4 ms·

I love the anti-science bias of people against the gluten-free trend. You're telling me if an article came out that showed a study with a sample size of 37 peop

by chez17 12y ago

I love the anti-science bias of people against the gluten-free trend. You're telling me if an article came out that showed a study with a sample size of 37 people found that marijuana was incredibly harmful we would see the same "Marijuana confirmed to be incredibly harmful!" all over the internet? With the same certainty and intensity? Give me a break. There is a lot of nonsense in the gluten-free movement, there is no doubt about it. However I don't understand the hate it generates out of otherwise skeptical and rational people.

zinxq 12y ago
It is perpetually surprising to me how much other people feel it's their business what other people choose to eat.
- coldpie 12y ago
  It is frustrating as someone who prepares food for others to have to deal with bullshit "food intolerances" like the current gluten-free fad. I could prepare a delicious meal for you, but I guess you've decided you're gluten intolerant (unless you've been diagnosed with Celiac by a doctor, you're not), so nevermind. Or the tasteless sorghum beer these types bring to parties. Food's a social thing. Placing nonsense limitations on what's allowed can really cramp social settings.
  - collyw 12y ago
    Agreed. I think I may have a gluten intolerance (my brother has been properly diagnosed, apparently its genetic, and other symptoms that have lead me to believe this, that you probably don't need the details of). I avoid wheat products given the choice, but I won't stop eating wheat products as A) I like them, B) I don't want to be one of the whiny "I can't eat this" crowd (who also seem to come out with crap like dust allergies, or smoke allergies - everyone sneezes at those).
  - jamesgeck0 12y ago
    Having stomachaches for a week because someone involved with food decided that I don't really have a heath problem is also pretty frustrating.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    > you've decided you're gluten intolerant (unless you've been diagnosed with Celiac by a doctor, you're not), There is absolutely a third option between "Coeliac" and "can eat gluten without any unsavory symptoms". Even a doctor may be unable to diagnose Coeliac disease via blood test but able to diagnose a sensitivity to gluten (via similar tests) that has a different cause (Coeliac is not the only explanation). I understand the frustration of dealing with people who are self-diagnosed (it's unreliable, and comes with its own host of caveats and questions), but I'd refrain from drawing conclusions like this without actually knowing the person's history.
  - a_m0d 12y ago
    Receiving an official diagnosis by a doctor for celiac is not always possible. Although my wife's doctor considered it a possibility that she was celiac, he did not do anything with that idea until she had tried being gluten free already for a few months and found that it helped her intense pain. The test for celiac requires a person to have been eating regular amounts of gluten for 3 months before the test is done. When my wife is in a position such that a crumb of normal bread in her meal can cause her pain afterwards, there is no way she can eat gluten for 3 months in order to get a diagnosis by a doctor. The best she can get now is a statement that she is sensitive to gluten - but that sensitivity is enough that she can't have food cooked in the same pan as your food when you don't give any consideration to her. So don't say this is "bullshit food intolerances" - just because you don't have to deal with it does not mean that it is not real.
- VLM 12y ago
  If you think most people are open minded about most things, for a good time, ask them about sex and imaginary men in the sky, or which economic system should be implemented, or which governmental system should be implemented, or even what clothing different genders should be required to wear... if most people had their way, you'd have very little ability to make decisions of any kind.
  - bane 12y ago
    It used to be considered taboo to bring up religion and politics at a polite dinner party, it's starting to become rude to offer a group meal at such a gathering without consulting with each and every person on their personal dietary "needs".
- bane 12y ago
  Wait until you try and throw an office party for 50+ people and have to accommodate all sorts of self-imposed special snowflake religious fad hypochondriac diets for a few people so they don't feel left out. Suddenly something as simple as ordering a dozen cheese and a dozen pepperoni pizzas the morning of the party turns into a multi-day consensus finding exercise and after the histrionics, sensitivity meetings with H.R. and shouting subsides you end up with a catered meal provided by a specialty diet catering company that nobody who would have just eaten the pizza will touch, doesn't taste very good and it costs 5 times as much and now thousands of dollars in wasted time is the result.
thenomad 12y ago
It looks to be a decently well-designed study, albeit one that didn't have a huge sample size. And the language in the article isn't excessively strong or dismissive, as they often are. Personally I'm currently not eating gluten and appear to experience adverse reactions to it, but I didn't find this article excessively hostile to me or my eating choices. Indeed, I thought it was rather interesting, and might do a limited trial of non-FODMAP gluten to see what it does to me personally.
- chez17 12y ago
  I'm not commenting on the study, I'm commenting on the reaction to the study. The reaction would be much more tame and reserved if it were on a subject that people didn't love to hate. The authors of the study and the study itself are not addressed in my comment.
kolev 12y ago
Well, marijuana is harmful anyway.
- baldfat 12y ago
  Marijuana is no more harmful then alcohol!!!! Alcohol is evil BUT that science is always ignored. World Health Organization 1 in 5 deaths is alcohol related. 20% of the worlds deaths are related to alcohol consumption and well we don't care. SCIENCE
  - kolev 12y ago
    Why do you have to compare one evil to another? I wasn't comparing to alcohol or anything. You've heard the term "pothead"?
    - baldfat 12y ago
      You are correct. I was just responding to the general issue that people think pot is non-harmful health wise. Don't get me started how people who are emotionally medicating themselves checkout of life is painful to those around them.
chimeracoder 12y ago
I don't see a hostile tone either in the linked article or in the comments so far. What is this in response to? Reading through the study, it seems that there is an overlap between the foods proscribed by a gluten-free diet and the foods proscribed by a FODMAP-free diet. So it's really not even criticizing the diet; it's suggesting a more precise explanation for people who believe they are gluten-intolerant[0] (along with some other foods to consider avoiding as well). EDIT The same website does have a more recent article on the topic with a much more sensational headline: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitiv... . [0] Even among people who are gluten-intolerant/gluten-insensitive, there is an awareness that "all gluten" may not be bad - it's just easier to avoid all gluten than to go through the effort of identify the specific compounds that trigger their symptoms by trial-and-error.
hyperpape 12y ago
I could accuse you of "anti-science bias" for dismissing a study because it only has 37 people. Because while I am not a statistician (and I'm not even looking at the details of this study), I know that they evaluate studies on something more concrete than "37 sounds small". Just by coincidence I ran across a very nice comment yesterday making this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055194.
mendicantB 12y ago
In the same aggressive tone you're holding towards the article, you probably should have read the publication before criticizing the experiment. Quick lesson on pharmaceutical studies: they are extremely expensive and often can only have a limited sample size. Quick lesson on statistics: it was developed to deal with small sample sizes and allow you to generalize to larger populations. As such, pharmacy has very strict statistical standards with how to setup, design, and analyze experimental results. I'm a statistician, and I was impressed by how well designed this experiment was. More so, the study only aimed to find a more precise cause of the issues. And, even with the solid analysis they had, are simply saying, "Hey, we should question this anti-gluten thing, it might not be as big an issue as we think". Raise more questions, that's good science.

by chez17 12y ago

zinxq 12y ago

It is perpetually surprising to me how much other people feel it's their business what other people choose to eat.

coldpie 12y ago
It is frustrating as someone who prepares food for others to have to deal with bullshit "food intolerances" like the current gluten-free fad. I could prepare a delicious meal for you, but I guess you've decided you're gluten intolerant (unless you've been diagnosed with Celiac by a doctor, you're not), so nevermind. Or the tasteless sorghum beer these types bring to parties. Food's a social thing. Placing nonsense limitations on what's allowed can really cramp social settings.
- collyw 12y ago
  Agreed. I think I may have a gluten intolerance (my brother has been properly diagnosed, apparently its genetic, and other symptoms that have lead me to believe this, that you probably don't need the details of). I avoid wheat products given the choice, but I won't stop eating wheat products as A) I like them, B) I don't want to be one of the whiny "I can't eat this" crowd (who also seem to come out with crap like dust allergies, or smoke allergies - everyone sneezes at those).
- jamesgeck0 12y ago
  Having stomachaches for a week because someone involved with food decided that I don't really have a heath problem is also pretty frustrating.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > you've decided you're gluten intolerant (unless you've been diagnosed with Celiac by a doctor, you're not), There is absolutely a third option between "Coeliac" and "can eat gluten without any unsavory symptoms". Even a doctor may be unable to diagnose Coeliac disease via blood test but able to diagnose a sensitivity to gluten (via similar tests) that has a different cause (Coeliac is not the only explanation). I understand the frustration of dealing with people who are self-diagnosed (it's unreliable, and comes with its own host of caveats and questions), but I'd refrain from drawing conclusions like this without actually knowing the person's history.
- a_m0d 12y ago
  Receiving an official diagnosis by a doctor for celiac is not always possible. Although my wife's doctor considered it a possibility that she was celiac, he did not do anything with that idea until she had tried being gluten free already for a few months and found that it helped her intense pain. The test for celiac requires a person to have been eating regular amounts of gluten for 3 months before the test is done. When my wife is in a position such that a crumb of normal bread in her meal can cause her pain afterwards, there is no way she can eat gluten for 3 months in order to get a diagnosis by a doctor. The best she can get now is a statement that she is sensitive to gluten - but that sensitivity is enough that she can't have food cooked in the same pan as your food when you don't give any consideration to her. So don't say this is "bullshit food intolerances" - just because you don't have to deal with it does not mean that it is not real.
VLM 12y ago
If you think most people are open minded about most things, for a good time, ask them about sex and imaginary men in the sky, or which economic system should be implemented, or which governmental system should be implemented, or even what clothing different genders should be required to wear... if most people had their way, you'd have very little ability to make decisions of any kind.
- bane 12y ago
  It used to be considered taboo to bring up religion and politics at a polite dinner party, it's starting to become rude to offer a group meal at such a gathering without consulting with each and every person on their personal dietary "needs".
bane 12y ago
Wait until you try and throw an office party for 50+ people and have to accommodate all sorts of self-imposed special snowflake religious fad hypochondriac diets for a few people so they don't feel left out. Suddenly something as simple as ordering a dozen cheese and a dozen pepperoni pizzas the morning of the party turns into a multi-day consensus finding exercise and after the histrionics, sensitivity meetings with H.R. and shouting subsides you end up with a catered meal provided by a specialty diet catering company that nobody who would have just eaten the pizza will touch, doesn't taste very good and it costs 5 times as much and now thousands of dollars in wasted time is the result.

thenomad 12y ago

It looks to be a decently well-designed study, albeit one that didn't have a huge sample size. And the language in the article isn't excessively strong or dismissive, as they often are. Personally I'm currently not eating gluten and appear to experience adverse reactions to it, but I didn't find this article excessively hostile to me or my eating choices. Indeed, I thought it was rather interesting, and might do a limited trial of non-FODMAP gluten to see what it does to me personally.

chez17 12y ago
I'm not commenting on the study, I'm commenting on the reaction to the study. The reaction would be much more tame and reserved if it were on a subject that people didn't love to hate. The authors of the study and the study itself are not addressed in my comment.

kolev 12y ago

Well, marijuana is harmful anyway.

baldfat 12y ago
Marijuana is no more harmful then alcohol!!!! Alcohol is evil BUT that science is always ignored. World Health Organization 1 in 5 deaths is alcohol related. 20% of the worlds deaths are related to alcohol consumption and well we don't care. SCIENCE
- kolev 12y ago
  Why do you have to compare one evil to another? I wasn't comparing to alcohol or anything. You've heard the term "pothead"?
  - baldfat 12y ago
    You are correct. I was just responding to the general issue that people think pot is non-harmful health wise. Don't get me started how people who are emotionally medicating themselves checkout of life is painful to those around them.

chimeracoder 12y ago

I don't see a hostile tone either in the linked article or in the comments so far. What is this in response to? Reading through the study, it seems that there is an overlap between the foods proscribed by a gluten-free diet and the foods proscribed by a FODMAP-free diet. So it's really not even criticizing the diet; it's suggesting a more precise explanation for people who believe they are gluten-intolerant[0] (along with some other foods to consider avoiding as well). EDIT The same website does have a more recent article on the topic with a much more sensational headline: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitiv... . [0] Even among people who are gluten-intolerant/gluten-insensitive, there is an awareness that "all gluten" may not be bad - it's just easier to avoid all gluten than to go through the effort of identify the specific compounds that trigger their symptoms by trial-and-error.

hyperpape 12y ago

I could accuse you of "anti-science bias" for dismissing a study because it only has 37 people. Because while I am not a statistician (and I'm not even looking at the details of this study), I know that they evaluate studies on something more concrete than "37 sounds small". Just by coincidence I ran across a very nice comment yesterday making this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055194.

mendicantB 12y ago

In the same aggressive tone you're holding towards the article, you probably should have read the publication before criticizing the experiment. Quick lesson on pharmaceutical studies: they are extremely expensive and often can only have a limited sample size. Quick lesson on statistics: it was developed to deal with small sample sizes and allow you to generalize to larger populations. As such, pharmacy has very strict statistical standards with how to setup, design, and analyze experimental results. I'm a statistician, and I was impressed by how well designed this experiment was. More so, the study only aimed to find a more precise cause of the issues. And, even with the solid analysis they had, are simply saying, "Hey, we should question this anti-gluten thing, it might not be as big an issue as we think". Raise more questions, that's good science.