Would You Cure Yourself If You Could....

[RiceGuy]

The problem I have with Dangerous Grains is that it doesn’t take this aforementioned “natural selection” into account when it claims that 10,000 years or so ago we all started to eat this new bad strain of wheat. If this grain we all started eating back then was so bad, how come we all survived long enough to keep eating it…even today?

Ah. Now I see why we aren't getting through to each other on this. According to what I've read, much of the hybridization is far more recent. Apparently like the last 300 years or something has seen the most of it, but it has been sped up over time, so the changes have not been linear.

The following is something I found on this board someplace:

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF WHEAT

The Roman Empire was built on Egyptian wheat, which they called "korn". It was Einkorn, which is the ancestor of modern wheats. (In Latin, this was the earliest form of Triticum, not to be confused with what we call "corn", which is Zea.)

It had two sets of chromosomes like human beings and is described as 2N or diploid. There were also some naturally occurring wheat that had four sets of chromosomes, or 4N or tetraploid. This was the wheat that the Roman Emperor, Eqyptian pharoahs and Christ were eating.

But what is on our table has been selectively bred over time to increase the gluten content for baking or pasta-making. Most are hexaploid, octoploid, double hexaploid, or hexaploid-octoploid hybrids. This means that they have 6, 8, 12, or more sets of chromosomes. Some of this extra DNA is coding for amino acid sequences that human beings cannot break down, including a 33-amino acid sequence named 33-MER. This 33-MER is what is causing the problem for celiac.

See also:

Open Original Shared Link

[CeliaCruz]

Ah. Now I see why we aren't getting through to each other on this. According to what I've read, much of the hybridization is far more recent.

Okay, but if you're saying that recent hybridization is the cause (or at least one of the factors) of Celiac (or an increase in Celiac cases) then what you're saying is that Celiac is an environmental disease. But you've also said that we can't "cure" Celiac because it's a genetic disease.

Also, the hybridization of crops like wheat is nothing new. Plants simply change and/or mutate over time -- usually to suit the needs of the people who grow and consume them. Conversely, the human body adapts to agricultural changes through evolution. Yes, my grandfather ate a slightly "different" wheat than I did. But I also have an adaptive digestive system that takes those changes into account and makes appropriate adjustments. Remember, poisoning isn't a one sided affair. It's a dance between the substance and the being that is unable to handle the substance.

When you're talking about a substance like tobacco, aluminum salts or refined sugar -- a substance that wasn't a regular part of the human diet and then got pushed on us all of a sudden -- it's easy to make a case that the introduction of this alien substance probably threw our bodies for a loop and introduced all sorts of new diseases. But wheat has been a part of our diets for thousands of years. Yes, it has changed over time...but not so radically that our bodies couldn't recognize what was familiar and then adapt to what little was unfamiliar. Yes, today's wheat has more gluten -- and that's because glutenous wheat is tastier and has a snazzy texture -- but ultimately gluten has always existed in wheat and shouldn't be unfamiliar to the human body. If we're simply talking about a wheat with a higher gluten content, the body should be able to adapt to that. It's not like it's never seen gluten before.

Lastly, we've been discussing wheat and its overuse to death, but one of the things that no one has mentioned is that gluten is contained in rye and barley as well. If this recent new strain of wheat (and our overconsumption of it) is the "cause" of celiac, why are we reacting to the gluten in grains that aren't so overused?

[RiceGuy]

Okay, but if you're saying that recent hybridization is the cause (or at least one of the factors) of Celiac (or an increase in Celiac cases) then what you're saying is that Celiac is an environmental disease. But you've also said that we can't "cure" Celiac because it's a genetic disease.

Actually, I didn't say that. What I said is that a genetic disorder would require fixing the genes. I also suggested that wheat is the problem, not our bodies. If that's called an environmental disease, so be it.

Also, the hybridization of crops like wheat is nothing new. Plants simply change and/or mutate over time -- usually to suit the needs of the people who grow and consume them. Conversely, the human body adapts to agricultural changes through evolution. Yes, my grandfather ate a slightly "different" wheat than I did. But I also have an adaptive digestive system that takes those changes into account and makes appropriate adjustments. Remember, poisoning isn't a one sided affair. It's a dance between the substance and the being that is unable to handle the substance.

Well, that relies on the theory of evolution. However, the hybridization didn't occur naturally. Man did it, and far more quickly than the theory of evolution would require us to adapt. So evolution or not, we'd be in the same trouble.

I really don't want to start arguing over evolutionary theory, so all I can say is do some research and look at the facts. Even Darwin himself later said his idea was full of holes.

When you're talking about a substance like tobacco, aluminum salts or refined sugar -- a substance that wasn't a regular part of the human diet and then got pushed on us all of a sudden -- it's easy to make a case that the introduction of this alien substance probably threw our bodies for a loop and introduced all sorts of new diseases. But wheat has been a part of our diets for thousands of years. Yes, it has changed over time...but not so radically that our bodies couldn't recognize what was familiar and then adapt to what little was unfamiliar. Yes, today's wheat has more gluten -- and that's because glutenous wheat is tastier and has a snazzy texture -- but ultimately gluten has always existed in wheat and shouldn't be unfamiliar to the human body. If we're simply talking about a wheat with a higher gluten content, the body should be able to adapt to that. It's not like it's never seen gluten before.

The fact is, most of the DNA in wheat is the new stuff due to hybridization. And it is within the new DNA that the offending sequence resides. So while man has been eating wheat, and it has always had some gluten, it didn't have the sequence that triggers the immune response. Remember that corn also has a form of gluten, but it doesn't have that particular amino acid sequence. Without the troublesome sequence, we'd not have the immune system responding as it does. Since the wheat man used to eat didn't have that sequence, Celiac disease didn't exist either. It doesn't matter if we wouldn't have known the cause.

I can accept the notion that hundreds or even thousands of years ago some people probably had a wheat allergy, or some other reaction. But it would not have been to an amino acid sequence that wasn't there.

Lastly, we've been discussing wheat and its overuse to death, but one of the things that no one has mentioned is that gluten is contained in rye and barley as well. If this recent new strain of wheat (and our overconsumption of it) is the "cause" of celiac, why are we reacting to the gluten in grains that aren't so overused?

The gluten in rye and barley also contains the same/similar offending amino acid sequence. This isn't surprizing since these grains along with wheat are all hybrids of grasses called Triticeae.

Keep in mind that "gluten" is often used in a very general sense. In this sense, gluten is also in oats, corn and other things. Apparently rice has a sort of gluten, though it is different enough that it isn't referred to that way. Gluten itself isn't really the problem. It is a problem however when it contains that particular amino acid sequence. This is a nice explanation of gluten.

From what I've read, here are the types of "gluten" found in some grains:

Wheat: gliadin

Rye: secalin

Barley hordein

Oats: avenin

Corn zein

Rice: oryzenin

News Flash:

Interestingly, it appears the human immune system may be reacting quite appropriately after all. There's a human intestinal virus known as the adenovirus which has a similar amino acid sequence to the gluten in wheat! Therefore, Celiac disease may in fact be a natural immunity to the virus! If a drug is used to prevent the immune system from attacking wheat gluten, this could lead to a vulnerability to the virus. If I'm reading correctly, this virus is said to cause the common cold! Could this mean tolerating the gluten in wheat would leave a person more vulnerable to the common cold?!?

Look what I just found:

Gelsinger received the experimental treatment in September 1999. Four days later, he was dead. No one is really sure exactly why the gene therapy treatment caused his death, but it appears that his immune system launched a raging attack on the adenovirus carrier. Then an overwhelming cascade of organ failures occurred, starting with jaundice, and progressing to a blood-clotting disorder, kidney failure, lung failure, and ultimately brain death.

From the CDC:

Open Original Shared Link

There is also an avian form of this virus, so imagine eating chicken infected with it, and not having any immunity.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll leave my genes the way they are. A gluten-free diet is sounding even better than it did an hour ago.

[Rachel--24]

Wow guys....my head is hurting from trying to absorb all this info you're throwing back and forth. I'm gonna have to read this thread on a day when there is absolutely zero brainfog.

[CeliaCruz]

Actually, I didn't say that. What I said is that a genetic disorder would require fixing the genes. I also suggested that wheat is the problem, not our bodies. If that's called an environmental disease, so be it.

And this "fixing" would be required by who? Everyday people go do their doctors and get help for the various ailments that they inheirited from their ancestors -- scoliosis, asthma, glaucoma, psoriasis etc. No one gets their genes "fixed". (P.S. Celiac is considered a genetic disease)

Well, that relies on the theory of evolution. However, the hybridization didn't occur naturally. Man did it, and far more quickly than the theory of evolution would require us to adapt. So evolution or not, we'd be in the same trouble.

Hybridization is very often a man made occurence. Farmers have been playing around with the offsprings of their plants for thousands of years. It's not like wheat just grew in the wild until the 1890's when MAN and his EVIL WAYS began to mess with Mother Nature. Agriculture is an age old science, my friend.

Also human evolution happens pretty fast too. If you look at people's average heights over the years it's pretty stunning how much taller we are becomming. It's not like it takes thousands of years for the human body to change.

I really don't want to start arguing over evolutionary theory, so all I can say is do some research and look at the facts. Even Darwin himself later said his idea was full of holes.

Evolutionary theory is pretty dominant as far as science goes (unless we're talking about "Intelligent Design" and I certainly hope we're not going THERE!). It's not a monolith, and not every single one of Darwin's ideas are still utilized but the basic ideas of evolution that he put into play (natural selection, adaption etc.) are all considered pretty sound. (And isn't that whole "do some research" line the same line that Bill O'Reilly uses when a guest of his has totally just embarrassed him? Wow, I didn't think I was whipping your ass quite THAT hard! Well, okay, maybe I did!) But yes, we probably shouldn't start arguing over evolutionary theory. It doesn't seem to be your area of expertise and it's not fair of me to take advantage.

The fact is, most of the DNA in wheat is the new stuff due to hybridization. And it is within the new DNA that the offending sequence resides.

DNA has always been in wheat (all living things, actually) whether it's a hybrid or not. Are you sure you are using the right term? There really isn't such a thing as "new DNA" as every piece of wheat has its own signature strand of DNA. And there are no "killer strands" of DNA that make the plants they inhabit deadly. If an otherwise healthy foodsource all of a sudden becomes toxic it's usually because something radical has happened -- like it came into contact with radiation or something.

[RiceGuy]

And this "fixing" would be required by who? Everyday people go do their doctors and get help for the various ailments that they inheirited from their ancestors -- scoliosis, asthma, glaucoma, psoriasis etc. No one gets their genes "fixed". (P.S. Celiac is considered a genetic disease)

Right, that's why "treatments" are not "cures". While cures are permanent, treatments have to be maintained for the effects to last. That term "band-aid" applies here.

Hybridization is very often a man made occurence. Farmers have been playing around with the offsprings of their plants for thousands of years. It's not like wheat just grew in the wild until the 1890's when MAN and his EVIL WAYS began to mess with Mother Nature. Agriculture is an age old science, my friend.

We aren't talking about just ANY hybridization. The new hybrids of wheat weren't producted until more recent times. Even into the late 1800's, wheat varieties were much less diversified from their origins.

Also human evolution happens pretty fast too. If you look at people's average heights over the years it's pretty stunning how much taller we are becomming. It's not like it takes thousands of years for the human body to change.

The average height of people, changing or not, isn't considered evolution. What you are referring to is known as specialization or adaptation. I'm sure Google can help you with locating such info. But again, the changes in wheat we are discussing aren't naturally occuring, which is a good reason not to be going into evolutionary theory as a means of explanation.

Evolutionary theory is pretty dominant as far as science goes (unless we're talking about "Intelligent Design" and I certainly hope we're not going THERE!). It's not a monolith, and not every single one of Darwin's ideas are still utilized but the basic ideas of evolution that he put into play (natural selection, adaption etc.) are all considered pretty sound.

No matter how dominant a theory is, it's still a theory until proven. Most everyone thought the world was flat at one time, but that didn't make it so. On the other hand, we are supposed to be discussing some very specific genetic properties. Something not subject to conjecture. The amino acid sequences are either there, or not. Analysis of the DNA gives us solid, physical evidence. It doesn't take supposition.

(And isn't that whole "do some research" line the same line that Bill O'Reilly uses when a guest of his has totally just embarrassed him? Wow, I didn't think I was whipping your ass quite THAT hard! Well, okay, maybe I did!) But yes, we probably shouldn't start arguing over evolutionary theory. It doesn't seem to be your area of expertise and it's not fair of me to take advantage.

Oh My, personal attacks on a public forum? Not very wise, as that is usually taken by readers to mean that the person doing it has run out of arguments. I'm sure you can address the scientific data which I have presented without inciting a feud. Feel free to point out any flaws in the facts I have given, but with proof, not sarcasm. References to scientific articles are helpful, and welcome.

DNA has always been in wheat (all living things, actually) whether it's a hybrid or not. Are you sure you are using the right term? There really isn't such a thing as "new DNA" as every piece of wheat has its own signature strand of DNA. And there are no "killer strands" of DNA that make the plants they inhabit deadly. If an otherwise healthy foodsource all of a sudden becomes toxic it's usually because something radical has happened -- like it came into contact with radiation or something.

Perhaps I should break this down more for you. Keep in mind that Google can help you locate far more information. The Open Original Shared Link is a good source.

A chromosome is made up of a molecule of DNA threaded around proteins.

DNA and proteins are known as macromolecules. These are giant molecules containing at least several hundred atoms, unlike simple molecules like water or glucose. Gluten is a protein composed of two other groups of proteins; gliadins and glutenins. The basic building blocks of proteins are chains of amino acids called peptides, which are comprised of a number of molecules. A certain fraction of the gliadin proteins have similar amino acid sequences to ones found in the adenovirus. This appears to be why the immune system launches an attack.

However, I point out once more that wheat didn't always contain all the chromosomes it has today. And according to what I've read, it is within the newly added DNA which resides the troublesome sequences. Therefore, it seems likely that wheat would not have been a problem for so many individuals as it is now. I haven't seen specifics on exactly when the wheat started to include the toxic fractions, or if it always has. Perhaps it is not known, but what I've read thus far indicates that much of the hybridization has been done in the last 300 years. Moreover, it wasn't until the 1800's when a monk named Gregor Mendel developed the laws of heredity that wheat really began to diversify. Efforts to create new hybrids intensified over time, so later varieties would contain more changes than early ones.

So, if the human immune system should attack the adenovirus, then the gliadin protein in wheat inadvertently mimics a true enemy.When researchers think of a treatment, a common idea is to block the immune response to the protein fractions in question. Wouldn't this leave the body defenseless to the virus? Even if wheat always had the sequence, it doesn't seem logical to prevent the body from defending itself from a known virus.

[pattic]

another interesting topic!

I agree with those who said:

no - I wouldn't be making the healthier choices in my diet if it were not for celiac disease

no - apparently, for whatever reason (your personal spiritual beliefs), I am meant to have this

and my own personal one - I also have psoriasis, since age 8. I swore my entire life that I would do/take/give ANYTHING not to have it. Then a few offers became available when they figured out it was an autoimmune disease. But, I haven't taken/done any of them because of the risky side affects.

My point it is, it's so easy to say YES, but it really would require a lot of research etc.

(don't get me wrong, I REALLY DO MISS cinnabons! LOL)

[Canadian Karen]

True to a point. Although I don't want to try and debate the whole "we live longer" thing, a common misconception is that we are living longer today than in generations past. Medical science has skewed the numbers. The fact is, people lived just as long thousands of years ago as today. The difference is (as you correctly noted) that we have lower infant mortality and such. Knowledge has helped us with hygene and so forth, and yes we know more about what makes people ill. However, once a person reached adulthood, the life expectancy went way up. If you average in all the dead babies, and victims of plagues, etc, then it lowers the number for the average age, but it's misleading. But let's put that aside...

I found this extremely interesting, and true. I am quite reluctant to mention this, as I am sure some of you are going to think that I am even crazier than you thought before, but one of my favourite pastimes and a hobby I enjoy immensely is to walk through a cemetary, the older small town ones in particular, and reading the headstones.

One fact that absolutely amazed me was the amount of people listed on those headstones as dying at 90, 95, sometimes 100. There were just as many little headstones for babies who died from newborn, up to a couple of years old (my guess would be that the mortality rate was highest from infancy to age 2 because the body had not yet had a chance to build up it's antibodies....) The majority of the people who were within the "young, healthy, robust" age, seemed to have death dates that co-incide with either WWI or WWII.

Okay, now how many people are sitting there wondering "Ah, this chick is weird!!" I am just a history buff, that's all. And history can be found in the most interesting of places..... My husband, bless his heart, must have wondered "What the hell did I get myself into?" when he indulged me and we spent a whole day of our honeymoon walking through the Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris visiting a bunch of graves (e.g. Chopin's), and even partying (always a party going on at Jim Morrison's grave, that was an experience...... ). I just find it fascinating.....

Karen

[Canadian Karen]

Here is an article pertaining to this debate that you might find interesting:

Open Original Shared Link

Karen

[jenvan]

Karen-

I don't think you are weird. Visiting a cemetary and looking around is a cool way to engage with history. (I love the head stones that are benches--I always think, that person must have been cool : ) I have the article you printed off, but haven't gotten to read it yet...hopefully during lunch today. My gr-grandma was 96, and her son, my mom's dad is 90 and still living alone in a big farm house taking care of things! I hope those genes stick with me!

[Canadian Karen]

Karen-

I don't think you are weird. Visiting a cemetary and looking around is a cool way to engage with history. (I love the head stones that are benches--I always think, that person must have been cool : )

Thanks Jen!

I was really starting to get worried for a minute thinking of people sitting back saying "This chick just gets wackier by the minute! First, she advocates the use of Preparation "H" underneath the eyes, then she starts a civil war over a breath minth, now she's hanging out in cementeries!!!! "

Hugs,

Karen

[jerseyangel]

I also don't think you are weird! I grew up across the street from a cemetary. Always felt very comfortable with it just being "part of the neighborhood". We used to cut through it to go to the park. My sisters, friends and I were very familiar with the "people" buried there--the names and dates and ages. We used to sit around sometimes and make up secnerios about how a certain child might have died so young, or whatever. I have to say that even though we were kids, we always had respect for the place, staying on the walks, keeping away when people were there, etc.