FB-TW

Showing posts with label paleo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paleo. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Effect of wheat on irritable bowel syndrome- FreeTheAnimal

Looks Like Dr. William Davis Was Right in Wheat Belly

February 18th, 2014     

Well what do you know?

I've been following Dr. Davis for a long time and have really applauded a lot of the work he was doing over the years getting really good results for people, primarily by getting them off wheat and getting their vitamin D levels up. The results often showed up in significant reductions in heart scan calcification scores. Davis in a cardiologist. Since I was pretty hardcore Paleo at the time, it made a lot of sense, but I attributed that success mostly to the removal of grains period.

Then comes his book—Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back To Health

========================================================
The above is a quote from here.


Below is a copy of the abstract from  a double-blinded randomised dietary intervention trial. The original can be found here.
=====================================================================

Effect of Triticum turgidum subsp. turanicum wheat on irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blinded randomised dietary intervention trial.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of a replacement diet with organic, semi-whole-grain products derived from Triticum turgidum subsp. turanicum (ancient) wheat on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms and inflammatory/biochemical parameters. A double-blinded randomised cross-over trial was performed using twenty participants (thirteen females and seven males, aged 18-59 years) classified as having moderate IBS. Participants received products (bread, pasta, biscuits and crackers) made either from ancient or modern wheat for 6 weeks in a random order. Symptoms due to IBS were evaluated using two questionnaires, which were compiled both at baseline and on a weekly basis during the intervention period. Blood analyses were carried out at the beginning and end of each respective intervention period. During the intervention period with ancient wheat products, patients experienced a significant decrease in the severity of IBS symptoms, such as abdominal pain (P< 0·0001), bloating (P= 0·004), satisfaction with stool consistency (P< 0·001) and tiredness (P< 0·0001). No significant difference was observed after the intervention period with modern wheat products. Similarly, patients reported significant amelioration in the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms only after the ancient wheat intervention period, as measured by the intensity of pain (P= 0·001), the frequency of pain (P< 0·0001), bloating (P< 0·0001), abdominal distension (P< 0·001) and the quality of life (P< 0·0001). Interestingly, the inflammatory profile showed a significant reduction in the circulating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-6, IL-17, interferon-γ, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor after the intervention period with ancient wheat products, but not after the control period. In conclusion, significant improvements in both IBS symptoms and the inflammatory profile were reported after the ingestion of ancient wheat products.
PMID: 24521561 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
===================================================================
Read the complete articles here and here.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Dairy: food of the Gods or neolithic agent of disease?


Dairy: food of the Gods or neolithic agent of disease?

February 8, 2011 in Food & Nutrition by Chris KresserPrint This Post
Picture of a dairy cow
One of the most contentious issues in the Paleo nutrition community is whether dairy products are health-promoting or disease-causing.

On one end of the spectrum you have Loren Cordain and his group, who claim that dairy is not fit for human consumption for two reasons: 1) because it’s a neolithic food and not part of our evolutionary heritage, and 2) because of proposed physiological mechanisms by which dairy causes harm when consumed. On the other end of the spectrum you’ve got folks like Kurt Harris, Stephan Guyenet, Chris Masterjohn and the Weston A. Price Foundation who have pointed out the many health benefits of dairy and are generally in favor of its consumption.

My answer to the question of whether dairy is healthy are harmful is, in short: it depends. But before we get into the factors I think the answer depends on, I want to briefly address why I don’t take the evidence against dairy very seriously at this point.

Paleo re-enactment isn’t the goal

I agree with Dr. Kurt Harris on this one. We can look to the Paleo era to determine what was evolutionarily normal for humans, but it doesn’t follow that anything that falls outside of that norm is automatically harmful. The argument that we shouldn’t eat dairy now because we didn’t eat it 2 million years ago – without supporting clinical evidence – is not convincing.

There’s also the inconvenient (for the anti-dairy set) matter of people like the Masai and Loetschental Swiss that Weston A. Price studied, who were free of modern, degenerative disease despite receiving a large percentage of calories from dairy products.

Human evidence is more convincing than proposed mechanisms

Cordain’s group has published and reviewed several papers proposing various physiological mechanisms by which dairy causes harm. One recent example is a paper by Melnik called Milk Signalling in the Pathogenesis of Type 2 Diabetes. The theory presented is that milk consumption beyond the weaning period may overstimulate pancreatic beta-cells and promote beta-cell apoptosis. Since proliferation and apoptosis of beta-cells are hallmarks of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), it follows that milk consumption must contribute to T2DM.

Or does it?

If that theory were true, we might expect to see increased rates of T2DM in people consuming dairy products. But in fact we see just the opposite.

This study looked at serum levels of trans-palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid found in milk, cheese, yogurt and butter, and correlated them with risk factors for diabetes. Here’s what they found:
At baseline, higher circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid were associated with healthier levels of blood cholesterol, inflammatory markers, insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity, after adjustment for other risk factors. During follow-up, individuals with higher circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid had a much lower risk of developing diabetes, with about a 60% lower risk among participants in the highest quintile (fifth) of trans-palmitoleic acid levels, compared to individuals in the lowest quintile.
Translation: people with the highest trans-palmitoleate levels had 1/3 the risk of developing diabetes over the three years volunteers were followed. Not only that, after adjusting for confounding factors trans-palmitoleate levels were associated with smaller waist circumfrence, lower triglycerides, higher HDL and lower C-reactive protein.

Since trans-palmitoleic acid is a fatty acid found in the – you guessed it – fat of milk, the study also supports the idea that full-fat, whole dairy products are beneficial. This directly contradicts the low-fat hysteria we’ve been brainwashed with for so many years. But I digress.

Stephan Guyenet blogged about this study and re-wrote the authors’ conclusion in more straightforward terms:
Our findings support eating as much butter as possible****. Don’t waste your money on low-fat cream, either (half-n-half). We’re sorry that public health authorities have spent 30 years telling you to eat low-fat dairy when most studies are actually more consistent with the idea that dairy fat reduces the risk obesity and chronic disease.
Since this was an observational study, it doesn’t prove that dairy fat reduces the risk of T2DM. But it does suggest that the converse isn’t true.

Another study found that people with the highest levels of milk fat biomarkers, suggesting they consumed the most dairy fat, were actually at lower risk of heart attack; for women, the risk was reduced by 26 percent, while for men risk was 9 percent lower.

Another study showed that people who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least.

Finally, this literature review of 10 studies found that milk drinking is associated with a small but significant reduction in heart disease and stroke risk.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Which is this: evidence of what happens when people actually consume dairy products is a lot more convincing to me than proposed mechanisms of how dairy may effect humans.

The problem with isolating certain effects of a nutrient or food, and then making predictions based on those effects, is that we might miss some other quality about that food that negates the proposed effect. That’s a mouthful, so let me explain.

T. Colin Campbell is (in)famous for his research linking casein, a protein in dairy products, with cancer. He then made the huge and unsupportable leap to concluding that all animal proteins cause cancer and should be avoided. Most of you know the rest of that story.

However, what Campbell neglected to notice, or mention, is that whey, another protein found in dairy, has anti-cancer effects that completely cancel out the cancer-promoting effects of casein. Oops! This is why it’s so important to study whole foods, not just nutrients.

So let me finish this section by saying that I believe the weight of the evidence on dairy consumption suggests that it is not only not harmful, but quite beneficial.

When dairy may not be beneficial

However, as in most things, there are exceptions. Many of you reading this are probably sensitive to dairy and don’t tolerate it well. I certainly have patients that this is true for, and it’s not at all uncommon.

What’s the deal? Why does it seem to benefit some, but cause problems for others? In my opinion the answer boils down to the health of the gut. If someone has compromised intestinal permeability, or “leaky gut”, it’s more likely that their immune system will respond to potentially allergenic components in milk such as alpha- and beta-casein, casomorphin and butyrophillin.

This is especially true for people who are gluten intolerant, because it has been shown that milk proteins commonly cross-react with gluten. Put another way, if you react to gluten, it’s more likely that you’ll also react to milk.

Along these same lines, people with small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) – which is one of the major causes of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) – may be more likely to react to milk because the bacteria in their small intestine aggressively ferments lactose, the sugar in milk, causing gas, bloating and other G.I. symptoms.

Not all milk is created equal

Something that irritates me is that raw and pasteurized dairy is often discussed as if it’s the same thing. It’s not. Raw dairy is a whole food, and pasteurized dairy is a processed food.

While it’s true that some people (described above) react to the proteins in milk, most who are sensitive are reacting to the sugar in milk: lactose. The enzyme lactase must be present to hydrolyze lactose into its constituent compounds, glucose and galactose. Somewhere between 1% – 95% of people don’t produce lactase on their own, depending on race and ethnicity.

In a sign of nature’s wisdom, raw milk contains lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose. Pasteurization, however, kills lactase. So if you don’t produce your own lactase, you’ll have a hard time digesting pasteurized milk. But that doesn’t mean you can’t tolerate raw milk. I can’t tolerate pasteurized dairy myself, but I don’t seem to have any problems with raw dairy.

So the answer to the question I posed in the title of this article isn’t so simple, and it depends on several factors:
  • The status of your gut barrier
  • Whether or not you have SIBO or IBS
  • Whether or not you’re gluten intolerant
  • Whether you’re eating raw or pasteurized dairy
If you’re not sure where you stand with dairy, the best approach is to remove it for 30 days and then reintroduce and see what happens. Elimination/reintroduction is still the gold-standard for determining sensitivity to a particular food.

But if you tolerate it well, I haven’t seen any evidence in the literature that convinces me you shouldn’t be eating liberal amounts of full-fat dairy.
============================================================
Read Chris Kresser's full article here.

Friday, February 24, 2012


The Wheat Belly Diet

The cardiologist-created Wheat Belly Diet is built on the premise that wheat, not sweets, is making you fat. Here's how a wheat-free diet may help you lose weight.

Forget your beer belly — William Davis, MD, a preventive cardiologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., says your wheat belly is the real health hazard. Davis’ prescription for a whittled middle is simple: Cut all wheat from your diet. Better yet, Davis argues in his book, Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health, that eating wheat-free will both prevent and reverse health problems such as acne, cataracts, diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis.

The Wheat Belly Diet suggests we get back to eating more like our ancestors who existed solely on foods found in nature, not those grown for production or manufactured for sale. In that way, the diet is similar to another popular diet, the Paleo or hunter-gatherer diet, says Joan Salge Blake, MS, RD, a Boston nutritionist, author of Nutrition & You: Core Concepts for Good Health, and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. Here’s how to find out if going wheat-free is right for you.

The Wheat Belly Diet: What Is It?

Your menu choices on this eating plan include natural foods such as eggs, nuts, vegetables, fish, poultry, and other meats. You can use herbs and spices freely and healthy oils, such as olive and walnut, liberally. Eat fruit occasionally — just one or two pieces a week — because the naturally occurring fructose in fruit is a simple carbohydrate. As part of this diet, you’re required to eliminate all fast food, processed snacks, and junk foods, and drink lots of water.

The Wheat Belly Diet is in fact gluten-free, but Davis doesn’t advocate eating packaged gluten-free foods. His reasoning: These products often simply substitute brown rice, potato starch, rice starch, tapioca starch, or cornstarch for wheat flour, and those substitutes can raise your blood sugar or glucose higher than wheat.

The Wheat Belly Diet: How Does It Work?

Cut wheat from your diet, and you’ll eat about 400 fewer calories a day than you normally would, Davis says. This calorie deficit alone is almost enough to add up to a pound of weight loss per week. “Anything that is going to cut calories is going to work because losing weight is a numbers game,” Blake says. “Eat fewer calories than you burn, and you’ll lose weight. Likewise, eat more than you burn, and you’ll gain weight.”Another reason the diet works, Davis says, is that wheat contains a unique protein, gliadin, which stimulates your appetite— so when you eat wheat, your body just wants more wheat. Eliminate wheat and your appetite diminishes on its own. Wheat also causes blood sugar spikes, and elevated blood-sugar levels can cause your body to store calories as fat. Lower your blood sugar by eliminating wheat, and it can contribute to weight loss.

The Wheat Belly Diet: Sample Menu

Breakfast: Plain yogurt with berries and almonds
Lunch: Grilled chicken breast with salsa, 1/2 cup brown rice, steamed vegetables sprinkled with extra-virgin olive oil
Dinner: Baked eggplant topped with mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce, mixed green salad spritzed with extra-virgin olive oil
Snacks: Black-bean dip and raw vegetables

The Wheat Belly Diet: Pros


  • If you adhere strictly to the diet, you will lose weight. Over three to six months, you can lose 25 to 30 pounds depending on your age, gender, and physical activity, Davis says.
  • The diet is simple. There’s no need to count calories, limit portions, or calculate fat grams. All you have to do is eliminate foods that contain wheat.
  • The diet is rich in vegetables, which are full of vitamins and fiber. Eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can help lower cholesterol, stabilize blood sugar, and reduce the inflammation that can cause conditions from acne to arthritis.

The Wheat Belly Diet: Cons


  • The diet is restrictive, and it may be hard to maintain for the long-term, especially if foods such as bread, cookies, and pasta are among your favorites. “Losing weight doesn’t have to be this challenging,” Blake says. “Do you really need to go to this extreme?”
  • Wheat is in a huge number of packaged foods. You have to read food labels carefully because it can be hidden in everything from chewing gum to granola as an emulsifier or leavening agent.
  • When you remove all wheat from your diet, if you “cheat” and eat a slice of whole-wheat toast or half a bagel, the wheat could cause digestive problems, such as stomach cramps and gas.
  • You could be missing out on some important nutrients. “Whenever you limit whole types of foods, you have to make sure you’re eating healthfully,” Blake says. “This isn’t a well-balanced diet. You should sit down with a registered dietitian to be sure you’re meeting all your nutrient needs if you choose this diet.”
  • Although you can lose weight with this diet, it will be lost from all over your body, not just your “wheat belly” or love handles, Blake says. Weight loss doesn’t work that way — you don’t lose from a specific area.

The Wheat Belly Diet: Short-Term and Long-Term Effects

The foods you can eat on the Wheat Belly Diet are healthy, and you should lose weight rapidly if you stick to the plan. Weight loss can affect more than just your appearance: Study after study has shown it can boost heart health, reduce pain, improve your energy levels, and more. For example, someone who is prediabetic and loses just 15 pounds can reduce the risk for diabetes over three years by 58 percent, Blake says.

Because the diet is so new, not much is known about the long-term effects, Blake says, but serious health consequences are not anticipated. Overall, Blake remains skeptical.

“There’s nothing wrong with wheat,” she says.“It isn’t wheat that’s causing you to gain weight; it’s the calories you’re eating. Just eat more fruits and vegetables as part of a balanced diet, and you can cut calories and lose weight while still occasionally eating foods that contain wheat.”
Last Updated: 02/23/2012
Share
13
Email