Support NeoGAF

[markot]

It's good that gluten free food is more readily available for people who are genuinely intolerant.

Is bad that people go from fad to fad to fad diet wise.

 

[Stinkles]

I think most adults I know at this point are convinced they're gluten intolerant and they are going to ignore the science on this.

 

[e_i]

OMG, a flavor of the month diet craze is full of shit? OMG!

 

[zaxon]

You certainly agree that poking holes into a study you haven't even read is silly though, yeah?

A little bit, perhaps, but even if someone is questioning something solely out of ignorance or denial (or both!), their question still has the possibility of value. I don't see any possible value in unquestioningly accepting an internet post that is a summary of a summary of a summary of a study that the author didn't even read.

 

[terrisus]

I see this pattern a lot in these threads and other similar threads.

Scientist posits existence of thing -> people buy into it because SCIENCE and it may have had indirect benefits anyway -> literally same scientist goes back to recheck his work, discovers he was probably mistaken -> SAMPLE SIZE IS TOO SMALL, SCIENTISTS CHANGE THEIR MINDS EVERY YEAR I WON'T BELIEVE THIS, DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF AGENDA OR SOMETHING

Unless it's regarding violence and video games or other media, in which case everyone just posts "CORRELATION != CAUSATION" without actually reading it.

 

[nelchaar]

Are you kidding? If not, could you elaborate?

That seems like a ridiculously dumb thing to say about an entire field of medicine. The field is extremely vast, and being a scientist you should know first and foremost that you are not the expert outside of your chosen area of your field.

Let me be clear, I am referring to gastroenterologists as physicians, not scientists. The ones my gf and I met with did not seem to know their science at all (I.e, what's the most research on the topic of gastroparesis? Causes? Potential treatments?). They clearly were behind in their knowledge of science. I have never observed that with medical oncologists for example, who always seemed abreast of the latest updates and clinical trials. That being said, it could be because like you said, it's a very vast field. All in all, it was very frustrating discussing the illness with someone who is in a position of expertise. I expected much, much more.

 

[nelchaar]

Kind of interesting how this was left out of the op:



So, yeah. Something is going on with gluten, but the previous classification they came up with was imperfect/incomplete, so they need to start over and get a better understanding of the underlying mechanism to know what is actually going on.

That neither confirms nor denies the existence of NCGS, it simply confirms what should have been kind of obvious to begin with: there is more going on here, and we barely understand any of it.



Questioning and poking holes in scientific theory/research is one of the fundamental pillars of science. Ridiculing people for questioning things is one of the fundamental pillars of ignorance.

You must have missed the last paragrapf of the OP then were I clearly said that more research is needed. I also provided the source so you can read it. Or am I supposed to copy paste the whole thing?

 

[marrec]

Didn't scientists already know this? Before this whole gluten fad I remember Alton Brown, of all people, saying that only people with Celiac's Disease had trouble with gluten.

He's been a big advocate of getting properly tested and having a strict diet if you have Celiac. Spoke at length about it at a live show I went to a few years ago.

 

[Always-honest]

So gluten is mostly urine?

It's not. It's different. It's cum.

 

[terrisus]

It's not. It's different. It's cum.

iunderstoodthatreference.gif

 

[zaxon]

You must have missed the last paragrapf of the OP then were I clearly said that more research is needed. I also provided the source so you can read it. Or am I supposed to copy paste the whole thing?

The study co-author stated that more research was needed to determine whether or not gluten sensitivity actually exists.

You stated that gluten sensitivity has been "thoroughly shown to not exist."

Honest question: Did you actually read the study you've written about? Did you read anything beyond the BI article?

'Cus from where I'm sitting it looks like you just read that gluten thread on gaf yesterday and thought to yourself, "Man, gluten sensitivity is bullshit." So you went on google to find something to back up your view and, bam, right there on the first page of results is your Business Insider article.

There are also other articles, of course. More thoroughly researched and professionally written articles, from sources with actual credibility in science reporting. You didn't use any of them, though. Probably because none of them are as one-sided and biased as the BI article. I mean, even your BI article directly links to its source, a piece on RealClearScience titled "Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity May Not Exist". I have to assume you didn't even read that piece, otherwise how could you have written a thread title like "Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity Now Thoroughly Shown to Not Exist"?

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Sorry for the bump, I presented this study to some anti-gluten believers I know and one responded that they believe that the controls on the studies were not good. The first objection was using whey protein as a control for gluten, as many people claim to be sensitive to dairy and gluten. I don't see why this would be a problem as the study is about gluten sensitivity, not lactose intolerance, but this person believed it wasn't an adequate control. Secondly, they objected to testing for only three days in the second, large study (as opposed to ten days in the 37 person studies) because, and I quote, "it can take longer than that for symptoms to clear (up to a week)".

Anyone on science GAF care to refute? I'm not a GI or dietician, so I go by what information I know and my own BS alarm. "Non-celiac Gluten sensitivity" falls into that BS alarm category for me, along with Atkins, no-egg, Goji berries, and other random dietary panics that have come and gone over the years. But I'm always open to new information.

 

[speculawyer]

Never underestimate placebo effects. People are not rational.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Anyone? I'll stop posting here after this, but I'd really love a scientific answer as to why whey was used as a control for a gastroenterological study when lactose intolerance and milk allergies are so common.