4 ms·

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 f

• 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.
    • beagle3 14y ago
      > to be well under 10%. The guy at the U. Maryland center is on record for a prevalence of ~6%. 5% prevalance is very prevalent, given that in the west, unless you make all your food starting with basic ingredients, you have to work very hard to avoid wheat. It's used everywhere as a cheap filler, including (but definitely not limited to) candy, soup, salads, protein supplements. And that's before considering that a significant part of western diet is wheat based. The most recent guy I discussed this with (who heads one research department in a top tier medical school) estimates it as 5-10%, which seems to be in line with the U Maryland guy you quote. That's ridiculously high for a condition that many people disagree actually exists. > 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. That is correct. I was talking about general delayed allergy mechanisms. There are some experimental tests that are supposed to figure out specific food intolerance (of which gluten is just one example), and there is no standard for those in general. Some reputable labs offer a panel of running IgA and IgG from blood against (say) 90 different foods and their metabolites. These tests have no standards and are not generally accepted (yet, anyway), despite the fact that it is undisputed that this is a mechanism of action that can cause a >24 hour delay of response. > 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. Indeed, and that's correct, for the specific mechanism tested. But unfortunately, many also take this to mean no such thing as gluten intolerance exists. (similarly for other substances). That's not a valid position to take. I have my own n=1 and enough of other anecdotal n=1 stories (and enough opinions from people I trust, and you would too given their credentials) to believe that wheat products -- not necessarily just wheat gluten, though it is probably the worst offender -- are bad for many. I've gone through many elimination diets over the years trying to determine which foods aren't good for me - long before I heard of gluten intolerance. It might not be gluten at all, for all I know, but it has been consistent that removing stuff with "wheat" on the label from my diet makes me feel much better. (The most recent example was protein powder, which I figured was making me fill bad after 3 months or so -- and only then checked and realized that some wheat protein was among the components). > Finally, not that it will change your mind, but a Wikipedia article about a diet fad is not a reliable source of unbiased information. No, that's not reliable nor primary data. But Wikipedia is, more often than not, a good intro to a discussion, and some beginning pointers. I only referred to a couple of paragraphs as reasonable intro.