Gluten free fad

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Wouldn't you rather know the truth before jumping into some fad diet? What if the cause of your digestive problems is the highly processed white flour in white bread and many pastas that's giving you a bad reaction? Instead of going 'gluten free,' just reduce the amount of Wonder Bread, Velveeta, and whatever other junk food bread and candy breakfast cereal you might be eating. It is very unlikely that gluten itself would cause blood sugar spikes. These are usually caused by simple sugars and highly refined white flour. This is well-known to science. The effect of eating highly refined white flour is similar to a celiac reaction in some ways - it causes fatigue (from the blood sugar spike and crash) and makes some people feel bad. Instead of cutting all gluten (including all wheat based bread and pasta), why not just cut out the highly refined white bread that is known to cause blood sugar problems in many people?

Just switch to whole grain bread and add more variety to the pasta you eat. Whole grain pastas. When you eat Ramen noodles, balance it by adding vegetables, tofu, meats, etc. When you eat white flour products, balance it with whole grains and proteins that will prevent the blood sugar spike.

This could be true for some people, but to discover this is quite a long process. Often people going down this path are going to start by going gluten-free and then eventually adding back in other foods like whole grains later if they feel like experimenting. Others might never find the need to experiment though and be satisfied with their gluten-free diets. My point is that it is unfair to criticize people for listening to their bodies and sticking to a diet that works for them, as that is ultimately what all of the science surrounding nutrition points to. It is possible to fulfill all nutritional needs while being on the gluten-free diet and therefore it is a legitimate diet. Whether or not a person is gluten-intolerant or gluten sensitive is really irrelevant to the legitimacy of the diet (not to mention very expensive and time consuming to ascertain.)

 

[socko]

The science behind my explanation is very simple Biology 101. Even easier is to test it. All you do is substitute bread made from whole grain, cut out the candy breakfast cereal, and a few other little things. Just avoid highly processed white flour.
Getting tested for gluten intolerance, on the otherhand, is expensive and invasive. It requires the physician to cut out a chunk from the lining of your small intestine and test it.

This could be true for some people, but to discover this is quite a long process. Often people going down this path are going to start by going gluten-free and then eventually adding back in other foods like whole grains later if they feel like experimenting. Others might never find the need to experiment though and be satisfied with their gluten-free diets. My point is that it is unfair to criticize people for listening to their bodies and sticking to a diet that works for them, as that is ultimately what all of the science surrounding nutrition points to. It is possible to fulfill all nutritional needs while being on the gluten-free diet and therefore it is a legitimate diet. Whether or not a person is gluten-intolerant or gluten sensitive is really irrelevant to the legitimacy of the diet (not to mention very expensive and time consuming to ascertain.)

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

The science behind my explanation is very simple Biology 101. Even easier is to test it. All you do is substitute bread made from whole grain, cut out the candy breakfast cereal, and a few other little things. Just avoid highly processed white flour.

I mean this in a friendly manner, but why does it matter to you how they eat?

 

[Nom de Plume]

Lol.



My post had nothing to imply that people should or shouldn't be allowed to say certain things.

Sophistic balderdash. You intentionally included the word "allow" in order to obfuscate your intentions and dismiss my objections as irrelevant; we see the clear and true situation upon the removal of the word in the above sentence. I shan't fritter away any more of my time responding to such arrant twaddle.

I was challenging the authority of those launching the criticisms of other people's diets. My post was self-righteous and confrontational and I fully admit that. Self-righteousness is in my view acceptable if you or someone you care about is being attacked unfairly.

1.) Nobody is being attacked. Rather, an idea that some people espouse is being attacked.

2.) Fairness is of no import in logic and reality. Something either is the case or it is not the case.

3.) Fair is subjective.

4.) Even if what is fair was of any consequence, you and I both should be glad fairness doesn't always happen. God knows, if everything were fair everybody would be miserable as they'd be treated exactly as they deserve to be. That's not a scenario I'd look forward to, LOL.

I find your attitude in this post particularly ironic because while you appear to be trying to argue philosophically, the bulk of your post is angry name calling.

Every argument is a philosophical argument (although not all arguments are logical arguments). One doesn't have to try to do anything.

And that ain't anger, man. It's called panache.

Terence Mckenna (whom you pprobably know; and if you don't, you should) says it better (albeit about a different topic of discussion, but the overall tenor is the same):

 

[Nom de Plume]

Oh, yeah and cashfl0w_d0nkey: I don't have any hard feelings, so please don't get the wrong impression. That's just the manner in which I write.

 

[socko]

It's the topic of the thread.

I mean this in a friendly manner, but why does it matter to you how they eat?

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

It's the topic of the thread.

You're right, complaining about other people's diets is the theme of the thread. It's a theme recently at a lot of otherwise reputable outlets as well. It's unfortunate because it is unhelpful, judgmental behavior regarding a very personal choice.

If you wanted to judge and look down on people who eat diets high in fried foods, it would be a bit uncouth to publicly trash talk these people for their personal choices, but at least you could justify it as these people's eventual poor health will eventually be a burden on society. With gluten-free though, people are doing it in the pursuit of health, and the behavior is therefore a net benefit to society. Yet people still feel it's appropriate to publicly criticize these people. It's snobbish and negative, and a form of thought policing that is detrimental to diversity in society.

 

[Kittycat5]

You are not considering that a change in diet that includes gluten but is otherwise healthy is just as great a benefit. It is not necessarily the gluten-free that is healthier for the public at large.

 

[socko]

I try to educate and inform people when topics like this come up. If you were having health problems, and you suspected it was your diet, wouldn't you want to know as much about nutrition and diet-related disorders, allergies, sensitivities as possible? I took me years to realize that I had sensitivities to certain foods, and I would have appreciated it greatly if somebody knowledgeable had noticed my reaction to certain foods and had pointed out that maybe I should try to avoid eating certain thigns.

When I see that millions of people are wrong, I often say something. But only when the topic comes up. I don't walk up to somebody in the gluten-free section of a grocery store and tell them they're stupid.

It's good that people are paying attention to what they are eating. But there's a lot of bad information about the gluten free diet, and many (the vast majority) are going gluten free without understanding the science behind it. Going 100% gluten free is extremely difficult and takes a lot of planning and research. Nobody is going to damage their health by going gluten free, but for most people (non-celiac), there are better ways to improve their diet and health.


I try to point out to fat people who ask, if the topic comes up, that eating fat food without exercise is bad for their health.

You're right, complaining about other people's diets is the theme of the thread. It's a theme recently at a lot of otherwise reputable outlets as well. It's unfortunate because it is unhelpful, judgmental behavior regarding a very personal choice.

If you wanted to judge and look down on people who eat diets high in fried foods, it would be a bit uncouth to publicly trash talk these people for their personal choices, but at least you could justify it as these people's eventual poor health will eventually be a burden on society. With gluten-free though, people are doing it in the pursuit of health, and the behavior is therefore a net benefit to society. Yet people still feel it's appropriate to publicly criticize these people. It's snobbish and negative, and a form of thought policing that is detrimental to diversity in society.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

I see where you're coming from. Discussing the merits of the diet is certainly reasonable. The thing I'm against is proselytizing against it.

 

[Nom de Plume]

You are not considering that a change in diet that includes gluten but is otherwise healthy is just as great a benefit. It is not necessarily the gluten-free that is healthier for the public at large.

I don't give a crap about what stupid things stupid individuals do. On this bovine planet, most people are stupid all of the time, and the rest are stupid most of the time. So I'm jaded and indifferent to the whole wordwide, seven billion-man business of buffoonery.

What is worth considering is that the degree of the health benefit to the individual is insignificant relative to the degree of the profit margin to the profiteer.

That is, in essence, the gravamen of my objection to gluten-free foodstuff fads. They exist to burgeon big business primarily and most significantly, and to augment consumer life-expectancies secondarily and less significantly (also, healthier consumers live longer lives, which means they can consume longer. So, the corporate ruling class are doubly benefited: they sell products which result in the prolongation of the buyer's lifespan and thus they sell exponentially more products by virtue of having longer-lived buyers).

Well, why is this so detrimental? It doesn't matter for me to explain, since nobody seems to care anyway. They're too far gone to notice, to care, or to listen to the very few people who actually do notice and do care. Seemly 99.998% of everybody thinks nothing is wrong with 3,000 people out of a 7.5 billion population owning nearly half of everything on the planet and appropriating more every day, while everybody else flounders and sinks in an ever deepening mire of misery and abject destitution.

Almost everybody doesn't notice it. And almost everybody that does notice it, doesn't care. And the remainder of people who both notice and care are far too few in numbers to do a damned thing about it. We all live in a corporate culture of inverted totalitarianism, lowbrow divertissements to stultify and pacify the powerless and effete hoi polloi.

And everybody is so addlepated they truly believe it is normal or worthwhile to squander their lives away living meaningless lives worshipping a religion of mindless productivity and unbridled consumption and commodity fetishism; deriving their entire subsistence and sense of self-worth from their low-paying vocations as overworked, undervalued, and totally expendable wage slaves.

The ozone is disappearing, fresh and potable water is drying up, glaciers are melting, the biosphere is irreparably fucked, and yet we persist mindlessly.

I could go on. In fact, I could write a multivolume thesis on this sickeningly deplorable shit—shit that fads like gluten-free commodities further.

 

[Kittycat5]

I would be interested in your take on the detriment of longer lived consumers, not only in aiding the profiteers but also more generally, Nome de Plume but do as you wish.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

What is worth considering is that the degree of the health benefit to the individual is insignificant relative to the degree of the profit margin to the profiteer.

That is, in essence, the gravamen of my objection to gluten-free foodstuff fads. They exist to burgeon big business primarily and most significantly

I'm not buying it, unless of course you want to back this up with some data. A lot of the most popular brands in this space are smaller, privately owned businesses. Amy's Kitchen is typical in my experience of what you'd expect to see in a business that operates in this niche.

I could go on. In fact, I could write a multivolume thesis on this sickeningly deplorable shit—shit that fads like gluten-free commodities further.

That's funny because most people I know who are into gluten-free are also into things like organic and unprocessed food, local sourcing, recycling, preventing the use of environmental toxins, land conservation, etc... so seemingly in agreement with many of the criticisms you have of the world. I don't see how you feel it's reasonable to criticize these people for all the ills in the world based on their dietary choices. Everyone has to eat. What do you eat? Do you really think your diet is having a more positive impact on the world than what they eat?

 

[Nom de Plume]

^^^ I initially attempted a response to your comment. But after 12,498 characters of text I realised it wasn't worth it, that the issue is too difficult to explicate or appreciate on an Internet message board like this of all places. Not to mention, most of what I wrote turned out to be pretty dense—even by my standards— and I figured nobody here would have the intellectual capacity to grasp its overall purport. I've had far simpler arguments fly over people's heads on this forum, like the dictionary definition of a basic English word for fuck sake. (And surely you'd know these things by now if you did have sufficient intelligence. Several philosophers, economists, and other intellectuals have written somewhat similar material.)

So, I'll just save my reply as a private addition to my voluminous collection of other writings.

If you want to know what is the case, rather than what you want to be the case, do your own research. The information is there, so go find it. If that's beyond you then you're either intellectually deficient or lazy. Either way, this is an inappropriate arena with an inappropriate opponent for me to carry on such an immense and abstruse discussion.

And it's nothing personal. If you want to discuss something else—something less laborious, dense, and thorny—then I would indulge you. But I am not about to get dragged into a discussion on economics with an interlocutor who doesn't pack the gear to appropriately participate, any more than I am willing to seriously discuss the finer points of de Rham cohomology with someone oblivious to even elementary algebra.

I have nothing further to add to this thread.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

^^^ I initially attempted a response to your comment. But after 12,498 characters of text I realised it wasn't worth it, that the issue is too difficult to explicate or appreciate on an Internet message board like this of all places. Not to mention, most of what I wrote turned out to be pretty dense—even by my standards— and I figured nobody here would have the intellectual capacity to grasp its overall purport. I've had far simpler arguments fly over people's heads on this forum, like the dictionary definition of a basic English word for fuck sake. (And surely you'd know these things by now if you did have sufficient intelligence. Several philosophers, economists, and other intellectuals have written somewhat similar material.)

I once lived with a guy with Asperger's, and so I know this is probably not going to be well-received, but you should really reflect on the effectiveness of claiming yourself to be right because of superior intelligence. That argument doesn't actually work. People just stop talking to you because you're abrasive and have an unchecked ego.

 

[Nom de Plume]

I once lived with a guy with Asperger's, and so I know this is probably not going to be well-received, but you should really reflect on the effectiveness of claiming yourself to be right because of superior intelligence. That argument doesn't actually work. People just stop talking to you because you're abrasive and have an unchecked ego.

I know I had previously claimed of having nothing further to add to this thread, but that was because I hadn't anticipated this to be your response.

Please, ask yourself: Am I truly abrasive, or am I merely socially inelegant and naïve? Do I truly possess an unchecked ego, or do I simply lack a theory of mind and a normal amount of empathy?

I do not think I am right; rather, I can logically demonstrate that I am. And I do not think you are wrong; instead, you cannot logically demonstrate you are not.

Please, I implore you to respond to my questions—they're not rhetorical, but I am sincerely curious about your opinions. I will not judge them or argue.

Addendum: Also, why would you presume your comment would not be well-received?

 

[Kittycat5]

In case anyone is interested, here is a review of the papers written about patients with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and how the authors reversed course after rexamining their findings.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Please, ask yourself: Am I truly abrasive, or am I merely socially inelegant and naïve?

To claim that others are less intelligent than yourself is socially inelegant but also abrasive. If you want to engage people and have them listen, you have to be modest about your self-image and not belittle them... even if you think they are less intelligent than you. Everyone, through unique individual experience, knows something that you don't, no matter how intelligent you are or how unintelligent they are.

Do I truly possess an unchecked ego, or do I simply lack a theory of mind and a normal amount empathy?

I think empathy is an important quality to possess, however the unchecked ego bit is referring to the same thing I outlined in the previous paragraph.

I do not think I am right; rather, I can logically demonstrate that I am. And I do not think you are wrong; instead, you cannot logically demonstrate you are not.

If you had such a clear logical answer, I'd think you'd be able to articulate it clearly and calmly, rather than talking about your IQ and de Rham cohomology. In general, emotional responses in debates scream "defense mechanism in response to being challenged" rather than "expert".

Over the course of this conversation regarding the gluten-free fad, I've adapted a few things I've learned into my worldview. First, I've thought pretty hard on the idea of thought-policing and the impact of publicly airing grievances about others' personal choices. I've also looked a bit closer at the gluten-free industry and the range of businesses operating within it. I did this because I engaged the debate with a pretty strong opinion on the topic, but also a willingness to see what others had to say and to use their insights to see any inconsistencies or missing spots in my understanding of the issue. If I had engaged this with the absolute conviction that I was correct and that everyone else was 100% incorrect, I wouldn't have learned a damn thing from this, and it would have merely been a shouting match.

To summarize, to debate requires two things: 1) a desire to learn about the experiences of others and test your worldview against theirs, and 2) modesty, in the sense that you don't tell people that you're smarter than them, even if you think you are. Like I said before, everyone has gained through individual experience a unique perspective from which they have something to teach. Logic alone isn't sufficient to solve every issue. Using the scientific method as an analogy, using logic alone only creates the hypothesis; the result is gained through experimentation. I think you'll find yourself getting a lot more from debate if you keep this in mind.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

In case anyone is interested, here is a review of the papers written about patients with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and how the authors reversed course after rexamining their findings.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html

How about a 2015 study confirming it?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25701700

 

[Kittycat5]

Interesting. I wish I could see the whole studies to see how similar the diets were in each one respectively. It may be in the second study, the FODMAPs could be the culprit again. Also I am interested in the nonintestinal symptoms and what is the cause of them. I will have to read up some more.

For both studies, I find to bothersome that NCGS is a diagnosis of exclusion but I understand this is not uncommon in medicine.

But I think we can agree, there is no consensus of the effects of gluten-free diets on non-celiac patients.