LONGECITY

Unfortunately, I haven’t reviewed the topic myself in depth yet, but from perusing the forums now for quite some time it seems like wheat is consistently viewed in a negative light. Considering this earlier, today I decided to go to the bookstore and see if I could find something on the subject. When I got there, though, I was surprised to find a roughly equal number of books claiming that wheat is completely innocuous. 

So what’s the deal? Is it bad or not? If it’s bad I’d certainly be willing to eliminate it from my diet, but the change would be very inconvenient, so I only want to do it if it’s necessary.

If you have celiac disease, wheat is awful for your health.  There are also a large number of people who claim to be gluten sensitive - this may or may not be a real phenomena. 

I think for most people whole grains like wheat contribute to health.  

If you have celiac disease, wheat is awful for your health.  There are also a large number of people who claim to be gluten sensitive - this may or may not be a real phenomena. 

 

I think for most people whole grains like wheat contribute to health.  

If you have celiac disease, sure. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. But I've consistently heard from different sources that wheat in any form, even whole grains, has deleterious effects on the body. I know that's contrary to many popular views, but that's why I'm posting here--to find some clarity on the subject.

Can anybody refer me to a good book or article that addresses both sides, ideally something that controverts the evidence supporting the unhealthy effects of wheat? 

"Adressing both sides" is only interesting if there is any real scientific debate. In the case of wheat there is none! Only the fantasy-BS of people like William Davis trying to refute rock solid evidence to the contrary...

Well said Dolph. Wheat is one of the major fuels of civilization; been eaten for over 100,000 years and was extremely important in biblical times.

With all the enzymes that are becoming available now, wouldn't it be prudent to put them in all of the foods that could cause problems for someone as an FDA requirement? It's the sensible thing to do IMO. Although, maybe it would be possible to GMO foods not to have these things either and have that be an FDA requirement. Though I can tell you from experience that gluten enzymes aren't a gluten panacea... Neither is lactose, though adding alpha-galactosidase might be getting close... I'm sure there are lots of enzymes yet to be discovered that would eventually negate any negative impacts for sensitive people.

My question on the subject is does wheat and bread made from it contribute to aging, and I think that answer is yes. Bread and wheat produce AGEs, and have negative impacts on blood sugar and all that. I've always liked the way SV puts it. "...bread is bird food!"

Bread is the "staff of life"!

There is a scientific consensus on wheat. Virtually every single epidemiological study every published in a peer-reviewed journal and which differenciated between the consumption of refined grain and whole grain products has shown significant health benefits from eating more whole grains and neutral or negative effects from refined grains - depending on the overall dietary pattern and which types of food they replace. In a typical Western dietary context, the category whole grains is more diverse than refined grains, which is something like 90% wheat and 10% white rice, and includes rye and oats, but it is still more than 50% wheat as well. If whole wheat would have any negative health effects for the >95% of the general population not suffering from celiac desease or some kind of non-celiac gluten sensitivity, whole grains wouldn't be as strong and consistently associated with health benefits in the epidemiological literature. Forget the anti-wheat, anti-gluten hysteria and all that BS spread by fearmongers like Davis and Perlmutter who make a fortune by selling their fad books and workshops. No one in nutritional science is taking such people even seriously. The clear, evidence-based consensus is that for the large majority of poeple whole wheat is an extremely wholesome food that should be eaten much more frequently.

I have experimented on myself with wheat products for several years, and I must agree that wheat appears to have no negative effect. But I do not eat any sort of bread, pasta, etc., these days, because I find it morish. I am not sure what the mechanism of that is, but it could threaten weight management. I do eat rice, oats, etc.

It may depend on genetic background, so a good question, given your photograph, would be: What is the traditional diet of the most long-lived populations in Europe, concentrated along the Iberian Mediterranean and Sardinia (who are also among the most long-lived in the world)?  Among other things, tons of bread.  

 I am not sure what the mechanism of that is, but it could threaten weight management.

Because they are made with flour. Pasta is more calorie-dense than grains, but it is a slow release carbohydrate, because it has high water content. Bread is really calorie-dense because all of the water has been evaporated and the yeast make the bread much more digestible and insulinogenic.

Grains have a calorie-density of : 550  calories per pound.

Flour has a calorie-density of     : 1650 calories per pound.

Flour and bread can be great for someone who wants to increase their weight, or bad if you are trying to lose.