William Davis, MD, is a preventive cardiologist whose unique approach to diet allows him to advocate reversal, not just prevention, of heart disease.
He is the founder of the 
Gliadin is a protein found within wheat gluten. It is, from a cold scientific viewpoint, a fascinating issue, a protean protein capable of incredibly varied biologic effects in humans. Among the things we know about gliadin:
–Gliadin is the most abundant protein in wheat, contained within gluten polymers.
–Gliadin of 2012 is different from the gliadin of, say, 1960, by several amino acids, part of the genetic transformation of wheat introduced to increase yield-per-acre.
–Gliadin is degraded to a collection of polypeptides called exorphins in the gastrointestinal tract. Exorphins cross the blood-brain barrier and bind to opiate-receptors to induce appetite, as well as behavioral changes, such as behavioral outbursts and inattention in children with ADHD and autism, hearing voices and social detachment in schizophrenics, and the mania of bipolar illness.
–People who consume gliadin consume 400 calories more per day; people who remove gliadin reduce calorie intake by 400 calories per day.
Incidentally, antibodies to gliadin are capable of binding to nervous system tissue and may contribute to immune-mediate neurological impairment, such as cerebellar ataxia and gluten encephalopathy. Gliadin, particular the omega fraction, is also responsible for allergic responses, including Bakers’ asthma and the odd wheat-dependent, exercise-induced analyphylaxis (WDEIA).)
The high-yield, semi-dwarf strains of wheat, invented in the 1960s and 1970s, was introduced to North American farmers in the late 1970s, who adopted it over the next decade. By 1985, virtually all wheat farmers were growing this high-yield strain. (Can you blame them? Per-acre yield increased about 10-fold, provided sufficient nitrate fertilizer was applied.)
What was the effect of the new wheat with its new gliadin protein? Take a look at the CDC’s chart of calorie intake in U.S. women:
It would be an oversimplification to attribute the rise in calories strictly to the new gliadin, as high-fructose corn syrup from soft drinks also contributed, especially in young males.
But the pattern is quite intriguing. Introduce the new gliadin with potential for stimulate appetite 400 calories per day, followed by gradual weight gain, followed later, after a lag of a few years to allow 30,40, 50 or more pounds of weight gain, by diabetes.
Of course, the “official” response is that the increased calorie consumption, overweight/obesity, and diabetes are your fault because you are a glutton and you’re lazy, eating chips, cookies, and other junk snacks along with sweetened soft drinks while you watch The Biggest Loser.
But, you know, I look around at the people I come across and I know hardly anybody over age 20 who fits this bill.
That little dip at the right end of the Overweight Trend line is interesting.
It’s an exact mirror image of the little peaks in the Obese and Extremely Obese trends.
So the overweights in that time period probably didn’t lose weight – they gained it.
Dr. Davis et al, do you have any idea why there is a drop around the years 1996-97 in the 3rd chart showing the diagnoses of diabetes in the US??? Wonder what happened there to cause a drop? It seems like a small anomaly but the deviation in both lines occurs at the same time and then continues upwards after that seemingly only lasting a little over a year. Was this during the second big Atkins craze (no antagonism intended but this was what it was called in some circles)?? If so it is sad that a lot of folks really didn’t continue not realizing that perhaps there were some real benefits being had.
The dips are interesting, but as with the Trend blips, could be the result of changes in the sampling procedures, or even budgetary issues.
The shocking thing, clearly not an artifact, is that it would be sobering enough if the diabetes rate was just rising in a straight line (which it was from 1960 to 1985). It’s not. Since 1985 it’s been rising and accelerating.
Anyone with access to the raw data could put together a projection into the future. It will be grim.
Yes, indeed, Boundless. The curve is now approaching a straight-up trajectory.
It means that this ridiculous advice will consign our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of diabetes, often starting young.
Don’t know, Phillis.
Epidemiologic data like this can only suggest causative factors. I cannot imagine what was unique in those years.
As a couple in our mid – 40′s, we look around and seem to see a huge increase in overweight children and young people today as compared to when we were kids and teenagers. Sure, there were always a few chubbier kids around, growing up, but very few were as large as we are presently seeing. The whole situation is sad as well as infuriating. It appears to be a government subsidized health crisis.
Here is a curiosity question for you (I apologize if you have covered this already):
What is your viewpoint on probiotics in aiding intestinal/overall health, whether in the form of yogurt, etc. or an actual probiotic supplement?
Thank you, as always!
If you use Google, and search term:
probiotic site:wheatbellyblog.com
you’ll get lots of hits here, such as:
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2011/11/quit-your-pushing/
Probiotics can be very helpful, Kathleen, especially as you “recovery” form the bowel flora disruption of wheat consumption.
However, capsule form is more effective than yogurt. The yogurt form is not harmful, just not that helpful.
I have to use probiotics every time I slip up and eat wheat, just to set things right again…
This comment showed up in my Twitter feed from a reporter/columnist (not from CBS) who has NEVER commented about diet and food before -
“Butter didn’t cause Paula Deen’s diabetes. Wheat and sugar did. http://bit.ly/waHj8j via @CBSNews”
The link goes here -
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57358605-10391698/paula-deen-expected-to-reveal-she-has-type-2-diabetes/
Progress!
I’m not one bit surprised that Ms. Deen is diabetic. She likely has been cultivating this condition for many years.
And by all early reports, it appear she’s fixin’ to do all the wrong things to fix it.
Brains are going to melt at Food Network someday.
They are going to have to totally restructure some shows. The back catalog, useful for resale on DVD, Blu-Ray, NetFlix and cable, is going to become entirely worthless.
A wheat-free family member is fond of watching pastry shows like Cake Boss. I can’t stand to watch the needlessly chubby have their little wheat-fueled dramas and prepare their pretty poisons.
Boundless,
I have been wondering whether or not a probiotic would be beneficial in the healing process of the intestines. There is so much reading to be be done. 
Thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for.
I read an interesting article related to Sutterella and autism. It mentions enzymes and ‘leaky gut’ or at least the permeability of the intestine. Makes sense with what is mentioned in the book (Lost the Wheat Lose the Weight) about the effects on the body. Here is a link to the blog where I read about it.
http://questioning-answers.blogspot.com/2012/01/autism-and-sutterella.html
Dr Davis,
Can you please provide the citations for the increase in gliadin in wheat over the past 4 decades in order to increase yield. I’ve heard this mentioned in seminars, but have yet to see the data source. I did a cursory search on pubmed but only found that there is an inverse relationship between wheat yield and protein content. You can look at this source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k1kjUxV4nAEC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=gliadin+increases+wheat+yield&source=bl&ots=wk-TJehqve&sig=BUrwSAJiksFK4bHS3eQRcHFkvTw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fO8RT_75Bsfl0QHmv9WBAw&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=gliadin%20increases%20wheat%20yield&f=false
So if you can provide your data I’d greatly appreciate it.
Respectfully
George Mandler
> … increase in gliadin in wheat over the past 4 decades in order to increase yield.
Has that claim been made?
“increase in gliadin … in order to increase yield”
I expect that increased yield was the primary goal, and that any increased gliadin would have been a side effect (and perhaps only an intended side effect to the extent that protein content had to be at or above certain targets).
Thank you Boundless I read that wrong based on what I heard…so read it like I heard which was gliadin content increased over time. Incorrect.
Also I for high yield wheat I would expect less gliadin content as suggested by my previous hyperlink above.
So what we are saying is that the gliadin protein has inadvertently changed as a side effect of the desire to increase yield. I searched pubmed, albeit not for more than 15 mins, with different terms to find this but came up empty. Found a lot of articles talking about different AA sequence in differently hybrids of wheat, so is that what we are talking about?
Also we don’t really know if the changes in sequence has a deleterious effect.
If you have any references that would be great…..or are they all in the book?
I don’t have any information on the change in gliadin content over the period in question, nor whether specific effects are linked to specific sequences. We’ll have to rely on Dr. Davis to respond to that. I was just clarifying that increasing gliadin was probably not intentional.
What we do have is things like that diabetes trend line, which correlates with his hypothesis. Correlation is, of course, not proof, but when it’s all you’ve got, you ignore it at your peril. In the case, it doesn’t even seem to be all we’ve got, because the trend collapses for individuals who ditch wheat and migrate to low carb.
I’m a fan. Your information feels spot-on, and I’d like to use it in a nursing school forum discussion. Can you cite any studies you’re using so I can back this up?
Thanks, Angela.
Yes, all the references are provided in the back of the book, 16 pages in all.
So, if I understand the overweight chart correctly, as of 2008, roughly 33% of adults aged 20 to 74 are overweight, while another ~33% are obese and yet another ~7% are extremely obese. That means about 72% of those adults couldn’t follow the instructions of conventional thinking (I refuse to call it “wisdom” because it clearly isn’t) to eat less fat and more healthy whole grains? OR, pehaps it means that at least 72% DO follow that misguided advice….. Meanwhile when I point this out to family and friends, they think I’m the “whacko”……
It is absurd once you think about it, isn’t it?
In the “official” line of thinking, we are all lazy and eat too much. The truth is that exercise levels have increased, most people exceed the grain consumption advised by the USDA, yet are in this predicament.
I continue to be amazed by the Wheat Bellies in my gym: same folks, week after week, month after month, year after year – I know that because I’ve been a member for 12 years – chugging away on useless energy expenditure on those treadmills, elliptical trainers, stair-steppers, etc. They are relying on the conventional stupidity of Dr. (sic) Cooper and his insipid aerobics of 1970′s fame, and, in the process ignoring the well-founded wisdom of the 21st C showing that high intensity interval training trumps “aerobics”, and trumps it big time. Do a PubMed search on “Tabata Protocol,” (not the knock-off sites who tout it yet continue to site dumb dietary stuff).
Best evidence I know of though is this: have you ever seen an obese, indeed, ever seen an overweight, 100 meter, 400 meter, or 800 meter runner?
Lots of “conventional stupidity” to be challenged.
Yes, Anthony, I agree.
It is sad, it is everywhere . . . and the answer is really so simple.
The way I read the legend for Figure 2, “Overweight” includes people who are overweight, but excludes people who are “Obese” and people who are “Extremely obese”. However, “Obese” includes people who are obese and people who are “Extremely obese”. Perhaps a shaded, stacked graph could have related the information more clearly.
Was this in response to my comments about how to interpret the OW dip?
It would have been helpful also to have the normals (healthy BMI) trend as well. Perhaps it’s available at the source.
I have watched the population inflate since 1960, and my general impression is not so much that they are lazy sots who overconsume junk, but that most of them have just given up in despair at trying to control their weight.
They’ve been told so much that isn’t true or doesn’t work. Only a few lone voices are warning them that the easily corrected root cause contaminates perhaps 50% of products sold as “food”.
It would actually be interesting to do a study of exactly what percent of “food” SKUs at the average supermarket contain wheat or gluten, and of the remainder, what percentage are dangerous due to grossly unhealthy levels of fast carbs (which would include a lot of GF products).
Boundless: “Was this in response to my comments about how to interpret the OW dip?”
No. It was an interesting observation, as was another poster’s observation of a ’96-’97 dip in the CDC’s diabetes count. I don’t have any explanations, even after searching.
Accelerations in the overweight and diabetes trends are terribly alarming. The obesity trend just fall a few points short of Jeff’s presentation if I’m reading the caption on Figure 2 correctly. There’s some built-in redundancy.
Intellectually I know the damage wheat (and other grains) can do, but that doesn’t stop not me from wanting a piece or two of garlic bread. Oh for a healthy alternative!
On page 212 of the book Dr Davis states that chia seeds are essentially carbohydrates and should be avoided till the wheat withdrawal process is over. I have read that chia seeds provide protein, fats and fiber so I thought they were a good addition in the early stages of the “diet”. Could anyone clarify? thanks.
That’s an acknowledged error in the book (the only one reported so far). Chia is fine.
Great! Thanks. I am glad I was paying such close attention!! it was actually my second read through so I as picking all the details.
To paraphrase Sting:
Every bite you take
Every meal you make
Every cake you bake
Every break you take
I’ll be watching you.
Tyrannocaster,
that is just too cool
I did “moderation” for five years. Dropped sixty pounds low carbing, but had the occasional low carb wrap or three bites of my husband’s dessert; all wheat containing foods, but small quantities, weeks apart. No digestive issues, no weird symptoms. Then our car dropped dead in the middle of winter and the terrible stress of overcoming this problem with little money and limited public transport overwhelmed me and I turned to Dreamfield’s pasta because I could not get to the grocery store very often.
Gained back a third of what I’d lost before I came to my senses and got to low carbing again. Got into my snuggest jeans, and that’s what I was wearing when I ate a roast beef sandwich on a low carb wrap… and my stomach started to puff out! I had to unzip those jeans and use a rubber band on the buttonhole!
I went gluten free then, a year ago, and the difference is dramatic. I lost another ten pounds though I changed nothing else. And my hands, which had been hurting so much I had to take OTC painkillers to get to sleep at night; started getting better and better. I hadn’t connected my middle-aged arthritis with wheat; but that has to be the factor. One more thing; twice I’ve gotten wheat accidentally, and it’s like elves with blowtorches in my stomach. I guess I lost the enzymes to digest it; but that’s okay with me.
The point of my story is to illustrate even people like me: long time low carb, feeling great, weight stable; can still be having problems with wheat, even in the widely spaced, tiny amounts I was ingesting.
Even in “moderation.”
We have been wheat free for four months now, doing great, full of energy! I check my blood sugar before and after every meal and have found I can occasionally have a small amount of organic gluten free granola made with gluten free oats without a resulting problem. Two weeks ago however, I started having issues with food cravings, and I was hungry two hours after breakfast…Blood sugar readings were up a bit. Lost some of my new found energy as well. I thought at first that the magic of this no wheat eating plan had ended. Returning this week to the food coop I found out the granola I picked up a couple of weeks ago had been mislabeled gluten free… That it actually contained barley syrup as the tenth ingredient. I stopped eating that granola(had only been eating it two times per week) and three days after stopping it I am back to no cravings, no hunger, and again, lots of energy. Is it possible that a small amount of barley syrup could have this effect?
Dr. Davis, you mentioned -People who consume gliadin consume 400 calories more per day; people who remove gliadin reduce calorie intake by 400 calories per day.
Do you have a scientific reference for this statement. I can’t find it in your book.
Thanks,
Mark
It’s actually in several studies: The studies demonstrating reduced calorie intake in celiac patients who are wheat- and gluten-free; the naloxone studies in both binge eaters and people without binge eating disorder, among others.
In other words, it is not a direct comparison, but extracted from studies in multiple studies.
After the loss of two friends who were big pasta and bread eaters from lung and colon cancer, I am concerned that another problem with wheat consumption is the 1998 mandatory “sythetic folate” or folic acid addition in the milling process to prevent neural tube defects.
Although it may help one group of young women who don’t make healthy food choices, this synthetic folate may be unintentionally harming the rest of the population, and it seems it would be better to recommend that young women to choose natural folate food choices or take a supplemental vitamin pill in order to not force synthetic folic acid on the rest of the population.
It is stated in a 2008 article from the Harvard Health Publication at http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/the-ups-and-downs-of-folic-acid-fortification.htm
“Although the chronological link between increased colorectal cancer cases and higher blood levels of folate isn’t proof of cause and effect, the Tufts researchers think there are biological reasons why extra folic acid may be to blame. Folic acid and folate play complex roles in the body. There’s compelling evidence that high dietary intake of folate may protect healthy cells against colorectal and other cancers. But there’s equally strong laboratory and clinical evidence that — under certain circumstances — folic acid can stimulate the growth of cancer cells.”
With the government recommending more of these grains on our daily plates, I think we are being overdosed with both gluten and folic acid. Is it really obesity causing the cancer or the folic acid from the wheat that made them obese and cancerous….the old chicken or the egg!
This effect sounds subtle enough that I would expect it to be dwarfed by the tsunami of problems caused by the wheat itself.
So if wheat goes away, does this potential problem go with it, or is technofolate being added to other foods?
“Although the chronological link between increased colorectal cancer cases and higher blood levels of folate isn’t proof of cause and effect, …”
Correlation is indeed not proof, but when it’s all you’ve got, you ignore it at your peril.
Just wow! My then 12 year old daughter was diagnosed three years ago with “exercise-induced asthma”. At the time, she had been pushed by a phys ed teacher beyond what she was able to do, and we went through all the requisite tests to try to find out what was wrong.
A year later, just before school started, after a going away party with friends (pizza, cake, etc..) and swimming, she came down with severe bronchitis and pneumonia, keeping her in the hospital for a week. All the time, I’ve known there was something more there – just out of reach – that we couldn’t put our finger on. As she has always been a little on the chunky side (not obese, however), but she’s had digestive issues since infancy. She always threw up just before it was time to eat again, and as a toddler and young child we held up many meals while she went to the bathroom just before dinner. Doctors refused to consider that she might need to be tested for any of the things I believed to be problems (oh, she would be underweight if that were the problem). After the hospital experience (during which, by the way, she was given at least 4 different antibiotics to knock out her pneumonia – one of which I later found was not even approved for her age – and from which she had residual joint pain for the next year) I finally concluded on my own that she was insulin resistent – and now, thanks to my sister for sharing your book with us, we’re finally seeing results.
Daughter has begun to slim down, refuses to eat wheat, says she can tell a difference in how she feels. As a family, we’re all trying to be very supportive and even my other “pasta-farian” daughter has come to terms with rice pasta! We’re wheat-belly converts and have shared your information with many interested people when we’re out and about.
At about 6 weeks wheat free now, we’re hoping our daughter’s severe psoriasis will begin to abate as well (that’s the only good thing that came of her antibiotic saturation – her scalp was clear for several weeks). Thanks, Dr. Davis!
Hi, Left–
Thank you for telling your daughter’s story. More parents need to hear about situations like this. I suspect there are thousands, perhaps millions, of parents struggling to understand why their children have health problems, are overweight, have behavioral problems or can’t sit still in class.
I have been looking for a mention of melasma, since you have said that lentigo is a possible outcome of eating wheat. For the last seven years I have had increasing age spots on my face (I’m 56) and I wondered if there might be a reversal on a wheat-free regimen.