can you stll lose belly fat and have carbs?

Wheat belly has been dubunked and is ridiculous. He clearly misquoted and falsified the information presented. His referenced studies don't support his claims.

You're fine.

Serious question- Do you have links to studies that have debunked this? I haven't read the book, but have heard of bit about it and it makes sense for some people. Would like to read some scientific studies that have proven it to be untrue, if that is the case. And did it debunk everything that was claimed, or just certain parts?

http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.no/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/02/diet-book-review-wheat-belly.html

Wheat belly has been dubunked and is ridiculous. He clearly misquoted and falsified the information presented. His referenced studies don't support his claims.

You're fine.

Serious question- Do you have links to studies that have debunked this? I haven't read the book, but have heard of bit about it and it makes sense for some people. Would like to read some scientific studies that have proven it to be untrue, if that is the case. And did it debunk everything that was claimed, or just certain parts?

http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.no/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/02/diet-book-review-wheat-belly.html

Sorry, but I read both those articles and didn't find any scientific studies. They are simply blog postings of opinions of the book.
Blogspot isn't a scientific source, and neither are book reviews.

Will continue reading thru the posts to see if anyone else has any scientific studies to share.

He supposedly backs up this claim in the very next sentence by continuing, "A Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa study of 215 obese celiac patients showed 27.5 pounds of weight loss in the first six months of a wheat-free diet." Sounds pretty impressive and compelling ... until you realize he's wrong.

First of all, the study didn't examine 215 obese patients. Body Mass Index for study participants ranged from underweight to normal to overweight to obese. Secondly, only 25 of those 215 patients lost weight, and the weight loss was not restricted to the obese subset of participants. (Further, 91 of the 215 patients gained weight, but I'll return to the issue of weight gain among obese celiacs in a moment.)

Here Davis invokes a study reported in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. He claims that of newly diagnosed celiac disease patients, 39 percent start overweight and 13 percent start obese. Next Davis writes that "by this estimate, more than half the people now diagnosed with celiac disease are therefore overweight or obese."

Not quite. Actually, the study noted that overweight and obese patients together accounted for 39 percent of diagnoses. The 13 percent obese patients were a subset of the overweight group. By Davis' questionable math, underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese celiac disease patients would account for 114% of diagnoses, which is impossible.


The same study from which he errantly claimed more than half of newly diagnosed celiacs are overweight? Here is what researchers actually found, and I quote directly: "Of patients compliant with a gluten-free diet, 81 percent had gained weight after 2 years, including 82% of initially overweight patients"

Davis makes the claim that gluten exorphins are addictive like morphine (another opiate), and that those addictive properties cause you to eat more calories and gain weight. As the theory goes, block the gluten exorphins with naloxone, and you block the addictive properties of wheat-based foods. To back up his boast, he then cites a study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in which binge eaters were left in a room filled with a variety of foods for one hour. Davis writes "participants consumed 28 percent less wheat crackers, bread sticks, and pretzels with the administration of naloxone." And there you have it! See? Naloxone blocked the evil action of gluten exorphins, and those binge eaters ate fewer calories as a result! Except that's not what happened.

Here's the truth: While naloxone appeared to have an impact on the consumption of high fat and high sugar foods, it had no effect that correlated with gluten. In fact, while Davis claims that participants consumed 28 percent fewer wheat crackers, bread sticks, and pretzels, they actually consumed 40 percent more gluten-containing bread sticks.

Even his referenced studies don't even support his claims. He merely relied upon the fact most people see "Written by M.D." and it has sources cited, they never review them for themselves.

The only carb associated with belly fat is alcohol. The liver prefers to store the excess calories from it in your abdominal fat. I couldn't find the study, but I found this quote. "In general, alcohol intake is associated with bigger waists, because when you drink alcohol, the liver burns alcohol instead of fat," says Michael Jensen, MD, an endocrine expert and obesity researcher with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. ( http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-beer-and-your-belly )

There is no way to burn fat in one area, like your belly. The amount of carbs you eat doesn't determine fat. Calorie surplus is what causes fat. You can eat 0 carbs and still gain fat if you eat more calories than you burn.

Some people find reducing carbs, or eating carbs with a lower Glycemic Index, helps them control how many calories they eat. If that works for you, great; use it as a tool and realize that's all it is. Carbs are not good or bad, they're just a macro that gives you energy. I find it easier to control my calories when I eat less higher GI foods. I still eat them, I just plan for how I will deal with the blood sugar crash a few hours later so I can stay within my calorie limit for the day/week.

You are very wrong. there is no storage for alcohol calories.

The only carb associated with belly fat is alcohol. The liver prefers to store the excess calories from it in your abdominal fat. I couldn't find the study, but I found this quote. "In general, alcohol intake is associated with bigger waists, because when you drink alcohol, the liver burns alcohol instead of fat," says Michael Jensen, MD, an endocrine expert and obesity researcher with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. ( http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-beer-and-your-belly )

There is no way to burn fat in one area, like your belly. The amount of carbs you eat doesn't determine fat. Calorie surplus is what causes fat. You can eat 0 carbs and still gain fat if you eat more calories than you burn.

Some people find reducing carbs, or eating carbs with a lower Glycemic Index, helps them control how many calories they eat. If that works for you, great; use it as a tool and realize that's all it is. Carbs are not good or bad, they're just a macro that gives you energy. I find it easier to control my calories when I eat less higher GI foods. I still eat them, I just plan for how I will deal with the blood sugar crash a few hours later so I can stay within my calorie limit for the day/week.

You are very wrong. there is no storage for alcohol calories.

Good to know the 100 or so calorie in a shot of vodka don't need to be tracked because they're not absorbed. Oh wait, they are. Alcohol is a type of sugar broken down and processed by the liver. Ethanol (alcohol) is oxidized to acetaldehyde by liver enzymes and then it enters the citric acid cycle to be metabolized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreb_cycle

The only carb associated with belly fat is alcohol. The liver prefers to store the excess calories from it in your abdominal fat. I couldn't find the study, but I found this quote. "In general, alcohol intake is associated with bigger waists, because when you drink alcohol, the liver burns alcohol instead of fat," says Michael Jensen, MD, an endocrine expert and obesity researcher with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. ( http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-beer-and-your-belly )

There is no way to burn fat in one area, like your belly. The amount of carbs you eat doesn't determine fat. Calorie surplus is what causes fat. You can eat 0 carbs and still gain fat if you eat more calories than you burn.

Some people find reducing carbs, or eating carbs with a lower Glycemic Index, helps them control how many calories they eat. If that works for you, great; use it as a tool and realize that's all it is. Carbs are not good or bad, they're just a macro that gives you energy. I find it easier to control my calories when I eat less higher GI foods. I still eat them, I just plan for how I will deal with the blood sugar crash a few hours later so I can stay within my calorie limit for the day/week.

You are very wrong. there is no storage for alcohol calories.

Good to know the 100 or so calorie in a shot of vodka don't need to be tracked because they're not absorbed. Oh wait, they are. Alcohol is a type of sugar broken down and processed by the liver. Ethanol (alcohol) is oxidized to acetaldehyde by liver enzymes and then it enters the citric acid cycle to be metabolized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreb_cycle

Yes, they go to a place called "boozeland". It's probably where all the extra calories go for special snowflakes too. How magical

can you stll lose belly fat and have carbs?

Yea because alcohol is a carbohydrate. BECAUSE ALCOHOL CAN BE STORED BY THE BODY?
NO it can't, you have no idea what you are talking about and linking the krebs cycle for what?

Yea because alcohol is a carbohydrate. BECAUSE ALCOHOL CAN BE STORED BY THE BODY?
NO it can't, you have no idea what you are talking about and linking the krebs cycle for what?

I said it is like a carbohydrate. They are different. Carbs have 4 calories per gram, ethanol has 7. Ethanol is metabolized in a similar manner to fructose. I linked to the citric acid cycle as a quick way to reference that some of the alcohol is metabolized into glucose. Obviously you missed the reference.

If something has calories and we are able to metabolize those calories, then it is possible to store them. Clearly they're not stored in their original form, but in a form we're actually able to store.