Weston A. Price Foundation and history of wheat

[Zizzle]

I visited the Weston A. Price Foundation website when I was learning how best to introduce food to my infants. They always have a wealth of logical information on health and nutrition, based on how our ancestors ate.

These are great articles about the evolution of wheat and bread, which explains the rapid rise in celiac cases and gluten intolerance. Seems wheat of olden days in not the enemy, it's the genetic hybrids that have been developed and the way it is processed. I wonder if celiacs would react to one of the ancestral wheats, sprouted and prepared in the sourdough methods of old?

http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-dise ... grain.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-dise ... grain.html

"How to restore digestive health":
http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-dise ... ealth.html

[tex]

There's a possibility that ancient wheat ancestors may not have contained peptides that cause celiac-type reactions, as the following quote from the article at the first link that you cited, suggests, but it is very unlikely, IMO, (the red emphasis is mine, of course). However, be aware that this article is based on obsolete information. The remark in the following quote is based on a single peptide, which was described by researchers about 10 years ago. Since then, (and since the Weston Price article was written, researchers have isolated almost a hundred additional peptides that celiacs react to. I would guess that the odds are very high that some of those peptides existed in the amino acid chains of the gluten found in some/most/all of the ancient ancestors of modern wheat. It is probably true, however, that several of the most potent peptides found in modern wheat did not exist in ancient wheat ancestors. Therefore, while it might take longer to develop a sensitivity to the ancient wheat cultivars, and fewer people might become sensitized, the potential still exists that many people would probably ultimately develop sensitivities to them, over the long term. In this respect, they are similar to oats, with a lower amount of potential prolamin protein material, and a lower content of qualifying peptides. Unfortunately, though, many people with gluten-sensitivity will also develop sensitivity to the avenin in oats, if they ingest enough of it, for a long enough period of time. I demonstrated the proof of that theory a couple of years ago, using myself as a guinea pig. It took about 6 weeks, eating gluten-free oats only twice a week, before the diarrhea started. Once it started, it took another 6 weeks for the D to stop. I further showed that once I had become sensitized, anytime after that, if I ate any oats, then within a matter of a few hours, I would have "system-purging" diarrhea.

Recent genome mapping of modern bread wheat with an eye to its toxic influence in celiac disease has isolated a small chain of peptides on a portion of the gluten protein which is directly responsible for stimulating the reaction in those with the celiac genetic inheritance. The plant genes responsible for contributing these peptides in wheat gluten are located on the third set of chromosomes that the hexaploid variants inherited from their wild parent. It is very interesting to note that neither the diploid nor the tetraploid cereal grains contain this genetic material. That is, cultivated diploid einkorn, and tetraploid emmer wheat along with certain of the durum pasta wheats as well as durum variants such as Kamut® (a brand name for T. turgidum or T. turanicum) and T. polonicum (Polish wheat) do not contain this genetic material.

Actually, this is all beside the point, anyway, because the ancient wheats sucked, as a source of flour for baking bread. If you had to eat bread baked with those wheat flours, it would cure you of craving wheat faster than you can say "Jack Robinson". The reason that modern wheat varieties were developed in the first place, is because the "improved" gluten amino acid chains in them allows the creation of a flour that is far superior for baking bread. Unfortunately, it is precisely the same gliadin and glutenin sequences that give wheat flour such great baking qualities, that cause the reactions in celiacs. They give bread it's resilient texture, and it's ability to stick together. Without those enhanced amino acid chains, wheat would have the texture and cohesiveness of corn bread, for example - IOW, it wouldn't be worth a hoot for making sandwiches, nor for creating those delicate, light pastries that every one loves. Like most gluten-free breads on the market, it would be usable, but the "magic" qualities of truly good baking flour would be missing, and there is no way to replace them, genetically, without utilizing similar peptide sequences, which would, of course, reintroduce the sensitivity issue. The bottom line is, without those peptide sequences, wheat is just another grain, because it loses it's appeal as a source of baking flour.

And yes, you can buy bread made from sprouted wheat, and you can buy bread made from sprouted spelt, (which is essentially the same as the ancient spelt plant), but while it is not as "potent" as bread made from modern wheat, (IOW, it will take more of it to make you just as sick), you will still get sick from it, because sprouting does not destroy the gliadins and the glutenin amino acid peptides that we react to.

Incidentally, the information concerning the history of wheat evolution in that article is quite accurate and that's an excellent article, as far as I can tell, (other than the fact that recent discoveries concerning allergenic wheat gluten peptides have made a small amount of the information somewhat obsolete).

Also, be aware that while it is true that Kamut does not contain certain amino acid chains present in wheat, (as mentioned in the quote that I listed), it still contains enough of the problematic peptides that most of us are almost certain to react to it. It is too closely related to wheat, to be safe for people who are gluten-sensitive, despite the inference of the article.

Tex