The dark side of wheat - rethinking Celiac

[jinx]

Really interesting article...
link

epigenetic and not genetic factors are primary in determining disease outcome. Even if we exclude the possibility of reversing certain monogenic diseases, the basic lesson from the post-Genomic era is that we can’t blame our DNA for causing disease. Rather, it may have more to do with what we choose to expose our DNA to.

What all of this means for CD is that the genetic susceptibility locus, HLA DQ, does not determine the exact clinical outcome of the disease. Instead of being the cause, if the HLA genes are activated, they are a consequence of the disease process. Thus, we may need to shift our epidemiological focus from viewing this as a classical “disease” involving a passive subject controlled by aberrant genes, to viewing it as an expression of a natural, protective response to the ingestion of something that the human body was not designed to consume.

If we view celiac disease not as an unhealthy response to a healthy food, but as a healthy response to an unhealthy food, classical CD symptoms like diarrhea may make more sense. Diarrhea can be the body’s way to reduce the duration of exposure to a toxin or pathogen, and villous atrophy can be the body’s way of preventing the absorption and hence, the systemic effects of chronic exposure to wheat.

I believe we would be better served by viewing the symptoms of CD as expressions of bodily intelligence rather than deviance. We must shift the focus back to the disease trigger, which is wheat itself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We must shift the focus back to the disease trigger, which is wheat itself.

It seems pretty obvious, if it bothers you, don't eat it. Is he saying it's like peanut butter, where when one kid is allergic it shouldn't be allowed in town??

[jinx]

No, he thinks more people have a problem with it than currently recognized.

Within this view celiac disease would be redefined as a protective (healthy?) response to exposure to an inappropriate substance, whereas “asymptomatic” ingestion of the grain with its concomitant “out of the intestine” and mostly silent symptoms, would be considered the unhealthy response insofar as it does not signal in an obvious and acute manner that there is a problem with consuming wheat.

[jinx]

It is this codependence that may explain why our culture has for so long consistently confined wheat intolerance to categorically distinct, “genetically-based” diseases like “celiac.” These categorizations may protect us from the realization that wheat exerts a vast number of deleterious effects on human health in the same way that “lactose intolerance” distracts attention from the deeper problems associated with the casein protein found in cow’s milk. Rather than see wheat for what it very well may be: a biologically inappropriate food source, we “blame the victim,” and look for genetic explanations for what’s wrong with small subgroups of our population who have the most obvious forms of intolerance to wheat consumption, e.g. celiac disease, dermatitis herpetiformis, etc. The medical justification for these classifications may be secondary to economic and cultural imperatives that require the inherent problems associated with wheat consumption be minimized or occluded.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I've been eating wheat, and drinking milk, my whole life without any problems I'm aware of.
Now this guys says it shouldn't be available to me because it might not be good for me, when it's only apparently a problem for, "small subgroups of our population"?
That's un-American. :p

[jinx]

without any problems I'm aware of.

There's the rub.

[skysidhe]

Is the article talking about white bread or wheat bread? As we have been told white bread ( refined wheat )is loaded with additives and even some lesser quality breads labeled wheat.

It would be obvious that some peoples systems are reactionary to it and overall not a healthy choice. ( that said I love white bread)

High quality whole grain wheat breads the closest to natural and unrefined as possible would eliminate some diseases?

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I've been eating wheat, and drinking milk, my whole life without any problems I'm aware of.

Originally Posted by jinx

There's the rub.

I convinced myself that I had a dairy intolerance.
When I read the symptoms they seemed to fit me completely.

After a couple of months I saw no difference and went back to dairy. Again - no difference. I am simply someone who has low grade nasal problems as a constant.

The only reason I wish I'd stayed away from it is that I think the dairy industry is pretty cruel, and it does seem odd for humans to consume a foodstuff meant to sustain a baby animal of a difference species.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

I am simply someone who has low grade nasal problems as a constant.

Did you try to rule out other food intolerances besides dairy? Or perhaps nail down what pollens or molds you might be allergic to? It might not be something you can do anything about after all, but I do think symptoms like that were designed to be a signal from your body that something is wrong.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

without any problems I'm aware of.

I remember awhile back you mentioned that when you were a baby, you could not tolerate your mother's breastmilk. Most likely that was actually a reaction to something she was eating. Maybe the food intolerance went away as you got older, or maybe it just became the new "normal" for your body and it stopped fighting back so hard?

[Pico and ME]

Good article Jinx. While I was following the Zone Diet, I rarely ate any wheat products ( or any other 'white foods' for that matter) and I felt great. My body gave me no problems - no headaches, no fatigue, no depression, and no diarrhea. I also didn't get colds or the flu. I am a firm believer that wheat and other grains are not good for us. However, its quite a conundrum, though, because without wheat and corn our civilization would never have expanded as much as it has. Its given us the ability to feed a lot of people.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I remember awhile back you mentioned that when you were a baby, you could not tolerate your mother's breastmilk. Most likely that was actually a reaction to something she was eating. Maybe the food intolerance went away as you got older, or maybe it just became the new "normal" for your body and it stopped fighting back so hard?

Well, she was eating what they could get on was rations, plus whatever my grandmother provided from her garden (which was about 4 acres), so who knows?

After I was 6 months, it was sweetened condensed... you know;

"I like Carnation best of all,
No tits to pull, no shit to haul.
No barns to clean, no hay to pitch,
Just punch a hole in the son of a bitch."

Then whole cow's milk ever since, and since I don't drink coffee, lots of it.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Did you try to rule out other food intolerances besides dairy? Or perhaps nail down what pollens or molds you might be allergic to? It might not be something you can do anything about after all, but I do think symptoms like that were designed to be a signal from your body that something is wrong?

I know the major cause of my sneezing and runny nose - sunlight. I have a photic sneeze reflex, and a very sensitive one at that. So I've never looked too hard for other causes. I know dust aggravates it, as does some tree pollen.

I do know that dairy intolerance is real and a misery for some people. But I really was bandwagon hopping when I allied my symptoms to theirs.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

. you know;

No, I didn't know. Nowadays I'd suspect viral marketing for that rhyme.

I always assumed that after 200,000 years of evolution as ominvores, the majority of us would have cleared up issues related to what we can safely eat. While there are still plants that are poisonous, the ones that we cultivate do not contain toxins (with the possible exception of potatoes and tomatoes*). I can understand a genetic aberration, but the idea that something that we have been eating for such a long time is unhealthy seems odd.

*

Toxicity

Potatoes contain toxic compounds known as glycoalkaloids, of which the most prevalent are solanine and chaconine. Solanine is also found in other plants in the family solanaceae, which includes such plants as the deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna), henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) and tobacco (Nicotiana) as well as the potato, eggplant and tomato. This poison affects the nervous system causing weakness and confusion.
These compounds, which protect the plant from its predators, are generally concentrated in its leaves, stems, sprouts, and fruits.[55] Exposure to light, physical damage, and age increase glycoalkaloid content within the tuber;[56] the highest concentrations occur just underneath the skin. Cooking at high temperatures (over 170 °C or 340 °F) partly destroys these. The concentration of glycoalkaloid in wild potatoes suffices to produce toxic effects in humans. Glycoalkaloids may cause headaches, diarrhea, cramps and in severe cases coma and death; however, poisoning from potatoes occurs very rarely. Light exposure causes greening from chlorophyll synthesis, thus giving a visual clue as to areas of the tuber that may have become more toxic; however, this does not provide a definitive guide, as greening and glycoalkaloid accumulation can occur independently of each other. Some varieties of potato contain greater glycoalkaloid concentrations than others; breeders developing new varieties test for this, and sometimes have to discard an otherwise promising cultivar.

Breeders try to keep solanine levels below 200 mg/kg (200 ppmw). However, when these commercial varieties turn green, even they can approach concentrations of solanine of 1000 mg/kg (1000 ppmw). In normal potatoes, analysis has shown solanine levels may be as little as 3.5% of the breeders' maximum, with 7–187 mg/kg being found.[57]
The US National Toxicology Program suggests that the average American consumes at most 12.5 mg/day of solanine from potatoes (the toxic dose is actually several times this, depending on body weight). Dr. Douglas L. Holt, the State Extension Specialist for Food Safety at the University of Missouri, notes that no reported cases of potato-source solanine poisoning have occurred in the U.S. in the last 50 years and most cases involved eating green potatoes or drinking potato-leaf tea.[citation needed]

It sort of makes you want to rethink those potato skins.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I always assumed that after 200,000 years of evolution as ominvores, the majority of us would have cleared up issues related to what we can safely eat.

Omnivores, yes. We've eaten vegetables and fruits for hundreds of thousands of years. But all the cultivated grains we eat today have been around less than 10,000 years.

There are 8 major cereal grains which are consumed by modern man (wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, rice, sorghum, and millet) [Harlan 1992]. Each of these grains were derived from wild precursors whose original ranges were quite localized [Harlan 1992]. Wheat and barley were domesticated only ~10,000 years ago in the Near East; rice was domesticated approximately 7,000 years ago in China, India, and southeast Asia; corn was domesticated 7,000 years ago in Central and South America; millets were domesticated in Africa 5,000-6,000 years ago; sorghum was domesticated in East Africa 5,000-6,000 years ago; rye was domesticated ~5,000 years ago in southwest Asia; and oats were domesticated ~3,000 years ago in Europe.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I always assumed that after 200,000 years of evolution as ominvores, the majority of us would have cleared up issues related to what we can safely eat. While there are still plants that are poisonous, the ones that we cultivate do not contain toxins (with the possible exception of potatoes and tomatoes*). I can understand a genetic aberration, but the idea that something that we have been eating for such a long time is unhealthy seems odd.

Holy shit, you know what's really odd!? This is exactly what the fucking article is about! You should [gasp!] read it.
Or you could just hit up google for your opinion of it I guess...