4 ms·

The Myth of Big, Bad Gluten

33 points by aaronbrethorst 11y ago

zer00eyz 11y ago
The immune response theory seems to be cropping up in a lot of places, I didn't expect to see it here as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_parasitic_worms_on_the_immune_system#Effects_of_parasitic_worms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_parasitic_worms_on_... is another good starting point if your interested. I can't even fathom how you would test some of these ideas. I could understand an argument that a parasite isn't that much different than chemotherapy (a poison).
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  immune dysfunction, internal inflammation, and allergic responses seem to be pretty much synonymous from everything I've personally experienced and read. I pretty much just came down with celiac out of nowhere about 7 years ago. No rhyme or reason to it, it just happened one day. I can't think of anything different I'd done in the time leading up to it, outside of working the most stressful four years of my life at Microsoft. As long as I keep wheat and other sources of gluten out of my diet, I'm totally fine. But, it does raise the question: what happened to me?
  - nier 11y ago
    If the little amount of negative or positive stress can make your heart beat faster or blush your face, when you fall in love or said something stupid, imagine what years of stress can do to your body.
smartial_arts 11y ago
Previous discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9833375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9833375
c3534l 11y ago
tldr; latest fad diet is bullshit
- puredemo 11y ago
  That wasn't the tldr; at all.
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  No. The tl;dr is "Maybe we should stop asking what’s wrong with wheat, and begin asking what’s wrong with us." Notably, I'm the OP, have celiac, and wonder exactly this.
- Qantourisc 11y ago
  Diet fat? Yes. Myth? No, not for some people I'm afraid.
  - V-2 11y ago
    Some being the operative word :) Surely there are people unfortunate enough to genuinely suffer from gluten-intolerance, but this is not what gluten-blaming fanatics tell you; they think avoiding gluten is some universal, set-in-stone dietary commandment, and they find hard to imagine there could be any subtleties to the subject at all. Comes in package with preachy / self-obsessed attitude
    - jevgeni 11y ago
      What?! Subtleties to the subject?! Don't talk crazy, now! /s
jpatokal 11y ago
Re: Karelia, this isn't quite as neat an example as the article makes you think: the vast majority of the native Finnish/Karelian population either migrated to Finland or died in Stalin's gulags, and was replaced by immigrants from elsewhere in the Soviet Union. According to the latest census (2010), under 10% of the current population identifies as "Karelian" or "Finn". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Ethnic_gro...
- dvogel 11y ago
  I don't think the article was trying to claim that the population there is genetically different. I read the Karelia passage as arguing that people all over the world have developed fantastically aggressive immune systems that will activate in response to gluten if not given a better target, such as the fecal born pathogens common in Karelian life.
V-2 11y ago
On a light-hearted note ;) https://youtu.be/n5KpeRt-LmY https://youtu.be/n5KpeRt-LmY
kubiiii 11y ago
About comparing with the ability to digest lactose, the big difference it is notably "easier" for evolution to keep in adulthood a gene that exists in 100% of children than to come up randomly with something that would allow digesting something new. It would come in handy to digest cellulose, and would have avoided many famins yet we still can't.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
>"Here’s the lesson: Adaptation to a new food stuff can occur quickly — in a few millenniums in this case. So if it happened with milk, why not with wheat?" Maybe because not being able to digest milk affected the procreation rate more than irritable bowel syndrome. If my understanding of evolution is correct, the whole idea of adaptation as used in this article is a bit misleading. We the species don't adapt to anything unless it kills us before we the individuals can procreate. The article goes on mixing up benefits and drawbacks to individuals and benefits and drawbacks to us as a species. Each individual either does or does not have the genes against specific deadly pathogens. Eating more or less wheat doesn't change that. So if someone suffers from gluten intolerance, avoiding it doesn't hurt.
dynomight 11y ago
How are we to know the percentage of celiac sufferers in the past compared to now when the methods we have to diagnose are difficult at best. Also celiac is 'under the radar' of many physicians and many modern cases go undiagnosed (myself until this year). The writer made many good points but, in my experience, should probably have done more research in this area.

The immune response theory seems to be cropping up in a lot of places, I didn't expect to see it here as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_parasitic_worms_on_the_immune_system#Effects_of_parasitic_worms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_parasitic_worms_on_... is another good starting point if your interested. I can't even fathom how you would test some of these ideas. I could understand an argument that a parasite isn't that much different than chemotherapy (a poison).

aaronbrethorst 11y ago
immune dysfunction, internal inflammation, and allergic responses seem to be pretty much synonymous from everything I've personally experienced and read. I pretty much just came down with celiac out of nowhere about 7 years ago. No rhyme or reason to it, it just happened one day. I can't think of anything different I'd done in the time leading up to it, outside of working the most stressful four years of my life at Microsoft. As long as I keep wheat and other sources of gluten out of my diet, I'm totally fine. But, it does raise the question: what happened to me?
- nier 11y ago
  If the little amount of negative or positive stress can make your heart beat faster or blush your face, when you fall in love or said something stupid, imagine what years of stress can do to your body.

smartial_arts 11y ago

Previous discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9833375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9833375

c3534l 11y ago

tldr; latest fad diet is bullshit

puredemo 11y ago
That wasn't the tldr; at all.
aaronbrethorst 11y ago
No. The tl;dr is "Maybe we should stop asking what’s wrong with wheat, and begin asking what’s wrong with us." Notably, I'm the OP, have celiac, and wonder exactly this.
Qantourisc 11y ago
Diet fat? Yes. Myth? No, not for some people I'm afraid.
- V-2 11y ago
  Some being the operative word :) Surely there are people unfortunate enough to genuinely suffer from gluten-intolerance, but this is not what gluten-blaming fanatics tell you; they think avoiding gluten is some universal, set-in-stone dietary commandment, and they find hard to imagine there could be any subtleties to the subject at all. Comes in package with preachy / self-obsessed attitude
  - jevgeni 11y ago
    What?! Subtleties to the subject?! Don't talk crazy, now! /s

jpatokal 11y ago

Re: Karelia, this isn't quite as neat an example as the article makes you think: the vast majority of the native Finnish/Karelian population either migrated to Finland or died in Stalin's gulags, and was replaced by immigrants from elsewhere in the Soviet Union. According to the latest census (2010), under 10% of the current population identifies as "Karelian" or "Finn". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Ethnic_gro...

dvogel 11y ago
I don't think the article was trying to claim that the population there is genetically different. I read the Karelia passage as arguing that people all over the world have developed fantastically aggressive immune systems that will activate in response to gluten if not given a better target, such as the fecal born pathogens common in Karelian life.

V-2 11y ago

On a light-hearted note ;) https://youtu.be/n5KpeRt-LmY https://youtu.be/n5KpeRt-LmY

kubiiii 11y ago

About comparing with the ability to digest lactose, the big difference it is notably "easier" for evolution to keep in adulthood a gene that exists in 100% of children than to come up randomly with something that would allow digesting something new. It would come in handy to digest cellulose, and would have avoided many famins yet we still can't.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

>"Here’s the lesson: Adaptation to a new food stuff can occur quickly — in a few millenniums in this case. So if it happened with milk, why not with wheat?" Maybe because not being able to digest milk affected the procreation rate more than irritable bowel syndrome. If my understanding of evolution is correct, the whole idea of adaptation as used in this article is a bit misleading. We the species don't adapt to anything unless it kills us before we the individuals can procreate. The article goes on mixing up benefits and drawbacks to individuals and benefits and drawbacks to us as a species. Each individual either does or does not have the genes against specific deadly pathogens. Eating more or less wheat doesn't change that. So if someone suffers from gluten intolerance, avoiding it doesn't hurt.

dynomight 11y ago

How are we to know the percentage of celiac sufferers in the past compared to now when the methods we have to diagnose are difficult at best. Also celiac is 'under the radar' of many physicians and many modern cases go undiagnosed (myself until this year). The writer made many good points but, in my experience, should probably have done more research in this area.