Modern Wheat Is Not What Wheat Once Was

“Modern wheat grains could certainly be considered as the root of all evil in the world of nutrition since they cause so many documented health problems across so many populations in the world.” -Dr. Alvarez

Why is wheat so bad?

“It’s not wheat, its an 18 inch tall plant created by genetics research in the 60’s and 70’s… It’s not the wheat that Mom had, it’s not the wheat that Grandma had, it’s a very different, genetically changed plant. And by the way this all predates the techniques of genetic modifications. These techniques were crude, imprecise, unpredictable—far worse than genetic modification.” Dr. Davis explains how this new substance contains the Gliadin protein that is an opiate. “This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.”

 “I’d go so far as saying,” he writes in his new book, Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health, “that overly enthusiastic wheat consumption is the main cause of the obesity and diabetes crisis in the United States.”

Can we go back to the old wheat before it was genetically changed?

“It’s very possible, it is economically unfeasible (probably) because this thing yields about 10 fold more per acre, and so we have to ask farmers to take a loss in effect, we have to ask agriculture to go back to old seeds.”

It is the ultimate hubris of modern humans that we can change and manipulate the genetic code of another species to suit our needs. . . . Perhaps we can recover from this catastrophe called agriculture, but a big first step is to recognize what we’ve done to this thing called ‘wheat.'”

What is the answer for people wanting to eat healthier today?

“Lose the wheat, Lose the weight, and find yourself back to health.” -Dr. Davis

Eat “real, single ingredient, food,” such as avocados, olives, olive oil, meats, and vegetables. “(It’s) the stuff that is least likely to have been changed by agribusiness,” he said. “Certainly not grains. When I say grains, of course, over 90 percent of all grains we eat will be wheat, it’s not barley… or flax. It’s going to be wheat.”

Read more about the hazards of modern Semi-Dwarf wheat:

Post to comments: what do you think of modern dwarf-wheat?

Comments 1

  1. Post

    Great string of comments on Chris Masterjohn, PHD’s blog. I like this thought,

    “Let’s take it as true for the sake of this discussion that health declined at the transition to agriculture. This could be because grains are inherently toxic and their dose-dependent toxicity was activated when humans began consuming them beyond a certain threshold. But it seems most bioarcheologists never mention this hypothesis and instead mention three others: mode of physical activity, population density, and nutrient status all changed, all of which would affect skeletal health. Population density is an extremely important factor because it promotes a high rate of infectious diseases. On top of this, agriculture often goes with buildings, and tall buildings decrease vitamin D status by reducing UV-B exposure. And, as McCarrison found, if you take a grain and make it dominate the diet, you get nutrient deficiencies.

    So, as I suggested in this article, you would expect there to be a learning curve as humans developed ways to cope with these new problems.

    Of course it could be that grains are intrinsically toxic, but that is much harder to reconcile to the counter-evidence I presented at the beginning of this review.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *