gluten-free Diet Research Papers

[Osprey101]

I have a really stupid question, and I was hoping someone here might be able to help me find the answer.

I have been searching for references indicating the gluten-free diet is safe and effective. I'm not challenging the concept that it is- I am simply looking for stuff in peer-reviewed, refereed literature indicating that someone has studied a group of celiacs on a gluten-free diet versus a control diet, and ascertained the degree of success one has after eliminating the gluten.

For two days, I've been up and down PubMed with different search terms, and haven't gotten anywhere. All I'm looking for is a study showing that the gluten-free diet is safe and/or effective with celiacs. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[ravenwoodglass]

Perhaps you could try doing a 'reverse' search. Try putting celiac, diet and noncompliance in the search engine and see what comes up. There is a lot of research out there but sometimes it takes a bit to come up with the right words to pull it up.

[veggienft]

I have a really stupid question, and I was hoping someone here might be able to help me find the answer.

I have been searching for references indicating the gluten-free diet is safe and effective. I'm not challenging the concept that it is- I am simply looking for stuff in peer-reviewed, refereed literature indicating that someone has studied a group of celiacs on a gluten-free diet versus a control diet, and ascertained the degree of success one has after eliminating the gluten.

For two days, I've been up and down PubMed with different search terms, and haven't gotten anywhere. All I'm looking for is a study showing that the gluten-free diet is safe and/or effective with celiacs. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Somehow I doubt you'll find a study of gluten-free diets, or anything else for that matter, which shows them to be safe. Studies find things wrong, or they don't. If a study fails to find something wrong, does that mean nothing is wrong?

No.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The study you're looking for would test for side effects of gluten-free diets. In other words, if you don't eat something, what could happen? Glutenous grains are not proven to be a necessary diet component. On the contrary, as witnessed here, they have damaging effects on many humans.

The only reason to assume people might need glutenous grains is paradigm, a mind set passed down over many generations. If you look at how humans digest gluten, you'll discover that the process is not possible through genetically inherited means. It requires mitochondrial inheritance and mitochondrial action.

Your question approaches gluten from a negative assumption, that not eating gluten could be harmful. Wouldn't the onus of proof be on the opposing side of the argument? Shouldn't the person arguing for gluten consumption be required to prove that it's safe?

And on that basis there is an absolute wealth of proof that gluten harms people.

..

[Osprey101]

I finally found some relevant work:

"Is a life-long gluten-free diet for patients with celiac disease successful?" from 2005, and "Compliance of adolescents with coeliac disease with a gluten free diet" in Gut from 1991.

Each of these papers (the first one of which is largely an opinion piece) has references that are pertinent, and I can make do from there. Thanks, all!