Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, Heather McDougall, carolve

Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby Leif Varmark » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:55 am

User avatar
Leif Varmark
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:30 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:05 am

User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby Leif Varmark » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:41 pm

Professor Emerita Julie Miller Jones is a scientific advisor for the Grain Foods Foundation. Grain Foods Foundation is a joint venture of members from the baking and milling industries, and allied suppliers formed in 2004.

Do we have some more »neutral« critics, especially concerning the study, I linked to?
User avatar
Leif Varmark
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:30 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:04 pm

Leif Varmark wrote:Professor Emerita Julie Miller Jones is a scientific advisor for the Grain Foods Foundation. Grain Foods Foundation is a joint venture of members from the baking and milling industries, and allied suppliers formed in 2004.

Do we have some more »neutral« critics, especially concerning the study, I linked to?


By those same standards, we have to reject the Mcdougall MS study because the McDougall Research Foundation funded it and Dr McDougall directed the intervention.

We would also have to reject the 110 Pritikin studies because the Pritikin Research Foundation funded them all and an employee of Pritikin was lead author.

Same with the PCRM and the Ornish studies and all the studies done on vegetarian diets that were done by Loma Linda.

Funding may influence a study or a report but it does negate it. I do not automatically discount anything solely based on funding.

I post the report because I find it accurate and credible.

The burden of proof is on them to support their claims, and the more extra-ordinary the claim, the more extra-ordinary the proof should be.

BTW, it's a study done on mice, not humans, which means nothing to us. You also may want to look closer at Natural News and their credibility before posting a link to them here. :)

In Health
Jeff

"NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded and owned by self-proclaimed "health ranger" Mike "HealthDanger" Adams. The site promotes almost every sort of medical woo known, though it specializes in vaccine hysteria, AIDS denialism, and quack cancer medicine. The site also promotes conspiracy theories about modern medicine, geared to gain sympathy for alternative medicine.

A recurring theme is the contrast between the site's exacting criticism of evidence-based medicine and its unquestioning acceptance of nature woo, New Age and alternative medicine. This often involves rejection of the scientific method's application to medicine as "inherently flawed", with a preference for quackery in general and anecdotal evidence in particular.

The response to any alternative medicine claim, however, is blind acceptance, whether the topic at hand is homeopathy, chiropractic, dental woo, water fluoridation scares, aspartame scares, vitamin woo, anti-vaccination hysteria, detox diets or AIDS denial."
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

A Close Look At Wheat Belly, Grain Brain & Their Claims

Postby JeffN » Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:15 pm

A Close Look At Wheat Belly, Grain Brain & Their Claims
(along with a collection of information rebutting the exaggerated claims about grains, wheat & gluten)


Wheat Belly—An Analysis of Selected Statementsand Basic Theses from the Book
https://aaccipublications.aaccnet.org/d ... -57-4-0177


Gluten-Free Diet: Imprudent Dietary Advice for the General Population?
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth ... 007435.pdf


Body mass index and the risk of obesity in coeliac disease treated with the gluten-free diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22316503


Overweight in celiac disease: prevalence, clinical characteristics, and effect of a gluten-free diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17032202


Odd Spending: Why We're Wasting Billions on Gluten-Free Food
By Martha C. WhiteMarch 13, 201318
http://business.time.com/2013/03/13/why ... pt=hp_bn18


Gluten Intolerance and the Nocebo Effect
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html


Can an increase in celiac disease be attributed to an increase in the gluten content of wheat as a consequence of wheat breeding?
J Agric Food Chem. 2013 Feb 13;61(6):1155-9. doi: 10.1021/jf305122s. Epub 2013 Jan 31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23311690


Does wheat make us fat and sick?
Journal of Cereal Science. Volume 58, Issue 2, September 2013, Pages 209–215
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 969#bbib15


A detailed alysis of the claims made in Grain Brain.
In the end, the only real message is avoid added sugars and refined carbs.
http://bit.ly/1gUytLK


Is Gluten The New Peanut?

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... 70#p438070

Enjoy your grains, intact and whole!
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:55 pm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 969#bbib15

Does wheat make us fat and sick?

Journal of Cereal Science. Volume 58, Issue 2, September 2013, Pages 209–215

Highlights

• After fat and fructose, it is now suggested that wheat is a main cause for obesity.

• Whole-wheat consumption is discouraged by current (non-peer reviewed) publications.

• We make recommendations on the basis of scientific consensus rather than speculation.

• No data justifies a negative opinion about whole-wheat products in a healthy population.

• Gluten-sensitive individuals can benefit from a diet without gluten from wheat.


After earlier debates on the role of fat, high fructose corn syrup, and added sugar in the aetiology of obesity, it has recently been suggested that wheat consumption is involved. Suggestions have been made that wheat consumption has adverse effects on health by mechanisms related to addiction and overeating. We discuss these arguments and conclude that they cannot be substantiated. Moreover, we conclude that assigning the cause of obesity to one specific type of food or food component, rather than overconsumption and inactive lifestyle in general, is not correct. In fact, foods containing whole-wheat, which have been prepared in customary ways (such as baked or extruded), and eaten in recommended amounts, have been associated with significant reductions in risks for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and a more favourable long term weight management. Nevertheless, individuals that have a genetic predisposition for developing celiac disease, or who are sensitive or allergic to wheat proteins, will benefit from avoiding wheat and other cereals that contain proteins related to gluten, including primitive wheat species (einkorn, emmer, spelt) and varieties, rye and barley. It is therefore important for these individuals that the food industry should develop a much wider spectrum of foods, based on crops that do not contain proteins related to gluten, such as teff, amaranth, oat, quinoa, and chia. Based on the available evidence, we conclude that whole-wheat consumption cannot be linked to increased prevalence of obesity in the general population.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:26 am

A very detailed analysis of the claims made in Grain Brain. In the end, the only real message is avoid added sugars and refined carbs.

http://bit.ly/1gUytLK

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Gluten & Peanuts: Is History Repeating Itself?

Postby JeffN » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:02 am

Gluten & Peanuts: Is History Repeating Itself?
(Is gluten the new peanut?)
Jeff Novick, MS, RDN

About 10-15 years ago, America was overtaken with their fears & concerns over peanut allergies. You couldn't get near a plane without being warned of the severe issue of flying with any peanut related products or even residue on you. All peanut related items were banned from airlines & schools & food companies were reformulating and relabeling products to respond to this national epidemic.

While a peanut allergy is a real & potentially serious health issue, the epidemic never panned out. However, it seems to have been replaced by todays epidemic of gluten intolerance.

Does history repeat itself?

The peanut allergy craze never panned out and it was little more then parental hysteria & mass speculation with little evidence.

It turns out that true peanut allergies are not as common as people think and are actually very difficult to diagnose accurately. The evidence that peanut allergies were growing rapidly was actually fairly weak & not based on allergy testing

The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, says that though about 25 percent of parents believe that their children have food allergies, only about 4 percent actually do. Even among children who test positive for IgE, only a tiny fraction actually really have an allergy.

While an often cited and well-publicized household telephone survey published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology suggested that rates of peanut allergies among children had doubled from 0.4 percent of the total population to 0.8 percent in 5 years, the data were not verified by actual allergy tests. In the families surveyed, the rate of peanut allergies among children under 5 was essentially the same as the rate among 6- to 10-year-olds, indicating no increase.

The only study of peanut allergy using clinical testing and not surveys occurred in Britain’s Isle of Wight and found an increase from 0.5 percent to 1 percent of all children over a 7 year period, a difference that was not ”statistically significant”

However, the only 100 percent reliable way to tell if someone has a peanut allergy is a food challenge is to feed them peanuts or a placebo to see if a reaction occurs. But the test is not often done due to expense & fear of reaction

According to a study from Clinical and Experimental Allergy, only 40 percent of children with even strongly positive skin tests (a hive more than 5 millimeters wide) had positive food challenges & only half of them had reactions needing any treatment.

Even a child’s IgE level isn’t much more accurate as only 1 in 6 people with peanut-specific IgE actually shows symptoms. And while extremely high levels often do mean real allergy, the converse is untrue; most children with real allergies don’t have very high IgE levels.

Sadly, children told they were allergic to peanuts, even if they ended up not, had more anxiety and felt more physically restricted than children with juvenile diabetes.

Did science drive the awareness of peanut allergy in the population which in turn drove the market to make the changes it did?

Or did hysteria about peanut allergies drive the market, while the market simultaneously fueled the hysteria of the peanut allergy, all of which, void of any science!

As this article so eloquently points out, most all of the peanut allergy response, was mass hysteria

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/arch ... /index.xml

According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the prevalence rate of the allergy is about 0.4 - .6% in the United States.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/foodAll ... Facts.aspx

The self-reported incidence of peanut allergy is estimated to affect over 1.4% of the population of the United States, which is 2.5x to 3x (250 - 300%) the known rate.

http://www.m.webmd.com/allergies/news/2 ... n-the-rise

Currently, Gluten hysteria is even larger as it is about 5x (500%) the known rate. I think this is due to the impact of social media and not anything medical.

Dr. Nicholas Christakis of Harvard Medical School asserted at the time that the increases in peanut allergies, and the measures taken in response, show elements of mass psychogenic illness: hysterical reactions grossly out of proportion to the level of danger and that the measures taken in response to the threat are an over-reaction out of proportion to the level of danger

This allergies hysteria is just nuts
http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2880

In 2013 Miranda Waggoner, a postdoctoral researcher at the Office of Population Research in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs reported that the increase in self-reported incidence of the (peanut) allergy, previously thought to be rare, could not be correlated with medical data confirming the self-reported incidence

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3613002657

Peter Conrad, a medical sociologist at Brandeis University specializing in the medicalization of society, said of the study: "This paper helps us understand how a relatively rare disorder, peanut allergies, has become seen as a public risk and even as a childhood epidemic. While the individual risk is high, the risk on a population level is small. Sometimes the public's response to a disorder may significantly outpace the actual public health risk potential.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/arch ... /index.xml

Does history repeat itself? Yes!

They say if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it and right now, history is repeating itself with gluten as we did with peanut allergies.

Celiac disease, like a true peanut allergy is a rare but very serious disease and occurs in about 1% of the population. Wheat allergy occurs in about .2% of the population. Dr. Alessio Fassano, one of the worlds leading gastroenterologists, estimates that at most about 3-6% of the population may have gluten sensitivity, yet over 30% choose gluten free foods. In my experience & work, about 70% are making that choice.

So, don't worry parents, your child never had a peanut allergy, it was really gluten and you both have it!

Let us not follow this mass hysteria down the rabbit hole.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:13 pm

-Whole Grain Intake and Mortality

Association Between Dietary Whole Grain Intake and Risk of Mortality: Two Large Prospective Studies in US Men and Women.
Wu H, Flint AJ, Qi Q, van Dam RM, Sampson LA, Rimm EB, Holmes MD, Willett WC, Hu FB, Sun Q.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jan 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6283. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID:25559238

Abstract

Importance: Higher intake of whole grains has been associated with a lower risk of major chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD), although limited prospective evidence exists regarding whole grains' association with mortality.

Objective: To examine the association between dietary whole grain consumption and risk of mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants: We investigated 74 341 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1984-2010) and 43 744 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2010), 2 large prospective cohort studies. All patients were free of CVD and cancer at baseline.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) for total mortality and mortality due to CVD and cancer according to quintiles of whole grain consumption, which was updated every 2 or 4 years by using validated food frequency questionnaires.

Results: We documented 26 920 deaths during 2 727 006 person-years of follow-up. After multivariate adjustment for potential confounders, including age, smoking, body mass index, physical activity, and modified Alternate Healthy Eating Index score, higher whole grain intake was associated with lower total and CVD mortality but not cancer mortality: the pooled HRs for quintiles 1 through 5, respectively, of whole grain intake were 1 (reference), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.02), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-1.02), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-1.01), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95) for total mortality (P fortrend < .001); 1 (reference), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.92) for CVD mortality (P fortrend < .001); and 1 (reference), 1.02 (95% CI, 0.96-1.08), 1.05 (95% CI, 0.99-1.12), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98-1.11), and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.91-1.04) for cancer mortality (P fortrend = .43). We further estimated that every serving (28 g/d) of whole grain consumption was associated with a 5% (95% CI, 2%-7%) lower total morality or a 9% (95% CI, 4%-13%) lower CVD mortality, whereas the same intake level was nonsignificantly associated with lower cancer mortality (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.02). Similar inverse associations were observed between bran intake and CVD mortality, with a pooled HR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87; P fortrend < .001), whereas germ intake was not associated with CVD mortality after adjustment for bran intake.

Conclusions and Relevance: These data indicate that higher whole grain consumption is associated with lower total and CVD mortality in US men and women, independent of other dietary and lifestyle factors. These results are in line with recommendations that promote increased whole grain consumption to facilitate disease prevention.


- Wheat/Gluten actually decrease inflammation

Whole-grain wheat consumption reduces inflammation in a randomized controlled trial on overweight and obese subjects
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Feb;101(2):251-61. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.088120. Epub 2014 Dec 3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25646321

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Epidemiology associates whole-grain (WG) consumption with several health benefits. Mounting evidence suggests that WG wheat polyphenols play a role in mechanisms underlying health benefits.

OBJECTIVE:
The objective was to assess circulating concentration, excretion, and the physiologic role of WG wheat polyphenols in subjects with suboptimal dietary and lifestyle behaviors.

DESIGN:
A placebo-controlled, parallel-group randomized trial with 80 healthy overweight/obese subjects with low intake of fruit and vegetables and sedentary lifestyle was performed. Participants replaced precise portions of refined wheat (RW) with a fixed amount of selected WG wheat or RW products for 8 wk. At baseline and every 4 wk, blood, urine, feces, and anthropometric and body composition measures were collected. Profiles of phenolic acids in biological samples, plasma markers of metabolic disease and inflammation, and fecal microbiota composition were assessed.

RESULTS:
WG consumption for 4-8 wk determined a 4-fold increase in serum dihydroferulic acid (DHFA) and a 2-fold increase in fecal ferulic acid (FA) compared with RW consumption (no changes). Similarly, urinary FA at 8 wk doubled the baseline concentration only in WG subjects. Concomitant reduction in plasma tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) after 8 wk and increased interleukin (IL)-10 only after 4 wk with WG compared with RW (P = 0.04) were observed. No significant change in plasma metabolic disease markers over the study period was observed, but a trend toward lower plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 with higher excretion of FA and DHFA in the WG group was found. Fecal FA was associated with baseline low Bifidobacteriales and Bacteroidetes abundances, whereas after WG consumption, it correlated with increased Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes but reduced Clostridium. TNF-α reduction correlated with increased Bacteroides and Lactobacillus. No effect of dietary interventions on anthropometric measurements and body composition was found.

CONCLUSIONS:
WG wheat consumption significantly increased excreted FA and circulating DHFA. Bacterial communities influenced fecal FA and were modified by WG wheat consumption.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:44 am

Excellent article & Perspective...

How the gluten-free movement is ruining our relationship with food
By Roberto A. Ferdman
The Washington Post
April 2, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ?tid=sm_fb
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:37 pm

In my article above from a year ago, "Is gluten the new peanut?,” I basically predicted we would find this out.


"Eighty six percent of patients reporting gluten-related symptoms have neither NCGS, nor CD, nor WA. Self-perceived gluten-related symptoms are rarely indicative of the presence of NCGS"

Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity among Patients Perceiving Gluten-Related Symptoms.
Digestion. 2015 May 30;92(1):8-13. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 26043918

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26043918


Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a recently recognized disorder, characterized by the occurrence of symptoms following gluten ingestion. It is often self-diagnosed by the patient, but should be confirmed by the response to a gluten-free diet, followed by a gluten challenge. Celiac disease (CD) and wheat allergy (WA) must first be ruled out.

AIMS:
(1) to determine the frequency of visits performed for symptoms self-perceived as gluten-related; (2) to assess in this cohort, the proportion of patients satisfying the diagnostic criteria for NCGS.

METHODS:
A two-year prospective study including all consecutive patients complaining of gluten-related symptoms. NCGS was diagnosed on the basis of the disappearance of the symptoms within 6 months of a gluten-free diet, followed by their reappearance with the reintroduction of gluten in the diet for 1 month.

RESULTS:
Three hundred and ninety two patients complaining of gluten-related symptoms were enrolled; 26 of these (6.63%) were affected by CD, 2 (0.51%) by WA and 27 were diagnosed with NCGS (6.88%). The remaining 337 patients (85.96%) did not experience any change of symptoms with a gluten-free diet. The PPV of the gluten-related symptom was found to be 7%.

CONCLUSION:
Eighty six percent of patients reporting gluten-related symptoms have neither NCGS, nor CD, nor WA. Self-perceived gluten-related symptoms are rarely indicative of the presence of NCGS.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

DEBUNKING
The Problem With David Perlmutter, the Grain Brain Doctor
By Alan Levinovitz
June 24, 2015

"In recent months, the media has become increasingly impatient with high-profile health advocates who dispense unsubstantiated medical advice. Among the highlights have been John Oliver’s continued humiliation of Dr. Oz, who repeatedly touted the power of energy healing and “miracle” weight-loss solutions, and a viral Gawker takedown of Vani Hari, aka “the Food Babe,” a blogger and food activist who once advised her followers that “there is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever.” Even the American Medical Association has had enough, and just announced that it would draft guidelines for disciplining physicians who dispense pseudo-scientific advice.

Yet despite this heightened concern about the accuracy of health information, best-selling celebrity neurologist Dr. David Perlmutter seems to have escaped much scrutiny, even though he has a decades-long history of offering — and profiting from — suspect medical advice."

Read more...

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/pr ... octor.html


In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:53 am

Thanks to a forum member who sent me this (and a few others)

Randomized clinical study: gluten challenge induces symptom recurrence in only a minority of patients who meet clinical criteria for non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Aug 27.
doi: 10.1111/apt.13372.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26310131

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
It is unknown whether symptoms in non-coeliac patients (non-CD) meeting clinical diagnostic criteria for noncoeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) are specifically triggered by gluten.

AIM:
To assess gluten sensitivity in patients diagnosed with NCGS.

METHODS:
We studied 35 non-CD subjects (31 females) that were on a gluten-free diet (GFD), in a double-blind challenge study. Participants were randomised to receive either gluten-containing flour or gluten-free flour for 10 days, followed by a 2-week washout period and were then crossed over. The main outcome measure was their ability to identify which flour contained gluten. Secondary outcome measures were based upon Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) scores.

RESULTS: The gluten-containing flour was correctly identified by 12 participants (34%), who were classified as having NCGS. Their mean GSRS dimension scores were significantly higher following gluten challenge compared to baseline. The scores were: pain, 1.7 ± 0.8 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0; reflux, 1.6 ± 0.5 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9; indigestion, 1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 3.2 ± 1.1; diarrhoea, 1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 2.9 ± 1.5 and constipation, 1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 2.9 ± 1.3. Seventeen participants (49%) erroneously considered the gluten-free flour to contain gluten. Their mean GSRS dimension scores were significantly higher following gluten-free flour challenge compared to baseline. The scores were: pain, 1.6 ± 0.9 vs. 3.0 ± 0.9; reflux, 1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 2.3 ± 1.1; indigestion, 2.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.7 ± 1.1; diarrhoea, 1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.2 and constipation, 1.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.6 ± 1.3. The other six participants (17%) were unable to distinguish between the flours.

CONCLUSION: Double-blind gluten challenge induces symptom recurrence in just one-third of patients fulfilling the clinical diagnostic criteria for non-coeliac gluten sensitivity.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Mon May 16, 2016 6:39 am

"No reason" was the most common explanation for choosing gluten-free foods.

In Health
Jeff



The Gluten-Free Diet: Recognizing Fact, Fiction, and Fad
Norelle R. Reilly, MD
Published Online: May 13, 2016
Thhe Journal of Pediatrics
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.04.014

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(16)30062-2/pdf
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Gluten, not fat, makes you fat!

Postby JeffN » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:51 am

Non-Celiac Wheat Sensitivity (NCWS) confirmed in 1%, much lower then the 7-10% you often hear and the 30% who avoid gluten

Study

Armin Alaedini et al. Intestinal cell damage and systemic immune activation in individuals reporting sensitivity to wheat in the absence of coeliac disease. Gut, July 2016 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311964

http://m.gut.bmj.com/content/early/2016 ... 016-311964

Abstract
Objective
Wheat gluten and related proteins can trigger an autoimmune enteropathy, known as coeliac disease, in people with genetic susceptibility. However, some individuals experience a range of symptoms in response to wheat ingestion, without the characteristic serological or histological evidence of coeliac disease. The aetiology and mechanism of these symptoms are unknown, and no biomarkers have been identified. We aimed to determine if sensitivity to wheat in the absence of coeliac disease is associated with systemic immune activation that may be linked to an enteropathy.

Design
Study participants included individuals who reported symptoms in response to wheat intake and in whom coeliac disease and wheat allergy were ruled out, patients with coeliac disease and healthy controls. Sera were analysed for markers of intestinal cell damage and systemic immune response to microbial components.

Results
Individuals with wheat sensitivity had significantly increased serum levels of soluble CD14 and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein, as well as antibody reactivity to bacterial LPS and flagellin. Circulating levels of fatty acid-binding protein 2 (FABP2), a marker of intestinal epithelial cell damage, were significantly elevated in the affected individuals and correlated with the immune responses to microbial products. There was a significant change towards normalisation of the levels of FABP2 and immune activation markers in a subgroup of individuals with wheat sensitivity who observed a diet excluding wheat and related cereals.

Conclusions
These findings reveal a state of systemic immune activation in conjunction with a compromised intestinal epithelium affecting a subset of individuals who experience sensitivity to wheat in the absence of coeliac disease.



Press Article

Biological reason for wheat sensitivity found in those without celiac disease, accounting for ~1% of population

Weakened intestinal barrier, systemic immune activation may explain symptoms in people without celiac disease
Date: July 26, 2016
Source: Columbia University Medical Center

Summary:People with non-celiac wheat sensitivity have a weakened intestinal barrier, which leads to a systemic immune response after ingesting wheat and related cereals, new research confirms.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 123632.htm
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8736
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Next

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.