• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

WTF is up with this sudden campaign against the anti-gluten trend?

yo mamma celiac gut villa wtf?

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,194 posts
  • 246

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:18 AM


What the fuck is going on with this campaign as of late where everyone is suddenly against the anti-gluten trend? 

 

Articles like these, written by hacks with no talent are being catapulted almost randomly to the masses now.

 

In them, they basically call gluten sensitivity bullshit and say that the majority of the people who think they have it are experiencing some kind of mass psychosis.

 

When the fuck did this happen and who or what was the catalyst? 

 

http://time.com/2912...t-fad-must-die/

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_5519859.html

 

 

 


  • like x 5
  • dislike x 4
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#2 nupi

  • Guest
  • 1,532 posts
  • 107
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 24 June 2014 - 09:25 AM

You know, they are probably mostly right.


  • like x 5
  • Ill informed x 3
  • dislike x 3
  • Well Written x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 24 June 2014 - 10:11 AM

Well, it's really simple: in the long run (often all too long, alas!) truth prevails over fads and hysteria. There may be some real gluten sensitivity (apart from celiac disease) in a very small percentage of the population but the whole hysteria about it, that everyone and his dog suddenly thought himself to be gluten sensitive - fueled by bestselling authors making millions out of it as well as the low-carb movement and the paleo true believers, for whom gluten sensitivity fits fabulously into their quasi-religious ideology about the "seeds of evil" - has always been preposterous and unsupported by scientific evidence and hence had to come to an end sooner or later.

 

 


Edited by timar, 24 June 2014 - 10:14 AM.

  • like x 9
  • dislike x 7
  • Agree x 3

#4 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,458 posts
  • 528
  • Location:Austria

Posted 24 June 2014 - 10:39 AM

 has always been preposterous and unsupported by scientific evidence and hence had to come to an end sooner or later.

 

Dr. Davis is a special case. For many of his CAD patients who follow his recommendation of a grain-free diet, carbohydrate reduction according to postprandial blood-glucose, thyroid hormone and Vitamin D3 normalization, no limitation on sat fat unless Apo E4, etc. - and thereafter experience much improved health, along with all lab markers associated with Arteriosclerosis including CAC score - are to extent of owing their life grateful to him. That wont stop so soon, or later. ;)

 

Though probably having become the catalyst with his best-selling book, I admit he really is better at saving lives than science. But in the end he wanted it that way.

 

All truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident.

Edited by pamojja, 24 June 2014 - 10:50 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#5 8bitmore

  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • 110

Posted 24 June 2014 - 11:53 AM

I concur that the lash-back against going gluten-free is out of touch with reality; MANY people will benefit from going gluten-free simply because ingesting plant seeds (i.e. grains) is still somewhat (or a lot, all depending) difficult for the human digestive system since we've "only" had about 10000 years to adapt genetically.

 

Here's an extremely well researched article that clear articulates the problems with grains (does not incl. rice for whatever reason):

http://wholehealthso...origins-of.html


  • dislike x 5
  • like x 5

#6 Darryl

  • Guest
  • 650 posts
  • 650
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 24 June 2014 - 04:56 PM

Our lineages have been eating grass seeds for much longer than 10,000 years. Possibly for as long as we've been effective big-game cooperative hunters as demonstrated by the megafauna extinction record, so perhaps back to the middle Paleolithic. While wheat consumption may only date back to the late Paleolithic, millet consumption goes further back. Cattail underground storage organs have been of considerable interest as their distinctive isotopic signature matches that of early H erectus, while their seed starch is present on 30,000 year old tools.

 

Mercader, J., Bennett, T., & Raja, M. (2008). Middle stone age starch acquisition in the Niassa Rift, MozambiqueQuaternary Research70(2), 283-300.

Revedin, A., Aranguren, B., Becattini, R., Longo, L., Marconi, E., Lippi, M. M., ... & Svoboda, J. (2010). Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processingProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107(44), 18815-18819.

Henry, A. G., Brooks, A. S., & Piperno, D. R. (2011). Microfossils in calculus demonstrate consumption of plants and cooked foods in Neanderthal diets (Shanidar III, Iraq; Spy I and II, Belgium)Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108(2), 486-491.

Hardy, K., Buckley, S., Collins, M. J., Estalrrich, A., Brothwell, D., Copeland, L., ... & Rosas, A. (2012). Neanderthal medics? Evidence for food, cooking, and medicinal plants entrapped in dental calculusNaturwissenschaften99(8), 617-626

Henry, A. G., Brooks, A. S., & Piperno, D. R. (2014). Plant foods and the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and early modern humansJournal of human evolution69, 44-54.

 

I suspect there are things other than congenital inability to cope with glutens going on with modern gluten intolerance and even Crohn's disease, and they may have similar etiologies of other modern inflammatory epidemics like asthma. 

 

That said, modern gluten intolerance is real - I've made and eaten 80% wheat gluten "sausages", and roughly 8-16 hours after two bratwurst sized servings, the whites of my eyes would become bloodshot with dilated blood vessels, which was confirmed months later with the same results. I experience no adverse effects from normal doses of glutens in whole wheat pasta or bread.


Edited by Darryl, 24 June 2014 - 05:01 PM.

  • like x 6

#7 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 24 June 2014 - 08:37 PM

Why does this site make it so hard to quote the original poster?

What the fuck is going on with this campaign as of late where everyone is suddenly against the anti-gluten trend?

 

everyone? really? I could not open the Time link, therefore could not read. Read most of the Huffington post link before I nodded off. Just random internet ramblings by some blogger trying to create content. I don't care what he thinks, why does he care what I eat? I have already expressed my opinions on this subject in other similar threads.



#8 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:28 AM

Dr. Davis is a special case. For many of his CAD patients who follow his recommendation of a grain-free diet, carbohydrate reduction according to postprandial blood-glucose, thyroid hormone and Vitamin D3 normalization, no limitation on sat fat unless Apo E4, etc. - and thereafter experience much improved health, along with all lab markers associated with Arteriosclerosis including CAC score - are to extent of owing their life grateful to him. That wont stop so soon, or later. ;)

 

That may be true, but the same is probably true for vegan doctors like Ornish and Esselstyn, who put their CAD patients on a plant based diet with lots of gluten in it. Both have in common that besides putting their patients on a whole food diet (be it low-fat, high-fat, gluten-free, vegan, paleo - whatever) they employ a multitude of other lifestyle modifications (such as regular excersise), social support groups and maintain a close practitioner-patient relationship (In his book Spontaneous Healing, Andrew Weil shed some enlightening insights into the healing response elicited by such a relationship alone by the way of mind-body interaction). So I don't believe that a gluten-free diet is any more important for Dr. Davis' success as a physician than a low-fat diet is for Dr. Esselstyn's success.

 

I concur that the lash-back against going gluten-free is out of touch with reality; MANY people will benefit from going gluten-free simply because ingesting plant seeds (i.e. grains) is still somewhat (or a lot, all depending) difficult for the human digestive system since we've "only" had about 10000 years to adapt genetically.

 

Here's an extremely well researched article that clear articulates the problems with grains (does not incl. rice for whatever reason):

http://wholehealthso...origins-of.html

 

It is probably only a coincidence that this article hasn't been deleted so far, as Stephan Guyenet has successively deleted (or rewritten) many of the blog articles he wrote before 2011. He has come a long way since he started his blog in 2008 and becoming a postgradual researcher and makes no secret of his own change of mind and his disaffection from the paleo crowd.

 

I suspect there are things other than congenital inability to cope with glutens going on with modern gluten intolerance and even Crohn's disease, and they may have similar etiologies of other modern inflammatory epidemics like asthma.

 

I agree and I would add diabetes to that list. It is an epidemy of a lack of phytonutrients combined with a constant caloric excess (particularly, excess sugar, protein and AGE intake) that throws inflammatory homeostasis out of balance and fuels all those disorders; food sensitivities due to a "leaky gut" are actually at the more begnign end of the spectrum. Insidiously, these etiologies seem to be aggravated by epigenetic mechanisms (in animal models, an AGE-enriched diet produces metabolic syndrome and diabetes at an ever younger age in each successive generation).

 

OT: I don't link the fact that the forum software turns the word blog into a link which is visually indiscernible from self-set links. It's rather silly anyway.


Edited by timar, 25 June 2014 - 10:02 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#9 blood

  • Guest
  • 926 posts
  • 253
  • Location:...

Posted 25 June 2014 - 11:32 AM

AGE intake

Very interesting study. I hope those folks spending a small fortune on NAD+ precursors and small molecule SIRT inducers have reviewed their diets for overcooked meat and roasted nuts.

#10 8bitmore

  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • 110

Posted 25 June 2014 - 12:08 PM

 

I concur that the lash-back against going gluten-free is out of touch with reality; MANY people will benefit from going gluten-free simply because ingesting plant seeds (i.e. grains) is still somewhat (or a lot, all depending) difficult for the human digestive system since we've "only" had about 10000 years to adapt genetically.

 

Here's an extremely well researched article that clear articulates the problems with grains (does not incl. rice for whatever reason):

http://wholehealthso...origins-of.html

 

It is probably only a coincidence that this article hasn't been deleted so far, as Stephan Guyenet has successively deleted (or rewritten) many of the blog articles he wrote before 2011. He has come a long way since he started his blog in 2008 and becoming a postgradual researcher and makes no secret of his own change of mind and his disaffection from the paleo crowd.

 

Thanks for long informative reply on this thread. I still do not see what information in the article I linked should cause Stephan to delete it, it is not radically pro-paleo or anything? There's plenty of stable archeological evidence that introducing agriculture into the mix limits development of bone structure in the human body. A classic example is the broad dental structures found in all hunter-gatherer groups which disappear as soon as grains are introduced (with grains then also comes the wisdom-teeth "problem" which is basically based on jaw structure not fully developing).

 

*note, I'm personally pescatarian (wow, insane word that, sounds like I'm half presbyterian or something) and have no pro paleo agenda to defend, just interested in the gluten (in)-tolerance vs health subject!


Edited by 8bitmore, 25 June 2014 - 12:12 PM.

  • like x 1

#11 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:29 PM

AGE intake

Very interesting study. I hope those folks spending a small fortune on NAD+ precursors and small molecule SIRT inducers have reviewed their diets for overcooked meat and roasted nuts.

 

That would probably be a more cost-efficient approach. :happy: However, from the database provided by Uribarri et al., roasted nuts actually don't seem to be as bad as one would assume: raw almonds have an AGE content of ~45 kU/g, roasted almonds 66; raw cashews 67, roasted 98. So the AGE increase due to roasting seems to be less than 50% (compare that with fried bacon yielding 916 kU/g!). I guess the antioxidant phytonutrients in the nuts (not bacon) may protect against the formation of AGEs during roasting, and of course physiologically I would expect them to provide a strong counterbalance against the naturally present AGEs, as nuts and olive oil are both relatively high in AGEs and yet have an immaculate track record of lowering inflammation and disease risk.

 

 

Thanks for long informative reply on this thread. I still do not see what information in the article I linked should cause Stephan to delete it, it is not radically pro-paleo or anything? There's plenty of stable archeological evidence that introducing agriculture into the mix limits development of bone structure in the human body. A classic example is the broad dental structures found in all hunter-gatherer groups which disappear as soon as grains are introduced (with grains then also comes the wisdom-teeth "problem" which is basically based on jaw structure not fully developing).

 

My fault, I only quickly scanned the article. It seems to quote anthropologic research on the transition to the neolithic age and doesn't make any scientifically unsupported claims on how the observed changes came about. It is generally agreed upon that there must have been strong ecological pressures for developing agriculture, which alone could provide enough explanation for declining health in the late mesolithic/early neolithic age. Moreover, in that period the yield and nutritional value of the earliest crops, before cultivation techniques had been developed, was generally low, and crucial genetic adaptions to the new environment (including infectous diseases brought about by animal husbandry and increased population density) had yet to occur - in summary it was a transitional period of (catastropic?) environmental changes cultural and genetic adaptions had to catch up with, which did not occur until the copper age. See this very interesting paper on the significance of the genetic adaptations evolved during the neolithic age for our contemporary life expectancy.

 

It should be clear even by this brief summary that the totality of factors, evolutionary pressures and dynamics at play don't allow for a simple and naive conclusion like: "the grains were at fault". And even if they were (partially) at fault, that still wouldn't allow for any conclusions concerning the health value of modern varieties of grain consumed by modern people living in a modern environment.

 

So, to take up pamojjas motto from above:
 

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

Edited by timar, 25 June 2014 - 02:18 PM.

  • dislike x 3
  • like x 2

#12 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,458 posts
  • 528
  • Location:Austria

Posted 27 June 2014 - 12:37 PM

 

Dr. Davis is a special case. For many of his CAD patients who follow his recommendation of a grain-free diet, carbohydrate reduction according to postprandial blood-glucose, thyroid hormone and Vitamin D3 normalization, no limitation on sat fat unless Apo E4, etc. - and thereafter experience much improved health, along with all lab markers associated with Arteriosclerosis including CAC score - are to extent of owing their life grateful to him. That wont stop so soon, or later. ;)

 

That may be true, but the same is probably true for vegan doctors like Ornish and Esselstyn, who put their CAD patients on a plant based diet with lots of gluten in it. Both have in common that besides putting their patients on a whole food diet (be it low-fat, high-fat, gluten-free, vegan, paleo - whatever) they employ a multitude of other lifestyle modifications (such as regular excersise), social support groups and maintain a close practitioner-patient relationship (In his book Spontaneous Healing, Andrew Weil shed some enlightening insights into the healing response elicited by such a relationship alone by the way of mind-body interaction). So I don't believe that a gluten-free diet is any more important for Dr. Davis' success as a physician than a low-fat diet is for Dr. Esselstyn's success.

 

Let's him speak for himself:

 

The Ornish diet made me fat
13. Juli 2007, William Davis I got that kind of question today that tempts me to roll my eyes and say, "Not again!"

"If I want to reverse my heart scan score, should I do the Ornish diet?" You know, the one by Dr. Dean Ornish: Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversal of Heart Disease.

I personally followed the Ornish program way back in the early 1990s. I reduced fat intake of all sorts to <10% of calories; eliminated all fish and meats, vegetable oils, and nuts; ate vegetables and fruits; and upped my reliance on whole grains. I used many of his recipes. I exercised by running 5 miles per day. (Far more than I do now!) I avoided sweets like candies and fruit juices.

What happened?

I gained 31 lbs, going from 155 to 186 lbs (I'm 5 ft 8 inches tall), my abdomen developed that loose, fleshy look, hanging over my beltline. My HDL plummeted to 28 mg/dl, triglycerides skyrocketed to 336 mg/dl, and I developed a severe small LDL pattern. I experienced a mental fogginess every afternoon. I felt tired and crabby much of the time. I sometimes struggled to suppress an irrational anger and frustration over the silliest things. I required huge amounts of coffee just to function day to day.

Hundreds of my patients suffered similar phenomena.

Few of us wear bell-bottomed jeans, tie-dyed t-shirts, or say "groovy". Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in is an "oldie", it's no longer cool to hold your index and middle fingers up in the "V" sign of peace. Even Ladybird Johnson has passed.

So should go the misadventures of the ultra low-fat diet, as articulated by Dr. Ornish. His day came and went. We learned from our mistakes. Now let's do something better.

Keep your eyes open for the New Track Your Plaque Diet - See more at: http://www.cureality...h.OxEwO7Dx.dpuf

 

 

Or I for myself, who as vegetarian since 10 years of age (with a lot of healthy whole grains and almost no fats) developed full PAD after 40. And halting that disease process with pretty much the opposite diet.

 

Yes, maybe true, maybe we both learned to maintain a better therapeutic relationship with our own diseased self the sicker we got and the less wheat we eat.. :happy:


Edited by pamojja, 27 June 2014 - 12:41 PM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

#13 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,194 posts
  • 246

Posted 27 June 2014 - 02:26 PM

Well, it's really simple: in the long run (often all too long, alas!) truth prevails over fads and hysteria. 

 

 

 

Where is the evidence and scientific peer review of this so called 'truth'? 


  • like x 2

#14 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 June 2014 - 10:48 AM

 

Well, it's really simple: in the long run (often all too long, alas!) truth prevails over fads and hysteria. 

 

Where is the evidence and scientific peer review of this so called 'truth'? 

 

Duh. Where is the peer-reviewed evidence for aliens having not landed on planet earth? Gluten containing grains have been a dietary staple for much of the world's pupulation for thousands of years. Durum wheat, used to make pasta and bulgur, is one of the most ancient strains of wheat and contains quite a lot of gluten. Saitan, a traditional meat substitute from east asia, is made from purified gluten. Gluten sensitivity, on the other hand, seems to be en vogue only for about 20 years. So of course it is up to those claiming that we are experiencing a sudden epidemy of gluten sensitivity to deliver the evidence for their theory, not the other way around. When it comes to the arguments brought forth by Davis and Perlmutter in their non-peer-reviewed bestsellers, the paper I linked above does a good job of debunking them.

 


Edited by timar, 28 June 2014 - 11:24 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Needs references x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#15 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 June 2014 - 12:12 PM

So if the gluten phobics don't manage it let me provide the peer-reviewed evidence that there indeed is a condition than can be characertized as gluten sensitivity. A large Italian multicenter study recently brought some much needed clarity to this subject by employing an advanced protocol of differential diagnosis in suspected cases of gluten sensitivity:

 

 

An Italian prospective multicenter survey on patients suspected of having non-celiac gluten sensitivity

 

Umberto Volta1*, Maria Teresa Bardella2, Antonino Calabrò3, Riccardo Troncone4, Gino Roberto Corazza5 and The Study Group for Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity

 

Background

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is still an undefined syndrome with several unsettled issues despite the increasing awareness of its existence. We carried out a prospective survey on NCGS in Italian centers for the diagnosis of gluten-related disorders, with the aim of defining the clinical picture of this new syndrome and to establish roughly its prevalence compared with celiac disease.

Methods

From November 2012 to October 2013, 38 Italian centers (27 adult gastroenterology, 5 internal medicine, 4 pediatrics, and 2 allergy) participated in this prospective survey. A questionnaire was used in order to allow uniform and accurate collection of clinical, biochemical, and instrumental data.

Results

In total, 486 patients with suspected NCGS were identified in this 1-year period. The female/male ratio was 5.4 to 1, and the mean age was 38 years (range 3–81). The clinical picture was characterized by combined gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea and/or constipation, nausea, epigastric pain, gastroesophageal reflux, aphthous stomatitis) and systemic manifestations (tiredness, headache, fibromyalgia-like joint/muscle pain, leg or arm numbness, 'foggy mind,' dermatitis or skin rash, depression, anxiety, and anemia). In the large majority of patients, the time lapse between gluten ingestion and the appearance of symptoms varied from a few hours to 1 day. The most frequent associated disorders were irritable bowel syndrome (47%), food intolerance (35%) and IgE-mediated allergy (22%). An associated autoimmune disease was detected in 14% of cases. Regarding family history, 18% of our patients had a relative with celiac disease, but no correlation was found between NCGS and positivity for HLA-DQ2/-DQ8. IgG anti-gliadin antibodies were detected in 25% of the patients tested. Only a proportion of patients underwent duodenal biopsy; for those that did, the biopsies showed normal intestinal mucosa (69%) or mild increase in intraepithelial lymphocytes (31%). The ratio between suspected NCGS and new CD diagnoses, assessed in 28 of the participating centers, was 1.15 to 1.

Conclusions

This prospective survey shows that NCGS has a strong correlation with female gender and adult age. Based on our results, the prevalence of NCGS seems to be only slightly higher than that of celiac disease.

 

 

To put thise findings into perspective: celiac disease affects approximately 1 in 100 poeple of European descent. As gluten sensitivity only seems to have a slightly higher prevalence (1.15 cases for each case of CD), it has to be considered a relatively rare disorder which seems to affects mostly women (RR 5.4 for women!).

 

See also this commentary by K. Lundin published along with the study.

 

 

 


Edited by timar, 28 June 2014 - 12:23 PM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#16 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,194 posts
  • 246

Posted 28 June 2014 - 12:23 PM

 

 

Well, it's really simple: in the long run (often all too long, alas!) truth prevails over fads and hysteria. 

 

Where is the evidence and scientific peer review of this so called 'truth'? 

 

Duh. Where is the peer-reviewed evidence for aliens having not landed on planet earth? Gluten containing grains have been a dietary staple for much of the world's pupulation for thousands of years. Durum wheat, used to make pasta and bulgur, is one of the most ancient strains of wheat and contains quite a lot of gluten. Saitan, a traditional meat substitute from east asia, is made from purified gluten. Gluten sensitivity, on the other hand, seems to be en vogue only for about 20 years. So of course it is up to those claiming that we are experiencing a sudden epidemy of gluten sensitivity to deliver the evidence for their theory, not the other way around. When it comes to the arguments brought forth by Davis and Perlmutter in their non-peer-reviewed bestsellers, the paper I linked above does a good job of debunking them.

 

 

I am asking you where is the evidence that gluten sensitivity is bullshit? 

 

I think the reason gluten sensitivity has gone up in the last few decades is 1-Widespread Recognition of its existence, prior to which people were ignorant of and 2-An obvious upshoot in grain containing food products in the past couple decades. 


  • like x 2

#17 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,194 posts
  • 246

Posted 28 June 2014 - 12:31 PM

So if the gluten phobics don't manage it let me provide the peer-reviewed evidence that there indeed is a condition than can be characertized as gluten sensitivity. A large Italian multicenter study recently brought some much needed clarity to this subject by employing an advanced protocol of differential diagnosis in suspected cases of gluten sensitivity:

 

 

An Italian prospective multicenter survey on patients suspected of having non-celiac gluten sensitivity

 

Umberto Volta1*, Maria Teresa Bardella2, Antonino Calabrò3, Riccardo Troncone4, Gino Roberto Corazza5 and The Study Group for Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity

 

Background

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is still an undefined syndrome with several unsettled issues despite the increasing awareness of its existence. We carried out a prospective survey on NCGS in Italian centers for the diagnosis of gluten-related disorders, with the aim of defining the clinical picture of this new syndrome and to establish roughly its prevalence compared with celiac disease.

Methods

From November 2012 to October 2013, 38 Italian centers (27 adult gastroenterology, 5 internal medicine, 4 pediatrics, and 2 allergy) participated in this prospective survey. A questionnaire was used in order to allow uniform and accurate collection of clinical, biochemical, and instrumental data.

Results

In total, 486 patients with suspected NCGS were identified in this 1-year period. The female/male ratio was 5.4 to 1, and the mean age was 38 years (range 3–81). The clinical picture was characterized by combined gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea and/or constipation, nausea, epigastric pain, gastroesophageal reflux, aphthous stomatitis) and systemic manifestations (tiredness, headache, fibromyalgia-like joint/muscle pain, leg or arm numbness, 'foggy mind,' dermatitis or skin rash, depression, anxiety, and anemia). In the large majority of patients, the time lapse between gluten ingestion and the appearance of symptoms varied from a few hours to 1 day. The most frequent associated disorders were irritable bowel syndrome (47%), food intolerance (35%) and IgE-mediated allergy (22%). An associated autoimmune disease was detected in 14% of cases. Regarding family history, 18% of our patients had a relative with celiac disease, but no correlation was found between NCGS and positivity for HLA-DQ2/-DQ8. IgG anti-gliadin antibodies were detected in 25% of the patients tested. Only a proportion of patients underwent duodenal biopsy; for those that did, the biopsies showed normal intestinal mucosa (69%) or mild increase in intraepithelial lymphocytes (31%). The ratio between suspected NCGS and new CD diagnoses, assessed in 28 of the participating centers, was 1.15 to 1.

Conclusions

This prospective survey shows that NCGS has a strong correlation with female gender and adult age. Based on our results, the prevalence of NCGS seems to be only slightly higher than that of celiac disease.

 

 

To put thise findings into perspective: celiac disease affects approximately 1 in 100 poeple of European descent. As gluten sensitivity only seems to have a slightly higher prevalence (1.15 cases for each case of CD), it has to be considered a relatively rare disorder which seems to affects mostly women (RR 5.4 for women!).

 

See also this commentary by K. Lundin published along with the study.

 

 

 

All I have to say is inadequate study environment. Not enough variation. Plus it has been shown extensively that the only test which proves gluten intolerance with little doubt cast is a more invasive test in which they stick a tube down your throat to test your gut villa. Most people with gluten intolerance or celiac find out through trial and error and process of elimination. Either way why the fuck does it bother you people so much that someone wants to cut it out of their diet? 


  • like x 1

#18 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 June 2014 - 12:55 PM

I am asking you where is the evidence that gluten sensitivity is bullshit?

 

Please read posts my more carefully. I never, ever said that gluten sensitivity is BS. Indeed I always acknowledged its existence and even provided a nuanced explanation why it seems to by on the rise today in my response to Darryl's post:

 


I suspect there are things other than congenital inability to cope with glutens going on with modern gluten intolerance and even Crohn's disease, and they may have similar etiologies of other modern inflammatory epidemics like asthma.

 

I agree and I would add diabetes to that list. It is an epidemy of a lack of phytonutrients combined with a constant caloric excess (particularly, excess sugar, protein and AGE intake) that throws inflammatory homeostasis out of balance and fuels all those disorders; food sensitivities due to a "leaky gut" are actually at the more begnign end of the spectrum. Insidiously, these etiologies seem to be aggravated by epigenetic mechanisms (in animal models, an AGE-enriched diet produces metabolic syndrome and diabetes at an ever younger age in each successive generation).

 

The answer to all the emerging food sensitivities and allergies - except for the most severe cases - can't be to avoid all the foods triggering them or else people would deprive themselves of many of the healthiest foods available, but to avoid refined, processed and manufactured junk food full of calories but devoid of phytonutrients. I'm pretty sure that a healthy diet rich in phytonutrients and prebiotics will sufficiently improve people's gut flora to overcome the vast majority of modern-day, SAD-induced food sensitivities.

 

The solution is definitely not to buy refined, processed and manufactured gluten-free junk food, as the food industry would like people to believe. It's ridicolous how the demonization of a single nutrient once again plays out along the same old silly but profitable scheme. Once the profitable low-fat cholesterol-free craze had waned, they came up with the low-carb gluten-free craze... history repeating itself! *sight*

 

(EDIT: You want to know "why the fuck does it bother you so much" - this is why!)

 

 

2-An obvious upshoot in grain containing food products in the past couple decades.

 

Really? I'd rather suspect the opposite to be true (as I said, wheat and related gluten-containing crops have been a dietary staple for thousands of years - today they are but one among many options). References?

 

Btw. here's Andew Weil's take on the issue (nuanced and reasonable, as usual):

 


Edited by timar, 28 June 2014 - 01:20 PM.

  • like x 1

#19 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,194 posts
  • 246

Posted 28 June 2014 - 01:28 PM

"The answer to all the emerging food sensitivities and allergies - except for the most severe cases - can't be to avoid all the foods triggering them or else people would deprive themselves of many of the healthiest foods available"

 

Notice how nobody really has vegetable sensitivity? At least as far as I have heard. And the same is true of meat. I have nobody with "meat sensitivity". And while I do not eat it as much as everyone else I do think organic chicken and turkey have a place on the nutritional scale. So that said a diet consisting of organic fruits and vegetables with some meat and fish for protein should be optimal. 

 

"The solution is definitely not to buy refined, processed and manufactured gluten-free junk food"

 

^^^ this is an example of answering a problem with an extreme. Nobody is condoning eating gluten free junk food. Which you do NOT have to eat to avoid gluten. What gave you this impression? A modified paleo diet naturally avoids gluten anyway. 


  • Good Point x 1

#20 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,458 posts
  • 528
  • Location:Austria

Posted 28 June 2014 - 06:04 PM

The solution is definitely not to buy refined, processed and manufactured gluten-free junk food, as the food industry would like people to believe. It's ridicolous how the demonization of a single nutrient once again plays out along the same old silly but profitable scheme. Once the profitable low-fat cholesterol-free craze had waned, they came up with the low-carb gluten-free craze... history repeating itself! *sight*

 

(EDIT: You want to know "why the fuck does it bother you so much" - this is why!)

 

How funny, you're actually in the same camp with Dr. Davis in his stance for single ingredient real food:

 

http://www.cureality...ll-i-find-wheat (1 min. video)



#21 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:32 AM

How funny, you're actually in the same camp with Dr. Davis in his stance for single ingredient real food:

 

http://www.cureality...ll-i-find-wheat (1 min. video)

 

Well, it doesn't have to be a single ingredient. Many traditionally prepared foods are made out of several ingredients (I think Michael Pollan's limit of 5 ingredients your grandmother would recognize is a good rule of thumb). The delicious, traditionally baked whole wheat pita I get every wheek from the Lebanese shop has exactly two ingredients: whole grain wheat, water. Just like pasta and bulgur. But the traditional German whole-grain sourdough breads have some more ingedrients: wheat, rye, yeast, salt, water. They all have in common that they are perfectly healthy traditional foods that have nourished people thousands of years - and that they are made of of wheat.

 

For many poeple, though, who have previously consumed wheat mainly in the form of donuts, cookies, pizza crusts and hamburger buns, going on a gluten-free diet means to vastly improve their overall diet quality by getting rid of all that (gluten-containing) refined and processed junk food. I think this is the major reason why so many people experience health improvements from a "gluten-free diet".  However, as I noted, the more mainstream the "anti-gluten trend" becomes, the more gluten-free variants of all those junk foods are provided by the food industry. In fact Dr. Davis and the other proponents of a gluten-free diet are the industry's best friends (ironically even if they advocate a whole-food diet), because they promote the exact type of silver bullet buzz words the industry loves to take advatage of. It is easy to provide new lines of junk food products that are gluten-free - that's actually what the food industry does best: engineering new products to match certain properties which make them sell better.

 

Can't wait for the new line of "gluten-free" Snackwell cookies. Or the "gluten-free" Twinkie :laugh:
 


Edited by timar, 29 June 2014 - 08:49 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#22 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,458 posts
  • 528
  • Location:Austria

Posted 29 June 2014 - 05:13 PM

You're barking up the wrong tree, timar. No one of the wheat-free diet guru recommend industrially processed foods - gluten-free or otherwise. The most common denominator I see is that they all recommend elimination-diets, in this case of wheat, to see how you fare once you reintroduce it after 3-4 weeks again.

 

You continue to blame it on the industry who of course try to make bucks with that, and thereby avoid finding out how much you could benefit from such a trial. But we all know how addictive wheat-products are..

 

 

.. who have previously consumed wheat mainly in the form of donuts, cookies, pizza crusts and hamburger buns

 

Again barking up the wrong tree. Those of us who never been on such a diet but basically a whole-grain like you, you really think we would become the industries best friends now?


  • like x 4
  • dislike x 3

#23 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 29 June 2014 - 06:43 PM

You're barking up the wrong tree, timar. No one of the wheat-free diet guru recommend industrially processed foods - gluten-free or otherwise. The most common denominator I see is that they all recommend elimination-diets, in this case of wheat, to see how you fare once you reintroduce it after 3-4 weeks again.

 

As I wrote, in the end it doesn't matter that much whether they advocate a whole-food diet or not. That part of the message is the first that gets lots in our consumerist culture. What remains are magic bullets and buzz words the food industry is taking advantage of by catering to the growing demand for gluten-free convenience food. On the other hand, the strongest bulwark we have against the destructive influence of Big Food on our health and culture is the preservation of traditional diets, to many of which gluten-containing foods have always been an integral part.

 

You continue to blame it on the industry who of course try to make bucks with that, and thereby avoid finding out how much you could benefit from such a trial. But we all know how addictive wheat-products are..

 

This is a perfect example of the rampant reasoning that is behind much of this "anti-gluten trend". People are constantly encouraged to go on a elimination diet that is claimed to be the magic cure-all to a wide spectrum of completely unspecific symptoms (Dr. Davis is even presumptuous enough to call his website cureality.com - hear the "cure ye all"?) or - as in my case - even if they are completely healthy and feel just fine. Actually I once tried to eat gluten free for a while just out of curiosity (that was when I still had some allergies to cope with, though) but it made no differce at all - other than that I missed all the healthy food containing wheat, but that is probably proof of its addictive nature :happy:

 

Again barking up the wrong tree. Those of us who never been on such a diet but basically a whole-grain like you, you really think we would become the industries best friends now?

 

In a way you are, because for every one of your kind there are ten who would rather go the easy route governed by consumerism and buy gluten-free variants of the junk-food they are used to - any by doing so they are becoming distracted by yet another fad promising an easy solution to their health issues instead of facing themselves with the inconvienent need for a serious commitment to a healthy whole-food diet.

 


Edited by timar, 29 June 2014 - 07:02 PM.

  • dislike x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 2
  • Agree x 1

#24 ModaMinds

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 8
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 June 2014 - 06:57 PM

The reason there are anti-gluten-free campaigns is because many people don't even know what gluten is but are convinced it's terrible for their bodies. To an extent, it certainly is mass hysteria.

 

For example, consider that at one point, wheat and similar products were pushed on people, such as wheat bread, because they were purported to be healthier than white bread. Now, gluten is essential in these food products (and has been since bread has been around - i.e. centuries ago). Yet now there are huge campaigns to eliminate gluten from diets when before wheat products were all the rage, meaning those were very pro-gluten times.

 

There are tons of articles and information about this online from both research teams and independent bloggers. Plus this funny Jimmy Kimmel video: 


Edited by ModaMinds, 29 June 2014 - 07:32 PM.

  • like x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#25 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,458 posts
  • 528
  • Location:Austria

Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:27 PM

Funny video. They are still in the ridiculing stage.

 

Kudos that you tried going wheat free! In my case it didn't help with allergies either. But any grain, even rice, sends my blood sugar up to the stars, and trigs are following. As long I felt young and healthy I didn't considered that a problem either :)

 

 

Again barking up the wrong tree. Those of us who never been on such a diet but basically a whole-grain like you, you really think we would become the industries best friends now?

 

In a way you are, because for every one of your kind there are ten who would rather go the easy route governed by consumerism and buy gluten-free variants of the junk-food they are used to - any by doing so they are becoming distracted by yet another fad promising an easy solution to their health issues instead of facing themselves with the inconvienent need for a serious commitment to a healthy whole-food diet.

 

Your logic can't be beaten! In '77 I turned vegetarian, therefore I'm guilty for all those convenience processed foods appearing 20 years later? In '87 I quit driving a private car, therefore traffic increased exponentially during all these years?

 

I seem to get better to bring havoc to humanity: in 2010 I eliminated grains, and only 4 years later convenience gluten-free processed food sales soared. :laugh:

 


Edited by pamojja, 29 June 2014 - 07:32 PM.


#26 aiojou

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 6
  • Location:ms
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:49 PM

I'll just throw my 2 cents in since this topic interests me. 

 

I recently turned vegan - cold turkey, back in Feb. I don't eat a lot of bread, pastas, meat and things so I decided to give it a try. Everything went well allergies went away, wasn't bloated after eating- was really nice. Then one day I decided to get a wheat calzone I had made with wheat bread flour. My throat almost closed, started sneezing, eyes watery, mucus. I freaked out. The next day, I ate a sandwich with white bread...same thing happened. So I decided to research it, and found out about this gluten thing. I honestly don't know if it's real or not but after changing to gluten-free breads and pastas it hasn't happened again.  :happy:


  • like x 3
  • Informative x 1

#27 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,194 posts
  • 246

Posted 29 June 2014 - 09:51 PM

The reason there are anti-gluten-free campaigns is because many people don't even know what gluten is but are convinced it's terrible for their bodies. To an extent, it certainly is mass hysteria.

 

For example, consider that at one point, wheat and similar products were pushed on people, such as wheat bread, because they were purported to be healthier than white bread. Now, gluten is essential in these food products (and has been since bread has been around - i.e. centuries ago). Yet now there are huge campaigns to eliminate gluten from diets when before wheat products were all the rage, meaning those were very pro-gluten times.

 

There are tons of articles and information about this online from both research teams and independent bloggers. Plus this funny Jimmy Kimmel video: 

 

The Jimmy Kimmel segment is obviously staged. 


  • like x 3

#28 ModaMinds

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 8
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 June 2014 - 09:55 PM

 

The reason there are anti-gluten-free campaigns is because many people don't even know what gluten is but are convinced it's terrible for their bodies. To an extent, it certainly is mass hysteria.

 

For example, consider that at one point, wheat and similar products were pushed on people, such as wheat bread, because they were purported to be healthier than white bread. Now, gluten is essential in these food products (and has been since bread has been around - i.e. centuries ago). Yet now there are huge campaigns to eliminate gluten from diets when before wheat products were all the rage, meaning those were very pro-gluten times.

 

There are tons of articles and information about this online from both research teams and independent bloggers. 

 

The Jimmy Kimmel segment is obviously staged. 

 

Well of course. It's just funny. :)


  • dislike x 1
  • Needs references x 1

#29 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:30 AM

For some reason, the mainstream media decided to focus on the work of Gibson recently, e.g.:


A grain of truth to gluten intolerance
http://www.smh.com.a...0527-zrpb3.html

1. Gastroenterology. 2013 Aug;145(2):320-8.e1-3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051.
Epub 2013 May 4.

No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity
after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain
carbohydrates.

Biesiekierski JR(1), Peters SL, Newnham ED, Rosella O, Muir JG, Gibson PR.

Author information:
(1)Department of Gastroenterology, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash
University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.

Comment in
Gastroenterology. 2013 Aug;145(2):276-9.
Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan;146(1):320-1.
Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan;146(1):321-2.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) do not have
celiac disease but their symptoms improve when they are placed on gluten-free
diets. We investigated the specific effects of gluten after dietary reduction of
fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates (fermentable, oligo-,
di-, monosaccharides, and polyols [FODMAPs]) in subjects believed to have NCGS.
METHODS: We performed a double-blind cross-over trial of 37 subjects (aged 24-61
y, 6 men) with NCGS and irritable bowel syndrome (based on Rome III criteria),
but not celiac disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given a
2-week diet of reduced FODMAPs, and were then placed on high-gluten (16 g
gluten/d), low-gluten (2 g gluten/d and 14 g whey protein/d), or control (16 g
whey protein/d) diets for 1 week, followed by a washout period of at least 2
weeks. We assessed serum and fecal markers of intestinal inflammation/injury and
immune activation, and indices of fatigue. Twenty-two participants then crossed
over to groups given gluten (16 g/d), whey (16 g/d), or control (no additional
protein) diets for 3 days. Symptoms were evaluated by visual analogue scales.
RESULTS: In all participants, gastrointestinal symptoms consistently and
significantly improved during reduced FODMAP intake, but significantly worsened
to a similar degree when their diets included gluten or whey protein.
Gluten-specific effects were observed in only 8% of participants. There were no
diet-specific changes in any biomarker. During the 3-day rechallenge,
participants' symptoms increased by similar levels among groups. Gluten-specific
gastrointestinal effects were not reproduced. An order effect was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no
evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS
placed diets low in FODMAPs.

Copyright © 2013 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 23648697 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23648697



#30 timar

  • Guest
  • 768 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 June 2014 - 07:37 AM

That Jimmy Kimmel segment is rather funny :laugh:

 


 

Again barking up the wrong tree. Those of us who never been on such a diet but basically a whole-grain like you, you really think we would become the industries best friends now?

 

In a way you are, because for every one of your kind there are ten who would rather go the easy route governed by consumerism and buy gluten-free variants of the junk-food they are used to - any by doing so they are becoming distracted by yet another fad promising an easy solution to their health issues instead of facing themselves with the inconvienent need for a serious commitment to a healthy whole-food diet.

 

Your logic can't be beaten! In '77 I turned vegetarian, therefore I'm guilty for all those convenience processed foods appearing 20 years later? In '87 I quit driving a private car, therefore traffic increased exponentially during all these years?

 

I seem to get better to bring havoc to humanity: in 2010 I eliminated grains, and only 4 years later convenience gluten-free processed food sales soared. :laugh:

 

 

You asked a provocative question, I gave a provocative aswer. It is your own logic I took up. Of course your are not personally responsible as you are just following the bandwagon - unlike anti-gluten diet gurus like Dr. Davis, who are harnessing a cash cow to that wagon. If you are guilty, it is only of being uncritical.

 

For some reason, the mainstream media decided to focus on the work of Gibson recently, e.g.:


A grain of truth to gluten intolerance
http://www.smh.com.a...0527-zrpb3.html
 

 

Thanks. This seems in good accordance with the Italian study posted above: Gluten sensitivity does exist, but it is relatively rare und unlike celiac disease rather benign (i.e. causes mostly some gastrointestinal discomfort - it is not the cause of obesity, depression, heart disease, cancer, AIDS and the civil wars in the Near East, as some people would make you believe). In this study only 8% of the subjects with self-reported gluten sensitivity showed some limited gluten-specific response, which agrees with the notion that most (>90%) of the "anti-gluten trend" is indeed a hysteria.
 

It is an interesting observation, however, that FODMAPs proved to have a much stronger and reproducable effect. This suggest that most people suffering from "gluten sensitivity" actually have a dysbiosis, as I have always suggested:

 

The answer to all the emerging food sensitivities and allergies - except for the most severe cases - can't be to avoid all the foods triggering them or else people would deprive themselves of many of the healthiest foods available, but to avoid refined, processed and manufactured junk food full of calories but devoid of phytonutrients. I'm pretty sure that a healthy diet rich in phytonutrients and prebiotics will sufficiently improve people's gut flora to overcome the vast majority of modern-day, SAD-induced food sensitivities.

 

 


Edited by timar, 30 June 2014 - 08:23 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Needs references x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: yo mamma, celiac, gut villa, wtf?

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users