In search of wheat: Another einkorn experience

Lisa is a trained dietitian. Unlike many of her colleagues, she has "seen the light" and realized that the conventional advice that most dietitians are forced to dispense through hospitals, clinics, and other facilities is just plain wrong

I know Lisa personally and we've had some great conversations on diet and nutritional supplements. I told Lisa about my einkorn experience and how I witnessed a dramatic difference between bread made from einkorn wheat and that made from conventional whole wheat. So she decided to give it a try herself. 

Here's Lisa's experience:

This past Friday, June 18th, I conducted my "Einkorn Wheat Experiment".

7 am 
FBG [fasting blood glucose] 97 mg/dl

8 am-9 am 
1 hour high-intensity aerobic workout

10:05 am 
BG 99

10:05 am 
I embarked upon the journey of choking down, I mean enjoying, the hefty piece of Einkorn bread. Wow, was that bread dense!  It was a lot of work chewing. 

10:50 am 
(45 minutes after consumption, wanted to see what BG did a bit before the 1 hr mark)  BG 153

11:05 am 
1hr PP 120

11:35 am 
90 mins PP [postprandial] 113

12:05 pm 
2 hours PP  114 ... at this time I ate an egg & veggie omelet for lunch.

12:50 pm 
BG 100

Before dinner 5:10 pm 
BG 88

I was surprised with the BG of 153. However, it was good to see my insulin response is reactive and decreased BG 33 points in 15 minutes to end up with a BG of 120 1 hr after the bread.  

So, it appears my response is similar. A slight elevation of BG at the 1 hour mark, but not to the degree of conventional whole grain wheat bread.  

Of note, also, was the fact that I cannot remember the last time I ate a piece of wheat bread of this magnitude that did not make me bloated... not at all: No cramps, no brain fog, no headache and, did I mention not bloated?  

I believe you are on to something with tolerance of Einkorn wheat for those of us with wheat sensitivities, in addition to its apparent lower glycemic response.

Along with Lisa, I asked four other people with various acute intolerances (all gastrointestinal) to conventional wheat, i.e., people who experience undesirable effects from wheat within minutes to several hours, to eat the einkorn bread. None experienced their usual reactions.

Obviously, this does not constitute a clinical trial. Nonetheless, I find this a compelling observation: People like myself who generally experience distinct undesirable reactions to wheat did not experience these reactions with einkorn.

Note, however, that einkorn behaves like a carbohydrate. No different, say, from brown rice or quinoa. However, unlike modern whole wheat flour from Triticum aestivum,  in this little experience there were no immune reactions, no neurologic phenomena, no gastrointestinal distress--just the blood sugar consequences.

While this may not be true for all people consuming einkorn, it suggests that primordial einkorn wheat is quite different from modern conventional wheat for most people.

Комментарии (6) -

  • Anonymous

    23.06.2010 12:42:43 |

    Dr. Davis,

    Interesting. In your opinion, do you think Americans have genetically developed a sensitivity to wheat because of over-consumption? Or, do you think the current variety is just an inferior type?

  • Lindsay

    23.06.2010 13:16:37 |

    I do wonder how Spelt (Triticum spelta) might do in this kind of experiment.

  • Anonymous

    23.06.2010 13:31:06 |

    It would be interesting to try the same experiments with other early varieties which can actually be purchased retail, like spelt and kamut.

  • Gretchen

    23.06.2010 15:07:13 |

    I'd like to see the same experiment without the hour of high-intensity aerobic exercise just beforehand.

  • Cheryl

    23.06.2010 17:18:35 |

    wonder what the BG would have been had she done the high impact aerobic workout AFTER injesting the eikhorn bread.

    Carb injestion is suggested for high intensity workouts.

    Also wonder what the impact would be for a person with diabetes T1 or T2.

  • Anonymous

    30.06.2010 19:13:51 |

    Another interesting experiment could be to sourdough the eikhorn.  In the old days you couldn't just go to the supermarket and buy yeast. Sourdough is said to be healthier than normal bread because of the fermentation process.

Добавить комментарий

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

I've recently had several hospital employees tell me that their hospitals offered CT coronary angiograms without charge to their employees.

Among these hospital employees were several women in their 30s and 40s.

Why would young, asymptomatic, pre-menopausal women be subjected to the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 25 mammograms? Is there an imminent, life-threatening, symptomatic problem here?

All of these women were without symptoms, some were serious exercisers.

There is NO rational justification for performing CT coronary angiography, free or not.

What they really want is some low-risk, yet confident means of identifying risk for heart disease. Cholesterol, of course, is a miserable failure in this arena. Framingham risk scoring? Don't make me laugh.

Step in CT coronary angiography. But does CT coronary angiography provide the answers they are looking for?

Well, it provides some of the answers. It does serve to tell each woman whether she "needs" a heart procedure like heart catheterization, stent, or bypass surgery, since the intent of CT angiography is to identify "severe" blockages, sufficient to justify heart procedures.

Pitfalls: Because of the radiation exposure, CT angiography is not a procedure that can be repeated periodically to reassess the status of any abnormal findings. A CT angiogram every year? After just four years, the equivalent of 400 chest x-rays will have been performed, or 100 mammograms. Cancer becomes a very real risk at this point.

CT angiography is also not quantitative. Sure, it can provide a crude estimation of the percent blockage--the value your cardiologist seeks to "justify" a stent. But it does NOT provide a longitudinal (lengthwise) quantification of plaque volume, a measure of total plaque volume that can be tracked over time.

What's a woman to do? Simple: Get the test that, at least in 2008, provides the only means of gauging total lengthwise coronary plaque volume: a simple CT heart scan, a test performed with an equivalent of 4 - 10 chest x-rays, or 1 - 2.5 mammograms.

Perhaps, in future, software and engineering improvements will be made with CT coronary angiography that reduce radiation to tolerable levels and allows the lengthwise volume measurement of plaque. But that's not how it's done today.

Comments (3) -

  • Diana Hsieh

    11/29/2008 9:55:00 PM |

    I'm confused by your post.  From what I understand, the CT angiogram provides a superset of the data provided calcium scoring CT.  So when I got a CT angiogram this summer, I got a calcium score with it.  (Is that not standard?)

    Also, I worry that you're overstaing the radiation dose of the CT angiogram.  In a prior blog post, you wrote:

    "CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now that's a problem.

    "The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year."

    I agree with your analysis that the CT angiogram delivers too much radiation to be used as a yearly screening test, but your radiation comparison numbers are way different in the two posts by a factor of four.  While such numbers may not be precise, that seems like a bit much.

    Full disclosure: My husband is a radiologist.  (He's msk not a body guy, so heart scans aren't his thing.)  His group performs both kinds of tests.  I'm definitely not promoting CT angiograms over CT calcium scoring.

  • Diana Hsieh

    11/29/2008 10:38:00 PM |

    OH OH!  I misread your post.  You said that "after four years" -- hence the four-fold increase in radiation.  Duh.  

    My question about the calcium scoring as part of the angiogram remains, however.  (I could repost that as its own comment if you prefer, however.)

  • Amna

    8/3/2011 11:41:22 AM |

    This is done with the help of a device called the catheter which is a thin, narrow, tube-like structure. Now, the images are studied to understand corrective measures needed to re-instill proper functioning of the heart.   Angiography hospital in Thailand