What the Wheat?

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/never-eat-wheat-heres-why-exclusive-digestion-sessions-preview

We're talking about gluten today, and out there in the world, people are becoming more aware of gluten and the impact of gluten. But there's also a lot of people out there who say there's no research out there saying that there's any problem with gluten. Is there really research out there?

Sayer Ji: Yeah, that's what is so amazing to me, Sean, is when I went to MedLine, which is the National Library of Medicine's, like massive database—23 million citations—you plug in a word like "gluten," and you get 11,000 studies, and when you start looking at the associated diseases, it just starts to expand exponentially. So I was able to index for GreenMedInfo—which anyone can see the research; it's open-access— over 200 diseases that are linked to gluten consumption.

So most people think celiac disease or wheat allergy, some type of allergic reaction, but it's anything from schizophrenia to IBS to cardiovascular disease. Yeah, gluten's wide-ranging toxicity is definitely established now in the literature, but, certainly in the mainstream media, there are a lot of industries that would like for folks not to know that this is the case. That's why there's, I think, a lot of resistance to knowing about that.

Sean: What does the research say about the impact of gluten on the gut?

Sayer Ji: On the gut? Primarily, that's actually the first step in my own process of learning about gluten because, if you look at just the word origin, gluten literally means "glue," and you think of applications like industrial adhesives and bookbinding glue, paper maché...you add water, you let it dry, and it's just this solid, concrete-like mass.

So, a lot of people are eating this pasty stuff. They're constipated, their gut's inflamed, they're bloated. They get anything from diarrhea all the way to being bound up. And so the primary adverse effect that we identify with eating wheat is really gastrointestinal. So, it really just messes the gut up in a huge number of ways. We can go down to more molecular descriptions about that process, but it's definitely a gut-destroying substance, in my opinion.

Sean: Has it always been that way? Because people have been consuming bread and wheat for a long time, but just recently these problems have been popping up. Has the gluten changed?

Sayer Ji: Yeah, there is definitely the argument, like Dr. William Davis makes in his book, The Wheat Belly, that hybridization techniques enabled a much higher gluten content. And the thing about gluten is it's a storage protein but it serves many functions, one of which is plant defense, so, intrinsic to the protein component are things like lectins, which inhibit and cause inflammation, as far as digestion. 

So there's definitely a lot of changes that occur, and most people have a hard time understanding that in terms of biological time, 10 thousand years, which is when we all started to actually have the agrarian model, and you're starting to take these grasses and save their seeds up and then desiccate them for future use. And then you have technologies like cooking and pottery that's required to then access the nutrients.

That's like nothing in biological time—it's a microsecond—so our bodies haven't had time to adapt to a grain-based diet. And that's why the Paleo-ancestral movement is so powerful; it's acknowledging through an evolutionary lens that really wheat and grains in general are a novel new type of food that comes with a pretty profound price on our health, especially chronic diseases.

Sean: I want to make sure that everybody understands the difference between celiac and gluten sensitivity. Define those for us.

Sayer Ji: So there's a lot of debate over that, because there's a resistance to looking at wheat as intrinsically toxic; that we have to have some genetic defect to be susceptible, and that's the model that celiac represents. It's like the tip of an iceberg. A very small percentage are considered to have this genetic susceptibility, which then causes an adaptive immune response where the body is actually identifying a by-product of the protein in wheat as an enemy once it's started to be broken down by the intestinal cells.

So, it's this really complex process, but ultimately what happens is the intestinal wall flattens, it can't absorb nutrients. There's a lot of associated issues that go with that. And so, versus thenon-celiac gluten sensitivity, the concept is you don't have to have an intestinal biopsy and have specific blood markers or genetic types to be able to have an adverse effect. It's a broader concept that extends out of intestine manifestations. Again, anything from neuropathy tocardiovascular disease to type 2 diabetes.

We're seeing now that there's a submerged part of the iceberg, which is massive. Because even in celiac disease, the genetic locus of disease susceptibility on chromosome six occurs in between 10 to 40 percent of the world's population. So why does a very small percentage get classical celiac? It's multi-factorial: breastfeeding duration, chemical exposures, viral infections, other issues with things like cow's milk all contribute to increasing risk in certain individuals.

But it's my understanding that instead of looking at gluten intolerance or sensitivity as a rare disorder, we should actually look at the thing itself, wheat. It's toxic, and just instead—it's almost as if we're having a healthy response to an unhealthy food. The symptoms associated with gut reactions to infectious agents—diarrhea, for example. You're expelling the offending agent. Well that's what happens with intolerance to certain food antigens like wheat.

So, I think we need to start understanding that, when you're having these symptoms, instead of blaming the victim it's actually the thing itself: wheat. It's not really a part of our evolutionary history. We're not biologically compatible with it as a food. We can get around it in ways. You can do sourdough processing to break down a lot of the antigens. I mean the interesting thing, Sean, there's a lot of new research shows that we have about 95 different bacteria in our gut that are capable of degrading the very hard to break down proteins in wheat.

These are the same protein bonds, called disulfide bonds, in vulcanizing rubber and human hair. They are exceedingly difficult to break down. So we elect, from this massive background of microbiota, certain strains, including clostridium, which are able to break down the gluten for us. But, of course, Clostridium botulinum is extremely deadly. So there's something that you pay as a result, because you may be more prone to infection.

That bloating phenomenon, that's really us trying to break down an intolerable type of food protein. So yeah, the gluten sensitivity, I'd rather look at it as gluten toxicity. And then you can see the research on GreenMed to confirm that this is real, not just some kind of imagined concept about wheat's harmful role in the human diet.

Sean: So would you say it's toxic to everybody? Like, everybody should not consume gluten or wheat?

Sayer Ji: Yes, I would say that is true. I would make allowance for cultures that had developed culturing technology such as sourdough. For their genotype, it may be that it's an appropriate type of food. And even in celiac disease, there's an argument that this genetic susceptibility to adverse effects may also confer as a survival advantage against certain infectious agents. This has been found with cystic fibrosis as well, and other diseases like sickle cell anemia, they protect from malaria. 

So even if you're looking at a certain type of genetic aberration, it may actually confer survival advantage in a different context. So, I like to de-pathologize the symptoms. And if someone with celiac disease has an intestinal wall that's completely flattened, no longer can absorb the 23,000 plus proteins in the wheat proteome, those antigens can't get in and cause systemic issues such as a seizure, or contribute to failure of the kidney, which could take their life sooner than chronic, low- dose exposure that causes this degenerative celiac kind of body type.

I do like to look at—instead of looking again at these wheat sensitivities as unhealthy responses to an intrinsically healthy food, I like to turn it around and the wheat is intrinsically unhealthy. That's where I go with my basic assumption.

Sean: The wheat is the problem.

Sayer Ji: Exactly.

Sean: Talk more, just in case this is the only presentation someone's gonna watch in this entire event, talk more about that flattening of the wall. What does that actually mean?

Sayer Ji: So what happens is, the intestinal wall has these villi, which is this massive absorptive surface. In fact, if you were to stretch it out into a plane it would be the size of a tennis court. That's also why humans are so—we have this proclivity towards gaining massive amounts of weight, is because it's very easy for us to absorb a lot of amounts of nutrients. But with celiac, the villi start to atrophy, and then the little valleys, the crypts between go through something called hyperplasia, it's almost like a tumorous growth. So it fills it in, so it's completely flat.

Sean: So this would be like the villi, and when they start to atrophy they—

Sayer Ji: Yeah, they start to shrink and the little crypts start to fill up with non-functional tissue so that there's just this flat space.

Sean: So your structures there for the absorption of nutrients just kinda go away?

Sayer Ji: Exactly. Because when you have villi, you exponentially increase the surface area. So now they're completely flattened. So that's what happens with celiac proper, however, there's research that was performed a few years ago and published in The Journal of the Gut where it took healthy enterocytes or intestinal cells, and celiac intestinal cells, exposed them both to gliadin, one of the most immunotoxic proteins in wheat, and both experienced an inflammatory pathologic response

Only, in the case of celiac, it was both an adaptive immune and an innate immune response, whereas—

Sean: What does that mean?

Sayer Ji: Well there's different types of immunity and, in celiac disease, characteristically, there are B cells producing antibodies against self proteins. So that's a more complex type of immune response that's harmful, whereas innate immunity is more like the frontline soldiers saying "wow, this is a bad thing, and we're gonna cause all this inflammatory hormone release or we're gonna cause inflammation right at the intestinal cell, once the wheat is exposed.

So with celiac it's a more complex process, but what that study showed us for the first time was that everyone has an adverse effect to gluten. You don't have to have a genetic susceptibility.

Sean: Is it a slow wearing-down of those villi, those structures, or is it something that happens immediately? 

Sayer Ji: It can depend on the person's situation. For example, if you have a co-infection. Let's say you get an infection—it's so fascinating, but—these viruses, for example, like influenza, they actually secrete an enzyme that degrades the slippery mucus coat on the intestinal wall called the glycocalyx. Well, wheat happens to contain these little invisible thorns called lectins that specifically bind to the same, exact structures.

And so what happens is we look at wheat in many ways like a pathogen, in that respect, because it's actually binding to the same receptors as bacteria and viruses, and so there's definitely a parallel. Why is this? Because nature didn't necessarily intend for us to eat the little babies of the grass family. The seeds are there to perpetuate their species, not ours, necessarily. So certainly there's benefits to getting the starch, the protein, but we are gonna also pay a price if we just exclusively eat wheat all day long.

So yes, the process can be very quick, but it can also be very slow. Sub-clinical, you may never know it's affecting you. Which is why I always advocate for complete removal, to feel it out, and then you can reintroduce it, if you don't think you've benefited. But often people get a more immediate result, like they get an adverse effect when they do that—when they reintroduce. 

Sean: I want to go back into lectins in just a minute, but first I want to understand, how does somebody know if they are celiac- or gluten-sensitive? You mentioned removing it for 30 days and bringing it back in. I've done that as a practitioner. People bring it back and are like, "oh, I feel like I got hit by a bus." Right? They feel terrible, so they know they have a problem with gluten. What about somebody who wants to see it on paper? What kind of testing is out there for them?

Sayer Ji: Well, there's a great number of tests: a blood test that will identify antibodies that are formed in reaction to wheat, that basically show that your body is now attacking its cell structures. So, anti-transglutaminase and anti-endomysium. There's even antibodies that are formed against the brain now that can be identified. That's the beauty of where we're at now, is that you have the celiac, the tip of the iceberg, you get this intestinal biopsy to see if the villi are flattened—that was the gold standard.

But there's this larger mid-portion, which is now open through serological testing, blood testing, which show that so many people are suffering from these antibodies. And, different conditions. It could be type 1 diabetes, it could be multiple sclerosis. Now we're seeing this overlap, and so, the whole model of celiac being very rare and it's just, you know, gastrointestinal.

It's completely exploded. And then there's the even more submerged iceberg portion, massive, which is basically everyone, which all they have to do is remove it and see how they feel. There are quite a few reasons why you should see a dramatic effect, because of the psychiatric aspects of the proteins within wheat as well.

Sean: I want to talk about that, too. You know what, I want to make a note of that, because I really want to come back to the psychiatric stuff. But while we're talking about testing, are you a fan of the Cyrex Labs testing?

Sayer Ji: Yeah. Actually, I am. From what I can tell, it's one of the best available testing services because they even test for things like wheat lectin—antibodies to wheat lectin, which, 10 years ago, was pretty much off the radar, and now we know...that forms a whole other part of the problem because even sprouted wheats, which is relatively gluten-reduced, has significant levels of this anti- nutrient that's separate from gluten. And recent research has identified it as playing a causative role in celiac disease separate from gluten as well.

Sean: So it tests for different components of wheat. The gluten, the gliadin, the WGA, the other anti-nutrients that are in there.

Sayer Ji: Yes. 

Sean: The different types of gliadin—isn't there alpha-gliadin, and beta and...
Sayer Ji: Yeah. And even alpha-gliadin has a number of subtypes, so it's such a complex...what people, often, are surprised to find is that it's a hexaploid species, modern wheat. What it means is that instead of us, where we have chromosomes inherited from our parents—mother and father— it's basically they have six sets of chromosomes from three different species becoming one. So, plants sometimes do this. It's kind of strange.

So in total, modern wheat has 6.5 times more protein-coding genes than humans do, and when you look at all the proteins that are in wheat that you have to degrade into very small peptides for them not to cause an immune reaction, it's almost an impossible feat. 23,000 have been identified. That's why, again, to look at gluten as a monolithic entity, it's really much more complex and much more of a problem from the perspective of digestion and immunity.

Sean: So you're saying that the molecule itself is just too darn complex for the digestive system to figure out. Like "what the heck do I do with this?"

Sayer Ji: Totally. Because, in terms of our genetic inheritance, it doesn't appear that we have theability to produce the enzymes necessary to break it down. So that's what happened, even with things like, you know, northern Europeans were consuming cow's milk late into life. Around two years of age is when we lose the ability to produce lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose. 

But then, instead, we just have all these bacteria through culturing that are now in our gut, the lactobacillus strains that got their name because they break down lactose into lactic acid with the lactase that we don't have. So the same applies to gluten; there are gluten-degrading bacteria in our gut now that we had collaborated with—which, yes, are helping us to break down and get some benefit, in theory, and reduce the "antigenicity,"the ability of it to cause immune reactions—but, there are a lot of things we pay as a result of that, chronic colitis and all kinds of serious health effects.

Sean: I don't want to continue to keep harping on the testing side of things, but I'm sure there are people in our audience who have been tested by their doctors for celiac, and from what I understand, those villi need to be really worn down in order to get a positive result on that. So what are your thoughts on that?

Sayer Ji: That's the problem; even the celiac associations out there are so entrenched in the view that this is their condition, that you have to meet these criteria, and then you have an illness. And this concept that there is this universal toxicity associated with wheat, this massive, burgeoning, multibillion-dollar gluten-free industry is a threat to them, because they don't feel that they can control any longer the definition.

And the medical establishment does enjoy— the reality is that we get sick from the food we eat, and we take drugs to suppress the symptoms of those sorts of poisonings. It threatens quite a lot of the model that predominates, when it comes to disease care. So, yes, I think anyone who's had a false negative needs to look at the problem or the thing itself. There's nothing intrinsic about wheat that we need. I really am a fan of Dr. Rosedale because he points out that, even the moment before we die, we're still producing glucose from protein.

Our body are made of fat, protein, micronutrients, minerals...where's all the carbohydrate? We have glycogen, but the massive amount of carbohydrate we think we need in plant protein...I just think that people need to start looking at it for what it is. And the veil is there because of the addictive properties of wheat and its cultural enmeshment, even with religious glorification. "The body of Christ." How do you say it's no longer a sacred, important grain, right?

Sean: "The Staff of Life."

Sayer Ji: The Staff of Life, but more of a crutch propping up a very diseased body. And it is certainly causing a great amount of control. The addictive properties; the bread and circus model of the Roman Empire was based on giving out free bread to the masses, and then you entertain them to death with the circuses, and that's how you control. It's a political strategy. And it's still predominant, largely, I think.

Sean: The addictive properties of wheat. Is that why it's so darn hard to get off of it? I remember, working with clients it's like, "I've gotta give up wheat? I've gotta get off of grains and gluten?" like it was a big deal to them. They really hold on to it. Talk more about the addictive properties of this.

Sayer Ji: The amazing thing about the agrarian transition was the theory of "oh, why would anyone sit down and start gathering up the little seeds of these grasses? What was the motivation?" And the idea—this was put forth by some Australian biologists—that it's theintrinsically narcotic properties of grains that led us to exert so much effort gathering them and making them a primary source of nutrition.

Sean: I had that in my notes. I was just gonna say that! You used that word "narcotic" when I read your article. 

Sayer Ji: Highly narcotic, yeah, because of these things called gluten exorphins, which basically interact with the opioid receptors in the brain. Which is not uncommon; you know, fructose is the same type of chemical, really, in terms of alcohol. Metabolized along the same pathways, induces the same hedonic responses. So, much of what we eat in the west is truly just drugs. We're also self- medicating, but with wheat what happens is that it motivates us to continue to go through that cycle.

There's an endocrine cycle—I like to call it the neuroendocrine sort of roller coaster—because you have the blood sugar elevation, then the insulin is released, and then you get a crash, and your brain can go three minutes without freaking out if it doesn't have adequate glucose unless it's using ketones and basically by-products of saturated fat to keep itself running optimally.

So, these peptides have been shown to basically be very similar to morphine, and they cause us to crave and love bread. It's to die for. And there's even this sensorial aspect to the smell of bread. It's so imprinted in us that we don't even think about it anymore. It's only when you remove it suddenly, that you almost can go through a heroine-like withdrawal. You don't foam at the mouth, but you certainly can feel a little crazy.

Sean: And people go through that and they feel like, "well this is...I feel like this because I need wheat. I need my gluten in order to feel good." That's a trip.

Sayer Ji: That is a trip, right? To identify it as a biological need, because we do outsource some of the neurological capabilities to things like coffee. When I wake up in the morning it's part of my brain that I sometimes feel I need for my brain to function, because it's inducing dopamine and all these catecholamines. 

But it's the same with wheat, and it's well established now. Dr. Tom O'Bryan actually pointed this out, in that great video of his, that research shows that gluten will cut off blood flow to the cortex— you know, the higher faculties of our brain. So even just on a physiological level, we can see how it adversely affects neurological health.