Low Gluten Flour + Gluten Does Not Create Celiac Reaction?

[pone]

I'm reading the book "Breaking the Vicious Cycle" which is basically a short summary of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases.  The SCD diet is much more restrictive than a Celiac diet, and it does not allow grains.   The chapter on Celiac disease shocked me with the following statement, based on recent research:  "...when...low gluten flour is baked into bread together with the separated gluten, starch malabsorption does not occur in spite of the fact that the same amount of gluten is present in the baked product as was present in the whole grain before gluten extraction.   Since absorption of the wheat starch is complete, there is no resulting fermentation and intestinal gas."

 

Has anyone had experience with doing that?   I always used to be puzzled by how some gluten meals would cause me incredible distress, and others would cause no reaction at all.   Now I wonder if the above observation doesn't explain this result.   In our world of processed foods, the "smart" food processors may be buying low gluten flour and then mixing in the gluten separately, in order to control gluten concentration more carefully.   Those products may be failing to produce the more violent reactions we all know and love, that occur only when the gluten is closely bound in original form to the wheat starch.

 

Knowing the above makes me wonder if I cannot occasionally have a cheat day and have a real gluten pizza, just making it using the above trick and making sure the starch has no gluten bound to it in the original form, adding in the gluten as a separate ingredient.

 

I'm on the SCD diet, which is even more restrictive than gluten-free, in that I am forbidden from eating all starches and even simple disaccharides like sucrose.   So eating a pizza crust with gluten in it would be a double cheat for me:  cheating on the gluten from the wheat sensitivity and cheating on the SCD with large starch meal.

 

[kareng]

I'm reading the book "Breaking the Vicious Cycle" which is basically a short summary of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases.  The SCD diet is much more restrictive than a Celiac diet, and it does not allow grains.   The chapter on Celiac disease shocked me with the following statement, based on recent research:  "...when...low gluten flour is baked into bread together with the separated gluten, starch malabsorption does not occur in spite of the fact that the same amount of gluten is present in the baked product as was present in the whole grain before gluten extraction.   Since absorption of the wheat starch is complete, there is no resulting fermentation and intestinal gas."

 

Has anyone had experience with doing that?   I always used to be puzzled by how some gluten meals would cause me incredible distress, and others would cause no reaction at all.   Now I wonder if the above observation doesn't explain this result.   In our world of processed foods, the "smart" food processors may be buying low gluten flour and then mixing in the gluten separately, in order to control gluten concentration more carefully.   Those products may be failing to produce the more violent reactions we all know and love, that occur only when the gluten is closely bound in original form to the wheat starch.

 

Knowing the above makes me wonder if I cannot occasionally have a cheat day and have a real gluten pizza, just making it using the above trick and making sure the starch has no gluten bound to it in the original form, adding in the gluten as a separate ingredient.

 

I'm on the SCD diet, which is even more restrictive than gluten-free, in that I am forbidden from eating all starches and even simple disaccharides like sucrose.   So eating a pizza crust with gluten in it would be a double cheat for me:  cheating on the gluten from the wheat sensitivity and cheating on the SCD with large starch meal.

 

 

I have no idea what ".when...low gluten flour is baked into bread together with the separated gluten, starch malabsorption does not occur in spite of the fact that the same amount of gluten is present in the baked product as was present in the whole grain before gluten extraction.   Since absorption of the wheat starch is complete, there is no resulting fermentation and intestinal gas." this even means?  How do you even think that is done?

 

For people with Celiac disease - there is no proven way to bake with gluten and be safe.

 

Lots of people write about diets that are making stuff up.  Unfortunately, in the US, anyone can write a diet book.  

[BlessedMommy]

Celiacs need to be 100% gluten free in order to avoid the health complications like malabsorption that come with celiac. Regardless of where the wheat for the flour was grown or how the flour was processed, it's all the same to a celiac's intestine--poison.

[nvsmom]

I'm reading the book "Breaking the Vicious Cycle" which is basically a short summary of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases.  The SCD diet is much more restrictive than a Celiac diet, and it does not allow grains.   The chapter on Celiac disease shocked me with the following statement, based on recent research:  "...when...low gluten flour is baked into bread together with the separated gluten, starch malabsorption does not occur in spite of the fact that the same amount of gluten is present in the baked product as was present in the whole grain before gluten extraction.   Since absorption of the wheat starch is complete, there is no resulting fermentation and intestinal gas."

 

Huh.   Why in the world would they have put that in a chapter about celiac disease?  Celiacs can't have gluten at all.  That baking tip may be true for people who are having sugar/starch absorption issues, but it definitely is not true for a celiac. All gluten, in any form. will cause us problems.

[mamaw]

Makes  no  sense  at all  for me! But  perhaps  they  are thinking  of  less  than 20 ppm's?  which  for me  is  not gluten-free....

[LauraTX]

The author of that book is not a doctor.  Also, it was written in 1994, so it is already 20 years old and likely dated.  I would be cautious taking any advice from it.

[notme]

that is terrible!  if you have celiac, it's all day, every day, no gluten, period.  maybe you should get a different book?  

[lpellegr]

The quoted passage from the book doesn't refer to Celiac symptoms at all, but to malabsorption of starch and the fermentation and gas that can go with that problem.  That's an entirely separate problem from the immunological reactions that occur with celiac disease, so that passage pretty much has no relevance for us.

[pone]

 

I have no idea what ".when...low gluten flour is baked into bread together with the separated gluten, starch malabsorption does not occur in spite of the fact that the same amount of gluten is present in the baked product as was present in the whole grain before gluten extraction.   Since absorption of the wheat starch is complete, there is no resulting fermentation and intestinal gas." this even means?  How do you even think that is done?

 

For people with Celiac disease - there is no proven way to bake with gluten and be safe.

 

Lots of people write about diets that are making stuff up.  Unfortunately, in the US, anyone can write a diet book.  

 

Wheat starch is the carbohydrate portion of the wheat.  Gliadin is a peptide.  It is possible to separate these two elements, leaving just the pure carbohydrate.   Are you asking me what is the chemical process by which these two are separated? It's not clear where your confusion is or what your question is.

 

It is interesting that some studies show that when you feed just wheat starch - with the gluten removed - to celiacs, they do just as well as a stricter gluten-free diet:

Open Original Shared Link

 

Other research acknowledges this point but makes the additional point it is not well studied or understood:

Open Original Shared Link

 

I'm going to accept at this point that combining gluten to gluten-free wheat starch is probably not a great idea, for a Celiac.     Another fantasy bites the dust.

 

Just as a point of order:  the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) is one of the best respected nutritional approaches to inflammatory bowel disease.   It's not just another diet book.  I would also ask you to review the history of the Celiac disease.   One of the most important figures of the last 100 years in this disease is Dr Sidney Haas.  In 1951 Dr Haas published a famous book named "The Management of Celiac Disease" which advocated the SCD as a treatment for Celiac.   Many Celiacs who partly resolve their symptoms by removing gluten from the diet later completely resolve all symptoms by addressing the more stringent dietary restrictions of the SCD.

[pone]

The author of that book is not a doctor.  Also, it was written in 1994, so it is already 20 years old and likely dated.  I would be cautious taking any advice from it.

 

Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) is not the invention of the author of the book I quoted.   The SCD was created by Dr Sidney Haas, one of the most respected doctors and early investigators of Celiac disease.

 

In reviewing the citations in the section I quoted on Pubmed, you would be surprised at how little research has advanced in 20 years.   I guess the research grants are all going to cancer drugs.

[pone]

The quoted passage from the book doesn't refer to Celiac symptoms at all, but to malabsorption of starch and the fermentation and gas that can go with that problem.  That's an entirely separate problem from the immunological reactions that occur with celiac disease, so that passage pretty much has no relevance for us.

 

I think you are right about this.   The way it is presented - particularly in a chapter about Celiac disease - is a little misleading.   Thank you for making this clear.

[kareng]

Wheat starch is the carbohydrate portion of the wheat.  Gliadin is a peptide.  It is possible to separate these two elements, leaving just the pure carbohydrate.   Are you asking me what is the chemical process by which these two are separated? It's not clear where your confusion is or what your question is.

 

It is interesting that some studies show that when you feed just wheat starch - with the gluten removed - to celiacs, they do just as well as a stricter gluten-free diet:

Open Original Shared Link

 

Other research acknowledges this point but makes the additional point it is not well studied or understood:

Open Original Shared Link

 

I'm going to accept at this point that combining gluten to gluten-free wheat starch is probably not a great idea, for a Celiac.     Another fantasy bites the dust.

 

Just as a point of order:  the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) is one of the best respected nutritional approaches to inflammatory bowel disease.   It's not just another diet book.  I would also ask you to review the history of the Celiac disease.   One of the most important figures of the last 100 years in this disease is Dr Sidney Haas.  In 1951 Dr Haas published a famous book named "The Management of Celiac Disease" which advocated the SCD as a treatment for Celiac.   Many Celiacs who partly resolve their symptoms by removing gluten from the diet later completely resolve all symptoms by addressing the more stringent dietary restrictions of the SCD.

What you quoted doesn't say to leave the gluten out, it says to take a low gluten flour and add extra gluten to it. And that would make it safe for Celiacs? I don't see how you would think that would be good for Celiacs.

Many people do well on the basic SCD diet, I realize that. But, if eating low gluten flours and adding additional gluten to them in bread is something they advise - people with Celiac need to skip that part.

[sunny2012]

No Celiac should count on symptoms to judge the effects of gluten. Failing to absorb say iron, vit B and calcium can go on for quite some time before symptoms occur. By that time, it can take just as long or longer to recover from consuming gluten.

 

There is no prescribed medications for Celiac. Most doctors know how to write scripts. So we have to fend for ourselves to be sure that we refuse to accept any level of gluten as safe.

[sunny2012]

Oh, And I totally agree with all the other posters about the confusing belief that any gluten can be rendered safe.

[pone]

What you quoted doesn't say to leave the gluten out, it says to take a low gluten flour and add extra gluten to it. And that would make it safe for Celiacs? I don't see how you would think that would be good for Celiacs.

Many people do well on the basic SCD diet, I realize that. But, if eating low gluten flours and adding additional gluten to them in bread is something they advise - people with Celiac need to skip that part.

 

The quoted section ends up not being about Celiacs.  The quoted section is pointing out the odd experimental result that when you give the original wheat product that has starch and gluten together, that this gives a much different digestive result than taking the gluten-free wheat starch and adding the gluten back in separately.   It's interesting information in any case, and it might partly explain why some wheat meals cause dramatic effects for Celiacs, but other wheat meals meals seem to be much more benign.

 

Again, I'm accepting your point and every else's point that Celiacs have zero tolerance for gluten in any form.

[w8in4dave]

If you add Gluten to a low Gluten flour then it is not low Gluten any longer.  I cannot even think why a Celiac would think they could have a cheat day.