This week we have the pleasure of hearing from Dr. William Davis. Dr. Davis is best known for his wildly best-selling books Wheat Belly and The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and is here to help us understand why starches–even whole grains–are so inSANE!
Wheat Belly Cookbook: 150 Recipes to Help You Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health
The Slim Is Simple.org Non-Profit Nutrition Education Effort
Jonathan: Hey everyone. Jonathan Bailor here with another bonus Smarter Science of Slim Podcast, and I got to tell you I am uniquely excited about today’s episode because today’s guest is… I knew him before he was a star although I may not have known him too well. I remember back was early 2011, I just had written a draft of my first book. I was looking to reach out in the industry and get some support, and I was able to get in touch with this doctor.
At the time, he was a great guy doing great work, but he wasn’t a nationally renowned spokesperson or anything; and he was kind enough to provide a blurb for my book. Here he is today, author of two widely successful New York Times bestselling books whose message I love and wholeheartedly support. We’ve got, folks, no other than Dr. William Davis the Wheat Belly doctor, the author of Wheat Belly and the Wheat Belly Cookbook. Dr. Davis, welcome to the show.
William: Thank you, Jonathan. It’s nice to be here.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show, and again thank you for your support of my work before you were famous and all the work you are doing now that you are famous. Dr. Davis, the first question I wanted to ask you is — since we connected very casually many, many years ago — I am a big fan of your work, and I am a little curious.
I would love to hear the inside scoop from the author’s perspective of the roller coaster ride that you’ve been on with Wheat Belly. To my knowledge, the book came out and was doing well for about a year, but then something happened; because then it went crazy. Could you take us on that roller-coaster ride with you a bit?
William: You know, Jonathan, I am impressed you followed this that closely. I saw that same thing happen. I can only guess what happened. I think it’s because it’s the whole social media viral discussion type of thing, that is, people started to tell each other what was happening. When someone loses 43 pounds in 3-4 months and loses 4 inches off their waist and their rheumatoid arthritis is gone for the first time in 10 years and acid reflux is gone and rashes are gone, depression lifts and they tell their neighbor, their doctor, they tell their family…
People can’t help but notice. They say, “Mary, you look 20 years younger.” I think that’s what happened, and it spread like crazy. We saw our social media following explode. I don’t think it was me. I think it was the message. I think it was the experiences people were having. That’s what’s continuing to drive this, Jonathan. It’s not my media appearances, it’s not my spectacular good looks or winning smile. I think it’s the…
Jonathan: Maybe it’s both, maybe it’s both.
William: I think it’s the message and the successes because I go on my Facebook page for Wheat Belly, for instance, or blog, and every day there are new stories of new people with new lessons learned, new incredible health stories to tell. Getting incredible stories to tell is very easy, now.
Jonathan: That’s beautiful, and certainly Dr. Davis for those few people left in the world who are not familiar with your book — and again the book is Wheat Belly. If you haven’t picked up a copy, go run to the book store because they are likely selling out as we speak. Dr. Davis can you tell us the basic premise of the book and of your years of research and clinical practice.
William: Sure. It’s important for newcomers to this conversation to know that the wheat we are sold today is not the wheat that our mothers and grandmothers had. It is the product of extensive genetic research and manipulations such that modern wheat is not the 4 ½ or 5 foot tall traditional tall plant we think of. It is an 18-24 inch high-healed semi-dwarf strain that looks very different.
It’s got a large seed head, large seeds. The stalk is short and squat. They did this for the purpose of increased yield, but they changed. They inadvertently changed multiple characteristics of this plant and the effects on humans. This thing was invented in the ‘70’s, but really reached store shelves in the mid ‘80’s, and that’s when we saw a whole host of new problems appear.
Such as appetite stimulations, this thing stimulates appetite. There’s a protein in modern wheat that’s been changed called gliadin. Gliadin has been present ever since wheat has been around for thousands and thousands of years, but this gliadin is different, different by several amino acids; and now it’s an opiate that stimulates appetite, binds the opiate receptors of the human brain and causes us to take in on average 400 more calories per day, every day.
That’s exactly what’s happened. We’ve watched the consequences of increased calorie consumption. We get fat. We grow around our tummies. We become diabetic. We suffer inflammatory conditions, and you know the rest of the story.
Jonathan: Oh, absolutely. Dr. Davis, one thing I’m curious about is, during all the research you did for this around wheat, did you find other… because I have got to imagine, and I’ve heard some rumblings of this; but I haven’t had the ability to do the research myself, around other foods that have had the same fate. For example, apples. I’ve heard… now I can’t confirm this, but for example the percent of fructose found in modern and percent of vitamins is dramatically lower.
Not for similar reasons to wheat, not the exact same, but for similar reasons than say the apples we ate 60 years ago. Did you find other foods like that?
William: You know, you make a crucial point, Jonathan. That’s exactly right. People say, “Oh wheat belly is just a low-carb diet.” No, no, no. No, this is not about carbs, not about fat or calories. It’s about what agro business has been doing to foods. It could be wheat. It could be apples. It could be oats. It could be corn. Corn is a big one. In other words, we can’t just talk about calories and fats and carbohydrates, we’ve got to be aware that agro business is busily changing our foods.
It could be high-yield semi-dwarf wheat. It could be glyphosate-resistant corn or BT toxin, inoculated corn. It could be strange apples chosen for their higher fructose content and the shortcuts taken for higher yield such that we have lower magnesium and other nutrients in apples, broccoli and spinach. We have to be aware now that our necessary conversation in nutrition has to be an awareness of what agro business has been doing and the trends that have been emerging in agriculture that is affecting lives and our health.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, I personally think that is a big reason why your book was… obviously it’s very entertaining. There’s wonderful research. You have a wonderful writing style that is very fun and engaging. I think the thing that really hits home, at least why I talk about your book to other people is, for example, and I know you hear this argument all the time is my grandmother ate wheat and her grandmother ate wheat; so how can you say wheat is the problem.
In the Bible they ate wheat and they didn’t… so quite clearly it’s got to be something else. As you explain so well, we’re not actually eating the same, it’s not even… we should call it a different food. Frankly, call it Franken Wheat. Call it something else, right?
William: Exactly. That’s right. The wheat today is nothing like the wheat of 40 years ago, and it’s far, far, far different then say the wheat of the Bible. I make this comparison so all humans of all colors, of all sizes, all shapes, nationalities, all of us have 46 chromosomes from 6’ 3” Masi tribesmen to 4’ 2” Mbuti pygmies.
All 46 chromosomes, an orangutan by the way 48, but just 2 chromosomes different, you and I can tell the difference right away. Modern wheat has 42 chromosomes, the wheat of the Bible has 28 chromosomes, and ancient wheat before even the Bible has 14 chromosomes. We’re not talking about a little bit of difference. We’re talking about worlds of difference.
So, that’s why people say, “I have to eat bread. It’s in the Bible. I am told I have to. It’s part of my ritual. Its part of taking the sacrament.” All that sort of thing. Yeah, but it’s not the stuff you got. The stuff you have is worlds different from the stuff mentioned in the bible, and the stuff that ruins ancient times.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, what are we to do here? Because, I can imagine some of my listeners… so there’s a couple things here. Step one, and this is a big step, right? There’s 90% plus of the population still has not had the opportunity or the knowledge given to them to take this step, and that is just don’t eat edible products. Don’t eat Cheetos and garbage. Eat things that bare some resemblance to actual food.
So then they do that, and they are like, “Good. I am eating whole wheat like I am, I am eating food now.” Then they are like, Damn, it’s not actually… oh man, if I am not doing this, then I am getting hit by this, and then there’s pesticides. Oh what are we to do?”
William: That’s right. I don’t want to make people neurotic about their food because you know we should enjoy our food. We should sit down with our families and enjoy food. But we have to return to real single ingredient foods. The recipients of most genetics manipulations of the last 40-50 years have been the grains. They have changed vegetables and fruit but really it’s the grains.
In particular the high-yield mono crop grains, the stuff that grows on 10, 20 thousand acres, huge cracks of land. So, Jonathan, it’s astounding to think that 50% of all human calories, 50% worldwide now comes from wheat, corn and soy. The three mono crops that are controlled by big agro business, that is, these big companies that have unimaginable revenues — $80-$100 billion a year that spend billions of dollar a quarter to lobby congress, the senate, the USDA, the FDA and they get their way.
They are, sad to say, winning this battle unless all of us say we are not going to stand for this. We are going to vote with our wallets and pocketbooks. We’re going to become aware. What these people are doing for the purpose of their own agenda which is increase yield and increase revenue, and we are going to not buy their foods. We are going to buy real single-ingredient foods. We are going to buy cucumbers, green peppers and avocados and meats, hopefully organic and pasture fed.
We’re going to eat real food, the least adulterated, the least changed by agro business.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, I think that is a key point, because you also do have a very good point. I actually think it was you. I was listening to you on another podcast, and I think it was you that introduced me to the term othorexic, which is… if I am wrong I am going to just give you credit for free here, I think it was you, because you actually do a good job of, you know certain people are, “If I do eat meat then what about this? And if I do eat this than what about this?” You’re right, wheat, corn, soy, added sugars. If you could just avoid those, man would you be in a better place. If you want to take it further, that’s fine, but don’t make yourself neurotic at the same time; because that’s not healthy either right?
William: Very well said. If all people did was remove those three they’ve solved 90% of nutritional problems. So diet doesn’t have to be perfect. You’re absolutely right. That’s the biggest source of problem. The problem, of course, is those things are in virtually everything, every processed food. A lot of it’s for taste, texture, shelf life and those kinds of food-science reasons. Wheat is by the way, I think is, because of the appetite-stimulating affect.
If you are a big food company, and you figured out that modern wheat contains this opiate that, this gliadin protein of wheat and you can get your consumers to consume 400 more calories per day and be helpless, consumers of junk carbohydrates, well then you are going to put it in everything. We find wheat in Twizzlers, in Campbell’s tomato soup, in Lipton instant soup, in all frozen dinners, salad dressings and all breakfast cereal. In other words, you would be hard pressed to find any processed food without it.
It is a dietary approach that tries to eliminate all processed foods.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, it really is scary and a perfect storm of sorts because you are exactly right. In these foods, it’s usually not wheat. We have wheat, then they got added sugars which clinical research is now showing is a similar opiate morphine heroin response in the brain. Then, you’ve got your processed fats in there that destroy your hypothalamus ability to regulate appetite, and you’re just like, from all angles, it’s like scorched earth in here.
William: I would agree. That’s right.
Jonathan: But, we get back to single-ingredient foods. We get back to eating foods and not focusing so much on calories either, right, because then, I mean what’s next, Dr. Davis? We got these, “It’s okay, Dr. Davis, that it’s wheat because its a 100-calorie snack pack and it’s in moderation, its moderation Doctor.” I’m so glad I remembered this. I watched you on a talk show, and you did your spiel. It was brilliant, and it was all science backed, then you walked off stage, and the anchor turns to the camera and says, “Right. It’s all about moderation.” I could imagine you backstage going, “That’s not at all. What the hell are you talking about? That’s the opposite of what I just said.”
William: Yeah, had he said it to my face, I would have said, “No. Moderation kills.”
Jonathan: Talk about the myth of moderation, Dr. Davis.
William: Well it’s like saying if you smoke moderately, you’re okay. This notion of moderation is silly. I think the effects of foods like wheat and secondary corn and soy have been exaggerated. It’s not that we are eating natural wild-growing wheat. We’re not. We’re eating something that’s completely different. Like modern corn is not maize, it’s not tisane stuff that grew wild in miso America and South America.
Its ultra-hypodied, genetically modified now with its very own insecticide built in as well as viral genomes built into the genetic code of the plant as well as glifacate residues. This is something entirely different. So it’s naïve, I think as you know, Jonathan, to think that it’s just the grain. No. it’s something that has been changed extensively. It is a Frankengrain. It is the product of extensive genetic manipulations.
The geneticists often act as if they are conducting sophisticated research, and it is sophisticated, but it is still incredibly crude. They cannot control multiple fascists. That’s why there was a recent publication that showed that the viral genome, the vector used inserted gene in the BT toxic corn inadvertently gets that viral genome inserted into the corns genetics and it gets expressed.
We don’t know what that means. We have no idea what that means when humans eat BT toxin in inoculated corn. So we have all these unexpected, uncertain effects. They have no idea, and of course they are giving carte blanche. This kind of ‘do what you think you need to do from the USDA and FDA,’ there’s a blind eye turned to all of this; and we are the unwitting experimental rats in this massive experiment.
They sell it to us. We look at each other and say, “Gee, Jonathan, why do I have bowel problems, skin rashes, joint pain? I thought I was healthy and doing all the right things. I have all these health problems.” It’s not you, it’s the food.
Jonathan: Absolutely, Dr. Davis. The thing that breaks my heart is that when we are literally being prescribed… you’re the first person to say healthy whole grains is literally an oxymoron. It’s like my health is suffering. Well you need to eat more whole grains. That’s like… I can’t even think of a good analogy.
William: I got one for you. I want better lung health. Well smoking a pack of cigarettes makes you breathe deeply. Smoke a pack a cigarettes a day.
Jonathan: There you go.
William: That sounds absurd, but as you appreciate eat more healthy whole grains is equally absurd. It is the most God awful ridiculous advice you could ever possibly conceive of, particularly in this day and age when the grains are changed. They are completely different. So this notion of ‘Eat more healthy whole grains’ that is the message propagated and supported by agro business, the USDA. By the food pyramid food plate, they want 60% or more of our calories to come from grains.
This is the most absurd, unphysiologic advice. In fact it’s the worst advice. If you and I wanted to concoct the worst possible dietary advice we could come up with, it would be eat more healthy grains and cut your fat. Those are an awful combination of bad advice.
Jonathan: Again, it’s another one of those multi-layered problems because we hear so much about a plant-based diet. Certainly, eating a lot of nutrient-dense vegetables and low fructose fruits, when we are eating the plant itself and it’s nutrient-dense, and it hasn’t been turned into a genetic mutation, that’s good. Let’s keep in mind, for example, we aren’t eating sugar cane. We are not eating wheat stalks. First you have a genetically-mutated plant, then you take it, and it’s processed.
If you ate sugar cane, you’d probably be all right, because the amount of sugar cane you could conceivably eat in a day would be okay. But it’s again that one-two punch, right?
William: Yes, eating foods in their natural form. Well said, exactly. Going back as close as we can get to the source. What’s one of the problems? You and I are not going to kill wild animals nor have our own goats and chickens. I mean, I would love to, but it’s impractical for most people particularly urban environments. We’ve got to be as connected as possible to the source of our food. It might been just a little pot of herbs on the windowsill of your kitchen. It might mean going to the farmer’s market. It might mean trying to drive out to the country now again to take advantage of the vegetable stands as best you can.
No one’s perfect. No one’s going to be living in the wild spearing gazelle. So we at least have to try, because if we just let ourselves become victimized by big food and big agro business you are going to lose that gain. They are too strong, too powerful. You can’t fight them dollar for dollar. They control the airwaves. They control the message. They control the dietary message. That’s how far this has gone. We know the USDA has a revolving door with big agro business. We know that these people have held key positions in… you know what company I am talking about, and big food.
They are too powerful to go head to head with. We have to do our own way. I call this the equivalent of Arab Spring. We’re going to Tweet and Facebook and social media blog our way and do such things as podcasts and talk our way out of this mess.
Jonathan: Speaking of talking and protesting and taking a stand, and certainly you’re welcome to say ‘pass’ on this question; but, Dr. Davis, I am curious. You’ve shown a pretty bright light on some pretty big issues. Has anyone you know been parked out front of your house? I mean has there been any negative repercussions to you personally?
William: Only in the media. So in their defense, there have been no personal attacks. I know there have been some pokings around in my private affairs. I do know that, and that happened early on and some kind of soft threats, but nothing concrete. More recently, it’s more taking the kind of thing as rebuttal. I mean, that’s okay. That’s a healthy thing. If they just bent over and took it in the stomach, they are not doing their job.
It’s their job to defend their industry, and I want to hear their defenses. The peculiar thing, Jonathan, is when I have actually encountered these people on the airwaves, face to face, head to head. It’s been like talking to children. When this first came out, I was, for instance, debating a PhD, professor of nutrition at a major university and also director of research at a major agro business company. I was kind of nervous. I was like, “Wow, this guy is going to have some tough criticisms.”
I get on the phone. This was a phone debate, and he of course says, “Dr. Davis has no idea what he’s talking about. Healthy whole grains have been shown to reduce risks of colon cancer, heart disease and diabetes.” The announcer said, “What do you have to say about that?” I said, “Well, your expert has to understand that the modern wheat is not the wheat of traditional 4 ½’ and 5’ tall plants, it’s an 18 inch, 24 inch high-yield semi-dwarf strain created by genetics research.”
Absolute silence, Jonathan, silence. The expert comes back on and says, “Well, the farmers had to do that so they could see over the tops of the fields.” In other words, the experts were not aware of these issues of wheat. They did not know about the gliadin protein research. National Institutes of Health, Jonathan. This is not some airy fairy business. This came from the NIH. He was unaware of envelope pentane and its extravagant capacity to raise blood sugar. He did not know that wheat germ and gluten had been changed and is now a potent fowl toxin.
He didn’t realize the alpha amylase inhibiters in wheat. The new ones were triggering allergies galore in kids. He did not know that hundreds, perhaps thousands of proteins have implications for health, a lot of which hasn’t even been charted yet. So I had only talked about the ones that have been charted. He was completely dumbfounded and speechless.
This was one of the experts for the industry who was speechless when he hears these things. They have been pretty benign in their criticisms because I don’t think they can answer to them. Just like tobacco. When tobacco came under fire, all they could do was lie, or they could try to deceive. So I’ve gotten this, “Dr. Davis is nuts. He thinks wheat is genetically modified.” Well, I never said that because wheat has not been genetically modified. It has been changed by other techniques which in many cases are bizarre and extreme and worse than genetic modification, but it has not been genetically modified.
At least no commercial strain has. So, yes there have been sabotage back and forth in the media, but nothing beyond that.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, I think you hit on the why very well, and that’s it’s pretty difficult to debate non-controversial truth. It’s shocking how another story from your media experience is one that I observed was this very simple logical fallacy which is ‘yes, if you are eating refined grains and then you eat whole grains that will improve your health therefore whole grains are good for you…’ Wait, what? Hold on. So explain that logical fallacy.
William: Sure. I am sure you are well acquainted with it, and oddly, Jonathan, as you look at that logical fallacy you see that nutritional “science” is largely based on that illogic and that is if you replace something bad such as white flour with something less bad, whole grains and there is an apparent health benefit by the logic of nutrition a whole bunch less bad thing is good for you.
As you know, I cast in this silly light, let’s apply to the cigarettes. If we take something bad for you like unfiltered cigarettes and replace them with something less bad, filtered cigarettes, and there is an apparent health benefit then the unavoidable conclusion using the logic of nutrition is that you should smoke filtered cigarettes. Of course, that’s ridiculous but that is the logic used over and over.
It’s applied to wheat. It’s applied to glycemic index, and it’s applied to many facets to nutritional thinking. If we peal that away, get rid of that silly flawed logic, we start to see that so much, so many of the rules used in nutrition fall apart. We are left with this kind of basic truth about nutrition, and certainly the thing that does not hold is this notion of healthy whole grains. That’s an absurdity. That’s a complete fallacy.
Jonathan: There’s so many of those, Dr. Davis, I found slightly different pivots on the logical fallacy you just uncovered. For example, we talk about are whole grains better for you than refined grains? That doesn’t mean they are good for you. But the other, it’s an interesting way to look at it almost like you need an outsider to point these things out, because they are not being observed otherwise.
If a nutrition expert says that processed grains are bad for you, everything that is in a processed grain is still there plus other things. So, if a Snickers Bar is bad for you, and you put a vitamin pill on top of it, that new thing is still not good. It still got all the… you said ‘X’ is bad so if you add ‘Y’ that doesn’t make ‘X’ bad anymore. What?
William: If we didn’t have so much to pick on with their flaws and fallacies, we wouldn’t have nothing to do, Jonathan. I think there is so much discussion now about nutrition diet, because agencies like the USDA got it so God awful wrong. You know if they got it right from the start, we wouldn’t have all of this to talk about it; but, they got it so wrong that we got to talk so we all understand. Of course, I think it’s going to get worse because the flood gates have been opened to agro business to change foods even more with fewer questions asked.
The legislations got worse. We had the proposition 37 in California falling apart because of the incredible deep pockets of agro business and big food. I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Jonathan: Certainly going to be an interesting thing, Dr. Davis, because another unfortunate thing I see happening is a bit like the 99% versus the 1% thing with nutrition where you have this 1% if not much smaller percentage of people who are really, really, really dialed into nutrition. I’m talking about getting local this and organic that, and just like really dialed in and taking their supplements.
They continue to create great work kind of focus that other people like them that are that dialed into nutrition, and they continue to get healthier, healthier, and healthier while the other 99% is sort of like, “That’s too extreme, so I’m not going to listen to that.” Because they are not into extreme they just don’t want to be obese and don’t want to be diabetic. They don’t want to be perfect. You’ve got this stratification where a great deal of the population might be scared off by almost what’s perceived as the pursuit of perfection.
William: Yeah, I think that’s right. I see those people as the early adopters, so they are like the kids in lines, sleeping out overnight to get the newest iPad. So it’s going to be a small minority, but I think that’s just the start. It will take the rest of the world a longer time to adopt at least some of these principles. But you know it took 40 years for the healthy whole grain message to catch on.
I do believe the pace of information is faster now. Everyone is learning now. The information is spreading faster because of the internet of course. So I think, I don’t feel it will take 40 years, but it may take 20 years for more and more people. I think the last battleground sadly will be schools because so much what happens at our kid’s schools is determined by the USDA school lunch policy and similar programs.
Of course, a lot of subsidies are based on adherence of those kinds of principles. So we are going to have to find that we are way ahead but the kids are still eating their junk foods in the cafeteria. Lots of battles to fight. No doubt about that.
Jonathan: Dr. Davis, I am hopeful as you sound as you are as well, because I also think that there was a time period I like to call the great nutritional depression where the USDA was the truth; and basically everybody accepted it, right? Fat was bad. Starches and sugars are fine. Whatever, as long as it’s low in fat, and that was truth. That was truth for at least two decades if not longer and eating that way in some cases caused irritable damage to an entire generation.
That will not ever be the case, anymore. Like, it’s not possible. Like you said the internet exists now. I don’t know if there’s anyone, there’s probably someone. It’s probably a small minority now that thinks all fats are bad for you always. Like even the least-versed person is probably like, “Olive oil? I thought olive oil was good for you.” Was it? Well, you know, so I do think there is hope with the up and coming generations.
William: I think you’re right. It’s a funny thing. In the effort to control what we think, what we eat, they did the opposite at least in the long run. They have subverted their own credibility. We are going to say in a year or two or five, no one listens to the USDA. The food pyramid food plate is an absurd pitch of agro business and food and is an attempt to manipulate our perceptions and our thinking.
No one pays attention to them. I think that’s happening now. So I wish it wasn’t true. I wish you and I could turn to reliable sources of information and say you know what? They’ve been good, they’ve been reliable. We could count on them to be scientific and not be swayed by industry. But you now what? I don’t know of anybody who is doing that now. That’s why what we do. What you and I do is so necessary. We have to talk about these things.
You and I have nothing to cover up. We’re not selling food. We’re not trying to drive agro business. We are just trying to understand nutrition. You know what? I think we are having an impact. I am sure your listeners and the people who follow the wheat belly message have been educated, have been grateful that there are people who are talking honestly about food and what’s happening. I am very grateful that we had this thing called freedom of speech, and we are free to bash the US Department of Health and Human Services and USDA.
Because you know they do good, also they try to police the quality of meat production. They do good, too, and we often forget that. But they have allowed many bad things to happen, and they allowed many people to do the wrong thing; and so that’s what we are talking about here. In particular, I agree this is the nutritional dark age. We are coming to the close, the last few years, I hope, of the nutritional dark age; but this has been truly a dark middle age for nutritional advice.
Jonathan: Well, certainly, Dr. Davis, you are doing your share and then some to shed light on that nutritional dark age with your two wonderful New York Times best-selling books.
William: Well, thank you, John.
Jonathan: Wheat Belly and the Wheat Belly Cookbook. Also folks if you wanted to check out his online presence there is of course the Wheat Belly Blog which has all sorts of wonderful resources on it. Dr. Davis, I got to ask you, what’s next?
William: Well, the publisher suggested to me a 30-minute meal cookbook because lots of people are saying we want to do this, but we don’t have lots of time to make things from scratch. Can you help us to do things more quickly? So, I came up with ways to try and make this a much more navigable way of life. I have a whole bunch of baking mixes and seasoning mixes and ways to make this much quicker on-the-run, on-the-go kind of lifestyle.
I am also going to be working on the follow on for the Wheat Belly, this kind of much bigger discussion of how the wheat belly conversation fits into the nutritional world.
Jonathan: Fantastic. I was hoping to hear something like that because you said at the beginning of the podcast, Wheat Belly is about a lot more than just wheat and I am excited to have a book that focuses on that a lot more aspect, because I saw the tip of the iceberg popping up in Wheat Belly. I was like, “Man he’s got a whole other book. That’s going to be a good one.”
William: I am not ready to shut up just yet, Jonathan.
Jonathan: Oh, I am excited for it, and certainly, I know all of the listeners will be as well. Dr. Davis, again thank you for all the great work you are doing. Congratulations on all the work you are doing, and I hope we can have you back.
William: Thank you, Jonathan, absolute pleasure.
Jonathan: Listeners, I hope you enjoyed today’s show as much as I did. Certainly if you haven’t picked up a copy of Wheat Belly do it. It’s a great book. It’s a fun read, and Dr. Davis is certainly a fun writer. He will get you to smile just like he did on today’s podcast. So remember this week and every week after, eat smarter, exercise smarter, and live better.