It's odd to use the word "myth" in the title, but then leave the door open in the penultimate paragraph to immune system issues being wrapped up in all of this because I think it's entirely possible that for some people (like my wife), the immune system is counterproductively stimulated by gluten.
Having said that, I think a lot of this current GF stuff is simply a fad. But fad or not I'm grateful for it because it gives my wife, who really does have a problem with gluten, many more options when shopping than she had just ten years ago.
Several years ago, I was cautioned to cut wheat down to 10% of my food intake, at most. The person I got this advice from wasn't a nutritionist, wasn't a doctor, had no specific medical training, and didn't tell me what to expect or what was likely to happen. (The circumstances were weird, let's just put at that.)
I grumbled but said I'd give a try, with no expectation about what would happen. I bought a bunch of gluten-free varieties of foods and spent a week eating gluten-free bread, supplementing meals with rice instead of pasta, etc. My grain intake didn't change, just how much of it was wheat-based.
Within a few days, I realized that 1) I'd been experiencing bloated feelings in my belly for years, now gone. 2) I suddenly had a lot more energy. 3) Various of my minor joint pains (which I'd chalked up to "well, I'm getting old") went away.
So I stuck with it.
Within a month, I realized I'd lost about 10 pounds--again, no less grains, just less wheat.
After a year, I noticed that I wasn't getting sick any longer. I used to get pretty bad colds a couple times a year. That has now stopped.
Several years later, I feel like I did in my 20s, despite being near 40.
Would I go back to eating wheat regularly? Nope. I've tried, I get bloated for a few days after a big ol' slice of pizza, and if I slack off and eat lots of wheat for a few days straight, I'll start to get the scratchy-throat-feeling that I used to get when I'd get one of my regular colds.
Again, no one told me to have any expectations about going gluten-free. I didn't even know "gluten-free" was a diet--this was years before it became a fad diet--except for my celiac friend who couldn't eat wheat (poor thing, I used to think.) I certainly didn't have any idea what it would do for me.
So when these articles come out that say non-celiac gluten intolerance is bunk, I think, well, fine, but something went on with me, and it doesn't add up that it's all in my head.
Even if the doctor was wrong and she has celiac, it's very manageable so there doesn't seem to be much incentive to go to the trouble of a proper test.
[1] Okay, "solved" paints too neat a picture. Eating truly GF can be a pain in the neck, the stuff's absolutely everywhere. But fortunately the GF fad has, like I said, made that a bit easier.
Being shot with a gun isn't bad. It's the destruction of tissue from the kinetic energy of the bullet that's bad.
The point is that there's (apparently) a great deal of variability among individuals, with respect to gluten.
We've changed it to something that uses neutral language from the article. Suggestions for a better title are welcome.
Does it? Does it really? Half the point of the article is that genuine gluten intolerance is not that common, for starters, so there probably isn't a simple causal relationship that "X = bad, X is on wheat, therefore wheat is bad for us now".
Secondly: Is wheat the only crop we spray RoundUp on? If not, why is it only causing issues with wheat?
So your response is to trot out an equally unfounded (AFAIK) hippie-inspired pseudo-theory. Seriously?
This one actually seems testable. Get a bunch of volunteer non-Celiac "gluten sensitives" and put them on a controlled diet. Measure some objective physiological metrics. Blindly introduce gluten to random subjects. Determine which metrics, if any, change in response to gluten.
And then, to check out placebo/nocebo, you tell all the subjects that gluten will be introduced into their diets that day, and continue monitoring the metrics.
A similiar experiment could be performed on a random sample of ordinary people, with glyphosate.
It does nobody harm if some people choose to avoid gluten, and greatly benefits coeliac sufferers who have increasing good nutrition options.
/s
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemi...
Ending up being a parasite she likely caught on a camping trip, which also brought on a combination of a fungal and viral infection. She was getting desperate, so she had went to an osteopath which ended up making the discovery. Her PCP prescribed a 4-week regimen of heavy meds to kill off the parasites and fungal infection, and now she's back to eating normally.
> PCP prescribed a 4-week regimen of heavy meds to kill off the parasites and fungal infection
nice teamwork!
Commonly, these foods are made up of carbohydrates (such as wheat) but there are fats and proteins as well.
Not to sound too crude, but if you fill your gullet full of inflammation-causing food day in, day out - yes, you will not feel well.
If you are not at all an active person - and you're consuming 2-3 meals of over 1500 calories, well - maybe you should point to that is a potential problem?
Simply removing gluten isn't going to make your day too much better if you are washing down GF products with sodas and eating trans fats.
I'm not claiming that the Hygiene hypothesis is true -- we clearly don't know that. But I think it definitely deserves further consideration.
Here is an article with citations and discussion of modern research and patient experience that comes to a different conclusion: http://chriskresser.com/3-reasons-gluten-intolerance-may-be-...
I won't bother submitting it to Hacker News since it doesn't have the official NYTimes scientific stamp of approval.
Yeah...
Really scientific, unbiased, peer reviewed, modern research. Not a snake oil salesman at all.
Also any article in the format "X reasons [thing] is more harmful than [other thing]" can generally be laughed at.
- Kresser: 21 citations to "scientific, unbiased, peer reviewed, modern research"
- NYT OpEd guest writer: naked unsupported assertion that "most of these assertions [about gluten], however, are contradicted by significant evidence" providing no references or scientific discussion
Which one is snake oil again? More ironic, the Kresser article does talk about gluten as an auto-immune trigger, making your dismissal seem even more knee-jerk. There are people doing serious work on nutrition, but you won't have much luck finding them in the NYT, much less the OpEd section.
Sarah, turn on your brain. What about Game Theory? What if wheat is addictive and mankind did not enslave Wheat but wheat (and possible other crops) "enslaved" mankind?
There is evidence that wheat may not be as healthy for you as you think. Also, the wheat from 60 years ago has very little to do with our current wheat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_exorphin
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/04/wheat-is-an-opiate/
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/toxins-and- toxicity/wheat-grains/
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/09/wheat-and-obesity-more-...
If that theory were correct, Asian people would be the least healthy on the planet. When in fact the people of eg Japan have been among the most healthy for thousands of years.
Caucasians - for example in Scandinavia - getting taller did not equate directly to being far healthier than their Japanese peers.
Height increases over time are driven by the type of diet consumed. The Japanese diet did not lead to height, however it did lead to health and longevity.
http://words.usask.ca/news/2015/06/03/wheat-research-yields-...
