Quick background:  A couple friends have been diagnosed gluten intolerant.  This has lead to several discussions and the question has been raised: How has wheat changed in the last 50-100 years?

In an article "Just how beneficial is a gluten-free diet for those without celiac disease?" I find this quote: "According to naturopath Glen Depke, it appears that the old wheat was three percent gluten, and now it is 50 percent.

Let's not argue over "natural" or "organic" and not dismiss someone's thoughts just because they advocate such. They may misunderstand some things but still have good ideas and questions.  I responded to a friend's quote of this article to tell her he was incorrect in one area, very little hybrid wheat is available and quoted a Healthy Home Economist article saying "Hybrid Wheat NOT the Same as GM Wheat"

When asked "How has wheat changed?"   I responded "To be honest I haven't a clue. I look at things like yield, standability, disease resistance, etc. I don't get paid to worry about things like gluten content, so it never enters my mind."

My friend Dr Betsy replied "Too many people's health improve when they remove wheat and other grains from the diet. Gotta work on why."

So how would you respond when asked how wheat has changed?

There's a Dr promoting a "his" new book that basiclly says the same thing - Wheat has been bred to have more gluten and other UNHEALTHY genes, from wheats that were available 50-100 yrs ago . . .
He was interesting, talking about which genes / protiens the wheat has, that cause medical problems in people, but, he was promoting his book also . . . .
The book is called "Wheat Belly" . . . .by William Davis MD
Agian, if some of what he claims is true, then yes, wheat has changed .. . . .
But, was it changed for the betterment of human life and now it's gone too far ? ??

After a discussion with an 'organic' follower who asked me if 'Wheat Belly' was factual, I went to local library to get a copy; I'm number 19 on the waiting list for the book. I can get the audio version after 10 others. So, there is a lot of interest stirred by this book, or people are just looking for the miracle diet.
Cutting gluten from one's diet would benefit most people if they substitue fruits and vegetables for some of the refined grain products. It would be like eating oatmeal instead of 2 eggs for breakfast; the eggs may not be the problem, but the substitue (oatmeal fibre) reduces cholesterol levels, so people blame eggs for heart attacks.

I would question the 3 vs 50% gluten claim also.  Does anyone have good data?  I can get it but I don't have it handy.  Dr. Hal LaFevre and I talked about this 20 years ago but I don't recall the numbers.

I am glad you brought this up, Mike.  LuAnn did last week and I blogged on Wheat Belly.  My reading refuted Davis' claim that hybridization is at fault because we all know HyBrex and other hybridization attempts failed because wheat is a "perfect self pollinating plant."

We have bred for shorter wheats that stand higher N and end up with less nutrient dense food and more carbohydrate.  Then the food industry discovered how to market food with "cheap wheat" and 75% of what is on grocery shelves has wheat and or corn in it.

The gluten question is a good one and I would like to know the answer.

http://www.hymark.blogspot.com/2012/09/wheat-belly.html

Ed

Wheat has changed over the years but for the better. There have been many studies done over the years and there is NO scientific proof that a gluten free diet is healthier than a well balanced diet including wheat products. Gluten is sometimes added either at the mill or the bakery to enhance the baking quality of some flour for some products. Many people will try to blame their own shortcomings whether it be overweight or poor health on someone or something instead of where the true blame belongs, the person holding the FORK. You can find some very helpfull and honest information here. http://www.wheatfoods.org/

I'd really like to hear someone speak to this, who has a strong background in genetics.  It seems to me that if you increase the number of genes, you will no longer have "wheat".  I would question whether this author's - Davis - statement is/  can be accurate. 

Anyone with a genetics background care to expound on this???

Its funny your two foods cited for causing overweight kids are both grain based foods.  In reality a grain based diet has only been around for the last 100 years out of 10,000 making it look like the real fad.

I didn't say grain never was eaten in the past, it just wasn't the main dish it is today. Pretty sure meat was the foundation of diets ask the plains Indians.  Also in biblical times and before, most grains were soaked or sprouted before being ground which changes the properties of the grain.   

Meat.  People ate meat mainly.  If you were a nomad, would you rather hunt a deer and have feed for a month.  Or spend a month gathering enough grain for a day.  I can't believe the eskimos gathered much grain, in fact all indigenous people lived on meat.  Storing grain started when the government decided it wanted to get in the food control business and started subsidizing commodities.

I would raise the question:  Has wheat changed? or has the processing of wheat changed (more) ?  I would guess that the processing of wheat has changed more in the last 50 years, than the wheat itself.

Myself ? I started using more whole wheat to do my baking etc.  I have noticed - personally - that using whole wheat where I can, I don't get that "crash effect" in my blood sugars.  It used to be that if I ate something I made with regular wheat flour for lunch, within 20 minutes or so, I would need to take a nap.  I don't get that effect, or not so much, when using whole wheat flour. 

Do you think I am on the right track, or do you believe this is all "in my head"?

Does anyone have a seed bank of older varieties of wheat - varieties from 50+ years ago? 

If so, maybe it would be possible to get some of these seeds, and grow some to get enough to do a research project on this. 

I am sure someone could find out how wheat was processed 50 years ago. 

And then someone could do a research project comparing the nutrient content of both the grains as harvested, and the grains post-processing, 50 years ago vs today.  

NOT that I am going to do this..........   just saying it would be a good way to look at it.   

.