Jump to content
  • Sign Up
0
Lisa

Hydrolyzed Wheat Flour

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If anyone is willing to try this I'd love to hear about your experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is willing to try this I'd love to hear about your experience.

...just came across this while looking for information on hydrolyzed wheat protein....thought it was interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I'm understanding this article correctly...hydrolyzed is the same thing as fermented? Because haven't they already shown that long fermented sour dough bread doesn't cause symptoms? But they didn't know if it would still do damage?

Quote from the article:

"A total of 16 patients with celiac disease, ranging in age from 12 to 23 years were evaluated. They were in good health on a gluten-free diet for at least five years. Two of the six patients who ate natural flour baked goods discontinued the study because of symptoms such as malaise, abdominal pain and diarrhea. The two patients who ate extensively hydrolyzed flour baked goods had no clinical complaints, but developed subtotal atrophy (complete absence of villi, the fingerlike protrusions necessary for absorption). The five patients that ate the fully hydrolyzed baked goods had no clinical complaints."

Okay, I can't seem to figure out what the difference is between "extensively hydrolyzed" and "fully hydrolyzed" and it also doesn't say whether they did biospies and blood tests on the 5 that ate the "fully hydrolyzed". What does "no clinical complaints" mean? My fear is that the results would be like that of the two that ate "extensively hydrolized" and had no symptoms but did have "complete absence of villi". That does not sound good at all....

I also think this sample is pitifully small (I wonder what the statisitical significance is) but I guess it would be hard to find enough people willing to do it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this, Lisa, but I'm thinking I'll be waiting until further testing is done.

richard

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I'm understanding this article correctly...hydrolyzed is the same thing as fermented? Because haven't they already shown that long fermented sour dough bread doesn't cause symptoms? But they didn't know if it would still do damage?

Quote from the article:

"A total of 16 patients with celiac disease, ranging in age from 12 to 23 years were evaluated. They were in good health on a gluten-free diet for at least five years. Two of the six patients who ate natural flour baked goods discontinued the study because of symptoms such as malaise, abdominal pain and diarrhea. The two patients who ate extensively hydrolyzed flour baked goods had no clinical complaints, but developed subtotal atrophy (complete absence of villi, the fingerlike protrusions necessary for absorption). The five patients that ate the fully hydrolyzed baked goods had no clinical complaints."

Okay, I can't seem to figure out what the difference is between "extensively hydrolyzed" and "fully hydrolyzed" and it also doesn't say whether they did biospies and blood tests on the 5 that ate the "fully hydrolyzed". What does "no clinical complaints" mean? My fear is that the results would be like that of the two that ate "extensively hydrolized" and had no symptoms but did have "complete absence of villi". That does not sound good at all....

I also think this sample is pitifully small (I wonder what the statisitical significance is) but I guess it would be hard to find enough people willing to do it.

They also had been gluten-free for 5 years and only ate the stuff for 60 days. In fully healed celiacs it can take some time for reactions to appear, which is why it used to be thought that celiac could be outgrown. It used to be thought that gluten was safe as long as it was under 200ppm, that has now been lowered to 20ppm. What is also a bit confusing is that the AGA, which the article provides a link to, does still include HWP as something to avoid. This was a small study and although it was a short term study some of the folks did react. I do appretiate the posting of the article as I find any research interesting but personally I will continue to avoid this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read a few different articles about this, but it definitely isn't something I would want to try eating myself. I have to avoid anything that has ingredients which have been autolyzed, hydrolyzed, lipolyzed, etcetera. I get incredibly sick from them. Very gluten-like reactions, so eating hydrolyzed wheat just seems like a doubly dangerous move to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be concerned that damage was being done elsewhere in the body, as it's known that gluten and gliadin can cause harm without any sign of gastric symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, if the gluten wasn't still there, then the texture wouldn't resemble a regular wheat product, no?

The doctors fermented wheat flour with sourdough lactobacilli and fungal proteases; this process decreases the concentration of gluten.
So it's less, but still there. That explains why there was still damage. Based on that damage, I don't see how they could make any claim about the stuff being safe for people with celiac disease.

Sounds like the researchers are a bit too hasty to claim any success whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0

×