26 votes

Judge Andrew Napolitano Loses 60 Pounds doing Wheat Belly Diet

Judge Andrew Napolitano Loses 60 Pounds Just By Dropping Wheat (Just Like Dr. William Davis Said)

First, the bit about that weight loss is buried in one or both of the videos—but you have to find it if you want, which is going to piss some people off (but you get what you pay for). There's also a mention of misled vegan, enlightened libertarian John Mackey (see, contradictions do exist) and Whole Foods Markets, but in a different context—which is a bit dot-connecting interesting.

For more - http://freetheanimal.com/2013/02/napolitano-dropping-william...

---


http://youtu.be/gWtsHTNhPa4



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The only people who can't

The only people who can't tolerate wheat are those with celiac disease.

Non celiac gluten sensitivity

The rest of your post, per the usual, speaks for itself...

Nonceliac gluten sensitivity...

...is not from wheat; it's from all the chemicals, butter, and other crap that goes with processed wheat. It's no wonder that once you quit the processed junk, wheat or nonwheat, you feel better. That's something that the author of Wheat Belly will not tell you, of course.

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/mar/gluten.htm

Touting the "genetic disease" bogeyman.So I closed the link

MDs use "gentic disease" to blame the patients for their own lack of knowledge.

Autoimmune is another way they blame.

Free includes debt-free!

“There are 300 known illnesses, diseases linked to gluten"

http://www.coeliacsmatter.com/digestive_conditions_coeliac/g...

Contrary to popular belief, then, CD is not the be-all-and-end-all of gluten sensitivity, but it may be that gluten intolerance comes first and causes major problems, one of which could be damage to the villi, as in CD, but equally it may cause damage anywhere else.

As GS expert Dr Peter Osborne says in his new book Glutenology: “Currently, there are about 300 known illnesses, diseases and conditions connected to gluten allergy, intolerance and sensitivity.”

That’s a lot of illness. In his literature, he cites the most common diseases he says “have been directly associated with gluten sensitivity”. These are: “Asthma, thyroid disease, eczema, psoriasis, autism, ADD/ADHD, colic, acid reflux, migraine, chronic joint pain, schizophrenia, bipolar, IBS, infertility, chronic constipation, restless legs, iron-deficiency anaemia, osteoporosis, high cholesterol, non alcoholic fatty liver disease (and other gallbladder and liver problems), fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.”

One thing’s for certain: GS isn’t just about digestive issues and lots of people have no digestive symptoms at all. Many people with GS are missed and in a kind of ‘no-man’s land’ because they don’t have the traditional gluten symptoms of weight loss, gut signs or failure to thrive as a child. GS may not even involve an immune response of any kind and people can have totally opposite symptoms from those normally associated with gluten illness.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Man is what he absorbs.

As the body fails to absorb all the essential nutrients a whole bunch of nutritional diseases become manifest. About over 900 nutritional deficnecy diseases have been identified.

Gluten is known to prevent absorption.

Mother's pass their gluten intolerance in breast milk and cord blood.

Find the the trouble, eliminate it, start absorbing again and the body will repair itself of over 900 diseases.

Free includes debt-free!

Why carbs are bad ...

... there are 3 macro-nutrients that we get from food: protein, carbohydrates, and fat.

The human body does not directly utilize any of these. When we eat protein, our bodies break the protein down into the amino acids that built the protein, and then our bodies use those amino acids to build human protein for all the cells of our bodies. Fats are broken down into fatty acids, which can be utilized by our bodies.

Likewise, carbohydrates (ALL carbs) are broken down into glucose. When we eat carbs, our bodies break them down into glucose, which goes into our bloodstream. This is an increase in blood sugar level, which is potentially dangerous if overdone, so our bodies compensate by way of our pancreas creating insulin to send into the bloodstream to offset the blood sugar. An increase in insulin within our system causes the fat receptors within our fat cells to open and start accumulating fat. Contrary to what some say, an increase in carbs will make us fat because of the ultimate effect on fat cells.

Ideally, one should eliminate all carbs. That's how humans lived for a few hundred thousand years or so (we don't know for sure how long homo sapien has been around, but he ate no carbs at all for most of history).

Completely eliminating all carbs is not easy, though, due to how we have all gotten used to eating carbs.

But when it comes to carbs, a brownie is just as good/bad as broccoli.

The biggest problem of all with any plant food is that the nutrients within them are not very bio-available for humans (because we did not evolve to eat them). Meat, on the other hand, has nutrients that are extremely bio-available. That should be a real big hint on what is best for human consumption and what is not.

BTW: Way to go, Judge!

I agree with part of your

I agree with part of your post but you are missing some factors in your analysis. Broccoli has plenty of fiber and complex carbs that break down slowly over time to give your body sustained energy. On the other hand, a brownie has simple carbs that burn instantly and thus more gets made into fat from the insulin response, especially if you eat it and sit watching TV for the next couple of hours.

I also disagree thta humans were meant to consume meat and not plants. Our long digestive tract is better suited for plants than meat as meat can clog us up and become putrid by the time it makes its way to the end. That is why if you eat a big steak you feel bloated until you can get some good ol fiber to push everything down.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Actually ...

... there is really no difference between complex carbs and simple carbs. They both break down into glucose, which means an elevated blood sugar, because ALL carbs MUST be broken down into glucose.

Simple carbs do spike blood sugar levels faster, but complex carbs do it over a longer period of time. Both have essentially the same effect: an elevated blood sugar level, which means an insulin response, and that is what opens the fat receptors.

Contrary to popular belief, fiber is not a good thing for the human body. It is an irritant in the sensitive human digestive tract. Nobody heard about fiber until a marketing ploy was developed to make money off of waste by-product. It is not good for us.

Meat digests much faster than carbs. Meat only takes about 45 minutes to digest, while carbs take several hours (complex carbs, especially where fiber is involved).

During WWI, soldiers on the battlefield where sometimes injured to the point that they could not eat. With medicine the way it was then, there were cases where stomachs were cut open and food was directly inserted into the stomach to feed the soldier. Doctors got first-hand knowledge of how long different foods take to digest. Meat digests quickly, it does not "putrify" at all. I eat steak all the time, by itself. I NEVER get bloated from that. When I eat meat AND carbs, then I get bloated.

Try it sometime. Just eat steak and just drink water all day, as often or as little as you want, as much as you want -- and try to cook the steak as little as possible (rare, or better yet, bleu). Nothing but steak and water -- and get good cut of steak, not a "lean" one. Try it for just one day. See how you feel.

(*NOTE: If you are on blood pressure medication, do NOT do this because eating this way will naturally lower your blood pressure, as well as blood sugar, and the medication will artificially lower it too low. So in that case, only do it after talking with doc or figuring out for yourself whether you want to cut back or drop the medication for a day. That's up to you. But for anyone not on medications that artificially affect blood pressure or blood sugar, go ahead and try this.)

I really need a link for the

I really need a link for the WW2 story. I cannot imagine the kind of infections that may subject them to.

With complex carbs you blood

With complex carbs you blood sugar is elevated but you are using that for energy throughout the day instead of a sudden spike that your body has to insulin response if you are not working out etc.

I think we need to differentiate between natural fiber foods like veggies and artificial fiber found in supplements which I agree can cause irritation in your digestive tract. Nobody heard about fiber because real whole food had it already. It wasnt until we started eating processed food that people realized they need "fiber" and would use supplements instead of actually changing their diet.

Digestion is a process that is more than just passing through the stomach. You have many feet of intestinal tract and that is where meat takes longer than veggies and can cause problems.

I agree that protein is an important part of your diet and you need much more protein than carbs. Can you send me a link where you got the meat info from?

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I don't know. How do you

I don't know. How do you explain the evolution of our teeth which are better adapted for a herbivorous diet?

Nor are we particularly fast or strong so as to hunt very well or often...

I think the problem is the speed with which refined carbs are taken up by the body. Somewhat related to glycemic index.

My opinion is that we should trust our own bodies a bit more, listen to it and observe it. If a particular type of food makes you bloated or lethargic, avoid it. If you feel fresh and energetic after eating something, go for it.

I don't remember exactly who said it, I think it was Robert Lustig, but your quality of life and productivity is determined by how much energy you're using up so foods that promote energy expenditure are your friends.

Human teeth ...

... are not like herbivores. Herbivores have grinding teeth, moving sideways to grind the grains to small cud. Our teeth are more like carnivores, such as big cats. We chomp down on our food; we don't grind.

We have canines, but they are small. We are not particularly fast. Yet, we became the most fearsome hunters on the planet. That's because we don't need to pull animals down to the ground and suffocate them with our teeth the way lions do. Instead, we have arms and opposable thumbs. Most importantly, we have the largest brain for our size and we learned to hunt in groups, to outsmart our prey, and to use tools. We even taught wild dogs (wolves) to hunt with us so they could use their speed, claws, and canines, while we would catch up with them, kill the prey with our spears, cut the meat with our flint rocks, and toss some of the meat to the dogs. We ate the meat raw, just like the dogs.

You even read about stories of this with the American Indians who ate buffalo meat raw, and found the tongue to be a delicacy. The White Americans thought these people were "savages," partly for this behavior.

I agree with you on the energy stuff.

Absurd

What did we eat before we learned to use tools?

Opposable thumbs help you pick up things like fruit, nuts, grubs and insects, they do not aid in bringing down prey.

Some have said man used to wear his prey out with long chases across the grasslands, but the energy reward would not then justify the expenditure.

Nor did we eat carrion.

Just compare our teeth to other carnivores and herbivores and you will easily be able to see what evolutionary pressures would have been working on early man.

If it wasn't worth it, he wouldn't have chased it...

What did we eat before we learned to use tools?

The early hominids that didn't know how to use tools probably didn't make it as a species... The Most Important Event In History (Big Brains Require An Explanation, Part VII)

Some have said man used to wear his prey out with long chases across the grasslands, but the energy reward would not then justify the expenditure.


Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough - Life of Mammals - BBC

Nor did we eat carrion.


Three Men vs. Fifteen Hungry Lions - Human Planet, Grasslands, Preview - BBC One

Just compare our teeth to other carnivores and herbivores and you will easily be able to see what evolutionary pressures would have been working on early man.?

Still ignoring the carbon isotopes of the bones?
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/are-we-mea...

That doesn't make sense. You

That doesn't make sense. You mean a different species came into existence that could use tools from the start. They must have had direct ancestors right? What did they eat? If they all died out then who were the tool-users the offspring of?

Strange line of reasoning.

I am not denying that at some point mankind incorporated meat into his diet. I am talking about what he was evolved to eat. So I take into account your carbon evidence and raise you the dental evidence. Present an analysis of our teeth that would categorise us as primarily meat eater.

What constitutes the primary diet of our closest cousins?

Earliest Archaeological

Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Persistent Hominin Carnivory

"The assemblages date to ~2.0 Ma, pre-dating all previously published archaeofaunas of appreciable size. At Kanjera, there is clear evidence that Oldowan hominins acquired and processed numerous, relatively complete, small ungulate carcasses. Moreover, they had at least occasional access to the fleshed remains of larger, wildebeest-sized animals. The overall record of hominin activities is consistent through the stratified sequence – spanning hundreds to thousands of years – and provides the earliest archaeological evidence of sustained hominin involvement with fleshed animal remains (i.e., persistent carnivory), a foraging adaptation central to many models of hominin evolution."

No evolution of teeth

There has been no evolution of our teeth (or anything else, for that matter.) And the shape of teeth is irrelevant to the discussion. For example, I nabbed this from an article on defense/attack structures at answersingenesis.org -

"Let’s take sharp teeth as an example. When people see animals with sharp teeth, they most commonly interpret this to mean that the animal is a meat-eater. When scientists find fossils of creatures with sharp teeth, they also interpret this to mean that the animal was a meat-eater. But is this a proper interpretation? Not really. Sharp teeth in animals indicate only one thing—the animal has sharp teeth.

"Creatures with sharp teeth do not necessarily use them to rip other animals apart today. For example, the giant panda has very sharp teeth, yet it eats entirely bamboo shoots. Also, the fruit bat, which at first might appear to have teeth consistent with a carnivorous diet, eats primarily fruit. The Bible teaches that animals were created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:30); so, we must be careful not to merely assume what an animal ate based on its teeth."

Man was originally a vegetarian, too, but then God gave us meat in Genesis 9:3. Yum - them animals is tasty.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I see you got a lot of thumbs

I see you got a lot of thumbs down for denying evolution BS and quoting the Bible. You get a thumbs up from me. We're omnivores, if a person is so inclined to label us the way that "scientists" label animals. People who deny eating animals don't live very long. Whenever you see someone on the news who lives to be well over 100 they are never vegans and they don't live a sedentary life but allot a few hours a week to exercise; they're working-class active people who burn their calories slowly and consistently. You always see those old people outside (sunlight is a nutrient, tanning beds are not a substitute) maintaining their property. People who shy away from caloric food and cram their "exercise" in an hour every few days usually keel over a little after middle age from a heart attack. Calories in food mean nothing. If you get all of your nutrients you just pass them through your system. Your body only absorbs the calories it needs and the nutrients allow it to disregard the rest. Activity is a nutrient, so don't think I am saying you can sit on your ass while getting your nutrients and stay thin and healthy. It's eating chemical-laden junk food, nutrient-deficient plants, and GMO plants that make your body store fat outside and in the arteries.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

...make your body store fat

...make your body store fat outside and in the arteries.

Even in a diseased state, I don't think the body stores fat in the arteries.

A good discussion going on

A good discussion going on and BANG! fat is stored in arteries =D

a good discussion

... until someone disagrees. you could make a technical argument,
but basically:

plaque (plk)
b. A deposit of fatty material on the inner lining of an arterial wall, characteristic of atherosclerosis.

or would a fatty deposit have satisfied you?

plaque (plk)b. A deposit of

plaque (plk)
b. A deposit of fatty material on the inner lining of an arterial wall, characteristic of atherosclerosis.

or would a fatty deposit have satisfied you?

LOL... making up your own definition doesn't make it true.

not my defintion

i checked a number of online dictionaries. they all say basically the same thing.

plaque (plk)
n.
1. A flat plate, slab, or disk that is ornamented or engraved for mounting, as on a wall for decoration or on a monument for information.
2. A small pin or brooch worn as an ornament or a badge of membership.
3.
a. Pathology A small disk-shaped formation or growth; a patch.
b. A deposit of fatty material on the inner lining of an arterial wall, characteristic of atherosclerosis.
c. A scaly patch formed on the skin by psoriasis.
d. A film of mucus and bacteria on a tooth surface.
e. A clear, often round patch of lysed cells in an otherwise opaque layer of a bacteria or cell culture.

I’ve never seen that “LOL” thing before. What does that stand for—”Lick our liver?” No thanks.

Yes, that term would be

Yes, that term would be correct. The reasons behind it are related to damaged blood vessels generally caused by high blood pressure. It is not just fat that gets deposited but many other substances present in blood.

Once the vessels are damaged, it does not matter what your source of fatty acids in your blood is, they will all collect asymptomatically. That is why it is known as a silent killer.

Fat is NOT stored in the arteries in the context we were talking about and thus both of us dismissed his statement. Ok?

Insulin devastates arteries as do rancid fats and free radicals.

So limit insulin requirement by eating fewer starches.
No fried food (creates transfat and other bad stuff.)
No plant oils, they go rancid.
No nitrites or nitrates.

All these cause arterial damage.

Cholesterol is the "Fireman". "It didn't start the fire."

Free includes debt-free!

Go peddle your junk science

Go peddle your junk science to people who haven't studied it.

Links or are you blowing smoke.

This is the latest science from gold standard studies published in peer review journals versus your opinion. Guess who I'll find more credible.

Free includes debt-free!

Go peddle your junk science

Go peddle your junk science to people who haven't studied it.

One man's junk science is another man's religion. Whom to believe??