Posted on

Book Review: Wheat Belly

wheatbelly“Did you know that eating two slices of whole wheat bread can increase the blood sugar more than 2 tablespoons of pure sugar can?”

Wheat Belly is a provocative book by William Davis, MD, a preventive cardiologist. He describes the extraordinary results his patients have achieved by giving up wheat and explains complicated science in simple terms, with a generous dollop of humour, making this book an easy read.

Davis begins by exploding the term “beer belly” attributing our record girths to wheat, rather than beer. He explains the long history of wheat, especially the last thirty years when wheat, without any tests of its effects on humans, was hybridized so it barely resembles wheat our ancestors ate.

Davis makes some amazing claims, based on years of research on his patients. He says, “ Wheat, because of its unique blood glucose-increasing effect, makes you age faster…..wheat accelerates the age at which you develop signs of skin aging, kidney dysfunction, dementia, atherosclerosis and arthritis.” He proposes, therefore, that going wheat-free is anti-aging.

He claims whole grains, including and especially wheat, mess with the brain, causing dementia and physical brain damage in many people. He explains how wheat wrecks havoc with our immune systems.

Dr. Davis writes about the pervasiveness of grains in our diets. He points out that several aisles in the supermarket are devoted to grain products. He reveals the power of the companies that manufacture and promote grain products and their profit potential.

My favourite quote: “One thing is clear: There is no nutritional deficiency that develops when you stop consuming wheat and other processed foods.”

The food industry and its cohorts (USDA, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, etc.) suggest that grains are somehow necessary for health. Not true. For example, we don’t need grain to access B vitamins (added to baked products) because they are ample in meats, vegetables and nuts.

Davis claims that eliminating wheat makes it easier for people to fast, the ability of which is natural. When people eat wheat they need to eat every few hours due to their ride on the glucose rollercoaster and other factors. Eliminating wheat may be inconvenient but it is not unhealthy.

I have been virtually wheat-free since 2005 and my own experience is remarkable. I lost 30 pounds in two months. Acne breakouts that had plagued me for 30 years magically disappeared, never to return.

I continued to eat substitute grains like rye for a while. I soon noticed I felt better avoiding grains altogether. I do still eat some brown rice, about twice a month.  When I want to “cheat” I will have a slice or two of ciabatta bread; I am immediately bloated, gaining five to eight pounds after eating just two slices. This typical outcome makes it easy for me to avoid bread.

Avoiding wheat means foregoing most processed foods, which allows me to avoid other food culprits like hydrogenated oils, salt, sugar and artificial sweeteners, and chemical preservatives.

If you suffer from inexplicable medical conditions or the inability to control your weight, I encourage you to try eliminating wheat from your diet for a month. You may notice no difference, but I believe Dr. Davis’s book provides plenty of evidence that you will most likely feel better.

Posted on

Ban Bottled Water Bans

waterbottleRevised July 2013

I have a confession: I drink bottled water!

The recent vilification of bottled water drinkers is most disturbing to me. I’m not oblivious to its negative impact on the environment and the overall absurdity of paying for water.

Lately, news of the danger of plastic drink containers leaching harmful chemicals into their contents, the environmental costs of transporting water, and the problem of properly disposing of the containers (recycling) have caused some to re-examine the intelligence of consuming bottled water. Some jurisdictions are even toying with banning the sale of bottled water.

I embraced bottled water years ago, not for the fad but the taste of it. I despise soft drinks; too sweet, too fizzy (make me belch; not becoming) and loaded with harmful substances. I’ve never liked the taste of coffee or tea, except some herbal teas. So I drink water.

Before bottled water my request for water with my burger was met with a disdainful glazing of eyeballs. I had to endure tap water in wax-lined paper cups, invariably with ice that tasted of dirt and refrigerator.  Usually it was dispensed from the wash-up sink, an area of questionable sanitation. Depending on the season, there was an added cocktail of chlorine and dissolved organic matter that had surpassed the city’s treatment capabilities. I was often charged for this swill, because, I was told, of the cost of the cup!

I grew up on non-chlorinated well water so tap water smells (and therefore tastes) like a toilet or a swimming pool to me. The only way I can stomach the water I order in a restaurant is to get a lemon slice with it. Not every restaurant or vendor provides lemon (and one study found the germs from the bar staff’s hands contaminate the water via contact with the lemon skin).

I also object to the fluoridation of public water. Our city added this toxic industrial by-product to our water for 20 years. (Council recently voted to abandon the practice, citing cost savings).

My consumption of water greatly increased with the installation of a water cooler in my home. Sure, I could have a container with a filter in my fridge but I’ve been turned off by the mold on other people’s filters and that “fridge” taste of their water.

Now that I’ve defended my reasons for choosing bottled water, I want to know why has not one word has been breathed about banning soft drinks!

Soft drinks also come in plastic bottles capable of leeching noxious chemicals into their contents.  Perhaps nobody cares because soft drinks are already loaded with sugar or (neuro-toxic) artificial sweeteners and other chemicals like phosphoric acid, a known dissolver of bones and other mineral compositions in the body. Most also have caffeine, another culprit in the deterioration of our health, especially when over-consumed.

Why is there not a movement to save the environment by not transporting soft drinks? How much global warming could be reduced if there were no plants churning out thousands of bottles of pop each day? And no trucks delivering it to stores? Or no refrigerators to keep it cold, at the ready for thirsty customers?

Sure, the odd school board has banned non-nutritious beverages from their vending machines. But parents routinely fill their shopping carts with soft drinks and buy their children fast food meals, which often include a soda with their deep fried entrees. Then they wonder why their children are threatened with obesity. (Clearly good nutrition is not motivation for the average parent’s choices). Why aren’t they connecting the dots?

Significantly more bottled soft drinks are consumed than bottled water but there is no squawking about all the non-recycled pop bottles or the cost of transporting that product. Perhaps it’s because shutting down Coke and Pepsi is not an option: too many people own their stock and rely on their products to get through the day! Their consumption is so pervasive in the general population that banning soft drinks would be akin to banning coffee.

Admittedly, not all bottled waters are created equally. Some water comes from springs and other so-called natural sources, but nobody is required to measure the purity of it. That muddies the waters, so to speak, for me. Other brands are filtered tap water; some taste better than others.  Coke’s Dasani is filtered tap water with salt, which accounts for its odd taste.

It may seem stupid to you that I pay for filtered water; I will admit it is arguably rather frivolous. But if that’s what it takes for me to drink the recommended eight or so glasses of water each day, nobody should have the right to tell me I can’t take delivery of it in a bottle, just like my colleague’s Diet Coke.