4 ms·
The editorializing of the headline here is changing the argument. The article (titled "The Myth of Big, Bad Gluten") is arguing that gluten may not itself be b
by evmar 11y ago
The editorializing of the headline here is changing the argument. The article (titled "The Myth of Big, Bad Gluten") is arguing that gluten may not itself be bad, but rather the body's reaction. This new title implies gluten intolerance is a myth, which is contradicted by stuff like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837 .
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- omginternets 11y ago>gluten may not itself be bad, but rather the body's reaction Being shot with a gun isn't bad. It's the destruction of tissue from the kinetic energy of the bullet that's bad. The point is that there's (apparently) a great deal of variability among individuals, with respect to gluten.
- dang 11y agoPerhaps the submitter was trying to make the title less baity, in accordance with the HN guidelines. (Submitted title was "Myth of gluten intolerance".) We've changed it to something that uses neutral language from the article. Suggestions for a better title are welcome.
- evmar 11y agoThanks as always for maintaining the tone of the site!