Re: gluten/appetite (was warrior diet question)

[Guest guest]

>Since CCK is involved with fat digestion and signalling satiety, if gluten

>compromises CCK production it would make sense that the satiety signalling

>would be compromised, leading to overeating. Maybe this is also why

>difficulty digesting fats is a typical gluten sensitivity issue.

>

>Estrogen, for one thing, regulates CCK, so that may be another clue.

>

>-

That is interesting. I don't recall that from the book, but in the Schwartzbein

Principle she mentions CCK as the " stop " mechanism for eating, and that carbs

don't trigger it, only fat, which is why a low-carb diet works. But if you

can't sample the food to trigger CCK ... I'd guess that the CCK triggers bile

release too? In some celiacs the bile ducts are clogged, but none of them seem

to create enough bile (hence the enzymes).

The other thing is that gluten attaches to the villi in the upper intestine for

everyone, it seems from my reading, and the body has to clean it off. If it is

attaching to the little villi, it would seem it would keep them from absorbing

food to do their signaling? Estrogen makes a lot of sense too, some of us just

get too hungry at certain times of the month.

As for the opposite problem ... it's not as uncommon as people think, though

it's probably hard to get sympathy!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

>That is interesting. I don't recall that from the book, but in the

>Schwartzbein Principle she mentions CCK as the " stop " mechanism for

>eating, and that carbs don't trigger it, only fat, which is why a low-carb

>diet works. But if you can't sample the food to trigger CCK ... I'd guess

>that the CCK triggers bile release too? In some celiacs the bile ducts are

>clogged, but none of them seem to create enough bile (hence the enzymes).

Well, following the logic of CCK being the " stop " mechanism, I initially

thought it would follow that for me, getting stopped too early would be a

reflection of too *high* CCK, although I've read that in anorexia usually

CCK is also too low, as it is in overeating conditions. Now, there are

different forms of CCK and lots of other gut hormones that influence CCK,

so it might not be as simple as too much or too little.. And here's where I

start to feel I'm reaching the limits of by biochemistry-tolerance :-)

Here's something from an article by (not the other

):

Primary Intestinal Tract Endocrine Hormones

Gastrin:

· Endocrine hormone, secreted by G-cells in antrum stomach mucosa

· Stimulates secretion of gastric acids, lowers pH

· Stimulates growth of gastric mucosa (cell-proliferative)

· Exists in glycine-bound precursor in intercellular fluid

(progastrin), the probable growth-stimulating factor

· Stimulates pancreatic, gallbladder and small intestinal secretions

· Diminished gastric acid, increased serum gastrin

· Increased gastric acidity, decreased serum gastrin

· Too much gastrin, stomach mucosa hyperplasia

· enterochromaffin-like cells (ECL, found only in the acid-secreting

stomach) proliferate in diminished acidity, dangerously so when inhibited

by H2 blockers...even anticholinergics.

· Infection with Helicobacter pylori causes hypergastrinemia, often

causing gastric ulcer

· Yeast metabolites (such as in beer or bread) stimulate gastrin

· Normal gastrin response stimulates acquired immunity in gut

· Diminished OR excessive levels impair normal resistance

Secretin:

· Endocrine hormone, secreted by cells in upper small-intestinal mucosa

· Stimulates stomach enzymes, water and alkali secretions from

pancreas and liver: SUPPRESSES gastric acids

· Complex meals stimulate the most; fluids and sugars the least

Somatostatin:

· Paracrine/endocrine hormone (in the intestinal tract)

· Made by D-cells in gastric mucosa

· Suppresses gastric secretions; Gastrin rises, until suppressed by a

combination of luminal acids and somatostatin

· Infection with Helicobacter pylori causes somatostatin suppression,

usually causing duodenal ulcer

· Somatostatin also produced in small intestines and large intestines.

· Somatostatin also produced in brain, and released by myenteric

plexus cells

· It inhibits motility and tone of stomach and small intestines and

gall bladder, and inhibits formation of liver bile, but NOT bilirubin

· It STIMULATES motility and tone of esophagus

· It is elevated in blood and cerebrospinal fluids of

obsessive-compulsives

· It inhibits the release of ALL known GI hormones

· It inhibits saliva, gastric, pacreatic, small intestinal and liver

secretions

· It inhibits splanchnic blood flow

· It inhibits intestinal absorption

· In the brain it inhibits somatotropin release by the

hypothalamic/pituitary axis.

· It is also secreted into the bloodstream by the hypothalamus, where

it acts on the primary target tissues in the gut.

· Like epinephrine, it is made LOCALLY (paracrine), and secreted

SYSTEMICALLY (endocrine)

Bombesin

· A paracrine hormone in brain, it moderates blood flow (somehow)

· It is an endocrine hormone, secreted from cells in the duodenum and

jejunum.

· It stimulates gastric ACID and pancreatic ENZYMES.

· It stimulates contractions of the gall bladder and the biliary duct

· It relaxes the common duct and sphincter of Oppy (see: Garfield)

· It strongly stimulates acquired immunity and antibody response in

biliary apparatus AND duodenum/jejunum

· It helps trigger Cholecystokinin release

· It is a vasoconstrictor to breast arteries (??)

Cholecystokinin (CCK)

· An endocrine hormone secreted by cells in the mucosa of the

duodenum the jejunum, also (natch) by the hypothalamus

· Meals stimulate CCK secretions by BOTH the gut and CNS simultaneously

· It stimulates gall bladder contractions and pancreatic enzymes

· Release of CCK GENERALLY satiates the appetite for more food.

· Coincidentally, it is also the LAST major gut hormone secreted in a

food cycle

· A secondary rise of CCK (following the initial release) inhibits

stomach motility and emptying, but NOT peristaltic action.

· CCK can slow colon transit (unpredictable)

· CCK has no effect on small intestinal transit.

· CCK is secreted MORE with unsaturated dietary fats than with

saturated fats, and least of all with butterfats.

· Coffee (intact or decaffeinated) increases intestinal CCK secretions.

· Secretion stimulated by phenylalanine

· It is part of the " antianalgesia response " in the spinal chord,

following endorphin or opiate activity.

· It is directly involved in opiate tolerance

· CCK-4 (CCK-tetrapeptide) is associated, and may induce, panic states

· CCK-8 (CNS) stimulates and modifies appetite for food

· CCK-8 is VERY low in those with anorexia and/or bulimia

· Anorectic/bulimics produce less gut CCK (usually CCK-4)

· CCK is also a gut immuno-stimulant, but less active than gastrin

and Bombesin (the most active)

>The other thing is that gluten attaches to the villi in the upper

>intestine for everyone, it seems from my reading, and the body has to

>clean it off. If it is attaching to the little villi, it would seem it

>would keep them from absorbing food to do their signaling? Estrogen makes

>a lot of sense too, some of us just get too hungry at certain times of the

>month.

Oy, having to clean off your villi every day, I have enough chores to do :-)

Maybe the estrogen thing will work in my favor with estrogen levels

lowering for good now! Perimenopause has seemed to cure my migraines, so

hopefully there will be more upsides to this transition than I expected!

-

[Guest guest]

>Well, following the logic of CCK being the " stop " mechanism, I initially

>thought it would follow that for me, getting stopped too early would be a

>reflection of too *high* CCK, although I've read that in anorexia usually

>CCK is also too low, as it is in overeating conditions. Now, there are

>different forms of CCK and lots of other gut hormones that influence CCK,

>so it might not be as simple as too much or too little.. And here's where I

>start to feel I'm reaching the limits of by biochemistry-tolerance :-)

>

>Here's something from an article by (not the other

>):

>

>Primary Intestinal Tract Endocrine Hormones

>Gastrin:

Arrghh! Well that sure reaches the end of my biochemistry! Nice list though,

I'll keep it for reference! When I was trying to DECREASE my appetite I

kept a food log, and just kept track of what worked. My goal was to find

a breakfast that would last until lunch. And now of course I have NO

breakfast and that lasts until lunch. But the point is, none of the theoretical

stuff really worked, so I just tried one thing after another (my usual approach

to life) after being guided by the theoretical.

The only thing I've heard of that consistently makes people hungry is

marijuana ... and REALLY I only know that by hearsay ... I wonder if

the doctor would be willing to prescribe it in your case? Any other (legal)

items/herbs with that side effect? (That don't destroy one's intestines ...).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

>Arrghh! Well that sure reaches the end of my biochemistry! Nice list though,

It went far beyond my grasp, but I knew you and others here have a higher

tolerance than I do! I keep doing a balancing act between trying to sort

out the theory on the one hand, and just relaxing and trusting my instincts

on the other. When you're so physiologically out of whack it's hard to

trust anything, but you have to start somewhere and support the healthy

responses like taking care of a delicate growing seed.

>But the point is, none of the theoretical

>stuff really worked, so I just tried one thing after another (my usual

>approach to life) after being guided by the theoretical.

I think that's wise, and I'm turning a corner to that approach.. the mind

needs to be placated a bit first, but then with some theoretical background

under my belt, to focus more on my own body as teacher. Relaxing around

eating is after all the way to real nourishment.

>The only thing I've heard of that consistently makes people hungry is

>marijuana ... and REALLY I only know that by hearsay ... I wonder if

>the doctor would be willing to prescribe it in your case? Any other (legal)

>items/herbs with that side effect? (That don't destroy one's intestines

Glad you brought that up! Interestingly, this subject keeps coming up for

me periodically.. I once had some Marinol (synthetic THC) prescribed by a

doc, but I was afraid to try it after I read that people can get such

extreme psychoactive effects that can last for days; it sounded quite

awful. I'm sure the herb is much safer, and have heard master herbalist Ed

( " Herbal Ed " ) speak on the various medicinal uses.. but he's out in

Oregon where it's legal to grow the stuff, and here in NY it's not possible

to get even medical marijuana, only the synthetic stuff.

Marijuana does have a depressing effect on the adrenals, so in any form is

not good for regular use. But it does have a long history of use in the

literature of clinical herbalism...

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/28/03 1:24:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Here's something from an article by (not the other

> >):

Not the other other Michale either, huh? There are so many

s... I thought it was really amusing that the head of the WTO is or was

.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I'd recommend against buying street drugs though-- pot is often cut with

paint thinner and other things health-seeking folks might want to avoid. If you

get it underground, I'd grow your own or *really* know your source.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/28/03 2:11:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Of course if you are looking at mind-benders, there is

> good ol' MSG. Maybe not the synthetic kind, but it comes in

> seaweed and mushrooms (?)

Are you thinking of psylocibin? ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Relaxing around

>eating is after all the way to real nourishment.

I like that! After all, eating is supposed to be FUN and RELAXING,

not a Chemistry 101 exercise.

Glad you brought that up! Interestingly, this subject keeps coming up for

>me periodically.. I once had some Marinol (synthetic THC) prescribed by a

>doc, but I was afraid to try it after I read that people can get such

>extreme psychoactive effects that can last for days; it sounded quite

>awful. I'm sure the herb is much safer, and have heard master herbalist Ed

> ( " Herbal Ed " ) speak on the various medicinal uses.. but he's out in

>Oregon where it's legal to grow the stuff, and here in NY it's not possible

>to get even medical marijuana, only the synthetic stuff.

I suspect that a lot of the push against marijuana is the fact

it doesn't have to be commercial. It only lately became legal

to make your own wine (thank Jimmy !). Dom was worried

about kefir-making becoming illegal for the same reasons.

Of course if you are looking at mind-benders, there is

good ol' MSG. Maybe not the synthetic kind, but it comes in

seaweed and mushrooms (?) I think, and Tamari and is a known

appetite stimulant. Large amounts definitely bother some people

but it's been used a lot by the Japanese.

>Marijuana does have a depressing effect on the adrenals, so in any form is

>not good for regular use. But it does have a long history of use in the

>literature of clinical herbalism...

Yes, and actually I'll bet some other herbs do too. Maybe a Chinese

herbalist would know? I have an herb book, I should look

it up ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> > Relaxing around

> >eating is after all the way to real nourishment.

>

>I like that! After all, eating is supposed to be FUN and RELAXING,

>not a Chemistry 101 exercise.

Wasn't there something recently about the reason the French have less heart

disease-- not what they eat, but *how* they eat? (leisurely!.. sound

farmiliar? :-)

>I suspect that a lot of the push against marijuana is the fact

>it doesn't have to be commercial. It only lately became legal

>to make your own wine (thank Jimmy !). Dom was worried

>about kefir-making becoming illegal for the same reasons.

Exactly. The contraindications and side effects of herbs are generally in

such a milder class than those of pharmaceuticals, it's laughable. Yet the

herbs get blamed left and right.

>Of course if you are looking at mind-benders, there is

>good ol' MSG. Maybe not the synthetic kind, but it comes in

>seaweed and mushrooms (?) I think, and Tamari and is a known

>appetite stimulant. Large amounts definitely bother some people

>but it's been used a lot by the Japanese.

Interesting.. I thought MSG was a taste bud stimulant, or actually taste

bud confuser :-), but I never heard of it as an appetite stimulant, except

in cases when there's a connection between those two. For me, my appetite

doesn't depend on things being exceptionally tasty-- plain chicken soup is

heavenly to me!

But I have some wheat-free tamari, and might try some experiments.

>Yes, and actually I'll bet some other herbs do too. Maybe a Chinese

>herbalist would know? I have an herb book, I should look

>it up ...

me too.. I have my texts from a clinical herbalism program I took a few

years ago, which included Chinese herbal medicine. I didn't work nearly as

deeply with it as others did, and don't remember half of what I learned,

but I ended up with some good resources.

Also I've had plenty of clinical workups by Chinese medicine practitioners,

and have taken loads of herbs indicated for my particular diagnostic

patterns (which don't correspond to the western medicine disease

categories, so you can't match herbs to those categories in any meaningful

way).

I think the herbal remedies have been supportive, but didn't seem to be

enough; they were working on more underlying levels, and probably are

helpful in that sense. But I haven't found anything (legal :-) that could

stimulate appetite directly without intolerable side effects or nasty drugs

like synthetic estrogens.

-

[Guest guest]

>Not the other other Michale either, huh? There are so many

>s... I thought it was really amusing that the head of the WTO is or

>was .

Hehe.. not unless he's also a renowned master herbalist from Arizona, but

somehow I don't think so :-))

-

[Guest guest]

wrote on Sunday, September 28, 2003 6:11 PM

<<Wasn't there something recently about the reason the French have less heart

disease-- not what they eat, but *how* they eat? (leisurely!.. sound farmiliar?

:-)>>

---- it's not only how they eat, it's *how much* they eat....

there was a comparison recently in the papers here (UK) to do with obesity and

the 'French paradox'.... it seems portion sizes of food, [what's served on a

plate and packaged food products such as milk carton sizes, yoghurt pots etc.].

are significantly smaller in France than in the US.

" " Scientists have another solution for the notorious " French paradox " - the

riddle of how a nation of alcohol-quaffing, croissant-munching gourmands stays

healthy and slim, while a disproportionate number of health-obsessed Americans

are obese and at cardiovascular risk. " "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1028786,00.html

Dedy

[Guest guest]

> ---- it's not only how they eat, it's *how much* they eat....

I didn't read the article but one I did read recently talks about how

the French raise their children; they feed them a little bit less

rather than a little bit more. And I don't think they view food as a

reward or a treat; they view it as FOOD. We have this weird Puritan

thing about food that leads us to consider some food as " sinful, " and

some food as " good. " Food is food. In our attempts to avoid the sinful

(and in our embrace of the corporations and subsequent fracturing of

home life) we end up with the " good " food alternatives to " sinful " (aka

real) food. Sure, they don't taste as good; sure, they don't really

seem to be making us any healthier; but by golly, they're not sinful!

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

I think it's a little more simple than folks are making it:

Americans eat too much. Americans have ALWAYS eaten too much. This has

nothing to do with modern America; it has to do with America. Period.

One of the things Tocqueville noted when he came to study America was that

Americans ate very big bites, and lots of them in little time.

And that was long before we started viewing any foods as sinful, etc, and

before we started eating low-fat, and before we started eating low-animal fat,

etc.

(Granted I think people would have better portion control if they used butter

instead of HO in cake, etc, but it's an old problem).

Chris

[Guest guest]

BTW, they eat wheat in France, don't they?

What they don't eat is HOs, which are banned.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Lynn,

I think you're right.. maybe that moralism about food comes in because

we've become disconnected from our instincts that would tell us what's

right for us, " right " as in what tastes good and promotes health and

well-being at the same time, not in some moralistic sense.

I've heard that generally in the southern areas of Europe people enjoy food

immensely but have very little preoccupation with nutrition, just enjoying

the availability of fresh, local foods that we would consider NT-style.

Someone I know who's travelled much of Europe told me that the further

north you go, the more unhealthy the diet becomes and the more

preoccupation with nutrition and special diets. I thought that was an

interesting distinction.

-

At 12:03 PM 09/28/2003 -0700, you wrote:

> > ---- it's not only how they eat, it's *how much* they eat....

>

>I didn't read the article but one I did read recently talks about how

>the French raise their children; they feed them a little bit less

>rather than a little bit more. And I don't think they view food as a

>reward or a treat; they view it as FOOD. We have this weird Puritan

>thing about food that leads us to consider some food as " sinful, " and

>some food as " good. " Food is food. In our attempts to avoid the sinful

>(and in our embrace of the corporations and subsequent fracturing of

>home life) we end up with the " good " food alternatives to " sinful " (aka

>real) food. Sure, they don't taste as good; sure, they don't really

>seem to be making us any healthier; but by golly, they're not sinful!

>

>Lynn S.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/28/03 4:59:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

karenr@... writes:

> May be true in some cases, but if your appetite is working correctly, you'd

>

> naturally stop eating regardless of how much is served. In the US we don't,

> and the large portions don't help, but I don't think portion size is the

> cause.

>

As stated before, I partially disagree, because Americans have always eaten

large portion sizes.

However, I'll point out that different fats have different satiety values.

In my own personal experience, unsaturated fats have much less satiety value

than saturated fats, and short and medium-chain saturated fats have less satiety

value than long-chain saturated fats.

When I was a vegetarian, I ate *tons* of fat, probably as much as I do now.

But it was almost all unsaturated-- MFA from olive oil, PUFA and MFA from

canola oil, and PUFA from tofu. When I ate a meal, I'd get full, but it would

last maybe an hour before I wanted to munch again. I could eat six muffins for

a

*snack* that contained plenty amount of fat from canola oil, soy flour (iirc

it wasn't defatted, but might be wrong), etc, and never get stuffed.

But when I started eating butter, I started being able to eat till I was

full, and not have to eat for four or five hours.

So I think it is definitely a major difference in America and France that

America uses mostly unsaturated fats in our desert, and France uses mostly

saturated fats in their desert. And I'm sure gluten can cause appestat

problems,

but a wheat-based cake in France with butter goes a long way for satiety versus

an American soybean oil cake.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi Dedy,

>---- it's not only how they eat, it's *how much* they eat....

>there was a comparison recently in the papers here (UK) to do with obesity

>and the 'French paradox'.... it seems portion sizes of food, [what's

>served on a plate and packaged food products such as milk carton sizes,

>yoghurt pots etc.]. are significantly smaller in France than in the US.

May be true in some cases, but if your appetite is working correctly, you'd

naturally stop eating regardless of how much is served. In the US we don't,

and the large portions don't help, but I don't think portion size is the cause.

-

[Guest guest]

>> Of course if you are looking at mind-benders, there is

>> good ol' MSG. Maybe not the synthetic kind, but it comes in

>> seaweed and mushrooms (?)

>

>Are you thinking of psylocibin? ;-)

>

>Chris

Oh sheesh. My experience with these things is sooo limited ...

my mushrooms are purely the ones they sell in the stores.

Though sometimes the flavor is mind-bending ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>---- it's not only how they eat, it's *how much* they eat....

>there was a comparison recently in the papers here (UK) to do with obesity and

the 'French paradox'.... it seems portion sizes of food, [what's served on a

plate and packaged food products such as milk carton sizes, yoghurt pots etc.].

are significantly smaller in France than in the US.

They also drink wine with each meal. In my experience, wine really

cuts the " Hungries " . And they smoke a cigarette with the meal,

more than likely, which does the same. AND their meals are full

of fats, which also cut hunger. And they don't snack (snacks

are considered low-class and sort of guache, I hear).

When I get a gluten attack, red wine is the best way to stop

it, which I find interesting. I don't know why, but it

works. Maybe it cleans off the villi, or interferes with

the gliadin -- gliadin is a lectin and it attaches to oligosaccharides,

and maybe something in wine deactivates it. Wine also changes

how fats are digested, which might lead to more satiation.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>I've heard that generally in the southern areas of Europe people enjoy food

>immensely but have very little preoccupation with nutrition, just enjoying

>the availability of fresh, local foods that we would consider NT-style.

>Someone I know who's travelled much of Europe told me that the further

>north you go, the more unhealthy the diet becomes and the more

>preoccupation with nutrition and special diets. I thought that was an

>interesting distinction.

>

>-

I know someone who goes to France every so often just to EAT, which

I find sad in a way. She is the same person who accuses ME

of being preoccupied with food! I think they DO get preoccupied

with food there, but it is more on the enjoyment side ... long meals,

good ingredients. Cooking a good meal takes some work, and enjoying

it takes time. But they don't have the " food is sin " idea -- or drink is

sin, for that matter, or smoking is sin. Probably all the Puritans got

shipped to America.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

-

Unhealthy according to what principles, though?

>Someone I know who's travelled much of Europe told me that the further

>north you go, the more unhealthy the diet becomes and the more

>preoccupation with nutrition and special diets. I thought that was an

>interesting distinction.

-

[Guest guest]

Hey .

Unhealthy meaning more industrialized, processed foods. The observation was

that the more industrialized the area, the more people were concerned about

nutrition and counting calories and such. She says people in France talk a

lot about food, but about preparation and where the seafood is best, that

sort of thing, not about nutritional content. I'll ask her if I can repost

her email which is quite interesting.

-

>Unhealthy according to what principles, though?

>

> >Someone I know who's travelled much of Europe told me that the further

> >north you go, the more unhealthy the diet becomes and the more

> >preoccupation with nutrition and special diets. I thought that was an

> >interesting distinction.

>

>

>

>-

[Guest guest]

>BTW, they eat wheat in France, don't they?

>

>What they don't eat is HOs, which are banned.

>

>Chris

Oh great, now you've got me thinking about a nice warm loaf of French bread

and even without HO's.. <sigh>..

Well, even if they do eat wheat, they may not have the multitude of forms

of wheat in every shape and size that we do, and maybe they don't eat it as

a main dish like we do pasta. I heard that in Italy pasta is sort of an

appetizer before the main course, not a main course like it is here.

-

[Guest guest]

>Well, even if they do eat wheat, they may not have the multitude of forms

>of wheat in every shape and size that we do, and maybe they don't eat it as

>a main dish like we do pasta. I heard that in Italy pasta is sort of an

>appetizer before the main course, not a main course like it is here.

>

>-

I think is right on this one ... they eat wheat, but it is

full of butter. And eaten with a glass of wine. Wine and wheat

is MUCH better than pure wheat, according to my tummy --

again, I don't know why. And they eat wheat WITH a meal,

so the starch gets surrounded by all that olive oil and is

more slowly digested with protein. They don't snack, which

probably gives the gut time to recover.

There is a lot of evidence that gluten causes less damage

when it is with a meal ... we are the home of snack food,

and eating wheat low fat crackers on an empty stomach

is just deadly. Eating a slice of French bread with butter

and/or olive oil is different. If the gluten hits the upper

intestine quickly the enzymes can't even begin to

digest it, so it attacks the intestine. But if it is surrounded

by oil (you know how oil coats stuff!) then it breaks down

bit by bit and the damage is kind of spread out over however

many feet of intestine.

.....

Interestingly, they eat more wheat than we do (96 kg per person

per year) but that has stayed *steady* from 1980 to 2000. In that

same period, US wheat consumption went from 49 kg per person

to 67 kg per person (a 40% rise), and obesity rates rose too (100%?).

So clearly a lot of the EXTRA calories folks are eating do come from wheat.

In the same period, rates of autism and T2 diabetes have also been

rising.

Wheat consumption in the US reached a low in 1970, then started to

rise rapidly. The obesity rates from 1960 to 2000 rose from 13.3 to 30.9

percent.

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/statobes.htm

The prevalence of obesity (BMI > 30) during this same time period more than

doubled from 13.3 to 30.9 percent, with most of this rise occurring in the past

20 years.8 From 1988 to 2000, the prevalence of extreme obesity (BMI > 40)

increased from 2.9 to 4.7 percent, up from 0.8 percent in 1960.3,8 In 1991, four

states had obesity rates of 15 percent or higher, and none had obesity rates

above 16 percent. By 2000, every state except Colorado had obesity rates of 15

percent or more, and 22 states had obesity rates of 20 percent or more.11 The

prevalence of overweight and obesity generally increases with advancing age,

then starts to decline among people over 60.[3]

....

Also, the gene that causes gluten intolerance is rarer in southern

Europe and gets more common the further north you go. And

they test for it routinely, I'm told, so probably the people with

the most problem know it.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>I think is right on this one ... they eat wheat, but it is

>full of butter.

I see your point. I sure wish we could just adopt their more liberal food

habits and be healed, but at this point it seems most of us have to be

meticulous about diet just to undo the damage we've done. And just to find

wholesome food and decide what compromises to make for practicality's sake,

can be such a challenge.

>Wheat consumption in the US reached a low in 1970, then started to

>rise rapidly.

Interesting, that's just when I started to get sick, early 70's. I didn't

have a lot of wheat as a kid in the 60's, a sandwich sometimes, but the

slices were small, and one piece of bread with lots of butter for a snack

after school. But never much in the way of snacks, and I don't remember

anyone else overeating either. There was maybe one kid in the class at

school who was a little overweight, but that was unusual.

>Also, the gene that causes gluten intolerance is rarer in southern

>Europe and gets more common the further north you go. And

>they test for it routinely, I'm told, so probably the people with

>the most problem know it.

Have you come across any data about gluten intolerance in eastern Europe?

My ancestors are from Austria and Russia, but I have no idea how far back

they go in that area.

-