56 replies to this topic

[Fat Guy]

Michael Pollan has a quotable comment in the New York Times Magazine this weekend. I shall quote it:

What Do You Think of Gluten-Free Diets?

They are very important if you have celiac disease or can't tolerate gluten. But it's hard to believe that the number of people suffering from these conditions has grown as fast as this product category. Gluten has become the bad nutrient of the moment, the evil twin of Omega 3 fatty acids. Could it really be that bread, a staple of Western civilization for 6,000 years, is suddenly making millions of us sick? I'm dubious.

[Viktoria]

One of the recent additions to IBS treatment is an elimination diet called the FODMAPS diet. Fodmaps stands for fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols and wheat is a big one. So many people with gastro issues stop eating wheat products and feel better. Because it's so prevalent now, they attribute it to gluten, when in fact it may be the fructans.

[ElaineK]

I've been living gluten free for almost 3 years due to a severe gluten intolerance. So far, I've had the blood testing but the results were borderline and inconclusive. I haven't had an intestinal biopsy yet, but will soon. I've been diagnosed with another autoimmune disease and my gastroenterologist strongly suspects celiac disease, as it often accompanies that illness. Both my rheumatologist and gastroenterologist suggested a gluten diet and it made an immediate difference in my symptoms.

Did anyone warn you that after three years on a gluten free diet you're almost certain to have a negative biopsy? Even in people who are eating significant amounts of gluten, the intestinal damage is -usually- patchy. Several small samples are taken, but as a fraction of the total area, it's quite small. That means that a positive biopsy is the gold standard for a positive diagnosis, but a negative biopsy doesn't put you in the clear. After three years of a strict gluten-free diet, I'd be very surprised if you had a positive biopsy, since the vast majority of the damage should be healed.

My GI told me I'd need to do a six-week gluten challenge (4 slices of wheat bread per day minimum) in order to have any chance of testing positive, and that he really preferred more like six months.

[ChrisTaylor]

I will give GF one thing though: Everyone I know who has adopted it has lost significant weight (and all could use that loss). They feel much better now!

You'd lose weight too if you were faced with the choice of gluten free bread or nothing.

[Mjx]

Michael Pollan has a quotable comment in the New York Times Magazine this weekend. I shall quote it:

What Do You Think of Gluten-Free Diets?

They are very important if you have celiac disease or can't tolerate gluten. But it's hard to believe that the number of people suffering from these conditions has grown as fast as this product category. Gluten has become the bad nutrient of the moment, the evil twin of Omega 3 fatty acids. Could it really be that bread, a staple of Western civilization for 6,000 years, is suddenly making millions of us sick? I'm dubious.

I'm not so dubious, at least when the consumption of gluten-containing substances is taken in conjunction with the amount of food people have been able to – and do – eat in the Western world today.

I'm basing this conjecture on very limited, empirical evidence, but I think it is suggestive. I have unpleasant problems with wheat and a number of other starch-based substances: no suggestion of celiac disease, but instead, upper respiratory-tract symptoms, alarmingly rapid joint swelling, and a sense of general malaise. However, if I've fasted the entire day, I can eat a bunch of croissants, or a big batch of potatoes, and suffer little more than a runny nose.

I know about a dozen or so other people who have problems similar to mine (if we get together and indulge in those things that we love but with which we have problems, the gathering looks like a hay fever convention), and who respond similarly to the overall amount of food consumed over the course of the day, which does suggest that this plays a significant role in individual response to problematic substances in food. Hardly conclusive, but a suggestive pattern.

For thousands of years, even 'enough food, most of the time' was inconceivable for most. Most people ended up fasting fairly often, and those who couldn't handle that presumably were less likely to survive/reproduce. Today, overeating can actually be difficult to avoid, and with that, it's hardly surprising that people's overloaded systems are responding far more emphatically to potentially problematic substances in our food.

Given the pervasiveness of both overeating and wheat (anyone who reads ingredient labels is aware of how pervasive wheat is, even where you wouldn't expect to find it), that allergies and intolerances can worsen over time with ongoing expsure to the allergen/irritant, increased awareness of the condition, and improved diagnostic techniques, the apparent explosion of celiac disease diagnoses doesn't seem surprising.

I will give GF one thing though: Everyone I know who has adopted it has lost significant weight (and all could use that loss). They feel much better now!

You'd lose weight too if you were faced with the choice of gluten free bread or nothing.

I admit that gluten-free bread (like most would-be substitutes) is relatively wretched, but the weight-loss aspect goes beyond that: I've lost breathtaking amounts of weight, even with not-infrequent breakfasts featuring a lot of bacon and sausage (Wasa and carrots are involved too, but that doesn't cancel out the other items... and I don't do 'lite', 'lo-cal', or fat-free).

[Jenni]

I feel like this topic comes up again and again on various food boards. Can't we just all agree that yes, some people genuinely have health difficulties with wheat and/or gluten and that also yes, some people use it as a diet fad which muddies the issue and sometimes makes real sufferers look bad?

Also just want to point out that I unintentionally eat wheat and gluten free many days a week and its perfectly easy to not immediately lose weight. It's called rice, people! Other popular non-wheat staples are potatoes, cassava and millet. I expect there are plenty of people in the world who would easily go without wheat bread but would fight you tooth and claw for their regional non-gluten-containing staple.

[Panaderia Canadiense]

Certainly that's true here in Ecuador, Jenni. Most people, even in Ambato which is famed for wheat breads, can take or leave it, but threaten to take away the Quimbolitos (a quinua-based steamed bread) or Humitas (the same thing, with corn instead) and they'll weep inconsolably.

Other great gluten alternatives (also, incidentally, staples here in Ecuador) include Plantain, Achira (canna rhizome) and Taro (and by extension Pelma, Sigueme, and other Aroid tubers).

[mgaretz]

Very timely! My 21-year-old daughter has had stomach issues for the last few years - the docs can't find any real physical issues so they were chalking it up to stress of college etc. But now they want her to try a gluten and dairy free diet for a while and see what happens. We don't think she's lactose intolerant because the symptoms don't match (though me and her older brother are) and she wouldn't appear to have celiac disease, but something is going on. Anyway it will be an interesting couple of months!

Edited by mgaretz, 02 October 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[daisy17]

Very timely! My 21-year-old daughter has had stomach issues for the last few years - the docs can't find any real physical issues so they were chalking it up to stress of college etc. But now they want her to try a gluten and dairy free diet for a while and see what happens. We don't think she's lactose intolerant because the symptoms don't match (though me and her older brother are) and she wouldn't appear to have celiac disease, but something is going on. Anyway it will be an interesting couple of months!

It's not easy at times, so please tell her to hang in there! Well worth doing an elimination diet, in my personal experience.

[Dianabanana]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word. If they are being obnoxious about it, then that's a separate issue from whether they actually have a health problem. If they claim to have gluten sensitivity but then sometimes eat gluten-containing foods anyway, how is that different from the thousands of diabetics who eat foods they shouldn't? You've always been able to follow whatever diet you've been on?

There simply is no good to be gained from questioning people's assertions about their own health. You can't possibly know the truth. Half the time they don't know the truth, and their doctors don't, either. They're just doing the best they can. I'm quite sure that many of the people now following a gluten free diet are doing it in the hope that it will help some previously unresolvable heath issue. So let them try it. My goodness.

[Fat Guy]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word.

I think, de facto, that's true. But I do think the issue deserves broader discussion, because things have gotten a bit out-of-control with the food-sensitivity claims. Maybe I'll start a separate topic for the general discussion.

[MsDivinaLoca]

1. C4C (Cup-for-cup) is: cornstarch, white rice flour, brown rice flour, milk powder, tapioca flour, potato starch and xanthan gum.

Article in the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGATE)
- where they do a taste-test.

1) Anyone know what Keller is milling for his GF flour?

[JAZ]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word. . . .

There simply is no good to be gained from questioning people's assertions about their own health. You can't possibly know the truth. Half the time they don't know the truth, and their doctors don't, either. They're just doing the best they can. I'm quite sure that many of the people now following a gluten free diet are doing it in the hope that it will help some previously unresolvable heath issue. So let them try it.

The fact is that people are often not very good about gauging their own health. They might feel fine and have serious health problems, or feel "unwell" with no underlying sickness, disease or condition. The placebo effect is well documented; how people "feel" is dependent on a lot of things, including whether they think a given treatment will work. It's why self-diagnosis is so scientifically unreliable.

Please understand that I'm not saying or implying that celiac disease and gluten sensitivity don't exist. They do, and for those who suffer from the conditions of course a gluten-free diet will make them feel better and make them healthier. But I think what's happened may be that with all the heavy marketing of gluten-free products and diets, some people with no indications of gluten sensitivity go on a gluten-free diet on their own, without any tests or doctor's opinions. (And, people being what they are, some people will also give up dairy products and other foods at the same time.) If they feel "better," it might be because they've given up gluten or the other foods; it might be a coincidence; it might be the placebo effect. It's great that they feel better, but my concern would be they might have some other serious health condition that's going untreated because they've convinced themselves that gluten was the problem, when in fact it's irrelevant in their case.

[Dianabanana]

A gluten-free diet is expensive, inconvenient, and, as amply demonstrated by this thread, rather a social liability. If people are going to all the trouble of trying a gluten-free diet in lieu of proper medical diagnosis, I'm inclined to aim my disapprobation at a health care system in which it costs $1800 to get a 10-minute upper endoscopy, the entire cost of which must be borne by the person with high-deductible health insurance. Of course some people will try diet first.

[Paul Kierstead]

We have government health care and people are still flocking to GF.

[Paul Kierstead]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word.

I'm not sure what you mean by my having to take them at their word. If they eat in my home, I'll honour their wishes and take care to ensure they don't get that food. I'll not prevent them from taking on whatever diet they want. In fact, I point out new GF food sources around town that I trip up over to my GF friends. But I most certainly will not accept it as true simply because they said so, nor will I necessarily 'agree' with them by keeping silent if keeping silent would indicate consent.

Self observation is pretty close to hopeless. If people want to try out various things and make their conclusions, that is ok, but you can't expect everyone to roll over an agree just because those people have found comfort.

[Country]

To follow that up: When I was born some 70 years ago and then growing up, I do not recall any instances of children allergic to peanuts or much of anything else. And there was scarcely any asthma compared to our own children's generation...we had two asthmatic kids of three in a family which had never had any incidence of asthma ever...and then today's children who have many allergies and asthma and autism, etc. DH was a high school teacher who saw puffers galore in every class.

Not drawing any conclusions...can't..just wonderin about it all. In light of dcarch's question about diversity and Jaymes response...my generation, war babies, grew up on a much more limited diet than today's children. What does that signify? If any?

I'm also 70 and, when younger, don't recall all these problems with allergies and various intolerances related to food.

Could it be that "modern" agricultural practices are at least partially responsible? In addition to the application of so many insecticides, pesticides, etc., there is the issue of soil fertility and, I think, there is not much left on those "farms" that produce the majority of the food consumed today.

It could be said that the health of the people is in the health of the soil - and that bears some thought. If the soil growing so much of our food these days can't even support a healthy population of earthworms, how healthy is the food that's grown from it?

[heidih]

I have a new appreciation for the issues after working with a woman who has felt horrible for year s after she ate. She is active, engages in life, and not a "complainer". The current diagnosis is an inability to metabolize some sugars and gluten has been eliminated. She feels so so much better. As noted earlier by others - if it makes you feel better - go for it. That said, this woman does not expect special treatment. She brings a cooler with things she can eat in the event there is nothing that fits the prescribed plan. She is quite slender and appears to have added a few needed pounds now that she can actually enjoy her food and not fear oncoming pain.

[daisy17]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word.

I'm not sure what you mean by my having to take them at their word. If they eat in my home, I'll honour their wishes and take care to ensure they don't get that food. I'll not prevent them from taking on whatever diet they want. In fact, I point out new GF food sources around town that I trip up over to my GF friends. But I most certainly will not accept it as true simply because they said so, nor will I necessarily 'agree' with them by keeping silent if keeping silent would indicate consent.

Self observation is pretty close to hopeless. If people want to try out various things and make their conclusions, that is ok, but you can't expect everyone to roll over an agree just because those people have found comfort.

I wish I could explain exactly why this offends me so - this, and many of the other posts on this thread. First of all, please do a little reading and have some idea of the facts. There is no test for gluten sensitivity, or other food sensitivities that don't rise to the level of an allergy or celiac. You go on an elimination diet, you see how you feel, and your doctor tells you not to eat what made you feel sick. There is NO TEST. The science has not caught up, and it remains a guessing game. You do not have to agree with what I think or what I eat. My doctors agree with me, and that is more than enough. It is my body and I will eat what I want. I'm not asking anyone - including restaurants, or you - to make accommodations for me. But the constant denial of my experience on these boards - and that of thousands, if not millions, of other people - is beyond insulting. Just because there's not a test to prove to you that I'm right doesn't mean I'm not.

To Country's and Darienne's point, allergies (as well as autism - another phenomenon there is no explanation for) have skyrocketed in recent years. Our food systems are practically beyond repair, and grains are often genetically modified. Is it truly surprising that there might be a backlash?

I would think that there have been enough posts on here and elsewhere reflecting experiences similar to mine for some of you to have a little more consideration for what we are saying. My experience does not depend even remotely on whether or not you agree, but it would be awfully considerate if you could open your minds and ears a little.

[Country]

To Country's and Darienne's point, allergies (as well as autism - another phenomenon there is no explanation for) have skyrocketed in recent years. Our food systems are practically beyond repair, and grains are often genetically modified. Is it truly surprising that there might be a backlash?

While GM crops haven't been around long enough to be responsible for the allergies and problems being discussed here, their development adds yet another layer of questionable agricultural practices. Any adverse effects from GM food may not be known for years, if not generations.

[Dianabanana]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word.

I most certainly will not accept it as true simply because they said so, nor will I necessarily 'agree' with them by keeping silent if keeping silent would indicate consent.

Self observation is pretty close to hopeless. If people want to try out various things and make their conclusions, that is ok, but you can't expect everyone to roll over an agree just because those people have found comfort.

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding you. If I tell you that green bell peppers give me indigestion, you would not accept it as true simply because I said so?

[Paul Kierstead]

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding you. If I tell you that green bell peppers give me indigestion, you would not accept it as true simply because I said so?

Heh, no, actually. If you told me you did double blind trials to test your indigestion to green peppers, I might accept it as true.

OTOH, in a way, I would believe you. If you believed that green peppers gave you indigestion, it is quite plausible that if you knowingly eat green peppers you would feel indigestion. That doesn't, of course, mean that it was actually the peppers that did it.

We are, generally speaking, horrid at judging such things. Astoundingly bad. People attribute a vast array of causes to effects that have, at best, no evidence and often have been proven to be untrue.

I'm not trying to give offense here, and apologize if it was taken, being looking for evidence is not evil, insensitive or a sin; it is good practice. Not everything will be explained, it is true; but I'd like to see some clinical evidence of gluten sensitivity, particularly the effects related to neurological function, etc. I do not have any doubt of celiac disease nor allergies; particularly the latter is relatively easy to test for and has a plausible, established mechanism. Celiac is a tougher to test for, but does have a mechanism that sounds sensible. Many of the explanations for other types of gluten sensitivity lack a plausible mechanism or clinical evidence. This does not mean it doesn't exist, of course, but it does mean that having some doubts doesn't make you an evil bastard.

As to popularity; billions of people hold various things as self-evident truths that I think is mythology, and I suspect that is true for everyone on this board (though which ones may vary). A lot of people holding an opinion gives it something to look at, but does not make it a truth.

[Mjx]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word.

I'm not sure what you mean by my having to take them at their word. If they eat in my home, I'll honour their wishes and take care to ensure they don't get that food. I'll not prevent them from taking on whatever diet they want. In fact, I point out new GF food sources around town that I trip up over to my GF friends. But I most certainly will not accept it as true simply because they said so, nor will I necessarily 'agree' with them by keeping silent if keeping silent would indicate consent.

Self observation is pretty close to hopeless. If people want to try out various things and make their conclusions, that is ok, but you can't expect everyone to roll over an agree just because those people have found comfort.

I wish I could explain exactly why this offends me so - this, and many of the other posts on this thread. First of all, please do a little reading and have some idea of the facts. There is no test for gluten sensitivity, or other food sensitivities that don't rise to the level of an allergy or celiac. You go on an elimination diet, you see how you feel, and your doctor tells you not to eat what made you feel sick. There is NO TEST. The science has not caught up, and it remains a guessing game. You do not have to agree with what I think or what I eat. My doctors agree with me, and that is more than enough. It is my body and I will eat what I want. I'm not asking anyone - including restaurants, or you - to make accommodations for me. But the constant denial of my experience on these boards - and that of thousands, if not millions, of other people - is beyond insulting. Just because there's not a test to prove to you that I'm right doesn't mean I'm not.

To Country's and Darienne's point, allergies (as well as autism - another phenomenon there is no explanation for) have skyrocketed in recent years. Our food systems are practically beyond repair, and grains are often genetically modified. Is it truly surprising that there might be a backlash?

I would think that there have been enough posts on here and elsewhere reflecting experiences similar to mine for some of you to have a little more consideration for what we are saying. My experience does not depend even remotely on whether or not you agree, but it would be awfully considerate if you could open your minds and ears a little.

I'm a bit curious as to why the questioning and scepticism offend you.
I actually have some food sensitivities, and agreed, there is no test for them, and all you can do is eliminate things from your diet, and see how that goes (it's only really effective if you arrange with several of your friends to sneak the potential problem ingredient into your food at some point, so when you test your reaction, it is unbiased by your awareness of its presence). However, I'd love for someone to prove to me that I'm wrong about my apparent reactions some of my favourite foods, that my failure to, say, chew a specific number of times is actually responsible for my symptoms, or that some (fixable) psychological issue is at the back of them.

Most people are unscientific in their thinking, and the media/public tendency to simplistically stamp various substances as 'bad' actually undermines the credibility of those who genuinely have celiac disease, or various other sensitivities/allergies: legitimate questioning is not inconsiderate, it's crucial. If we reject questioning, science cannot ever address this field, because science is an approach, a process to which questioning is intrinsic, not just sets of imposing sounding results.

[azlee]

If someone says that a certain food makes them feel unwell, you have to take them at their word.

I'm not sure what you mean by my having to take them at their word. If they eat in my home, I'll honour their wishes and take care to ensure they don't get that food. I'll not prevent them from taking on whatever diet they want. In fact, I point out new GF food sources around town that I trip up over to my GF friends. But I most certainly will not accept it as true simply because they said so, nor will I necessarily 'agree' with them by keeping silent if keeping silent would indicate consent.

Self observation is pretty close to hopeless. If people want to try out various things and make their conclusions, that is ok, but you can't expect everyone to roll over an agree just because those people have found comfort.

I wish I could explain exactly why this offends me so - this, and many of the other posts on this thread. First of all, please do a little reading and have some idea of the facts. There is no test for gluten sensitivity, or other food sensitivities that don't rise to the level of an allergy or celiac. You go on an elimination diet, you see how you feel, and your doctor tells you not to eat what made you feel sick. There is NO TEST. The science has not caught up, and it remains a guessing game. You do not have to agree with what I think or what I eat. My doctors agree with me, and that is more than enough. It is my body and I will eat what I want. I'm not asking anyone - including restaurants, or you - to make accommodations for me. But the constant denial of my experience on these boards - and that of thousands, if not millions, of other people - is beyond insulting. Just because there's not a test to prove to you that I'm right doesn't mean I'm not.

To Country's and Darienne's point, allergies (as well as autism - another phenomenon there is no explanation for) have skyrocketed in recent years. Our food systems are practically beyond repair, and grains are often genetically modified. Is it truly surprising that there might be a backlash?

I would think that there have been enough posts on here and elsewhere reflecting experiences similar to mine for some of you to have a little more consideration for what we are saying. My experience does not depend even remotely on whether or not you agree, but it would be awfully considerate if you could open your minds and ears a little.

I'm a bit curious as to why the questioning and scepticism offend you.
I actually have some food sensitivities, and agreed, there is no test for them, and all you can do is eliminate things from your diet, and see how that goes (it's only really effective if you arrange with several of your friends to sneak the potential problem ingredient into your food at some point, so when you test your reaction, it is unbiased by your awareness of its presence). However, I'd love for someone to prove to me that I'm wrong about my apparent reactions some of my favourite foods, that my failure to, say, chew a specific number of times is actually responsible for my symptoms, or that some (fixable) psychological issue is at the back of them.

Most people are unscientific in their thinking, and the media/public tendency to simplistically stamp various substances as 'bad' actually undermines the credibility of those who genuinely have celiac disease, or various other sensitivities/allergies: legitimate questioning is not inconsiderate, it's crucial. If we reject questioning, science cannot ever address this field, because science is an approach, a process to which questioning is intrinsic, not just sets of imposing sounding results.

So now, a "friend" sneaking shellfish or wheat or some other allergen into your food is a form scientific testing? Is it "good science" if the "test subject" dies or ends up in the hospital? Does Aunt Marge win a Nobel Prize if she offers you chicken salad, but serves you crab salad and you get violently ill? You know, if you die as part of her proof, she can't share the prize with you posthumously.

[Paul Kierstead]

So now, a "friend" sneaking shellfish or wheat or some other allergen into your food is a form scientific testing? Is it "good science" if the "test subject" dies or ends up in the hospital? Does Aunt Marge win a Nobel Prize if she offers you chicken salad, but serves you crab salad and you get violently ill? You know, if you die as part of her proof, she can't share the prize with you posthumously.

I think you missed the point where he suggested the subject arrange it for themselves; he wasn't suggesting someone do it unprompted. Also, in this context, since we are discussing giving something up to see if it helps with various symtoms (death was not one of the symptoms under discussion), if the consequences of having it were that bad it would have been given up a long time ago or they would be already dead.

[Mjx]

So now, a "friend" sneaking shellfish or wheat or some other allergen into your food is a form scientific testing? Is it "good science" if the "test subject" dies or ends up in the hospital? Does Aunt Marge win a Nobel Prize if she offers you chicken salad, but serves you crab salad and you get violently ill? You know, if you die as part of her proof, she can't share the prize with you posthumously.

What Paul said.

[inductioncook]

Does anyone know any prominent chefs who have adopted a gluten-free diet? I don't, but I know of some people in the food-service industry who have medical reasons not to eat the food prepared in the restaurant they work for.