3 ms·

While we're linking to the NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24026574 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24026574 "Recent randomized controlled re-challe

While we're linking to the NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24026574 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24026574 "Recent randomized controlled re-challenge trials have suggested that gluten may worsen gastrointestinal symptoms, but failed to confirm patients with self-perceived NCGS have specific gluten sensitivity. Furthermore, mechanisms by which gluten triggers symptoms have yet to be identified. " So, yes, there is a lot we don't know - about a lot of things but there really isn't any evidence, even in your linked search, that people without wheat allergies or celiac disease should care about gluten. Not enough to justify slapping gluten-free on everything - which makes it a fad.

jkldotio 11y ago
Thanks to whoever downvoted me. Seems I am arguing against people who downvote against the spirit of the rules and who can't even spell the thing they are talking about.. Regarding your point siliconc0w as I say in my other comment diets are experiments. Let's not conflate "my diet can defy the laws of thermodynamics" regarding weight loss with a diet directed at a different part of health. Nor should we forget that people can experiment with diets knowing the limitations of self-experimentation whilst simultaneously supporting double-blind peer reviewed work. Conflating people on a diet for the relief of symptoms with people on a diet because they think it suspends the laws of the universe is stupid, suggesting people with symptoms aren't allowed to experiment on a personal level while science grinds away at more solid conclusions is also stupid. The second point is one of elementary reasoning. If someone points to a pile of papers with some published in 2014 and 2015 then a paper from 2013 with includes a couple of trials of ~30 people and ends inconclusively isn't a trump card. The paper, if you actually read it, makes no bold claims at all and is more of a meditation on how to methodologically advance our understanding, i.e. how to design experiments to exclude hidden coeliacs with better tests for them, the question of how gluten and gluten-free diets testing for NCGS need to control for FODMAPS, dairy and the like. They literally end with "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is an entity awaiting validation, better diagnostic criteria, and, if it does exist, pathogenic mechanisms". And the studies they cite had mixed results on small n, again it's about more and better designed studies which I am sure those authors would agree on. But they were all just looking, as far as I can tell I didn't go to the studies they themselves cite, at basic symptoms. The MRI brain data came along in 2014, after all this.

jkldotio 11y ago

Thanks to whoever downvoted me. Seems I am arguing against people who downvote against the spirit of the rules and who can't even spell the thing they are talking about.. Regarding your point siliconc0w as I say in my other comment diets are experiments. Let's not conflate "my diet can defy the laws of thermodynamics" regarding weight loss with a diet directed at a different part of health. Nor should we forget that people can experiment with diets knowing the limitations of self-experimentation whilst simultaneously supporting double-blind peer reviewed work. Conflating people on a diet for the relief of symptoms with people on a diet because they think it suspends the laws of the universe is stupid, suggesting people with symptoms aren't allowed to experiment on a personal level while science grinds away at more solid conclusions is also stupid. The second point is one of elementary reasoning. If someone points to a pile of papers with some published in 2014 and 2015 then a paper from 2013 with includes a couple of trials of ~30 people and ends inconclusively isn't a trump card. The paper, if you actually read it, makes no bold claims at all and is more of a meditation on how to methodologically advance our understanding, i.e. how to design experiments to exclude hidden coeliacs with better tests for them, the question of how gluten and gluten-free diets testing for NCGS need to control for FODMAPS, dairy and the like. They literally end with "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is an entity awaiting validation, better diagnostic criteria, and, if it does exist, pathogenic mechanisms". And the studies they cite had mixed results on small n, again it's about more and better designed studies which I am sure those authors would agree on. But they were all just looking, as far as I can tell I didn't go to the studies they themselves cite, at basic symptoms. The MRI brain data came along in 2014, after all this.