4 ms·

Your comment is offensive. Many people who are not Celiacs experience deleterious effects as a result of gluten consumption none the less. It's called gluten i

by awolf 14y ago

Your comment is offensive. Many people who are not Celiacs experience deleterious effects as a result of gluten consumption none the less. It's called gluten intolerance. Awareness of how gluten can be the underlying cause of many subtle and low-grade health problems has only begun to spread in the past few years. Labeling the sudden realization that gluten is something that A LOT of people shouldn't be eating as "hypochondria and mass hysteria" is ingnorant.

bane 14y ago
I'm merely finding the exploding numbers of supposed celiacs really rather insulting. People should what makes them feel best. If low gluten does, more power to them. But doesn't anybody else find it so bizarre that people who were entirely asymptomatic for decades suddenly break out with a case of gluten intolerance. The anecdotal cases even in my own personal circles are absurd. People who complain endlessly about immediate discomfort after eating gluten magically forget to notice these same symptoms when they eat foods they aren't aware has gluten or eat gluten free food and complain anyway because they heard that xyz has gluten in it When it doesn't. Never underestimate the power of the mind in creating hypochondriac symptoms in people who have entirely asymptomatic medical histories. Better yet folks who's mystery symptoms and strict diets change over the years at times that happen to coincide perfectly with changing pseudomedical food fads. It creates so much noise that people who actually do have problems have trouble getting appropriate treatment. In 5 years nobody will give 2 cents about gluten. the marketplace will simply have moved onto the next pseudomedical emergency involving millenia old food stuffs that don't seem to bother anybody outside of the country the xfree food is being sold in.
- graeme 14y ago
  You're again failing to make the distinction between celiac disease and gluten intolerance. Just because someone thinks gluten affects them doesn't mean they're a 'supposed celiac'.
  - timr 14y ago
    Nearly all people with "gluten intolerance" are self-reporting a disease based on little more than their own subjective feelings of illness, helped along by a food fad. The people who are skeptical are skeptical for good reason, and the people who are easily offended by skepticism are best ignored. Even though there are a few, shoddy studies involving gluten intolerance, the science is weak, and there's no clear mechanism that would explain an "intolerance" that didn't carry the biochemical hallmarks of Celiac. Maybe that will change in the future, but the smart money is still on the bet that most of the people with "gluten intolerance" have nothing wrong with them at all.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      > The people who are skeptical are skeptical for good reason, and the people who are easily offended by skepticism are best ignored. No, the people who are skeptical are (in this case, and many others) following their own subjective feeling, helped by authority. But make no mistake, your skepticism -- unless you have access to primary data -- is nothing more than an appeal to authority. I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion. (Not in this discussion, anyway), but your skepticism likely does not follow from logic, science or knowledge. Unless, of course, you are working with primary data. I suspect you aren't, though, because I've had the misfortune to be in touch with leading authorities (who work with primary data) in the field recently, and most of them DO believe that gluten intolerance is real, prevalent and very serious. (And yes, the irony that I'm appealing to authority does not escape me) p.s. > there's no clear mechanism that would explain an "intolerance" that didn't carry the biochemical hallmarks of Celiac. That's definitely wrong. There is not agreement about the delayed allergy mechanisms work (mostly IgA and IgG) to the point that there is no standard lab test for them -- but there is definitely agreement that they are there, and that they can explain a lot of these things. I don't have time to verify the whole entry, but at least the symptoms section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_intolerance is decent.
      - timr 14y ago
        "I've had the misfortune to be in touch with leading authorities (who work with primary data) in the field recently, and most of them DO believe that gluten intolerance is real, prevalent and very serious." You're just cherry-picking. All of the credible researchers in the field estimate the prevalence of "gluten intolerance" -- at the high end of the spectrum -- to be well under 10%. The guy at the U. Maryland center is on record for a prevalence of ~6%. I'm sure there are a number of "expert" wackadoos who say that the number is higher, and are happy to sell you a book about it, too. "There is not agreement about the delayed allergy mechanisms work (mostly IgA and IgG) to the point that there is no standard lab test for them" Nonsense. There are well-established tests for immunoglobulins to gluten/gliadin, and they're so widely employed that they're in the Merck Manual as part of the diagnostic procedure for Celiac disease. The situation here is that these test results don't correlate with the self-reported symptoms of people with "gluten intolerance". People who desperately want to blame their low-level health problems on gluten take this to mean that the tests are inadequate; the medical community concludes that the tests are fine, but the "intolerance" (if it exists at all), is not mechanistically related. Finally, not that it will change your mind, but a Wikipedia article about a diet fad is not a reliable source of unbiased information. If that's your source of "primary data", then you need to find another source, because Wikipedia articles are notorious for cherry-picking extremely questionable, "fishing expedition" studies, and presenting them as consensus. Looking over the page you linked, I see a mess of incoherent speculation, but no one mechanism. Aside from the usual immunological markers of Celiac, there is nothing canonical.
- harryf 14y ago
  One of the reasons for exploding numbers is new tests for coelliac disease have become available over the last 20 years which had made it easier to diagnose. Unfortunately I cant provide relevant links; I know this from discussion with doctors, as someone who has been diagnosed with coelliac disease.
  - bane 14y ago
    I'm not talking about the last 20 years, i'm talking about the epedemic sized population explosion in the last 2 or 3. an epidemiologist friend of mine remarked to me that if even 10 percent of the people had a real problem, it would be one of the largest outbreaks of disease since the black death and the largest outbreak in food born illness in recorded history.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      The problem, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, is that many people use "celiac disease" and "gluten intolerance" interchangeably, but medicine does not.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      If you had actually read the article, you would have discovered that the epidemic outbreak of the disease is precisely what scientists are trying to figure out. And, it's not a global outbreak - certain remote regions of the world haven't been impacted. It's pretty analytical as well - they are comparing blood serums that have been stored over time to determine when it first showed up in the population.
    - inovica 14y ago
      Maybe people are finally waking up to it. The articles that people read, such as this one, prompt them to go out and get tested, or do their own experiments with good. I've not actually been tested but I dropped gluten out of my diet and feel great because of it
- durandal_aware 14y ago
  You called the sudden pervasiveness of gluten awareness hypochondria and mass hysteria. You are assuming that the cause for this sudden shift is a bunch of people misdiagnosing themselves as celiac when they are really fine. What is actually happening is that people are misLABELLING themselves as celiac when they are actually gluten intollerant. That does not take away from the validity of their choice, en mass, to avoid gluten in their diets. You have no right to be "insulted".
sliverstorm 14y ago
As a big time skeptic when it comes to popular diet advice, it is simply difficult to take the gluten intolerance stuff too seriously just yet. Not because I don't believe in celiac disease or even in gluten intolerance, but if we take a historical perspective there is a constant pattern of these kinds of "food science breakthroughs". My current approach is to simply ignore popular food science advice until it is 5-10 years old. If it sticks around that long, I figure it warrants further examination. Other people can do whatever they like with their own diets. This is just me.
cmccabe 14y ago
If you're not celiac, gluten can't hurt you. I am so tired of this quackery.
- awolf 14y ago
  You're 100% wrong. Here is a very recent study and write up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22825366 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22825366 http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenintolerance/a/Gluten-Intolerance-Research.htm http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenintolerance/a/Gluten... And here is a well-cited summary of the facts: Symptoms of gluten sensitivity may include bloating, abdominal discomfort, pain, or diarrhea; or it may present with a variety of extraintestinal symptoms including headaches and migraines, lethargy and tiredness, attention-deficit disorder and hyperactivity, autism and schizophrenia, muscular disturbances as well as bone and joint pain. [1][2][3][4] Whilst the research surrounding gluten sensitivity is still very much emerging, coeliac disease is a well-defined condition. It is a lifelong autoimmune condition characterised by the chronic inflammation of the intestine... In comparison, in a recent clinical paper, gluten sensitivity was defined as ‘one or more of a variety of immunological, morphological or symptomatic manifestations that may also be shared by coeliac disease and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) [5]. In cases where there is reactivity to gluten, yet coeliac disease and wheat allergy are eliminated as possibilities, gluten sensitivity may be considered. Whilst the general clinical picture for gluten sensitivity is similar to coeliac disease in particular, it is usually less severe and neither anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies nor autoimmune comorbidities are found. It is believed that approximately 40-50% of gluten sensitivity patients may have IgG or IgA anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA) [6][7]. There is also a study identifying approximately 50% of gluten sensitivity patients, few more than the general population, carry either HLA DQ 2 or 8 [8]. [1] Sapone A et al. Differential mucosal IL-17 expression in two gliadin-induced disorders: gluten sensitivity and the autoimmune enteropathy celiac disease. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology. 2010;152:75-80; Ford RP. The gluten syndrome. A neurological disease. Medical Hypotheses. 2009; 73 (3):438-440 [2] Elder JH et al. The gluten-free, casein-free diet in autism: results of a preliminary double-blind clinical trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2006;36(3):413-420 [3] Dickerson F et al. Markers of gluten sensitivity and celiac disease in recent onset psychosis and multi-episode schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry. 2010;68(1):100-104 [4] Hadjivassiliou M et al. Myopathy associated with gluten sensitivity. Muscle Nerve. 2007;35:443-450 [5] Verdu EF, Armstrong D, Murray JA. Between celiac disease and irritable bowel syndrome: The ‘No Man’s Land’ of Gluten Sensitivity. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2009;104(6):1587-1594 [6] Sapone A et al. (2010). Differential mucosal IL-17 expression in two gliadin-induced disorders: gluten sensitivity and the autoimmune enteropathy celiac disease. International Archives of Allergy & Immunology; 152: 75-80 [7] Bizzaro N et al. (2010) Cutting edge issues in celiac disease and in gluten intolerance. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & immunology. [8] Sapone A et al. (2010). Differential mucosal IL-17 expression in two gliadin-induced disorders: gluten sensitivity and the autoimmune enteropathy celiac disease. International Archives of Allergy & Immunology; 152: 75-80. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_sensitivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_sensitivity

by awolf 14y ago

bane 14y ago

I'm merely finding the exploding numbers of supposed celiacs really rather insulting. People should what makes them feel best. If low gluten does, more power to them. But doesn't anybody else find it so bizarre that people who were entirely asymptomatic for decades suddenly break out with a case of gluten intolerance. The anecdotal cases even in my own personal circles are absurd. People who complain endlessly about immediate discomfort after eating gluten magically forget to notice these same symptoms when they eat foods they aren't aware has gluten or eat gluten free food and complain anyway because they heard that xyz has gluten in it When it doesn't. Never underestimate the power of the mind in creating hypochondriac symptoms in people who have entirely asymptomatic medical histories. Better yet folks who's mystery symptoms and strict diets change over the years at times that happen to coincide perfectly with changing pseudomedical food fads. It creates so much noise that people who actually do have problems have trouble getting appropriate treatment. In 5 years nobody will give 2 cents about gluten. the marketplace will simply have moved onto the next pseudomedical emergency involving millenia old food stuffs that don't seem to bother anybody outside of the country the xfree food is being sold in.

graeme 14y ago
You're again failing to make the distinction between celiac disease and gluten intolerance. Just because someone thinks gluten affects them doesn't mean they're a 'supposed celiac'.
- timr 14y ago
  Nearly all people with "gluten intolerance" are self-reporting a disease based on little more than their own subjective feelings of illness, helped along by a food fad. The people who are skeptical are skeptical for good reason, and the people who are easily offended by skepticism are best ignored. Even though there are a few, shoddy studies involving gluten intolerance, the science is weak, and there's no clear mechanism that would explain an "intolerance" that didn't carry the biochemical hallmarks of Celiac. Maybe that will change in the future, but the smart money is still on the bet that most of the people with "gluten intolerance" have nothing wrong with them at all.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    > The people who are skeptical are skeptical for good reason, and the people who are easily offended by skepticism are best ignored. No, the people who are skeptical are (in this case, and many others) following their own subjective feeling, helped by authority. But make no mistake, your skepticism -- unless you have access to primary data -- is nothing more than an appeal to authority. I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion. (Not in this discussion, anyway), but your skepticism likely does not follow from logic, science or knowledge. Unless, of course, you are working with primary data. I suspect you aren't, though, because I've had the misfortune to be in touch with leading authorities (who work with primary data) in the field recently, and most of them DO believe that gluten intolerance is real, prevalent and very serious. (And yes, the irony that I'm appealing to authority does not escape me) p.s. > there's no clear mechanism that would explain an "intolerance" that didn't carry the biochemical hallmarks of Celiac. That's definitely wrong. There is not agreement about the delayed allergy mechanisms work (mostly IgA and IgG) to the point that there is no standard lab test for them -- but there is definitely agreement that they are there, and that they can explain a lot of these things. I don't have time to verify the whole entry, but at least the symptoms section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_intolerance is decent.
    - timr 14y ago
      "I've had the misfortune to be in touch with leading authorities (who work with primary data) in the field recently, and most of them DO believe that gluten intolerance is real, prevalent and very serious." You're just cherry-picking. All of the credible researchers in the field estimate the prevalence of "gluten intolerance" -- at the high end of the spectrum -- to be well under 10%. The guy at the U. Maryland center is on record for a prevalence of ~6%. I'm sure there are a number of "expert" wackadoos who say that the number is higher, and are happy to sell you a book about it, too. "There is not agreement about the delayed allergy mechanisms work (mostly IgA and IgG) to the point that there is no standard lab test for them" Nonsense. There are well-established tests for immunoglobulins to gluten/gliadin, and they're so widely employed that they're in the Merck Manual as part of the diagnostic procedure for Celiac disease. The situation here is that these test results don't correlate with the self-reported symptoms of people with "gluten intolerance". People who desperately want to blame their low-level health problems on gluten take this to mean that the tests are inadequate; the medical community concludes that the tests are fine, but the "intolerance" (if it exists at all), is not mechanistically related. Finally, not that it will change your mind, but a Wikipedia article about a diet fad is not a reliable source of unbiased information. If that's your source of "primary data", then you need to find another source, because Wikipedia articles are notorious for cherry-picking extremely questionable, "fishing expedition" studies, and presenting them as consensus. Looking over the page you linked, I see a mess of incoherent speculation, but no one mechanism. Aside from the usual immunological markers of Celiac, there is nothing canonical.
harryf 14y ago
One of the reasons for exploding numbers is new tests for coelliac disease have become available over the last 20 years which had made it easier to diagnose. Unfortunately I cant provide relevant links; I know this from discussion with doctors, as someone who has been diagnosed with coelliac disease.
- bane 14y ago
  I'm not talking about the last 20 years, i'm talking about the epedemic sized population explosion in the last 2 or 3. an epidemiologist friend of mine remarked to me that if even 10 percent of the people had a real problem, it would be one of the largest outbreaks of disease since the black death and the largest outbreak in food born illness in recorded history.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    The problem, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, is that many people use "celiac disease" and "gluten intolerance" interchangeably, but medicine does not.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    If you had actually read the article, you would have discovered that the epidemic outbreak of the disease is precisely what scientists are trying to figure out. And, it's not a global outbreak - certain remote regions of the world haven't been impacted. It's pretty analytical as well - they are comparing blood serums that have been stored over time to determine when it first showed up in the population.
  - inovica 14y ago
    Maybe people are finally waking up to it. The articles that people read, such as this one, prompt them to go out and get tested, or do their own experiments with good. I've not actually been tested but I dropped gluten out of my diet and feel great because of it
durandal_aware 14y ago
You called the sudden pervasiveness of gluten awareness hypochondria and mass hysteria. You are assuming that the cause for this sudden shift is a bunch of people misdiagnosing themselves as celiac when they are really fine. What is actually happening is that people are misLABELLING themselves as celiac when they are actually gluten intollerant. That does not take away from the validity of their choice, en mass, to avoid gluten in their diets. You have no right to be "insulted".

sliverstorm 14y ago

As a big time skeptic when it comes to popular diet advice, it is simply difficult to take the gluten intolerance stuff too seriously just yet. Not because I don't believe in celiac disease or even in gluten intolerance, but if we take a historical perspective there is a constant pattern of these kinds of "food science breakthroughs". My current approach is to simply ignore popular food science advice until it is 5-10 years old. If it sticks around that long, I figure it warrants further examination. Other people can do whatever they like with their own diets. This is just me.

cmccabe 14y ago

If you're not celiac, gluten can't hurt you. I am so tired of this quackery.

awolf 14y ago
You're 100% wrong. Here is a very recent study and write up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22825366 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22825366 http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenintolerance/a/Gluten-Intolerance-Research.htm http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenintolerance/a/Gluten... And here is a well-cited summary of the facts: Symptoms of gluten sensitivity may include bloating, abdominal discomfort, pain, or diarrhea; or it may present with a variety of extraintestinal symptoms including headaches and migraines, lethargy and tiredness, attention-deficit disorder and hyperactivity, autism and schizophrenia, muscular disturbances as well as bone and joint pain. [1][2][3][4] Whilst the research surrounding gluten sensitivity is still very much emerging, coeliac disease is a well-defined condition. It is a lifelong autoimmune condition characterised by the chronic inflammation of the intestine... In comparison, in a recent clinical paper, gluten sensitivity was defined as ‘one or more of a variety of immunological, morphological or symptomatic manifestations that may also be shared by coeliac disease and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) [5]. In cases where there is reactivity to gluten, yet coeliac disease and wheat allergy are eliminated as possibilities, gluten sensitivity may be considered. Whilst the general clinical picture for gluten sensitivity is similar to coeliac disease in particular, it is usually less severe and neither anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies nor autoimmune comorbidities are found. It is believed that approximately 40-50% of gluten sensitivity patients may have IgG or IgA anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA) [6][7]. There is also a study identifying approximately 50% of gluten sensitivity patients, few more than the general population, carry either HLA DQ 2 or 8 [8]. [1] Sapone A et al. Differential mucosal IL-17 expression in two gliadin-induced disorders: gluten sensitivity and the autoimmune enteropathy celiac disease. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology. 2010;152:75-80; Ford RP. The gluten syndrome. A neurological disease. Medical Hypotheses. 2009; 73 (3):438-440 [2] Elder JH et al. The gluten-free, casein-free diet in autism: results of a preliminary double-blind clinical trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2006;36(3):413-420 [3] Dickerson F et al. Markers of gluten sensitivity and celiac disease in recent onset psychosis and multi-episode schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry. 2010;68(1):100-104 [4] Hadjivassiliou M et al. Myopathy associated with gluten sensitivity. Muscle Nerve. 2007;35:443-450 [5] Verdu EF, Armstrong D, Murray JA. Between celiac disease and irritable bowel syndrome: The ‘No Man’s Land’ of Gluten Sensitivity. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2009;104(6):1587-1594 [6] Sapone A et al. (2010). Differential mucosal IL-17 expression in two gliadin-induced disorders: gluten sensitivity and the autoimmune enteropathy celiac disease. International Archives of Allergy & Immunology; 152: 75-80 [7] Bizzaro N et al. (2010) Cutting edge issues in celiac disease and in gluten intolerance. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & immunology. [8] Sapone A et al. (2010). Differential mucosal IL-17 expression in two gliadin-induced disorders: gluten sensitivity and the autoimmune enteropathy celiac disease. International Archives of Allergy & Immunology; 152: 75-80. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_sensitivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_sensitivity