Study was done by the exact same person that did the original study that concluded that people could be gluten intolerant.
Quote:
Do you roll your eyes when your friend orders the gluten-free option? While celiac disease is the real deal, an Australian doctor is casting doubt on self-reported gluten intolerance.
Some supporters of the gluten-free diet may say that they feel healthier with better digestion since adopting the diet, but the latest findings suggest that if you aren’t suffering from celiac disease, your intolerance is likely in your head.
So he decided to study gluten intolerance again. This time around, he recruited 37 study participants who reported sensitivity to gluten. To start, the entire group was fed a baseline diet that was low in FODMAPs, which are fermentable, poorly absorbed short-chain carbs for about two weeks’ time. (Bread, for example, is a key example of a FODMAP.)
.....
The findings? Gibson’s participants reported stomach pain and sensitivity even when they weren’t eating gluten. Each diet had patients reporting pain, bloating, nausea, and gas after their baseline treatment, Real Clear Science reported.
I remember one dietitian (Paul Chek I think) saying that approximately half the population are allergic to gluten while the other half isn't. If you have chronic intestinal issues something in the diet could be causing it, gluten or something else.
I remember one dietitian (Paul Chek I think) saying that approximately half the population are allergic to gluten while the other half isn't.
Haha.. aside from being born male or female, any supposedly 'credible' person who can say that "approximately half of everyone is ..." is automatically debunked as a qwack in my book
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
Not that I buy in to most of the food sensitivity thing, but 37 self described gluten sensitive subjects is a really poor study. Not sure much can be derived here
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Haha.. aside from being born male or female, any supposedly 'credible' person who can say that "approximately half of everyone is ..." is automatically debunked as a qwack in my book
more credible than your argument, a doctor who specializes in diet that atleast attempts to form his opinions based on logic. Maybe he was dead wrong but your argument is useless, come up with something better than that. Words like debunk and qwack are weak rhetoric that once anyone is aware of just screams manipulation over logic.
Not that I buy in to most of the food sensitivity thing, but 37 self described gluten sensitive subjects is a really poor study. Not sure much can be derived here
How many people were in the original study that was done to say that people can be gluten intolerant if they feel uncomfortable after eating foods that contain gluten?
Either way, I think the point is that staying away from gluten might help some people, but the gluten free 'fad' has gone completely out of control.
Plus, gluten free food certainly isn't any healthier.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
more credible than your argument, a doctor who specializes in diet that atleast attempts to form his opinions based on logic. Maybe he was dead wrong but your argument is useless, come up with something better than that. Words like debunk and qwack are weak rhetoric that once anyone is aware of just screams manipulation over logic.
"Approximately half of everyone" is a ridiculous medical statement to make when it comes to dietary restrictions
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tyler For This Useful Post:
Finally, I'm sick of people who self-diagnose themselves with food allergies or food sensitivities. These people end up holding any common meal gatherings hostage.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Well, I've been off wheat for 17 days and my eczema has gone from bloody, cracking and unbearable with loads of daily Vit C to help me maintain some normal life (10 000mg) to manageable with less Vit C (6 000mg) to finally healing and slowly going away (4 000mg). I can see it healing from the inside out as my skin slowly sheds away the outer rash naturally. I look forward to using less Vit C.
However, it could be a carbohydrate issue as well. The body converting the sugars in bread and other simple carb foods that cause the auto-immune disease eczema. So I'm certainly curious.
One fact is that as a society we need less "ulterior motive" studies for diet and I'd need to see a lot more studies before I'd believe this over my own bodies reaction from less wheat.
However, if one of my friends roll their eyes at me for ordering less wheat in my foods it's a clear indication that they're an ass-hat and I need to find better friends. Eczema is a real bitch.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to To Be Quite Honest For This Useful Post:
Well, I've been off wheat for 17 days and my eczema has gone from bloody, cracking and unbearable with loads of daily Vit C to help me maintain some normal life (10 000mg) to manageable with less Vit C (6 000mg) to finally healing and slowly going away (4 000mg). I can see it healing from the inside out as my skin slowly sheds away the outer rash naturally. I look forward to using less Vit C.
However, it could be a carbohydrate issue as well. The body converting the sugars in bread and other simple carb foods that cause the auto-immune disease eczema. So I'm certainly curious.
One fact is that as a society we need less "ulterior motive" studies for diet and I'd need to see a lot more studies before I'd believe this over my own bodies reaction from less wheat.
However, if one of my friends roll their eyes at me for ordering less wheat in my foods it's a clear indication that they're an ass-hat and I need to find better friends. Eczema is a real bitch.
Lots of people eat less simple carbohydrates simply because they're not healthy.
One of the challenges when talking about non-Celiac gluten sensitivities is the tests for Celiac itself. In order to avoid false negatives, one must eat significant amounts of gluten for an extended period of time. For some folks, it's just not worth it to experience vomiting, extreme cramping, etc. just to get a positive test result when they know they can avoid it by not eating certain foods. That said, they also can't claim to have Celiac ... so they call it a sensitivity. Is it accurate? Hard to say.
At the same time, I also haven't seen any evidence that eating gluten free is unquestionably a bad thing. Granted, too many folks eating "gluten free" replace it with sugary, processed crap. But many others simply eat whole foods - veggies, meat, etc. - that are naturally gluten free. I don't see anyone arguing that gluten is a necessary component of a well-rounded diet, so if someone chooses to eat gluten free, is it really a problem?
Of course, the entire study has been sensationalized by the media; the authors of the study definitely did not say definitevely that "gluten sensitivity is fake". If anything, they acknowledged that their results were unusual - everyone, whether on a high-gluten diet or a low-gluten diet - ended up feeling unwell once they were no longer on a low-FODMAP diet. The study also focused on a very specific population (those with IBS), rather than a sample reflective of the general population.
In a separate interview, the lead researcher had this to say:
Quote:
"There is definitely something going on," [Biesiekierski] told [Real Clear Science], "but true NCGS may only affect a very small number of people and may affect more extraintestinal symptoms than first thought. This will only be confirmed with an understanding of its mechanism."
My emphasis added; note she acknowledges that non-Celiac gluten sensitivity may, in fact, exist. They don't know enough to say for sure one way or another. Which is why her final quote in that Forbes column is:
"Much, much more research is needed."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to maverickstruth For This Useful Post:
This study hardly solidifies the findings as fact, but it sure gives some of you the ammunition you require to make fun of people, or sit all high and mighty "being sick of people". Perhaps you can try being understanding and compassionate towards others.
The Following User Says Thank You to To Be Quite Honest For This Useful Post:
This study hardly solidifies the findings as fact, but it sure gives some of you the ammunition you require to make fun of people, or sit all high and mighty "being sick of people". Perhaps you can try being understanding and compassionate towards others.
I agree
Myself being one of the non-celiac confirmed (that is to say the test hasn't come back positive), gluten sensitive people. I found out after i had the test you needed to be eating it so that the test could come back accurate, felt it was not worth it to feel terrible for two weeks just to find out something that my own body is already telling me.
For those who say that they are finally happy about the results of the study and able to look down upon those who are not as privileged to be spitting images of health, a large portion of the people I know who have these sensitivities or actually diagnosed celiac (in fact all of them i know)bring their own food to others parties, or host the parties themselves while serving not just allergy friendly foods but something they can also enjoy. And if one of the above is not an option, they including myself go without and don't make a big stink of it. really its not terribly hard to do.
As previously stated to use a study that states in it that more research is required before anything concrete can actually be said about the matter is a foolish way to approach scientific research.
Perhaps more research should have been done before the world went crazy about the gluten free diet? It works both ways.
Sales of gluten free food is up something like 300% year over year in the US alone. Completely ridiculous considering most of it is unhealthy, processed crap.
If gluten makes you sick, or if you think it does, stop eating wheat based food. Its not exactly rocket science. But don't substitute it for gluten free food, and then claim it is so much more healthier than what everyone is eating.
Finally, I'm sick of people who self-diagnose themselves with food allergies or food sensitivities. These people end up holding any common meal gatherings hostage.
Or there are those of us who have observed issues over the course of 30+ years. Your world must be very black and white
Perhaps more research should have been done before the world went crazy about the gluten free diet? It works both ways.
I daresay that most of the 'fad' didn't come about because people carefully considered what the research was telling them and made their decisions based on that. Sure, some people looked at the evidence, but many more had a friend go off gluten, feel better, so they tried it too and also felt better (whether that was a nocebo effect or not). The world going crazy about it isn't exactly a fault of the research community
That said, I agree with the general sentiment of what you're saying for the most part. Those who are eating gf for some vague "health" reasons and then proceed to eat substitutes full of all kinds of nonsensical processed stuff don't do themselves or those who do need to eat gf any favours. Many celiacs say that the trend toward gluten free eatings has been a blessing and a curse; the availability of alternatives is better, but at the same time, because it's seen as trendy, it's not seen as a serious problem that warrants special consideration. Fortunately, education seems to be helping in this regard - for example with restaurants that ask if a gf request is "allergy" or "preference". It's not perfect, but it's getting better.
The danger of how this most recent study is being portrayed and sensationalized is that it furthers the perception of gluten not being a serious problem for anyone. After all, just as many people who have gone gluten free didn't do anything more than a cursory look at the evidence, those who are now saying "oh, gluten's not a problem" aren't looking at it either.
From my perspective (and so far as I've seen) the widespread adoption of a gluten-free diet is not, in itself, dangerous except when people are making ill-informed choices about what they're eating (which is true whether you're gluten-free or not -- the absence of gluten from the diet isn't what makes eating junky food a bad idea). But the widespread adoption of the idea that gluten is NOT a problem can be harmful to celiacs, and potentially to others. That's what concerns me about the way this study is being discussed and received.
(And, I should note, most of that isn't directed at you, Azure. Your post in its entirety shows that you have a much better perspective on the state of the debate as a whole than most everyone else I've seen talking about it. It's the people who read a headline, say "oh, gluten free is a fad!" and don't bother to actually understand what is actually going on that bother me.)
I suppose it is like any other diet, or food choice. If you don't make good ones you tend not to be a healthy person. Gluten or no gluten.
I just see this bizarre growth in gluten free food over the last few years, and I question if it is really necessary, or if perhaps people would be better off staying away from wheat foods as much as possible. Instead from my experience people are going crazy about gluten free food without actually bothering to research what they are eating.
Which seems to be pretty normal with the food choices people generally make so I guess we really shouldn't be surprised.
I understand if certain foods make people sick, but gluten free isn't always the best option.
Study says gluten sensitivity is fake
