Foods to Avoid or Limit

Foods to Avoid or Limit

The Superman Diet is based on 70 foods that are nutrionally far superior than conventional foods. Foods that are not in The Superman Diet are relatively inferior sources of nutrition and should ideally either be limited or avoided altogether, and shouldn’t be consumed regularly. With that being said, I will discuss the most commonly eaten foods that need to be avoided and explain why they can be so harmful.

Whether eating the following foods has negative health effects is a controversial topic, and it’s beyond the scope of this book to go into a discussion of why these foods are harmful. My experience has been this, these foods are truly inferior sources of nutrition, whether you choose to avoid them or not or agree that they are harmful or not. I religiously stay away from them and have experimented with re-introducing them into my diet many times, and I negatively reacted to them noticed a dramatic drop in my energy levels every time.

 

Yeasted products (wine, vinegar, breads)

Corn

Peanuts

Nightshades (tomatoes, eggplants, peppers, potatoes)

 

 

 

Sugar

 

Everyone is sensitive to sugar

 

If there’s Candida in the body and [unclear 04:51] be more sensitive to the sugar balance which really everyone is it’s just when you’re younger and stronger and healthier sometimes you don’t notice the stress load of glucose coming into the blood stream quickly, but it definitely affects you. And you just have to wait and let time tell you because the more time that goes by if you’re someone that thinks that you’re immune to sugar, meaning I can eat fruit juices and I can eat all the fruit I want and I can eat grains or carbs and have no negative effect; it’s gonna affect you. You’re gonna get the glycation eventually. It’s gonna start the glucose tolerance factor, the stress load in the blood and on the pancreas; it’s just gonna hammer you. And then when you start to get conscious and cut down on that sugar load in the body there’s gonna be a dramatic improvement to health.

 

My story with sugar

 

When I was in my college years, my primary diet consisted mainly of cookies. There was a fancy café at my school that served the absolute best toffee cookies you could ever taste, and so I thrived on cookies and tea. I loved sugar, and would eat it at every chance I got: donuts, chocolate, candies, you name it. Coincidentally, these years were my most miserable, sad, dark and depressed years of my life, and I attribute the high amount of sugar, along with the toxicity of my diet to that. I literally couldn’t sit through a class, and I couldn’t hold my attention on something for more than 10 minutes. Even though I was a very likeable guy, I was extremely socially inept and anxious. I would rather fail a class and have to take it all over again next semester than to have to give a speech in front of a class. Whenever a professor asked me a question in class and put me on the spot, I would go into a panic attack and nervously mumble my way through the answer.

 

My school experience was so unbearable that I eventually had to drop out. And I couldn’t attribute my inability to keep going to anything except to the demons I was carrying in my head all day long, and that big cloud of fog that never seemed to escape me.

 

It wasn’t until years later that I learned about the effect of diet and sugar on mental health and mood. Sugar, I found out, along with mercury poisoning, was the root cause of all my misery and unhappiness. I was able to prove this to myself through constant experimentation, by getting off sugar and then going back to eating it, that indeed it was the source of my psychosis. The meaninglessness of my life entirely went away the moment I completely cut away ALL sugar from my diet, and life suddenly had more meaning to it and became less of an experience of constant boredom, dullness and blues.

 

The irony was that even after I completely cleaned out and transformed my diet, my depression and dullness still persisted. At some point I thought the healthiest diet was a diet that consisted of only plant foods – namely fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds – a “raw food” or “raw vegan” diet. A few months into that diet and I was down the same hole that I was in when I was in college: constant depression, emotionalism, crying, and dullness. It was the sugar again. Even though the sugar was “natural” and coming from fruits, it still drove me to hell and back. Realizing that sugar in ANY form is toxic and then cutting out all sugar from my life – from fruits and otherwise – was truly when I first started having a “normal” life and started experiencing real joy. That is literally when I was able to start setting goals and pursuing them and had enough willpower to start accomplishing things and making progress with my life. THAT is how destructive sugar can be.

 

All those years I blamed myself for being so stupid and incapable of anything when it really was not my fault. I simply didn’t know how bad sugar is to me and how intolerant I was to it, but my persistence to find an answer and my conviction that something was wrong is what rescued me, otherwise I would have lived my life in complete ignorance and misery.

 

Cutting sugar out of my diet, and then detoxifying from mercury, are the two single best things I ever did for my health. You could never really reap the benefits of a Superman Diet without doing these two things first.

 

Sugar can literally be destructive to our lives. It can make us absolutely miserable. There are many reasons not to eat sugar. It disturbs your sleep, leaches minerals out of your bones, ages you rapidly, depletes your adrenals and thyroid, and disrupts hor- monal balance. Sugar puts you at risk for degenerative diseases. Sugar consumption is also a major factor in adrenal fatigue and depression. It also depletes a woman’s body of essential minerals – those same minerals that determine her beauty and strength throughout her life and that help create new life during pregnancy. Sugar also weakens and upsets a woman’s delicate endocrine balance.

Those are just a few of the harmful effects this seemingly sweet food has on our bodies. Candida feeds on sugar. Not only candida, but all harmful fungi, bacteria, viruses, microbes, parasites – even mosquitoes thrive on its presence. By continuing to eat sugar, you are still feeding candida and all these other “bad” organisms. You need to starve the candida in order to get rid of it as quickly as possible. The only way to do that is to avoid eating sugar altogether and any food that contains it, whether it’s natural or not. Avoid all foods that contain the sugars: glucose, fructose, and sucrose. These feed the fungal infection. Also, stay away from all artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, brown sugar, Splenda, and NutraSweet. You may think that you need a sugar “high” to be productive. However, you’ll quickly discover once you wean yourself off of it, you’ll have more energy than before for whatever it is that you want to do.

As a great replacement for sugar and artificial sweeteners, you can use stevia. Ste- via comes from the leaf of a plant and is completely natural. Paradoxically, stevia tastes sweeter than sugar, yet it contains no glucose, sucrose, or fructose. Therefore, it does not feed candida. Not only that, but it actually nourishes the pancreas, the stomach, the spleen, the organs that are usually damaged from an overindulgence of sugar through- out one’s life.

 

In thirty days, after your body is free of candida, you’ll be able to handle sugar much better without experiencing strong reactions to it. However I recommend staying
off sugar for at least a few months or even a year in order for your body to completely heal. We have been overeating and overwhelming our bodies with sugar so much that it has become crucial to cut sugar completely for a prolonged period of time. The average American consumes 156 pounds of added sugar per year, so it only makes sense to give our organs a chance to fully recover, regardless of our candida symptoms.

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all

 

Initially, when the General Hospital was established in Paris by royal decree, one per cent of the city’s population was locked up. From that time until the 20 century, as the consumption of sugar went up and up-especially in the cities-so did the number of people who were put away in the General Hospital. Three hundred years later, the “emotionally disturbed” can be turned into walking automatons, their brains controlled with psychoactive drugs. Today, pioneers of orthomolecular psychiatry, such as Dr. Abram Hoffer, Dr. Allan Cott, Dr. A. Cherkin as well as Dr. Linus Pauling, have confirmed that mental illness is a myth and that emotional disturbance can be merely the first symptom of the obvious inability of the human system to handle the stress of sugar dependency. In Orthomolecular Psychiatry, Dr. Pauling writes: “The functioning of the brain and nervous tissue is more sensitively dependent on the rate of chemical reactions than the functioning of other organs and tissues. I believe that mental disease is for the most part caused by abnormal reaction rates, as determined by genetic constitution and diet, and by abnormal molecular concentrations of essential substances. Selection of food (and drugs) in a world that is undergoing rapid scientific and technological change may often be far from the best.”11

In Megavitamin B3 Therapy for Schizophrenia, Dr. Abram Hoffer notes: “Patients are also advised to follow a good nutritional program with restriction of sucrose and sucrose-rich foods.”12 Clinical research with hyperactive and psychotic children, as well as those with brain injuries and learning disabilities, has shown: “An abnormally high family history of diabetes-that is, parents and grandparents who cannot handle sugar; an abnormally high incidence of low blood glucose, or functional hypoglycemia in the children themselves, which indicates that their systems cannot handle sugar; dependence on a high level of sugar in the diets of the very children who cannot handle it. “Inquiry into the dietary history of patients diagnosed as schizophrenic reveals the diet of their choice is rich in sweets, candy, cakes, coffee, caffeinated beverages, and foods prepared with sugar. These foods, which stimulate the adrenals, should be eliminated or severely restricted.”13

“We are often most addicted to the foods we are allergic to. This causes an allergy- addiction cycle. Getting off those allergens can cause a brief, flulike achy syndrome that may last one to three days.”

In the 1940s, DR John Tintera rediscovered the vital importance of the endocrine system, especially the adrenal glands, in “pathological mentation”-or “brain boggling”. In 200 cases under treatment for hypoadrenocorticism (the lack of adequate adrenal cortical hormone production or imbalance among these hormones), he discovered that the chief complaints of his patients were often similar to those found in persons whose systems were unable to handle sugar: fatigue, nervousness, depression, apprehension, craving for sweets, inability to handle alcohol, inability to concentrate, allergies, low blood pressure. Sugar blues!

DR Tintera finally insisted that all his patients submit to a four-hour glucose tolerance test (GTT) to find out whether or not they could handle sugar. The results were so startling that the laboratories double-checked their techniques, then apologized for what they believed to be incorrect readings. What mystified them was the low, flat curves derived from disturbed, early adolescents. This laboratory procedure had been previously carried out only for patients with physical findings presumptive of diabetes. Dorland’s definition of schizophrenia (Bleuler’s dementia praecox) includes the phrase, “often recognized during or shortly after adolescence”, and further, in reference to hebephrenia and catatonia, “coming on soon after the onset of puberty”. These conditions might seem to arise or become aggravated at puberty, but probing into the patient’s past will frequently reveal indications which were present at birth, during the first year of life, and through the preschool and grammar school years. Each of these periods has its own characteristic clinical picture.

This picture becomes more marked at pubescence and often causes school officials to complain of juvenile delinquency or underachievement. A glucose tolerance test at any of these periods could alert parents and physicians and could save innumerable hours and small fortunes spent in looking into the child’s psyche and home environment for maladjustments of questionable significance in the emotional development of the average child. The negativism, hyperactivity and obstinate resentment of discipline are absolute indications for at least the minimum laboratory tests: urinalysis, complete bloodcount, PBI determination, and the five-hour glucose tolerance test. A GTT can be performed on a young child by the micro-method without undue trauma to the patient. As a matter of fact, I have been urging that these four tests be routine for all patients, even before a history or physical examination is undertaken. In almost all discussions on drug addiction, alcoholism and schizophrenia, it is claimed that there is no definite constitutional type that falls prey to these afflictions.

Almost universally, the statement is made that all of these individuals are emotionally immature. It has long been our goal to persuade every physician, whether oriented toward psychiatry, genetics or physiology, to recognize that one type of endocrine individual is involved in the majority of these cases: the hypoadrenocortic.15 Tintera published several epochal medical papers. Over and over, he emphasized that improvement, alleviation, palliation or cure was “dependent upon the restoration of the normal function of the total organism”. His first prescribed item of treatment was diet. Over and over again, he said that “the importance of diet cannot be overemphasized”. He laid out a sweeping permanent injunction against sugar in all forms and guises.

While Egas Moniz of Portugal was receiving a Nobel Prize for devising the lobotomy operation for the treatment of schizophrenia, Tintera’s reward was to be harassment and hounding by the pundits of organized medicine. While Tintera’s sweeping implication of sugar as a cause of what was called “schizophrenia” could be confined to medical journals, he was let alone, ignored. He could be tolerated-if he stayed in his assigned territory, endocrinology. Even when he suggested that alcoholism was related to adrenals that had been whipped by sugar abuse, they let him alone; because the medicos had decided there was nothing in alcoholism for them except aggravation, they were satisfied to abandon it to Alcoholics Anonymous.

However, when Tintera dared to suggest in a magazine of general circulation that “it is ridiculous to talk of kinds of allergies when there is only one kind, which is adrenal glands impaired…by sugar”, he could no longer be ignored. The allergists had a great racket going for themselves. Allergic souls had been entertaining each other for years with tall tales of exotic allergies-everything from horse feathers to lobster tails. Along comes someone who says none of this matters: take them off sugar and keep them off it.

Perhaps Tintera’s untimely death in 1969 at the age of fifty-seven made it easier for the medical profession to accept discoveries that had once seemed as far out as the simple oriental medical thesis of genetics and diet, yin and yang. Today, doctors all over the world are repeating what Tintera announced years ago: nobody, but nobody, should ever be allowed to begin what is called “psychiatric treatment”, anyplace, anywhere, unless and until they have had a glucose tolerance test to discover if they can handle sugar. So-called preventive medicine goes further and suggests that since we only think we can handle sugar because we initially have strong adrenals, why wait until they give us signs and signals that they’re worn out? Take the load off now by eliminating sugar in all forms and guises, starting with that soda pop you have in your hand. The mind truly boggles when one glances over what passes for medical history. Through the centuries, troubled souls have been barbecued for bewitchment, exorcised for possession, locked up for insanity, tortured for masturbatory madness, psychiatrised for psychosis, lobotomised for schizophrenia. How many patients would have listened if the local healer had told them that the only thing ailing them was sugar blues?

 

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/29/calorie-restriction-not-key-to-increasing-life-lowering-insulin-level-is.aspx

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831640/

 

A new study has examined the effects of food on typical biological signs of advancing age.

 

Study participants were given a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet with an adequate amount of protein. The researchers measured a number of factors, including body weight, fasting serum glucose, insulin, leptin, lipids, and thyroid hormone.

The diet resulted in improvements in the factors related to the aging process. Serum leptin decreased by 8 percent on average, insulin by 48 percent, fasting glucose by 40 percent, triglyceride by nearly 8 percent, and free T3 by almost 6 percent.

Numerous studies have shown that lowering your caloric intake may slow down aging, reduce age-related chronic diseases and extend lifespan. The effects have been observed in a variety of species from worms and yeast to rats and fish, and there’s evidence that it has a similar effect on the human lifespan.

However, when digging deeper, it seems clear that the underlying factor that makes calorie restriction beneficial in the first place, is the lowering of insulin levels.

What we now know about calorie restriction is that it improves insulin sensitivity, and this factor may explain much of the longevity phenomenon, as again evidenced by the results in this latest study.

This all makes perfect sense since we also know that high insulin levelsspeeds up the aging process.

eating less is likely to be healthier for most people in the long run, but even more important is eating foods and drinking beverages that do not excessively raise your insulin levels.

 

Eating sugar and grains, for example, increase your insulin level and is a sure way to accelerate the aging process.

 

It Is Not Just ‘How Much,’ But Rather ‘What’ You Eat Determines Your Longevity

The authors of the study above state:

“Interestingly, centenarians have lower blood glucose, insulin, leptin, free T3 and serum triglycerides than those who do not live to be over one hundred years old. Therefore, the fundamental mechanism by which calorie restriction improves lifespan appears to alter these metabolic parameters.

In this paper, we examine the impact of a diet specifically designed to improve metabolic parameters independent of caloric intake.

The diet is based on the premise that by reducing glucose and protein as substrates for oxidative metabolism and enhancing fatty acid oxidation, many of the same physiologic changes that are seen in calorie-restricted animals will also be seen in individuals following this type of diet.”

One key factor here, that I find interesting, is the fact that they’re not focusing on caloric intake at all. The amount of food is not restricted, but rather participants were told to let hunger dictate. Instead, the researchers focused in on the type of foods that will result in lowered blood glucose, insulin, leptin and triglycerides – all important factors in overall health.

Here’s where it gets really interesting, because contrary to popular dietary advice, one of the primary keys here is theelimination of starchy carbohydrates. In addition, the diet included “unlimited amounts of certain fats and oils,” such as:  raw nuts and seeds, avocados, olives and olive oil, flax oil and cod liver oil.

 

The intake of protein was told to be limited to approximately 1.0 grams/kg lean body mass per day (increased for exercise to 1.25 grams/day). As a result, most patients were instructed to eat from 50-80 grams of protein per day. Recommended sources of protein included sardines, fish, eggs, tofu, chicken, turkey, wild meats, low-fat cheeses (cottage, ricotta, swiss), seafood, and veggie burgers. Only non-starchy, fibrous vegetables were acceptable: lettuce, greens, broccoli, cauliflower, cucumbers, mushrooms, onions, peppers, sprouts, asparagus, and seaweed.

 

the main point here is that the elimination of starchy carbs (grains) led to significant health benefits for all participants.

 

Now, in addition to significant weight loss, the participants also saw significant improvements in all the areas that impact longevity, including:

  • Reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (by about 10 and 11 mmHg, respectively)
  • Reduced leptin levels (by about 48 percent)
  • Reduced insulin levels (by about 40 percent)
  • Reduced fasting glucose levels (by about 7 percent)
  • Reduced free T(by about 10 percent)
  • Reduced triglyceride levels (by 28 percent)

The average triglyceride/HDL ratio (a potent heart disease predictor) also decreased by approximately 50 percent!

The authors concluded that “in the context of an outpatient medical clinic, a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate diet with nutritional supplementation led to improvements in serum factors related to the aging process.”

The study above is a beautiful illustration of how you can significantly improve your health and extend your life by eliminating sugar and starchy carbs, and eating a diet high in healthy fats, fresh veggies and lean proteins – all in as little as THREE MONTHS!

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/HighFructose-Corn-Syrup-Alters-Human-Metabolism.aspx

As our fat consumption went down, the obesity went up

 

fructose in any form — including high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and crystalline fructose — is the worst of the worst!

 

Agave syrup is very high in fructose

 

The average Westerner consumes a staggering 142 pounds a year1 of sugar! And the very products most people rely on to lose weight — the low-fat diet foods — are often the ones highest in fructose.

 

it is important to understand some differences about how your body handles glucose versus fructose.

 

Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, has been a pioneer in decoding sugar metabolism. His work has highlighted some major differences in how different sugars are broken down and used:

  • After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. But with glucose, your liver has to break down only 20 percent.
  • Every cell in your body, including your brain, utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is “burned up” immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat.
  • The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism accumulate as fat droplets in your liver and skeletal muscle tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes.
  • Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In other words, fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose does not do this.
  • When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat.Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!
  • The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.
  • Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulatesleptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain’s communication with leptin, resulting in overeating.

 

If anyone tries to tell you “sugar is sugar,” they are way behind the times. As you can see, there are major differences inhow your body processes fructose and glucose. The bottom line is: fructose leads to increased belly fatinsulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome — not to mention the long list of chronic diseases that directly result.

 

The food and beverage industry doesn’t want you to realize how truly pervasive HFCS is in your diet — not just from soft drinks and juices, but also in salad dressings and condiments and virtually every processed food. The introduction of HFCS into the Western diet in 1975 has been a multi-billion dollar boon for the corn industry.

 

Avoid agave syrup since it is a highly processed sap that is almost all fructose. Your blood sugar will spike just as it would if you were consuming regular sugar or HFCS. Agave’s meteoric rise in popularity is due to a great marketing campaign, but any health benefits present in the original agave plant are processed out.

scientific studies have linked fructose to about 30 different specific diseases and health problems.

 

Raise your blood pressure,4and cause nocturnal hypertension5Insulin resistance / Type 2 DiabetesNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)6
Raise your uric acid levels,7which can result in gout and/or metabolic syndrome8Accelerate the progression of chronic kidney disease9Intracranial atherosclerosis10 (narrowing and hardening of the arteries in your skull)
Exacerbate cardiac abnormalities if you’re deficient in copper11Have a genotoxic effect on the colon12Promote metastasis in breast cancer patients13
Cause tubulointerstitial injury14 (injury to the tubules and interstitial tissue of your kidney)Promotes obesity15 and related health problems and diseasesPromotes pancreatic cancer growth16 and feeds cancer cells in general
Cause your brain neurons to stagnate

 

 

For more on fructose and sugar on mercola’s site: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/26/sugar-may-be-bad-but-this-sweetener-is-far-more-deadly-part-2.aspx

 

 

Fruits (like goji) pass through the digestive system very quickly. They usually leave the stomach within 30 minutes and enter the small intestine, where they continue to be digested. But if you eat them with other foods (such as a protein or starch) that take three to five hours or more to digest, the fruit is held up and starts to ferment. This means poor assimilation of nutrients but, more important, it sets up a perfect environment for yeast overgrowth, as they feed off the sugar produced from the fermentation.

 

Glycation, one of the post-translational modifications of proteins, is a nonenzymatic reaction initiated by the primary addition of a sugar aldehyde or ketone to the amino groups of proteins.

 

 

The sugar triggers a process in the body called glycation. This is where the sugar molecules bind to your protein fibres
The glycation process causes these proteins to mutate, creating harmful new molecules called Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs), which accumulate and cause further inflammation and damage to the cells.

 

glucose-induced damage is not limited to diabetic patients. Although it does not cause rapid or remarkable cell damage, glycation advances slowly and accompanies every fundamental process of cellular metabolism. It has recently become clear that glycation also affects physiological aging and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

 

Long-lived cells (such as nerves and different types of brain cell), long-lasting proteins (such as crystallins of thelens and cornea), and DNA may accumulate substantial damage over time. Cells such as the retina cells in the eyes, and beta cells (insulin-producing) in the pancreas are also at high risk of damage[citation needed]. Damage by glycation results in stiffening of the collagen in the blood vessel walls, leading to high blood pressure, especially in diabetes.[9]

 

Glycation is a biochemical process that involves a series of non-enzymatic reactions (those that don’t require enzymes to make them happen) between proteins and/or certain lipids (fats) and glucose.

The result is the formation of toxic substances known as AGEs—advanced glycation end products—and ALEs—advanced lipoxidation end products.

recent research indicates AGEs play an important role in the aging process as well as in diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and certain types of neuropathy.

 

The mechanism behind the accelerated destruction of cells, tissues, and organs observed in diabetics is called glycation, the dangerous binding of sugars toproteins.1 The resulting sugar-protein complex is known as an advanced glycation end product or AGE.

In the laboratory, glycation’s effect on living tissues was found to be identical to the process by which meat is browned when cooked at high temperatures. Healthy proteins also turn brown in the presence of excess glucose and become functionally impaired.

Scientists have confirmed that this destructive process may also occur in healthy individuals when blood glucose levels are sustained above 85 mg/dL, a commonplace occurrence after a heavy meal is consumed.2-6

The damage inflicted by glycation is irreversible.7,8

 

So if I glycate for instance the proteins in the lenses of my eyes from a high blood sugar after a multigrain bagel, I get opacities. I get cataracts over time. If I glycate the proteins in my cartilage in my hips and knees, I get brittle cartilage that erodes and leads to arthritis. So many phenomena in health and aging are due to glycation, and when you eat gluten free foods made with what I call junk carbohydrates you get sky high blood sugar; you get accelerated glycation.

Chefs prize their ability to brown a piece of meat just perfectly to bring out its flavor and seal in its moisture. But that browning process, chemically known as the Maillard Reaction, involves exactly the same chemical changes that occur in your tissues when they are exposed to excess sugars.10,11

Glucose slowly “cooks” the body, thereby hastening the aging process.12,13

The Maillard browning reaction explains many age-related conditions such as cataracts of the eye, atherosclerosis, kidney disease, neurological deterioration, and stiffening of connective tissues in joints.10,13,14 Scientists have found similar damage from advanced glycation end products in kidney and arterial tissue in both young diabetics and older, non-diabetic subjects.15

The generation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) stiffens proteins in your body just as it does in cooked meat, causing them to lose their natural flexibility. It doesn’t take much to imagine the devastating changes this creates throughout your body. AGEs are potent oxidizers and directly damage tissues wherever they are found.

 

 

It is now well-established that the cumulative effect of glycation, along with the products of several other deleterious biochemical reactions, substantially raises risks of most chronic diseases, even if you don’t have diabetes9

 

sugar is very reactive … chemically speaking. It readily combines, or reacts, with cell-surface proteins and fats. This reaction is called glycation and it’s not a good thing at all.

 

So here’s the takeaway: Sugar is not a sweet, innocent compound. It’s highly reactive and can cause great structural damage to critical proteins and fats. Once structurally damaged, these proteins and fats cannot function properly.

 

The science is this: When you have sugar molecules in your system, they bombard the body’s cells like a meteor shower—glomming onto fats and proteins in a process known as glycation. This forms advanced glycation end products (commonly shortened, appropriately, to AGEs), which cause protein fibers to become stiff and malformed. Much of what is known about glycation’s ill effects comes from diabetes research: The connective-tissue damage and chronic inflammation resulting from diabetics’ sustained high blood sugar can lead to debilitating conditions, such as cataracts, Alzheimer’s, vascular tightening, and diseases of the pancreas and liver.

The proteins in skin most prone to glycation are the same ones that make a youthful complexion so plump and springy—collagen and elastin. When those proteins hook up with renegade sugars, they become discolored, weak, and less supple; this shows up on the skin’s surface as wrinkles, sagginess, and a loss of radiance. The presence of AGEs also makes the complexion more vulnerable to bad-news assailants such as UV light and cigarette smoke. As New York–based dermatologist Cheryl Karcher, MD, puts it: “Number one, the glucose makes the cells abnormal; and number two, it creates free radicals. So you get a double whammy when it comes to aging.”

 

In a study of 33,230 men, high glucose was independently associated with a 38%increase in deaths from digestive tract cancers.63

 

At the levels eaten by most Americans, its hazards mimic the effects of alcoholism, Dr. Lustig and colleagues note in their paper.

 

Recent research has shown that eating something sweet can actually be more rewarding than cocaine. In a study published in the journal PLoS One, researchers took two groups of rats and let them choose between water sweetened with saccharine and intravenous cocaine. The results were stunning.

A whopping 94 percent of the animals chose the sweetened water over cocaine. As if this weren’t enough to astonish the researchers, they repeated the experiment using sucrose — regular table sugar. The results were exactly the same: The rats continued to choose sweet flavors over cocaine even after they had been injected with the drug and the amounts were escalated in patterns classically seen in addicts. No matter how much cocaine the rats received, the vast majority of them preferred sugar.

Here is what the researchers concluded:

Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals. We speculate that the addictive potential of intense sweetness results from an inborn hypersensitivity to sweet tastants. In most mammals, including rats and humans, sweet receptors evolved in ancestral environments poor in sugars and are thus not adapted to high concentrations of sweet tastants. The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.

 

Sugar uses up your body’s store of vitamins and minerals without providing any in return.

High sugar consumption is tied to so many mental disorders it’s hard to list them all. They include lower IQ, anxiety, aggressive behavior, hyperactivity, depression, eating disorders, fatigue, learning difficulties, and premenstrual syndrome.4

Sugar causes crusting in your brain. Think about that sugary crust on crème brûlé or a crusty bread or crispy chicken skin. Sugar in these foods (and in your body) reacts with proteins and forms little crusts or plaques called AGEs (advanced glycation end products). These crusty sugar-protein combos gum up your brain, leading to dementia, and damage most cells and tissues along the way.

How many of us have had this feeling around mid-afternoon on a particularly grey and miserable day, when nothing seems to be going our way.  I know I have!  Longing for the comfort of a sweet treat, a blanket, a cup of coffee and a reality show on the TV.  Just wanting to check out for a while when life gets too demanding and difficult.

 

if this is our way of life or our habitual way of coping with stress, or, even worse, if we starve ourselves for a week or two, then give in and binge with half a dozen donuts, all the while feeling intense shame and self-disgust, we can get ourselves into a lot of trouble.  In this case, we may be addicted to sugar.

 

– Neuroscientists have shown, using fMRI to scan the brain‘s activity in real-time, that sugar leads to dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens – an area associated with motivation, novelty, and reward.  This is the same brain region implicated in response to cocaine and heroin.

– Nora Volker, a researcher at the National institutes for Drug Abuse has shown, using brain imaging, that there are similarities in the brains of obese people and those of drug addicts and alcoholics. This is indirect evidence, as we don’t know that sugar consumption caused this effect.

 

– Research suggests that sugar can lead to changes in dopamine receptors, such that tolerance develops – more of the substance is needed to get an effect. A decrease in some types of receptors (D2) occurred, which suggests an overall decreased ability to get pleasure from other substances and experiences.  This could make the person or animal more dependent on sugar for pleasure and reward, since the light of other experiences is dimmed.

– Sugar consumption also leads to release of endogenous opioids in the brain; leading to a rush of pleasure, similar (although not of the same magnitude) as injecting heroin. Interestingly, heroin addicts show increased cravings for sweets when they are first abstinent. This effect, known as cross-tolerance, shows that addiction to one substance makes it easier to become addicted to another substance that may use the same brain

chemistry.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/the-most-unhappy-of-pleasures-this-is-your-brain-on-sugar/253341/

 

But long-term stimulation of the pleasure center drives the process of addiction. Rich people are addicted to money, power, gambling; middle-class people are addicted to cocaine, amphetamine, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, heroin. The poor, well, all they’ve got is sugar.

 

When you consume any substance of abuse, including sugar, the nucleus accumbens receives a dopamine signal, from which you experience pleasure. And so you consume more. The problem is that with prolonged exposure, the signal attenuates, gets weaker. So you have to consume more to get the same effect — tolerance. And if you pull back on the substance, you go into withdrawal. Tolerance and withdrawal constitute addiction. And make no mistake, sugar is addictive.

 

Not by chance, these medications are also used for obesity. Serotonin is made from an amino acid called tryptophan, which is the rarest amino acid in our diet. And the amino acid transporter that gets tryptophan into the brain is easily perturbed. If you’re serotonin-deficient and depressed, you’re going to want to boost your serotonin any way you can. Eating more carbohydrate, especially sugar, initially does double duty — it facilitates tryptophan transport, and it generates a dopamine response for pleasure in the short-term. But as the dopamine signal down-regulates, more sugar is needed for the same effect, driving a vicious cycle of consumption to generate a pleasure that withers in the face of persistent unhappiness.

 

On Day 18 of his sojourn through Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock confides that he is sick and unhappy — then he starts eating, and he feels “great; so great it’s crazy.” Not crazy, just addicted. McDonald’s most recent campaign says it all: “Crafted for your craving.” The food industry knows what it’s doing. Why don’t we?

 

In fact, pleasure and happiness might just be opposites. As we have spent the last 30 years pursuing sugar for pleasure, we have become most decidedly unhappy. Our society has lost sight of the difference. Coca-Cola’s most recent marketing tagline is “Open Happiness.” Couldn’t be further from the truth. As our obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and dementia rates continue to skyrocket due to our sugar over-consumption, the idea that a bottle of Coke holds the key to happiness is nothing short of pulp propaganda.

 

You see, this is why we have a complete nation of fuck-ups. We don’t know the difference between happiness, pleasure and purpose. We bought into this” Open Happiness” bullshit and the result is a nation of mentally dysfunctional brain-washed people. – Daniel amen 35/700 were normal, 1 out of 3 children is going to be autistic.

 

So what is the key to happiness? Roko Belic’s recent indie movie Happy traces the roots of happiness through the slums of India to the deserts of Namibia to the streets of Okinawa. And food isn’t mentioned once. Rather, the ties that bind are family, community, and doing something to make the world a better place. I think back to World War II, when Denmark saved the Jews by smuggling them to Sweden. In Judaism, it’s called tikkun olam. Healing the world. Just what the Bible teaches. Giving, teaching, contributing, and living with purpose. Now there’s a reason to be happy.

 

In fact, a recent report published in the journal Nature linked sugar to 35 million deaths a year globally from diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

In the Nature report, Robert Lustig, M.D. and other UCSF researchers contend that sugar’s alarming potential for abuse, coupled with its toxicity and pervasiveness in the Western diet, makes it the primary culprit in a worldwide health crisis. At the levels eaten by most Americans, its hazards mimic the effects of alcoholism, Dr. Lustig and colleagues note in their paper.

 

we have access to way too much sugar in today’s world — far more than our bodies can properly metabolize. Our ancient ancestors ate only about 22 teaspoons of sugar a year. Today’s Americans consume an average of 52 teaspoons of added sugar per day, according to the USDA, which calls the sweetener “the number one food additive.”

Not only is sugar overload making Americans overweight and cavity-prone, but new research also shows that our national sweet tooth is leading to “brain decay,” a condition that I refer to as “psychodiabetes.”

While it’s long been known that diabetics are at higher risk for dementia, a shocking 2012 study found that key brain areas start shrinking when blood sugar hits the high end of the “normal” range, even when such cofounders as smoking, high blood pressure and alcohol consumption were taken into account.

In the study, adults ages 60 to 64, with normal fasting blood sugar, as defined by the World Health Organization, underwent brain scans. When the scans were repeated four years later, those with higher blood sugar showed more shrinkage (atrophy) in the brain’s hippocampus and amygdala — both of which play a key role in memory and mental skills — compared to those with lower blood sugar.

Scarier still, another recent study reported “accelerated cognitive decline” in teens who ate a high-calorie junk food diet! What both studies reveal is that our brains can develop insulin resistance, the malady that leads to Type 2 diabetes.

Why does a sugary diet shrink your brain? A major study out of Harvard Medical School demonstrated that eating large amounts of high-glycemic carbs amps up the body’s inflammatory response. The scientists measured levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) and found that people who ate the most sugar had the highest — and most dangerous — levels of CRP.

Many studies link inflammation — fueled by sugar, a poor diet, obesity, and our increasingly unhealthy lifestyle — to a host of chronic illnesses, from heart attacks and strokes to Type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s and even cancer. In fact, some experts even theorize that this fiery process may be the root cause of all non-communicable disease.

In short, if your body — and brain — are on fire, your disease risk skyrockets.

insulin resistance has been linked to a wide array of behavioral and mood disorders, including depression, panic attacks, anxiety, insomnia, and ADHD. In fact, a recent studyshows children who are given sugar every day have a significantly higher risk for violence later in life.

 

start eating like a diabetic, so you never become one.  (truth calkins interview on eating as if you’re predisposed to being a diabetic)

 

sugar on your brain affects mood, memory, cognitive performance and more. But the good news is that “diabetes of the brain” is preventable. To keep your brain sharp, I offer a simple prescription: Go cold turkey in kicking the sugar habit. In other words, start eating like a diabetic, so you never become one.

I disagree with those who say, “Everything in moderation.” Would you want your child taking heroin in moderation — or your spouse having affairs in moderation? If you want to protect your brain, you need to get off the sugar. A good way to identify foods that rapidly convert to sugar in your bloodstream is by getting to know the glycemic index.

The glycemic index rates carbs according to their effects on blood sugar, using a scale of one to 100+. Glucose is 100, while healthy foods are lower on the scale. I recommend shooting for a number under 60 with all of your food choices, to protect the health of your most important organ — the brain — as well as the rest of your body.

 

 

aged garlic extract (AGE) inhibits formation of Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs)

 

Overeating, poor memory formation, learning disorders, depression  – all have been linked in recent research to the over-consumption of sugar.

 

Because insulin is able to pass through your blood-brain barrier, it can trigger neurological processes that are important for learning and memory. Consuming large amounts of fructose may block insulin’s ability to regulate how your brain cells store and use sugar for the energy needed to fuel thoughts and emotions.

 

In the 1930s, a research dentist from Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Weston A. Price, traveled all over the world-from the lands of the Eskimos to the South Sea Islands, from Africa to New Zealand. His Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects,6 which is illustrated with hundreds of photographs, was first published in 1939. Dr. Price took the whole world as his laboratory. His devastating conclusion, recorded in horrifying detail in area after area, was simple. People who live under so-called backward primitive conditions had excellent teeth and wonderful general health. They ate natural, unrefined food from their own locale. As soon as refined, sugared foods were imported as a result of contact with “civilization,” physical degeneration began in a way that was definitely observable within a single generation.

 

 

“Sugar is poison, more lethal than opium and more dangerous than atomic fallout”

 

How sugar produces alcohol in tummies….

 

You may already know that “sugar” is bad, but what I really want to drive home is the fact that ALL sugar is toxic, be it from honey, fruit, or the most holiest of all foods, and that most people (about 95% I would say) have a very low tolerance for sugar, and need to be completely off of all sugar forever or at least for a very long time until their pancreas can heal, the germs and opportunistic organisms die off, and they can tolerate more sugar again. But even then, why would one want to dilute their spirit with sugar?

 

This whole “you need glucose and sugar for energy” thing is a complete myth.

 

On The Superman Diet, your sugar intake should ideally not exceed 5 grams of sugar per day. After a few months or a year of keeping the sugar down, you can increase to a maximum of 20 grams of sugar a day. You should aim to never consume over 20 grams of sugar in one day.

 

Once you cut ALL sugar from your diet, you will most likely go into withdrawal: nausea, migraine headaches, achy joints, and intense emotions and feelings of depression will come up. That’s when you will come to the truth that all throughout your life you were an addict, that you were hooked. And you have to go through this withdrawal to become free of your addiction, and to allow your brain neurons to rewire themselves. Overcoming an addiction is a sophisticated process, one that requires intense willpower and resolve, and a sincere, genuine desire to grow and transcend the slavery to food. You can take herbs like reishi, polygala, holy basil and wild ginseng to help you go through this process, and use other sugar-free sweeteners like stevia and lo han quo to curb your appetite for sweets in the meantime.

 

– only get sugar from truly wild and the highest quality goji berries, bee pollen and honey. The energy behind the sugar is just as important as its source.

 

 

sugar intensifies food cravings, for instance, and causes people to eat far more than they otherwise would without it. Additionally, he points out that sugar also disrupts normal food metabolism, eventually leading to addiction.

“Just like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is actually a drug,” writes Van der Velpen, in an English translation from the original Dutch. “This may seem exaggerated and far-fetched, but sugar is the most dangerous drug of the times and can still be easily acquired everywhere … The use of sugar should be discouraged. And users should be made aware of the dangers.”
Scientists from University College London (UCL) in the U.K. made this discovery after experimenting with a new cancer detection method that involves utilizing a unique form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After sensitizing an MRI scanner to look specifically for glucose in the body, it was revealed that cancer tumors, which feed off sugar, light up brightly as they contain high amounts of sugar.

“The new technique, called ‘glucose chemical exchange saturation transfer’ (glucoCEST), is based on the fact that tumors consume much more glucose (a type of sugar) than normal, healthy tissues in order to sustain their growth,” explains a recent UCL announcement, noting that tumors appear as “bright images” on MRI scans of mice.
Interestingly, it was also noted by the study’s senior author that the amount of sugar in “half a standard sized chocolate bar” is all it takes to effectively identify the presence of tumors using the glucoCEST method. This is astounding, as it suggests that even relatively low amounts of sugar have the potential to promote cancer proliferation.
As far as cancer is concerned, hormones produced by the body in response to sugar consumption also feed cancer cells. This means that every time you down a soda or eat a piece of cake, your body produces certain chemicals that tell cancer cells to not only start taking up sugar, but also to grow in size and spread.
“If you happen to have a tumor that has insulin receptors on it, then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that’s in the bloodstream,” he adds. “So rather than going to the fat or to the muscle, the glucose now goes into the tumor, and the tumor uses it to grow.”
Not only do cancer cells feed on sugar, but also harmful viruses, parasites, fungi, bacteria and microbes (all of which the average person ahs very high levels) all feed on sugar.

 

You may want to say that even though all sugar is toxic, sugar in the form of fructose and sucrose is far, far more dangerous than glucose.

 

It’s important to realize that when we talk about “sugar,” ALL sugars are included. So when you’re evaluating your sugar consumption, you can’t stop counting once you’ve accounted for the number of spoons of table sugar you’ve added to foods and beverages. You must also include all other types of sweeteners, such as HFCS, honey and agave.

But please do not resort to using artificial sweeteners to sweeten your food once you limit sugar. There’s little doubt in my mind that artificial sweeteners can be even worse than sugar and fructose, and there is scientific evidence to back up that conclusion. I’ve compiled a long list of scientific studies into the health effects of aspartame, and it covers a range of concerns, from behavioral and mood changes, to brain damage, weight gain, pre-term delivery, and cancer.

Splenda is another artificial sweetener that is touting their “improved” versions as a smart and healthy way to sweeten your food, but please do not be misled. Splenda is likely to push your health in the wrong direction, and there’s nothing smart about that …

Consuming artificial sweeteners can cause distortions in your biochemistry, and if you drink diet soda in an attempt to lose weight, it won’t help you. Instead, most studies looking at this show very clearly that diet soft drinks actually increase your obesity risk by stimulating your appetite, increasing carbohydrate cravings, and stimulating fat storage!

So please, do your homework on this, and do not be swayed by sweet-talking dietitians, doctors, or any other health professional that tells you artificial sweeteners have gotten the ‘green light’ and are safe to use. There’s simply too much evidence pointing in the other direction. So, what can you use if you want an occasional sweetener? I recommend using:

  1. The herb stevia (my favorites are the liquid forms that come in flavors like French Vanilla and English Toffee)

And remember, switching to cane sugar, honey, date sugar, coconut sugar, brown rice syrup, fruit juice, molasses, maple syrup, sucanat, sorghum, turbinado or agave syrup will NOT ameliorate any of the risks of sugar consumption, as they all contain HIGH amounts of fructose.

 

Cancer cells use glucose to live and grow. They require eight times more glucose than a normal cell.

 

And by the way, if anybody wants to know what different foods do to blood sugar, you can prove it to yourself. If you get an inexpensive finger stick, a blood sugar meter. You can buy it from Walgreens, Walmart for about 20 bucks with the test strips. Some of the primary care docs even give them away for free because they make their money on the test strips. You can check a blood sugar just prior to a meal or food in question and in one hour later, not two hours later like the primary care people advise because they’re looking for adequacy of control of blood sugar on drugs. We’re looking at how high does blood sugar go after different foods. So you check your blood sugar at the approximately peak which is about one hour. And you’ll see that if your blood sugar starts in a normal range, say 90, and you have two slices of whole wheat bread it goes to about 160, 180. So you can assess yourself the effects of different foods. If you were to have a meal advocated as healthy because it’s low in fat and rich in healthy whole grains, advocated by the American Diabetes Association, you’ll see a typical blood sugar is 90 to about 180 to 250 in non-diabetic people. So it makes you diabetic.

 

It was only about three years ago, Lucien, when the website for the American Diabetes Association had a frequently asked questions to their dieticians. This is almost, the best I can remember, a verbatim quote. Question: “I have diabetes. Can I eat cake, cookies, and candy?” Answer from the American Diabetes Association dieticians, “Of course you can. Those are sources of sugar. Sugar is natural, and it’s fine to have sugar but just be sure to count your carbohydrates and adjust your dose of insulin and/or talk to your doctor about adjusting your diabetes medication.” It’s no longer on their website, but that was on there just about three years ago.

 

Sugar (or anything that quickly turns to sugar, the “white foods” such as potatoes and pasta) is an enormous stress on the body, triggering a surge in stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. If you notice your kids bounce off the walls after a big sugar load, it is because the sugar produced a jolt of adrenaline.

The surge of insulin in the body also turns on cellular switches that increase the inflammatory cytokines, just as happens when you have the flu. Except it doesn’t go away, but persists for decades, doing its damage slowly.

There is no scientific controversy here. The evidence is in. Sugar causes inflammation. The insulin-resistant fat cells you pack on when you eat too much sugar produce nasty inflammatory messengers (cytokines) like TNF a and IL-6, spreading their damage to the brain.

In fact, researchers have suggested calling depression “metabolic syndrome Type II” because instead of just having a fat swollen belly, you also get a fat swollen (and depressed) brain.16 And psychiatrists are starting to treat depression and psychiatric disorders with anti diabetic drugs like Actos!17 These drugs lower blood sugar, lower insulin, and reduce inflammation.

But sugar is not the only thing that creates inflammation. I want to highlight one more important factor in brain malfunction. Hidden food allergies. This is a much more controversial area.

 

 

 

 

 

Orange Juice

 

One, last note: Please ignore advertisements that recommend guzzling orange juice for the vitamin C it contains. A big dose of sugar is what you’d actually be getting and nothing else. I have heard more than a few patients note that once they felt they were coming down with something, they immediately began downing glass after glass of orange juice, only to get even sicker. They concluded that they must not have caught the illness in time, which couldn’t have been any further from the truth.

The truth is, they simply fueled the fire of their infections with lots of sugar, all because they trusted a corporation’s advertisement to educate them about proper healing strategies. If you want that much vitamin C, you will be perfectly fine taking it in supplement form as a lypospheric vitamin c a few times a day, or if you prefer a natural source, take a tablespoon of camu camu, acerola or amla powder instead, mixed with reishi and aged garlic extract for maximum effect.

 

 

Modern Wheat, Grains, and Gluten

 

Gluten, the protein found in the most common grain eaten in America—wheat—as well as barley, rye, oats, spelt, triticale, and kamut, is an excellent example. Gluten is one common factor that can create so many illnesses and diseases it would be hard to count them all.

The reasons are many. They include our lack of genetic adaptation to grasses, and particularly gluten in our diet. Wheat was introduced into Europe during the Middle Ages, and 30 percent of those of European descent carry

 

the gene for celiac disease (HLA DQ2 or HLA DQ8),4 which increases susceptibility to health problems from eating gluten. Keep in mind that American strains of wheat have a much higher gluten content (which is needed to make light fluffy Wonder Bread).

A recent review paper in The NewEngland Journal of Medicine listed fiftyfive “diseases” that can be caused by eating gluten.5 These include many neurological and psychiatric diseases such as anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, dementia, migraines, epilepsy, and neuropathy (nerve damage).6 Gluten has also been linked to autism.7

Besides making the brain inflamed, gluten can be broken down in the gut into odd little proteins that are almost like psychedelic drugs (opiumlike peptides called gluteomorphins). These change brain function and behavior.

Gluten also contains significant amounts of glutamate, a molecule that accelerates, activates, excites, and damages brain cells through a special brain receptor or docking station called the NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptor. Overactivation of this receptor by glutamate is implicated in many psychiatric disorders.8 Glutamate is called an excitotoxin (a substance which overexcites and kills or damages brain cells).

Gluten can cause brain dysfunction by three different mechanisms— inflammation, odd morphine or psychedelic proteins, and as an excitotoxin.9

So gluten, we see, can be the single cause behind many different “diseases.” These diseases are not treatable with better medication, but simply by 100 percent elimination of gluten from the diet. One cause, many diseases…

You will see that what we are eating, cleverly disguised as a bran muffin or onion ciabatta, is not really wheat at all but the transformed product of genetic research conducted during the latter half of the twentieth century.

Documented peculiar effects of wheat on humans include appetite stimulation, exposure to brain-active exorphins (the counterpart of internally derived endorphins), exaggerated blood sugar surges that trigger cycles of satiety alternating with heightened appetite, the process of glycation that underlies disease and aging, inflammatory and pH effects that erode cartilage and damage bone, and activation of disordered immune responses. A complex range of diseases results from consumption of wheat, from celiac disease—the devastating intestinal disease that develops from exposure to wheat gluten—to an assortment of neurological disorders, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, curious rashes, and the paralyzing delusions of schizophrenia.

 

“An interesting fact: Whole wheat bread (glycemic index 72) increases blood sugar as much as or more than table sugar, or sucrose (glycemic index 59). (Glucose increases blood sugar to 100, hence a glycemic index of 100. The extent to which a particular food increases blood sugar relative to glucose determines that food’s glycemic index.) So when I was devising a strategy to help my overweight, diabetes-prone patients reduce blood sugar most efficiently, it made sense to me that the quickest and simplest way to get results would be to eliminate the foods that caused their blood sugar to rise most profoundly: in other words, not sugar, but wheat. I provided a simple handout detailing how to replace wheat-based foods with other low-glycemic whole foods to create a healthy diet.

After three months, my patients returned to have more blood work done. As I had anticipated, with only rare exceptions, blood sugar (glucose) had indeed often dropped from diabetic range (126 mg/dl or greater) to normal. Yes, diabetics became nondiabetics. That’s right: Diabetes in many cases can be cured—not simply managed—by removal of carbohydrates, especially wheat, from the diet. Many of my patients had also lost twenty, thirty, even forty pounds.

But it’s what I didn’t expect that astounded me.

They reported that symptoms of acid reflux disappeared and the cyclic cramping and diarrhea of irritable bowel syndrome were gone. Their energy improved, they had greater focus, sleep was deeper. Rashes disappeared, even rashes that had been present for many years. Their rheumatoid arthritis pain improved or disappeared, enabling them to cut back, even eliminate, the nasty medications used to treat it. Asthma symptoms improved or resolved completely, allowing many to throw away their inhalers. Athletes reported more consistent performance.

Thinner. More energetic. Clearer thinking. Better bowel, joint, and lung health. Time and time again. Surely these results were reason enough to forgo wheat.

What convinced me further were the many instances in which people removed wheat, then permitted themselves a wheat indulgence: a couple of pretzels, a canapé at a cocktail party. Within minutes, many would experience diarrhea, joint swelling and pain, or wheezing. On again, off again, the phenomenon would repeat itself.

What started out as a simple experiment in reducing blood sugars exploded into an insight into multiple health conditions and weight loss that continues to amaze me even today.“

 

Wheat’s effects reach the brain in the form of opiate-like peptides. But the polypeptide exorphins responsible for these effects come and go, dissipating over time. Exorphins cause your brain to instruct you to eat more food, increase calorie consumption, and desperately scratch at the stale crackers at the bottom of the box when there’s nothing else left.

But wheat’s effects on the brain don’t end there. Among the most disturbing of wheat’s effects are those exerted on brain tissue itself—not “just” on thoughts and behavior, but on the cerebrum, cerebellum, and other nervous system structures, with consequences ranging from incoordination to incontinence, from seizures to dementia. And, unlike addictive phenomena, these are not entirely reversible.

More recently, it has become clear that brain and nervous system involvement results from a direct immune attack on nerve cells. The antigliadin antibodies triggered by gluten can bind to Purkinje cells of the brain, cells unique to the cerebellum.5 Brain tissue such as Purkinje cells do not have the capacity to regenerate: Once damaged, cerebellar Purkinje cells are gone … forever.

In addition to loss of balance and coordination, wheat-induced cerebellar ataxia can show such odd phenomena as, in the arcane language of neurology, nystagmus (lateral involuntary twitching of the eyeballs), myoclonus (involuntary muscle twitching), and chorea (chaotic involuntary jerking motions of the limbs). One study of 104 people with cerebellar ataxia also revealed impaired memory and verbal abilities, suggesting that wheat-induced destruction may involve cerebral tissue, the seat of higher thought and memory.6

The typical age of onset of symptoms of wheat-induced cerebellar ataxia is forty-eight to fifty-three. On MRI of the brain, 60 percent show atrophy of the cerebellum, reflecting the irreversible destruction of Purkinje cells.7

Only limited recovery of neurological function occurs with wheat gluten elimination due to the poor capacity of brain tissue to regenerate. Most people simply stop getting worse once the flow of gluten stops.8

By following an intense program like this and putting your money where your mouth is, you can regenerate brain tissue and heal most of the damage done to your brain by taking foods that contain the nerve growth factor, such as lion’s mane, chaga, ashwagandha and other brain nutrients and brain foods.

The first hurdle in diagnosing ataxia that develops from wheat exposure is to have a physician who even considers the diagnosis in the first place. This can be the toughest hurdle of all, since much of the medical community continues to embrace the notion that wheat is good for you. Once considered, however, the diagnosis is a bit trickier than just diagnosing intestinal celiac disease, especially since some antibodies (the IgA form specifically) are not involved in wheat-induced brain disease. Add to this the little problem that a brain biopsy is objectionable to most people, and it takes a well-informed neurologist to make the diagnosis. The diagnosis may rest on a combination of suspicion and positive HLA DQ markers, along with observation of improvement or stabilization with wheat and gluten elimination.9

The painful reality of cerebellar ataxia is that, in the great majority of cases, you won’t know you have it until you start tripping over your own feet, drifting into walls, or wetting your pants. Once it shows itself, your cerebellum likely is already shrunken and damaged. Halting all wheat and gluten ingestion at this point is only likely to keep you out of the assisted living facility.

All of this due to the muffins and bagels you so crave.      

I think that we can all agree: “Higher” brain functions, such as thinking, learning, and memory, should be off-limits to intruders. Our minds are deeply personal, representing the summation of everything that is you and your experiences. Who wants nosy neighbors or marketing pitchmen to gain access to the private domain of the mind? While the notion of telepathy is fascinating to think about, it’s also really creepy to think that someone could read your thoughts.

For wheat, nothing is sacred. Not your cerebellum, not your cerebral cortex. While it can’t read your mind, it sure can influence what goes on inside it.

The effect of wheat on the brain is more than just influence over mood, energy, and sleep. Actual brain damage is possible, as seen in cerebellar ataxia. But the cerebral cortex, the center of memory and higher thinking, the storehouse of you and your unique personality and memories, the brain’s “gray matter,” can also be pulled into the immune battle with wheat, resulting in encephalopathy, or brain disease.

Gluten encephalopathy shows itself as migraine headaches and stroke-like symptoms, such as loss of control over one arm or leg, difficulty speaking, or visual difficulties.13,14 On MRI of the brain, there is characteristic evidence of damage surrounding blood vessels in cerebral tissue. Gluten encephalopathy will also show many of the same balance and coordination symptoms as those that occur with cerebellar ataxia.

In one particularly disturbing Mayo Clinic study of thirteen patients with the recent diagnosis of celiac disease, dementia was also diagnosed. Of those thirteen, frontal lobe biopsy (yes, brain biopsy) or postmortem examination of the brain failed to identify any other pathology beyond that associated with wheat gluten exposure.15 Prior to death or biopsy, the most common symptoms were memory loss, the inability to perform simple arithmetic, confusion, and change in personality. Of the thirteen, nine died due to progressive impairment of brain function. Yes: fatal dementia from wheat.

In what percentage of dementia sufferers can their deteriorating mind and memory be blamed on wheat? This question has not yet been satisfactorily answered. However, one British research group that has actively investigated this question has, to date, diagnosed sixty-one cases of encephalopathy, including dementia, due to wheat gluten.16

Wheat is therefore associated with dementia and brain dysfunction, triggering an immune response that infiltrates memory and mind. The research into the relationship of wheat, gluten, and brain damage is still preliminary, with many unanswered questions remaining, but what we do know is deeply troubling. I shudder to think what we might find next.

Gluten sensitivity can also show itself as seizures. The seizures that arise in response to wheat tend to occur in young people, often teenagers. The seizures are typically of the temporal lobe variety—i.e., originating in the temporal lobe of the brain, just beneath the ears. People with temporal lobe seizures experience hallucinations of smell and taste, odd and inappropriate emotional feelings such as overwhelming fear for no cause, and repetitive behaviors such as smacking the lips or hand movements.

It’s a sobering thought that wheat has the capacity to reach into the human brain and cause changes in thought, behavior, and structure, occasionally to the point of provoking seizures.

Gluten is the component of wheat confidently linked with triggering destructive immune phenomena, whether expressed as celiac disease, cerebellar ataxia, or dementia. However, many health effects of wheat, including those on the brain and nervous system, have nothing to do with immune phenomena triggered by gluten. The addictive properties of wheat, for instance, expressed as overwhelming temptation and obsession, obstructed by opiate-blocking drugs, are not directly due to gluten, but to exorphins, the breakdown product of gluten. While the component of wheat responsible for behavioral distortions in people with schizophrenia and children with autism and ADHD has not been identified, it is likely that these phenomena are also due to wheat exorphins and not a gluten-triggered immune response. Unlike gluten sensitivity, which can usually be diagnosed with the antibody tests, there is at present no marker that can be measured to assess exorphin effects.

Nongluten effects can add to gluten effects. The psychological influence of wheat exorphins on appetite and impulse, or the glucose-insulin effects, and perhaps other effects of wheat that have yet to be described, can occur independently or in combination with immune effects. Someone suffering with undiagnosed intestinal celiac disease can have odd cravings for the food that damages their small intestine, but also show diabetic blood sugars with wheat consumption, along with wide mood swings. Someone else without celiac disease can accumulate visceral fat and show neurological impairment from wheat. Others may become helplessly tired, overweight, and diabetic, yet suffer neither intestinal nor nervous system immune effects of wheat gluten. The tangle of health consequences of wheat consumption is truly impressive.

The tremendously varying way the neurological effects of wheat can be experienced complicates making the “diagnosis.” Potential immune effects can be gauged with antibody blood tests. But nonimmune effects are not revealed by any blood test and are therefore more difficult to identify and quantify.

 

 

 

 

 

You will see that what we are eating, cleverly disguised as a bran muffin or onion ciabatta, is not really wheat at all but the transformed product of genetic research conducted during the latter half of the twentieth century.

Documented peculiar effects of wheat on humans include appetite stimulation, exposure to brain-active exorphins (the counterpart of internally derived endorphins), exaggerated blood sugar surges that trigger cycles of satiety alternating with heightened appetite, the process of glycation that underlies disease and aging, inflammatory and pH effects that erode cartilage and damage bone, and activation of disordered immune responses. A complex range of diseases results from consumption of wheat, from celiac disease—the devastating intestinal disease that develops from exposure to wheat gluten—to an assortment of neurological disorders, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, curious rashes, and the paralyzing delusions of schizophrenia.

 

“An interesting fact: Whole wheat bread (glycemic index 72) increases blood sugar as much as or more than table sugar, or sucrose (glycemic index 59). (Glucose increases blood sugar to 100, hence a glycemic index of 100. The extent to which a particular food increases blood sugar relative to glucose determines that food’s glycemic index.) So when I was devising a strategy to help my overweight, diabetes-prone patients reduce blood sugar most efficiently, it made sense to me that the quickest and simplest way to get results would be to eliminate the foods that caused their blood sugar to rise most profoundly: in other words, not sugar, but wheat. I provided a simple handout detailing how to replace wheat-based foods with other low-glycemic whole foods to create a healthy diet.

After three months, my patients returned to have more blood work done. As I had anticipated, with only rare exceptions, blood sugar (glucose) had indeed often dropped from diabetic range (126 mg/dl or greater) to normal. Yes, diabetics became nondiabetics. That’s right: Diabetes in many cases can be cured—not simply managed—by removal of carbohydrates, especially wheat, from the diet. Many of my patients had also lost twenty, thirty, even forty pounds.

But it’s what I didn’t expect that astounded me.

They reported that symptoms of acid reflux disappeared and the cyclic cramping and diarrhea of irritable bowel syndrome were gone. Their energy improved, they had greater focus, sleep was deeper. Rashes disappeared, even rashes that had been present for many years. Their rheumatoid arthritis pain improved or disappeared, enabling them to cut back, even eliminate, the nasty medications used to treat it. Asthma symptoms improved or resolved completely, allowing many to throw away their inhalers. Athletes reported more consistent performance.

Thinner. More energetic. Clearer thinking. Better bowel, joint, and lung health. Time and time again. Surely these results were reason enough to forgo wheat.

What convinced me further were the many instances in which people removed wheat, then permitted themselves a wheat indulgence: a couple of pretzels, a canapé at a cocktail party. Within minutes, many would experience diarrhea, joint swelling and pain, or wheezing. On again, off again, the phenomenon would repeat itself.

What started out as a simple experiment in reducing blood sugars exploded into an insight into multiple health conditions and weight loss that continues to amaze me even today.“

 

 

the really big difference between the wheat that we’re eating today as opposed to the wheat that our grandparents or great grandparents ate and how this new form of wheat is responsible for all the oversized waistlines and really high blood sugar levels and causing so many problems for people.

The efforts to change wheat were well intended, Lucien. This was not an evil plot. It was all part of an effort to increase yields per acre. Traditional wheat started out in the mid 20th century as a 4.5 or 5-foot tall plant that yielded only modest yields per acre. Extensive changes were introduced into this plant: repetitive hybridization, crossing wheat with other grasses because wheat is really the seed of a grass. People forget that. This is a grass, as are corn and rice by the way. They are seeds of grasses. So agricultural scientists were unhappy with what nature had done and wanted to increase yield per acre. So they performed these crossings with wild grasses and multiple hybridizations and generated the high-yield, semi-dwarf strain that is this strain of wheat that stands 18 to 24 inches. The characteristic of the dwarf height was introduced because of a mutation, a mutation by the way in the gibberellins gene. And that’s what we have now. We have a modern strain of wheat that has multiple mutations built into it. Now it didn’t stop with those efforts. Those are the efforts of the 1970s. There have been additional efforts such as more recent efforts to induce other kinds of mutations, using methods such as chemical, gamma ray, and x-ray mutagenesis—the purposeful induction of mutations. For instance, there is a strain of wheat that is resistant to the herbicide Beyond or [s/l amisamox 02:37], much as there is a strain of corn that is resistant to glyphosate or Roundup, though that corn was created using genetic modification, genetic engineering techniques, genes spliced to insert or remove a gene. This strain of wheat was not created using genetic modification. It was created using mutagenesis.

 

And so ironically, the agriculture industry says our wheat—it’s called Clearfield Wheat. It’s a branded, patent-protected strain of wheat that grows now at about a million acres in the Pacific Northwest.  The manufacturer, the holder of the patent of the seed, says, “We did not use genetic modification to create this strain of herbicide-resistant wheat.” What they don’t tell you is they use techniques that were crude, imprecise, and often worse than genetic modification in inducing mutations that were unanticipated, unmapped because agricultural geneticists really don’t care about those things. They introduce changes for their own purposes, or their own ambitions like increase yield per acre. Or it might be resistance to drought or resistance to higher or lower temperature or pest resistance, mold resistance, insects, etc. They change a plant for those reasons. They don’t map out the other changes that may have occurred as long as the plant still performs as expected, that is in the case of wheat provides rolls, breads, and pancake mixes like it’s supposed to. And those other changes are simply not sought. And then the stuff is sold to the public with no effort whatsoever at safety testing in animals, humans of course never, nor any effort to biochemically or genetically map the changes introduced. So this is true for a lot of foods. Not just wheat, but wheat happens to be at the top of the list for mutations induced, and so we have an unwitting public consuming these foods that have been changed. We’re seeing this show up in many different ways such as increased allergies in children. So it’s showing up many, many unanticipated, unexpected ways. And people are looking at themselves and wondering why all these crazy things are happening because of the change introduced by agribusiness.

 

one of the important changes introduced into modern wheat is a change in the amino acid structure of the protein gliadin. So the seed of this grass called wheat is essentially indigestible. So the whole plant is indigestible. We can’t eat the stalk. We can’t eat the leaves. You can’t eat the roots. Ruminants can because they have, like cows, they have special, evolutionarily-acquired adaptations such as continuously growing teeth. We only grow teeth twice in our lifetimes. They produced about 100 liters of saliva a day compared to our 1 liter of saliva. They have a four-compartment stomach. One compartment has an abrasive function to grind down the grasses and then they choke up a cud to re-chew. They have a spiral colon compared to our kind of relatively linear straight colon with a couple of turns. They also have unique microorganisms in both their stomach and their colon that helps them digest these grasses. We have none of those adaptations, so we can’t eat the grasses of the world. We have found out we can consume just the seed. But in the seed even, even in the part we can eat and survive acutely, many components in the seed are indigestible to humans.

 

So one of the proteins changed by the efforts of agribusiness is this protein gliadin. Well, it remains relatively indigestible, and if it remains intact—it’s about 260 amino acids long. It’s rather lengthy—if it remains intact it causes abnormal increased bowel permeability. That’s the first step by the way in autoimmune diseases, triggering autoimmune disease like rheumatoid arthritis. Now some of the gliadin though is degraded but poorly into small pieces, small peptides about 5 amino acids long, and many of those amino acids act as opiates. They bind to the opiate receptors of the human brain, and when they do so they stimulate appetite. So we know that all opiate solution, all opiates—heroin, morphine, OxyContin—stimulate appetite in addition to providing euphoria and pain relief. Well, the opiate mix in wheat derived from the gliadin peptides doesn’t give us pain relief or euphoria. They only stimulate appetite and they stimulate appetite oddly for carbohydrates specifically, so we desire more cupcakes and cookies and chips to the tune of about 400 calories per day, 365 days per year.

 

So the introduction of modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat created in the 1970s but widely disseminated into the food supply in the U.S. and Canada in the mid 1980s, early-to-mid 1980s—the introduction of that kind of wheat—coincides perfectly with an abrupt increase in calorie intake of 400 calories per day. It also marks the start of the overweight and obesity crisis as well as the diabetes epidemic that we now have way out of control. So that gliadin protein that stimulates appetite it also causes addictive behavior in people. We see it in its most extreme form in people with binge-eating disorder and bulimia because those gliadin-derived opiates provoke food obsessions, 24-hour-a-day intrusive food obsessions. But in every day people, it causes appetite.

 

Now there are a couple of other effects. The amylopectin-A. That’s the carbohydrate unique to wheat. It’s the carbohydrate that accounts for the fact that two slices of whole wheat bread raise blood sugar higher than six teaspoons of table sugar. Dieticians forget this when they tell us to eat a diet rich in healthy whole grains. They are in effect telling us to consume a diet rich in something that has extravagant capacity to raise blood sugar.

 

There’s a third effect. There’s another indigestible protein. It’s a very large, four-part protein called wheat germ agglutinin. It is completely indigestible. If I had a beaker or a glass full of stomach acid, hydrochloric acid, if I put my finger in it it will dissolve my finger within minutes. If I put wheat germ agglutinin in it, it is untouched by stomach acid. So we ingest something made of wheat. We thereby ingest this wheat germ agglutinin which blocks the leptin hormone, the hormone of satiety. So it turns off you from knowing when to stop eating. So we have these effects. These three effects that cause increased consumption of carbohydrates, a two-hour cycle of blood sugar fluctuations and that low blood sugars that occurs at about 90-120 minutes is when you are ravenous again, and then the turning off of satiety. So that’s why I call modern wheat the perfect obesogen. The perfect thing to make a population overweight and fat.

A lot of diets danced around this issue and almost got it right: Atkins, South Beach, some of the elimination diets. Unfortunately, they eliminated grains and wheat. Of course, by grains we almost always mean wheat and very few people are having millet for breakfast or sorghum with dinner. For all practical purposes, grains usually mean wheat. An ironically, Lucien, in the later phases of all those diets, they all agree. After you’ve lost your weight and you feel better, add back those healthy whole grains. Of course, then people will regain the weight, and hey have health problems. And so they came so darn close to understanding it but didn’t quite get it.

 

geneticists had been very busy people, changing the genetics and the biochemistry of this plant and thereby the effects on humans who consume it.

 

The true path to success is complete elimination. Not to say there aren’t beneficial things in wheat. There are. There are B vitamins and there’s fiber, though it’s mostly insoluble, wood-like cellulose fiber. But there are indeed some good things. There are good things in tobacco too. There are some good nutrients in tobacco, but the entire package of course is awful. It’s corrupt and awful for humans, and the same thing with modern wheat. Yes, there are some good things. Now, you raise an important point. Are you okay just cutting back? If you cut back say by 70%, are you 70% better? No. It’s not a whole lot different than cutting back in your smoking by 70%. Are you thereby 70% better? No. The effects are so overwhelming you remain addicted for one, and you are still exposed to substantial increase in lung cancer, heart disease. Likewise, here. If you cut back you are still exposed to the appetite stimulating effect of the gliadin-derived opiates. You are still exposed to the abnormal increase in intestinal permeability that starts the roller coaster to autoimmune conditions. You’re still exposed to the wheat germ agglutinin that’s a bowel toxin that blocks the leptin hormone and blocks the hormone cholecystokinin.

 

Cholecystokinin is the hormone released by the duodenum, just after the stomach, if I eat protein fat because it tells your gallbladder to release some bile to help digest fats, and it tells your pancreas to release pancreatic enzymes for digestion. Well, in the presence of wheat germ agglutinin, the cholecystokinin receptor is blocked, and so bile does not come out quite as effectively. You get bile stasis over time, gallstones. It blocks released pancreatic enzymes so you have less efficient digestion. You get heart burn. You get acid reflux. You can get bowel urgency. You can even get remnants of undigested food passing out in your stool and that over time encourages growth of abnormal bacteria which is a very bad condition called dysbiosis or small intestinal bacterial overgrowth which has a whole list of implications for health of its own, but at the root cause of this is consumption of wheat.

 

What makes this so astounding, Lucien, is that this thing is so bad, started bad, made much worse by the efforts of agribusiness, no questions asked by our own USDA, yet we’re told it should dominate our diet. It would be bad enough, it would be bad enough if the USDA said something like, “We’ve examined the evidence and we’re not sure if it’s safe to eat wheat.” That would be bad enough, but they don’t say that of course. They say, “You should eat as much as you can every day at every meal.” And of course all we have to do is look around and see what the consequences of that awful advice is. We have the world’s worst epidemic of obesity and overweight. We have the world’s worst epidemic of diabetes ever witnessed in the history of mankind. We have explosions in autoimmune diseases, including by the way type 1 diabetes in children is sharply on the rise as is type 2 diabetes in children and in adults. Inflammatory bowel diseases like ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s are on the increase. ADHD and autism are on the increase. Psychiatric illness: on the increase. Dementia: on the increase. All perfectly coincident with the advice from our own government agencies to consume this thing called modern wheat, and we all should know when you take wheat out of the diet calorie consumption goes down 400 calories per day. And in the studies we have—they vary of course different populations, different times,             different centers—but when we take wheat out of the diet, the average weight loss is about 26 lbs in the first six months.

 

 

So we have a body of nutritional thinking based on flawed logic, Lucien. They all, the 14 epidemiologic studies that purport to demonstrate the health benefits of healthy whole grains really did nothing of the sort. What they showed was that if you replaced something bad, white flour products, with something less bad, whole wheat, whole grains, then there’s an apparent health benefit. And there is—less diabetes, less heart disease, less weight gain, less colon cancer. By the logic of nutrition, a whole lot of a less bad thing must therefore be good. To highlight the silliness of this logic, I use this analogy. If that’s true, if that sort of logic is true, well, then we should be able to take unfiltered cigarettes—something bad—put a filter on it, filtered cigarettes—something less bad—by the logic of nutrition, you and I should smoke Salems for health and be told to smoke a lot of them. Of course, that’s silly, but that is exactly the kind of flawed logic used in nutrition. You’ll see that by the way used over and over and over again. If you replace high glycemic index foods with low glycemic index foods and there’s a benefit, you should eat a bunch of low glycemic index foods. What they didn’t tell you is that low glycemic index foods are misnamed. They should be called less high glycemic index foods because they still raise your blood sugar sky high. If your listeners just bear that one simple piece of logic in mind: that less bad is not necessarily good, they will see that so much in nutritional advice is flawed because it’s based on flawed logic.

 

If you get rid of wheat, you lose weight. You lose a lot of weight. You lose the abnormal triggering of appetite. You loose the process that leads to autoimmune diseases. Depression can lift. Children with ADHD and autism have improved behavior and longer attention spans. People with rheumatoid arthritis can obtain relief. People with asthma can throw away their asthma inhalers often. People with lupus and polymyalgia rheumatica can have dramatic relief. People with neurological impairment can have dramatic relief. In other words, yes, you’ll lose a few pounds, etc., but you have a transformation in health that does not occur with the elimination of sugar.

 

And, funny thing, people who have a sweet tooth I believe most of the time have what I call a wheat tooth. That is, their desire for sodas, candy, and goodies is really a response to the appetite stimulation of all the components of wheat. because if you get rid of wheat and it’s gliadin-derived opiates, its two-hour fluctuation of hunger, and its leptin-blocking by the wheat germ agglutinin, you’ll lose your appetite for sweets. In fact, people who are wheat-free typically say this, “I used to love such and such a candy bar and I thought I’d treat myself now that I’ve been good and I’ve lost 28 lbs and I’m feeling great. So I had a bite of that candy bar that I used to love, and it was sickeningly sweet. I couldn’t even eat it.” And so that sweet tooth nearly always goes away with elimination of the inciting food that is modern wheat.

Not to say there aren’t other problems in diet. There are of course. High fructose corn syrup is a big problem. Corn starch is a big problem. Preservatives, food colorings, hydrogenated trans fat. There are other problems. But the issue I try to focus on is this food that has been embraced by all official dispensers of dietary advice: the USDA, the FDA, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition. All of them. All of them, Lucien, unanimously agree your diet should be dominated by healthy whole grains. So I focus on this thing that is the darling of all those agencies, agribusiness, and Big Food. So while there are other problems in diet, I am focusing on the big bully in diet that really gets the ball rolling in a lot of these problems.

 

“Well, your expert needs to understand that modern wheat is not the wheat of 1950 or 1960 or the wheat used to make your grandma’s muffins. It’s something entirely different. It is an 18 to 24-inch, high-yield, semi-dwarf strain created by geneticists.” That was followed by complete silence, and then the nutritionist said, “Well, the farmers had to do that so they could see over the top of the fields.” And that is I believe a verbatim quote. In other words, he had no knowledge of this at all. He did not understand that the changes introduced were made not so they could see over the top of the field but for entirely other reasons. He had accepted at face value the arguments that healthy whole grains are good for your health.

 

when I talk to people about wheat, it’s the one thing that people sort of comment about. They say, “Well, how can wheat be bad? We’ve always been eating wheat.”  The wheat of today is not the wheat that our great grandparents or grandparents were eating.

 

What happened to those humans? Well, we know just at that moment there was an explosion in tooth decay. Interestingly, prior to the consumption of grains, tooth decay was almost unknown. Now, recall of course we’re talking about 10,000, 100,000, a million years ago. Nobody had dentists or orthodontists. There was no fluoridated water, no dental floss, no tooth brushes, no toothpaste, no concept of dental hygiene, yet virtually no tooth decay: 0.4% of all teeth recovered show evidence of decay or infection. We add the seeds and grass, in this case wheat in the Fertile Crescent, by the way paralleled by the consumption of teosinte maize in Mesoamerica, no Mexico. And millet and sorghum in sub-Saharan Africa. When humans turned to the seeds of grasses, we suffered an explosion in tooth decay, tooth loss, tooth abscess, a shrinkage of the maxillary bone of the face, mandible, and for the first time an explosion in iron deficiency. To this day, iron deficiency affects 25% of the world’s population. We know for a fact iron deficiency is worse in populations that rely on grain consumption. This is becoming a big problem in the third world because they are being fed wheat, rice, and corn that block iron absorption. So a block of iron absorption is a phytate issue in grains. The most common reason in the US for unexplained anemia is wheat consumption. That’s a fact. It’s in the medical literature and has been substantiated and corroborated many, many times. So I find this astounding that this thing has managed to proliferate in our food.

now, some people say this, “I eat wheat and I feel fine. I don’t have any problems with it.” Well, none that you are aware of. And a lot of people develop health problems, and they didn’t think it was due to the consumption of modern wheat. For instance, they didn’t think that the cataracts they had at age 55 were due to healthy whole grains. They didn’t realize that the autoimmune rash they had or the rheumatoid arthritis or the multiple sclerosis was due to the process that was initiated by wheat. they didn’t realize that the dandruff and acne they’ve had for many years, even as adults, was due to wheat. In other words, the consequences of wheat consumption show in so many myriad ways that people don’t think of as being related to wheat consumption that they think they’re getting away scot-free and they’re not.

 

I don’t think we can overstate the enormity of this. The list of conditions that is caused by wheat is literally pages and pages long. In fact, I’m going to make kind of an outsized statement here, Lucien, that is this thing we have called the healthcare system it takes care of acute and catastrophic illness like car accidents and falling down the stairs and hip fractures, but a lot of it is meant to address chronic conditions: hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, dementia, and so on. I believe that a large part of the healthcare system is the system we have created to deal with the consequences of grain consumption because, and I didn’t appreciate the magnitude of change that occurs in people until I asked many thousands of people to remove it from their diet. And even to this day, Lucien, even now after having witness hundreds of thousands of people or more do this, I am still astounded at what this can do. When you see conditions you never thought would recede with wheat elimination go away, you know this is such a huge and far-reaching phenomenon, and by the way, come back when you have an exposure again, whether it’s inadvertent or intentional. That’s a proof positive of individual cause-effect. So if you have, let’s say, rheumatoid arthritis. Your hands are disfigured and inflamed and in pain and you go wheat-free and they take six months or longer—autoimmune conditions take longer to recede. But say six months pass, eight months and you’re almost completely better. You stop a drug. You stop two drugs, stop three drugs, and you’re feeling really good for the first time in years and then you have an indulgence, a slice of birthday cake at your son’s birthday party, some pretzels, whatever, and you have a flare-up, and it can be bad for weeks or months. So this is a very common experience, the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again, and that proves individual cause-effect relationships.

 

So the amylopectin A, the uniquely and highly digestible form of carbohydrate in wheat, and that by the way is due to its unique branching structure that makes it susceptible to the enzyme amylase in saliva and in stomach. Because it’s so efficiently digested, it raises blood sugar abruptly and to a high level and it thereby has an outsized insulin response to accompany it. When you have something that raises blood sugar, your body responds accordingly and raises insulin real high. Well, that insulin, because it’s so vigorous, overshoots. And it drops blood sugar precipitously at about 90 to 120 minutes after consuming something made of wheat. And when blood sugar drops low—so let’s say my blood sugar starts at 90 mg per deciliter. I have something with two slices of whole wheat bread, like a sandwich. My blood sugar goes to say 170 which would be a very typical response in a non-diabetic person. Then it drops to about 70 or 80, and I get queasy, nauseated, foggy, lightheaded, and ravenously hunger at about two hours, and I must have something to raise my blood sugar. It’s a survival response. So you grab another bagel, pretzels, cookies, cake, anything to raise your blood sugar. Then you start that cycle again, and it occurs every two hours. And so, nice dieticians of course respond to this by saying, “Eat many small meals every two hours.” But of course, that just keeps the cycle going.

 

Have you noticed people in this sort of feedback loop wind up raiding their refrigerator late at night? Is that a phenomenon that you’ve seen, that you’ve noticed?

 

Yes, very common. I call that the nocturnal grazing effect. It is very characteristic of wheat consumption. I have seen to extravagant degrees people who are able to discipline themselves all through the day and then go berserk at night.  it wonderfully recedes when you quit eating the wheat.

 

1% of the American population has celiac disease that is destruction of the small intestine from people say the gluten protein. It’s actually the gliadin protein in wheat, rye, and barley because the gluten structure in rye and barley are virtually identical to the structure in wheat. So this is a very devastating condition. Critics of my message say, “We all understand that 1% of the population [has wheat from gluten 35:53] and everybody else can have wheat and gluten and be safe.” What they’re doing wrong with that kind of thinking is they’re regarding wheat as nothing more than a vehicle for gluten that causes celiac disease, and as we’ve talked about there’s many other things in modern wheat besides gluten. There’s the gliadin protein that causes abnormal bowel permeability in people without celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. There’s the opiate effect that stimulates appetite in everybody whether or not you have celiac disease. And by the way, it even does that in celiac disease. That’s why we have obese celiac people now. There’s wheat germ agglutinin that’s a direct bowel toxin. Blocks that cholecystokinin hormone. It blocks leptin, and it doesn’t have to have celiac disease to do that. Blood sugars go high from the amylopectin A of wheat. Does not require celiac disease to do that. So celiac disease obliges someone to be absolutely meticulous wheat and gluten free, but it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other things in modern wheat that aren’t deleterious for people without celiac disease.

 

a lot of the gluten free options out there are as bad as or even worse than the original gluten containing item. When people try to go gluten free, the gluten free options that food manufacturers produce out there can be just as bad or even worse.

 

. And so there are people who want to eat gluten free because they have celiac disease or they believe they have a sensitivity to the gluten protein and so they turn to gluten free foods. Unfortunately, food manufacturers, many of them, have turned to one or a combination of four ingredients: corn starch, rice flour, tapioca starch, and potato starch because they act and taste more or less like wheat. Well, when you dry and pulverize those specific starches, they raise blood sugar sky high. There are very few foods that raise blood sugar higher than whole wheat for instance. Among the very few are corn starch, rice flour, tapioca starch, and potato starch. And they’re sky high, Lucien. The blood sugars go sky high.

 

Now, those high blood sugars are not benign. They cause insulin resistance, growth of visceral fat. It’s highly inflammatory. It provokes the process of glycation or the glucose modification of proteins that is irreversible. So if I glycate for instance the proteins in the lenses of my eyes from a high blood sugar after a multigrain bagel, I get opacities. I get cataracts over time. If I glycate the proteins in my cartilage in my hips and knees, I get brittle cartilage that erodes and leads to arthritis. So many phenomena in health and aging are due to glycation, and when you eat gluten free foods made with what I call junk carbohydrates you get sky high blood sugar; you get accelerated glycation. So people who consume gluten free foods for instance will have very high levels of hemoglobin A1c. That’s a blood test that reflects high blood sugars, and it’s very common for slender people eating gluten free foods to have very high hemoglobin A1c’s because they’ve been eating this awful stuff called gluten free processed foods.

the glycemic index, how high blood sugar goes after various foods, the glycemic index of whole wheat was among the highest of all foods.

 

One of the tripping points in this is people often don’t have access to these sorts of advanced lipoprotein tests where you see such things as the excess of small LDL particles because most of my colleagues as you know do cholesterol testing or lipid testing, what I call 1963 technology. So unfortunately, if your listeners only have access to cholesterol testing or lipid testing, they still will see the rise in HDL cholesterol. That they can see. They’ll still see the reduction in triglycerides, but the LDL cholesterol is very misleading because a lot of people don’t realize that that LDL cholesterol you’re given by your doctor and is the focus of treatment and prescribing 23 billion dollars a year in statin drugs, that LDL cholesterol is a fictitious number. It’s not a real number. It’s a calculated value from an old equation developed in the 1960s by Dr. William Friedewald. So it’s called the Friedewald calculated LDL cholesterol. Well, the problem is the calculation is very crude. It is built on several basic assumptions. One of the assumptions built into the equation is that everybody eats lots of grains and carbohydrates that yield a very, very constant structure in the lipoproteins, the quantity of triglycerides. Well, that’s not true particularly when you try this kind of a diet. When you cut your grains and carbohydrates for instance you reduce the triglyceride content of lipoproteins, the LDL cholesterol calculation is no longer valid. It is invalid. So the LDL cholesterol value, this fictitious number based on flawed and now invalid assumptions, can do anything. It can go up. It can go down, but it’s meaningless because it’s not a real number. And so it has to be measured. And so that’s why I advocate people getting the real test.

 

Astoundingly, people will go to their doctor sometimes and the doctor says, “Well, insurance doesn’t cover it.” It does cover it. I’ve been doing it for 20 years. More likely, they don’t understand it. Because as you know I’m a harsh critic of my own colleagues in that too much of their education came from that nice, good-looking sales rep in their waiting room rather than a true study of the scientific literature and science behind this stuff. When you look at the science, you realize cut your fat and reduce your LDL cholesterol with statin drugs is an absurd proposition. It has almost no basis in real science. The real cause of coronary disease—there’s a long list of causes—but with regards to lipoproteins and lipids and cholesterol the real cause is an excess of oxidation-prone, small LDL particles. Only three things, only three things, Lucien, in the diet cause formation of small LDL particles: grains, sugars, and starchy legumes.

 

you can reduce blood sugar, hemoglobin A1c, and even get rid of diabetes by eliminating grains and other carbohydrates. Eric Westman’s study, for instance, at Duke University. He took well established diabetics—and these were people who had diabetes for years on insulin and several with drugs—cut carbohydrate intake, cut out all grains and sugars down to 20 grams per day, which is almost nothing. After six months, only six months, 25% of these long-standing diabetics were no longer diabetic. And there are other studies with similar sorts of results. So while the American Diabetes Associate purports to be on the side of diabetics, they are in effect contributing to the widespread increase in diabetes in this world. Diabetics know that if they consume the American Diabetes Association diet, they will have a sky high blood sugar.

 

And by the way, if anybody wants to know what different foods do to blood sugar, you can prove it to yourself. If you get an inexpensive finger stick, a blood sugar meter. You can buy it from Walgreens, Walmart for about 20 bucks with the test strips. Some of the primary care docs even give them away for free because they make their money on the test strips. You can check a blood sugar just prior to a meal or food in question and in one hour later, not two hours later like the primary care people advise because they’re looking for adequacy of control of blood sugar on drugs. We’re looking at how high does blood sugar go after different foods. So you check your blood sugar at the approximately peak which is about one hour. And you’ll see that if your blood sugar starts in a normal range, say 90, and you have two slices of whole wheat bread it goes to about 160, 180. So you can assess yourself the effects of different foods. If you were to have a meal advocated as healthy because it’s low in fat and rich in healthy whole grains, advocated by the American Diabetes Association, you’ll see a typical blood sugar is 90 to about 180 to 250 in non-diabetic people. So it makes you diabetic.

 

There really are lots and lots of foods left, Lucien. People have forgotten because they may have turned to wheat because of the addictive, appetite-provoking effect and because it is convenient, and I hate to admit this: it is tasty. Cake does taste good and bagels are fun and portable. But when you remove wheat, it’s a two-part process. We remove obvious sources. Those are easy: breads, pasta, rolls, pizza crust. Those are obvious. But there’s lots and lots of not-so obvious sources, like Twizzlers. Wheat’s the second ingredient. And taco seasoning. And all frozen dinners and virtually all breakfast cereals. Salad dressings. In fact, your listeners will find that virtually every processed food contains wheat in some form. Now by the way, I don’t know why that is. I suspect it’s because smart food scientists figured this out way before I did, and they said, “Let’s not talk about this. Let’s put wheat in everything because it stimulates appetite and thereby stimulates sales.”

 

So if you want to go wheat-free, you eliminate the obvious sources, but you also eliminate processed foods.

So it’s a return to real, single-ingredient foods that we know are safe. Cucumbers and green peppers and other vegetables and nuts and seeds like almonds and walnuts and pecans and macadamias. Mushrooms. Avocadoes. Coconut. There’s lots of foods. Now, I should point out because people say, “Oh my god, I can’t do this. I’m going to be missing so many different things.” Well, you can. You can still have pancakes, cookies, muffins, cheesecake. You can have all those things, but we’re going to recreate them. we’re going to recreate them without wheat, without other grains, without added sugar, and without those silly junk carbohydrates chosen by the gluten free industry. We’re gonna choose healthy ingredients.

 

So right now, if you and I want pizza, we’ve got to make our own pizza crust. And it’s delicious by the way. We’ve got to make our own donuts and our own muffins and scones, but you can make very delicious food. You can have rich, entertaining dinners and events with your friends. You can have wonderful holidays filled with biscuits and gravy and pumpkin pie and all those goodies but we recreate them so they’re actually healthy for you.

 

What’s less accepted and therefore more insidious as a dietary “poison” are processed grains (wheat and flour products, such as bread, pasta, crackers, snack foods, baked goods, etc., as well as rice, corn, cereals, etc.). You heard right—these staples of diets across the globe are generally inappropriate for human consumption for the simple reason that our digestive systems (and our genes) have not had ample time to adapt to both the unfamiliar protein structure of grains and the excessive carbohydrate load of all forms of cultivated grains, including even whole grains. Essentially, the advent of grains and civilization has eliminated the main thing that’s made humans healthy: selection pressure to reach reproductive age—and to care for ourselves, and others, beyond!

Ingesting grains and other processed carbohydrates causes blood glucose levels to spike (both simple and complex carbs get converted into glucose—at differing rates— once they enter the body; we’ll use the accurate term blood glucose to convey what many call blood sugar). This spike is a shock to our primal genes, which are accustomed to natural, slower-burning foods. Your pancreas compensates for this excess of glucose in the bloodstream (too much glucose is toxic to the body—hence the importance of timely insulin shots for diabetics) by secreting excessive levels of insulin. While insulin is an important hormone that delivers nutrients to muscle, liver, and fat cells for storage, excessive insulin released in the bloodstream causes glucose to be removed so rapidly and effectively that it can result in a “sugar crash”: mental and physical lethargy and (because the brain relies heavily on glucose to fuel it) a strong craving for quick replacement energy in the form of more high-carbohydrate food. This leads to a vicious cycle of another ill-advised meal, another excessive insulin response, and another corresponding blood glucose decline.

Because insulin’s job is to transport nutrients out of the bloodstream and into the muscle, liver, and fat cell storage depots, its excessive presence in the bloodstream inhibits the release of stored body fat for use as energy. Insulin’s counterregulatory hormone, glucagon, accesses carbs, protein, and fat from your body’s storage depots (muscle, liver, fat cells) and delivers them into the bloodstream for use as energy. When insulin is high, glucagon is low. You don’t have fuel in your bloodstream, so your brain says, “Eat now! And make it something sweet so we can burn it immediately!” Unfortunately, the mobilization of stored body fat has been humans’ preferred energy source (and weight-control device) for a couple of million years. It’s as simple as this: you cannot reduce body fat on a diet that stimulates excessive—or even moderately excessive—levels of insulin production. Period.

Beyond the weight-loss frustrations, overstressing your insulin response system over years and decades can lead directly to devastating general system failure in the form of type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease (thanks to vascular inflammation, peripheral oxidative damage, and other insulin-related troubles we will learn more about

later), and diet-related cancers. Chapter 5 will explain in detail that even whole grains (brown rice, whole wheat bread, etc.) are not particularly healthy, because they still trigger excessive insulin production and can interfere with mineral absorption as well as displace the far more nutritious plants and animals from being the caloric emphasis of your diet.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.