Never said it didn't affect blood glucose, please actually read the comments I made before you say outlandish things. I'm quite certain my understanding of the biology of it is far better than yours.

Nor did I say that you needed to...

I'm not generalizing my experience, I'm citing normal physiology for a healthy (using that term loosely) individual. I've already noted that the physiology of individuals in some type of disease state (e.g. diabetics) is very different than those of a normal healthy individual. Nowhere did the OP imply or state that…

Wheat influences the endocrine system for everyone, as does any other caloric source you take into your body. It's how it affects your endocrine system that I take issue with (reality vs. the proposed role some people here are saying).

You seem to have a very narrow view of what social progressivism is. You also seem to be looking for a black and white answer to an otherwise vague question. Science is associated with progressivism because it is inherently progressive (circular, I know); it promotes progressive thinking. That does not mean that the…

Another commenter hit the nail on the head. Science is considered progressive not because it's infallible, but because at its very core it promotes the type of thinking that drives the progressive movement.

I never said it didn't negatively affect people. Wheat alone, however, is not going to cause you to gain 20lbs or cause you to have terrible hunger pangs, it just isn't. That's the only statement I was refuting from the OP

Like I said, diabetes is a disease state. You can't talk about it as if the physiology of a person with diabetes is equivalent to the physiology of a healthy individual. It is of zero surprise that a diabetic who cuts out the foodstuff that is likely the largest source of carbohydrate in said person's diet will show…

see my response to your other comment if you'd like a more detailed response as to why what you're saying is misinformed

Do you? Because I really don't think you do. Diabetes (type II anyway, which is what I'm going to assume you're referring to) is a result of a desensitization of the insulin receptor to insulin due to years of excessively high levels of insulin (due to poor diet). It is not the result of normal eating habits (i.e. a…

No, it doesn't. As I've already stated here, biology simply disagrees with this statement except in select circumstances. Maybe you should look around at some of the critiques of Wheat Belly (or, oh I don't know, inform yourself about just general biology / physiology) before you take what it says as gospel.

wheat does not cause high blood sugar...where do you people come up with this crap? Also, your understanding of the role of insulin is just flat out incorrect (hint: insulin does NOT cause you to be hungry. It in fact does exactly the opposite, by promoting leptin release which then acts to suppress appetite)

gender inequality or gender differences (gender roles, etc.)? Inequality implies one group is better than the other, whereas differences implies that, well, there are differences that promote (but don't require!) different roles in society, etc.

"objectively evaluate only that which they are interested in in the first place"

why do you assume that just because a group is called "I fucking love science" it automatically precludes said group from including any of the typical boorish masses of individuals that exist on the internet? I'm pretty sure any group that has several million followers is going to include individuals that may not be a…

yeah no, "wheat" doesn't do that, it simply doesn't. eating pounds of processed sugar that are paired with a little bit of wheat is what does that. if cutting out wheat has helped you control how much you eat, fine, but it's nothing inherent to whole grain products that is causing that change.

+1, thanks for writing this so I didn't have to :)

oh look, someone on jez with some common sense when it comes to weight issues in this country. how refreshing

You may also want to look up what the word "objective" means...you can form an argument while remaining objective, just FYI. "[T]trying to convince me that you are right and that I am wrong" does not indicate objectivity in one direction or another.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin to refute what you've said. Most of what you just wrote is either incomplete, misconstrued, or just blatantly false. I have degrees in neurobiology and psychology and am currently working on a PhD in neuroscience, so I don't really…