It's Time to End the War on Bread!
 

Dateline 20180206:

TV Doctor and Wellness Expert says, "It's Time to End the War on Bread!"

Film at 11

http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/it-time-end-war-bread

He uses false logic. We are eating less bread and we gained, therefore it must be the lack of bread must be the cause.

He also uses false logic when he states that JAMA says chronic disease cause a large number of deaths and they also say we do not eat enough healthy grains. Ergo it must be the lack of grains that is causing these deaths.

Is he being dishonest or is he really that illogical?

Little known fact, in Paleo times, bread trees were abundant and humanoids consumed a lot of bread, so much in fact that the bread trees became extinct. Today's Paleo diet is a WOE replicating the diet of Paleo times after the bread tree's extinction. Just thought I'd throw that out there, so everyone is aware of the history.

Oz is a shill and depends on ratings. When the audience is bored or continually hears the same things, topics must be changed or his show gets cancelled. Playing to an audience of carb eaters is a softball. They must have loved this news. Don't expect facts or truth to have anything to do with anything he or his guests say. Wonder if he's strategizing with Oprah?

I think one problem here is that they've genuinely been given a straw man to knock down, they didn't even have to build it themselves.

If I say "bread makes people fat, sick, etc.," I'm making a harder to support statement than to say, "once a person is fat, sick, etc., a low carb approach, which generally includes low or absent bread intake, has been shown to be an effective intervention." The first statement invites people to look for exceptions, for populations where bread didn't seem to be harmful, at least vs. populations eating the SAD diet, and these exceptions really aren't hard to find.

A similar thing can be said for rice. I can't say "rice causes disease" with all that much certainty, but again I can say that a low carb approach, that greatly reduces rice as well as all digestible carbohydrate intake has been shown to be effective. The first statement invites people to look for exceptions, healthy populations that eat or ate rice. Not that hard to find. The second statement--people might infer that invitation, but it's not really implied. A well-composed low carb or ketogenic diet being therapeutic and healthful does nothing in itself to suggest that there aren't other dietary patterns that could be therapeutic or healthful. I sort of disagree with the phrase "Good Calories Bad Calories" now, I could agree with "Good Dietary Pattern Bad Dietary Pattern." The mainstream sort of misapplies this, talking about healthful dietary patterns while still insisting on the same old dietary villains and heroes--a good dietary pattern is one with healthy whole grains, high in fiber, low in butter and sugar etc. Nonsense, you can have a good overall diet that includes a fair amount of butter, perhaps where the butter itself, within that pattern, contributes to health. Or you could have a bad pattern, with lots of butter, in a context where the butter actually worsens the effects of the rest of the diet.

This is one reason why I hate the expression "just eat real food." It's the "just" I have a problem with. If it only meant "only eat real food" that would be fine, but often what seems to be meant is that the one quality of food that you should concern yourself with is its realness. Quality matters, and quality goes beyond the individual ingredients to the total composition of the diet.

Did Atkins ever say, if you eat less bread, you'll be healthier? I think he said something more along the lines of, if you reduce your carbohydrate intake under a certain person threshold, you'll be healthier.

I'm still trying to define "real" in the context of food. It likely has many definitions depending on who is answering the question. Definitely an imprecise term that I'm guilty of occasionally using. I have friends who tell me beer is real food . . .

I didn't read the link because I want no lying rationalizations about bread good in my mind.

Thanks Teaser and Rob, nice place to find your nonpolarizing argument. I am trying to practice that in life: nonpolarizing speech, its a challenge, but your close analysis here is a great example!:rheart:

I’ll bet Dr. Oz doesn’t eat much bread. About once a month I seem to find myself at a banquet type function (wedding, fundraiser, kids’ award dinner, etc). Since embracing a low carb diet I’ve become very observant of how the thin people seated at my table eat. One thing I’ve noticed over and over is that they typically don’t eat their roll. Whether it’s a conscious decision or their thinness is the natural outcome of a distaste for bread, I can’t say. What I can say is that the correlation between thinness and less bread is real.

As far as the claim in the video that still fat Americans are eating less bread I suspect it has to do with the increase in Hispanic cuisine and convenience foods and nothing to do with a perception that bread is bad among the general public. Growing up, we had burgers and dogs once a week; my kids have taco Tuesday. Also, where I was eating peanut butter sandwiches for a quick, cheap lunch, my kids are more likely to microwave chicken nuggets. What the guy in the Dr. Oz video overlooks is America’s increased consumption of nachos and tortillas.

I should send this in as a viewer suggestion for an episode Tess. Brilliant! More Blink Bait for hungry dr. Oz consumers ;)

Count the ways people eat tortillas now. Tacos of course and Flautas, Enchiladas, tostadas, fajitas, nachos, quesadillas etc....... tortillas by a thousand names!

Even Oprah is stuffing her face with tortillas in WW ads this year. More Bread Bread Bread was last year's ad.

Haha, I didn’t go to the link because I saw it was Dr. Oz. That was all I needed to see to know I had no interest in anything it said!

That makes sense. Growing up, we had bread at every meal; toast for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch, rolls, biscuits or bread for supper. Not to mention snacks.

I used to make wheat bread, now I make flax or almond bread. Today I tried a new recipe that's 1/2 flax & 1/2 almond - not bad! The almond flour cuts down the fishy taste of the flax.

Huh, the "war on bread" didn't work, therefore let's stop it now. Well, the "war on fat" didn't work, therefore let's stop it now.

I like this guy, he makes the best argument evah. Oh, also he wants to end the "war on pasta".

So, about what he says to Oz about low-carb and stuff in the clip with the title "why low-carb diets are unsustainable". "...and maybe they drink too much soda". Ima go ahead and guess low-carb diets include soda as an allowed food. No wait, Ima go ahead and say with absolute certainty that it ain't. Phew, almost got fooled for a second there. Good thing I ain't an idjit who's never actually read (and tried, and succeeded in following the instructions, and grew leaner as a result) any low-carb book whatsoever, otherwise I'd believe the author of The Dorito Effect when he says stuff about stuff.

I love Oz, he makes the best arguments too. For instance, he says if we cut out bread, we eat more of other stuff and he's got a picture. In that picture, there's all kinds of bread or bread-y stuff we don't actually call bread. I guess he's saying if we cut out bread, we're lying about it. Oh, he's also saying low-carb diets include all that bread-y stuff as allowed foods. Ima say again with absolute certainty they don't they ain't no way no how never ever. Oh, it means he's also saying Shatzker is lying when he says we eat 13lbs less bread.

In the third clip titled "The Wheat Bread...blah blah blah", Shatzker says something brilliant. First, he talks about digestion, breaking down the food, and illustrates that white bread is digested much more quickly than whole wheat bread. And the glycemic index and stuff, but that doesn't seem to go anywhere, maybe it's just me. But then he says something even more brilliant: "You're just burning it really quickly". Da hell's he talking about, Willis? Digestion, absorption, or "burning"? Well, first he talks about digestion and how bran fiber slows it down. In the same breath, absorption slows down too by extension, right? But when he says "you just burn it really quick", he's literally arguing that the quicker it's digested, the quicker it's absorbed, the quicker it's metabolized.

At the next clip, he just lost me when he said "you can get the nutrition...blah blah blah". Nah, you can't, there ain't no such thing in wheat. In fact, that's why we enrich wheat flour in the first place with several essentials, and then some that weren't there before processing. Oh yeah, remember that picture Oz was showing us? It's all processed food. Well, bread is the single most processed "food" on the planet. No choice, can't digest, absorb or burn raw wheat seeds. Cuz, ya know, bran fiber, the shell of the seed, is totally indigestible.

OK, let's be a little more serious here. Everybody on this forum knows full well the effect of cutting out all wheat. And the effect of eating wheat when, ya know, we sorta kinda totally lose it and scarf down an entire box of donuts like it was the end of the world. Ima say it ain't actually food. Ima say it's a genuine drug. It doesn't even taste good and we still gobble it up. In fact, it could taste pretty much like saw dust and we'd still stuff our faces, just like that woman Taubes talked about where she was hooked on bland wheat starch, the stuff used at the cleaners. Ya, that's what we eat when we eat wheat. All the flavors we add in, in the bread itself and between the slices or whatever, it's just to make the experience a bit less cra..., erm, a bit more tolerable. It's basically the exact same thing with coffee when we add cream and sugar. I drink mine black, I guess I'd totally eat bland wheat starch too.

Grains and sugar. The most widely consumed drugs on Earth.