Research On Gluten Sensitivity Shows That It Probably Doesn't Exist

[HuckleB]

Researchers Who Provided Key Evidence For Gluten Sensitivity Have Now Thoroughly Shown That It Doesn't Exist

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gluten-sensitivity-and-study-replication-2014-5#ixzz320LToCNu

"For a follow-up paper, 37 self-identified gluten-sensitive patients were tested. According to Real Clear Science's Newton Blog, here's how the experiment went:

Subjects would be provided with every single meal for the duration of the trial. Any and all potential dietary triggers for gastrointestinal symptoms would be removed, including lactose (from milk products), certain preservatives like benzoates, propionate, sulfites, and nitrites, and fermentable, poorly absorbed short-chain carbohydrates, also known as FODMAPs. And last, but not least, nine days worth of urine and fecal matter would be collected. With this new study, Gibson wasn't messing around.

The subjects cycled through high-gluten, low-gluten, and no-gluten (placebo) diets, without knowing which diet plan they were on at any given time. In the end, all of the treatment diets — even the placebo diet — caused pain, bloating, nausea, and gas to a similar degree. It didn't matter if the diet contained gluten. (Read more about the study.)

"In contrast to our first study … we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten," Gibson wrote in the paper. A third, larger study published this month has confirmed the findings.

..."


------------------------

On edit: There is actually a much more thorough piece on the new study here: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html


Seems like a little more research would be good, but this is very interesting from a placebo/nocebo context.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Not in the least surprised...

nobody but bakers ever heard of gluten not that long ago, but suddenly everyone's all on about it and products line the shelves shouting their gluten-freeness. There's a name for that hysteria where everyone suddenly gets the latest fashionable disease or condition.

All the unpronouncable shit that actually does harm us is still there, with things like carbs and saturated fats that some should worry about there only in small print by government mandate.

It's a wonder any of us are still alive at all. And I am not in the least a conspiracy theorist or health nut about these things-- just getting really, really annoyed at how difficult it is for anyone, much less a diabetic, to find sensible, wholesome food.

(edited to take out the italics and boldface that somehow got in there)

[HuckleB]

2. I don't think it's that hard to find wholesome food.

Fruits and veggies and basic, healthy protein sources are more widely available than at any other time in human history, at least in wealthier countries. Finding wholesome food that is not marketed with BS is another thing of course.

Still, the whole thing about "unpronounceable" ingredients is yet another pointless fad that chooses to ignore the science of the matter. Food bloggers love to spread fear, because it garners attention to themselves. Unfortunately, the fear they foment is almost always unfounded.

[misterhighwasted]

3. Think Dr OZ is on top of this latest study??

Think I'll send him the link.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. I'm well aware that a lot of the additives are perfectly fine...

and many of them are food items themselves.

I understand the popularity of extending shelf life, reducing caking, and the balance of keeping food fresh and healthy vs. adding a lot of stuff. I also know that a lot of that stuff hasn't been properly tested and we don't know what it will do in the long run.

And, yes, we do get fresh-ish fruits and veggies off season, but the truth is that they really aren't that great. Ripened on the vine is still better than on the truck in a bag of xylene.

[HuckleB]

8. We're still oodles better off than at any other time in history.

[Warpy]

6. That's also been another source of giggles to me

because most of those unpronounceable ingredients are vitamins.

People freak the hell out about the cyanocobalamin in their bread, too dumb to look it up and find out it's B-12.

What discourages me from eating a lot of processed foods is the salt. I've managed to cure my hypertension somehow (I wish I could tell you how, I'd write a book and become rich and famous) and I'm keeping the salt intake very low because I don't want to go on those nasty pills again because I'm tired of blacking out on them.

[HuckleB]

11. Indeed.

We don't do much processed food, and we never add salt to anything. Now, granted I don't worry about salt intake on summer backpacking trips either. Jerky and sausage serve me just fine then. Still, I'd love it if you'd tell me how you reduced your blood pressure. Step one for me is to stop drinking.

[Warpy]

12. Ha! Given the state of the country right now

quitting booze would quite likely raise your blood pressure. Cutting down would be the way to go.

I wish I knew how I did it, I just know I drove the doc nuts when I'd be back for a lower dose with a record of what my pressures were doing and the fact that nobody could make me take any of it when my pressure was 80s/50s. It just kept dropping and so did my dose of drugs until I was at the lowest dose, ran out of pills, and maintained a fairly normal pressure.

Gatorade would be nice on those backpacking trips, since it replaces potassium as well as sodium. If you're not getting edematous from the sodium, then it's likely fine for backpacking.

[Warpy]

4. That's an awfully small group of test subjects

and a larger study with more "sensitivity" issues is in order. However, fake celiac abounds out there. Maybe now it will be properly diagnosed or ruled out since more people have health insurance.

I'd also like to know whether they were using pure glutenin, rather easy to come by, or the glutenin/gliadin combo, or whether they also used gliadin by itself.

I got scoped last week and ate all the pasta I'd been missing beforehand. I never thought I had any gut issues and the scope confirmed it. However, the doc and the primary both noticed the rash and wheezing. If it's all the same to you guys, I'll avoid the stuff, it's just annoying enough.

[HuckleB]

10. I agree a larger study should be done.

Still, if memory serves me right, this study had more subjects than the one the proposed the possibility of gluten sensitivity. Plus, if none of the subjects showed changes during the various feeding period, that's just a big wow, no matter how small the study.

[merrily]

7. How does a study that the article describes as "small" prove something does not affect

the world's population? And who sponsored/funded this study?

Many studies proved cigarette smoking did not affect human health adversely.

Besides, the article specifies that celiac disease does exist.

Loads of proven carcinogens reside on supermarket shelves, being marketed for human consumption, to make sure that food that is way overaged still appeals to the eye and taste buds as though it were something other than empty calories.

Here's what

In general, pay closer attention to food labels. And, if something bothers you and you feel better after you drop it from your diet, then you should probably drop it from your diet, as long as you get proper nutrition overall.

[HuckleB]

9. You do realize that the study that showed a possibility of gluten sensitivity was even smaller...

... right? And look at all the people that bought into it. At this point, there is no other evidence to support such a claim, and a larger, follow-up study shows that it's not likely the gluten causing the issues. A bigger study should be done, and I suspect it will, however when not one of the subjects showed any likelihood that gluten was the cause, that's pretty amazing.

[merrily]

14. Actually, I am disagreeing with the premise that this particular study showed much of anything.

No, I don't find it amazing that no one in a small study showed signs of gluten sensitivity. That was one of my points.

I've seen too many scientific studies "prove" something, only to have later scientific studies "disprove" it.

And my other point is that who sponsors or funds or initiates a scientific study seems to have a lot to do with what that particular scientific study "proves."

No foods bother me, but I'll stand by my prior post. In fact, I'll stand by everything that I said in my prior post.

[HuckleB]

16. That's some denialism.

Wow!

[MineralMan]

13. Self-identified gluten sensitive people

have generally diagnosed themselves. The study does show that many of those people aren't sensitive to gluten at all. People who diagnose themselves often have an uneducated person as a physician.

"But, I looked it up on the Internet..." does not substitute for actual medicine.

[Mosby]

15. what is gluten?

http://abc.go.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live/video/vdka0_ch1i11x5

[HuckleB]

17. Dr. Steven Novella on "Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity"

A better assessment of the OP piece.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity/

"A recent study suggests that this might be the case. Biesiekierski et. al. did a well controlled series of studies in which they challenged subjects with possible NCGS with carefully controlled diets with various amounts of gluten. They found no association between gluten consumption and reported symptoms, arguing very strongly against NCGS as a real entity.

Their study did, however, suggest another possible culprit – FODMAPs (fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols). These are also common in breads and other foods containing gluten. In the study subjects, GI symptoms improved when FODMAPs and gluten were removed, but then reintroducing gluten had no association with return of symptoms. The authors conclude:

"In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed diets low in FODMAPs."

They were not, however, testing whether or not FODMAPs were a cause of GI symptoms, and so cannot conclude if this is the true cause. A follow up study would need to be done to verify that (perhaps we’ll see a FODMAP-free fad before this science can be done). If true it would explain why some people do have reduction in GI symptoms when they avoid gluten, because they are also avoiding FODMAPs.

..."

[MickiSue]

18. Sorry to Be So Contrary in My First Post in This Forum

But any study, of any type, with any result, means diddly, UNLESS IT'S ABLE TO BE REPRODUCED.

The fact that a site like "Business Insider" is the only place I can find that study published, gives me pause.

Now, whether many people who believe that they are gluten sensitive are, in reality, I have no idea.

I don't know if I'm gluten sensitive. But I have avoided nearly all grains, since reading this: http://www.seriouslystoneage.com/images/uploads/Cordain_Cereal_grain_humanity_doubles_word.pdf, which I found in google scholar, while looking for either support or denial of claims against grains in a book I read.

That is the basis of research. You don't look for what will support your beliefs. You look for information that speaks to them, pro or con.

The only time in the past 10 months that I've eaten much grain at all was last fall when I went to Italy to help my daughter after our grandson was born. And, you know, when your daughter's MIL makes homemade pasta, you don't say "No."

I gained back three of the 19 lbs I had lost, which wasn't too bad. But what I found curious was that my face became bloated. It was very noticeable in the photos from when I first got there till I left.

Lowering one's intake of gluten, without also lowering intake of the grains that contain it, is a waste of time, unless one is truly gluten intolerant. Because you may improve some areas of your health. But you won't lose weight. On the contrary, moving to gluten free grain based products makes as much sense as that ridiculous lo-fat cookies thing in the early 90's. Carbs, in general, make you much fatter than fat. Carbs are ludicrously easy to break down. They are amazingly simple molecules.

Remember the kindergarten experiment, where you kept chewing soda crackers till they tasted sweet? You don't even need to swallow carbs to break them down, the saliva in your mouth will do it for you. And, unless you are one of the relatively rare members of the human race who burn calories easily, carbs spike your blood sugar, then your body amps the insulin in your bloodstream to carry those carbs off to....your fat cells, for storage.

Whereas with fats, in order for the body to get them into the bloodstream, where they go to help your nervous system deal with its message carrying jobs, among other essential tasks, there is a lot of work to break the bonds that create the large molecules. That work burns calories. Same goes for proteins.

Before jumping on any bandwagon, it's always a good idea to do the research. I absolutely applaud that. But the fact that I loved to bake bread wasn't compelling enough for me to keep eating it, once I had done the research.

If this paper (BTW, it's a fascinating meta-analysis of research from anthropology to nutrition and all points between on the effects of the cultivation of grains on humans) isn't compelling to you, try a couple of these:

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes (NYT science writer)
Born to Be Healthy and Thin by Steven Komadina, MD (he's a little over the top in his language, but his research pans out)