Is Anybody Else Furious With Reader's Digest?!

[r0ckah0l1c]

I am so angry! I recieved my reader's digest and it completely criticizes Elizabeth Hasselbeck's gluten free lifestyle! They acknowledge that she has celiac disease, but says something along the lines of us being able to consume trace amounts of gluten and that only 1% of people actually have gluten intolerance. The article also suggests that it is better for your health to eat gluten rather than avoid it! I am so upset! It's like they do not even acknowledge the dangers in consuming products we are allergic to! Am I over-analyzing this or did anybody else feel the same way?

---

Okay I just realized that 1 in every 133 people is a little less than 1% lol so I can't really be mad about that...

[mushroom]

I criticize anyone who criticizes it as the "gluten free lifestyle" like it's something fashionable, similar to living the surfing lifestyle or the Riviera lifestyle or the country lifestyle or ...you get the picture... and not something that you have to do to maintain your health and sanity, not to mention preventing oneself from dying of or suffering from other heinosities. Eating gluten might be good for some people's health but certainly not for ours.

[Liveenjoylife]

I can't get mad because they are not in my shoes. The haven't been through the pain and discomfort I have been through. So, they can take their "story" and shove it.

[SGWhiskers]

Mushroom,

Funny you take offense to the Gluten Free "lifestyle" I've been starting to use the term lately because, for me, it is far more than what I eat. It is the hokey pokey dance that I do to prevent all too common accidental glutenings. I was really getting into referring to it as a lifestyle. Now you have me wondering if that term trivializes the necessity of gluten free for us. It isn't just a fad "diet" though. Hmmm. What could we rename it? Thanks for bringing a different perspective.

[Takala]

Oh, it gets better. I went on the net to see if I could come up with an excerpt or copy of the Reader's Digest article, and I found this.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

If I didn't need to be a site member I'd set that snotty ****** straight.

"Hasselbeck I wasn

[mushroom]

Mushroom,

Funny you take offense to the Gluten Free "lifestyle" I've been starting to use the term lately because, for me, it is far more than what I eat. It is the hokey pokey dance that I do to prevent all too common accidental glutenings. I was really getting into referring to it as a lifestyle. Now you have me wondering if that term trivializes the necessity of gluten free for us. It isn't just a fad "diet" though. Hmmm. What could we rename it? Thanks for bringing a different perspective.

I guess I started disliking the word when I found that the people using the term "gay lifestyle" were usually the ones who believe that gay men have a choice as to whether or not to be gay, that it is not something innate. Now I am not trying to start a controversial discussion here as to whether or not that is true, let's not go there, but to me the word has negative connotations because of the choice implications, and as you say, does trivialize eating gluten-free.

Now we can't call it a diet either because that also implies choice; perhaps we could call it the "gluten-free necessity" Or we could say we are on the gluten-free treatment; people seem to have more respect for the word "treatment", probably part of the doctor-worship syndrome.

[debmidge]

I am so angry! I recieved my reader's digest and it completely criticizes Elizabeth Hasselbeck's gluten free lifestyle! They acknowledge that she has celiac disease, but says something along the lines of us being able to consume trace amounts of gluten and that only 1% of people actually have gluten intolerance. The article also suggests that it is better for your health to eat gluten rather than avoid it! I am so upset! It's like they do not even acknowledge the dangers in consuming products we are allergic to! Am I over-analyzing this or did anybody else feel the same way?

---

Okay I just realized that 1 in every 133 people is a little less than 1% lol so I can't really be mad about that...

What issue is this one? May 09?

[OptimisticMom42]

Hello All,

I was excited to see the videos on u-tube of Hasslebeck explaining celiacs and I have read some of Jenny McCarthy's work. I'm all for media attention to help raise awareness. But I keep thinking about how easy it was for the beef industry to take Oprah down. We have to expect the "whole grainer" food industry lobbists to fight back.

Did anyone see the morning news story where the FDA was accused of picking on Cheerios! The FDA wants Generals Mills to stop claiming that Cheerios lower cholesterol. The News spokesperson thinks the FDA should stop picking on General Mills and stick to chasing down salmonella! I wonder who sponsored the show today?

Take Care,

OptimisticMom42

[larry mac]

Is Elizabeth Hasslebeck promoting the gluten-free diet for non-celiacs? If so that would be problematic for us.

Celebrity bashing is all the rage these days. It brings attention to a nobody (the basher) who otherwise wouldn't have anything to talk about.

And who reads Readers Digest anymore. Really old people keep those in the bathroom. I'm surprised they're still around.

best regards, lm

p.s., Some might say I'm really old. lol

[jennyj]

Off the gluten subjct but related to Reader's Digest, I USED to subscribe and I am so ticked at them. Last year I decided not to renew because I just didn't want to renew. So when my subscription came due I didn't pay for the next year, little did I know that the fine print do nothing if you want to continue so I still received the mag so this year I have written on every invoice that they send me I DO NOT WANT CANCEL like the fine print says and I am still getting the mag. I have copies of every invoice (10 of them) I don't know how to get them to stop. ARRGGGHHH

[celiac-mommy]

You should email the magazine and let them know of your dissatisfaction with their article. Set them straight and maybe they will make a retraction in the next issue, or clarify their reasoning if enough people complain...

[Sweetfudge]

I guess I started disliking the word when I found that the people using the term "gay lifestyle" were usually the ones who believe that gay men have a choice as to whether or not to be gay, that it is not something innate. Now I am not trying to start a controversial discussion here as to whether or not that is true, let's not go there, but to me the word has negative connotations because of the choice implications, and as you say, does trivialize eating gluten-free.

Now we can't call it a diet either because that also implies choice; perhaps we could call it the "gluten-free necessity" Or we could say we are on the gluten-free treatment; people seem to have more respect for the word "treatment", probably part of the doctor-worship syndrome.

I like the word treatment makes it sound more serious. I tell a lot of people that I am on a medically necessary diet when they ask (I can't think of the actual phrase I use, something along the lines of doctor-required/health-required...but my mind just went blank ).

You should email the magazine and let them know of your dissatisfaction with their article. Set them straight and maybe they will make a retraction in the next issue, or clarify their reasoning if enough people complain...

That's what I'm going to do, once I read the article (have the magazine in my office).

[Tim-n-VA]

Its been a while since I've looked at an issue of RD. I might have to pick one up.

To the extent the that the comments on the randi site linked above are accurate, I wouldn't object too much to the article. It sounds like it is more about celebrity adivice and fads more than about celiac.

There is a gluten-free fad diet and that can make it more difficult for people who have medical reasons for a gluten-free diet.

Taking medical or dietary advice from someone because they were willing to pose naked 15 years ago doesn't make sense (that's the only reason we know who Jenny McCarthy is).

[one more mile]

Did anyone see the morning news story where the FDA was accused of picking on Cheerios! The FDA wants Generals Mills to stop claiming that Cheerios lower cholesterol.

I laughed so hard during the news today. The fda claims that if a food claims to cure an illness then it must be classified as a drug. What about all these people that are saying to eat fish for the omga 3's. Will Fish now become a drug? Is coffee now a drug because it sure helps my grandmas constipation? or will food dietitians that try to cure blood sugar problems now have go to pharmacy school? What about all the studies of the month that tell you to eat this or that cause it prevents cancer. Personaly If I had been eating better all these years I would probably not need the drugs that thr FDA does push.

I wonder if my drug insurance will pay for apples, and bananas? Actually my doctor told me to get more sun for the vitamin d, I wonder if the FDA is going to regulate the sun now???

[mushroom]

Taking medical or dietary advice from someone because they were willing to pose naked 15 years ago doesn't make sense (that's the only reason we know who Jenny McCarthy is).

Oh well, that counts me out--never heard of the ??lady??? I'm sure she'd hate to hear that!

[one more mile]

There is a ton of debate about this book. please read this.

Open Original Shared Link

Personaly I think it is all about marketing. A diet and fitness book is a better seller then some book about an illness.

and many people who will pick up the book will find that they have this illness. Diets do not work for chubby celiacs. I am just glad that the word will get out although maybe a little though the wrong vehicle. Debate about the illness is much better then silence about it.

Think of the typical Readers digest reader. Telling them that Gluten may be the worse thing they can eat would not help sales at all.

It is all about marketing. I think there is enough information out there that once a persons eyes open to it , they will find the right information or figure it out on their own.

[GottaSki]

Is Elizabeth Hasslebeck promoting the gluten-free diet for non-celiacs? If so that would be problematic for us.

I'm nearly done reading her book. I think she has described celiac disease in a very clear manner.

She does point out that going gluten-free can be a very healthy lifestyle change for anyone, but does explain it to be the only treatment for for Celiac Disease. That it is not a choice for Celiacs if they want to be healthy/improve their health.

I also give her a great deal of credit..she along with many members of this board had to start gluten-free when the information was not at our fingertips...this is tough now...I can only imagine how much more difficult it would be if I had make a phone call to confirm each product to be gluten-free.

[ravenwoodglass]

Off the gluten subjct but related to Reader's Digest, I USED to subscribe and I am so ticked at them. Last year I decided not to renew because I just didn't want to renew. So when my subscription came due I didn't pay for the next year, little did I know that the fine print do nothing if you want to continue so I still received the mag so this year I have written on every invoice that they send me I DO NOT WANT CANCEL like the fine print says and I am still getting the mag. I have copies of every invoice (10 of them) I don't know how to get them to stop. ARRGGGHHH

I was able to get them to stop sending, along with a lot of the other mags that I used to subscribe to. I sent a letter with the invoice stating that their magazine was a cover to cover advertisement for prescription drugs and that I was no longer reading magazines that advertised drugs. (Of course that now leaves me with only National Geographic and mags like Audobon but at least I am no longer supporting the drug industry) I did get a couple of renewel notices that offered the mag for $10 a year but ignored them. If you paid for your subscription with a credit card notify your credit card company that you will not pay for the subscription and if you used automatic checking account deductions do the same with your bank. Send them the copies of your written request to cancel the subscription and if the payment was by credit card request a refund. That should do it.

[Tim-n-VA]

I finally picked up that issue and read the articles. I didn't have any problems with it. It is part of a three article group about celebrities taking their specific experience and promoting it as a generic advice. It isn't the focus of the article so it doesn't get much space but they are very clear that gluten-free is appropriate for a segment of the population with celiac and for another segment with non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

[PattyBoots]

I quit reading Reader's Digest about 6-7 years ago when I realized it really should be titled "Republicans' Digest" and it was no longer relevant to my interests. I decided my blood pressure going up over 50% or more of the articles wasn't worth the few chuckles from the antiquated jokes.

[jkmunchkin]

Off the gluten subjct but related to Reader's Digest, I USED to subscribe and I am so ticked at them. Last year I decided not to renew because I just didn't want to renew. So when my subscription came due I didn't pay for the next year, little did I know that the fine print do nothing if you want to continue so I still received the mag so this year I have written on every invoice that they send me I DO NOT WANT CANCEL like the fine print says and I am still getting the mag. I have copies of every invoice (10 of them) I don't know how to get them to stop. ARRGGGHHH

Just call subscriptions and cancel.

[HiDee]

I finally picked up that issue and read the articles. I didn't have any problems with it. It is part of a three article group about celebrities taking their specific experience and promoting it as a generic advice. It isn't the focus of the article so it doesn't get much space but they are very clear that gluten-free is appropriate for a segment of the population with celiac and for another segment with non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

I agree. Also, as the original thread starter mentioned them talking about trace amounts of gluten being OK, they actually state that trace amounts can be harmful for celiacs, not the other way around. They do say that those who are gluten intolerant may sometimes be able to tolerate trace amounts. I think we all know someone who is super sensitive to a crumb and others who don't get symptoms from CC. That's all I got from the article. I thought it was very factual and to the point. It did urge anyone who thinks they may have a gluten intolerance to get tested, sounds like good advice.

As for the Cheerios-being-heart-healthy thing, I have to agree with the FDA on this one. Cheerios are really not that healthy, perhaps healthier than other breakfast choices like a pop tart maybe. Open Original Shared Link - a well known cardiologist's take on the issue.