Research Discrediting Gluten Sensitivity - Step Backwards

[MisterV]

Reading this article and taking a closer look at this research feels like we're moving years backward.

Open Original Shared Link

 

Anyone know of any research that contradicts this or at least weakens it?

 

[LauraTX]

It is important to note that this study that blew up news sites with misleading headlines does not totally discredit gluten sensitivity.  It is a single small study that does show that many people who think they are gluten intolerant and do not have a diagnosis of Celiac disease actually have a problem with FODMAPS.  That is actually a real issue, but does not mean "gluten sensitivity does not exist", "gluten intolerance is all in people's heads", "gluten intolerance was just proven to not be real", etc like all those headlines state.  When this study and all the news articles came out in 2014, I had more than one person call me up to say "Hey I saw this article that your problem is actually not with gluten".  What I did was explain to them that: A. I have Celiac disease, which is a very real medical condition, and different from gluten intolerance, B: The study does not disprove the existence of gluten intolerance and is a lone study with a small sample size and narrow scope, and C: The one thing it does highlight is the need for people who go gluten free by their own accord to get a proper medical diagnosis, as what they think they should avoid eating and what they really are having problems with are similar but not quite spot on.

 

This is just a classic example of irresponsible reporting on the part of mass media.  If people come to you with a misunderstanding of it, link them to the original publication abstract which gives a pretty good overview of what the study ACTUALLY found.  Open Original Shared Link

 

On a final note, this is why any time one reads any article that is about a medical study, especially with a catchy headline, you should read the original study.  Usually you can find a source with a good abstract, which is just a summary paragraph that is usually enough for a good understanding of what the scientists actually found versus the blown up exaggerated version the media painted.