The gluten thing

[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.