Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet

Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits.

I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies.

A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops.

People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:

--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours.

--Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat.

--Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome

--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux

--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings.

--Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops.

--Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.


It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people.

Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome?

Is Lp(a) part of your legacy to your children?

If you have lipoprotein(a), Lp(a)--the most aggressive known cause of heart disease that no one has heard of--then you need to tell your children.

Lp(a) is a "cleanly" inherited genetic pattern: If either parent has it, there's a 50% chance that you have it. If you have it, then there's a 50% likelihood that each of your children has it. (Note that each child experiences a likelihood of 50%, not 50% of your children. This is because each child is conceived as an independent statistical event. So much for romance!)

The atherogenicity (plaque-causing potential) of Lp(a) also tends to get transmitted. In other words, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 50 due to Lp(a) and you share Lp(a), then you likely share a similar magnitude of risk as your Dad. If your Mom had Lp(a), though passed quietly at age 89 without any overt evidence of heart disease, then you are likely to share the relatively benign form of Lp(a).

For most of us with Lp(a), however, it is best to assume that it has at least some potential for causing heart disease, being the most aggressive cause known. (That is, until we have the ability in everyday clinical practice to characterize Lp(a) by assessing such factors as the size of the apoprotein(a) molecule, the number of kringle "repeats" on the tail, etc. Until then, we need to rely on the crude, though helpful, observation of family history.)

At what age should you inform your children? There's no hard-and-fast rule. However, I generally suggest to patients that they talk about Lp(a) with their children when they reach their 20s or 30s, old enough to begin to understand the implications and begin to think about adopting healthier lifestyles. Is treatment required at, say, age 35? That depends on the pattern of Lp(a)-related heart disease in the family: With exceptionally aggressive forms, it might be reasonable to begin treatment at this relatively early age.

Do "Heart Healthy" sterols cause heart disease?

The sterol question continues to pop up.

Sterols are an ingredient widely added by food manufacturers that allows a "heart healthy" claim, since sterols have been shown to reduce LDL cholesterol (at least transiently). HOWEVER, sterols have also been implicated in possibly increasing risk for heart disease. After all, people with the genetic condition called sitosterolemia absorb sterols into the blood and develop coronary heart disease in their teens and twenties. Those of us without sitosterolemia who increase sterol intake with sterol-enriched foods increase blood levels of sterols several-fold. Is this healthy, or does it contribute to coronary plaque as it does in people with sitosterolemia?

Below, I've reprinted a previous Heart Scan Blog post on sterols.


Sterols should be outlawed

While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.


Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.

The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:

Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:
Plasma 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.

Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:
Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.

Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:
Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.




Though the data are mixed:

Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.

No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.




The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.

Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:




Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.












HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.













Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.














Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.














MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.














Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.










WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.

In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.

Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products.


Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .

Why obese people can't fast

Why do obese people claim it is impossible to fast?

Most overweight people are terrified at the prospect of facing any period of time without ready access to food. Persuading them to begin a program of intermittent fasting is a hopeless cause. They just refuse.

Contrary to popular opinion, this is not just glutonny at work. It is the effect of what I call "the cycle of hunger," the 2-hour up and down cycle of rising sugar and insulin, followed by their inevitable fall. The precipitous fall of sugar and insulin triggers mental fogginess, fatigue, and insatiable hunger. (By the way, this is the same phenomenon underlying the silly notion of "grazing.")

According to an LA Times article, fasting may be difficult to impossible for some people:

"Ruth Frechman, a registered dietitian in Burbank and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn., says she frequently sees such extreme strategies backfire. 'You're hungry, fatigued, irritable. Fasting is not very comfortable. People try to cut back one day and the next day they're starving and they overeat.'"
(Not surprising, coming from the American Diatetic Assn. They, along with such agencies as the American Diabetes Association, are vocal proponents of low-fat, high-carbohydrate, "healthy whole grain" diets--you know, the diets that make us fat and diabetic.)

Ms. Frechman is correct: Having someone engage in a period of fasting, no matter how brief, when the diet leading up to the fast is filled with "healthy whole grains" and other carbohydrates will result in painful hunger that eventually overcomes any effort. A period of overeating typically follows the aborted attempt.

Fasting cannot work as long as the 2-hour cycle of hunger continues. The first step: Eliminate the 2-hour cycle of hunger by dramatically reducing or eliminating carbohydrates. Our preferred method is to eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars. (Just be aware of wheat withdrawal, the fatigue that develops in the first 5 days after wheat elimination that affects up to 30% of people.)

Once wheat, cornstarch, and sugars are eliminated, hunger reverts to that of physiologic need--appetite will be smaller and less intense, since it is driven by your body's needs, not by abnormal stimulation from wheat, cornstarch, and sugar. The fear of not having food dissolves, the 2-hour cycle of mental fogginess, fatigue, and hunger will be gone.

Intermittent fasting is a wonderful strategy for reducing weight; gaining control over lipids, lipoproteins, and coronary plaque; regaining appreciation for food; reducing appetite. But it's not even worth trying unless you've already eliminated the unnatural appetite triggers that will booby-trap any fasting effort.

Test your own thyroid

134 people responded to the latest Heart Scan Blog poll:


When I ask my doctor to test my thyroid, he/she:

Accommodates me without question 45 (33%)

Questions why, but orders the tests 49 (36%)

Refuses because you seem "healthy" 20 (14%)

Refuses without explanation 4 (2%)

Ridicules your request 16 (11%)



That's better than I anticipated: 69% of physicians complied with this small request. After all, you're not asking for major surgery. You're just asking for a very basic test, as basic as a blood count or electrolytes. 36% of respondents said that their doctor asked why, but still complied; this is simply practicing good medicine--If there is a problem, your doctor would like to know about it.

However, the remainder--31%--were refused in one way or another. Incredibly, 11% were ridiculed.

Although this was not asked in the poll, I believe that it is a safe assumption that you asked with good reason: you're abnormally fatigued, you have been gaining weight for no apparent reason or can't lose weight despite substantial effort, or you feel cold at inappropriate times.

Let's say you're tired. Ever since last summer, you've suffered a gradual decline in energy.

So you ask your doctor to assess your thyroid. He refuses. "You're just fine! There's nothing wrong with you."

You disagree. In fact, you are quite convinced that there is something physically wrong. What do you do?

You could:

--Drink more coffee
--Exercise more in the hopes that it will snap you out of your lethargy
--Sleep more
--Take stimulants of various sorts

Or, you could get your thyroid assessed and settle the issue. But how can you get this done when your doctor won't accommodate you, even though you have perfectly fine health insurance and are simply interested in feeling better and preserving your health?

You could test your thyroid yourself. This is why we're making self-testing kits available. Test kits are available here.

This is yet another facet of the powerful revolution that is emerging: Self-directed health.

Trains, planes, and heart scans

A Heart Scan Blog reader posted the following question:

It is not clear to me why getting a cardiac scan is the necessary first step, if in fact the next step would be to bring down small LDL particles which is revealed on a NMR lipoprofile or VAP test. Why isn't the NMR or VAP test the first thing?

Good question. Think of it this way:

Lipoproteins, as measured via VAP (Vertical Auto Profile) or NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), provide a snapshot of risk from a metabolic viewpoint at that moment. Lipoproteins shift with the tides of age, menopause, weight changes, even what you ate last evening for dinner (especially small LDL). There are also other factors that cause coronary plaque, as well, not revealed through lipoprotein testing, such as vitamin D deficiency, smoking, high blood pressure, phosopholipase A2, lipoprotein(a), inflammatory factors, thyroid dysfunction, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, etc.

A heart scan, providing a coronary calcium score, provides an indirect measure of coronary plaque that is the sum total of lipoprotein and other plaque-causing factors that have accumulated up to the time of your scan--regardless of the cause.

It means that two females, each 60 years old, with 70% small LDL, HDL 42 mg/dl, triglycerides 150 mg/dl, and mild hypertension, have identical markers for potential coronary risk, but can have widely different heart scan scores. One might have a score of zero, while the other might have a score of 300.

Why would the same panel of causes measured at one moment yield wildly different quantities of plaque? Several reasons:

1) The lifestyles, eating habits, and weight of each woman differed during their earlier years, not currently reflected in this moment's lipid or lipoprotein patterns. Perhpaps one experienced several years of extraordinary stress from a failed marriage, or suffered through two years of depression that caused her to smoke and overeat.

2) There are hidden factors that affect coronary plaque growth that we are presently not able to detect, e.g., vitamin D receptor genotype, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein variants, variation in inflammatory factors. If we can't measure it, we won't know whether it might influence coronary plaque risk.


With all the changes that occur over a person's life, with the uncertainties of yet-to-be-identified causes for coronary plaque, how can you possible know what your risk for heart disease truly is? Yup--a heart scan. Do it and you will know.

D2 and D3 are two different things

Helena posted this instructive comment in response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Weight loss and vitamin D. It illustrates the confusion common among physicians and pharmacists on the differences between D2 and D3.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)

Not many weeks ago a colleague of mine (let’s call him Eric) asked me if I knew the difference between D2 and D3 and I told Eric that D2 comes from irradiated mushrooms and D3 comes from wool. In other words, D3 is the same kind of vitamin as humans get from the sun. Humans just don’t get enough and we can’t produce it on our own, like the sheep can. (D3 is natural for humans, D2 is not.)

After telling Eric this, he asked me how he would know what he is taking and I gave him the medical definitions of them both (D2 = Ergocalciferol; D3 = Cholecaliciferol). Since I was aware that he had gotten his Vitamin D by prescription, I told him “I am 99.9% sure that you are taking D2, but I would be thrilled to find out I am wrong.”

Eric called his pharmacy right away and got the answer I was expecting: ergocalciferol. On confronting the person Eric was talking to, the answer he got back was that Ergocalciferol is the only Vitamin D they are giving out.

A week later, Eric had a new appointment with his doctor and decided to ask him about the D2/D3 issue. The doctor said he knew that there was a difference in them both, but could not say what, not even the basic facts I mentioned above. But the doctor stamped a post-it with what he had sent to the pharmacy just to show Eric. “Vitamin D3; 50,000IU tab” is what the stamp said.

Eric, off course, got confused and was starting to believe that the pharmacy had made a mistake by giving him Ergocalciferol (D2) since the doctor had given him D3, or at least that is what was stamped on the little note he had.

Today, after getting a refill of his Vitamin D he also got and kept all his paperwork that came along with it. Still believing that stamp the doctor had given Eric earlier, he asked me to double and triple check that my definition of D2 and D3 was correct. I did, just for my own sanity, and I was still right.

One of the sheets Eric brought me today was the “Patient Education Monograph” sheet stating the drugs and how to use it and so on. The thing that jumped out the most to me was this:

Generic Name: Vitamin D – Oral
Common Brand name(s): Drisdol, Maximum D3
Identification: PA140 Green Oval Capsule

This is the Drug Eric was given: Vitamin D 1.25 MG softgel; Generic name: Ergocalciferol

My researching mind went into high concentration mood and I started to dig. And this is what I found:

The brand name Drisdol is Ergocalciferol (D2), not D3. The Brand name Maximum D3 seems to be hard to find out there in cyber space as a brand name. But the ones I found that were called Maximum D3 seems to be the real stuff, however none of them required a prescription.

When trying to find out through the identification number on the pills (PA140) I now know for sure that Eric is taking Vitamin D2 and not the preferred Vitamin D3. The brand name, Drisdol, had the identification W on one side and D92 on the other, but it is still Ergocalciferol.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the medical industry does not know or care about the difference in D2 and D3 – it is all same to them. And as long as the pharmacies only give out D2 it does not matter what the doctor prescribe anyway.

I know that people are most likely to be prescribed a D2 pill than to be told to buy over-the-counter D3. But it was almost heart breaking to see the letter D and number 3 right next to the drug Drisdol, as we know is a D2 vitamin. It just didn’t make sense to me that they can be labeled as the same type of medication, when we know it is not!



Incredible.

Why prescribe plant form D2 when you can get perfectly reliable, safe, effective D3--the human form, at the health food store for about $6?

Once again, it's the peculiar false bias of physicians and pharmacists: If it's prescription, it must be good; if it comes from a health food store, it must be bogus.

Humans need human vitamin D. Plain and simple.

For more on the D2 vs. D3 issue, see the Heart Scan Post, The case against vitamin D2.

Weight loss: Different causes, different solutions

Heart Scan Blog reader, Kris, related this enlightening story of weight loss (slightly edited for clarity).

Kris learned that excess weight is gained through multiple causes. The solutions are therefore multiple, not just one change in diet or two.


I started studying about my thyroid issue much earlier and did lose some weight. But ever since I started following Dr. Davis’s blog, it has given me confidence that I was on the right track. I did have my thyroid and iodine figured out from other sources, but Dr. Davis helped me to understand the issues with not only the thyroid but vitamin D3, fructose, fish oil, niacin, wheat etc. I have lost 43lb in last 14 months.

It seems to me that there are certain percentages of weight connected with different issues. For example, after I gave up alcohol and sugar, I lost about 14lbs from total weight of 243lbs, weight came down to about 229lb. Then it stopped at 229lb, even though I was in the gym almost 5 to 6 days a week with full workouts.

After I changed my thyroid medication to natural thyroid hormones (took synthetic T4 for over 10 years), the weight dropped down further 13lbs or so in matter of few days, shape of the face changed from moon shape/double chin to ordinary long face. Then it kind of stopped at around 213-216 lbs.

After giving up wheat, reducing carbs, increasing protein intake (whey protein, chicken etc. no soya, no fructose) the weight came down another 14lbs. Now it is around 200-202lbs and I am over 6.2 tall with heavy set of bones.

I feel better than I have ever in my life. More stamina, more clarity/no fog, more confidence and 99% of the time relaxed and being able to see the situation from multiple angles.

I use to be able to drink a liter or more jack denial without a problem in one evening but now can’t stand half a can of beer (I miss JD). Drinking alcohol makes me sick. I sleep well and if I wake up in the middle of the night, I have no problem going back to sleep. No more out of breath stair climbing at all.

One other thing: I used to be the most attractive meal to the mosquitoes, but not anymore. This year I haven’t been bitten once. I take my dog to the park everyday and I do not use any mosquito repellent, what a relief. I don’t know if it is because of thyroid, iodine, wheat or something else. Skin texture has changed dramatically. I do not use full soap or shampoo, 20% borax, 10 percent of my soap or shampoo for scent and rest water, mixed in a 500ml bottle. No more dandruff, dry skin, pimples for me.

Dr. Davis I am thankful to people like you who have the ability to see beyond what you have been taught and have the guts to say the way it is. Most of us work to make living on daily basis but some make their living while spreading their knowledge to save lives. Dr Davis you are one of those few people. Please keep it going.

Calling all losers!

I'd like to invite anyone who has followed the Track Your Plaque Break the Weight Barrier program to consider posting their stories and photos on the Heart Scan Blog.

Because our focus is prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, we have not made an effort to catalog the weight loss experience that people have while on the program. For many, weight loss has been substantial. (Several people this week alone have reported weight loss of 9 to 46 lbs in the past 6 months.)

It would be helpful to hear and see these results.

For those of you who don't mind having a story and photo on this Blog, please come back in future to post your results. You will find this post by entering "weight loss" into the site-specific search bar at the top of the page.

Weight loss and vitamin D

At the start of her program, Penny's 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level showed the usual deficiency at 22 ng/ml.

She supplemented with 8000 units of vitamin D. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level several months later showed a level of 67.8 ng/ml, right on target.

But Penny also began our diet, including the elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, and, over 6 months, lost 34 lbs.

Now a much trimmer 146 lbs (still more to go!), another vitamin D blood level: 111 ng/ml.

Penny's weight loss means that the vitamin D is distributed in a smaller total volume, particularly a lower volume of fat.

This is a common phenomenon with substantial weight loss: lose weight and the need for vitamin D is reduced. The reduction in dose is roughly proportion to the weight lost. Vitamin D should therefore be reassessed with any substantial change in weight of, say, 10 lbs or more, either up or down, because of the influence of fat on vitamin D blood levels.

Some references on this effect:

Men and women over age 65:
Adiposity in relation to vitamin D status and parathyroid hormone levels: a population-based study in older men and women.

Obese women:
Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations in obese women: their clinical significance and relationship with anthropometric and body composition variables

Obese children:
Hypovitaminosis D in obese children and adolescents: relationship with adiposity, insulin sensitivity, ethnicity, and season.

African-Americans:
Relationship of vitamin D and parathyroid hormone to obesity and body composition in African Americans.

Although the bulk of the effect is most likely due to sequestration by fatty tissue, perhaps less sun exposure in obese people also contributes:
Body mass index determines sunbathing habits: implications on vitamin D levels.
Supermarkets and buggy whips

Supermarkets and buggy whips

Will supermarkets eventually phase out, joining the history books as a phenomenon of the past? Or are supermarkets here to stay, an emblem of the industrialization of our food--easy access to foods that are convenient, suit the undiscriminating masses, stripped of nutritional value despite the prominent health claim on the package front?

Anna left an insightful comment on the last Heart Scan Blog post, Sterols should be outlawed, along with some useful advice on how to avoid this trap for poor health called a supermarket:


I rarely shop in regular supermarkets anymore (farm subscription for veggies, meat bought in bulk for the freezer, eggs from a local individual, fish from a fish market, freshly roasted coffee from a local coffee place, etc.). What little else I need comes from quirky Trader Joe's (dark chocolate!), the fish market, farmer's markets, a small natural foods store, or mail order.

When I do need to go into one of the many huge supermarkets near me, not being a regular shopper there, I never know where anything is, so I have to ramble a bit around the aisles before I find what I'm looking for (and I almost always can grab a hand basket, instead of a trolley cart).

It's almost like being on another planet! There's always so many new products (most of them I hesitate to even call food). It's really a shock to the senses now to see how much stuff supermarkets sell that I wouldn't even pick up to read the label, let alone put in a cart or want to taste. I'm not even tempted by 99% of the tasting samples handed out by the sweet senior ladies in at Costco anymore (only thing I remember tasting at Costco in at least 6 mos was the Kerrygold Irish cheese, because I know their cows have pasture access and it's real food).

What's really shocking to me is how large some sections of the markets have become in recent years. While Americans got larger, so did some sections of the supermarket (hint - good idea to limit the consumption of products from those areas). Meat and seafood counters have shrunk, though. Produce areas seem to be about the same size as always (but more of it is pre-prepped and RTE in packaging.

But the chilled juice section is h-u-g-e! And no, I don't think there is a Florida orange grove behind the cases. Come on, how much juice do people need? Juice glasses used to be teeny tiny, for a good reason. To me it looks like a long wall stocked full of sugar water. Avoiding that section will put a nice dent in the grocery expenses.

The yogurt case is also e-n-o-r-m-o-u-s! Your 115 yo Bulgarian "grandmother" wouldn't know what to make of all these "pseudo-yogurts"! Chock full of every possible variety, but very little fit to eat. The only yogurts I'll look at are made with plain whole milk, without added gums, emulsifiers, or non-fat milk solids, and live cultures (I mostly buy yogurt now and then to refresh my starter culture at home). I can flavor them at home if needed. The sterols are showing up in processed yogurts, too, along with patented new strains of probiotic cultures (I'll stick to my old fashioned, but time-proven homemade lacto-cultured veggies and yogurt instead).

I found the same "cooler spread" in the butter & "spread" section. The spread options were just grotesque sounding. Actually, the butter options weren't much better, as many were blended with other ingredients to increase spreadability, reduce calories or cholesterol/saturated fat, etc. A few plain butters were enhanced with "butter flavor" - say what? And on no package could it be determined if the butter came from cows that were naturally fed on pasture or on grain in confined pens.



Well said, Anna.

There's a huge supermarket about 1 mile away from my house similar to the one Anna describes with aisle after aisle of eye-catching cellophane-wrapped foods. I go there about every 3 or 4 months, and then I only go to get something I need in a pinch. Every time I go, I too am reminded just how many products there are that look more like junk food than real food.

But there's no real money in real food. Who gets rich off of selling green peppers, tomatoes, and eggs?

Supermarkets sell these modern industrial foods because people buy it: Look around you. You don't get to be a 250 lb 5 ft 2 inch-woman by eating too many cucumbers.

Like Anna, I drive an additional several miles to Trader Joes', buy at farmers' markets whenever possible, buy some odds and ends like wine and cheese and raw nuts at specialty stores. I grow my own basil in a big pot I keep in the kitchen and we are just about to start turning over the soil in the back yard for our vegetable garden. I don't need nor do I miss having the choice among 40 different chips, 25 brands of ready-made microwavable dinners, an entire aisle of breakfast cereasl (all of which are virtually the same with different names and labels), or 75 varieties of salad dressing.

The supermarket for me--and I hope for many of you--has become a place rarely frequented, and only for the odd forgotten item. Oh, I forgot the dog chewies the grocery does have--my dogs love them. So perhaps they are good for something after all.

Comments (17) -

  • Anonymous

    3/17/2009 1:15:00 PM |

    A nice thought, to demodernize and go back to the days of a different shop and source for every grocery item, but even when trying to live clean, supermarkets can still win out budget-wise during these troubled times.  I'm mostly living off of frozen vegetables and lots of canned salmon etc.  The food *ideal*?  No.  But it's not trash, either.

    Don't throw out the baby with the bath water!

  • Brock Cusick

    3/17/2009 1:56:00 PM |

    The first and most important problem with grocery stores is that they're allowed to take bribes from the food vendors. That means they really work for the food vendors with the greatest degree of vertical integration, organization & bargaining leverage (e.g., Coca-Cola, Kellogs, the Florida Orange Growers Association, etc.) and not for the customers that shop the aisles.  This perverse incentive explains almost everything that's wrong with supermarkets today.

    The second biggest problem is that those same parties I mentioned above have taken control of the political process that governs nutritional disclosure, creating barriers of ignorance between "customers" at the grocery stores and truly useful information.

  • JPB

    3/17/2009 4:07:00 PM |

    Comment to Brock:  Your comment could also apply directly to the medical profession with a little editing!

  • Anonymous

    3/17/2009 5:37:00 PM |

    Anna is lucky to be able to find all these natural, organic, pasture raised produce, but some of us are not lucky enough to afford or find space for large freezers in our tiny apartment sized fridges. It's still winter here so no markets with fresh produce, no free range hens grazing in the snow and below zero temperatures. However, I do frequent the halal and polish meat markets whenever possible. We don't have a trader joe's and the 2 organic markets here may as well post a sign on the door "only millionaires can afford to shop here." Supermarkets are ok if you know what sections to shop in and what to buy. They are also starting to stock organic products like cheese made with raw milk (which is banned in Canada btw).

    Sorry about the rant but not everyone is as fortunate as others.

  • Lola

    3/17/2009 10:00:00 PM |

    Supermarkets will exist as long as there are people who are simply too busy or don't have the energy to get to all those different stores. In the old days when "main street" could still be counted on, you could go to the grocer, butcher, fishmonger, baker etc all within a short distance of each other. Now you often have to drive, bus, walk all over town to get to them.  For most low income people, this is not an option. Working two minimum wage jobs doesn't leave much time or energy except to get in and out of a supermarket as quickly as possible. A disabled person may not even have good access to some of these places. [When my hypothyroidism was at the height of its untreated awfulness, going to more than one store in a day was unthinkable.] Bear in mind also that many low-income people live in areas where the only food stores are a crappy supermarket and fast food outlets and no other places will open because they know nobody can afford it.

    If we *really* want to improve peoples' health, then we need to work on eradicating the causes and effects of poverty. It's no good if we get an organic market to open in the ghetto or rural town if people can't afford to go there or aren't able to get there. Perhaps instead of all the food subsidies going to Big Farming, we could subsidise business owners that wanted to open in low-income areas. But somehow when the government uses money that will help the poor it's Evil Pinko Commie Welfare but when giving the same money to big business it's fine and dandy. That's why I don't think the government (and it doesn't matter whether Democrat or Republican) doesn't actually care about health despite all the bleating about obeeeeeesity.

  • baldsue

    3/17/2009 10:53:00 PM |

    Nope, I didn't slim down from size 14 to size 2 by walking the aisles of my local supermarket.  Instead I rode my bike to the farm down yonder for my fruits and veggies and I hopped into my car to drive to Trader Joes and Whole Foods for the rest of my nutrients.  And that's the way it's going to stay for me.

  • vin

    3/18/2009 10:55:00 AM |

    I buy all my fresh greens, fruits, fish and nuts from my supermarket. Frozen and canned foods are useful in the winter months.

    Rest of the food asiles are simply not interesting.

    Local green grocer's shop has usually little choice and very often unripe food.

    Just look around in the supermarket and you can find almost everything you need to stay healthy.

  • Kipper

    3/18/2009 11:35:00 AM |

    Supermarkets are to some extent what you make of them. I end up at Safeway fairly often due to my schedule, but I couldn't tell you what was in most of the interior aisles or freezer cases.

  • Anne

    3/18/2009 1:08:00 PM |

    There's no fishmongers or butchers which sell organic produce near me, and no greengrocers which sell organic produce either, nor farmer's markets, but I hardly ever set foot in a supermarket ! Instead I shop online in the comfort of my living room from them ! I buy organic meat, fish, fruit and veggies, tea and coffee, and household items, from my supermarket, but because I buy online I don't have to pass shelves and shelves of junk food and get a headache from the bad atmosphere there. The prices are the same whether online or in store and there's no delivery charge because I get my shopping mid week - it's a fantastic deal which saves stress, time and money Smile

    Anne

  • Anonymous

    3/18/2009 2:37:00 PM |

    Good points made in the above comments!

    I would LOVE a Trader Joe's or a farmers market, or even a Whole Foods market in my area... they aren't here in the suburbs where I live... all are 20 miles away in the city, or simply non-existent here.

    It just doesn't make sense to drive that far for my food (utilizing some of the outlets quoted by Dr. Davis in his blog post), and only patronizing some of these type outlets frankly sounds a bit elitist... and quite expensive, too.

    Rather, the commitment to good health requires some resourcefulness... I'm into figuring out what I CAN healthfully eat from Randall's (Safeway), Kroger, H*E*B, and Costco... stores reasonably close.  I'm into planting my own fresh herbs, and a small "victory" garden of vegetables we enjoy... it's fun, challenging, and good exercise, too.

    But I am fortunate... I have a generous food budget, I live in a reasonably populated area, with excellent weather and growing conditions most of the year, and access to fresh produce and quality supermarket foods year round.  Just mostly stay away from the center of the supermarket, be knowledgeable and selective while there, and you will be fine... that's my advice... oh, and if people don't continue to buy junk, the "supers" won't be stocking it for very long.

    madcook

  • Gretchen

    3/18/2009 3:24:00 PM |

    I agree with some others that not everyone can afford to shop at upscale organic markets. Not everyone has access to locally produced farm produce.

    We have to work with what's available, and unfortunately, the people who need the most help nutritionally are the ones who can't afford fresh food.

    We need to educate people about how to find better food at a supermarket.

  • scall0way

    3/18/2009 3:47:00 PM |

    OK, I shop at a supermarket! But I'm mostly a "perimeter shopper" - produce, dairy, meats, etc. But it's convenient because I can buy things like paper goods, detergents, light bulbs, all those other non-food items that supermarkets carry. The place is only a little over a mile from my house. I save on gas and energy. I do love the local farmer's market - but it's only open June-November. I do love Trader Joe's - but there are none nearby. It's a haul to get to one, so I limit my trips. I love Whole Foods, but it's too expensive other than for certain special items.

    But I would not even give my *dogs* food or treats from a supermarket. We get our food and treats from a pet store whose philosophy gibes pretty well with my own. Founded to: "provide our customers with the healthiest foods, best products and highest quality of pet-animals ever assembled in one store...We believe that animals should eat what nature intended them to eat, along with a variety of natural supplements."

    LOL, not only is my own health better these days, but so is the health of my pets. Smile

  • Monica

    3/19/2009 8:44:00 PM |

    Pet snacks from the supermarket?!  Smile

    OK, I have to admit that made my eyebrows go up.  I happened upon healthy eating for myself by first figuring out what was healthy for my pets when the pet food scare happened a few years ago.  I doubt dog chewies contain melamine, and perhaps they aren't a routine in many households, but they're not an evolutionarily appropriate food for dogs.  The only pet snacks I get at the supermarket are the big chunks of raw meat that get thrown to my dog and cats daily... the food they were designed to eat.  (I can almost hear people exclaim how expensive this is but it's way cheaper because the meals themselves are treats because they take 15-30 minutes to eat.)

    90% of the stuff in the grocery store isn't fit for human consumption, that's true.  However, it's still very handy for many things.  You can completely avoid the unhealthy stuff with a little effort.  That's not even remotely possible in the pet aisle in which every single product is a derivative piece of frankenfood.  

    Throw your dog or cat a raw meaty bone and some organ meats now and then.  They will thank you with good health once they have been getting real food long enough.  You will never need a $300 tooth cleaning at the vet, that is for sure.

  • Rob

    3/19/2009 9:30:00 PM |

    From what I have seen of TJ's and Whole Foods, you can do yourself a lot of the same harm in the center of these stores as the local MegaMart.   Stick to the outsides no matter which store you shop in.  Although! I will say that I recognize most of the ingredients in JT's inner aisle food, not so true of the supermarket! And I like the sardines at TJ's.

  • Anna

    3/21/2009 7:48:00 AM |

    Great comments, everyone.  Yes, it's true, we all have different circumstances, different locations and climates, different food budgets, and different ways of coping with our food sourcing options.   The most important thing is to find what works best with the resources/options one has (assuming one knows all the resources).  But so many don't even ever consider looking "outside the box" or think about how to do it without relying on a supermarket.  I am continually amazed at how many terrific resources are out there, not just here in So Cal, but in many communities, practically in people's own backyards, but they don't know about it or take advantage.

    Even the 99 cents store has some good options, if one can avoid the minefields of cheap sugars, starches and processed foods.  That's were I go to shop for  my donations to the local food pantry, where they mainly want non-perishables in unbreakable packaging.  I buy canned and pouched salmon, sardines, and tuna there, because I know so few complete protein foods are donated.  

    I do think it's possible to eat pretty well from a supermarket *if* one is disciplined, truly informed and willing to forgo convenience for real food, but there are so many hazards at the supermarket that many can't easily avoid or don't know to avoid (especially if they are paying attention to mass media nutrition advice).  I'm sure it didn't save me any time to shop there way back when and it certainly wasn't very enjoyable.  I know I spent more money there for food that wasn't as good for us (I was too easily tempted and distracted too often), despite ironically trying very hard to pinch pennies with coupons, sale circulars, buyer's cards, and shopping around.  

    We *are* fortunate with our mild local climate and long growing season, but I know people in Madison, WI and upstate NY who have great produce from their CSAs, too, just in a shorter time frame (though many practice traditional food storage methods, like root cellaring and lacto-fermentation to extend the harvest).  Some CSAs allow for a trade of labor instead of payment, too.  My neighbor and I take turns on pickups for our biweekly CSA boxes, so I only have to make a 14 minute (round trip) drive once a month for most of my produce, a huge timesaver (I do understand there are transport issues for some people and I know I'm fortunate to have a car, but I *could* (but don't very often) ride a bike to get my food at stores or the CSA spot, too - I have two shopping baskets that easily detach from the rear rack).  My CSA pickup point is in the other direction of the stores, but only a tiny bit farther and in a somewhat rural, natural part of town, far more pleasant than the long cashier lines, parking lots,  and stop-& go traffic hazards near the stores.

    I'm probably going to host a new pickup point next quarter at my house, so now our community will then have east, west, *and* a central pickup location, making this CSA even more convenient for more people who want to join (there's a waiting list).  The CSA can to expand from 1500 to 2000 members if they add some new pickup spots.  New CSAs with slightly different membership models have started up in recent years offering even more choices for people, too.

    But is it more expensive?  My CSA's large biweekly box costs $30 (there are two sizes, with weekly or biweekly options and any number of boxes can be canceled in advance before the start of a quarter, with 2 allowed cancelations with notice during the quarter - so it's quite flexible).  Members pay for their boxes in advance for a quarter year (though if I host a weekly pickup spot in the future, I'll get a box for free); I think $15 a week for the generous amount of high quality, just picked produce is *very* competitive with any store of any caliber in my area (except maybe the super low prices at the 99 cent store are less, but even then it would be close in cost; the variety and quality of the 99 cent store produce doesn't even come close).  I know people who spend that much or more on a delivery pizza or takeout for one meal for their family (or dvd rentals for the weekend).  I think I could only do better if I grew it all myself (instead, I put my edible gardening efforts into "special" crops or lazy things like bananas, fig and citrus trees).

    We love eggs and consume a lot each week in many varied dishes.   The eggs I buy via my neighbor's co-worker are $1 cheaper per doz than the eggs I would buy in the store(thankfully my neighbor doesn't mind transporting several doz eggs once a week to me).   Prior to that, I had a "backyard" egg source that was even cheaper (half the store price), *and*  (maybe this is the elitist aspect) they delivered them to a cooler on my front porch because they were already delivering meat, eggs, and goat milk to a local alternative health institute (until the couple split up and ended their "backyard" farm business).  

    One of the few places I do get take-out now and then is the local, family owned (non-franchise) rotisserie chicken place.  I make salad and veggie sides at home, though.  Great chicken using marinade  ingredients I might use at home if I were roasting the chicken;  5 quarters (an extra leg) when you buy a whole chicken for $10 (it's the only thing I buy there, our family of three can eat off it for at least 2 meals, plus soup, and it doesn't have the chemical injections that the cheaper grocery store rotisserie chickens contain).   I watch other families spend $20-30 for a single meal every time I go there.  I often ask for 5 pieces to be legs because I know they always have lots legs (and they have more flavor and moisture), since nearly everyone else requests the "healthy" chicken breast combos.  Sometimes they have extra cooked whole chickens in their cooler for $4 (from earlier in the day or the night before), so I always get one or two extra when available.  And the old guy at the counter is always happy to make up a huge container of wings, backs, and meaty scraps for me, for my chicken broth; it makes really great mineral-rich flavorful broth.   So I have a cheap streak that wants to eke out everything but the cluck Wink.  I know families that throw away more food than my family eats.

    So clearly, I don't think putting a priority on wholesome unconventionally sourced food is necessarily really expensive, nor is it "elitist" at all  - we don't drive fancy cars and make other decisions that allow eating good food easier (both my husband and I grew up in families where money was quite scarce for significant periods of time, but both our mothers were extremely resourceful when it came to nourishing, economical food - so we are *very* mindful of how fortunate we are).  The  "elitism" charge that often comes up in food issue discussions distracts from the real issues.  I'm not suggesting there aren't considerable barriers to eating well for some people, there are, and some are very hard to overcome.  I donate regularly to the local food pantry and am very aware of local "food insecurity" issues, which of course have worsened  lately.  I'm also aware of how difficult it is to get fresh, nutrient dense food into the hands of those most needing it.

    But not everyone is in that sort of position, and some non-supermarket options can sometimes actually work better for people with difficulties sourcing good food, though of course, that will vary to situation to situation.  I'm just suggesting that it can be worth looking for alternatives; there *are* other options "outside the box" in many, if not most places; it sometimes just takes the desire and creativity to find and access them.  And sometimes it requires shifting priorities, which can be hard to do (especially if lacking support from significant others).  Believe me, my husband and I have shifted some of our priorities (financial as well as lifestyle considerations) to accommodate good food (and sitting down to meals together most nights) being high on our list of priorities.  We want to eat well, but that doesn't necessarily mean extravagantly.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/21/2009 5:55:00 PM |

    Thanks for the well-thought out description of your experience, Anna.

  • Trinkwasser

    3/21/2009 7:50:00 PM |

    A big AMEN!!! from over here. I treat most of the supermarket as a toxic waste dump. Mother likes it because it's cheap and the floor is level. The rest of the town is on a hill and she has difficulty with hills so I get the rest of the stuff from the local shops.

    Mind you, the Organic Shop is something of a toxic waste dump too if you're trying to avoid carbs. And the supermarket is better than many others I've used in the past (Co-Op), they have Fairtrade stuff and the veggies aren't that bad. When I worked full time it was nearly as good as shopping around, you traded quality for convenience to a degree but you need discipline to work one properly.

    Can't beat locally grown meat, fish and veggies for quality though and sometimes they're not that much more expensive and occasionally cheaper, plus the money goes to local businesses rather than to anonymous shareholders: don't forget that supermarkets get their low prices by screwing their suppliers.

Loading