T Nation

Ain't So Bad! ... for Real?

For those too kewl to read the main articles or who mainly jump straight to the forums:

Ain’t So Bad! Foods That Have Gotten a Bum Rap

For the rest of you (and those who are caught up by now)… thoughts?

I think it summed up most of my thoughts regarding a lot of the “hysteria” surrounding these types of things (mostly the “pink slime”, fructose and milk concerns), but I know there are many here much more conscious/intelligent/educated on these subjects than I am.

Figured I’d see what people here have to say since I don’t think I’m alone in preferring the format of the forums to the Livespills.

Never heard of pink slime.

Being afraid of GM foods reeked of ignorance. (within reason, by which I mean if you instantly condemned them without bother to learn a little.)

Milk has yet to make me small and weak.

Everybody knows fat people eat fruit thats why their fat obviously.

Gluten: Don’t even care.

As I mentioned int he spill…

Pink Slime- not a health hazard, just gross sounding, most people that are in an uproar eat way worse shit.

Just b/c a lot of people are hating on non-raw milk and gluten doesn’t mean it’s not grounded in science, logic or the effects on people’s health.

What is irking me lately is those in the fitness industry, that are just latching on “hating” on the “hating”, get what I’m saying…

To deny the damaging effects of gluten is just nonsense. Look at the US population and to think that if we as a population eliminated it, or at least drastically reduced intakes, that chronic disease wouldn’t decrease is silly.

also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
To deny the damaging effects of gluten is just nonsense. Look at the US population and to think that if we as a population eliminated it, or at least drastically reduced intakes, that chronic disease wouldn’t decrease is silly.
[/quote]

Silly? There is no accepted research showing that gluten affects anyone other than those with those with a special sensitivity (ie celiac disease, allergy, etc).

[quote]Beebers wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
To deny the damaging effects of gluten is just nonsense. Look at the US population and to think that if we as a population eliminated it, or at least drastically reduced intakes, that chronic disease wouldn’t decrease is silly.
[/quote]

Silly? There is no accepted research showing that gluten affects anyone other than those with those with a special sensitivity (ie celiac disease, allergy, etc).
[/quote]

Really? Because research is showing that upwards of 30% of people who show no signs of celiac actually have blood markers for it.

also read Wheat Belly for a more thorough understanding.

BTW- I’m curious if TC himself currently drinks the USDA recommended amount of homogenized/pasteurized milk per day, or the recommended amount of “healthy whole grains” via gluten containing foods. That’s a rhetorical question.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Beebers wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
To deny the damaging effects of gluten is just nonsense. Look at the US population and to think that if we as a population eliminated it, or at least drastically reduced intakes, that chronic disease wouldn’t decrease is silly.
[/quote]

Silly? There is no accepted research showing that gluten affects anyone other than those with those with a special sensitivity (ie celiac disease, allergy, etc).
[/quote]

Really? Because research is showing that upwards of 30% of people who show no signs of celiac actually have blood markers for it.

also read Wheat Belly for a more thorough understanding.[/quote]

Yeah I’ve read Wheat Belly, and I take it for what it is: a pop sci book that presents a decent argument in some cases but overall hasn’t yet been vetted by research or totally believed by the vast majority of scientists.

I believe ~1% of the population has celiac disease. I haven’t heard about 30% of people showing blood markers for it, and I would love to have a reference for that (was it in Wheat Belly? I don’t remember). What “blood markers” are you referring to? IgA? anti-tTG? IgG? Is that 30% of the general population, or 30% of people who are asymptomatic but have immediate family w/ the disease? I would bet it’s the latter which makes the 30% figure mean something totally different.

But the point is that you said denying the damaging effect of gluten is nonsense. I don’t think anyone denies that it is harmful to a minority of the population, but it’s certainly not a black and white issue. For instance, there are some studies suggesting the general population may have problems getting adequate nutrients when eating a gluten free diet (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17700651 for example).

I linked to an article about the 30% but it wasn’t allowed to be posted, not sure why, it was just an article. But, either way. Here is the quote from it:

“Gluten might be even worse. Gluten, found in wheat, rye, and barley, is a composite of the proteins gliadin and glutenin. Around 1% of the population are celiacs, people who are completely and utterly intolerant of any gluten. In celiacs, any gluten in the diet can be disastrous. We?re talking compromised calcium and vitamin D3 levels, hyperparathyroidism, bone defects. Really terrible stuff. And it gets worse: just because you?re not celiac doesn?t mean you aren?t susceptible to the ravages of gluten. As Stephan highlights, one study showed that 29% of asymptomatic (read: not celiac) people nonetheless tested positive for anti-gliadin IgA in their stool. Anti-gliadin IgA is an antibody produced by the gut, and it remains there until it?s dispatched to ward off gliadin ? a primary component of gluten. Basically, the only reason anti-gliadin IgA ends up in your stool is because your body sensed an impending threat ? gluten. If gluten poses no threat, the anti-gliadin IgA stays in your gut. And to think, most Americans eat this stuff on a daily basis.”

Really? then how did human evolve perfectly fine for eons without gluten containing foods

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

What about that idea is giving you a hard time?

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I linked to an article about the 30% but it wasn’t allowed to be posted, not sure why, it was just an article. But, either way. Here is the quote from it:

“Gluten might be even worse. Gluten, found in wheat, rye, and barley, is a composite of the proteins gliadin and glutenin. Around 1% of the population are celiacs, people who are completely and utterly intolerant of any gluten. In celiacs, any gluten in the diet can be disastrous. We?re talking compromised calcium and vitamin D3 levels, hyperparathyroidism, bone defects. Really terrible stuff. And it gets worse: just because you?re not celiac doesn?t mean you aren?t susceptible to the ravages of gluten. As Stephan highlights, one study showed that 29% of asymptomatic (read: not celiac) people nonetheless tested positive for anti-gliadin IgA in their stool. Anti-gliadin IgA is an antibody produced by the gut, and it remains there until it?s dispatched to ward off gliadin ? a primary component of gluten. Basically, the only reason anti-gliadin IgA ends up in your stool is because your body sensed an impending threat ? gluten. If gluten poses no threat, the anti-gliadin IgA stays in your gut. And to think, most Americans eat this stuff on a daily basis.”[/quote]

To be fair, posting a paragraph saying “one study shows” is pretty much what you already did. Only now we’re taking some other guys word for it.

Can you provide the sauce (or a link) of the actual study?

Is it just the single study? Are there any other references that ballpark the figures in that range?

Here are two interesting graphs I found on some blog… pasted them together for your convenience and pleasure.

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

What about that idea is giving you a hard time?[/quote]

what is moderation? Some foods are just completely bad… margarine, twinkies, etc… I’ll PM you as well

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I linked to an article about the 30% but it wasn’t allowed to be posted, not sure why, it was just an article. But, either way. Here is the quote from it:

“Gluten might be even worse. Gluten, found in wheat, rye, and barley, is a composite of the proteins gliadin and glutenin. Around 1% of the population are celiacs, people who are completely and utterly intolerant of any gluten. In celiacs, any gluten in the diet can be disastrous. We?re talking compromised calcium and vitamin D3 levels, hyperparathyroidism, bone defects. Really terrible stuff. And it gets worse: just because you?re not celiac doesn?t mean you aren?t susceptible to the ravages of gluten. As Stephan highlights, one study showed that 29% of asymptomatic (read: not celiac) people nonetheless tested positive for anti-gliadin IgA in their stool. Anti-gliadin IgA is an antibody produced by the gut, and it remains there until it?s dispatched to ward off gliadin ? a primary component of gluten. Basically, the only reason anti-gliadin IgA ends up in your stool is because your body sensed an impending threat ? gluten. If gluten poses no threat, the anti-gliadin IgA stays in your gut. And to think, most Americans eat this stuff on a daily basis.”[/quote]

Dude, no offense, but that isn’t a study…and what significance is it that ASYMPTOMATIC people had more IgA in their stool? They are ASYMPTOMATIC remember? I guess I never was one of those “blind book fans” who read this stuff like religion with no critical eye simply because it says what you want it to say.

I’m not saying I’m blindly following “Wheat Belly”, in fact I don’t agree with all his dietary recommendations.

But, to get back to your other thread statement… I deal with people in their 70s/80s who have a host of health issues, and their diet for the past 30 yrs is heavy on the wheat/gluten… these very same people attempt to eat better and lose weight and they wonder why they can’t.

if you want more info, I’m not going to sit here and do the research for all of you, check out Chris Kresser and Dr. Bryan Walsh, I can’t link sites anymore so just google those guys :wink:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I linked to an article about the 30% but it wasn’t allowed to be posted, not sure why, it was just an article. But, either way. Here is the quote from it:

“Gluten might be even worse. Gluten, found in wheat, rye, and barley, is a composite of the proteins gliadin and glutenin. Around 1% of the population are celiacs, people who are completely and utterly intolerant of any gluten. In celiacs, any gluten in the diet can be disastrous. We?re talking compromised calcium and vitamin D3 levels, hyperparathyroidism, bone defects. Really terrible stuff. And it gets worse: just because you?re not celiac doesn?t mean you aren?t susceptible to the ravages of gluten. As Stephan highlights, one study showed that 29% of asymptomatic (read: not celiac) people nonetheless tested positive for anti-gliadin IgA in their stool. Anti-gliadin IgA is an antibody produced by the gut, and it remains there until it?s dispatched to ward off gliadin ? a primary component of gluten. Basically, the only reason anti-gliadin IgA ends up in your stool is because your body sensed an impending threat ? gluten. If gluten poses no threat, the anti-gliadin IgA stays in your gut. And to think, most Americans eat this stuff on a daily basis.”[/quote]

Dude, no offense, but that isn’t a study…and what significance is it that ASYMPTOMATIC people had more IgA in their stool? They are ASYMPTOMATIC remember? I guess I never was one of those “blind book fans” who read this stuff like religion with no critical eye simply because it says what you want it to say.[/quote]

I tracked down “Stephan’s” blog and he describes that figure as being based on “informal research” and links to a page that no longer exists.

JF - would you happen to have any information on hand regarding the prevalence/efficacy of fecal testing vs blood tests for these markers? Stephan states, “Dr. Fine has been conducting informal research using his fecal anti-gliadin IgA test”… so, while I certainly do not want to come off as questioning the man’s integrity, it would be better for the discussion, I’m sure we’d all agree, to see some data that doesn’t come from a guy who works in a lab that specializes in food sensitivity testing that shows “his own” test is the superior method… ya know?

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

â??Most people ask about moderation, and I say well howâ??s that working for you?â?? â??Josh Whiton

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

â??Most people ask about moderation, and I say well howâ??s that working for you?â?? â??Josh Whiton[/quote]

right on. Here’s my view on it. I eat what I want and don’t stress over it. I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that having a crap meal “in moderation” isn’t harmful to the body.

That’s ok, it’s harmful, I enjoy the meal and move on.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Really? then how did human evolve perfectly fine for eons without gluten containing foods[/quote]

Is that in response to me posting that study showing some people don’t get proper nutrients following a gluten free diet?

If so, no one is saying that people can’t get proper nutrition following such a diet, it’s just that the average person might have problems, especially if they’re ignorant about the make up of what they eat. Just telling everyone to avoid gluten might cause more problems than it solves.

In regard to your paragraph, I think I found the article you’re referencing, and I think THAT article is referencing work by Dr. Kenneth Fine of EnteroLabs. The article calls it “informal research” so it’s hardly a peer reviewed study, and all links I’ve found to it are broken. Also, EnteroLab is a company that specifically sells tests for gluten sensitivity (ie, they’re not an unbiased source), and their stated mission (bottom of their homepage) is to “…bring the benefits of this research to those who need it most: people suffering ill-health effects, particularly intestinal illnesses, as the result of gluten sensitivity…”

All I’m trying to point out is that there is no real science backing the somewhat common idea that everyone should avoid gluten/wheat.