Talk:William Davis (cardiologist)

Criticism of Wheat Belly

In a few places Davis either makes some very careless interpretations of the studies he cites or he deliberately misrepresents them. Only 39% of the celiac patients in the 215 patient study were overweight but he claims over 50%. Only 25 of the 215 lost weight on a GF diet while 91 actually gained weight. His major premise of the book is that a GF diet will cause most people to lose weight: that is just not what the cited studies state in their results. Over 2 years 81% of the patients gained weight including 82% of patients that were already overweight at the beginning. [1] When 19% of people on a GF diet lose weight after 2 years you can not make the claim it is a weight loss diet.

Lastly he makes the claim from the naloxone study that after administration the binge eaters ate 28% less wheat based products. The study says very clearly that they actually ate 40% more bread sticks. Odd for a doctorate's reading comprehension to be this poor. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Another problem is that the adoption trend of Borlaug's semi-dwarf wheat does not match up with the timeline that Davis gives. In his book, Davis claims, "The mid- and late-1980s also marks the widespread adoption by U.S. farmers of the genetically-altered semi-dwarf variants of wheat to replace traditional wheat." This is intentionally vague as he says this to link the adoption of semi-dwarf wheat to the mid-1980s obesity epidemic.

Davis fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the wheat harvest was already semi-dwarf by 1974. You have to do a little math to figure this out. Semi-dwarf wheat was initially said to result in 6 times the yield of traditional wheat. Davis claims it was tenfold. Here is a review [2] that says, “Semi-dwarf wheat was planted on about 22 percent of US wheat area in 1974 and roughly 29 percent in 1979.”

At 6x the yield, 63% of the wheat harvest in 1974 was semi-dwarf.

At 10x the yield, 74% of the wheat harvest in 1974 was semi-dwarf.

So, the overwhelming majority, 63%-74%, of the US wheat harvest was already semi-dwarf by 1974. And by 1979, somewhere between 71%-80% of the wheat harvest in the U.S. was semi-dwarf.

By 1993, 58% of acreage was sown to semi-dwarf.[3] That would mean between 89%-93% of all wheat harvested was semi-dwarf.

Additionally, semi-dwarf wheat was introduced in other countries that did not have obesity epidemics during its introduction. By 1963 95% of Mexico’s wheat was semi-dwarf, and the country’s wheat harvest had increased by six times [4] However, Mexico did not experience an obesity epidemic until the 1980s. France used semi-dwarf wheat to significantly increase yields since 1960 [5] but it too did not experience an obesity epidemic during this time. And, in fact, the spread of semi-dwarf wheat around the world has been documented [6], particularly in Mexico, India and Pakistan, but none of these worldwide introductions and adoptions coincided with any obesity epidemics.67.255.231.116 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Central thesis vindicated

Editors are encouraged to examine this 2014 study. A layman's write-up may be found here. --Froglich (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Davis's thesis is that modern wheat caused the obesity epidemic. This study simply shows that Khorasan wheat has less reactivity than a modern cultivar, in IBS patients, and not necessarily in health individuals. It is not entirely surprising given that all wheats have different levels of reactivity. Even pre-modern wheats had a wide range of reactivity levels. Also, it's not a secondary source.67.255.231.116 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Reaching POV claim in opening section

"unequestionable evidence?" This is a huge POV stretch."Gastroenterology, Fasano et al. conclude that, although there is an evident "fad component" to the recent rise in popularity of the gluten-free diet, there is also growing and unquestionable evidence of the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS)."Dogru144 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Grammar issue on page

There's an ongoing disagreement between user Roxy the dog and me about whether the possessive form of the name "Davis" is "Davis' " or "Davis's."

Anyone care to chime in? Kamtal75 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

An s on the end is not needed, the article was fine as it was. I am amazed you have invested so much interest in this. I don't find this type of tedious editing productive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Just noticed this discussion. I [manually] reverted because I was reading the article without noticing that this specific grammar issue has been a multi-month back-and-forth. Per MOS:POSS, the now-blocked user (talk about an unacceptable escalation on their end, yeesh) was technically correct. I think the version I just implemented should stand based on MOS, but please let me know if there is disagreement. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you are experienced with MOS thanks for your input. Yes he may have been correct but he has gone about it in the wrong way. He has created attack accounts against other users and has been using multiple IP addresses. He's now resorted to creating more sock-puppets. The user is uncivil and is attacking other users. I do not believe it is worth having an edit war about some apostrophes. I find it odd how this user like to edit-war this much, attack other users and create loads of accounts over a few apostrophes. It is bizarre to say the least but it sums up how mad people are these-days. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I guess that Kamtal75's "disruptive edits" (i.e., adhering to MOS) were finally implemented, despite yours and others' abusive edits to the contrary. Grammarkiller86 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is obvious block evasion, I have filed an SPI [7] Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)