The hypochondria and pseudoscience thread - Page 15 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-17-2014, 10:38 AM   #281
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 18,769
Total Cats: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
I'd say there are a lot of things you didn't mention.


But seriously, I'm just going to quote the first two sentences of the first link you posted there, so that everyone can soak them in (pun intended):
We all know that sugar is bad for us, that legumes should be avoided and itís obvious that gluten is the devil. Right!?!?!
It's obvious that gluten is the devil.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.




Anyway, moving on...

Weight seems to be holding for the moment right around 200-201, which is interesting. Based again on subjective analysis (eg: I didn't buy Y8s' fancy scale), I seem to be replacing fat with muscle, as I have hit the innermost notch on my belt and had to punch a new one, and my size 38 pants are now officially way too lose.

Makes me wonder if the low-carb / high-fat / no-grain diet was causing harm to my health and metabolism which went beyond simple weight gain...
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.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 01:54 PM   #282
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,334
Total Cats: 67
Default

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.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 08:03 PM   #283
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

Get cold, get skinny.

Embrace the cold: Evidence that shivering and exercise may convert white fat to brown -- ScienceDaily
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 10:40 PM   #284
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,334
Total Cats: 67
Default

A bit of what Jack Kruse has been saying...
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 10:11 AM   #285
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
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.
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
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?
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 02:03 PM   #286
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,334
Total Cats: 67
Default

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:

Quote:
What is the difference between everybody and the people that develop a problem with gluten like celiac disease is that while for me, for example, because I don’t have a problem. I eat a Big Mac. I have gluten in there. These fragments release zonulin, which increases (intestinal) permeability. Stuff comes through, including gluten. My immune system that is tuned to do the job right will clean up the mess, and I will not even know that all that happened. Also because this open-and-close is short. It’s a matter of minutes that it will open and a matter of minutes that will turn to be closed. People with celiac disease, on the other hand, when they do something like that, not only do they have much more zonulin produced than I do, but also the opening is much more prolonged because these doors get stuck open, and therefore you give much more time for substances from the environment, including gluten, to come through. And now on this other side, you find this immune system that is not tuned to do the job right, and when they see this enemy, they start to mount an immune response to attack your own body, and that leads to celiac disease."
My question is, is there harm in "normal" people when ingesting gluten which is known to make the intestines temporarily permeable?

Quote:
The differences between Celiac Disease and gluten intolerance
Chris Kresser: OK, well, that’s very clear. Dr. Fasano, we’ve been talking so far about celiac disease, but we haven’t yet touched on the phenomenon known as gluten intolerance. Can you talk a little bit about the difference between the two ... ?

Dr. Alessio Fasano: Until the recent past, we were convinced that the only reaction that we have to gluten would be celiac disease, so this autoimmune reaction to gluten. Over the years, with the increase of awareness about celiac, with the increase of products in the market and with the popularity of what this gluten-free diet was all about, more and more people became aware of celiac disease and the gluten-free diet. ...

.. they were desperate because nothing else explained their symptoms, they decide, despite the negative results, to try the diet no matter what. And some of them, sure enough, had their symptoms improved or completely resolved.

So as typically happens in these situations, it was from the grassroots that the problem really became a problem, because when we saw this critical mass of people come into our clinic, at the beginning we sent them away. We said, you know, you don’t have celiac disease. You have no reason to be on a gluten-free diet. But when we saw this phenomenon to take great proportion, we asked ourselves: Is that possible that all these people are nuts? Are they all responding as a placebo effect? So we started to dig into this situation a little bit more, and sure enough, we discovered that there is another form of gluten reaction that we don’t call gluten intolerance anymore because we went through a revision of nomenclature, but we call it gluten sensitivity. And it turns out to be an immune response to gluten not on an autoimmune basis like in celiac disease, not even on an allergic basis because we know that sometimes wheat can induce an allergic reaction like any other foodstuff.
.. itís a different form of immune reaction that will create a minimal inflammation without damage of the intestine. And that caused the symptoms intestinally and extraintestinal that these people may eventually experience when ingesting gluten.
Quote:
...We were shocked — shocked — to learn that celiac disease doubled every 15 years in this court. It was 1 in 500 in the ‘70s, 1 in 250 in the mid-’80s, and 1% in 2000.... there was something else that was going on here. We had two ladies that for 70 years-plus eating gluten had no problem whatsoever. They were tolerating gluten. No problem with ingesting gluten. Then all of a sudden, they lost this luxury and they switched from tolerance to immune response and developed autoimmunity in their late 70s. This implies two questions that really, I believe, is the most intriguing part of this entire story for the years to come: Number one, what kind of tricks did these ladies use to tolerate what is an indisputable trigger of autoimmunity for people genetically predisposed to celiac disease? We learned that we may have the holy grail to prevent autoimmunity in general. It is material for a Nobel prize. Number two, more feasible, is to answer the question, what happened to these ladies that after so many years lost that luxury and then switched from tolerance to an immune response? And here, I believe that the most likely answer is the microbiome, the bacteria that live with us in symbiosis, have to be the ones that made them to switch from tolerance to immune response.
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?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 08:33 PM   #287
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

Man, watching Joe double-down on his stupid position is funny.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 08:36 PM   #288
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 08:48 PM   #289
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

Oh I almost forgot this. I ate Joe Perez's normal diet for one week and gained 100 lbs of fat.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 09:52 AM   #290
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
You didn't like the 2 links I showed, so I gave you more, for you to browse.
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:
1: This is obviously true because the Bible says so.
2: Huh? You can't use an alleged source as proof of itself. That's like me saying "I am God, because I say I am."
1: Stop being a closed-minded bigot! You're attacking me for no reason!
2: ?!?

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.
Attached Thumbnails
The hypochondria and pseudoscience thread-tn57_c86_u77ts.gif  
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 10:09 AM   #291
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
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.
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.







Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Oh I almost forgot this. I ate Joe Perez's normal diet for one week and gained 100 lbs of fat.
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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 10:34 AM   #292
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

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.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 10:54 AM   #293
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 18,769
Total Cats: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
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.
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%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Many of the early research studies showed that BIA was quite variable and it was not regarded by many as providing an accurate measure of body composition. In recent years technological improvements have made BIA a more reliable and therefore more acceptable way of measuring body composition. Nevertheless it is not a "gold standard" or reference method. Like all assessment tools, the result is only as good as the test done. Although the instruments are straightforward to use, careful attention to the method of use (as described by the manufacturer) should be given.

Simple devices to estimate body fat, often using BIA, are available to consumers as body fat meters. These instruments are generally regarded as being less accurate than those used clinically or in nutritional and medical practice. They tend to under-read body fat percentage.[2]

Dehydration is a recognized factor affecting BIA measurements as it causes an increase in the body's electrical resistance, so has been measured to cause a 5 kg underestimation of fat-free mass i.e. an overestimation of body fat.[3]

Body fat measurements are lower when measurements are taken shortly after consumption of a meal, causing a variation between highest and lowest readings of body fat percentage taken throughout the day of up to 9.9%.[4]

Moderate exercise before BIA measurements lead to an overestimation of fat-free mass and an underestimation of body fat percentage due to reduced impedance.[5] For example moderate intensity exercise for 90–120 minutes before BIA measurements causes nearly a 12 kg overestimation of fat-free mass, i.e. body fat is significantly underestimated.[6] Therefore it's recommended not to perform BIA for several hours after moderate or high intensity exercise.[7]

BIA is considered reasonably accurate for measuring groups, or for tracking body composition in an individual over a period of time, but is not considered sufficiently accurate for recording of single measurements of individuals.[8]

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.[9]

(source Bioelectrical impedance analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 11:00 AM   #294
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
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.
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..."
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 11:59 AM   #295
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,334
Total Cats: 67
Default

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.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 02-19-2014 at 12:38 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 12:23 PM   #296
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,681
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
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 with large intakes of it?
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-ŗ-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:
“Based on little or no evidence other than testimonials in the media, people have been switching to gluten-free diets to lose weight, boost energy, treat autism, or generally feel healthier. People who are sensitive to gluten may feel better, but a larger portion will derive no significant benefit from the practice.”
(source)



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:
“Claims [about gluten-free diets] seem to increase daily, with no adequate scientific support to back them up. This clamor has increased and moved from the Internet to the popular press, where gluten has become the new diet villain.
(…)
We must prevent a possible health problem from becoming a social health problem. Self-prescription of gluten withdrawal by a growing number of patients inevitably leads to a series of problems: subsequent inability to correctly diagnose or exclude celiac disease, deleterious health effects from the probably suboptimal adherence to a gluten-free diet in the case of patients with undiscovered celiac disease, and the high economic burden related to an unjustified gluten-free diet.”
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:
“Someone who needs to be on a gluten-free diet and is closely monitored can benefit tremendously from it. But for everyone else, embracing this diet makes no sense.
(source)






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.:
Is the GFD more or less healthy than a “regular” diet? Of course, this depends on the viewpoint that one takes. Gluten-free flours such as rice flour and cornstarch typically have a higher glycemic index compared to wheat-based flours. This may exacerbate insulin resistance, weight gain, and glucose intolerance.
(source)





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:
Diet is a major environmental factor influencing gut microbiota diversity and functionality, which might be relevant to subjects following dietary therapies. Celiac disease (CD) is an enteropathy caused by an aberrant immune response to cereal gluten proteins and the only therapy is the adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD). In this context, a preliminary study was conducted to establish whether the GFD in itself could modify the composition and immune properties of the gut microbiota.
(…)
This study included 10 healthy subjects, who were following a GFD over one month by replacing the gluten-containing foods they usually ate with certified gluten-free foods (with no more than 20 parts per million of gluten). Analyses of fecal microbiota and dietary intakes, indicated that populations of generally regarded healthy bacteria decreased (Bifidobacterium, B. longum and Lactobacillus), while populations of potentially unhealthy bacteria increased parallel to reductions in the intake of polysaccharides (from 117 g to 63 g on average) after following the GFD. In particular, increases were detected in numbers of E. coli and total Enterobacteriaceae, which may include opportunistic pathogens. This evidence suggests a disruption of the delicate balance between the host and its intestinal microbiota (dysbiosis), which might favor the overgrowth of opportunistic pathogens and weaken the host defences against infection and chronic inflammation via possible alterations in mucosal immunity.
(source)


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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 12:27 PM   #297
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

Gluten increases intestinal permeability for everyone.

Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability:... [Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 12:43 PM   #298
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,334
Total Cats: 67
Default

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 12:46 PM   #299
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,334
Total Cats: 67
Default

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
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2014, 02:10 PM   #300
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

Worth perusing.

Carb-Restricted diets - Ancestral Weight Loss Registry
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:55 AM.