1 Super-Common Food That’s Ruining Your Skin, Joints & Blood Sugar

Sometimes it’s difficult to discern trend diets from the truth about nutrition. It seems that everyone has an agenda, a special diet, a “limited time offer.” However, we’re here to tell you about one incredibly common food that is absolutely wrecking most people’s skin, joints, and blood sugar.The best part? There’s no agenda here. The worst part? This food is probably in just about every one of your meals. Curious to know what we’re talking about? Wheat.

Why Wheat Isn’t All That Great

Let’s start at the beginning. The “wheat” we’re referring to is hardly wheat at all. In fact, if you could give someone from the 18th century a baked loaf of bread (even whole wheat), they would hardly even recognize it.

Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist, is one of many scientists and doctors that tries to educate others on the truth about modern wheat. If you want to learn more about the distinctions between modern wheat and the “true” wheat of centuries past, check out this interview he did with CBS News.

According to this dietary source, the top reasons that people choose to eat grains (fiber and heart health) shouldn’t be quite compelling enough to make wheat a regular part of one’s diet. Fiber and B vitamins can be found in much higher quantities in other foods like collard greens and peas. Essentially, if you can get the nutrients that wheat has to offer from a healthier fruit or vegetable, then you should. There’s nothing in wheat that can’t be found just as easily somewhere else.

Pages — 1 2

Around The Web

  • joshy!

    Wind chill of -41 deg here today….just saying…

    • John Burris

      uh, it’s been known for YEARS that global warming means EXTREME weather changes of ALL types. Doesn’t mean it’s ONLY getting warmer. Means extreme warm, extreme cold, more natural disasters, etc. Pay ATTENTION

      • Don Foss

        How convenient to say that now that the numbers have forced the industry to change the phrase to “Climate change,” which is certainly not what Al Gore was pushing.

        • Don Foss

          Where’s you get 97%? Cite it for me please, because there are more independent scientists/climatologists/meteorologist in the than 3%, and when we consider those who have retired (or simply told the powers-at-be to eff off or have been ignored or black-balled) who’ve talked about the threats to their careers and jobs and reputations if they stray from the industry talking points, you’re not even close to 97%. But maybe you’d like to prove it.

          • John Burris

            Your lame Fox News talking points are getting old, Dan. Do you work for Exxon?

        • John Burris

          It’s the same term for the same process. Quit being silly and look at the facts like grownups. You’re embarrassing yourself with this semantic BS.

          • Don Foss

            Are you embarrassed by all the fraud, false numbers, threats and lies that have come out over the last few years involving the “Global Warming” industry? Of course not. You choose to ignore them, don’t you. You’re really bright…and inquiring. Nothing silly about being skeptical when so many other respected scientists offer opposing data and opinions and the GW industry has been caught in so many lies and fraudulent numbers. What’s silly is to ignore them and stay plastered to your ideological outlook, close-minded and willingly ill-informed.

          • John Burris

            For every scientist who discounts GW, there are hundreds or thousands of scientists who believe otherwise.

          • Don Foss

            PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS, DISCOURSES ON GLOBAL WARMING

            by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1

            The Built-in Nonsense Detector:
            Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone’s opinion about “Global Warming”. A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about “Global Warming”. Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning “Global Warming” or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.
            Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?
            I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector.

            Some Common Fallacies
            1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.
            2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
            3. The most important gas with a “greenhouse” effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.
            4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gasses”. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
            5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
            6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

            So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
            We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
            We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!

  • joshy!

    I ate a whole bowl of ice cream today, does that count as whole foods?

  • John Burris

    Bottom line, i trust 97% of the world’s climatologists over the special interests of Big Oil and politicians. IF you had a medical issue and 9 out of 10 doctors told you that you needed surgery, would you instead take the advice on the one who said you’re ok and don’t need to do anything?

Recent Articles