Jump to content
  • Sign Up
0
Googles

Opinions?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine posted the link to this on their facebook page. I went to read the article and it didn't seem to make sense that because this wheat is really old, it would be able to be eaten by people with celiac disease. However, since you are the smart people who know more about all this than I do. I figured I would post this here and get an educated opinion.

The other thing that bothered me about this article is that the person who is writing it doesn't seem to know what they are talking about in regards to Celiac itself. At one point they say "gluten sensitive celiacs" as if there is some other type of Celiac Disease. Okay, end of rant about stupid comments in articles.

Do Heritage Grains Hold Promise for Gluten Sensitive?

http://www.psmag.com/health/do-heritage-grains-hold-promise-for-the-gluten-sensitive-42612/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+miller-mccune%2Fsummary_feed+%28Pacific+Standard+-+Summary+Feed%29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and I look forward to the comments. I do have a friends who spent quite a bit of time in Katmandu, Napal. She had Celiac and was able to eat the bread without issues. So..... who knows?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine posted the link to this on their facebook page. I went to read the article and it didn't seem to make sense that because this wheat is really old, it would be able to be eaten by people with celiac disease. However, since you are the smart people who know more about all this than I do. I figured I would post this here and get an educated opinion.

The other thing that bothered me about this article is that the person who is writing it doesn't seem to know what they are talking about in regards to Celiac itself. At one point they say "gluten sensitive celiacs" as if there is some other type of Celiac Disease. Okay, end of rant about stupid comments in articles.

Do Heritage Grains Hold Promise for Gluten Sensitive?

http://www.psmag.com/health/do-heritage-grains-hold-promise-for-the-gluten-sensitive-42612/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+miller-mccune%2Fsummary_feed+%28Pacific+Standard+-+Summary+Feed%29

Oh yeah I remember reading something about that. I guess it stems from the idea that the unnaturally genetically engineered gluten of todays wheat is far from what it used to be and the apparent correlation in the increase in sensitivities. I personally wouldnt think it would fix the problem for celiacs. Once the body decides gluten is an invader and develops a damaging response, I cant imagine making a more natural grain again would make a difference. Maybe it could decrease the risk for the greater population developing a similar reaction if the body doesnt come to recognize it as harmful in the first place. I am new to this issue but it didnt excite me very much when I read about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gluten is gluten, I can't believe our bodies would respond differently based on the fact that it's ever so mildly different in structure. Of course, if they're up for cleaning my bathroom, hiring me a maid and taking care of me for a week, I'm up for eating their bread.

Increased awareness is not increased occurrence. Throughout history people have died of diseases that have no explanation but sound much like celiac. Just because we can test for and treat it doesn't mean it happens more often, it means we save peoples health, lives and sanity. (I still shudder at the idea of celiacs slowly "going crazy" and being locked up in insane asylums when they only thing wrong with them was bread.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just skimmed the article. I will rebut it later when I'm not in the middle of baking a loaf of genuinely gluten free, wheatless bread, and doing 2 other thing simultaneously.

My short answer. These people are celebrity-type morons and they are part of a larger pushback by the wheat lobby against the necessity of the gluten free diet for those with celiac disease.

the author of this:

About Bonnie Tsui

Bonnie Tsui is a frequent contributor to The New York Times and the author of American Chinatown: A People's History of Five Neighborhoods, a winner of the Asian/Pacific American Award for Literature and a San Francisco Chronicle bestseller. She also writes for The Atlantic, Outside, O the Oprah Magazine, and Condé Nast Traveller.

Michale Pollan, another celebrity NYT food writer mentioned in the article, has made previous quotes in that he does not believe that the incidence of celiac is as prevalent as it is.

Pollan, frankly, and the rest of them can go to **** at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, I'm not sure how I feel about it all but I'd love to read through a study once these theories are tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agenda of these writers for the NY Times is completely different than that of us who are trying to avoid gluten because it triggers auto immune reactions with devastating consequences.

The last thing we need is the general public thinking that we can be served einkorn wheat without consequences, and having it being labeled "gluten free."

See here, where I wrote about this earlier when that USDA Ag extension employee lobbying for the wheat industry, and claiming a gluten free diet is not healthy, got quoted in a widespread media story .

"Gluten free fad raises concerns"

And here, where there was an alleged registered dietician, Craig Hunt, pushing the idea that einkorn wheat flour is safe for celiac disease.

"Wheat Advocate diet experiment ends"

Let me make this clear- I would never tell a normal person not to eat wheat or that their eating wheat was dangerous or unhealthy for them. But by the same token, we are not getting respect in return for our needs. They just think they're going to change wheat varieties, apply a little mislabeling (think Domino's Pizza faux-gluten free disaster) and that the gluten free community can now eat wheat again just like "normal" people. Like those people who read the NY Times, and don't want to make any effort or cannot accept their reality, that at least 3 to 25 million people in this country need and should be eating gluten free.

"It is this sort of thing that really ruins it for the rest of us." - something that we hear a lot every time we get hammered by a bad experience in eating in public, and get glutened.

Research, good. False advertising, bad. Medical mis-advice, unacceptable. Smacking a "science" label on the endeavor, does not make it genuine, have seen way too many on - line internet trolls and lobbyists for GMOs and their associated businesses using that to abuse the public.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't find the article as inflammatory as some of you. Personally...I doubt that anyone who already HAS celiac is going to be able to safely eat it. As another poster said, "gluten is gluten" and once the immune system has set itself to respond to gluten, it isn't likely to change its mind. Perhaps those who are only slightly intolerant may be ok with it. Either way, I don't think it is a bad thing to try and reintroduce some "real" food into the modern, genetically modified, over-refined processed diet! Most likely, it is too little, too late, but kudos to them for giving it a try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the line in the article that claims they are testing for safety is a link to a site selling the grain.

"to see if gluten-sensitive celiacs can tolerate the grain"

Selling grain doesn't equal medical testing in my book.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts:

1. Celiac disease was first described in ancient Rome by a physician named Galen in like 250 AD. WAY before the advent of genetically modified/specially bred wheat varieties.

2. Spelt is also considered a "heritage" cereal and is just as toxic to celiacs as regular wheat, barley, and rye.

There is definitely something about our modern environment that is causing the incidence of autoimmune diseases to rise. However, reality resists simplification, and I think this theory is basically hogwash.

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

×