wheat addiction drives the desire for more wheat consumption (at least in some), sugar consumption drives the desire for more sugar consumption (at least in some), and lack of nutrition drives the desire to eat more in general until nutritional needs are met.  The solution would be that as we have already seen, eating healthy foods and avoiding sugar and wheat naturally returns hunger to normal levels in most people.    

    Another interesting issue is to look at meth users who often become very skinny.  My understanding is even if food is available, hunger is stunted by meth, which implies that meth is able to override all food drives, perhaps even those of sugar and wheat?  I wonder what might be found if that is studied!  (not that I am suggesting we take meth of course for obvious reasons, but the mechanism itself is interesting)      

    I am somewhat familiar with on study that showed rats packed on 25% more fat when fed wheat, which is interesting because rats are seed eating creatures by nature, but that one study by itself is not enough.  I am guessing you have put a lot of time into gathering a lot more research and would be so appreciative if you could list a tad of it if possible.

  • May 2nd | CrossFit-HR

    5/1/2012 9:01:42 PM |

    [...] Opiate of the masses Although it is a central premise of the whole Wheat Belly argument and the starting strategy in the New Track Your Plaque Diet, I fear that some people haven’t fully gotten the message:  Modern wheat is an opiate. And, of course, I don’t mean that wheat is an opiate in the sense that you like it so much that you feel you are addicted. Wheat is truly addictive. Post your 5RM total working time to comments [...]

  • Anna

    5/7/2012 8:28:16 PM |

    Your book said that only 1/3 of people experience withdrawal symptoms when giving up wheat.  If it's as addictive as you say in this article then why do only a third have withdrawal symptoms?
    Perhaps I misread what you said in your book?

  • Anon

    5/8/2012 11:32:23 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    For the last 5-6 months, I switched over to a low carb (~50-75g/day) diet, mostly making up the calories with whey protein and lots of fats (olive oil, avocado, grass fed butter). It's not exactly bulletproof, but pretty close.

    While a lot of clear markers improved, my total cholesterol and LDL jumped quite a bit, to levels that I believe
    you've mentioned you feel are high. (I'm male and I think you mentioned 220 as a reasonable limit)

    What next tests or changes would you make if you were me?

    Total cholesterol: 204 --> 238 * scares me the most out of all thee numbers. Most say this should be below 220.
    HDL: 60 --> 70 * very nice improvement
    Triglyceride: 104 --> 84 * very nice improvement
    LDL: 123 --> 151 * big jump here. most docs hate to see this, but from what i'm reading LDL doesn't mean very much - only particle size.
    Triglyceride/HDL ratio: 1.73 --> 1.2 * this is considered the best predictor of cardiovascular disease. Very nice change here

    Should I be worried about the total cholesterol hitting 238?  I'm obviously happy about the HDL/TGL numbers.

  • Jane

    5/9/2012 3:42:46 PM |

    Dear Dr Davis

    I have been asked to convey to you some intormation about heart disease and copper.  Some months ago I searched your blog for the word copper and found nothing.  Here is what copper researcher Leslie Klevay says about ischemic heart disease and copper deficiency.  

    '...the Western diet is frequently low in copper. Copper deficiency is the only nutritional insult that elevates cholesterol (7), blood pressure (8), and uric acid; has adverse effects on electrocardiograms (7, 9); impairs glucose tolerance (10), to which males respond differently than do females; and which promotes thrombosis and oxidative damage. More than 75 anatomic, chemical, and physiologic similarities between animals deficient in copper and people with ischemic heart disease have been identified. Copper deficiency is offered as the simplest and most general explanation for ischemic heart disease.'

    Yours sincerely
    Jane Karlsson PhD

  • old timer

    5/10/2012 9:41:37 AM |

    doc what about the stores selling organic wheat . any good?

  • linda Stevens

    5/10/2012 8:16:30 PM |

    At my local library "Wheat Belly"  has 10 holds on first copy returned of 12 copies in our libary system. Many people are becoming informed and educated!!!!!!!!

  • Mark Stenson

    5/29/2012 12:26:09 AM |

    http://cprfordepressives.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/eating-wheat-can-cause-depression/ talks about the link between wheat and depression.

  • Mark Stenson

    5/29/2012 12:27:27 AM |

    http://cprfordepressives.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/eating-wheat-can-cause-depression/ talks about the link between wheat consumption and depression.  I was interested to hear some of the same things that I hear fro you, Dr. Davis.

  • jpatti

    5/31/2012 3:57:48 PM |

    I never quite "got" why you were anti-wheat over-and-above the low carb thing, but this is some interesting info.  I shall have to get this book.

  • simon choo

    6/1/2012 4:45:29 AM |

    Thanks for the info. its really helpful.

  • Robin

    9/7/2012 6:46:57 AM |

    Hi Joe ~
    If you read wheatbellyblog.com, you may have already seen this in a comment from JillOz. It's a very interesting and eye-opening talk (some 2hrs but I stayed focused easily) and may ease your mind regarding cholesterol. You were very wise to reject the statins.

  • P.M

    9/17/2012 5:50:31 PM |

    Thanks for interesting Blog

    I haven't found any published articles about gliadin and appetite in PubMed.  Do you have any hints what are the keywords? I've tried gliadin, appetite or satiety.

Track Your Plaque APB

Track Your Plaque APB

I'm posting this intriguing comment from the Track Your Plaque Member Forum because I would like to speak to the Member who posted it.

The Member said:

I tested at 965 last year, and while I have followed the TYP diet and nutraceutical recommendations, I was totally unprepared for my first repeat scan (at the same lab/machine) on January 29, 2008. My result was 4.0, and at first I assumed the rating scale had been changed.

I then noted that 3 of the big four arteries received scores of 0, which means the same in any scale, and that four nodules had disappeared from the scan field.


If this is true, it would represent the biggest success in the Track Your Plaque program--ever! It would be an incredible story to tell, to convince the public and medical community that it is indeed possible, and a cause for popping a bottle of champagne! It would also represent what I would regard as essentially a cure for coronary atherosclerosis, a virtual elimination.

While we have plenty of success in stopping the progression or reducing heart scan scores, we do not have 100% success. I wish we did. The Track Your Plaque program is, to some degree, a work in progress. We learn from experiences, continually adjust to obtain the results we desire. Even as it stands today, the Track Your Plaque program is superior to any program of heart disease prevention known--by a long stretch. But it's not infallible, it's not foolproof.

That's all the more reason I would like to communicate with the Track Your Plaque Member who posted this comment. I would also like permission to view the heart scans themselves. (I can't obtain them nor view them without the individual's permission.) While we often have difficulty judging reversal just by looking at heart scans, presumed reversal to this profound degree should be obvious, even to the naked eye.

I would like to know--in detail--precisely what steps were taken and whether there was anything unique about this person's medical history or in the program they followed. This is all in an effort to learn and help others do the same.

If you are the Member who posted this comment, I would like to hear more. Please post your further thoughts on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum, or privately through our Contact page . Or e-mail us at contact@cureality.com.

Comments (7) -

  • Anonymous

    2/9/2008 11:59:00 AM |

    Maybe he had a heart transplant and forgot to tell everyone. : )  Congrats to the TYPer with the fantastic follow-up score!

  • Anonymous

    2/9/2008 2:58:00 PM |

    This brings up a question I havent been able to find an answer to PLEASE explain. I am a 47 yerr old male with a score of 107. Here's the question: ALL of my calcium score is in 1 coronary artery, the LAD( yes I know the worst one) and yet based on calcium scororing I have absolutly no calcium(at least enough to show up as a score) in ANY of my other coronary artteries. Doesen't the same blood with the same small particle, low HDL and everything else travel through ALL the arteries? How come it only harms me in 1 artery? This doesen't make any sense to me.

  • Dr. Davis

    2/10/2008 5:15:00 AM |

    Unfortunately, there is no known explanation for this phenomenon, though it has been the subject of investigation for decades. The only consistent conclusion has been that flow phenomenon (eddies, currents, and bends) play a role--something you and I have absolutely no control over.

  • Anonymous

    2/10/2008 3:16:00 PM |

    I had the same thing( calcium score 84, all in LAD ) test done at Univercity in Chicago. When nurse called with results her explaination was that I must be a non smoker, which i am, because in smokers the plaque tends to spread more evenly in the coronary arteries and in non smokers they tend to show up in 1 or 2 arteries. She said they had no idea what caused this. She did say that if you did have calcium in your arteries, regardless of score, it was better to have it in only 1 than spread out through them all. In other words an 84 in 1 artery was BETTER then an 84 divided between 2 or 3 arteries. Ever hear of either of these theroies Dr. Davis and why would they be true? From what I've read an 84 is an 84?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/11/2008 12:56:00 AM |

    I know of no basis for such an argument. Plaque burden predicts risk for plaque rupture. I've never seen any data that addresses why one, two, or three artery distribution would factor into risk, given the same amount of plaque.

  • vin

    2/11/2008 2:33:00 PM |

    I hope you will tell us all what this miracle person did to achieve this unbelievable reduction in a very short time space.

  • Chainey

    2/12/2008 3:26:00 AM |

    Hi Dr Davis

    New to your site and finding it very interesting.

    Just thought I would mention that the hyperlink in your post, in the penultimate sentence is faulty.

    By the way, do you know of any low-carb "Diet Doctor" or other advocates (or even their long term followers) who has had a scan and publicised the results?

    I'm about to embark on low-carb, but I'm still nervous about the "lipid hypothesis" - i.e. that I'll be damaging my heart with all the saturated fat.

    I'd really like to see the concrete results from some long-term adherents to these diets.