Excellent. Very thoughtful review.

Ugh....this is pure junk science.

Ataxia is primarily associated with the varicella virus in children. It is rare, but the association is very real.

If this is the "science" behind this book, I'm in no rush to go out and buy it.

Something Dr. Mike Eades keeps pounding the table about is that observational studies can never prove or imply causality, only correlation. Only followups by clinical studies can prove a causal link. Wheat Belly relies on a lot of observational/prospective studies from which Davis draws conclusions. Shouldn't readers be wary of accepting these connections?

Then he has patients who try them out and they work.

Sure he's drawing conclusions. He's making a "best guess". To quote Mr. Spock "I will try to make the best guess I can."

He's seen incredible results from his patients after all. And the advice he is suggesting is not like asking people to do a swan dive off a 10-story building. It's a fairly easy thing to try out - and it's not like anyone is likely to die, or even get ill, from ELIMINATING wheat from their diet.

If people try it and find it doesn't help them or their symptoms they can just shrug, say "I guess what he guessed didn't help me any" and move on. I mean some of his case histories are pretty dramatic of people being pulled back from death's door merely by eliminating wheat.

My own story: When I was in my late 40s I began to develop a whole host of awful symptoms, terrible GERD, nausea and vomiting (I was throwing up in the ladies room at work every single day after lunch), diarrhea, and - which I thought was totally unrelated - arthritis so bad I could barely get out of bed in the morning, and would hobble around like a 95-year-old for the longest time until I worked the kinks out.

I went to doctors, including one who had a rep as the best gastroenterologist in the area. I had X-rays, blood rests, abdominal CAT scan, GI series, endoscopy, and an MRI for the severe pains I was having. None of the doctors found anything wrong with me. I was given prescriptions for Prilosec and Percocet and basically told I'd probably just have to be on both of those (or similar) for the rest of my life.

It was a *neighbor* of mine, who suggested I go on an elimination diet and cut out wheat, something she had tried as she has gluten issues herself (and her daughter is celiac). So I did, and in ONE WEEK all my symptoms vanished. ALL. No more GERD, no more nausea, no more vomiting, no more diarrhea. And most amazing to me, no more ARTHRITIS! That one totally blew my mind as I hadn't the least clue it could have been connected to anything else.

So yeah, Dr. Davis writes in a light and popular style, reaching for a mass audience. Maybe not every jot and tittle of the science is nailed down, but he is trying to get across the concept, and I don't see why anyone would need to be wary of just giving it a try.

(addtional note: In doing research later I came across a reference that said people who are gluten intolerant often don't begin to show symptoms until they reach their 40s or so - just like in my case - as it takes so many years of subtle damage before it becomes noticeable. Wish I had given up wheat prophylactically years before.)

Wasn't it Gerald Reaven who introduced the theory of the "20 year rule"? Put a person on the SAD and within 20 years they'll start to exhibit symptoms of "syndrome X" or "metabolic syndrome". It makes sense in the time frame considering that the over-processing of our foods (particularly wheat) began in the seventies.

I've read a lot of criticism of Wheat Belly based on the 'evidence flaws' that Davis presents, but I think most of the critics neglect his clinical experience. It's just like Atkins or Eades--- clinical experience treating thousands of patients trumps observational studies.

Good point Karen. I'll all for science based medicine, but I tend to favor the point of view from clinicians over those of theorists like Stephen Guillemet.

On the other hand, it's important to maintain credibility if you want to be taken seriously. It's probably a really fine line to thread between producing accessible material, while satisfying the science critics.

Based on the success of diets (or at least diet books) in the U.S. that have no foundation in good science, I think the audience Davis aims for will find his writing credible. But instinctively, people follow the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Part of that proof is concurrence by at least a few mainstream medical authorities whom the public regards as trustworthy.

And unlike the members of this forum, giving up wheat for the general public is a HUGE deal. This isn't like Spurlock's "Supersize me," where the public is inclined to distrust the "villain" of the story, or it has a moral appeal (gluttony's a sin). Davis is making a full frontal assault on one of the established pillars of our diet.

So, Davis is fighting an uphill battle on two fronts. It behooves him to present the best evidence available. If much of that evidence is observational or anecdotal (including his own case studies), he's unlikely to find support from the medical community or those they influence.

To see another example of this, we can look at the LC movement. There is a large base of clinician success with the LC WOE, there are ethnographic, observational, and clinical studies supporting it, and some mainstream medical researchers are now providing lukewarm support. With all this on its side, the LC WOE still faces enormous hostility from most of the medical community, limp support from the restaurant and food service industry, and indifference from the population at large. If Davis fails to muster support from the medical establishment, his advice will probably have the same fate.

That's right. His book might be well received by the general population, but if he ends up labelled a quack, then the issue will never receive much more consideration than all the other "quack" books. That's pretty much what happened to low-carb. The powers-that-be decided that Atkins was a dangerous quack, and his message was not only unheard, but actively vilified for years. Even now, people are still pretty dismissive about the "Atkins Diet", and will probably always be. It's good to get the message out about wheat to the general public, but it would be even better if doctors were convinced that it's a concern, or at least a possibility. How many stories like Debbie have we heard ? Serious health concerns going unrecognized, undiagnosed and basically categorized as psycho-somatic. How much suffering would be avoided if doctors would recognize the symptoms of wheat intolerance and advise their patients to try cutting out wheat. For that to happen, Dr. Davis needs to maintain scientific credibility.

So I understand both point of views

The Ataxia Center at the U of Minnesota thinks differently:

WereBear,

Excellent counter-point! How do you dig up this stuff?

The various USDA food pyramids and plates have never been based upon science.

Good points. That's one reason I appreciated reading the balanced review by Chris Masterjohn that RawNut posted.

Maybe Dr Davis should follow in the footsteps of Gary Taubes.

One book, Good Calories Bad Calories, very science heavy and aimed more towards the professional or science-minded reader.

Next book, Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It, more accessible and aimed at the general public.

I think it's unrealistic to expect one book to satisfy everyone, since everyone has their own bent and expectations.

I'll admit, I find it frustrating that so many want to focus on what they perceive as lacking in Dr Davis' book Wheat Belly, instead of the overall truths or possible solutions based upon his experiences of treating thousands of patients. For some people, his protocols work. He might not have it all nailed down perfectly as to WHY it works, but it does work in many cases.

Me... sheesh... I just want to feel better. I'm tired of all the infighting, backbiting, chest thumping by the various self-proclaimed experts, and in general: big egos! His book is not perfect, true. But still, it's getting an important message OUT there.

I appreciate Dr Davis putting his head on the chopping block to get his theories out there sooner rather than later... like 20 years later after all the clinical/scientific studies, double blind trials etc etc, that they would STILL be arguing about, regardless of the outcomes. He knew he would become a target, but he was willing to do it anyway.

Okay, sorry, rant over.

I'm just an unscientific peon out here trying to lose some fat, eliminate some pain, and reclaim my life. If giving up wheat will contribute towards giving me that... I'm willing to try it for myself. If it doesn't work... no big loss. But what if it does??? I've got nothing to lose by trying, and everything to gain.

PS: it's been 13 days since I went ZW (zero wheat). So far, I can say I have noticed one definite change: I can breathe through my nose better.
Backstory: I have a small nose, inside and out; narrow nasal passages. One side or the other was always stuffed up. I have sleep apnea, and have to wear a mask to breathe at night through my nose. Sometimes that was hard, since one side of my dinky nose was always clogged. My pulmonologist said "oh that's normal, everyone has that". Now I'm thinking, really? Normal to have half your nose clogged all the time??

So, having it clear up for the first time in my life (I'm 60 yrs young) is a big deal to me. And the only thing I did different was: no wheat. I don't need a double blind study to tell me there is a definite correlation, if not outright causation.

I agree wholeheartedly with your rant. Since my wheat encounter 3 days ago, I've been wheat free since then and guess what? the numbness and tingling have disappeared again! Am I willing to immerse myself in wheat/products again just because Dr Davis may have left something out or not covered every possible alternative culprit?

NO!!! I don't care that all the scientific minds will never agree. If it works for me, then his claims are 100% credible for me. After all, as far as my health is involved, nobody else's opinion matters more than my own.

To dismiss his book, his ideas and reasoning therein because they can't be reconciled by every mind out there, isn't very open-minded about new concepts.

Over and over I come to the same conclusion. There seems to be such a canyon between the two. "scientific studies"? Or "Clinical experience"? "Accessible material" is another thing entirely. Makes me wonder- Is the Coffee Cantata by J. S. Bach "accessible"? Maybe the kids really ARE drinking too much coffee! Maybe not?