What If...

[Nancym 4]

Would you be a little upset if you had a disease that was controllable by diet but doctors didn't tell you this, even though they knew, because they assumed you wouldn't be able to stick to it?

Well, that's what they do with diabetes.

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/20...r-diabetes.html

Recently an American Diabetes Association consensus statement acknowledged the lifestyle intervention that includes a carbohydrate-rich diet, recommended for decades by the organization to those diagnoised with type II diabetes, has failed to achieve and maintain the glycemic levels most likely to provide optimal health care status for people with diabetes.

In the statement, a new algorithm of management, starting at diagnosis, includes the same failed dietary intervention, now with the addition of pharmaceuticals.

As I've previously written, on the one hand we have the ADA acknowledging its dietary advice is worthless; on the other we have the ADA refusing to adopt, even cautiously, a dietary recommendation shown to improve blood sugars, insulin and HbA1C, and reduce risk markers for diabetic complications - a low-carb diet.

It seems part of the disconnect between the data in studies and the recommendations made by experts in the field is one of convenience. And no, in this instance I'm not talking about conveniently ignoring evidence or the inconvenience of data. In this instance, I'm talking about inconveniencing a patient diagnoised with type II diabetes.

[queenofhearts 0]

This reminds me of my brother's case. He was diagnosed with dangerously high blood pressure, & the doctor prescribed meds. My brother asked, if I lose weight & cut out salt can I avoid the meds? The doc looked at him like he was from another planet. "Well I guess so if you think you can really do it." He proceeded to lose the weight & eliminate most salt & his bp returned to normal. Hmmmm.

[Nancym 4]

It is galling! They assume that we're weak-willed and unable to control ourselves so they withhold the information?

[tarnalberry 314]

It's true, and I think it's one of the reasons celiac is under-diagnosed. (Particularly asymptomatic cases.) But look at non-compliance rates for the diet in true studies (not on this board, because we're not a representative sample), and look at compliance rates for dietary changes for being overweight or other chronic conditions - diabetes, blood pressure, heart disease, etc. In the general population, the non-compliance is actually shockingly high, so the doctor's aren't entirely wrong to assume that most of their patients won't comply with dietary changes, but they are misapplying the statistics, and doing a *GREAT* disservice to not mention it. Not to mention the fact that their are contributing to, and greatly exacerbating the problem themselves, by encouraging the behavior that allows people to be non-compliant.

[Michi8 1]

Would you be a little upset if you had a disease that was controllable by diet but doctors didn't tell you this, even though they knew, because they assumed you wouldn't be able to stick to it?

Well, that's what they do with diabetes.

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/20...r-diabetes.html

They do it with DH as well. My dermatologist sincerely believes that Dapsone was the best answer to DH, and that the gluten-free diet was too much work to comply with. Not to mention he took the skin biopsy from the wrong spot. I'm afraid it's a very common problem.

Michelle

[ravenwoodglass 1,439]

Would you be a little upset if you had a disease that was controllable by diet but doctors didn't tell you this, even though they knew, because they assumed you wouldn't be able to stick to it?

Well, that's what they do with diabetes.

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/20...r-diabetes.html

Because of years of misdiagnosis my celiac disease has impaired my pancreatic function and that has caused me to develop diabetes, diagnosed a few months ago. I went to my see the Diabetes Educator here. I was handed a stack of literature, ("feel free to line your bird cage with this" was what she said as she handed it to me) and she handed me a prescription for Metformin and told me not to drink alcohol and to just take the pills and I can eat whatever I want. Just test my sugar 2 times a day, get my A1C done in 3 months and have a good day. Huh????????

I went home read the literature including about the stuff for meds and insulin. After I got script filled I noted a black box warning now this warning has symptoms just like a severe glutening !!!!!!!

If I take these how would I know if I had a glutening that would go away in a day or so or if I was maybe going to die.

I called my Doc and he agreed I could try changing my diet and that the pills might not be the way to go for me. He said when the time comes we can use insulin instead. The doctor said she most likely thought with the dietary restrictions I already had that I would not be able to handle the restrictions I would need to control my blood sugar. How nice of her. Two weeks of multiple daily testing and dietary changes and my blood sugar is now well under control without meds. Oh and I can have a small glass of wine with my dinner or the occasional chocolate also.

Oh and she had heard nothing about the NIH reccommending that all diabetics be tested for celiac. I gave her more of an education than she gave me that day.

[Nancym 4]

You might want to give Dr. Bernstein's diet a try. He's a diabetic who thought doctors were doing a terrible job with diabetics. At age 45 he, then an engineer, went to school and got a MD degree. Now he's a huge promoter of treating diabetes with diet. I think he is now in his 80's. Not bad, seeing that diabetes can take a huge chunk of years off your life.

http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/

Even if 100% of the people don't comply with the diet, they shouldn't withhold the information about it from everyone else.

[Ursa Major 5]

It seems pretty obvious to me that type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar and grains. I bet that there are more diabetic people out there who's reason for getting diabetes is, that they have celiac disease, than anybody would ever guess. And the ones not testing positive for celiac disease would likely be gluten intolerant.

If doctors would advocate that ALL diabetics would cut out at least the gluten containing grains (all starches would probably even be better) and sugar, I imagine all type 2 diabetics would recover, and the ones with type 1 diabetes would at least greatly improve.

Of course, that won't happen, because diabetics are the bread and butter of too many doctors (I bet many see dollar signs in front of their eyes when they diagnose somebody with diabetes), and where would the poor pharmaceutical companies be, if they wouldn't be able to sell all their pills any more, and less insulin would be needed by people? Not to mention that surgeons would have to find a different way of financing their yachts, if they wouldn't be busily amputating feet and legs of diabetic people any more!

Okay, I am being sarcastic here, but all this makes me very angry. I have a friend who had a heart attack due to undiagnosed diabetes three years ago. He went to the doctor five times over the course of eight months with OBVIOUS diabetes symptoms (suddenly failing eye-sight at the age of 48, anxiety attacks, weight gain, low energy, running to the bathroom all night, slow healing wounds and others). The doctor put him on anti-anxiety pills! Eventually he had the heart attack, or maybe more than one, because our stupid doctors at our little hospital sent him home several times, until his wife insisted to have him moved to a bigger hospital. They finally diagnosed him with a blood sugar level that was close to killing him (it was so high, most people would already have lapsed into a coma), and a mild heart attack.

I told him that he should change his diet. He said that he had, his doctor has put him on a low fat, low protein diet! Which is the OPPOSITE of what he should be on to get better. He is taking a million different meds. The circulation in his feet is getting very bad, he won't feel when he is hurting his feet any more. But he listens to his doctor, because, after all, I am not trained in medicine, but his doctor is. His wife is a nurse-midwife, who asked me after I told her I have celiac disease, "How do you know, did a doctor diagnose you?" Obviously believing that unless a doctor told me so, I must be wrong. When I told her that my doctor agreed, she said, "Okay, I believe you then".

My friend said that the doctor told him, that once you get the skin peeling off your feet (he did a hike, and didn't even feel it happen), you have about five years to live. He was quite upset about it (and so am I).

It is so upsetting to me, to see the decline of my dear friend, and to feel the doubts from his wife, and her telling her husband that my advise needs to be ignored, that I haven't gone to see them for many months. I love them both, but I just can't handle it. He is going to die early, because of the ignorance of doctors, unless he changes his way of looking at the medical profession and takes things into his own hands. Which isn't likely going to happen.

[queenofhearts 0]

Oh, Ursula, that's so sad about your friend. It must be agonizing to see his decline when you know you could help him if he'd only listen.

It's a crazy world out there when the sicker we are, the healthier our doctors' paychecks (not to mention the Pharm profits) get.

If we had National Health, would there be more of an incentive to catch problems early, treat with diet, &c.? Canada, UK folks, what do you think?

[Guest Doll]

Oh, Ursula, that's so sad about your friend. It must be agonizing to see his decline when you know you could help him if he'd only listen.

It's a crazy world out there when the sicker we are, the healthier our doctors' paychecks (not to mention the Pharm profits) get.

If we had National Health, would there be more of an incentive to catch problems early, treat with diet, &c.? Canada, UK folks, what do you think?

In Canada, we DO have chronic disease prevention programs. We don't WANT to waste taxpayers money on preventable illnesses. But the problem is, people don't WANT to eat healthily. Almost 2/3 (!!!!) of North America's population is overweight or obese! Nobody walks anywhere anymore or does physical activity. And everyone blames everything under the sign for excuses for why they are overweight. But the bottom line is that people are making poor choices. We are not as bad as the US, but we are close.

I know that there are RARER cases of Type 2 diabetes being caused by pancreatitis, which may be induced by Celiac. BUT most cases of Type 2 are caused by insulin resistance caused being overweight, and poor lifestyle choices, plain and simple, not Celiac, in my opinion.

Type 1 diabetes (the rarer non-preventable kind which is fatal without insulin injections) is the type of diabetes that is referred to when diabetes and celiac are lumped together. In fact, kids with Type 1 are beginning to be screened in many clinics because it was found that as many as 30% of Type 1's have Celiac, although most are undiagnosed.

[eKatherine 5]

Diana Schwartzbein, a woman endocrinologist, came to the same conclusions when she saw that the patients who came to her for treatment always went downhill afterwards, even though they had been apparently healthy and asymptomatic prior to the referral.

But it's not just diabetes care. For the past 40 years or so medical science in this country has fixated on drastically changing our diet in ways that have nothing to do with what the natural human diet we evolved on could have been. The evidence this was originally based on was very tenuous, and further studies have not supported these changes any more than early ones did. Eliminate all cholesterol, all eggs, all salt, add vegetable oil, add grains, eliminate saturated fat, go fat-free, eat lots of oatmeal/oat bran/wheat bran, less meat - the list is just endless. And the harder we try to change these things, the fatter and unhealthier we get. It doesn't work? Well what you need is more of the same!

Earlier this year they came out with a study evaluating fat intake in women's diets. The initial conclusion was that if the low fat diet had never been introduced, there would have been insufficient evidence to suggest that anyone should take it on. After a few days they had twisted it to say that the time period of the study (10 years) was insufficient, the diet was insufficiently strict enough, and with all these other changes, they surely would have seen the result they were expecting. So therefore, everybody should be on this diet!

No. The diet failed the test. There is no evidence that being on it longer would have made any difference.

Just like with the diabetic diet. They know in their hearts that the diet is the correct solution. All whole grains all the time must be the perfect diet. It must be the solution to the problem. Is it their fault that the patients won't stay healthy?

The old joke: the operation was a success, but the patient died.

In Canada, we DO have chronic disease prevention programs. We don't WANT to waste taxpayers money on preventable illnesses. But the problem is, people don't WANT to eat healthily. Almost 2/3 (!!!!) of North America's population is overweight or obese! Nobody walks anywhere anymore or does physical activity. And everyone blames everything under the sign for excuses for why they are overweight. But the bottom line is that people are making poor choices. We are not as bad as the US, but we are close.

I know that there are RARER cases of Type 2 diabetes being caused by pancreatitis, which may be induced by Celiac. BUT most cases of Type 2 are caused by insulin resistance caused being overweight, and poor lifestyle choices, plain and simple, not Celiac, in my opinion.

It's easy to say that being overweight caused the type 2 diabetes, but there is no evidence that the weight problem and the blood sugar problem are not part of the same syndrome. The blood sugar issues caused the weight gain, or they occurred simultaneously, just as a celiac's symptoms all have the same cause. The cause? Eating too much wheat, which North Americans eat more of than ever before.

Another cause I have seen suggested, that is, something we have been consuming much more of during the same period, is high fructose corn syrup. Then there's soy. 1-2-3 punch on the old immune system.

[Ursa Major 5]

Actually, my friend and I ARE in Canada, and the healthcare STINKS as far as I am concerned.

Doctors think the food pyramid is the way people should eat. Heck, even nutritionists think that! My daughter's nutritionist told her that her children NEED to eat five choices of grain each day to be healthy. She has them eat low fat, little meat/protein, and high carb (mostly grain), and wonders why these kids are pale and skinny (I am SURE that at least two of them have celiac disease, but she won't believe me, one of the twins NEVER has a real, solid bm, and she thinks that's normal).

[Guest Doll]

Actually, my friend and I ARE in Canada, and the healthcare STINKS as far as I am concerned.

Doctors think the food pyramid is the way people should eat. Heck, even nutritionists think that! My daughter's nutritionist told her that her children NEED to eat five choices of grain each day to be healthy. She has them eat low fat, little meat/protein, and high carb (mostly grain), and wonders why these kids are pale and skinny (I am SURE that at least two of them have celiac disease, but she won't believe me, one of the twins NEVER has a real, solid bm, and she thinks that's normal).

Ursula, who do you see for your Celiac/intolerances/general related issues? Do you have to go to a GP? Or were you able to get a specialist? I do agree that healthcare in Canada, is NOT perfect, or even good but it IS free. That I like

I think it also depends on where you live. In Manitoba, the healthcare system is HORRIBLE. On the flip side, the MB drug plan is one of the best in Canada. I have all of my supplies for my insulin pump, etc. covered 100%. Where I am going to school, in Saskatchewan, I have found the healthcare system to be VERY good and efficient, at least in Regina.

We have a shortage of healthcare staff, and frankly, there are many healthcare professionals that can't do their jobs. Whether it's lack of time, training, or too much stress, I don't know. I have also met WAY too many nurses that shouldn't have graduated, or at least held back a year, if you get my drift. Scary what happens in our hospitals.

France apparently has the best healthcare system in the world. Bonjour France, I say!

I guess I should mention that most of the world does not have Celiac (although we forget that in the forum!), and not all grains are bad for the majority of people. I agree that a healthy balanced diet is needed though, and that means less processed ANYTHING, including bread. Beans, brown rice, etc. are good grain choices for most of us. Oatmeal is very healthy (for non-Celiacs). I do think those kids should be screened though for Celiac, etc.

[Ursa Major 5]

Actually, the parts of the world that don't have a problem with celiac disease are those where the staple food is rice, not a gluten grain. So, Japan, China and other parts of Asia are fine, as well as some island states, where the staples are simply fruits and meat for the most part, and some vegetables.

In parts of Africa where other governments are distributing the wheat that is being overproduced in America, celiac disease is widespread. I believe that many of those people believed to be dying of aids in those poor countries are really dying of celiac disease. They suffer from malnutrition already, and are then given a grain they can't tolerate, that will really wreak havoc with their already weakened bodies. Of course, a lot of them will die!

If governments really want to help, they should give them food that isn't so foreign to their systems, and give them the means to grow what they would want to eat, which is not wheat.

To the question of who I see: Just my GP, whenever I have use for her (for a referral or when I want a prescription for instance). My daughter lives a five hour drive from me, and obviously doesn't have the same doctor. They see a naturopath, and listen to the advice of his nutritionist, unfortunately. The doctor has accurately diagnosed some of their intolerances, and avoiding those foods has cured the kid's eczema (three of them, plus the dad, had severe eczema). But they were never tested for celiac disease.

And, really, the healthcare isn't free, either. The contributions to the insurance are held in with taxes and deducted from people's paycheck, like it or not. Meaning, my husband is financing things like abortions, which are covered by public health insurance. But we have to pay for my eye-exams ourselves, as our government has decreed, in their infinite wisdom that people between the ages of 20 and 65 don't need their eyes checked any more. Also, they won't pay for hearing tests now, not even if you suspect your kid to be deaf, or if older people start to get deaf (hearing exams are expensive, we paid for one the year before last). They also stopped covering chiropractic or physiotherapy. And they don't pay for celiac disease testing. In short, all preventive medicine, and what gets you back on your feet after injuries isn't covered now.

But they still pay for sex change operations. Of course, that is extremely important, much more important than possibly losing your eye sight from macular degeneration, which usually hits around my age. If you hesitate to be seen when you think you are having a problem, because you can't afford the $98.00 an eye exam costs, it will be just too bad for you if you won't ever be able to see your grandkids. I have a bump on my macula, which distorts the vision in my left eye (I don't usually notice, as my brain makes up for it). We need to keep an eye on it, to make sure it doesn't get bigger. So, it is important I get seen at regular intervals.

Okay, end of rant, I could go on for hours, but I won't.

[2Boys4Me 4]

In Canada, we DO have chronic disease prevention programs.

We do?

[Kaycee 1]

diabetics are the bread and butter of too many doctors (I bet many see dollar signs in front of their eyes when they diagnose somebody with diabetes), and where would the poor pharmaceutical companies be, if they wouldn't be able to sell all their pills any more, and less insulin would be needed by people? Not to mention that surgeons would have to find a different way of financing their yachts, if they wouldn't be busily amputating feet and legs of diabetic people any more!

Ursula, what do doctors think when a coeliac patient walks into their room? No dollar signs, unless there are other complications as well. And the pharmaceutical companies probably don't need to inject money into coeliac research, as there is no medication required, as yet. Is this why the disease coeliac gets a bit lost in the medical profession, because it is a non earner.

Who is being cynical now?

Cathy

[Nancym 4]

I was just listening to NPR the other day how new antibiotics are not being researched because drug companies are focuing on "performance enhancement" drugs (like Viagra) and maintenance drugs. So what could be more perfect than a diabetes epidemic?

[Guest Doll]

Actually, the parts of the world that don't have a problem with celiac disease are those where the staple food is rice, not a gluten grain. So, Japan, China and other parts of Asia are fine, as well as some island states, where the staples are simply fruits and meat for the most part, and some vegetables.

In parts of Africa where other governments are distributing the wheat that is being overproduced in America, celiac disease is widespread. I believe that many of those people believed to be dying of aids in those poor countries are really dying of celiac disease. They suffer from malnutrition already, and are then given a grain they can't tolerate, that will really wreak havoc with their already weakened bodies. Of course, a lot of them will die!

If governments really want to help, they should give them food that isn't so foreign to their systems, and give them the means to grow what they would want to eat, which is not wheat.

To the question of who I see: Just my GP, whenever I have use for her (for a referral or when I want a prescription for instance). My daughter lives a five hour drive from me, and obviously doesn't have the same doctor. They see a naturopath, and listen to the advice of his nutritionist, unfortunately. The doctor has accurately diagnosed some of their intolerances, and avoiding those foods has cured the kid's eczema (three of them, plus the dad, had severe eczema). But they were never tested for celiac disease.

And, really, the healthcare isn't free, either. The contributions to the insurance are held in with taxes and deducted from people's paycheck, like it or not. Meaning, my husband is financing things like abortions, which are covered by public health insurance. But we have to pay for my eye-exams ourselves, as our government has decreed, in their infinite wisdom that people between the ages of 20 and 65 don't need their eyes checked any more. Also, they won't pay for hearing tests now, not even if you suspect your kid to be deaf, or if older people start to get deaf (hearing exams are expensive, we paid for one the year before last). They also stopped covering chiropractic or physiotherapy. And they don't pay for celiac disease testing. In short, all preventive medicine, and what gets you back on your feet after injuries isn't covered now.

But they still pay for sex change operations. Of course, that is extremely important, much more important than possibly losing your eye sight from macular degeneration, which usually hits around my age. If you hesitate to be seen when you think you are having a problem, because you can't afford the $98.00 an eye exam costs, it will be just too bad for you if you won't ever be able to see your grandkids. I have a bump on my macula, which distorts the vision in my left eye (I don't usually notice, as my brain makes up for it). We need to keep an eye on it, to make sure it doesn't get bigger. So, it is important I get seen at regular intervals.

Okay, end of rant, I could go on for hours, but I won't.

People from Asian countries actually don't generally have the genetic disposition to develop Celiac Disease or any of the autoimmune diseases that are genetically related to it, like Type 1 diabetes. They seem to have HLA types that are PROTECTIVE to these diseases. People with Northern European backgrounds have high-risk HLA types. That's why Finland, Scandinavia, etc. have the highest rates of these diseases. The connection is genetic susceptibility.

My testing for Celiac was covered by my provincial health plan. Mind you I had to twist my Endo's arm to get it, but that's another story.....

Diana Schwartzbein, a woman endocrinologist, came to the same conclusions when she saw that the patients who came to her for treatment always went downhill afterwards, even though they had been apparently healthy and asymptomatic prior to the referral.

But it's not just diabetes care. For the past 40 years or so medical science in this country has fixated on drastically changing our diet in ways that have nothing to do with what the natural human diet we evolved on could have been. The evidence this was originally based on was very tenuous, and further studies have not supported these changes any more than early ones did. Eliminate all cholesterol, all eggs, all salt, add vegetable oil, add grains, eliminate saturated fat, go fat-free, eat lots of oatmeal/oat bran/wheat bran, less meat - the list is just endless. And the harder we try to change these things, the fatter and unhealthier we get. It doesn't work? Well what you need is more of the same!

Earlier this year they came out with a study evaluating fat intake in women's diets. The initial conclusion was that if the low fat diet had never been introduced, there would have been insufficient evidence to suggest that anyone should take it on. After a few days they had twisted it to say that the time period of the study (10 years) was insufficient, the diet was insufficiently strict enough, and with all these other changes, they surely would have seen the result they were expecting. So therefore, everybody should be on this diet!

No. The diet failed the test. There is no evidence that being on it longer would have made any difference.

Just like with the diabetic diet. They know in their hearts that the diet is the correct solution. All whole grains all the time must be the perfect diet. It must be the solution to the problem. Is it their fault that the patients won't stay healthy?

The old joke: the operation was a success, but the patient died.

It's easy to say that being overweight caused the type 2 diabetes, but there is no evidence that the weight problem and the blood sugar problem are not part of the same syndrome. The blood sugar issues caused the weight gain, or they occurred simultaneously, just as a celiac's symptoms all have the same cause. The cause? Eating too much wheat, which North Americans eat more of than ever before.

Another cause I have seen suggested, that is, something we have been consuming much more of during the same period, is high fructose corn syrup. Then there's soy. 1-2-3 punch on the old immune system.

Too much of ANYTHING (wheat, meat, sweets, fats, etc.) will cause weight gain and/or insulin resistance. People are still in charge of what they put in their mouth.

Also, for the record, Type 2 diabetes is NOT an autoimmune disease, it has to do with insulin resistance not the immune system. The genetics for Type 1 (autoimmune and related to Celiac) and Type 2 are completely unrelated.

Also, Ursula I like your theory, but Africans generally do not carry the genes for Celiac. Gluten is NOT shown to be harmful for those without Celiac, because "normal" people do not let it into their system.

I'm sorry to hear about all the trouble you're having. The only thing I can suggest is to move to Nunavut! I think everything is paid for up there by the federal gov. as most residents are Aboriginal.

[Ursa Major 5]

Doll, I disagree with you on people without the official celiac disease gene not having a problem with gluten. First of all, the experts believe that not all the genes for celiac disease have been identified yet. Secondly, there are plenty of people without celiac disease, who are gluten sensitive. And those people can, without destroyed villi, have the same awful symptoms of gluten intolerance as people with celiac disease. Besides, I don't believe that there is any race on this earth that should be eating gluten, and is fine with it.

It has been proven that people who eat a diet completely foreign to what their ancestors have eaten for hundreds or thousands of years WILL get health problems. Wheat is not a grain that is native to Africa, but rather southwest Asia (Turkey, Syria).

By the way, it is believed that one out of eighteen Moroccan adolescents have celiac disease. They're Africans, too (even though, of course, related to the Arabs).

[Carriefaith 5]

I wish I could change the Food Guide. I'd make some major adjustments

[Guest Doll]

Doll, I disagree with you on people without the official celiac disease gene not having a problem with gluten. First of all, the experts believe that not all the genes for celiac disease have been identified yet. Secondly, there are plenty of people without celiac disease, who are gluten sensitive. And those people can, without destroyed villi, have the same awful symptoms of gluten intolerance as people with celiac disease. Besides, I don't believe that there is any race on this earth that should be eating gluten, and is fine with it.

It has been proven that people who eat a diet completely foreign to what their ancestors have eaten for hundreds or thousands of years WILL get health problems. Wheat is not a grain that is native to Africa, but rather southwest Asia (Turkey, Syria).

By the way, it is believed that one out of eighteen Moroccan adolescents have celiac disease. They're Africans, too (even though, of course, related to the Arabs).

I do agree with you that it's possible if not probable that other genes for Celiac are not accounted for. But, as being a scientist kind of person unfortunately , current science says that the 98% of people with Celiac have a particular HLA type, and that HLA type is usually ONLY found in those with Northern European ancestry.

Many people who phenotype (look) black or Moroccan, etc. may very well have Northern European ancestry hidden somewhere in their genotype (genetic past). Many places outside of Scandinavia that have high levels of Type 1 diabetes for example, are places of Viking invasion and settlement.

I cannot comment more on the Moroccan study, I need more info. Were these people genotyped? Which blood tests for Celiac screening were used? How big was the sample?

I consider those with gluten sensitivity, "neurological" Celiac, seizures related to gluten, etc. as Celiacs, because they normally have high antibody levels. Others may have a gluten "allergy" which is an entirely different matter altogether and involves different genetics. Usually anyone who reacts to gluten has a "leaky gut", which may include those who let in whole gluten proteins but have either different genetics that do not code for an autoimmune attack despite the leaky gut, or genetic protection from intestinal damage, possibly from the other parent.

I say that most everyone isn't harmed by gluten is because most people do not have the (known) genes to react to gluten, allow it whole into the body, and/or acquire damage or a reaction to eating it. We also don't know the initial trigger for Celiac. Not everyone with the genes develops it. In identical twins the concordance is 70-80%. Most people do not react or show antibodies to gluten from birth, even with the genes. Something in the environment (virus, bacteria, etc. ) must set it off, like with all autoimmune diseases.

I say that the problem is with genetics and not wheat itself because all you have to do is look on these boards for confirmation. Many if us have MULTIPLE in-tolerances. No one can say that all of the foods you are intolerant to are "unnatural" or bad, but rather it makes sense to say that a "leaky gut"/defective immune response causes your symptoms. That has a genetic basis. Removing gluten does not cause these intolerances to go away, so it alone is not the cause.

To a certain extent, everyone can produce some antibodies against ingesting anything. That is why I am uncertain if Enterolab testing is not giving EVERONE who takes the test some sort of false positive.

I DO agree that wheat is not exactly natural (bread is a processed seed), but like I have said, oatmeal IS healthy for most and yet toxic to Celiacs independent of wheat CC in some studies.

I do agree that it is probably benficial for people to eat food common to their ancestors.

[gfp 0]

I do agree with you that it's possible if not probable that other genes for Celiac are not accounted for. But, as being a scientist kind of person unfortunately , current science says that the 98% of people with Celiac have a particular HLA type, and that HLA type is usually ONLY found in those with Northern European ancestry.

So far as screening studies through Europe are concerned figures range from 1:133 to about 1:150 based on Rome II criteria. No significant differnce exist in screening tests, only in diagnosis.

However...

Many people who phenotype (look) black or Moroccan, etc. may very well have Northern European ancestry hidden somewhere in their genotype (genetic past). Many places outside of Scandinavia that have high levels of Type 1 diabetes for example, are places of Viking invasion and settlement.

Well the last people the vikings wanted to mess with were anyone else who had a similar command of the sea.

The pirates of the Barbary coast have been there since Cartheginian times and the Cartheginians themselves were probably phoenecian in origin.

The majority of North Africans regardless of what they beleive their heritiage to be are a mix of semetic, Amazigh and negroid.

Y chromosone... is passed exclusively through the paternal line. According to Bosch et al. 2001, "the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (H35, H36, and H38), 13% Neolithic (H58 and H71), 4% historic European gene flow (group IX, H50, H52), and 8% recent sub-Saharan African (H22 and H28)". They identify the "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" component as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in Eastern Africa." The North-west African population's 75% Y chromosome genetic contribution from East Africa contrasted with a 78% contribution to the Iberian population from western Asia, suggests that the northern rim of the Mediterranean with the Strait of Gibraltar acted as a strong, albeit incomplete, barrier (Bosch et al, 2001).

The interpretation of the second most frequent "Neolithic" haplotype is debated: Arredi et al. 2004, like Semino et al. 2000 and Bosch et al. 2001, argue that the H71 haplogroup and North African Y-chromosomal diversity indicate a Neolithic-era "demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East", while Nebel et al. 2002 argue that H71 rather reflects "recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era." Bosch et al. also find little genetic distinction between Arabic and Berber-speaking populations in North Africa, which they take to support the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of northwestern Africa, starting during the 7th century A.D., as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement. Cruciani et al. 2004 note that the E-M81 haplogroup on the Y-chromosome correlates closely with Berber populations.

The mtDNA, by contrast, is inherited only from the mother. According to Macaulay et al. 1999, "one-third of Mozabite Berber mtDNAs have a Near Eastern ancestry, probably having arrived in North Africa ∼50,000 years ago, and one-eighth have an origin in sub-Saharan Africa. Europe appears to be the source of many of the remaining sequences, with the rest having arisen either in Europe or in the Near East." [Maca-Meyer et al. 2003] yze the "autochthonous North African lineage U6" in mtDNA, concluding that:

The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion.

A genetic study by Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2004 argues concerning certain exclusively North African haplotypes that "expansion of this group of lineages took place around 10,500 years ago in North Africa, and spread to neighbouring population", and apparently that a specific Northwestern African haplotype, U6, probably originated in the Near East 30,000 years ago but has not been highly preserved and accounts for 6-8% in southern Moroccan Berbers, 18% in Kabyles and 28% in Mozabites. Rando et al. 1998 (as cited by [1]) "detected female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa to NW Africa" amounting to as much as 21.5% of the mtDNA sequences in a sample of NW African populations; the amount varied from 82% (Touaregs) to 4% (Rifains). This north-south gradient in the sub-Saharan contribution to the gene pool is supported by Esteban et al. Nevertheless, individual Berber communities display a considerably high mtDNA heterogeneity among them. The Kesra of Tunisia, for example, display a much higher proportion of typical sub-Saharan mtDNA haplotypes (49%, including 4.2% of M1 haplogroup) Cherni L, et al.The North African patchy mtDNA landscape has no parallel in other regions of the world.

I cannot comment more on the Moroccan study, I need more info. Were these people genotyped? Which blood tests for Celiac screening were used? How big was the sample?

I consider those with gluten sensitivity, "neurological" Celiac, seizures related to gluten, etc. as Celiacs, because they normally have high antibody levels. Others may have a gluten "allergy" which is an entirely different matter altogether and involves different genetics. Usually anyone who reacts to gluten has a "leaky gut", which may include those who let in whole gluten proteins but have either different genetics that do not code for an autoimmune attack despite the leaky gut, or genetic protection from intestinal damage, possibly from the other parent.

I say that most everyone isn't harmed by gluten is because most people do not have the (known) genes to react to gluten, allow it whole into the body, and/or acquire damage or a reaction to eating it. We also don't know the initial trigger for Celiac. Not everyone with the genes develops it. In identical twins the concordance is 70-80%. Most people do not react or show antibodies to gluten from birth, even with the genes. Something in the environment (virus, bacteria, etc. ) must set it off, like with all autoimmune diseases.

I rather suspect that eventually someone will study pregnant and nursing mothers in this context.

Firstly only IgG is passed into the placenta and only IgA in milk.

What happens if you receive the IgA due to a celaic mother but do not breast feed?

It is becoming apparent that the timing of introduction of gluten to a baby is partially responsible for developing celiac disease. I can hardly imagine receiving the antibodies not having an effect...

The combinations are.... multifold... genetically predisposed vs not mother... and father and then if the mother is does she eat gluten in pregnancy or not... does she eat gluten while lactating?

I say that the problem is with genetics and not wheat itself because all you have to do is look on these boards for confirmation. Many if us have MULTIPLE in-tolerances. No one can say that all of the foods you are intolerant to are "unnatural" or bad, but rather it makes sense to say that a "leaky gut"/defective immune response causes your symptoms. That has a genetic basis. Removing gluten does not cause these intolerances to go away, so it alone is not the cause.

Yes and no.... many of us find that minor intolerances to soy or diary become less pronounced once the gut heals.

I DO agree that wheat is not exactly natural (bread is a processed seed), but like I have said, oatmeal IS healthy for most and yet toxic to Celiacs independent of wheat CC in some studies.

I do agree that it is probably benficial for people to eat food common to their ancestors.

One's ancestors is a whole thread at the moment....

However ... perhaps the difference is if ones ancestors were city folk...

Cities = wheat.... in almost every European and middle eastern context.

The Scandanavians had no cities.... wheat was never a staple.... neither are they particualrly gregarious...

Other cultures have been city dwellers much longer.... various Italian and Greek peoples.

perhaps check the thread.... the last link is to anti-social behaviour...

Is there a connection between being unable to partake in a group mentality and wheat?

In other words if you lived in cities you ate wheat... and if you were autistic spectrum then cities were possibly not your ideal place!

Is there a connection between autistic spectrum diseases and celiac disease?

Is the "domestication of man" as it were from a wild hunter gatherer to todays placid sheep like follower a function of those who went against the group mentality being marginalised ... having less breeding opportunity?

Perhaps if the link existed 10-20 thousand years ago with autism spectrum diseases and celiac disease that todays dominance of Neurologically Typical is simply because 10 people banding together with sticks can kill off 100 people who are loners.

[Guest Doll]

You definitely have some thought provoking theories...but I think they are more speculation than proven science. Of course some of my ideas are also speculation. Interesting and fun, though.

HLA typing has NOTHING to do with screening for Celiac in and of itself. I didn't mean that 98% of Scandinavians carry the genes, but rather 98% of those with Dx Celiac have that HLA (common to northern Europeans) type. That has been studied.

We cannot be sure that there was no Viking invasion there, or no infiltration by groups who may have been exposed to Viking invasion prior and carried the genes in their linage.

As for a mixing of the races, that is true in most cases. However, people in Scandinavia are quite homogeneous, and their gene pool tends to stay much less intermixed. Thus, they get less protective HLA types (Asian) into the mix. One just has to look at the number of people with blond hair and blue/green eyes (recessive) to see that there is not much Asian influence in most people there.

However, of course it is possible to develop Celiac even if you have a racial mix. All need you to have is that particular HLA type. It doesn't matter externally what your phenotype is. For example, Halle Berry is black. Her mother is northern european. She has Type 1 diabetes which is less common in Africans. More than likely she got those genes from her mother, who is of northern european heritage.

As for the intolerances issue, I meant those who continue to let in other foreign proteins (Casein, etc.), NOT those with temporary lactose intolerance, for example. I should have clarified that.

I am not sure of the breastfeeding issue. There is some research showing that introducing gluten between 5-6 months carries the lowest risk in those predisposed to Celiac/Type 1. I'm not sure if it's totally an antibody issue or creating immune tolerance, since not all mothers of Celiacs actually have Celiac themselves. I would think those without Celiac and those on the gluten-free diet would not have any significant levels of IgG to be passed on.

Most twins are BOTH either breastfed or not, so I'm not sure if that totally explains it.

The last thing is really interesting. I'm a little bit confused, though. Are you saying that those with Autism did not eat the wheat that made their symptoms pronounced because they lived in the country? Or that they were "killed off" by the "wheat eating city dwellers" because of it? Sorry, that last part lost me.

First, based on my limited knowledge of history, people with Autism would have been locked up/left to die in most cases, regardless of where they lived, especially if they were not high functioning. That would limit their procreating in itself. Autism is not "normal" or beneficial per se, so that is why the gene pool has naturally stayed "Neurologically Typical". I am aware of the link between Autism and Schizophrenia relating to Celiac. I do agree that gluten can be a neurotoxin, but the person must have the "leaky gut" to let it in.

The only thing I am confused about is why you think rural dwellers didn't eat wheat.

Lastly, I believe we will see a steady increase in Celiac, simply because we can now reproduce. In the past, those with Celiac would waste away and generally die, since no one knew what was causing their symptoms. Of course not procreating will not eradicate Celiac, and having kids will not mean 100% that they will inherit it.

I personally am going to have my child on a gluten-free/CF diet from birth IF I choose to have children simply because they will be high-risk for autoimmune diseases. It may or may not help, but I have nothing to lose.

[gfp 0]

You definitely have some thought provoking theories...but I think they are more speculation than proven science. Of course some of my ideas are also speculation. Interesting and fun, though.

Absolutely.... check the thread !

HLA typing has NOTHING to do with screening for Celiac in and of itself. I didn't mean that 98% of Scandinavians carry the genes, but rather 98% of those with Dx Celiac have that HLA (common to northern Europeans) type. That has been studied.

We cannot be sure that there was no Viking invasion there, or no infiltration by groups who may have been exposed to Viking invasion prior and carried the genes in their linage.

As for a mixing of the races, that is true in most cases. However, people in Scandinavia are quite homogeneous, and their gene pool tends to stay much less intermixed. Thus, they get less protective HLA types (Asian) into the mix. One just has to look at the number of people with blond hair and blue/green eyes (recessive) to see that there is not much Asian influence in most people there.

With a very clear exception of Iceland the racial purity of Scandanavia is a lot less than people tend to think.

The most obvious is the Mongol influence in especially Finland but also that both Norway and Sweden practiced "eugenics" from after WWII up to the 70's!!!!

It was an offense to be homeless and the sami were ... largely homeless but they could be freed from custodial sentence by volunteering for sterilisation however the sami still retain distinct DNA but most peculiarly not from the Mongols (although the Norwegains spent a lot of money trying to prove this and hence declare them inferior)

However even within Norway a huge difference exists, blonde-blue eyes are very rare on the West coast and a few places have Spanish influence ...

However the regressive nature of blonde hair and blue eyes is also counterblanced by the fact that these are culturally prize breeding material for some reason.

______________________________________________________-

I am not sure of the breastfeeding issue. There is some research showing that introducing gluten between 5-6 months carries the lowest risk in those predisposed to Celiac/Type 1. I'm not sure if it's totally an antibody issue or creating immune tolerance, since not all mothers of Celiacs actually have Celiac themselves. I would think those without Celiac and those on the gluten-free diet would not have any significant levels of IgG to be passed on.

Absolutely... the point is the mother may have carried the gene but never developed it.

She could also would not be producing significant IgG if not eating gluten in pregnancy... I forget the exact date when blood enters the placenta .... then she would also not be making IgA if not eating gluten in breastfeeding...

I tend to think it a combination of all of these elements may come into play... but not the whole story.

__________________________________________________________

The last thing is really interesting. I'm a little bit confused, though. Are you saying that those with Autism did not eat the wheat that made their symptoms pronounced because they lived in the country? Or that they were "killed off" by the "wheat eating city dwellers" because of it? Sorry, that last part lost me.

OK... hardly surprising I confused you....

It is not really a matter of country city but of country supporting city.

It always was possible to subsistence farm (and mostly still is) but growing wheat is not efficent for a subsistance farmer unless they supply it to a organised mill and then bakery etc.

First, based on my limited knowledge of history, people with Autism would have been locked up/left to die in most cases, regardless of where they lived, especially if they were not high functioning. That would limit their procreating in itself.

Yes and perhaps.... if we include the whole spectrum of autism related diseases then they would probably have been outside of the community. Reasonably well functioning individuals could be hunters or charcoal burners or many other traditional roles which involved living in the woods by yourself....grazing sheep etc. etc..

Autism is not "normal" or beneficial per se, so that is why the gene pool has naturally stayed "Neurologically Typical". I am aware of the link between Autism and Schizophrenia relating to Celiac. I do agree that gluten can be a neurotoxin, but the person must have the "leaky gut" to let it in.

Let me turn that around... being NT and needing others around you is not particualrly beneficial to living in the woods as a hunter and perhaps only seeing other humans 1-2 a year. Indeed some NT people seem to be unable to cope with being alone... they crave the crowd and the group, go mad and get cabin fever. An autism spectrum person doesn't really want to see other people... someone high functioning like Ursula can cope with them... but as she say's she doesn't miss them if they are not there...

The only thing I am confused about is why you think rural dwellers didn't eat wheat.

Not rural dwellers in a faming community but those outside the community....

Imagine being a hunter in Canada when it was largely unexplored... collecting furs and living in the woods. Would you carry wheat to grind up and make bread when you were surrounded by fresh meat and berries?

6 months of grain to make bread is a lot to carry....

In a community where the "simple kid" could be sent out to watch he goats those NT's would not be so outcast as a bustling city where they would be freaked out the whole time. People touching them and shouting ...

Lastly, I believe we will see a steady increase in Celiac, simply because we can now reproduce. In the past, those with Celiac would waste away and generally die, since no one knew what was causing their symptoms. Of course not procreating will not eradicate Celiac, and having kids will not mean 100% that they will inherit it.

Yes and this is the point.... in nomadic communities they didn't have much wheat... but as man gravitiated towards either cities or feeding cities (for the associated rural community) then there was less chance to opt out.

Cities are about jobs and schedules... meeting people and politics...

Many cultures never developed cities... The Scandanavians still call what anyone else would call village a city but they never did build them.

Houses were made of wood, even when stone was available... defense meant mobility, not walls .. you only need walls to defend an area when you have either the only water source (middle east) or crops.

The same is true for Berbers or pre-hispanic Canary islanders (now extinct) ....and lots of Africa.

The more a civilisation gravitiated towards cities the more it relied on wheat and at the same time excluded those who were just not aware of group mentality.

The hypothesis I am proposing is that autism spectrum diseases was not a "problem" for society until cities...and equally cities demand grain to be fed.

The idea of NT is because NT's are dominant.... and how could they not be in a city based culture...

Even if humans started off with tribes the size of a troop of chimps... perhaps (for the sake of discussion) 50% were NT and 50% non NT but as the NT's banded together ... made towns and then cities the advantge of being part of the group became more appararent.....and those who didn't like the company of others moved further away.

[Guest Doll]

Absolutely.... check the thread !

With a very clear exception of Iceland the racial purity of Scandanavia is a lot less than people tend to think.

The most obvious is the Mongol influence in especially Finland but also that both Norway and Sweden practiced "eugenics" from after WWII up to the 70's!!!!

It was an offense to be homeless and the sami were ... largely homeless but they could be freed from custodial sentence by volunteering for sterilisation however the sami still retain distinct DNA but most peculiarly not from the Mongols (although the Norwegains spent a lot of money trying to prove this and hence declare them inferior)

However even within Norway a huge difference exists, blonde-blue eyes are very rare on the West coast and a few places have Spanish influence ...

However the regressive nature of blonde hair and blue eyes is also counterblanced by the fact that these are culturally prize breeding material for some reason.

______________________________________________________-

Absolutely... the point is the mother may have carried the gene but never developed it.

She could also would not be producing significant IgG if not eating gluten in pregnancy... I forget the exact date when blood enters the placenta .... then she would also not be making IgA if not eating gluten in breastfeeding...

I tend to think it a combination of all of these elements may come into play... but not the whole story.

__________________________________________________________

OK... hardly surprising I confused you....

It is not really a matter of country city but of country supporting city.

It always was possible to subsistence farm (and mostly still is) but growing wheat is not efficent for a subsistance farmer unless they supply it to a organised mill and then bakery etc.

Yes and perhaps.... if we include the whole spectrum of autism related diseases then they would probably have been outside of the community. Reasonably well functioning individuals could be hunters or charcoal burners or many other traditional roles which involved living in the woods by yourself....grazing sheep etc. etc..

Let me turn that around... being NT and needing others around you is not particualrly beneficial to living in the woods as a hunter and perhaps only seeing other humans 1-2 a year. Indeed some NT people seem to be unable to cope with being alone... they crave the crowd and the group, go mad and get cabin fever. An autism spectrum person doesn't really want to see other people... someone high functioning like Ursula can cope with them... but as she say's she doesn't miss them if they are not there...

Not rural dwellers in a faming community but those outside the community....

Imagine being a hunter in Canada when it was largely unexplored... collecting furs and living in the woods. Would you carry wheat to grind up and make bread when you were surrounded by fresh meat and berries?

6 months of grain to make bread is a lot to carry....

In a community where the "simple kid" could be sent out to watch he goats those NT's would not be so outcast as a bustling city where they would be freaked out the whole time. People touching them and shouting ...

Yes and this is the point.... in nomadic communities they didn't have much wheat... but as man gravitiated towards either cities or feeding cities (for the associated rural community) then there was less chance to opt out.

Cities are about jobs and schedules... meeting people and politics...

Many cultures never developed cities... The Scandanavians still call what anyone else would call village a city but they never did build them.

Houses were made of wood, even when stone was available... defense meant mobility, not walls .. you only need walls to defend an area when you have either the only water source (middle east) or crops.

The same is true for Berbers or pre-hispanic Canary islanders (now extinct) ....and lots of Africa.

The more a civilisation gravitiated towards cities the more it relied on wheat and at the same time excluded those who were just not aware of group mentality.

The hypothesis I am proposing is that autism spectrum diseases was not a "problem" for society until cities...and equally cities demand grain to be fed.

The idea of NT is because NT's are dominant.... and how could they not be in a city based culture...

Even if humans started off with tribes the size of a troop of chimps... perhaps (for the sake of discussion) 50% were NT and 50% non NT but as the NT's banded together ... made towns and then cities the advantge of being part of the group became more appararent.....and those who didn't like the company of others moved further away.

A bit clearer!

I didn't mean to get caught up in the racial "purity" of nations, just wanted to point out that science says that people with certain HLA types are at a higher risk for autoimmune diseases. And conversely I think that my point of that particular HLA type being present and generally necessary for disease development regardless of national "purity" still stands.

I don't know about recessive traits being culturally "prized", but I think it seems to be important for some people to try and preserve recessive family traits. For example, my dad (a blond) only wanted to marry a blonde or redhead (my mom is a redhead) so he could pass on light hair. My fiancee has dark hair, but his dad is blonde with blue eyes. He said he prefers to marry a blonde (me!).

Now, logically, if you are proposing that Autism Spectrum disorders were not a problem and even beneficial in some cases, and wheat exacerbates their symptoms, then there is no real reason to state that these people avoid gluten then, right?

Just based on what you were saying, you believe those with Autism lived in rural areas by selective nature of the disease, and could be classified as having Autism even without wheat exposure (rural areas=<wheat according to your theory)? So how do I tie this into the evolution of Celiac?