Wheat hell



Can including wheat in your diet create hell on earth?

Was The Inferno nothing more than Danté’s prediction for the state of the U.S. diet circa 2009?

I’m kidding on The Inferno allusion, but the American diet nonetheless sure does create an inferno of unhealthy phenomena.

If we define hell on earth as constant, nagging pain and discomfort; energy depleted sufficient to impair daily function; chronic bloating and diarrhea; leg swelling, peculiar rashes; progression of a multitude of diseases ranging from annoying all the way to fatal . . . well, that’s a pretty bleak picture.

I have indeed witnessed it all. Inclusion of wheat products in the human diet in many (not all--I'd estimate 70% of people) yields devastating health effects. In a few, it shortens life. In the majority, it leads to a slow, miserable hell of inflammatory diseases like arthritis, coronary disease, and cancer.

I have also witnessed dramatic reversal of these phenomena with complete removal of wheat from the diet.

(For clarity, I am not only referring to gluten sensitivity, the immune reaction gone haywire that plagues people with celiac disease. Celiac disease is indeed another variety of wheat-induced hell on earth, but there’s far more to it than that.)

Among the effects I’ve seen with wheat removal:

--Increased clarity of thought—I can vouch for this effect personally. Focus, concentration, the capacity for prolonged application of effort is restored with elimination of wheat.

--ADHD—Marked improvement in attention deficit disorder can occur in children and adults with this focus-depriving condition. Elimination of sugars and cornstarch may be necessary for full effect. While it doesn’t seem to work in everybody, the effect is powerful enough?and the implications so profound?that it is worthy of consideration in any child with this condition.

--Improved bowel health?Many people plagued by chronic bloating, diarrhea, and urgency experience complete relief. In its most extreme form, it is expressed as celiac disease. But there are a larger number of people who do not have celiac who are plagued by this lesser form of intestinal intolerance.

--Weight loss?Patients have told me that they were actually frightened when they eliminated wheat, meaning weight dropped so rapidly that they thought something was wrong. Nothing is wrong. The weight loss simply represents the removal of this bizarre, unphysiologic trigger of appetite, blood sugar, insulin, and weight gain.


Relevant to heart health, wheat elimination effects include:

--LDL cholesterol reduction?Yes, I know that it’s not what the “official” agencies say. “Reduce fat, reduce saturated fat and cholesterol will drop.” That’s barely true; reductions of saturated fat reduce LDL cholesterol, but rarely more than 20 mg/dl. In contrast, elimination of wheat yields LDL reductions of 40, 50, even 100 mg/dl. And the type of LDL reduced is the small particle variety, the kind mostly likely to lead to heart disease. (Cutting fat generally reduces large LDL, the more benign form.)

--Triglyceride reduction?Triglyceride reductions of 50, 100, even 1000 mg/dl can be achieved with elimination of wheat (though elimination of cornstarch, sugars, and other processed carbohydrates may be necessary for full benefit).

--HDL increase?A variable response, but increase of 5-10 mg/dl are common.

--Reduced inflammation?This phenomenon expresses itself in a number of ways, including dramatic reductions of the common inflammatory marker, c-reactive protein. While the media focuses on the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin’s (Crestor) ability to reduce CRP 50-60%, wheat elimination can easily match this?without drugs.


What's more, you just feel better. Less commonly, I've seen arthritis (both common osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis), skin rashes, and sleep disorders improve. I've had pre-diabetics become non-pre-diabetics, diabetics become non-diabetics.

It's not so much whether that food is carbohydrate-rich or protein-rich. It really comes down to calories, a very simple message.'
— Dr. Frank Sacks

While some advocate the notion that only calories count and diet composition makes no difference, I offer this possibility: Whether or not weight is lost by diet, there can be enormous health effects independent of weight based on the composition of diet. Inclusion or exclusion of wheat is one such crucial factor.


Image courtesy Wikipedia, The Eighth Circle of Hell.

Comments (17) -

  • IggyDalrymple

    2/28/2009 2:41:00 AM |

    Following the advice of Dr Mirkin, I was  already pretty much on your recommended diet, whole intact grains, fruits, veggies, and a little oily fish.  At your urging, I very rarely eat a wheat product.  Have switched from olive oil to canola. http://tinyurl.com/JACC-OliveOil

  • Rick

    2/28/2009 3:01:00 AM |

    I don't doubt you but I'm terribly curious as to why this should be. I'd always thought that cereals--rice, barley, rye, wheat, millet, quinoa--were basically natural foods that have been enjoyed by humans for hundreds of years. Are other grains also dangerous? If not, what's so special about wheat? And how about grains similar to wheat, such as spelt?

  • Anonymous

    2/28/2009 5:15:00 AM |

    Ah, I wish I dropped my weight as easily by eliminating wheat. I have eliminated wheat 95% and no weight loss.
    Dr. Davis, I also had a question for you. Is it safe to take Niacin while you are pregnant or trying to get pregnant?

    P

  • David

    2/28/2009 5:34:00 AM |

    "While some advocate the notion that only calories count and diet composition makes no difference, I offer this possibility: Whether or not weight is lost by diet, there can be enormous health effects independent of weight based on the composition of diet."

    Well said! That is an absolutely crucial point, and one that is brought out well in the recent EJCN study: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejcn20094a.html

    Health improved dramatically without weight loss.

    I tell this to young people all the time. What you eat matters, and it matters beyond simply getting fat or not getting fat. Sure, they might be able to drink 12 coca-colas every day and stay thin for now, but what kind of long-term damage is being done beneath the surface?

  • steve

    2/28/2009 3:11:00 PM |

    i will attest that elimination of wheat and for that matter all grains and starches does work.  My small particls dropped from nearly 1800 to 1300 and HDL increased from 40 to 54. TRG dropped to 20 from 41.  So, in my case with no other dietary changes, the elimination of wheat worked.  At a good weight and still lost 4 pounds.

  • Nancy LC

    2/28/2009 5:47:00 PM |

    If you're curious as to evidence of the badness of wheat (or rather, gluten) there's a wonderful collection of peer reviewed studies here:
    htpp://theglutenfile.com

  • Anonymous

    3/1/2009 4:02:00 AM |

    Although I don't doubt the improvements you've seen regarding removing wheat from diet, what about those who don't see any difference?

    I'm not talking about those who would eat muffins, cakes, pastries, tons of carbs, etc. As removing junk food would improve lipids in of itself.

    But in my case, I reduced wheat products, and noticed a minor improvement in lipids, but nothing radical.

    I eliminated wheat completely, and saw no difference. I didn't lose any extra weight, lipids were the same, and I didn't feel any different. But I wasn't overweight to begin with and didn't eat a lot of junk food anyway.

    Are the improvements seen then mostly in those who overindulged in carbs/wheat, then went to a healthy diet (no wheat)? Is it the fact that some people have an almost wheat addiction, and when they eat any wheat products at all, they go overboard? Just wondering if there is any difference between a low carb, low wheat diet vs a diet with no wheat at all.

    In my case, I don't see a big difference between them.

    I'm also curious as to the explanation as to how the Italians and French get away with all the wheat products they eat, yet they have a lower rate of heart attack than Americans. Vitamin D? Better diet in spite of wheat intake? Wine/grape intake?

  • Anonymous

    3/1/2009 4:25:00 AM |

    What about rice?

  • Anonymous

    3/2/2009 3:51:00 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    This is related to some of the other questions on this post, but I'm wondering to what extent this is a purely American thing? When people eat mainly packaged foods, and they all contain wheat and/or high-fructose corn syrup, then eliminating these foods is likely to have a major effect. When on a non-American diet, I wonder if it really matters?

    Also, although you have lots of posts where wheat is mentioned, many of them seem to assume that readers already broadly share your view. But the idea that even wholewheat products are bad goes against everything I've learned over many years; it's such a radical idea that it would be nice if you could go back to first principles and take us through it really slowly. Why should something that we've all seen as healthy and natural be so bad for us?

    I'm just coming to the end of your Track Your Plaque book, and this issue doesn't really figure, so I'm guessing you've experienced a fairly recent conversion? If so, perhaps you could share your experience so that we can see where you're "coming from"?

  • Anonymous

    3/2/2009 3:56:00 AM |

    Sorry, forgot to mention one big reason why the anti-wheat message is difficult to understand: We're often told that the Mediterranean diet is one of the best for heart health. But I understand that pasta, usually made from wheat flour, is a staple there.
    Similarly, the staple in Japan is white rice, but it's said that heart attacks are relatively few there.

  • Trinkwasser

    3/2/2009 1:56:00 PM |

    A small but significant number of Type 2 diabetics report extra high glycemic reactions specific to wheat. Even some Type 1s have problems dosing insulin correctly which don't occur with other grains. I wonder just how widespread this actually is and if some of the symptoms are an effect of the insulin required to process the wheat.

    Wheat is originally a transgenic cross, and has been greatly modified by plant breeders in recent decades so I wonder what effect such modifications (to increase yield, reduce straw length and improve disease resistance) have had on the actual biochemical content of the grains. Similar work on other grains may not have increased their toxicity along with the yield.

    This would be an interesting field of study (pun intended) a friend still grows old varieties for thatching straw and they are over twice the height with far skinnier heads than his modern varieties in the next field, you'd be hard pressed to believe they were the same species

  • Anonymous

    3/4/2009 6:11:00 PM |

    Rick: I'd always thought that cereals--rice, barley, rye, wheat, millet, quinoa--were basically natural foods that have been enjoyed by humans for hundreds of years. Are other grains also dangerous? If not, what's so special about wheat? And how about grains similar to wheat, such as spelt?

    The key phrase is "hundreds of years" -- as opposed to what we were eating before that for much, much longer. Grains (agriculture) have only been around for the blink of an eye on the evolutionary timeline. Wheat and corn cause the most problems overall, especially when the harm they do is too subtle to notice, but I'm convinced that most people would be far healthier if they avoided grain entirely, or only consumed it in sprouted or fermented form.

  • terry

    8/22/2010 7:28:23 AM |

    Thank you so much for this post, it help me a hole lot. As an arthritis sufferer myself, I would like to share this arthritis site I recently discovered. They had tons of great products from all over the world that give maximum pain relief. I've tried them myself and was very pleased with the results. Try out this site

    http://arthritis-osteoarthritis.blogspot.com/

  • Generic Cialis

    9/23/2010 9:01:37 PM |

    I always end up very worried when reading this type of stuff, sometimes I think that everything we eat is bad for health and it would be better not to eat at all and live out of serums.

  • Levitra

    10/7/2010 10:12:01 PM |

    NO I know who the real Enemy is... Wheat. The way you putted wheat is food's Antichrist. I really get a little upset when i read this stuff, at one point you regret all you have eaten in your life.

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 7:31:07 PM |

    Weight loss⎯Patients have told me that they were actually frightened when they eliminated wheat, meaning weight dropped so rapidly that they thought something was wrong. Nothing is wrong. The weight loss simply represents the removal of this bizarre, unphysiologic trigger of appetite, blood sugar, insulin, and weight gain.

  • sex pills

    7/27/2011 3:26:58 PM |

    Very good, have a healthy future, a reasonable mix of vegetables, will be able to give us a healthy body. Thank you to share

Loading