Get email alerts Get Celiac.com E-mail Alerts  




Celiac.com Sponsor:
Celiac.com Sponsor:




Ads by Google:






   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

Monosodium Glutamate
0

32 posts in this topic

OK, since you asked for it (and I guess you mean something more "official"), here's just one of many:

http://www.azconservative.org/cox6.htm

This reads like a press release that someone turned into newspaper content. I finally googled and found many profiles of the few "experts" who have written most of the anti-msg books on the subject. To a one they were saying that msg has been proven to be responsible for obesity or the obesity epidemic, but no sources were shown and the reporter did not ask - which makes it suspect -an actual newspaper article written by a reporter should ask those things. Also, these profile pieces were copied and reposted repeatedly, which made them look like a PR piece written by a publicist involved with the release of a book.

As far as medical research is concerned, the only actual research I was able to find shows that when you repeatedly inject newborn baby rats with almost enough msg to kill them, they become obese. This appears to be the basis of the entire "MSG causes obesity" claim.

"MSG is responsible for the obesity epidemic in humans" is a claim that really needs to be substantiated with better research than this - research which shows any effect on humans when used as it normally is, for instance. A proper study might show kids losing weight when msg is removed from their diet, but this would probably not be doable without making their diet healthy, and then it would be impossible to separate any purported effect of msg from the switch to a healthy diet. Giving a daily dose of msg or a placebo to adults for a period of a month or more should probably show a gain in weight for those on the msg, and the result should be dose-dependent. If this study had been run, we would have heard. Since we haven't heard, I'd guess it hasn't. Perhaps the anti-msg proponents could try running just such a study.

What this research shows is that it is probably very bad to inject newborns of any species with near-lethal doses of msg for the first month after they are born, but as far as humans and ingestion of small amounts (as opposed to injection), it proves nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ads by Google:
This reads like a press release that someone turned into newspaper content... but no sources were shown and the reporter did not ask - which makes it suspect -an actual newspaper article written by a reporter should ask those things.

Huh? Did you see the reference to the many ACTUAL LAB STUDIES listed on www.pubmed.com?

As for the duration of the MSG given to rats, they mature too rapidly to do the long-term studies required to satisfy all the requirements of those who doubt the harmful long-term effects of MSG. Giving humans MSG in the quantities found in so many prepackaged foods for an extended period is being done - to the American populace. That's the kind of data required. If the average person is overweight, then it seems to me that any study trying to verify whether MSG is a factor would be better to eliminate that one substance from the diet. Leaving the rest of the dietary intake unchanged would be the only way to give that "absolute positive proof" some ask for. Otherwise, you'd have to give the subject more MSG than what the average person is now consuming, thus voiding the experiment. The argument is over current levels, as well as the steady rise over time of both the MSG level and the obesity epidemic, is it not? This also would avoid the argument that the human race may be a victim of some evolutionary process.

So, this may be one study that truly never gets done, because the funding isn't there. A large number of foods on the market would have to be precisely duplicated except for the absence of MSG. You'd need to have two groups of individuals. Both consuming the exact same diets, but one group gets the duplicates. Then over time any effects could be measured. Any changes to the control group's diet could change their weights, so you have to keep that intact. The non-MSG group can't maintain a different diet because those changes would void the experiment as well. Let's also not forget that such major funding would place all involved head to head with large industries - ones which already provide funding for things they want studied. That leads to conflicts of interest which I don't imagine any lab/university would be willing to step into.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is over current levels, as well as the steady rise over time of both the MSG level and the obesity epidemic, is it not?

While people in our culture are eating some more msg, there have also been many dietary changes in that same time period that actually have been shown to have a measurable obesity-producing effect.

Your point was mine in doing a study eliminating msg from the diet: that it can't be done while keeping all other things equal, though someone could certainly manufacture (ie home cook) a diet for a month or two with an msg and non-msg option.

I'm also curious why we haven't seen a chorus of "I gave up msg and lost 10...25...50...100 pounds!" which I would expect to see if there was this effect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSG should be outlawed, as it really doesn't enhance the product. You can enhance flavors with spices. I have been allergic to MSG for forever. As msg contains hydrolyzed vegetable protein which more often than doesn't contains gluten and is a big no no for us.. It is safe to say stay away from it. My problems with it started in my late teens when they started adding it to everything. If I ate something that had it in it my tongue would crack and bleed, headaches, and spending copious amounts of time in the bathroom. Guess what KFC has the highest amount of in their chicken breadng...you guessed it so, in essence in that bucket of salt people buy is a bucket of msg and gluten, more gluten than chicken.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MSG should be outlawed...

Yes, but the FDA has done exactly the opposite!

Here's a quote from this article:

Hermanussen has been conducting a study using Memantine, a drug usually used to treat Alzheimer's disease, for weight control, and all of his subjects, he says, have lost weight easily.

Memantine is a member of the class of drugs called glutamate blockers, which keep MSG from reaching glutamate receptors in the brain

Here's yet another good article on how MSG effects the brain:

http://www.vitalearth.org/MSG.htm

While it ends with a promo for a product, the scientific info is still just as valid. One-sided? Perhaps, but since MSG is in so much stuff, that to me seems like an overly lopsided scale too.

I'm also curious why we haven't seen a chorus of "I gave up msg and lost 10...25...50...100 pounds!" which I would expect to see if there was this effect.

I doubt we'll see such a chorus since MSG is so well hidden that most people are unaware of its presents, be they overweight or not. Even when you look for it, you may not find it even when it's list, much less when it's not.

Moreover, from what I've been reading it seems that once the hypothalamus is damaged, there will be irreversible weight gain! This has been proven in the lab, and it seems infants and children are much more sensitive to the effects of MSG. And guess what? Tests show infant formulas have MSG! So they are in essence preparing our children for a lifetime of weight problems. In this case, it may take an entirely new generation to overcome the obesity epidemic, but only if the average consumer becomes informed enough to avoid such culprits as MSG. I'd hope that public demand would force the manufacturers to stop lacing the supermarket shelves with neurotoxins, but the way things are going doesn't give me any hope for the foreseeable future.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




I'm also curious why we haven't seen a chorus of "I gave up msg and lost 10...25...50...100 pounds!" which I would expect to see if there was this effect.

Most likely because its extremely difficult to "give up MSG"...as its in just about everything we eat nowadays. You could say just eat fruit, veggies and meat and you will be naturally free of MSG right???...Wrong.....its actually found its way into the fresh produce via growth enhancers. Auxigro is a growth enhancer (ever wonder how the strawberries got to be so big?) that contains 30% glutamic acid. Yup...thats MSG...and its used on a wide array of crops...vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts.

Its virtually impossible to say "I gave up MSG"....what on Earth would you eat? :huh:

Furthermore....thanks to the widespread use of MSG on the crops....its now found its way back into baby food. At one time MSG was removed from all baby food products but with the use of Auxigro and other growth enhancers unfortunately there is no guarantee your babies food will be free of MSG.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Organic produce isn't supposed to have MSG in it. I started reacting to it about three months into the gluten-free diet. I only buy organic meats and produce now, turkey bacon with no nitrates....organic soups...anything I can find that I think is the healthiest option around. My system is pretty clean now so I can really tell when I have MSG as my stomach bloats up like a gluten reaction. So I think if something makes you feel bad, you should not consume it. Doesn't matter what study proves what. MSG makes me sick - end of story for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
0

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      104,385
    • Total Posts
      920,613
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Squirmingitch, I forgot to mention best of luck to you during the storm! I hope you are safe and that your home isn't impacted too badly! I'm on the coast in SC so we will see some storms from it but nothing near as bad as what you will have. Take care and good luck.
    • SquirmingItch, I really appreciate you gathering info for me! To answer your questions, yes, I'm on Dapsone now and have been on it for about 4.5 weeks. I have been gluten free for the same amount of time. I started on 50 mg of Dapsone which didn't seem to help much. I spoke to my doctor about it and after about a week she raised it to 100 mg. Since then I did notice a huge improvement in both my rash and itch. I no longer have any active rashes and my itching isn't completely gone but it's very minimal. I have been getting weekly blood tests done and will soon be moving to monthly.  My DH skin biopsy was done before the gluten free diet and Dapsone. My results for the skin biopsy came back as inconclusive, but even with those results, my doctor was convinced I had DH. I specifically asked her about the fact that she took the biopsy directly from the lesion rather than next to it and if that affects the result. Her explanation was that if it's a fresh enough lesion that isn't scratched, there should be IgA antibodies present. But she said that an inconclusive result isn't surprising because the IgA antibodies come and go from the skin so quickly that it can be very difficult to get a positive result, even in someone who is positive.  That's when she decided to run the celiac blood panel on me. And even though those results came back positive for the deamidated gliadin and negative for tTg, she still is very convinced that I have DH. I am happy that my doctor seems to be certain, but I would just feel better if the results were more definitive. The one other thing I am waiting on is I have been asked to attend grand rounds at the local academic hospital in 2 weeks. I guess grand rounds is where all of the academic dermatologists and dermatopathologists get together to review certain complicated cases. They will meet with me, review all of my pictures, biopsies and blood tests. My situation has been so complicated so they asked me to come. I am hoping maybe then I will get some more answers. 
    • It sure is, it really is. 
    • shellyb, I have info. for you & you may yet be able to get an official dx from your dermatologist as she sounds like she would be willing to learn. If you are dx'd with dh it is definitive & no other testing is needed. You don't need to see a GI. Im in FL & have had a long day watching Tropical Storm Hermine & making preparations for it's track which is over where I live. I'm tired! I will have links for you to reputable medical info. on the rash but it make take me till tomorrow or even longer if we lose power.  I'll be back as soon as I can. Question: You're on Dapsone now? How long have you been on it? How is it working for you? Are you getting the proper testing at regular intervals to make sure it isn't doing bad things to you? Were you gluten free before the skin biopsy?
    • Thank you so much for your quick response, GFinDC. While I wouldn't be completely opposed to another skin biopsy, I already had 4 done (3 were done prior to my dermatologist suspecting DH) so I don't love the idea of  yet another hole and scar on my body. Plus, fortunately I don't have any fresh lesions now, which I believe is needed for the biopsy. I wish I would have known to see a GI before going gluten free but I was so desperate to get any relief that I started that and Dapsone as soon as my doctor mentioned it to me.  My rash is definitely symmetrical and I have it in all of the "classic" DH spots although it basically spread over my entire body. As much as I'd like a more formal diagnosis, I really don't think I can go through all of that again. It was so bad that not only was I getting no sleep but I had to change my sheets every morning because there was blood all over them. Sorry, TMI. The worst part is that this all developed during my ninth month of pregnancy and got much worse after I delivered my baby. So not only was I dealing with this insanely itchy rash but I had a newborn and a toddler to take care of.  My daughters' pediatrician did mention doing DNA testing on me first and then my daughters to see if there's any concern that they may be susceptible. I may just go that route for now. I was just curious if others have had similar test results to mine and how did their doctors treat it? Thanks again!
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Entries

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      61,455
    • Most Online
      1,763

    Newest Member
    JLeigh
    Joined