Study says gluten sensitivity is fake

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Civil yes, but I find that anonymity can provide a dose of honest opinion that is usually filtered away when two or more people know each other personally.

This thread is a prime example. In a work, social, or family setting it's not polite or worth the social cost of questioning 'gluten sensitivity' even if there's very good reason to believe it's self-diagnosed (like half of the office requesting gluten-free meals). Which is why you won't witness an honest conversation about it in those settings.

I think you can be honest and disagree with someone without being a dick.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

I think you can be honest and disagree with someone without being a dick.

True, but you don't have to be a dick order for the person you disagree with to take offense, or be a dick themselves.

And it can be difficult to have rational discussion with people who are so irrational they make up an ailment.

**I'm not saying that gluten sensitivity is made up, but some people certainly like to pretend they have it. That person is already a dick.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I always wonder how many people diagnosed with Celiac or Gluten issues got the diagnosis from a real doctor and not a naturopath.

My folks had a naturopath diagnose both of them with gluten issues. They did some expensive tests and sure enough they were apparently celiac, despite having no symptoms. 2 years later after eating cardboard and ruining every family meal my mom got retested. Her gluten levels were higher after being off gluten for 2 years than before she was diagnosed. It's a crock, these naturopaths are charlatans grifting people out of a lot of money.

The basic test for Celiacs is a blood test. This is not super accurate, so it can be followed up with a biopsy. All of this is done by a doctor, not a naturopath.

Also, there is no such thing as a "gluten level". What these tests are looking for is your bodies reaction to gluten, not the amount of gluten in your system.

[Thor]

This is why I moved to Iceland, so there was no chance of meeting CPers and that way I could continue to be a jerk.

[Knalus]

A little late in the argument, I know, but you know what's better than Vegetarian pizza? Double Cheese. That really should be more common than it is.

[chemgear]

Swearing

Spoiler!

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Swearing

Spoiler!

I have my own theory. If a person is a dick on an Internet forum, chances are 99.9%, he's also a dick in real life. One cannot hide his true self for long.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MattyC

True, but you don't have to be a dick order for the person you disagree with to take offense, or be a dick themselves.

And it can be difficult to have rational discussion with people who are so irrational they make up an ailment.

**I'm not saying that gluten sensitivity is made up, but some people certainly like to pretend they have it. That person is already a dick.

That's more about what I'm saying. When someone questions whether or not a condition that someone else claims to have actually exists, they're not only questioning the condition, but also questioning the other person for falsely diagnosing themselves with a condition that doesn't exist. This is often interpreted as 'being a dick,' but I cannot see how that can be avoided.

[strombad]

If it's printed on a t-shirt, treat it as gospel.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That's more about what I'm saying. When someone questions whether or not a condition that someone else claims to have actually exists, they're not only questioning the condition, but also questioning the other person for falsely diagnosing themselves with a condition that doesn't exist. This is often interpreted as 'being a dick,' but I cannot see how that can be avoided.

I find this whole thread Dickish starting with the title. Maybe if people had diarrhea every day from stuff they ate they'd be more sympathetic.

[photon]

The thread title reports what a study said, how can that be offensive at all?

And it isn't that people aren't sympathetic about people suffering, it's that they question the connection between the symptom and the assumed cause. That's not offensive.

[Thor]

Photon, sometimes your logic offends me.

[photon]

Your offendability is offensive.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by photon

The thread title reports what a study said, how can that be offensive at all?

Well, except that it doesn't actually reflect what the study said. It reflects what some of the media reports suggested the study said... but not the actual results / conclusion of the study (which were far more tempered). As noted earlier in the thread, even the lead researcher doesn't believe that gluten sensitivity is "fake."

At best, it's a click bait headline that the media loved (I know, I know, everyone's shocked, right?), but really doesn't reflect the conclusions of the study itself.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by photon

The thread title reports what a study said, how can that be offensive at all?

Except "gluten sensitivity is fake" isn't what the study said at all. The results of the study suggested that the participants with bowel problems who reported improvements after removing gluten from their diets are likely benefiting more from the removal of FODMAPs.

John Gibson, who was the doctor who ran the study said the following:

What our study has shown is that, in people with gut symptoms who have had some relief with the gluten-free diet, it is not the gluten that is the culprit, but it is more likely to be FODMAPs. It does not say that there is no such thing as non-celiac gluten sensitivity. It is just we could not see any evidence of it in the 37 patients we studied, all of whom fulfilled the current definition of NCGS.

Since his study was released last year he has done another one which focused on gluten's effect on the mood of people with NCGS. The findings from that study suggest that while gluten had no clear effect on gastrointestinal symptoms of the subjects, there were indications that it did have an effect on their mood, and more specifically it induced feelings of depression that weren't shown in the placebo group. Gibson hypothesizes that that may be why some people report feeling better when removing gluten even if other symptoms remain.

[photon]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Well, except that it doesn't actually reflect what the study said.

Originally Posted by opendoor

Except "gluten sensitivity is fake" isn't what the study said at all.

Ok fair enough, but as maverickstruth says at worst it's clickbait, not an intentional effort by Azure or the media to be mean to those who claim their symptoms are from gluten (which was what the post I replied to was saying).

[maverickstruth]

At the same time, though, blanket statements like "gluten sensitivity is fake" basically are calling those that experience symptoms liars.

Granted, some folks may be mis-attributing those symptoms. Some may be just making it up. And yeah, some are just jumping on the latest fad diet.

But then there's folks (some in this thread - note that I don't react to gluten personally) who have taken the time to inform themselves, have found that certain foods make them feel ill, and really wish they didn't have those problems because they hate being "that guy" who can't participate in events, has to make special requests at restaurants, etc. Being "that guy" is bad enough - then having people call you a liar for it? I can see why it's a sensitive subject (pun not intended).

It also doesn't help that the people who bang the "gluten sensitivity is fake" drum loudest tend to frame it as "another hippie myth debunked by the power of science!" without realizing that they actually are misusing the study, just like all the "bad science" they like to debunk.

I'm all for jumping on bad science. But if you're going to use research to make your point, at least make sure you're not falling into the same trap.

[photon]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

At the same time, though, blanket statements like "gluten sensitivity is fake" basically are calling those that experience symptoms liars.

Not at all, lying would require someone knowing the truth and intentionally being deceptive. Drawing a conclusion incorrectly (flawed premise, flawed reasoning, etc) isn't lying.

[maverickstruth]

Enh, I see what you're saying but I don't know that I agree - I don't think a lie always has to be intentional. Any falsehood can be construed as a lie, intentional or not.

You've got a group of people telling another group of people that something they are experiencing isn't actually there. That they're making it up. It "sounds" to me an awful lot like...

Person A: "I feel sick when I eat foods that contain gluten."
Person B: "You're just making it up. This study proves it."

Anyway. I think we're into the realm of semantics now anyway. Ultimately, I agree that in general, most folks (here and elsewhere) aren't trying to be malicious.

Back to the broader topic, this article is a good read - it seems quite evenhanded, from what I can tell:

Is Gluten Sensitivity Real?

[photon]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Enh, I see what you're saying but I don't know that I agree - I don't think a lie always has to be intentional. Any falsehood can be construed as a lie, intentional or not.

I can honestly say I've never seen or heard the word "lie" used as a synonym for incorrect or mistaken or misled, that's the entire difference between lying and simply being wrong. "Guess how many apples are in this box?" "12." "Haha that's such a lie, there's 11!"

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

You've got a group of people telling another group of people that something they are experiencing isn't actually there. That they're making it up. It "sounds" to me an awful lot like...

Person A: "I feel sick when I eat foods that contain gluten."
Person B: "You're just making it up. This study proves it."

But they're not, no one is saying people are making their experiences up, either in this thread or in the science study, or even the media.

What they are saying is the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", and correlation does not equal causation. A study might not prove that something is fake, but you also have to start with the provisional conclusion that a something isn't real until it's been demonstrated to be real.

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Anyway. I think we're into the realm of semantics now anyway. Ultimately, I agree that in general, most folks (here and elsewhere) aren't trying to be malicious.

Agreed; assuming something doesn't exist prior to it's being shown to exist isn't an insult, it's the most reasonable default position. And people can get a little forward about it because so much of our society still fosters and encourages magical thinking and flawed reasoning, sometimes in ways that cause harm to everyone.