Fish oil is the snake oil of the 21st century.  Dr. Ornish has it right on that score, and adding the empty calories of any "fat," including fish oil is counterproductive.  There is nothing to be gained health wise from excess fat, which is the primary source of most chronic diseases.  Try your 30% fat calorie diet on a professional athlete and watch his endurance decline.  The nutritional recomendations of the Olympic committee is MAX 10% calories from fat.  Get OFF the program!

I strongly disagree. We use fish oil to correct triglycerides, among other patterns. Triglycerides are raised substantially by an Ornish-like program. In other words, they exert opposite effects.

Attitude--it's half the battle, isn't it? Great post.

He seems to be in denial. I'm sure that he is not following your guidelines, so no improvement in his health will occur.

When I read about Hank I thought "he could be related!"  Many relatives on my mom’s side of the family are similar to him.  They naturally find faults with situations, other people, and are world class deniers.  They are pretty miserable to be around, to me, for any length of time.  

My family is a real contrast in that my father’s side of the family is the opposite from moms.  They are eternal optimists.  They tend to see positives in most things.  

When it was learned that I had a high calcium score on my heart scan, responses received were as expected.   Relatives on mom’s side called to say - "doctors don't know what they are doing", "eat what you want", "those test scores don't mean anything." etc.  Fathers side of the family has been supportive - with my father going so far as to join me on the TYP diet and supplements.  He didn't have to but he wanted to know what it is like to take fish oil, the niacin flush, and to eat like a cave man.    

Almost everyone who is older on mom’s side of the family, died of heart disease, has heart disease or experienced a stroke.  I want to say to them, why not try something different - like the ideas presented in the TYP book?  What has been tried in the past did not work so well, why not be open to new ideas?  But I know what ever I say will go in one ear and out the other.  They know they know and can not be persuaded other wise.  Being grizzled pessimists is in their blood, I believe.  

I'm glad that I take after my father’s personality.

Dr Davis,

I am not a doctor by profession but an engineer. I am really frustrated in trying to get to the bottom of things in the medical field. It is quite vexing when I cant decide if something is a safe practice or not. Would you please help me (and perhaps many other) understand how I can take oil-based Vitamin D without worrying about Vitamin A levels as well? Should I worry about taking Cod Liver Oil based preparations with questionable manufacturing practices which seems to include filtering to remove the Vitamin D and then adding synthetic form at the end?

If you could get into some details, it would be very helpful.

Regards,

Anonymous, you could take fish oil instead of cod liver oil for the omega-3 and take vitamin D as D3 in softgel form.

Vitamin A can be supplemented by providing its precursors like alpha-carotene, astaxanthin, beta-carotene, cryptoxanthin, lutein, lycopene, and zeaxanthin. Supplying precursors will let your body decide how much vitamin A to make out of it. Supplying preformed retinol bypasses the body's control systems.

Cannell et al recommended an D:A ratio of about 6:1 in IU terms ("Cod Liver Oil, Vitamin A Toxicity, Frequent Respiratory Infections, and the Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic", a commentary piece in Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 117(11):864-870, on page 866, third paragraph).

Maybe it's best to avoid retinol and make sure you get enough A precursors.

StephenB

The yam based forms of Estrogen have a much better safety profile than the others on the market. In fact,the worst reaction I've ever had to a hormone was to a supposedly "bioidentical" estrogens from a compounding pharmacy.

The problem with anabolic steroids apply to bioidentical testosterone supplements too. Too much testosterone is bad for your body.

Does this mean that Benecol is not good to use in lowering cholesterol?

The bit that I find most disturbing in this post is the bit on sterols. Many authorities advise us to use phytosterols or stanols to lower cholesterol. I did find one article on PubMed a while ago (but can't refind it now) suggesting that, since the structure of phytosterols is similar to cholesterol, using them to replace cholesterol shouldn't just be assumed to be a safe thing to do. Do you have any more data or links on this issue?

I came across this post by Dr Michael Holick whom I respect, and naturally all readers here respect your findings from the front line in Milwaukee. There appear to be some differences in interpretation.
*********
Vitamin D2 vs. D3
Vitamindhealth.org
Posted by mfholick on November 27, 2008 under Vitamin D |  
**********
Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 Are They Equally Potent?

During the past several years, there have been two studies Trang et al, (Am J Clin Nutr 68:854-858, 1998); and Armas et al, (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:5387-91; 2004) that have raised questions about whether vitamin D2, which is found in some supplements, used in some fortified foods and is the pharmaceutical form of vitamin D that doctors prescribe for their patients, is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining a person’s vitamin D status, i.e., blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  Trang et al 1998 gave healthy adults 4,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 in alcohol for two weeks.   A comparison of the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D after two weeks revealed that there was approximately a 50% difference in the group receiving vitamin D3 (being approximately 50% higher) than the vitamin D2 group.  This implied that vitamin D3 was more effective than vitamin D2 in maintaining circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  Armas et al 2004 gave a single 50,000 IU dose of either vitamin D2 or 50,000 IU dose of vitamin D3 to healthy volunteers during the summer and observed that the group who received vitamin D2 had a more rapid drop in their circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  They also observed that the group that received vitamin D2 had a more rapid drop in their blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 compared to the placebo group suggesting that vitamin D2 was not only less effective than vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, but also that vitamin D2 increased the destruction of vitamin D3.

Based on these observations, physicians, health care professionals and patients have made an effort to find vitamin D supplements that contain vitamin D3.  However, in the United States, only vitamin D2 is available as a pharmaceutical preparation, and, thus, patients who are vitamin D deficient and treated by their physicians receive vitamin D2.  I treat vitamin D deficiency with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 once a week for eight weeks.  To prevent vitamin D deficiency from recurring, I then put the patient on 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 every two weeks forever.  From my experience of over 100 patients on this regime for up to six years, their blood levels are sustained above 30 ng/ml which is considered to be the vitamin D sufficient range.  On average, the blood level was between 40-50 ng/ml.  Furthermore, an evaluation of their blood calcium, a measure of whether ingesting vitamin D2 at these levels, had caused any toxicity did not change.  Therefore, this regime was effective in maintaining my patients’ vitamin D status without causing any untoward toxicity.

To determine whether vitamin D2 was as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a study was conducted whereby healthy adults received either 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 in a capsule once a day in the winter for 11 weeks.  In addition, one group received a placebo capsule and one group received a capsule that contained 500 IU of vitamin D2 and 500 IU of vitamin D3 daily for 11 weeks.  Blood levels of both 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 were determined by state of the art method using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy.  Holick et al, (Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, J Clin Endocrinol Metab  93:677-681, 2008;) reported that the blood levels of 25-hydroxvitamin D rose to the same degree in the healthy adults who took either 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 a day or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day for 11 weeks.  The group that received vitamin D2 also had their blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 measured.  There was no significant drop in the blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3.  To determine whether the mixture of vitamin D2 with vitamin D3 would alter the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the adults who received 500 units of vitamin D2 with 500 units of vitamin D3 also raised their total blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in an almost an identical manner as the adults who received 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day for 11 weeks.  The authors concluded that ingesting 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day during the winter (at a time when sun exposure had no influence on blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D) that both vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 were equally effective in maintaining the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  Furthermore, vitamin D2 did not have a negative influence on serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3.  Adults who took 500 units of vitamin D2 with 500 units of vitamin D3 had similar increases in their blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D suggesting that vitamin D2 taken with vitamin D3 does not have any negative influence on the metabolism of vitamin D3.  

The authors reviewed in their Conclusion several studies that had previously reported that vitamin D2 was as biologically effective as vitamin D3 in both pregnant women and in healthy adults.  This study confirms these observations and adds to the body of scientific literature demonstrating that at least when healthy adults take 1,000 IU of vitamin D2, they can be assured that it is as effective as taking 1,000 IU of vitamin D3
************

Although this a little academic, since I have been perfectly happy with D3 for years, a resolution would be iteresting.
Any chance of an update, or a Holick interview here?
MikeV

The reduced appetite after wheat withdrawal is exactly what I'm experiencing. A very low carbs (and so very low wheat) diet is the first diet that I can stay on because I don't get hunger pangs. I'm down about 20 lbs. (10%) since finding this blog and going wheat-less.

Hmmm... I've been wheat free (grain-free, actually) for almost 3 weeks now. I started off being mildly hungry all the time, and that has faded. I wonder if that's what you're talking about there!! Terrific!

Keep the articles coming... love them.

Diana

I started just before Christmas. The first week or so was unpleasant ... hungry, groggy ... wheat withdrawal. The "no hunger pangs" showed up after that and made it possible for me to stay on this diet. It's the first time I've been able to consistently lose weight.

When I first went off wheat it took a good 3-4 weeks for the withdrawl to stop.  During that time I was ravenously hungry and ate constantly.  I know my body was just hoping I'd eventually eat some bread.  I gained probably 10 pounds, but it came back off (I don't have any other weight to lose).

Was that a study you are referencing or clinical experience?  Would love to have more details.

Biblical wheat and remote regional "landrace" wheat strains are not the same as tetra-ploid wheat we're sold. Tetraploid varieties have been grown for less than 500 years; and di-ploid varieties around for 500 to 1,000 years.

Look, I'm glad that this works for some/lots of people - but I've been doing this since before Christmas, 4 months now, and I haven't lost a pound.  My status is a good deal worse in a number of subtle and not-so-subtle respects, and frankly nothing of substance has actually improved in any way.  Recommendations of iodine supplementation were an unqualified disaster.  And I effectively have nowhere to go, now -- I'm stuck with this mode, because I have every reason to believe that going back to grain in any degree will yield uncontrollable weight gain.  I'm really not trying to be negative, but the point  has to be made, amid all the rosy predictions of magic pounds disappearing (that's just calories-in-calories-out which is supposed to be BS, according to the new Received Wisdom, no?) that this regimen doesn't work for everyone.

How is wheat different from just carbs in general? Don't they all create this problem?

"...has its very own withdrawal syndrome should you miss a 'hit.'"

If you follow the link, you'll see that this unqualified statement is based on self-selected (Dr. Davis's blog commenters) anecdotal evidence.

brec:

If you keep following those links back, you'll eventually land here:

http://www.jbc.org/content/254/7/2446.full.pdf+html

I agree. I can't stop once i start eating crackers or croissants.

In your opinion, do other grains like corn and rice have the same effect?

@Megaera

I used to eat a lot of bread. For the first four months of my grain-free and carbs-from-veggie-only life and policing my blood sugar I gained about 10lbs. My NMR profile got significantly worse, too. Dr Davis checked my APOE and it was type 4, so he told me to limit fats and changed my medications. In addition, I stopped being a vegetarian and increased the amount of lean proteins in my diet. I also changed my exercise routine according to slow-burn. Four months later - 14 lbs have been lost and NMR profile improved drastically.

I am saying it, because there is a happy path of losing weight when you stop eating wheat, but certain people may need to make an additional effort. So you need to look further.

Japanese children (290) aged 5 - 18 had MRI of brain to see if breakfast centered on white bread vs. white rice differ. The study adjusted for confounding factors.

The older white rice breakfasters showed a larger grey matter in relation to cranium volume; in some brain areas white bread eaters had more grey matter.In the youngest there was not a statistical differenece in grey matter volume between the groups.

Rice breakfasters' MRI showed more grey matter in left superior temporal gyrus, left inferior temporal gyrus,right pre-central gyrus, left superior caudate  nuclei and the bilateral caudate nuclei. Caudate volume is associated with a subset of verbal IQ ( POI component); the rice breakfasters had higher POI scoring. And in addition they had higher IQ than the bread group; IQ is associated with prefrontal and orbito-facial corteces and the cingulate gyrus.

Bread breakfasters MRI showed more grey matter in the postcentral gyrus, right precentral gyrus, right fronto- parietal orbit, and bilateral orbito-frontal corteces. Their MRI showed more white matter in
the right pre-frontal gyrus  and post-central guyrus; otherwise the two diets showed no white matter % differences between the groups.

My experience has been exactly like Steve's. Since going completely wheat-free (as well as ditching the sugar and most fruit), I'm down 15 lbs. and still losing. The best part of all is that my hypoglycemia symptoms have completely disappeared, my energy is through the roof, and I no longer get uncontrollable hunger pangs.

As Steve and 1st Anonymous point out, this approach can work for many, if not most, people with extravagant weight loss and health benefits.

However, as the frustration expressed by Meg suggests, there may be confounding factors. As Gene points out, apo E4, for instance, can modify the response. But this was not the focus of the post.

This is a blog. Each post makes a point. Don't mistake this for a one-on-one healthcare encounter.

Hi, Real Food-

I was referring to the collective experience demonstrated in gluten-elimination diets in celiac patients.

I will summarize this literature in my upcoming book from Rodale, Wheat Belly.

I've relented and switched from oats to swallowing about 1 oz of chia seed for breakfast.  The rest of the day I mainly rely on cabbage/veggie soup (no starches)...snack on roasted peanuts & boiled eggs.  Am losing weight.

Dr. Davis - I posted today about leptin resistance, and how high triglyceride levels have been implicated in stopping leptin from its normal "hunger stopping" function. Have you seen a dramatic decrease in triglycerides from those that simply refrain from wheat, without intentionally counting other carbs?

A few months ago, I read a post on this blog which suggested getting a BG meter in order to see what effect things like wheat had on BG. The results of my first meal (whole wheat pasta with red sauce, broccoli, and whole wheat toast) showed 183 at 1hr PP and 149 at 2hr! What was really surprising to me, however, was that despite the 2 hour number being as high as it was, I was still very hungry.

Based on this and subsequent tests, along with increased awareness of satiety, I've made some pretty significant changes in the types of foods I eat. Mostly, I've cut back on all the grains (even "whole grain") and added fats (I no longer believe the "low fat" recommendations).

The result is that in about 3 months I've lost roughly 15 lbs. (mostly in my belly), despite having no sense of being deprived. It doesn't hurt that my lipids have improved, as well (TC, LDL and trigs all lower).

I had been skeptical of Dr. Davis's claims about wheat at first, but I am now convinced that for me at least, wheat is not my friend.

What if that happens to me with prety much every thing. I want another almond, another egg, another piece of cheese, another wine, more chocolatte, another sushi, a bit more of meat....

I started to cut down on my bread intake about 3 years ago and am now almost completely grain free (apart from accidental consumption). I have lost over 50lb and feel like a diifferent person.

One of the biggest bonuses of cutting wheat from my diet is the improvement in my mood and temperament. I used to be quite a moody and slightly unpredictable type of personality, but now everything is calm and serene.

Quite a few scientific papers show a connection between schizophrenia and cereal intake. http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/search/label/Cereals%20and%20Schizophrenia

This may help to explain the improvement in my personality.

I've been mostly wheat-free for over a year, and have lost exactly zero pounds. I still don't eat it, since I believe there are a lot of benefits to leaving it out (all my blood-work #'s were fine before, but improved a bit more after awhile of high-fat/low carb). The biggest improvement I've seen is in my mood -- no more depression. However, I'm still 100 lbs overweight.

When wheat products are removed from the diet--without calorie restriction, without counting fat or carbohydrate grams, no exercise program, no cleansing regimen, no skipping meals . . . nothing--calorie intake drops 350 to 400 calories per day. This calorie figure remains curiously consistent across multiple studies in which wheat was eliminated.


I would be interested in one study demonstrating that just cutting wheat from the diet resulted in 350-400 cal/day spontaneous reductions in intake.  Preferably controlled for protein content by substituting other carbs for normal wheat content.  

The VLC diet studies don't count as too many variables are changed there to attribute most, if even any, of the decreased intake to reductions in wheat intake.

If wheat is addictive, and whole wheat supposedly contains more addictive substances, why don't people gravitate towards whole wheat pasta and bread and binge on
those?

For amateur epidimeologists:

per capita wheat consumption by country

CarbSane-

You stated "The VLC diet studies don't count as too many variables are changed there to attribute most, if even any, of the decreased intake to reductions in wheat intake."

Same could be said for the studies that cholesterol and fat are the sole reasons for our obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc- yes?

I also don't buy your suggestion that people don't binge on whole wheat containing foods as I've seen it countless times at bagel shops, healthy Asian noodle bowl places, pizzerias, etc. People trying to eat "Healthy" often over indulge on "healthy" pizzas, bagels, breads and pasts all while thinking they are doing eating exactly what the AHA recommends. Something that is more than likely silently killing them.

I've done all this before and all it got me was a plethora of trips to a cardiologist, anxiety, depression, bloating and countless Rx pills that did absolutely nothing. And I'm not an unhealthy guy by any means.

You may feel Dr. Davis' posts are all anecdotal and that's fine. His new Track Your Plaque book has all the evidence and studies I need to support his claims and it was the anecdotal evidence that he posts that spoke volumes to me. It was the first place I found that explained exactly what I was going thru (30 years old, extremely hypertensive, depressed, slightly overweight and angry with atherosclerosis that seriously a 30 year old should not be suffering from). From that point on I've read his book, followed his plan and have replaced all my worthless Rx's for a daily dose of VD3, Omega3 and steer clear of "Healthy" grains... and I couldn't be happier.

Of course this is my own "anecdotal" experience, that four of my previous cardiologists couldn't achieve...

In posts above I didn’t make clear that I am actively “dieting” as in “trying to lose weight”.

My diet: Two Atkins shakes for breakfast with vitamins and two more for lunch. An Atkins shake for snacks, as needed. Dinner is a leafy greens salad with vinaigrette and maybe nuts, peppers, tomatoes, cheese, minced garlic plus a meat portion and sometimes a low-carb vegetable. A 30 minute after-dinner walk with my dog most  evenings. A 15 minute walk/run some mornings before my weigh-in.

I believe the only reason I can stay on this tough diet is the “no hunger pangs” effect that I get with very-low-carbs. For example, I can have the Atkins shakes for breakfast and easily go until lunch with no cravings. To accelerate weight loss, I can even skip breakfast – no hunger pangs means I can go from dinner to lunch without cravings – I’m hungry but I can do it – I’ve done it every day this week.

I’m about 5’8”. I found this blog on Dec. 17th and I weighed 204 lbs. On Jan. 29th I weighed 189. Today, April 8th, I weighed in at 179.8! I hadn’t been in the 190s in years. The 180s? The 170s? They were just dreams to me.

I have gone off the diet; typically after multiple social events in a row. Example -- alumni social Thursday eve, extended-family dinner at a restaurant Friday eve, sports event Saturday, why-not-keep-eating Sunday. Then, I want to keep losing weight so I get back on the diet. I go through wheat-withdrawal again but now I know it’s just a temporary phase and that helps me get through it. It takes about 10 days to get back to where I was and then I keep dieting.

Disclaimers – On a tough diet like this I am weaker than normal but I can function and I put up with it because, after my initial success, I see this works & I want to lose the weight. I have a desk job so I can probably better handle the reduced energy levels than someone with a more active job. My family is supportive and we eat dinners that work with the diet. So I have intangible factors helping me.

One definition of hack is “a clever solution to a tricky problem”. To me, very-low-carbs is an empowering “hack” of my metabolism that lets me control my weight. Hallelujah!

A single variety of modern tetra-ploid wheat has 100s of different gluten proteins. This equates to 10s of thousands of variations of peptide sequences one can ingest from wheat.

The molecules formed depend on how trans-amin-dation (cross linking proteins) binds the free residues of glutamine. This potential bond is genetic for each strain of wheat, since involves the positioning of Carbon terminals (located on any of those peptides, as a proline residue). Tetra-ploid wheat has many unique proline residues that cross-link (ex: alpha gliadin) in a way that can resist our digestion.

Plasticity is a term used to describe the human brains ongoing adaptability. The nerve axons are in a outer (extra-cellular) matrix of gluco-proteins; this includes the proteo-glycan chondroitin sulfate ( glycan = poly-saccharides & oligo-saccharides; hence "glyc-").

Chondroitin sulfate's residue (wing) of N-acetyl-galactos-amine provide a place for lectins to bind to (ex: lectins most infamous  trans-amididation incarnation is the gliadin molecule, a type of glyco-protein). Thus different glyco-proteins, with unique derivative glycos-amino-glycan molecular chains are going to affect brain neurons differently.

Anti-bodies for uOR (natural opiod receptor)detected in circulation are indicative of a reaction to some lectin. This means a lectin is binding to the uOR; Doc calls this an "exorphin effect" with one end result being appetite stimulation.

Neo-striata cells in the brain work off of input from the cortex; the neo-striatum has a part called the matrix (note: here matrix is a brain structure & not to be confused with terms like extra-cellular matrix) and another part called the striosome. The matrix neo-striata gets input from the pre-frontal brain and senori-motor regions; while the striosome input is from pre-limbic, infra-limbic and pre-motor corteces.

The matrix neo-striata neuro-chemistry is  integral to behavior involved in self-initiated action, goal directed behavior, sensory integration and motor programs. During post-natal (growing child) brain development the striosome neo-striatum cells have a high degree of involvement with glyco-proteins; which may partly explain the Japan school children brain development differences due to breakfast of rice vs. bread (detailed above).

@Eric, I agree.  Don't know where I've claimed such.  Dr. Davis made a claim (and he preceded that with "When wheat products are removed from the diet--without calorie restriction, without counting fat or carbohydrate grams, no exercise program, no cleansing regimen, no skipping meals . . . nothing-").  Study?  One?  

I'm just asking for a study that demonstrates this claim.  I don't refute that a good many people could benefit from avoiding wheat.

My apologies CarbSane, I didn't mean for reply to come across as combative.

Dr. Davis may have a study that he can refer you to.

But it is a well known fact that foods that trigger a surge in blood sugar and after-meal crashing also lead to increased hunger more frequently.

Foods that lead to the surge are carbs in (either healthy or processed) grain or sugar form.

Sometimes all the anecdotal evidence should stand above the biased studies attempting to maintain the status quo. Just my .02

I reduced my CHO intake about three years ago and lost about 8 pounds in the first three months.  At about the three month point, I removed wheat and all other grains from my diet.  I have lost no additional weight since I gave up wheat.  

I would say that I have not reduced my caloric intake by 400 calories a day.

@Eric, no apology necessary, I didn't take your post as combative at all.  I just find Dr.Davis making sensationalistic claims a matter of routine lately.  I do a lot of literature searching and I've not, to my memory, ever come across one study that just looked at eliminating wheat and intake.  I'd be curious to see the results of such a study done in a well controlled manner.

In response to several commenters:

Citing studies in which calorie intake is reduced by strictly eliminating wheat while not imposing any other restrictions does not necessarily mean that this is the most healthy way to eat.

In other words, if I eliminate wheat but replace lost calories with corn chips, jelly beans, and Coca Cola, then of course I will not lose weight nor obtain health benefits beyond elimination of gluten and other undesirable ingredients in wheat.

A better approach would be to 1) eliminate wheat, then 2) reduce carbohydrates, especially cornstarch, oats, and sugar, then 3) eat other whole healthy foods.

My point is that, sans wheat, the drive for consumption is diminished for many, though not all, people.

MRI of adult brain while eating shows a response according to an individuals BMI variation. I had this as a well composed comment at WholeHealthSource, but can't retrace it; so, roughly, from my notes now.  

High BMI individuals have more brain activity in the left posterior insula, supramarginal gyrus, para-central lobule and the cerebellum's uvula/declive/tonsil structures. Cerebellum response involves how one likes the looks/smell of food; more blood flowing in the cerebellum coincides with increased appetite.

Low BMI individuals have more brain activity in the anterior insula, posterior hypothalamus, amygdala, thalamus, pons and mid-brain structures.

The Vagus nerve (dorsal) leads from our "gut" up into the pons sub-nucleus of our brains dorsal raphe. In obese individuals this link shuts down when eating. Contrary to the obese, this link is open in lean individuals when they (non-obese) are eating.

The Pons, which inputs into most of the other brain structures, shows more functioning with slower eating. In addition, stuffing with excess food in a meal slows the pons interaction with the brain.

The Amygdala, part of our limbic system, sets the emotional response to things ingested. It gets plenty of neuro-signals from the gut, and is implicated in binge eating.

The Posterior Insula recieves input from both the amygdala and hypothalamus (regulator of amount we ingest). In obese individuals both the posterior and middle insula trigger (on)into action when they see the meal; as contrasted to normal BMI individuals, where these brain structures remain unaffected when they (non-obese) see a meal.  

In obese individuals there is comparatively more dopamine activity in the neurological circuits of the hypothalamus, amygdala, mid-brain and thalamus (arousal response). So, all in all, it seems quite possible Doc's nemesis (tetra-ploid wheat's molecules) can play antagonistic roles in the brain.

But Dr. Davis, you said there are multiple studies demonstrating a similar drop in caloric intake from eliminating wheat "without calorie restriction, without counting fat or carbohydrate grams, no exercise program, no cleansing regimen, no skipping meals . . . nothing-"

Are you walking that back?  Or do such studies exist.

Hi CarbSane,
Doc's rant is about the "undesireable ingredients"
in modern wheat. If would you forgive me for sounding like a know-it-all, then, my comments show some brain responses that go beyond "x" number of calories, "x" amount of carbohydrates, "x" level of exercise and "x" amount of meals.

It is modern wheat's assorted agglutin fractions, the way they bind glycans (like chitotriose, Beta-1-4-linked N-acetyl glucosamine) and how they cleave off "rogue" metabolites that has an effect on the brain cells. These metabolites have to get inside the brain cells cytoplasm by trans-duction; they are not ions.

These "undesireable" cleaved metabolites have exposed glucosamine (GlcNAc) wings (residues) that bind to GLcNAc receptors on the cell; this fosters their trans-duction (carrying) past the cell membrane and any intervening endothelial (blood vessel wall) barriers.

The "undesireable" metabolite then out binds Lysosome C; thus normal lysosomal "housekeeping" endo-cytosis (engulfing) action is inhibited from destroying (ie: no opportunity to hydrolyse apart bonds in the metabolite) that metabolite. This gives the metabolite the time to act like a Heat Shock Protein (ie: it has
physically blocked that brain cell's usual heat shock protein ever since it locked onto that cell's GluNAc receptor); and thus, that "undesireable" metabolite can ferry (translocate) it's glycan/peptide right to the Endoplasmic Reticulum inside of that brain cell.

Once the endoplasmic reticulum
(in a brain cell) recieves an
"undesireable" peptide/glycan complex it (endoplasmic reticulum) is not able to do a
"normal" job with it; which job is to properly fold (ratchet into explicit configurations) the normal proteins the  brain cell passes to it (endoplasmic reticulum). Any alternate fold in a protein means it (protein)will react differently in the cascades it participates in.

How this translates into each of the physical alterations in specific brain structures that I mentioned is beyond my understanding. This comment is to explain one of the ways those
changes can get initiated in human brain cells by modern wheat; and also, to show our schooling on calories/carbs/ exercise/meals/cleansing misdirect us Doc insists he sees clinical results.

@Might,

I have enjoyed many of your comments; you have a keen talent in selecting and presenting information which dovetails nicely with Dr. Davis's blog entries. I found this one particularly fascinating.

Thanks!

Here is my wheat story. I have been "mostly" avoiding wheat for 3 years and when finally being diagnosed with Hashimoto's decided to go completely wheat free. My doctor suggested a gluten challenge for a definitive diagnoses of celiac or gluten intolerance.  Unfortunately, I agreed. Six weeks into the 3 month challenge I quit due to problems that began during the gluten challenge (joint pain, severe digestive distress, insomnia, adhesive capsulitis, nightsweats). Unfortunately the gluten caused some damage and I developed new food intolerances to dairy and nightshades, which have not resolved in 7 months of being grain free.

Sorry this reply comes so late! I hope you see it. May I suggest that you try magnesium oil? It's a mixture of mag chloride and water that you apply to your skin. You may be mag deficient and, if so, that could explain why you're not losing weight.