Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh I might just cry.. *sigh*

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by yodiewan View Post
    I think Robb Wolf would back you up on this. He ate gluten without issues when he was younger. It wasn't until he had lots of stress and messed up sleep from school that he started having serious digestion problems that required him to eliminate gluten.
    Its never just one thing, but I believe its silly to not recognize repeated gluten exposure as a stresser in and of itself. It would be just as easy for me to say

    "Hey make no mistake the real killer is the gluten and sugar overexposure. If it were not for that you could likely eat more vegetable oil without reprocussions!"

    Surely its true but it leaves much to be desired.... just like the converse argument does.

    I can't claim to follow Robb's posts and such to know his history, but I did find a relevant pod cast.


    From the podcast....

    "Are they still going to benefit from that relative to just eating whatever
    they and then again, relative to being 100 percent gluten free, 100 percent of the time. Like is it still better to have less gluten, less
    frequently or you still just kind of screwing yourself over if you're got any at all. I think decreasing the exposure is definitely for -- some people
    they notice that they actually get a little more vigorous of a GI response when they do have gluten and part of that is the gut liking has actually
    sealed and so what happening with a gluten exposure for reactive people
    is that obviously not everybody is reactive it's just a surprising amount of people are reactive.8
    [0:15:00] And so this why a lot of the skeptic community, they get all up and arms about this stuff. But my only story with all this is that I think more problems than we've ever thought might be traced back to gluten and
    gluten like proteins and that doing some sort of an elimination diet will allow us to figure that stuff out in pretty quick order. And that's the whole crazy controversial used car assessment pitch that I have on this thing. It's like there may be some really big problems. We might figure them out by doing an elimination diet. And if it's not a
    concern for you then go for it, do whatever you want. But it's interesting
    for me. I was not gluten sensitive in the way that I am in my youth but I am now. There's good data to indicate that people can become gluten sensitive as
    they age. More people tend to become gluten sensitive as they age. There may be some breakdown in the immune response, maybe chemo
    distress, who knows what. But in general minimizing that exposure is going to definitely in my opinion be better than not unless you're just one of this people who states pain and then you can eat anything and it just really doesn't matter."

    The rest here http://robbwolf.com/wp/wp-content/up...lution-169.pdf
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-28-2013, 07:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Good points, eKatherine and Neckhammer. I should have said Robb ate gluten with no obvious problems. It's likely that he was having subclinical issues with it before he had obvious glaring problems. I agree that everyone should try to eliminate gluten from their diet.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by yodiewan View Post
        Good points, eKatherine and Neckhammer. I should have said Robb ate gluten with no obvious problems. It's likely that he was having subclinical issues with it before he had obvious glaring problems. I agree that everyone should try to eliminate gluten from their diet.
        Oh well I was really remarking on the causation model that Choco keeps presenting. Like the only reason anyone may have intolerance is because of PUFA (I hate to use that instead of VEGETABLE OILS.... it's just so wrong) and antibiotics.

        Repeated gluten exposure and age of initial exposure are looking like big factors in developing future intolerance.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
          An even more pertinent fact is that you can't disprove a hypothesis with science, you can only confirm it. You can only say a hypothesis is correct by doing an experiment and confirming the results. If the experiment fails it may not be because the hypothesis was wrong, you mightn't of had all the confirming variables in your experiment.
          I'm not trying to be antagonistic here or anything (I largely agree with your viewpoint), but as a working research scientist I have to say that this isn't quite right. Scientists can only disprove hypotheses, or add support with evidence. The way science works (in an ideal world, not practically) is by trying to prove something wrong repeatedly. Imagine that you came up with a controlled experiment that had some people randomly assigned to a CW diet and some people randomly assigned to Primal. Your hypothesis is that Primal will lead to better overall health. Let's say you measured a battery of health markers at the beginning of the experiment, and then measured them again three months later. You can get one of three outcomes:

          -The participants in the Primal condition have a bigger positive (statistically significant) difference in health markers than the CW diet people. This supports your hypothesis, but doesn't prove it (because it seems that the primal people are better, but other unknown factors could be driving your results).

          -The participants in the Primal condition have a smaller positive (statistically significant) difference in health markers than the CW diet people. This disproves your hypothesis (because in a controlled experiment, your results completely contradicted your hypothesis).

          -There is no different between Primal and CW. This is null evidence, and provides no information about your hypothesis. You now have to abandon the line of research or design a better experiment.

          I think the media really has a problem with reporting science because most scientists hedge their bets and say things like "this may possibly lead support for hypothesis X, but we still need to look at factors X, Y, and Z."

          Comment


          • #50
            Why does going gluten free assume you need to have to eat breads, cereals, bars, cakes at all?

            It sure is true that there is a trap of substituting crappy gluten free goods for our traditional fare (especially when you buy it and don't make it yourself). I see it with Paleo, too. A rush to find Paleo friendly desserts to the point of it becoming the focus. I sure fell into that trap with Paleo, and had to opt for a radical Whole30 experiment to reboot my habits and tastebuds.
            sigpic
            Age 48
            Start date: 7-5-12
            5'3"
            121lbs
            GOAL: to live to be a healthy and active 100


            "In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties."
            Henri Frederic Amiel

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by PHaselow View Post
              Why does going gluten free assume you need to have to eat breads, cereals, bars, cakes at all?

              It sure is true that there is a trap of substituting crappy gluten free goods for our traditional fare (especially when you buy it and don't make it yourself). I see it with Paleo, too. A rush to find Paleo friendly desserts to the point of it becoming the focus. I sure fell into that trap with Paleo, and had to opt for a radical Whole30 experiment to reboot my habits and tastebuds.
              What sort of people are you referring to?

              Of course, the standard CW progression for a person diagnosed with celiac is to eliminate known sources of gluten, substitute foods that do not contain gluten for the foods they no longer can eat, then look for other sources of gluten and other intolerances until they get healthy. While this model has room for either gluten-free SAD or non-SAD substitutions (like rice instead of baked goods), the fact is that people who are told to eat a gluten-free diet are also told they can keep eating the way they have always been eating. They don't have to make radical changes. They can buy imitation foods to replace everything they can no longer eat. They can lead a normal life.

              Most people who are diagnosed with celiac have been seeking answers about their declining health for a decade, some much longer. They're tired of being the family invalid. They're sick of being sick and want to lead a normal life.

              While there are those who, like me, just eliminated unsafe foods and filled up the gaps with what was left, most people don't look past advertising and the CW advice they are getting from doctors and/or nutritionists. Heck, there are lots of stories about doctors telling celiac sufferers that it's too hard to successfully give up gluten, and they'd have to lead such an unnatural life that they may as well just take drugs to treat the symptoms. And I've never heard about a nutritionist recommending substituting meat and vegetables for gluten products. A lot of people find the nutritionist they were referred to has no clue about how to lead a gluten-free life. They have to go on the internet to figure it out for themselves.

              I used to hang out on celiac forums. Most of them, like most Americans in general, can't imagine life without bread, bagels, pizza, and pasta. I don't hold them to a higher standard or expect them to figure it out for themselves. The information they need is not right there in front of them.

              I think most people in general are irrationally attached to their diet to the point that they can't question anything about it. They feel threatened in some way by those of us who do.

              I think a good way to introduce the idea that it doesn't have to be that way is to get them at their weakest point, which is when they are complaining about how expensive it is to eat a "gluten-free diet" that strictly substitutes gluten-free processed products for everything eliminated, and how bad the stuff tastes. It costs 2-3 times as much to eat that way! I used to say that my food bill went down when I started substituting rice and potatoes for artisan bread, fancy desserts, fresh pasta, etc.

              Don't forget there is a component of addiction in gluten consumption. Eating it makes you feel good and you want more, even if it also makes you feel bad. Remembering that good feeling is powerful.

              But if you're asking why some primal people keep trying to eat gluten products and gluten-free substitute products, as well as making their own gluten-free treats, I think it is a combination of psychological attachment to the diet they are accustomed to eating, addiction to gluten that they may be nursing along rather than kicking cold turkey, and the memory of good times with family and friends over traditional meals.

              I don't blame people for being this way. It seems overwhelmingly to be the rule, rather than the exception.

              For me, I might want to cook and eat a gluten-free recipe of some sort of treat a few times a year. Some recipes are crap. But if I eat almonds, sweetener, and eggs, I see no moral imperative not to also eat them baked into cookies.

              Comment

              Working...
              X