Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
ZENMAN1 SparkPoints: (3,242)
Fitness Minutes: (4,464)
Posts: 29
4/20/13 8:07 P

Red winter wheat is grown throughout the midwest. High carb low protein grain, the problem with the western diet. Basically it's sugar.
Kansas raised I know sugar beets and wheat, and allot of type 2 diabetics.

ZENMAN1 SparkPoints: (3,242)
Fitness Minutes: (4,464)
Posts: 29
4/20/13 8:06 P

Red winter wheat is grown throughout the midwest. High carb low protein grain, the problem with the western diet. Basically it's sugar.
Kansas raised I know sugar beets and wheat, and allot of type 2 diabetics.

LINDIEMAE Posts: 33,565
3/28/13 12:33 A

So other then the opinions of good carbs ( non grains ) and bad carbs ( wheat and gang ), did anyone actually know what the difference was between the red and white flour? That was the topic...

I am not sure, never heard of it not sure how it got red either or what manipulation may have been at work to make it, as the wheat today is certainly not the same staple my grandmom used or her mother either ...

Sorry guess that was not very useful, but google maybe ? Sometimes you have to do a lot of research on your own before you find the truth that works for you.

I have many books on nutrition, Wheatbelly the lastest,and loved how it was written, till it got too dry ... as well as Bone Building Revolution by Sam Graci ( osteoporosis ) as well as Protection Magazine's Flat Belly Diet, Susan Browns Better Bones Better Health, Sam Graci's The Power of Foods, and so on and so on, ... but if you really want a good read that is not about diet or what to eat and what not to eat I can recommend an oldy but goodie ... Mindless Eating, written by Brian Wansink, PH.D. in 2006/2007. I am open to any book about nutrition that will make sense to me, so maybe I might look at one or two mentioned in the thread, but of course non of them have anything to do with red wheat vrs white wheat.

In closing this post, i just wanted to mention that my book on Healing with Whole Foods (Asian Traditions and Modern Nutrition) suggests that people over a certain age, should avoid wheat as wheat tends to cause people to gain weight and other health problems, that based on 5000 years of Asian Traditions.... so with all the other opinions on here, I enter mine too. I hope you find the information you are looking for. What ever you do, do NOT take the word for it from the manufacturer and if you do find something supporting it, find out how many shares they own in the business before you decide... cheers

GLC2009 Posts: 1,305
3/11/13 5:32 P

wow! alot of feedback on wheat which has nothing to do with the original question. i've never heard of red wheat flour myself.
i do have to say, i do not eat wheat either. haven't for 15 months. the first diet book i read was good calories, bad calories...omg what a huge dry read. but, i did it and i learned alot emoticon
the one thing i wanted to say here is that the person who says william davis doesn't know what he's talking about and is a sloppy researcher, should read more about him. he is after all a cardiologist and he is focusing on prevention of heart disease rather than fixing people up after it's too late.
i do think he knows what he is talking about.

3/11/13 12:04 P

"Why We Are Fat" changed my life as well. I am down 85 pounds and feel like I have a whole new life.

3/10/13 4:55 P

to check for Celiac is easy. A blood pull is all...AND you might need to know because the disease is nasty and if you have it you will need to be very careful. I thought I was but when tested I now know I'm not. But I show symptoms of being sensitive...not celiac.

HISTORYRUNNER SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 400
3/10/13 2:01 P

Thanks Seacrone, that's a really thorough testimony. I would agree with you, Gary Taubes is a great source for a readable, scientifically sound discussion of the problems of the low-fat, calories in-calories out, USDA food pyramid paradigm that has shaped American dietary habits. From there it's a logical step to going wheat free, and opening one's mind to the "Primal" or "Paleo" approaches. I personally like Mark Sisson's "The Primal Blueprint" a lot for an accessible entryway into this.

SEACRONE Posts: 466
3/10/13 1:14 P

Yes!! That's the book that changed my life. Taubes is a scientific journalist, and he wrote "Why we get fat" as an easier read for the lay person after he wrote "Good Calories - Bad Calories". So if you really want MORE science, read the Good Calories - Bad Calories.

My experience is that I was also a firm believer in "everything in moderation" and "fat makes you fat!". I had maintained a normal weight until I hit my mid forties and then a perfect storm of several factors came together to cause me to skyrocket over 200 and continue to climb slowly after that. I tried everything to get back to normal. With extreme effort and iron clad will power I was able to starve myself down 20 pounds or so, but when I couldn't hold up to the constant maddening hunger and hypoglycemia and started to eat "normally" again I put all the lost pounds back on and then some. I repeated this several times thinking I must be doing something wrong.
Now when I say "normally" I don't mean that I started eating more candy and cookies and going to fast food restaurants and the like. I mean that I ate more food - enough so I didn't have that maddening hunger all the time. I ate a "balanced" diet from all the food groups including lots of healthy whole grains - I used whole grain pasta - whole wheat flour. I ate fruit but not foods with added sugars - especially not HFCS. I allowed myself occasional treats - a slice of cake and some ice cream on special occasions, but these were rare. But I still gained weight. The best I could manage to do was to not gain more, so I sort of resigned myself to thinking I would remain fat forever and I stopped trying to diet because that was just making me fatter and fatter. I thought I was a failure and that I simply didn't have the will power that I needed to restrict my calories forever. My doctor kept trying to encourage me to try harder - exercise more - and it was obvious that she thought I was lying about what and I ate and how little I ate.

Then I read Taubes' book and the science made a lot of sense to me. I was dubious and a little worried that this way of eating was going to be miserable and so restrictive and how on earth would I be able to do this?. But I decided to give it a try. I told myself that I could stand anything for two weeks and that I would put my all into this for two weeks and just see what happened, then if this proved to be horse pucky and I wasn't seeing results, then I would throw up my hands and give in to the belief that I would always be fat and people would continue to believe I wasn't trying hard enough.
I will admit that for the first ten days I felt miserable. I had maddening cravings for bread and pasta and anything with high carbs. I felt awful. Woozy headed, irritable, you name it. My GI system put up a revolt like mad... but then on about day 10 I started to feel better ... not just a little better but miraculously better. My head was clear. Aches and pains disappeared and my long standing chronic GI problems were completely gone. The later was the most amazing to me because I had thought that along with being fat - I would continue to have IBS problems forever. Then there was the bonus of weight loss - I lost seven pounds in those two weeks. Also - much to my surprise and relief I was not miserable and hungry. Cravings were gone! So I decided to keep it going. I needed to prove this wasn't a fluke. The weight loss wasn't from the GI upset. It wasn't "water weight" etc. So I kept it up another week and then another and another. I was not restricting calories. I ate til I was sated. I was not eating tons of meat - who can afford that? I was eating a lot of low carb veggies and salad every day, but that was not a NEW thing. I had always been a veggie eater and salad had been a part of my regular menu. But instead of using "light" or "low fat" salad dressings I was now using full fat. I wasn't removing the skin from chicken or making any effort at all to be low fat. My ratio of fat was very high and so were my calories as a result of that. What was missing was the brown rice, the beans, the starchy veggies, the whole wheat cereals and crackers and bread. I was following the guidelines of a diet in the appendix of Why We Get Fat. It's called the "Duke University Medical Center - No Sugar - No Starch diet. I continued to lose weight and feel great. In a year I lost 50 pounds. This is a miracle to me because I'd been morbidly obese for ten years following the standard low fat low calorie diets, and I had not ever been able to take off more than 20 pounds. Before when I did lose the pounds came back on in a NY minute. I've been able to maintain this 50 pound loss for close to a year now - with no effort and no increase in exercise.
I've been at a plateau for a long time now and I know why. I have increased my carb intake to include fruits and more starchy veggies. I occasionally have desserts. Basically I'm eating a normal balanced diet with all the food groups and even some sugar now and then. The only exception is grains - especially not wheat. The reason I have not added that back is because I've discovered that even a smidgeon of wheat puts me in pain. When I say smidgeon I mean that soy sauce with wheat in the ingredients had me doubled over with cramps. I've added back everything else without a problem. If I want to lose more weight I know I just need to reign the carbs back in. For now I'm content to "coast". My doctor is thrilled with me. All of my numbers have improved.

So my wheat avoidance has nothing to do with the opinions of Dr. Davis. I read his book and I enjoyed it, but I don't revere him the way some do. I'm not doing the "Wheat Belly Diet". This isn't a fad for me. The science behind all this is interesting, but science isn't why I keep doing this - the benefits are. Now perhaps I have Celiac disease. This disease is on the rise and there are many who go for years of suffering without diagnosis. Perhaps I only have a "sensitivity". I'm not interested in going through scads of miserable and expensive medical tests to prove that I do or don't have this disease. If I did get tested now it would come back false negative because I've avoided wheat for so long. So it only is common sense to keep doing what I've been doing. It works for me!

In the long run it's really all about what works for us, isn't it? If all things in moderation works for some of you, then great, but that doesn't work for everyone.

JANNEBARN Posts: 222
3/10/13 12:17 P

I am a perfect example of someone who already for many years, had sworn off sugar and refined grains. I ate what would be considered a very healthy diet of whole foods including whole grains. My family owns a health food store so we are well-informed. I was not overweight but I could not lose that last 10 pounds no matter what.

When I eliminated all wheat I went through about 5 days of feeling like I had the flu after which I suddenly felt like a light bulb had been turned on in me. I lost 7 pounds, my belly flattened and my brain fog disappeared. The puffiness in my face disappeared. Over the next year I eliminated most other grains and lost another 3 pounds. After a year being wheat-free my cholesterol profile was back in the normal range and my physician stopped hounding me to go on Lipitor. "Whatever you are doing, is working" he said.

So don't try to convince me that whole wheat is good for me. Birgit is dead on when she says it's addictive. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation between the SAD diet and the astronomical rise in autism, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. I'll happily stick to my "paleo" diet if it keeps me from becoming a statistic, thank you very much.

ANN5497 Posts: 1,591
3/10/13 8:41 A

I agree that it is important to base your nutrition opinions on science.

So, here it is - a book that lays out scientifically why sugar and simple starches are addictive, induce you to gain weight, and are the real reason we are suffering from epidemic levels of cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

I used to be a firm believer in the "everything in moderation" principle. Now I understand that there really is such a thing as a bad food.

I encourage you to buy this book or borrow it from your library. It changed my life.

WOUBBIE Posts: 13,728
3/9/13 10:55 P

The dwarf wheat that is 95% of what's in our food supply was bred for a noble purpose - to end worldwide starvation - and to that end it did its job. Sadly, it was not bred for nutrition, but for yield. There are proteins in it that the human body does not process well, particularly one called gliadin. It's no coincidence that IBS, Crohn's, Celiac disease, and a whole host of other problems have increased astronomically since it was introduced in the late 60's and early 70's.

And, it's addictive. Wish I had a penny for everyone on SP who says they just "can't give up their bread/pasta/cookies/cakes" etc. It's true. They can't without experiencing some withdrawal from it.

Gave it up about a year and a half ago, and it still surprises me how gassy I'll get if I have even a tablespoon of it. (Yeah, TMI, but I hardly even fart anymore. LOL!)

HOUNDLOVER1 Posts: 8,869
3/9/13 10:07 P

let me start by saying that I had tried many times to give up sugar and was unable to. Only after giving up wheat (incl. whole wheat) as well, did my cravings go away.
There are thousands of people who have experienced huge benefits by cutting out wheat and in some cases all grains from their diets or even all high-carb foods. So by all means, I highly recommend cutting out all high-carb foods as this would lead to a huge reduction of insulin-resistance, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
You are right that Dr. Davis is not primarily a researcher, he is a cardiologist with thousands of patients over the years that have benefited from eliminating wheat from their diet. More research needs to be done on the effects of wheat on people but Dr. Davis' book has lots of references. The book is not written for scientists but for the average consumer and that makes a difference for how it is written. I suggest people read the reviews and make up their own mind.
I would like to know where you have that information from about dwarf wheat being an heirloom variety since this contradicts what I have read in many different sources.
If someone thinks that eating whole wheat or whole grains is good for them and their blood work is excellent and their weight and overall health is where they want it, great for you. It's a free country, you can eat all the wheat you want.
For those of us who have found that carb cravings are hard to beat and cutting calories enough to lose weight is difficult you might want to consider doing without wheat or even without grains. I have not missed them at all in over a year and nut flours and coconut flour are much tastier anyhow. emoticon


ANARIE Posts: 13,192
3/9/13 9:48 P

"All my cravings for carbs went away after discontinuing the use of wheat and sugar."

AND SUGAR are two extremely important words. Eliminate BOTH white flour and sugar, and you have just eliminated about 95% of all junk food. When you stop eating junk food, you feel better. No big surprise there. I have yet to see any controlled study that finds measurable improvement in any aspect of health by eliminating any whole grain without other changes. In fact, I don't even know of a single person who has done that on their own. People who eliminate wheat almost always make dozens of other changes at the same time, including eating more vegetables and less sugar. On the other hand, I know hundreds of people (including me!) who reduced or eliminated sugar and/or other obvious junk food, added more veggies, KEPT (or even increased) whole grains, and had enormous improvements in all aspects of health.

William Davis is not a scientist. He's an incredibly sloppy researcher/author. The book is full of statements about what "must be" and "apparently is" when it would be extremely easy to find out what IS by making a phone call or two. The biggest sloppy assumption of all is that he attacks dwarf wheat as some new, weirdly hybridized "frankenwheat," when in fact it's an extremely ancient heirloom variety that was only set aside because it wasn't pretty. It's short and stout and doesn't wave in the wind, and Americans want to see "amber waves of grain," not boring brown stubby patches of grain. It also has slightly lower yields in really good years. But it stands up to wind and hail and drought and yields better in bad years. Since we're getting more and more bad years, the ugly but sturdy old heirloom is making a comeback. There is ZERO actual evidence that there's anything wrong with any wheat, and much less reason to think that the dwarf wheat is a problem. Davis just decided that since dwarf wheat cultivation and obesity increased at roughly the same time, the wheat had to be the problem. He ignores the fact that between 1973 and 1994, American per capita calorie consumption from ALL sources increased by over 300 calories per day!

When I was 8 years old, my elementary school got its first trained science teacher. On his first day, he walked into the room and said, "Imagine I'm outside and I see a bird flying overhead. I point my finger at the bird and yell 'Bang!' The bird falls down dead. Did I kill the bird?" And right then, he taught 15 little boys and girls the most basic concept of science. We worded it as, "Nuh-Uh! Jus' cuz two things happens at t' same time, that don't mean one of 'em makes th' other!" Scientist word it as, "Correlation does not imply causation." William Davis apparently didn't have a second-grade science teacher to reach him with that concept.

As for it being on the NYT best-seller list... Well, right now the NYT #1 is "Calculated in Death" by JD Robb. JD Robb is also known as Nora Roberts. She's been writing paperback romance novels for about 30 years. They're very nice stories, but you'd be in trouble if you used them as your primary guide to how to live your life. Also in the top 5 are Nicholas Sparks and James Patterson. Being on the NYT Bestseller list means you have an excellent publicist. It doesn't mean your work is particularly good.

ETHELMERZ Posts: 20,221
3/9/13 9:00 P

Just remember that the paleo websites are run by former cave people, and they sing to their own choir, so why would you expect them to tell the complete truth? They are selling a lifestyle, same as any other pusher. The red wheat flour costs more, is the difference that we found, but no one was surprised by this. Beware of the book sellers, and the millions out there still looking for magic and wizards.

SARAHMO4 Posts: 336
3/9/13 8:15 P

The paleo diet is their beliief and what they feel is best. If thats them great, some do great with cutting out grains others wont because grains dont cause them issues or some people dont believe in cutting out grains. I dont feel getting a rid of any food or food group is the greatest idea, and that their sites can be biased even if something can be good or healthy for other people because its what they believe. I will eat what I feel is best for me and do with moderation, good choices, and doing my homework for what I choose and doctors recommendations.

HOUNDLOVER1 Posts: 8,869
3/9/13 8:09 P

If you doubt the research take a look at any number of paleo websites, all of them based on a lot of research, that eliminate all grain, not just wheat from the diet.
By the way, the book made the New York Times Bestseller list. Here is a link for anyone who would like to see the reviews on Amazon.

Also take a look at the wheatbelly team on Spark if you are interested in learning more.


Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 3/9/2013 (20:12)
SUNSHINE6442 Posts: 2,293
3/9/13 5:09 P

There are many conflicting reports on wheat.......I personally don't eat any wheat products as they not only give me a sugar spike, but cravings as well.

Edited by: SUNSHINE6442 at: 3/9/2013 (17:13)
SARAHMO4 Posts: 336
3/9/13 2:19 P

Gramcracker- I am ok too. I got the vibe from the site that it may be desigened with the intent to inform people about wheat flour with misleading or innacurate information, or they just dont like the product. I am NOT saying the site is bad, just my impression. I am open to all information and sites, treating a website like you would if your were finding accurate information for a paper is helpful though. Make sure its accurate correct, by a professional or legitimate organization, etc., and that all the facts and pros/cons are given, not just opinions.

HOUNDLOVER1 Posts: 8,869
3/9/13 2:16 P

I thought I was ok with wheat for many years. But I could never lose the last 10 lbs. of belly fat and I had poor energy levels in the afternoon and evenings.
All my cravings for carbs went away after discontinuing the use of wheat and sugar.
For me I can no more have moderate amounts of wheat than moderate amounts of cocaine.


GRAMCRACKER46 Posts: 1,778
3/9/13 2:03 P

Really? I'm OK with wheat/flour. "All things in moderation."

HOUNDLOVER1 Posts: 8,869
3/9/13 1:15 P

Wheat of any kind, red, white, whole grain, is one of the most toxic foods you can be eating, right along with sugar.
Here is a link that has all the info.

The dangers of wheat are not just for people with gluten intolerance. Wheat is highly addictive and white wheat (triticum aestivum) is the worst kind. Red hard wheat (triticum durum) is not much better.
Use almond or coconut flour for baked goods instead for much better health. For recipes take a look at low-carb and paleo websites.


Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 3/9/2013 (13:16)
CUDA440 SparkPoints: (85,707)
Fitness Minutes: (93,681)
Posts: 8,044
3/9/13 1:08 P

I have switched to white wheat flour in all my recipes. It's a more mild taste than the red.


ANARIE Posts: 13,192
3/8/13 6:28 P

The only real difference is the color. White wheat has a paler (not really white), blander-tasting skin, so whole-grain white wheat flour looks and tastes more like regular white flour. In baking, it's a TINY bit lighter than regular whole wheat, maybe. Or it could just be psychological, because it looks like it *should* be lighter. I use it in place of white flour pretty regularly for myself, but if I'm baking for a contest or special occasion, I use what the recipe calls for. You can sub it in cookies and breads pretty easily, but it won't make a nice cake.

SARAHMO4 Posts: 336
3/8/13 6:16 P

Is their a difference between red wheat and white wheat flour? According to one brand the standard red wheat flour is heavier and does not "puff up" as well in baked goods. Has anyone see a difference in the quality, color, or taste thats really noticeable? I guess I was just surprised and didnt know what to believe or really buy. Some of what brands say may be true, not sure though for the most part.

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Frustrating Tracking Day 7/16/2016 12:52:27 AM
Mexican restaurant healthy choices? 9/7/2016 10:13:30 AM
Calories for one-pot homecooked meals? 12/14/2016 10:00:01 AM
pizza crust 4/14/2017 8:00:37 AM
is it normal to lose 8 pounds in 2 weeks? 8/8/2016 2:58:57 PM