y8s

iTrader: (8)

Unnaccounted for Joe lifestyle variables: new woman in your life. Raises physical activity and testosterone levels. Both of these can increase muscle and reduce body fat.

JasonC SBB

Here you go Joe, knock yourself out:
non-celiac - PubMed - NCBI
What is Gluten | Primal Body Primal Mind Diet and Nutrition

On the latter one, I acknowledge that gluten may have a dose-response curve wherein modest amounts may not do harm to non-sensitive individuals.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Get cold, get skinny.

Embrace the cold: Evidence that shivering and exercise may convert white fat to brown -- ScienceDaily

JasonC SBB

A bit of what Jack Kruse has been saying...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

We will not be eliminating that variable from the test.



Also, my "do not feed the troll" sense is tingling, however I believe I owe Jason the courtesy of a response here:

When you post things like this, I honestly can't decide whether you're being sarcastic, you're deliberately trolling me, or if you genuinely think that I am going to be able to glean useful information from a link to a list of titles of papers on PubMed.

Can you understand why I might feel that way, given the proper context?

JasonC SBB

You didn't like the 2 links I showed, so I gave you more, for you to browse.

Here's a fascinating interview of a guy who did a bunch of ground-breaking research.
Pioneering Researcher Alessio Fasano M.D. on Gluten, Autoimmunity & Leaky Gut

These quotes are damn interesting:

My question is, is there harm in "normal" people when ingesting gluten which is known to make the intestines temporarily permeable?

Resistant starch such as raw potato powder has been shown to improve the gut flora. Might it prevent or reverse autoimmune diseases and/or improve gluten sensitivity?

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Man, watching Joe double-down on his stupid position is funny.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Of course, if I had a magic metabolism that responded to cutting grains, sugars, and carbs by gaining weight, I might find modern dietary and nutritional research baffling too.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Oh I almost forgot this. I ate Joe Perez's normal diet for one week and gained 100 lbs of fat.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Sidebar: whoever edited the thread title, well-played.


That's true, and it merits a better explanation.


The first of the links you gave in post #282 is merely a list of papers available through PubMed which match the search phrase "non-celiac." None of those which I have clicked on thus-far return a full-text result, and only a few have comprehensive abstracts. So this is essentially a content-free link inasmuch as I can tell. By contrast, I have endeavored only to cite sources which are actually readable by all, so, quite frankly, I find this sort of thing to be rather lazy, and somewhat offensive.

A bit of light searching on slightly different keywords turns a number of articles written by credible authors who aren't trying to sell me anything, which strongly indicate that blanket statements such as those which have been made previously are far from "obviously true." Arguments which run contrary to established principles and which rely mostly upon subjective testing and conjecture (rather than controlled scientific testing) bear a special burden of proof, which is thus far unmet in this context.

The tone thus far in this particular line of conversation reminds me somewhat of a debate over religion, conducted with a person who bears a strong religious conviction. Such a discussion might fairly be summarized as:
I'm really trying quite hard to keep an open mind and subject all opinions and assertions to the same rational scrutiny. It bothers me somewhat to be accused of being [a contrarian / deliberately obtuse / willfully ignorant] for this. I'm not specifically saying that you have done this (though certain people have), only pointing out that it's a vibe I'm picking up.





The second link deserves special attention, as it is particularly insulting. Twice in this thread I have established a specific point wherein the trustworthiness / legitimacy of sources is concerned:

The first was in post #68 back in Oct of last year, when I stated "In other words, it doesn't matter how old the research is, if the only "facts" which contradict it are actually based on speculation, hysteria, slick marketing and misrepresentation of data for the purpose of selling self-help books and lifestyle coaching."

The second was in post #261 just a week or two ago, to wit "Among "trustworthy" sources (eg: those involving proper control / blinding techniques, those published in peer-reviewed journals or as academic theses, and not coming from laypersons who have an obvious financial motivation such as the sale of books, herbal remedies, etc)..."

So, I hope you can understand why I find it especially hilarious to see you send me a link to the following:




In general, I make it a point to place special scrutiny on advice given to me by individuals who are actively trying to sell me something.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

While I understand that this is intended as sarcasm, I'm struggling to understand the point of it.

During the period of Nov-Dec 2013, I embarked upon a high-calorie diet which happened to be low in carbohydrates and high in fat and protein. During that time, I gained weight (and fat.) This is hardly surprising- to the contrary, I'd have considered it to be "magic" if I had lost weight (and fat) during this time, as that would have been evidence of my body expressing a discriminatory metabolism (eg: preferring one source of caloric intake vs. another), which would have been contrary to most of what is understood in the scientific and academic communities to be factual in this regard.

During the period of Jan-Feb 2014, I have embarked upon a lower-calorie diet, which happens to displace calorie-dense foods which are high in fat (cheeses, fatty meats, etc) with less-calorie-dense foods which happen to be high in carbohydrate content (vegetables, grains, rice, etc.) During this time I have lost weight and fat. This, again, is consistent with a rational expectation based upon known principles of human nutrition.


If you feel that I continue to be in error in either my methodology or the interpretation of the resultant data then do please pay me the courtesy of a more specific interposition. Your insults, while moderately amusing and so far tastefully relevant, are not productive insofar as arriving at a more comprehensive understanding of the facts in this matter.







This seems improbable. 100 lbs in one week rather stretches the bounds of what one would expect to be physiologically possible. I assume therefore that it is also sarcasm, but whether you genuinely intended it to somehow make a positive contribution to the thread (and are therefore an idiot) or you just enjoy making snide comments for the purpose of derailing conversations (and are therefore an ***) is something to which I won't hazard a guess.




That said, I did order the specific analytical scale that Y8s linked to, as I find this phenomenon to be most interesting and wish to have a clearer perspective into it. I wish that I'd had it for the past two months in order that I'd have some "before" data, but I shall have to resign myself to a forward-looking perspective. As it stands now, I've no desire to return to the state that I was in around the first of the year.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Ah, now Joe's all mad that someone's derailing the thread in which he set out to demonstrate that adding several hundred calories per day of any food will result in weight gain and thereby disprove...something.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

I know you're trying to thwart the "common wisdom" in this thread but please make sure you take your body fat readings at approximately the same time each day under similar conditions. In other words before your dump and shower, after you chug your morning water, but before your breakfast. Or whatever place it fits into your routine. You may want to consider multiple readings during the day to get a feel for your true BF%.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Yes, I've observed similar fluctuations in weight measurements taken throughout the day as well.

I always take "official" weight measurements first thing in the morning, after my usual bowel movement but before having consumed any food or drink.

This routine will not change simply due to the purchase of a different scale.


From the Wiki article you linked to: "The accuracy of consumer grade devices for measuring BIA has not been found to be sufficiently accurate for single measurement use and are better suited for use to measure changes in body composition over time for individuals." I would consider this to be true of pretty much all consumer-grade measuring equipment, and treat this no differently than I would the oil pressure gauge on my engine. Does 45PSI actually mean 45 PSI? Doesn't matter, so long as it's consistent. I'm looking for trends here, which is why I added to my above "I wish that I'd had it for the past two months in order that I'd have some "before" data..."

JasonC SBB

Joe, Nora Gedgaudas (author of book) was practicing what she preached before she started writing her book. There are many people who have a talent, discover a niche, and decide that writing a book / selling services, is a win-win for them and their customers. Andrew was giving out free advice on radiators and brakes before he decided to start Trackspeed. Because he now makes money on radiators and brakes, does that make his advice suspect?

The pubmed link was to a bunch of articles to non-celiac gluten sensitivity. The link you made fun of has a simple diagram with the action of gluten. That, and the later quotes, is to try to show you that the gluten stuff is far, far from imagined. The question in my mind remaining is, (and which is asked in the interview link) how damaging is it to non-sensitive individuals, or, can the latter develop sensitivity over time with large intakes of it?

Something I haven't mentioned in this thread is that someone close to me tested positive for AutoImmune thyroid antibodies, after I insisted to their doctor to do the detailed test (he'd initially refused). This person is in the early stages of Hashimoto's hypothyroidism. This is a disease where the immune system destroys the thyroid gland until thyroid output drops and misery sets in. The vast majority of Hashimoto's is caused by a reaction to GLUTEN. Several percent of the population is in some stage of Hashimoto's.

This person had NO PREVIOUS SYMPTOMS of gluten sensitivity, but had an anomalous simple thyroid test result years ago which they'd chalked up to a testing fluke. Turns out that in the early stages one symptom is fluctuating thyroid output. The previous doc didn't suspect anything from the anomalous test result.

So here is an example of someone whose immune system was on the road to being destroyed by gluten exposure with *no* symptoms. The interviewee whose quote I pasted discusses 70 year olds who suddenly developed a severe gluten sensitivity. Would they have been fine had they consumed half as much wheat all their life? Dunno.

And here is a study that shows that modern wheat causes more symptoms than ancient varieties of wheat. Presumably because it has more gluten, because it makes bread stickier nicer and chewier, and thus is bred in over generations:

New Study Vindicates William Davis: Modern Wheat is more Toxic than Ancient Varieties | Rosemary Cottage Clinic

In the interview I linked, they'd observed that gluten sensitivity has been rising dramatically in the last decades. Increased gluten in GMO wheat? Widespread antibiotic use?

Do I think it's prudent to reduce wheat/gluten intake for the non-symptomatic population given all this? Yes. Wheat is a low-nutrient-density food anyway. And lectins in general too. You can get way more nutrients for the same calories eating sweet potatoes and veggies anyway.

Remember this starting premise: foods especially plant foods which were introduced to the human genome only in the last 10,000 years are suspect because any genetic adaptations to said foods are typically "shallow", and are not widespread in the population (thus the individuality). The well-known exceptions are starchy tubers, vegetables (assuming no sensitivity to things like oxalates and nightshades), and fruit (though note that modern fruit breeds have way more sugar than those pre-neolithic times, and high fructose consumption is implicated in high blood pressure, obesity, gout, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease).

I'm hoping that outfits like http://www.23andMe.com will come up with testing for genes that tell you how sensitive you are to things like lactose, gluten, soy, casein, albumen, nightshades, oxalates, starch, FODMAPs, etc.

Lastly, on the "allergic to cats" analogy - bear in mind there's a difference between food allergy, sensitivity, and intolerance. Food sensitivity is the most pernicious because it's an immune system reaction which may not be immediately obvious and can be very damaging. It's also the most difficult to do a lab test for.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I believe that I understand your thinking in the matter. I do, however, take issue with the presupposition which is implied in the question "...how damaging is it to non-sensitive individuals" Phrasing the question thusly is not entirely unlike asking someone "So, have you stopped beating your wife?" In neither case has the underlying question of fact been addressed. (Is gluten even harmful at all in normal individuals? Did Bob ever beat his wife in the first place?)


To elaborate a tad on why I might seem, to some, obstinately unwilling to blindly accept what is being said vis-à-vis the universal evils of gluten, a few counterpoints:



Dr. Daniel A. Leffler, director of clinical research at the Celiac Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, doesn’t quite see the point of all the hype:


Likewise, Drs. Antonio Di Sabatino, MD, and Gino Roberto Corazza, MD, of Italy’s University of Pavia, explore the topic in their paper Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: Sense or Sensibility? published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (21 Feb 2012.) They note that:Their findings also draw an interesting (though unspoken) parallel to our earlier conversation about MSG sensitivity, noting that some people may experience these symptoms when they eat foods containing gluten simply because they believe these foods will make them sick. Drs. Sabatino and Corazza conclude that common sense must prevail to “prevent a gluten preoccupation from evolving into the conviction that gluten is toxic for most of the population.”
(source)




Stefano Guandalini, MD, who is president of the North American Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, says:





These aren't liberal-arts majors conducting poorly-controlled, unblinded experiments at home, nor people who are pawns of any agro-industrial establishment or who are unfamiliar with gluten-sensitivity. These are doctors who research and specialize in the management of Celiac disease, and are uniquely qualified above all others to speak to the applicability of a gluten-free diet in humans.





But it gets weirder:

Further reading reveals that not only may a gluten-free-diet (GFT) provide no substantive benefit in the vast majority of healthy individuals, but that it does, in fact, have deleterious side-effects. Some are relatively minor, as noted by David A. Nelsen Jr., MD, MS in his peer-reviewed journal article Gluten Sensitivity: Fad and Fact.:




Then you get into the really serious stuff, such as the study performed by Dra. Yolanda Sanz et. al. of the Spanish National Research Council, which she details in the rather verbosely titled Effects of a gluten-free diet on gut microbiota and immune function in healthy adult humans, published in the journal Gut Microbes:

So not only does going gluten-free NOT solve any problems in healthy individuals, it also alters your gut flora and allows harmful bacteria to grow in your gut.

I’m honestly a tad surprised that your research has not turned up any of the above, especially the last article detailing the disruption caused by a gluten-free-diet to beneficial gut microbes, in light of you recent emphasis on same, such as this entire thread, which is all about the care and feeding of gut microbiome.


The key point which I’m trying to make from all this is that very few absolutes exist in life, and dietary science is no exception. What is harmful to a small minority of individuals may be beneficial to the majority (eg: cat ownership is clinically proven to lower triglycerides and cholesterol, and decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart attack. Sadly, cat ownership can also cause death by anaphylaxis, but ONLY in people who exhibit an abnormal immune response to certain proteins found in cat saliva.)


When we hear broad, sweeping statements such as “This food is evil and must absolutely be avoided,” this ought to be cause for considerable skepticism on the part of the informed reader.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Gluten increases intestinal permeability for everyone.

Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability:... [Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

JasonC SBB

I apologize for my seeming "ninja edit", I mistakenly hit "post" instead of "preview". See again my post #295. I believe the balance of the evidence makes it prudent for everyone to eat low-gluten. Also note the distinction between Celiac disease, non-celiac gluten sensitivity, and non-sensitive individuals. I will argue that a proportion of the latter may have no outward sensitivity symptoms but are developing auto-immune disease (which has now grown to be the #3 killer in this country).

JasonC SBB

As for a gluten free diet negatively altering gut flora and increasing insulin resistance:

This may be true for some who remove gluten sources while increasing other starchy foods (e.g. "gluten free bread") instead of replacing them with veggies. It is stupid to make the first claim in the general case without clarification.

And now we have a lot of evidence that a stupid easy and cheap source of Resistant Starch (raw potato powder), improves gut flora:
http://freetheanimal.com/2013/11/res...omparison.html

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Worth perusing.

Carb-Restricted diets - Ancestral Weight Loss Registry