

Scientists develop 'superwheat' - stehat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22498274

======
espeed
Norman Borlaug (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug>) invented a
"superwheat" ~50 years ago and won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. It was a
high-yield dwarf wheat that had short, stronger stalks so it could support a
larger head, which enabled it to grow in famine stricken areas.

Now 99% of the world's wheat is the a descendant of this semi-dwarf strain.
However, the chemicals used to process wheat today are potent, and the wheat
we consume today is not like the wheat people consumed 100 years ago.

Last year I cut out wheat from my diet and dropped ~80 lbs -- I'm back down to
180. At first I thought it was exercise/sprints, and while I have no doubt
this helped, I haven't been exercising much the last few months and I'm still
dropping. Maybe it's the gluten in the wheat or maybe it's something else, but
it definitely wasn't working for me.

While I haven't read it, evidently Dr. William Davis' book "Wheat Belly"
explains this in detail ([http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-
Health/dp/1609...](http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-
Health/dp/1609611543)).

~~~
geuis
I would hazard a guess that you inadvertently kicked yourself into ketosis. If
you've been limiting your total carb intake to under 50g a day, it's possible
this happened. There's a ton of good info on ketosis, a couple of great
podcasts by Steve Gibson on it, and a good subreddit
<http://reddit.com/r/keto>.

~~~
espeed
No, I wasn't in ketosis -- my carbs were well over what it would take to go
into ketosis.

I was thinking part of it may have been the wheat/yeast throwing my intestinal
microbes out of balance ([http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/health/studies-
focus-on-gu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/health/studies-focus-on-gut-
bacteria-in-weight-loss.html)) and so when I cut it out, things returned to
homeostasis.

~~~
vasquez
Have you been tracking calorie intake, both before and after the diet change?
That's the deciding factor for your weight. Metabolism, wheat/yeast
sensitivity or even normal exercise only has a minor impact.

I would think dropping something as common as wheat would have significant
impact on your diet, or?

~~~
geuis
This isn't entirely true. If you take in the same amount of calories but
something changes your metabolism, you can switch from using all the calories
and entering a deficit, or storing the calories as fat. This is partly what
happens with ketosis. You can eat the same amount of calories overall, but
with almost no carbohydrates, and this changes your metabolism. You will lose
weight in keto without excercising more if you are so inclined. Like many
things, it's a good rule of thumb to say that less calories == less weight,
but it's a nuanced situation. That's not always true.

~~~
vasquez
I'm not saying that metabolism has _no_ effect, I'm saying the effect is small
relative to calorie intake. I'm well aware of how a keto diet works, and that
it can be useful for people looking to lose weight. It's no guarantee, though.
There are actually people out there bulking on keto as well.

As for the parent poster, I haven't seen any evidence of calorie tracking. To
me that means he doesn't really know how much he's eating, and I think you're
just encouraging his flawed metabolism theory when you should know better.

------
randomdata
_"The process required no genetic modification of the crops."_

How did they create a new strain of wheat without modifying on the genetics of
an existing strain? And given that it states that they cross-bread two
strains, how did they prevent the resultant strain from not inheriting
modified genes from the mixed parents?

~~~
ownagefool
_"The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to
transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern
British varieties."_

~~~
JulianMorrison
It's a ritual of appeasement for the idiot anti-GM brigade. The effect is the
same, the circumlocution allows them to say "it's natural!"

~~~
da_n
In my experience the people who are anti gm also say they won't eat food with
chemicals. Basically they are clueless.

~~~
Beekon
Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and
without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking?

Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea
what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding
everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural.

That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking
your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer.

Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you
these things?

~~~
JulianMorrison
Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects.
When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its
purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with
herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for
side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the _synthetic_ chemicals that you
can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow
of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and
imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is
cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair
mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.)

But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude
prescientific search for "purity".

~~~
adrianN
That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other
lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle
the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives
and flavours in processed food.

~~~
biofox
Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment?

A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples
like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead;
and most table spices are lethal in high quantities.

On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic
bacteria and parasites in the food chain.

There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.

------
crististm
On other news, scientists developed 'super-tomato' - hard as concrete and with
the same taste.

~~~
ryanpetrich
I can't wait for scientists to develop tomacco.

~~~
eurleif
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Products_produced_from_The_Simp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Products_produced_from_The_Simpsons#Tomacco)

------
conradfr
Will it have "supergluten" ? :)

~~~
mistercow
I would be all for a GM strain of wheat that has more lysine in its gluten,
making it a complete protein. The lack of complete plant proteins in this
modern age of biological hacking is appalling (although I do get that it's
because the vegetarian and anti-GM crowds overlap so much).

~~~
gizmo686
What do you mean by 'complete protein'. Based on your comment, and a quick
Google, I am inferring that you are saying that plants do not produce enough
of he Lysine Amino Acid.

Based on wikipedia`ing [1] it, Lysine is produced exlusivly in plants. Based
on my own recollection of high school bio, most amino acid production happens
in plants, and animals typically get amino acids through eating.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine>

------
juskrey
Awesome. More diabetes in less price.

~~~
DanBC
What? What's the causal link between wheat and diabetes?

~~~
carbocation
There is a pretty strong causal link between being overweight and diabetes.
There is a strong causal link between over-consumption and being overweight.
Wheat just happens to be a common source of very simple carbohydrates (in the
American diet).

So while the GP seems to have been made in jest, it's coming from a place of
truth.

