![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brooksmosesThis is an excellent example of why the all-too-common attitudes of "science says that there's no such thing as a non-celiac gluten sensitivity, so you much be misguided when you say eating a gluten-free diet helps you" are wrong. (Aside from the fact that those studies were only about digestive issues.)
It turns out that further scientific studies have now clearly shown that there are compounds that have higher concentrations in gluten-containing grains that cause digestive distress in a significant fraction of non-celiac people who report digestive distress correlated with gluten-containing foods.
Which is to say, yes, technically it's not the gluten per se, but "contains gluten" is an excellent proxy for containing the actual problematic compounds when one is eating commonly-available foods rather than highly-abnormal things created for scientific experiments. And "gluten-free" is also a good proxy for not containing those compounds in significant amounts.
Or, in small words, science just showed that eating normal food that contains gluten causes them to have problems.
I further note that this is something we already knew, except for the scientifically controlled study part of it. Because science is about improving theories until they match all of the relevant facts, not about discarding ones like "the person in front of me says that eating things with wheat flour or other gluten-containing stuff in it makes them sick" just because it's not conceptually convenient. The science part is that some scientists looked at the two facts of non-reaction to gluten in pure form in precise studies, and reported reaction to gluten-containing foods in people's normal lives, and said "there must be something interesting here," and found at least one piece of it.
As opposed to the unscientific people who assumed that the facts in the controlled studies must mean that the facts in normal lives were imaginary, and did nonconsensual experiments on their friends or family to "prove" that the latter facts were imaginary, after which their friends and family learned interesting and important things about these people's trustworthiness.
It turns out that further scientific studies have now clearly shown that there are compounds that have higher concentrations in gluten-containing grains that cause digestive distress in a significant fraction of non-celiac people who report digestive distress correlated with gluten-containing foods.
Which is to say, yes, technically it's not the gluten per se, but "contains gluten" is an excellent proxy for containing the actual problematic compounds when one is eating commonly-available foods rather than highly-abnormal things created for scientific experiments. And "gluten-free" is also a good proxy for not containing those compounds in significant amounts.
Or, in small words, science just showed that eating normal food that contains gluten causes them to have problems.
I further note that this is something we already knew, except for the scientifically controlled study part of it. Because science is about improving theories until they match all of the relevant facts, not about discarding ones like "the person in front of me says that eating things with wheat flour or other gluten-containing stuff in it makes them sick" just because it's not conceptually convenient. The science part is that some scientists looked at the two facts of non-reaction to gluten in pure form in precise studies, and reported reaction to gluten-containing foods in people's normal lives, and said "there must be something interesting here," and found at least one piece of it.
As opposed to the unscientific people who assumed that the facts in the controlled studies must mean that the facts in normal lives were imaginary, and did nonconsensual experiments on their friends or family to "prove" that the latter facts were imaginary, after which their friends and family learned interesting and important things about these people's trustworthiness.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-29 08:59 am (UTC)I don't, to my knowledge, have wheat or gluten sensitivity. But I do have chronic ill-health which went undiagnosed for years because "your blood tests are all normal" (spoiler: not all of my conditions cause any change in blood tests; not all the blood tests that could have been done, based on my symptoms, were actually done).
When someone says they cannot eat a certain food I tend to just... take their word for it. Science hasn't yet rolled over and gone "OK, we know everything, so let's stop looking" and people vary so much and medicine is seriously complex, so there doesn't need to be a scientific explanation; and anyway scientific explanations take ages to filter down into general public knowledge (see e.g. FODMAP exclusion diets). Meanwhile, excluding an entire common food plant from one's diet is a sufficient pain in the arse that if someone says they feel better eating that way, it's likely that they do. Even if they only do it sometimes, it's also likely that it remains the case that it helps but that there are specific cost vs benefit calculations which they are making and which I am not party to. And in the rare case where it's truly some kind of passing fad, it will pass faster if I don't make the person feel defensive about it by contradicting them. Like, there's a conversation to be had about orthorexia and people becoming afraid of perfectly good foods, but it isn't a conversation to have without also discussing lack of access to medical care, lack of research into non-student interventions, the place of illness in a purity-obsessed culture, and the same all-or-nothing attitude that says "Science says if you don't have coeliac disease then you can eat all the wheat with no problems, and Science has always been right and always will be, for ever and ever, Amen."
(I suspect I'm preaching to the choir, here.)
Nonconsensual experiments by "friends" and family are dangerous and needlessly cruel.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-29 09:09 am (UTC)I've...known about this since around 2006, and it's been on my radar more properly since around 2012, and it's still filtering down into "general" knowledge. And I am not a scientist or a nutritionist or anything like that, I just happen to know someone who encountered it earlier than most.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-29 01:59 pm (UTC)Another article I found in link roundups this morning pointed out that 1% of the population means that any rush hour commuter train probably includes a few. (That writer was talking about transgender people, and specifically about the ways cis writers tend to talk about trans children.)
One percent of the population isn't at the "don't think about zebras" level of medical diagnosis: it means that there are thousands of people in the Boston area with celiac disease, and that a restaurant that offers and labels gluten-free menu options is likely to have customers who need that every day.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-07 05:00 pm (UTC)But the main point is valid. 1% means a person probably has several acquaintances with the issue. And from a medical perspective, 1% has to be filtered by "and they feel sick and concerned enough to talk to the doctor". If 1% of the people will definitely have the odd problem, and 10% of the people have the "talk to a doctor" symptoms, then 10% of the patients will have the disorder, which merits, "we should consider the possibility, but it's probably not...". And if only 3% of the people have the problem, it's already a horse, not a zebra at all.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-29 05:05 pm (UTC)IRON CHEF RESTRICTIONS SMASH.
That is *unacceptable*. Completely unacceptable. I have poisoned one friend by mistake and I STILL feel bad about it. To do it on purpose? Those people should be given the choice of eating the one food they hate or nothing at all for a week and see how THEY feel about sensitivities afterward.