3 ms·

Them do it! I am not against it. Just citing some facts I observed. Medical tests will tell you if you have Celiac disease or not. If you don't and want to kee

by cfontes 12y ago

Them do it! I am not against it. Just citing some facts I observed. Medical tests will tell you if you have Celiac disease or not. If you don't and want to keep doing it, fine! I will not talk with you about it and will run from that topic in order to not offend you, but my opinion still is that this is some mind game people are playing with themselves (unconsiously) Anyway, I am happy you are happy.

bluecalm 12y ago
It's quite possible that many people do better on glute-free diet despite all the test coming negative. That might be because: -tests doesn't cater for everything; maybe there is some mechanism in which gluten harms those people which isn't detected by tests -maybe removing food with gluten from the diet removes something else which was harmful (one hypothesis is that maybe it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP) Your attitude is amazingly closed minded. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical but suggesting all those people just want to feel special (or similar psychoanalytical mumbo-jumbo) is just made-up nonsense. There is 0 evidence that they do it to want to feel special or what not but there is a lot of evidence that they in fact feel better (their feedback).
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  It might also be because many people are bad observers of their own situation, subject to confirmation bias, and do nothing to rule out placebo effects. Given what we know about people, this hypothesis is a priori far more plausible than gluten acting in some mysterious way that can't be identified, and somewhat more plausible than gluten being associated with other things that people are sensitive to. The suggestion that gluten is bad in ways that can't be detected is made less plausible by generic blind testing. Put people self-identified gluten-sensitive people on blinded diets with and without gluten and see if there is a difference. This has been done, and the test is negative. This is a black-box test that is completely independent of the mechanism of action. Look: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitiv... As that same study shows, the suggestion that gluten is associated with something else bad is not totally implausible, but anyone aware of the difficulty of teasing out confounding factors in nutritional research will tend to strongly discount any form of anecdotal self-report as unreliable, because self-report about a subject where people are known to very easily fool themselves simply does not increase the posterior plausibility of the hypothesis very much. The potential for confirmation and reporting bias is far too high. This is not close-mindedness, but rather a realistic assessment of the situation based on the long history of dietary fads, all of which were strongly supported by self-report, and later turned out to be ineffective, sometimes dangerous, nonsense.
cfontes 12y ago
Again. You are making up words. I never said all of the people. I also said, that I felt that. The same way people feel better and we have no proof of it yet. And I actually agree with you about some unknown side effects, but several of those people I've known have been shifting or adding the lasted new diseases/allergy and currently it looks like it's Celiac disease that is the trend.
nikki93 12y ago
Why does the truth of your judgement matter as long as it is life-promoting? My opinion is that this whole idea of wanting to find what's 'actually true' and putting it on a pedestal like this is some mind game people are playing with themselves (unconsciously).

by cfontes 12y ago

bluecalm 12y ago

It's quite possible that many people do better on glute-free diet despite all the test coming negative. That might be because: -tests doesn't cater for everything; maybe there is some mechanism in which gluten harms those people which isn't detected by tests -maybe removing food with gluten from the diet removes something else which was harmful (one hypothesis is that maybe it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP) Your attitude is amazingly closed minded. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical but suggesting all those people just want to feel special (or similar psychoanalytical mumbo-jumbo) is just made-up nonsense. There is 0 evidence that they do it to want to feel special or what not but there is a lot of evidence that they in fact feel better (their feedback).

tjradcliffe 12y ago
It might also be because many people are bad observers of their own situation, subject to confirmation bias, and do nothing to rule out placebo effects. Given what we know about people, this hypothesis is a priori far more plausible than gluten acting in some mysterious way that can't be identified, and somewhat more plausible than gluten being associated with other things that people are sensitive to. The suggestion that gluten is bad in ways that can't be detected is made less plausible by generic blind testing. Put people self-identified gluten-sensitive people on blinded diets with and without gluten and see if there is a difference. This has been done, and the test is negative. This is a black-box test that is completely independent of the mechanism of action. Look: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitiv... As that same study shows, the suggestion that gluten is associated with something else bad is not totally implausible, but anyone aware of the difficulty of teasing out confounding factors in nutritional research will tend to strongly discount any form of anecdotal self-report as unreliable, because self-report about a subject where people are known to very easily fool themselves simply does not increase the posterior plausibility of the hypothesis very much. The potential for confirmation and reporting bias is far too high. This is not close-mindedness, but rather a realistic assessment of the situation based on the long history of dietary fads, all of which were strongly supported by self-report, and later turned out to be ineffective, sometimes dangerous, nonsense.

cfontes 12y ago

Again. You are making up words. I never said all of the people. I also said, that I felt that. The same way people feel better and we have no proof of it yet. And I actually agree with you about some unknown side effects, but several of those people I've known have been shifting or adding the lasted new diseases/allergy and currently it looks like it's Celiac disease that is the trend.

nikki93 12y ago

Why does the truth of your judgement matter as long as it is life-promoting? My opinion is that this whole idea of wanting to find what's 'actually true' and putting it on a pedestal like this is some mind game people are playing with themselves (unconsciously).