Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

1

A new study out suggests that hydrolyzed wheat might be easier to tolerate for celiacs. I was a bit skeptical as this study does appear to be rather small.
http://celiacdisease.about.com/b/2011/01/21/hydrolyzed-wheat-flour-appears-safe-for-celiacs-new-study-finds.htm . But apparently the process of hydrolyzing the wheat is a fermentation process similar to the making of sour dough. What do people think about the possible safety of eating this kind of wheat? I am thinking perhaps in older times with the slow rise fermentation that was standard for breadmaking, perhaps the bread of those times was much more healthful in general. However I have not yet been able to find much information on the exact process behind hydrolyzed wheat and, ironically, most of the info I do find concerns use of hydrolyzed wheat in lotions and hair care products.

edited Jan 22 2011 at 16:51

asked Jan 22 2011 at 5:23

Eva
22.3k●4●24●71

What would be the benefit? We have alternatives if we want junk food cheats already... – Stephen-Aegis Jan 22 2011 at 6:13

1

Subject might need a tweak. The study was of: goods made of wheat flour hydrolyzed during food processing by a mixture of selected sourdough lactobacilli and fungal proteases . Other forms of hydrolyzed wheat has been used for a long time, especially in cosmetics, and shown to cause problems. – sean Jan 22 2011 at 9:29

Well, I always LOVED bread and have done fine without it, but if I knew it wasn't hurting my gut, I would be willing to have it once a week or so instead of a potato. – sherpamelissa Jan 22 2011 at 14:03

1

I wasn't sure yet if 'fermented' was totally accurate as I hadn't found much info on the process yet. However, I did already have 'fermentation' in the tags. I am interested more for others than for myself. If fermented is safer, then I can suggest such a switch to those who aren't ready to give up bread. And I can have some in the freezer for guests. I don't personally miss the taste of bread myself but once in a while, I do miss its convenience as a holder of meat and sauce. – Eva Jan 22 2011 at 16:57

sean · Accepted Answer · 2011-01-22 12:02:17Z UTC

Proposed title change: Is fermented wheat safer?

Based on summaries of the study (I don't have access to the full thing) this is how they changed the wheat:

found an effective sourdough bacteria
added protease to help break-down the protein

In the study they found their wheat flour to be non-toxic to celiacs after 60 days of use, though stated:

“Prolonged trials have to be planned to state the safety of the baked goods manufactured by applying this rediscovered and adapted biotechnology”

This article about the study is a bit more detailed: Food Navigator: Fermented wheat flour may be safe for celiac patients, suggests study

I wonder what Weston A. Price fans think. A quote from the Food Navigator article (referencing another study):

Great hopes for sourdough

Sourdough has already been identified as an ideal gluten-free food. Indeed, Professor Elke Arendt from the Department of Food and Nutritional Science at University College Cork co-authored a review in the journal Food Microbiology (Vol. 26, pp. 676-684) on the how sourdough could help solve the gluten-free issue.

Prof Arendt told FoodNavigator in 2009: “Sourdough has a lot of potential, particularly from a flavour and structure perspective. The strains used are also anti-fungal and that can extend the shelf-life of bread without the need of chemical preservatives.”

“I have great hopes for sourdough in gluten-free bread,” she said.

Summary: Traditional wisdom for the win!

Though I'm sticking with my meat and taters. Food makes since when it can be killed, easily collected, or easily processed.

Travis Culp · Answer 2 · 2011-01-22 19:19:51Z UTC

3

Hydrolized wheat protein is essentially MSG...a pile of glutamates that are excitotoxic.

answered Jan 22 2011 at 19:19

Travis Culp♦
39.6k●1●32●132

Here is a reference for that statement: truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html – PaleoGran Jan 22 2011 at 23:31

Lurene Grenier · Answer 3 · 2011-01-22 22:54:45Z UTC

No matter how much better it is, its still neither good for you nor necessary. At some point we need to simply come to terms with the fact that certain things are bad for us and that we have enough personal accountability and self control to either not do them, or else accept we're doing something bad for ourselves and not ask other people to lie to us and tell us that it is in fact okay.

mloster · Answer 4 · 2011-01-23 01:18:56Z UTC

1

Not directly answering the question, but why even consider wheat as something to eat. With all of the negatives associated with grain consumption, what is the marginal benefit gained by eating a slightly "healthier" version of a detrimental food? If you're considering it in comparison to unfermented wheat, then it's obviously better, but this is merely in relative terms.

answered Jan 23 2011 at 1:18

mloster
933●1●7●13

	I think I already answered that in the question. SOme people will not give up bread but a fair number of those would probably consider just switching to sourdough for most of their bread. It would also be useful for when I am tasked with making foods for others. – Eva Jan 23 2011 at 23:00
	Yes Yes I am excited to read this. I don't want to have a ton of wheat after detoxing from grains but if there is a way to make it for others and have it on occasion then I am all for it. I'm going to go now to my fridge and feed my baby (sourdough starter) in hopes of using it again some day. – wood Feb 17 2011 at 20:22

Is hydrolyzed (fermented) wheat safer?

4 Answers