Cut back on GMO wheat to get healthier

[Statia]

Genes mostly code for proteins and nucleic acids. I haven't come across genes that code for pesticides such as those sprayed on plants to prevent crop damage.

I'm wondering how many people contributing to this thread have a first-hand knowledge of GM.

There are plants who produce insect deterrents, like marigolds.
Their genes encode for enzymes, the enzymes produce what are called secondary metabolites. These secondary metabolites do not have a function in energy production or storage (hence their name), but often give some advantage to the plant, such as deterring pests.

You could introduce the genes from one plant into another to make it produce a deterrent. This is not easy however, as there usually is a series of steps (and thus enzymes and thus genes) to start from a primary metabolite (like glucose) and end up with the desired molecule. (Gah, I once had to learn those pathways... Shikimic acid!)
Nicotine is produced in Nicotiana tabacum, and is an excellent insecticide. Introducing it into apples however, does not seem like a good idea. (Nor is smoking N. tabacum leaves, but that's another story)

This is not the most common pathway in GM however.
The more common approach in GM (the Monsanto way) is to introduce an enzyme that breaks down a (synthetic) pesticide or insecticide. You can than spray lots of the chemical and weeds and/or insect pests will die. You might however end up with a crop with residues of pesticide, which could be detrimental to health.
So it is not the GMO itself that is unhealthy, it's the chemicals it allows to be used.

[Statia]

The vegetable that I used to grow in europe compared to the GMO's in the states are waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better in taste.

Could be the soil, the climate, the water, the fertilizer... Not a very convincing argument.

also do not forget that GMO companies like "Monsanto" they actually "own" the food.

If you read my post, you see that I did mention Monsanto as an evil corporation. I was referring to these business practices. Also see my other post here as to why their way of GM is potentially harmful.
But I maintain that GM in itself is not more dangerous than traditional methods of crop breeding and selection.

[BLOODBANKER]

I agree with Bandit - he said it very well. This topic hits me on personal level. I'm just a regular guy - working lots of hours, trying to eat right, getting some excercise -- and obese. I've always had a weight problem. -- Until I read this book. The Author brings together a lot of health and nutrition information thats been around for years. He backs it up with an extensive reference section in the back of the book from published scientific journals.

This book is like a light bulb moment. Finally-I got it. Take out of the book what you want and what works for you. To get an idea of the impact of this book on peoples lives - read the book reviews on Amazon.com. These people don't say what a wonderful, enjoyable book to read. They tell you how it changed their health and life. I am almost down to my ideal weight, when someone asks how I did it, I tell them "read the book".

[forrestcupp]

Sounds like a lot of baloney.

To start with, gliadin is not new, it has always been in wheat.
Secondly, according to the article, gliadin binds to opiate receptors, stimulating appetite.
(It's not actually gliadin itself, but peptides from digested gliadin, as proteins cannot be absorbed intact, nor pass the blood brain barrier. Also, in the binding assay, they needed 0,5mg of peptides to be equivalent to morphine 1 nM. In terms of concentrations in the brain, that is a lot, not likely to be achieved from nutrition)
Stimulation of opiate receptors does not lead to an increase in appetite. Most people on opiates have initial nausea, which reduces their appetite. There are opiate receptors in the GI-tract, but they are not involved in appetite, they regulate motility. That is why opiates cause constipation and we use loperamide for diarrhoea.

The problem with what we eat is not GMO. It is not wheat. It is not processed food. It is simple that we eat too much, and too much fat.

And then there is the general "genetic modification is evil" attitude that I find hard to swallow. Mankind has been involved in genetic modification for millenia. Only it is called crossbreeding, selection, etc. Basically a random and unpredictable, empiric process where we have little idea of what will come out, messing with a whole genome. Now you do it in a lab while wearing a white coat (only much more directed, driven by knowledge of what specific gene you are targeting) and all of a sudden it is scary and evil.

(Yes, Monsanto is evil. Using GM to put more poison in crops is bad. I'm just talking about health effects of GM on the food itself)

I wish you could "like" posts on here.

The only people who need to really worry about wheat are people with Celiac disease or other gluten intolerances. As for the whole evidence from people losing weight, that's pretty ridiculous. Probably the biggest intake of carbs is coming from products made from wheat. If you cut out carbs, you're going to lose weight. But losing weight doesn't always mean getting healthy. I've known a lot of people who went on no carb diets. They lost weight fast, but it was also very unhealthy and debilitating.

I had diverticulitis really bad a couple of years ago. One of these people who are sucked in by the anti-wheat hype tried to tell me it was because I need to cut wheat out. No, it's because I had pockets in my intestines that got infected by food stuck in them. And that was likely caused by fats, not wheat. Guess what I have to do to keep it from happening again? I have to eat foods that are high in fiber, including whole wheat.

[Statia]

ALL Simple and Complex Carbs are bad for you as well as products high in starches like Potatoes. The reason behind this is simple. Your body turns those items into sugar for energy and if you don't immediately burns those foods off your body will turn right around and store those as fat.

This is an oversimplification. The body can turn everything you eat into glucose, its basic source of ATP (the ultimate energy carrier that is "burned" in your cells). This includes carbs of course, but also proteins and fats. All excess food can be stored as fat, not just fat, but carbs and proteins can be converted to fat as well.

There is some merit to the glycemic index theory, but in essence it all boils down to: do not eat more calories than your body burns, or the excess will be stored as fat.
The best way to lose weight is to combine a moderate reduction in intake of calories with an increase in physical activity.

I remember one skiing holiday. I would eat a warm calorie-rich meal twice a day, stuff like lasagnas with cheese, pastas. Drank a lot of beer in the evenings. Come back home, step on the scale: lost half a kilo in one week. Reason: the enormous amounts of calories burned by being on the slopes eight hours a day (compensating my lack of skiing technique with muscle action), keeping my body warm in the cold.

Or when I worked two jobs from 8 a.m. till midnight or later and one of the jobs was understaffed, with me doing three people's work on my own. Lost three kilos in a month.

[Linuxratty]

I agree with Bandit. I have been on a high fat low carb diet for half a year. I've lost weight and I'm no longer hungry like I was.
There is a lot of info out there on just how bad the carb heavy diet is for humans. Simply put, we did not evolve to eat such things.
Wherever the western diet is introduced, you see the same things happening to humans,obesity,diabetes,etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h0zD1gj0pXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMQKtvj1htU

[mJayk]

Just to the people who talk about research. There has only been ONE long term study of GMO it was in Spain google it, the results were terrible 80% increase in tumour growth. Every other study is short term (year or so) and means nothing unless you only read the headline.

[QIII]

... we did not evolve to eat such things ...

We evolved to stuff down our throats whatever we could keep down and not poison ourselves to get the calories we needed to survive -- and to support a huge brain that runs on glucose.

What we didn't evolve for is an environment where food was so abundant that it virtually shovelled itself into our mouths.

"This is bad for you" and "That is bad for you" is hokum. What is bad is that we don't have to get fat to survive lean times any longer, but our brain and physiology still compel us to behave that way.

It's not as simple as "Eat less".

Why has obesity grown when a Western diet is introduced? Because the people to whom it is introduced suddenly have more than they need and a brain that demands that the body keeps shovelling food.

Add to that genuine health issues like PCOS in women and obesity can be impossible to avoid for some.

What is interesting here is that it is the "fat ones" who are doing what we evolved to do: survive. The "skinny ones" would not have survived. They'd have starved when food got scarce and they had no reserve. The playing field has changed. It will take some time for us to modify our genetic game plan.

Should we be as fat as we are? Of course not. But since we aren't scrabbling for a meal and running away from things trying to fatten themselves by eating us, we don't burn it off.

This is not a matter of character or magical diet plans. This is a matter of an environment that has changed radically and how we, as an organism, will adapt to that. If those who were survivors in the old environment are eliminated because of the illnesses that accompany obesity, then they will not have been well suited to the environment and their genes will become extinct. Those who do not have the genetic propensity to gain weight will win out and leave a genetic legacy.

Hopefully, civilization doesn't subsequently fall apart and the skinny folk don't starve to death for lack of the society that made it possible for them to survive. Unfortunately, the ones who might have been better able to deal with that environment will have died long ago.

[BigCityCat]

Sounds like Dr. William Davis is just another anti-GMO evangelist who sees things totally in black or white.

From a scientific point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong with GMO and GM crops, and all the fright stories of Franckenstein crops and plants is nothing more than scare tactics, largely from people who do not know enough about the subject the are talking about.

GM of a crop gives breeders and scientists a much quicker way of improving much about the main food crops of the world, and the outcome of it is generally going to be much more to the benefit of the whole population than to its detriment. Changing plant genomes with genetic modification is no different in reality to the normal method of plant improvement using standard breeding techniques.

At the end of the linked article is this section:-
That final sentence in red is true, but not I suspect in the positive way Dr Davis means; totally eliminate all grains from the human diet and a large percentage of the population would starve.

Not the health transformation most people would want!

Yeh but all that death results in a lot of weight loss.

[BigCityCat]

Just a question. Asians eat a lot of rice. It's a staple of their diet. Yet as a population they are not over weight. I eat a lot of Jasmin rice and for an American I am under weight. I'm not sure I believe that rice is a major contributor to obesity. I think it ultimately comes down to high calorie, high fat diet with little to no exercise.