You Should Stop Calling Gluten Intolerance A Disease

[motif]

because it's not disease, it's what humans are accustom to not tolerate since millions of years.

You wouldn't call a disease intolerance of poisonous mushrooms, would you???

[RideAllWays]

But the autoimmune reaction of celiac disease is not present in "normal" individuals...I don't think I have ever heard anybody refer to gluten intolerance as a disease..just Celiac Disease.

[RiceGuy]

I kinda think of gluten intolerance as no more unusual than a corn or peanut allergy. I still find it odd how so many people seem to freak out when they realize they can't eat gluten. It doesn't appear to be that way for corn, peanuts, soy, etc.

Even an anaphylactic reaction to a food isn't necessarily considered a disease. However, I would say an autoimmune disorder such as Celiac is...well...a disorder.

I think I do see the point motif is suggesting though. Especially when a healthy life is expected as long as gluten is avoided. Much the same way we'd expect to be healthier by avoiding any poison, be it snake venom, mercury, arsenic, or whatever.

But there is a difference with Celiac, because gluten isn't poisonous by definition. It's not poisonous to pretty much every form of life on the planet. Celiac takes not just the substance, but the body's inappropriate response to the presence of that substance.

[RideAllWays]

It just seems weird to blur the lines I guess...because if you're classifying it as an autoimmune "disorder" then what about Diabetes? Addison's? And I think the reason most people are overwhelmed by a gluten allergy is because it is in a lot of things, and in North America and I'm sure many other parts of the world gluten-containing products are not only a huge part of the diet but of culture itself. I do agree that gluten intolerance isn't exactly a disease, but the reaction associated to Celiac pretty much fits the definition; A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

[motif]

But the autoimmune reaction of celiac disease is not present in "normal" individuals...

that's the point, how do you know??? - if somebody have no symptoms YET or no visible symptoms doesn't mean gluten and dairy is good for him. Sooner or later he/she can be affected by some real disease like alzheimer or something else which would never happen if gluten was avoided. I did many research on the subject and tried many diets before I've come to this conclusion and when you really think about it it does makes perfect sense.

We have today lot's of "unexplained diseases" like e.g. MS etc, from where they come from?

[ravenwoodglass]

I actually consider celiac and gluten intolerance to be a genetic 'difference' rather than a disease. The disease aspect comes about by ignoring that difference.

[looking4help]

I am very interested in your statement that certain diseases would not happen if gluten was avoided. Could you explain a bit further why you feel/think/believe this way?

Thank you!

that's the point, how do you know??? - if somebody have no symptoms YET or no visible symptoms doesn't mean gluten and dairy is good for him. Sooner or later he/she can be affected by some real disease like alzheimer or something else which would never happen if gluten was avoided. I did many research on the subject and tried many diets before I've come to this conclusion and when you really think about it it does makes perfect sense.

We have today lot's of "unexplained diseases" like e.g. MS etc, from where they come from?

[ravenwoodglass]

I am very interested in your statement that certain diseases would not happen if gluten was avoided. Could you explain a bit further why you feel/think/believe this way?

Thank you!

I am not motif but in some ways I agree. If I had been diagnosed with celiac when I first had symptoms as a child there is a lot in my signature that would not be there. While I don't think being gluten free prevents the development of all diseases in the general population, I do think that those of us with undiagnsed celiac develop a lot more problems than we would if we were promptly diagnosed. I came about that conclusion basically through the remission of so many health issues that I had prediagnsis.

[knittingmonkey]

...But there is a difference with Celiac, because gluten isn't poisonous by definition. It's not poisonous to pretty much every form of life on the planet.

Grains, legumes and potatoes are all toxic in their raw state. Grains are toxic to many animals; witness what happens to a grass-fed cow when they are penned so that grass-consumption is curbed and they are fed grains

[i-geek]

Who's to say the response is inappropriate? Really... think about it. Who is the judge? My body may have an unusual response, but no one can tell me for certain it's inappropriate. I am grateful for this response, it gives me a good reason to avoid eating toxic foods.

"Gluten intolerance" is a condition.

"Celiac disease" is the result of an immune system's attempt to rid the body of a foreign invader. Dis-ease, once you've felt it you'll know.

Actually, no, it is an inappropriate reaction. Celiac disease is the result of the body's self-tolerance mechanism's failing. Normally, self-reactive B and T cells are supposed to be killed before they even finish developing or if by some chance they make it into circulation, they're supposed to be rendered inactive, but in many individuals that doesn't happen as it should. The body's immune system starts to attack self-tissues. It's the common thread in all autoimmune disease, which is why people with one autoimmune disease often develop another (notice that celiac tends to go hand-in-hand with diabetes, RA, Hashimoto's, or Sjogren's). The difference is that we celiacs are lucky in that we know what is the disease trigger and can avoid it. But no, celiac disease or any autoimmune disease is not a normal or healthy state.

Food intolerances are another matter entirely. Lactose intolerance appears to be the default state for about 75% of human adults. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a majority of people do have an intolerance to gluten (although without the concurrent autoimmune pathology).

[RiceGuy]

knittingmonkey, I didn't say anything about grains, legumes or potatoes. It is gluten which I specifically referred to. The remainder of the grain in which gluten resides, and its impact on human health is another matter. But all that doesn't appear to be the subject at hand.

[knittingmonkey]

"Normal" is a setting on the dishwasher. Other than there, I've never witnessed "normal."

[rdunbar]

but wait, grains are one of the major "food groups" and so is dairy!, i remember learning this in school, and remember noticing that the text book was published by the american dairy association when i looked at the fine print.

so i wonder why all the sheeople out there believe, "well it must be a disease,and there's something wrong with YOU if you can't eat our beloved and exalted gluten and dairy"??? everyone is brainwashed by our 'education' system.

let's just hope the human race can eventually figure it out for themselves, the stuff is just simply inflammatory and toxic!

[butterfl8]

Back to the original point, maybe those people who suffer from gluten intolerance (and still must avoid gluten to be healthy) prefer to refer to thier condition as a disease when speaking to waitstaff at restaurants. Disease is a powerful word and can help people to understand how seriously gluten free needs to be taken. Just for the record, I have Celiac Disease, but I understand someone who is gluten intolerant referring to it as a disease in order to make it be taken as seriously as celiac is by the uninitiated. Let's face it, we all have to avoid gluten, for whatever historical reason. And avoiding that rat poison is our foremost goal.

-Daisy

[GlutenFreeManna]

Back to the original point, maybe those people who suffer from gluten intolerance (and still must avoid gluten to be healthy) prefer to refer to thier condition as a disease when speaking to waitstaff at restaurants. Disease is a powerful word and can help people to understand how seriously gluten free needs to be taken. Just for the record, I have Celiac Disease, but I understand someone who is gluten intolerant referring to it as a disease in order to make it be taken as seriously as celiac is by the uninitiated. Let's face it, we all have to avoid gluten, for whatever historical reason. And avoiding that rat poison is our foremost goal.

-Daisy

Well said. I call myself gluten intolerant because I self diagnosed, but if using the words "disease" or "allergy" will make people who have to prepare my food take my request for gluten free more seriously I will use those words instead. An "intolerance" sounds like a mild inconvenience or a matter of preference rather than something that will make me very, very ill if I consume it. If my reactions were mild and I were not at risk to develop multiple other serious illnesses from consuming gluten then my PREFERENCE would be to not be different and to put up with the intolerance. But since eating even a tiny amount of gluten will put me in bed for 4-5 days I PREFER to use whatever words will make them take my requests seriously. I do explain the details to relatives and close friends, but I'm not going to go into an hour long conversation about the difference between a gluten intolerance, allergies and celiac disease with people I will only see briefly. IMO, restaurants serving gluten free food should educate their staff on the seriousness of celiac disease and treat all requests for gluten free food as if they are coming from someone with a serious illness. If they did that, there would be no need for people to qualify themselves with a label in order to get safe food.

[motif]

Grains, legumes and potatoes are all toxic in their raw state. Grains are toxic to many animals; witness what happens to a grass-fed cow when they are penned so that grass-consumption is curbed and they are fed grains

[lucia]

If we are going to agree to use the term celiac disease, then we should acknowledge that it's quite possible that what is now known as gluten intolerance may also turn out to be a disease. Some people develop severe neurological symptoms from eating gluten with no evidence of intestinal damage. It's quite possible that they are experiencing an autoimmune reaction that is independent of the one that diagnostic celiacs experience. Medical science cannot explain yet how gluten is effecting these people.

I like ravenwoodglass' explanation for how a sensitivity to gluten turns into celiac disease: I have developed celiac disease after eating gluten for years and years. Just like people get lung cancer (a disease) after their lungs are damaged from smoking over years.

[sandsurfgirl]

exactly right and couldn't agree more. I can say only this - listen to you body, it knows what is good for you

and learn from you paleo ancestors.

Yes because those cavemen lived for a really long time, like what- 20 years?

It's a disease. Lots of people don't have it. There are symptoms.

All that "grains are toxic because millions of years ago they didn't eat it" stuff

has no real science behind it. People have subsisted on grains for a very long time. The development of civilization, technology, the ability to stay in one place, complex culture is ALL predicated on the ability to farm and grow your own food. Do we eat too many grains? Yes. Should we moderate your grain consumption? Yes. Are grains toxic and inherently bad for us? Preposterous.

I'm sick because of something that everyone else I know, except a select few, can eat with no problem. I have a disease and you are not going to take that away from me.

[sandsurfgirl]

If we are going to agree to use the term celiac disease, then we should acknowledge that it's quite possible that what is now known as gluten intolerance may also turn out to be a disease. Some people develop severe neurological symptoms from eating gluten with no evidence of intestinal damage. It's quite possible that they are experiencing an autoimmune reaction that is independent of the one that diagnostic celiacs experience. Medical science cannot explain yet how gluten is effecting these people.

I like ravenwoodglass' explanation for how a sensitivity to gluten turns into celiac disease: I have developed celiac disease after eating gluten for years and years. Just like people get lung cancer (a disease) after their lungs are damaged from smoking over years.

Technically gluten intolerance and celiac are not the same thing although us celiacs know that gluten intolerance is often baby celiac just waiting to become full blown.

You know why this topic irks me? Because we are some darn sick people here with symptoms ranging from annoying to deadly. Non celiacs give so many of us a hard time, saying it's in our heads, it's not as bad as we think it is. Many people on here have been intentionally glutened by friends and family members who didn't take their disease seriously.

So when I come on here I don't appreciate being told that the disease I have that has made my life HELL for so many years is not really a disease. I have an autoimmune reaction to a food which destroys parts of my body. OF COURSE IT'S a DISEASE! I don't have gluten INTOLERANCE I have celiac DISEASE.

I would like to know if the original poster is even a celiac and if it's severe like many of us on here.

Do we really need the argue the finer philosophical points of this when so many of us are suffering, even months or years after going gluten free? Really? Seriously?

[T.H.]

With regard to Dr. Blazar, I"m afraid I don't really follow the logic of Dr. Blazar's writing, partly because I know that he has some of his facts wrong, and other facts are actually opinion that can't be verified, and would be actively disputed by many experts in the fields involved.

For example, not all legumes are toxic if eaten raw, only some are. Kidney beans, soy beans, and fava beans are three of the ones that you do NOT want to eat raw. However, I live in a desert where there are many native legumes, and a large number of them can be eaten raw. We do it all the time, I know others who do, we have no issues with them. I imagine the people who lived here thousands of years ago ate these raw, as well, considering that I first heard about them from the native people's descendants who still live here today.

As for the cows somehow proving that grains are toxic? That just doesn't track at all with any factual data I've ever seen. Yes, cows do get fat when put on grains, but higher calories in a lower volume of food has more to do with the increase than toxicity of grains. The fact that Dr. Blazar actually mentions the higher density of calories in grains when he talks about human populations even supports this! Animals kept in higher density than found in nature tend to promote the spread of disease, hence the need for antibiotics when the cattle are kept in unnatural conditions - it was the same with the Black Plague, where human populations died in droves in the cities where the disease spread more easily. I'm sure that the diet is unhealthy for the animals, just like any diet designed solely for weight gain with little regard to nutritional needs would be, but still, that doesn't add up to 'toxic.'

Dr. Blazar's comments on what people ate and how they lived did not strike me as well researched. The small amount of information I've read on the subject suggests that grain was still eaten before the invention of farming, simply in small quantities where it was found growing wild. It's high calorie enough that it was worth the effort of collecting. Also, grain does not need to be cooked to be edible, although that's useful. Soaking will soften it and make it more accessible to our bodies as well. I've read that soldiers in the ancient Rome were known to make cereals from ground, soaked raw grains, that were eaten as is rather than cooked.

It's just disappointing that a man who had a very interesting idea on how to eat healthily seems to have fallen into the trap of so many, creating facts when reality doesn't fit his beliefs.

[RideAllWays]

So when I come on here I don't appreciate being told that the disease I have that has made my life HELL for so many years is not really a disease. I have an autoimmune reaction to a food which destroys parts of my body. OF COURSE IT'S a DISEASE! I don't have gluten INTOLERANCE I have celiac DISEASE.

I would like to know if the original poster is even a celiac and if it's severe like many of us on here.

Do we really need the argue the finer philosophical points of this when so many of us are suffering, even months or years after going gluten free? Really? Seriously?

Well said. Thank you for sounding as offended as I felt. I'm sick of people treating this disease like it is nothing more than a "fad" or slight intolerance, like we could eat gluten if we really wanted to and just fart a bit or something; we suffer and suffer HARD, sometimes for many years before being diagnosed.

[sandsurfgirl]

Well said. Thank you for sounding as offended as I felt. I'm sick of people treating this disease like it is nothing more than a "fad" or slight intolerance, like we could eat gluten if we really wanted to and just fart a bit or something; we suffer and suffer HARD, sometimes for many years before being diagnosed.

Yeah no freaking kidding. I got glutened on the Friday before the 4th of July. It took me 5 days to get over it. I had a pool party to go to Saturday the 3rd with friends I haven't seen in a year and the party was at my house on the 4th. While everyone else was enjoying themselves at the pool party I was white knuckling it because it felt like someone was twisting a knife into my guts all day. I was embarrassed to stand up because I was so bloated I looked pregnant. I was dizzy, had anxiety attacks all day, D in the morning and then painful C later on. I had to force myself to eat because everything made me sick. For FIVE days.

And you tell me this isn't a disease????????? And what's the blinkin flippin stinkin point of insulting me and saying that anyway? Just to dig a knife in a little bit harder because hey, my life doesn't suck enough as it is with this disease.

[WhatThe]

because it's not disease, it's what humans are accustom to not tolerate since millions of years.

You wouldn't call a disease intolerance of poisonous mushrooms, would you???

You have a great point there. Question, do you have gluten sensitivity? You seem well informed on the topic. Wondering because I

[WhatThe]

I actually consider celiac and gluten intolerance to be a genetic 'difference' rather than a disease. The disease aspect comes about by ignoring that difference.

That's a good point there. It's also like a disease because it installs itself in such a gradual fasion that leaves you unassuming of it's presence until you just start to think... For me right now this is a light nightmare. Not the worst because I know it can get worse, so I try to keep a cool attitude about it. The bloat is what is killing me. I use the bathroom more when my colon detects all that gas build up, it probably assumes it is stool compacting on its sides, and thus provide me w/a urge.

I know things that will NOT give me bloat (water, rice, solid meats), but I don't know all things that'll provide me w/ an extra generous amount of intestinal gas. *Looking for guidance*

[motif]

?? It's a moot point whether someone calls it gluten intolerance or celiac disease. Yes I have celiac disease but the point is, either way, most people on here are not eating gluten. We know it makes us sick and avoid it. I don't recall reading any replys that people were purposely eating it.

that's the point gluten is not the only one culprit here!