Jump to content

Talk:Gluten-free diet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tortle (talk | contribs)
Reverted good faith edits by Tortle (talk). (TW)
→‎Reverted edits: new section
Line 420: Line 420:
Moved here for discussion. I think a MEDRS source is needed if we want to present it this way: --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved here for discussion. I think a MEDRS source is needed if we want to present it this way: --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
<blockquote>A low-gluten or gluten free diet has also been suggested for athletes such as distance runners, an estimated 20 to 50 percent of whom suffer from gastrointestinal issues, and the risk of inflammation from gluten or wheat.<ref>https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/03/30/boston-marathon-can-right-preparation-really-make-one-person-faster/btxCBnT3zYf4zT96nVu8rM/story.html</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>A low-gluten or gluten free diet has also been suggested for athletes such as distance runners, an estimated 20 to 50 percent of whom suffer from gastrointestinal issues, and the risk of inflammation from gluten or wheat.<ref>https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/03/30/boston-marathon-can-right-preparation-really-make-one-person-faster/btxCBnT3zYf4zT96nVu8rM/story.html</ref></blockquote>

== Reverted edits ==

*In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689278572&oldid=689259700 this review], {{ping|Alexbrn}} reverted my edit. Reason: ''(rmv. weaker source; accurify text to what review says per [[WP:V]])'' But the sources <u>don’t say what Alexbrn wrote</u> and the sources I used are reliable, secondary, peer-reviewed, reviews articles. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689305037&oldid=689303733 this edition ''(Sources don't say "There is no good evidence that a GFD of any benefit to people with autism". First one say "Current evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor." and second one "There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a GFD")''], I adjusted the text.

* In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689279565&oldid=689278572 this revisión], Alexbrn reverted the rest of my edits. Reason: ''(undo some dubious recent edits)'' No further explanations. But I also used verifiable secondary, peer-reviewed sources. For example:
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689184540&oldid=689124013 ''(→‎Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: Removing information based on primary source. Updating with recent reviews (secondary sources). doi:10.4081/itjm.2013.461 PMID 26109797 PMID 25289132 PMID 24667093) in this edition]''] I replaced a primary source with secondary sources (view [[WP:MEDRS]]), and removed a text that was not supported by the source allegedly backed him.
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689185403&oldid=689184540 ''(→‎Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: It's a good source, but doesn't support the information. The article doesn't say anything like that! I remove boht.)'']

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&type=revision&diff=689124013&oldid=687595941 In this two editions], it was added information, but it was biased. I expanded the text from the source to neutralize it with all points of view:
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689216128&oldid=689201875 ''(→‎As a fad diet: Adjusting the text to the really content of the recently added source (revision 689123887).)'']
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689245616&oldid=689218168 ''(→‎As a fad diet: Expanding information from the same source, to neutralize the text. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gluten-free-diet-fad-are-celiac-disease-rates-actually-rising/)'']
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689253930&oldid=689245616 ''(→‎As a fad diet: Expanding information from a source already present, to neutralize the text. http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/gone-gluten-free/)'']
:Those editions were reverted by Axelbrn, who only maintained biased information that does not correspond to the total focus of the article. I removed the text but <u>I did not add again which I had edited in my first editions</u>: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&diff=689307129&oldid=689305682 ''(But, is it or is not verifiable?? I agree that Macleans is the only questionable source of recent editions, but my intention was to respect Ashton Banfield's editions. But if we use it, say all views containing, without biasing the information. [[WP:NPV]])'' If it is a verifiable source, so we have to write what it says, with neutrality, and therefore include again this text: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&oldid=689259700#As_a_fad_diet]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&type=revision&diff=689255612&oldid=689253930 I didn’t see this two edits] of {{ping|Heaviside glow}} and I overwrited them without noticing. I take this opportunity to apologize to him. I have a technical problem. I don’t receive notice of conflicting editions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jfdwolff&curid=21036663&diff=689307932&oldid=689019789 I left a message] to {{ping|Jfdwolff}}.
Best regards.--[[User:BallenaBlanca|BallenaBlanca]] ([[User talk:BallenaBlanca|talk]]) 10:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:16, 6 November 2015

WikiProject iconFood and drink C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconMedicine C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

Cross contamination issues. I added some referenced facts about cross contamination and oats. The section is still choppy. I might try to edit and clean it up.Cableknitpower (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Do not revert unless you can provide good sources for the ridiculous claims. The article is not about attention deficit which was what the source was about. The source did not mention the other diseases. Crap like this leads to people dying. Mccready 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People die from trying a gluten-free diet? I'm surprised you fact-tagged the obvious celiac and derm (whose wikilinked articles amply cover the issue), and there are adequate sources for others as phrased. Deletionism gone too far. And these continued reverts with popups and no discussion are anti WP:DR and just tend to escalate. Jim Butler(talk) 06:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mccready, please respect Wikipedia:Civility. The edit after your deletion was simply following guidelines according to Wikipedia:Citing sources --apers0n 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, agree that people don't die from going on a gluten free diet. Quite a ridiculous claim, indeed. Please do not revert without first discussing your grievances - or better still, find the appropriate citations and help us make this article more complete, not less. Webaware 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Webaware and Apers0n for properly formatting those ref's I added. It was late last night and I just wanted to get them in. Much appreciation, Jim Butler(talk) 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just grateful that you dug them up, so that I didn't have to :) Webaware 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Crap like this leads to people dying." what? you have to be kidding!? Ignorance kills, gluten-free diets don't. There is plenty of evidence that gluten, wheat, dairy and sugar all contribute to health issues. Here are more of your "ridiculous claims". --Travisthurston 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=12454882


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1470899.stm
http://www.glutenfreeworks.com/gluten_explained.php
http://www.buffaloglutenfree.org/articles/article/1288898/12374.htm
Read these web sites and eat your words, not gluten, it will kill you… even if you’re a naive imbecile like these guys. - JoeMalacka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.167.238 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the links above that Gluten is harmful if a person has a specific condition and not to the majority of the public.Nukeguy04 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apers0n: Casting aspersions on claims, or sources, has nothing to do with being civil. There would be at lot less strife in Wikipedia if people strictly limit "civility" criticisms to cases of ad hominem attacks.
And to anyone who thinks that quantity of sources is a substitute for quality: You are profoundly mistaken. A million unsubstantiated claims are nowhere near as useful as one carefully-done impartial scientific experiment.Daqu (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are these all really relevant, per WP:EL? I don't know enough (even with a Coeliac mum-in-law) to know for sure which links to prune, but I'll get on it if the regular contributors don't. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. MKoltnow 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Side Effects

Would someone please add a section on the "bad" things that happen when one is placed on a gluten-free diet? There must be some else why would an entire probiotic industry have arisen to "treat" these poor gluten-sensitive folk?? Thank you kindly. JimScott 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'bad things that happen?' Do you mean physical side effects or just missing out on favorite foods?--AndrewSullman 07:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the probiotic supplements are used only as an aid to counter the intestinal damage already caused before the patient went on a gluten free diet. I'm not sure even then if they are proven to be helpful in speeding a recovery or if its an industy thats popped up because desperate people want to feel better and are willing to spend money trying. If you have something specific in mind though it would be helpful to know what it is.

There are no negative side effects to a gluten-free diet as long as the diet you consume is nutritionally balanced; Gluten is not necessary for life and contains no unique nutrition. Many cultures around the world are more or less gluten-free already (think Asia, India, etc). I am not sure what's up with the probiotics, probably just another way to get money from sick people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.171.189 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The extraction of gluten and the original use of purified gluten as a food product is thought to have occurred in Asia. Many Asian populations eat noodles the contain gluten. 68.46.99.241 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was pointing out that many Asian cultures rely on rice/curry or rice/pulse or rice/enterfavoritefoodhere combinations. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a segement that says efficacy of gluten free diet is poor,in the sense of a fad diet, and then the next paragraph says this is why you should avoid gluten.I didnt know this was a debate sight. are there any scientific studies not done by the supplement industry that we could reference//// user nick acton 2011, march 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick acton (talkcontribs) 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Reorganization

Since this article has important facts in it but those facts were scattered about throughout, I took it upon myself to create headings/sub-headings to help readers navigate the info better. --Demosfoni 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIAGNOSIS? WHAT TYPE OF TEST/TESTS ARE REQUIRED TO DETECT GLUTEN INTOLERANCE - BESIDES ELIMINATING FROM DIET TO SEE IF SIDE EFFECTS SUBSIDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.25.61 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten Free Beer

There is a lot of redundancy in the paragraphs here compared to the main article elsewhere. Someone needs to read both articles and prune the repeated information from this sub-heading. --Demosfoni 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this section is pretty much a direct cut&paste from Gluten-free beer. It has too much prominence here and should therefore be shortened. I'll have a go - please help. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some gluten-free (or, more correctly, 'denatured-gluten') barley beers on the market now that have undergone ELISA testing on every batch that is produced in the brewery. One example is Widmar Brewer's 'Omission' beer. Another is Estrella Damm Daura, which is brewed in Spain and meets the more stringent European standards of gluten free. These are beers that, like many newer GF beers, undergo an enzyme process that essentially breaks the gluten down into amino acids or other particles that don't cause a problem for the majority of sensitive individuals. I'm a true celiac/coeliac and have enjoyed Omission with no problems, though I certainly can't speak for all sensitive people. Daura, on the other hand, caused me and some others a few (or many) problems, so it might be a different process or enzyme. The brewer of Omission makes the results of each batch testing available, and all tests have fallen well below the 10 ppm level. I believe the makers of Daura do the same. I would personally accept the ELISA tests as valid. However, before I make any edits to this portion of the article, I wanted to run it by the rest of the group. I do not want to have the edit sound like an advert for Omission or any other GF or denatured beer by mentioning the product by name, yet I also wish to avoid the use of 'weasel words'. Also, US labeling laws do not allow any product made with barley, wheat or other gluten grain to be called 'gluten free', even if tests do not detect gluten at the acceptable limits for other GF product that isn't made with gluten grains. Suggestions, anyone? 108.217.49.112 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My First Edit

I am about to attempt my first Wikipedia edit.

The subheading, Gluten-free Beer, was tagged: "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers." I agree. I have tried to improve the language while keeping the accuracy of the statements, as I understand them. I used direct sentences and dropped terms that were overly hedging, that is where a hedging words were used excessively in a sentence.

I am no expert on the subject, I am a writer. If you wish to add equivocation to my edit, I would be curious to know why.

I also took issue with the conclusion. The information did not serve the heading "Gluten-Free Beer" and actually seemed preachy considering the topic. I suggest moving the information elsewhere.

"Celiacs Disease is a condition in which if caught early, future problems can be prevented. Unfortunately, most cases are commonly found in 40, 50 and 60 year olds. If future health problems are not prevented, some consequences can be as bad as diabetes. From celiacs disease, one's body if practically destroying itself when in contact with gluten. This can be prevented with a gluten-free diet."

However, you'll see I have paraphrased the idea and tied it into the topic of this section. Even at that, this last paragraph seems inappropriate considering the title of the main entry: Gluten-free diet.

The reasons for maintaining a gluten-free diet should be condensed in one sub topic, "health benefits?" I would welcome the deletion of my paraphrase of the above text from the sub heading Gluten-Free Beer.

I also believe the subheading title is inaccurate. It should read "Gluten-free Beer and Brewed Beverages"

I will try to enter the edit now. If I am unsuccessful in entering my edit, I may return here to post it for another to enter.

Hows 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I successfully made the edit.

But I wish to explain further changes.

-*
  • Dr Steve Ford divides the market into two types: "no gluten" and "low gluten", writing that the resource promotes choice - to choose a beer if that is wanted, and to allow the coeliac to have a choice of brew that they may wish to consume. [17]*


This seems to suggest that Dr Steve Ford is saying the promoted choice is between "no gluten" and "low gluten" and may be seen as a convolution of his statements.

I was unable to find a source for his statement "divides the market into two types 'no gluten' and 'low gluten'" in the References sited. Also, the "resource" which Dr Ford says promotes choice is the glutenfreebeerfestival. I found his statement at http://www.glutenfreebeerfestival.com/aims.html (used in the entry) to be awkward, so I added "(a)" to clarify his intention. And in truth, that web-page lacks a by-line and may have been written by any of the promoters of glutenfreebeerfestival without the consent or consensus of Dr Ford, whom was cited as the author.

I believe Low-Carb suggests Diet as opposed to Health. Carbohydrates are healthful. I could debate this. But regardless, I believe the statement reflects a new fad, like low-fat, which does not relate to health as much as diet choice. I assume the inference was taken from promotional material offered by the brewer, who would prefer their beer was seen as 'healthy' rather than a 'diet' food.

I believe the italics were superfluous. My writers instinct says that the use of italics took emphasis away from the overall statement and created an impassioned and forced voice.

PS my browser doesn't work with the wikipedia block quote, I have changed the spelling to try and avoid it. is there any way around the block quote?

. Hows 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corn gluten

I believe certain corn does have gluten. I can't find any indication of an amount or if it occurs naturally, is modified, hybrid, etc. Although I think there are certain types that have a significant amount.

www.tradekey.com/ks-glutinous-corn/

www.neda.gov.ph/Knowledge-Emporium/details.asp?DataID=210

www.knownyou.com/en_index.jsp?bodyincl

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5665152-description.htmlude=en_ProductMaster.jsp&layer=2&fseq=14&type=product

Most grains contain a protein that is referred to as "gluten." However, each grain has its own form of gluten. As commonly used, the term "gluten" (as in "gluten-free") refers only to the forms found in varieties of wheat, rye, barley, and possibly oats. Corn gluten (found most commonly in livestock feeds and lawn-care products) is considerably different. Carol the Dabbler 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dairy and other products.

Here is a whole list of gluten and gluten free products. Maybe we should include some of these? http://www.gicare.com/pated/edtgs06.htm

Section on Accuracy of "Gluten-Free" Labels is bad

How can soemthing contain 10million -1 parts per million of anything? Peter 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Introduction needs work

The introduction needs improvement but I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself, safely.

It currently reads: A gluten-free diet is a diet completely free of ingredients derived from gluten-containing cereals: wheat (including Kamut and spelt), barley, rye, oats and triticale. Though most, but not all, patients can tolerate pure oat products, there is a controversy about including them in a gluten-free diet: some medical practitioners say they may be permitted, but the Coeliac Society advises against them.

At the point when the term "patients" is introduced, there has been no mention that there is a connection between gluten-free requirements and any particular set of patients or any particular ailment. As written, it would imply that medical patients generally have some requirement for gluten-free food. Perhaps some mention of coeliac illness can be made earlier in the piece.

Ordinary Person 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: ". . . .some medical practitioners[attribution needed] say they may be permitted, . . ."

I am somewhat surprised that someone would may the above statement without having bothered to review the large mass of literature to the contrary.

Its actually not 'practitioners', there are now close to a dozen, peer-reviewed scientific articles that have examined the immunochemistry of oats and found them to be safely used in between 90 and 98% of celiacs. There is a new article out last month indicating that there is no increase in antibodies to oats when oats are consumed.

The Celiac Society is concerned about oats because of 2 phenomena, the first is contamination of the US Oat supply which one could describe as critically contaminated with wheat. The other problem is the problem of developing a cross-reaction during the period (1 year) when ATA, AGA are still high and wheat contamination in the diet may still occur, this, according to the recent oat study markedly increases the risk of an oat reaction. However, once wheat is entirely removed oat antibodies disappear.

The oat supply in the US market is definitely a problem, however this is changing, there are currently two companies selling 'Triticeae' free oats in the US, and Bob's red mill is now marketing its own gluten-free oat, so that I suspect with the increased availability of laboratory-defined Triticeae-free oats they will change that position. Pdeitiker (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maltodextrin Inconsistancy

In this article Maltodextrin is said to normally not include gluten, but then later its listed as a compound containing gluten according to the Australian gluten-free guidelines, maybe someone who knows more about this could clear that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repapetilto (talkcontribs) 19:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maltodextrin can be formulated from gluten containing grains or not. It is up to the manufacturer to tell the CD patient what their maltodextrin is made of. Most US producers now use corn maltodextrin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.171.189 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

This article has no images. What sort of images/illustrations would be helpful? Foods? Flours? Cells? Damaged intestines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.177.1 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crossed grain symbol of one of the coeliac societies would be ideal, e.g. [http ://coeliac.org.uk/images/cm_images/food_business/Picture2.gif]. They need to be emailed for permission. Njál (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholic Beverages

Cider was listed twice in the list of gluten-free beverages. I removed one reference. 75.150.127.121 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tartrazine

Tartrazine contains no gluten, but causes adverse reactions to sufferers (Due to lack of recognition of this, and a lack of publication of this adverse effect)

While I can prove this using my own celiac suffering family, personal research apparently is utter rubbish and only something written about somebodies personal research can be cited. Can anybody find a link on the net that shows this link? Most celiac associations claim tartrazine to be a safe additive and will be of no use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.234.11 (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

Is there any way to mention the high cost of the gluten free diet (at least in the US), and perhaps an explaination for why that is so? (I'd sure like to hear it!). Fuzbaby (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliacs/Celiacs

Can someone please fix this article by not calling people who suffer from coeliac disease coeliacs (or celiacs for the Americans). It is incorrect to call someone a coeliac. They have coeliac disease, it does not define their person and it is, IMHO, quite offensive and gramatically incorrect to call someone a coeliac. We don't call people with Chron's disease Chronies... Well at least not to their face or in an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.176.25 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Get over yourself. Christ, I think there are more important issues. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.248.142 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

The Health benefits section needs to be cleaned up. It contains a great deal of information about research on gluten-free diets and autism -- specifically that there is no statistical link. This is the first mention of autism in the article. It's not terribly appropriate to spend a lot of time disproving something that hasn't been stated in the first place. Even if it were revised to have an introduction, "Health benefits" is not where it belongs. I propose that the information be either removed, or better explained and moved under a different heading. Exaybachay (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it and moved it to "Popular Diets". Bhny (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dining out

The dining out section looks completely out of place in the article, both in tone and in content. I'll go ahead and remove it if there are no objections.Fishing Chimp (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement section

Am I the only one that finds the supplements section to be sparsely cited for as huge as it is? A whole table full of recommendations based on one person's book? I believe there has been a Dutch researcher or two that have published papers making a good case for B supplements. I'd love to see more journal articles cited or this section axed until it was based on more than the one Dr's book. It would come a lot closer to matching the quality of the main celiac article then. 24.171.76.80 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section. It was from a book by Lieberman- "a major promoter of nutrition misinformation" according to National Council of Health Fraud -http://www.ncahf.org/digest09/09-41.html) Bhny (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deficiencies linked to maintaining a gluten-free diet

Template:WAP assignment

I added some facts about the nutritional deficiencies and cited the facts. I am not sure of the next step--do I remove the statement that didn't have the facts cited?Cableknitpower (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) The section "Deficiencies linked to maintaining a gluten-free diet" is not logically coherent and the English grammar is poor. I have deleted the worst offense (a citation that explained the health effects of celiac disease which is not the same as the health effects of a gluten free diet), but it needs more work. --Vajrapoppy (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statement that gluten-free foods are often low in some nutrients, supported only by a citation of about.com, which doesn't seem to me to be a reliable source for this. (I doubt Wikipedia should be citing about.com about anything; seems similar to citing Wikipedia.) I found these refs, but I think we would probably need a secondary source:
  • [1] Gluten-free diet survey: are Americans with coeliac disease consuming recommended amounts of fibre, iron, calcium and grain foods? T. Thompson1, M. Dennis2, L. A. Higgins3, A. R. Lee4, M. K. Sharrett5
  • [2]Dietary habits of Swedish adult coeliac patients treated by a gluten-free diet for 10 years. Susanne Grehn, Karin Fridell, Margaretha Lilliecreutz, Claes Hallert Food & Nutrition Research, Vol 45 (2001)
This one might do:
  • [3] Dietary guidelines and implementation for celiac disease Cynthia Kupper Gastroenterology Volume 128, Issue 4, Supplement 1 , Pages S121-S127, April 2005

Coppertwig (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I'm fairly new, but I was pretty sure "facts" on Wikipedia weren't supposed to be copy and pasted from another source. Being interested in this topic, I was going to try to find a good citation for the missing ones as Coppertwig suggested. After copying and pasting a portion into Google, I got the exact article. It can be found here: [4] Does it need to be completely rewritten? Sshadow12 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Sshadow12[reply]

k12academics seems to get their content from wikipedia, not the other way around. Bhny (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
true, my bad. did you see any other sites that could be used for references as Coppertwig suggested?Sshadow12 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section seems to be nonsense. It starts with "Many gluten-free products are not fortified or enriched and contain lower amounts of nutrients such as folate, iron, and fiber than other foods". The process of making white flour results in removing all nutritional value from it, so they have to then go and enrich it by adding things back in. Wouldn't taking once a day vitamins eliminate any problems? Also, since when is about.com considered a reliable source? Dream Focus 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medicines section

I'm deleting the medicines section, the content of which was: "With gluten being incredibly pervasive, it is highly advised that a person with celiac disease consume gluten only when advised by their doctor and within a controlled environment, where the gluten can be added to the food under the supervision of the person with celiac disease.[1]" This doesn't seem to make sense to me; I wonder if the word "gluten" was accidentally used where "medicine" was meant. I searched on the cited web page and failed to find any similar statement there; maybe I missed it, or if it's on another page of the same website then a more specific citation would be needed. Furthermore, this is advice, whereas Wikipedia's role is to provide facts (WP:ASF, WP:WEASEL); if such a statement is to be made, the article should state specifically who or what organization said it. Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I too think that this is a misprint since it is under the heading MEDICINE. Most medications do not contain gluten but it is always advisable to check with the pharmacist or the specific drug company before taking any prescribed or over the counter medication.Cableknitpower (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raw?

The last paragraph says "GF foods are raw foods ..." I think that's wrong! I think lots of cooked foods are GF. Coppertwig (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already fixed that here. Coppertwig (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this diet trendy or popular?

I read this article because I wanted to find out why so many people are adopting this diet. However, it doesn't really say. Surely they don't all have chronic diarreah, wheat allergies or fear autism? It wold be helpful to read the common reasons, and fin out what science has to say about them.

Because the reasons are complete nonsense and not backed up by science. That's why. This article would be full of pseudoscience. The only people who should avoid gluten are people who are allergic are have coeliac disease. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the root of the problem is that the symptoms of celiac disease are so general and can be caused by many other things as well; and because the symptoms differ from person to person, there is no easy way to dismiss it as a possibility without an actual test (which is also one reason why it often goes undiagnosed.) Lots of people are going to suffer from low energy, say. This led to many people reading about celiac symptoms and trying a gluten-free diet after self-diagnosing themselves with it; and some of those people inevitably felt better afterwards (because they actually had undiagnosed celiac or gluten sensitivity, or because of placebo effects, or because an unrelated issue resolved itself.) Word of mouth from this, combined with confirmation bias, inevitably led to more and more people seeing gluten-free diets as a panacea for all of the symptoms of celiac regardless of whether they had it or not, especially since that list of symptoms almost precisely covers some of the most common things people want to improve about themselves in general -- the thought that you might be able to fix such common ailments with a simple dietary change is seductive, and anything that can credibly claim to have a chance of improving such a broad range of common issues (even if just in a subset of the population) is going to get attention. This eventually led to popular authors claiming increasingly broad powers for gluten-free diets, building on that increasingly popular mythos and eventually (in the more extreme cases) moving away from its connection to celiac or gluten sensitivity entirely and giving the implication that it was a miracle diet that could help anyone. Also, equally importantly, 'gluten' is a really ugly word. It sounds like 'glutes'. --Aquillion (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).


I also came here to find out why "gluten free" is so popular now, but there wasn't any such information. Suddenly everybody's allergic to gluten? I've been eating extra gluten just to keep the gluten industry alive. At night I worry about the poor gluten producers. --67.165.140.73 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr Morbius" you are wrong. Studies have shown that avoiding gluten prevents or reverses hypothyroidism in untreated coeliacs AND noncoeliacs. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so this article needs people to contribute who know the subject and are not just pedalling their point of view. I refer you to three peer-reviewed clinical studies: 1.Sategna-Guidetti C, Volta U, Ciacci C, Usai P, Carlino A, De Franceschi L, Camera A, Pelli A, Brossa C. "Prevalence of thyroid disorders in untreated adult celiac disease patients and effect of gluten withdrawal: an Italian multicenter study". 2. Counsell CE, Taha A, Ruddell WSJ. "Coeliac disease, and autoimmune thyroid disease". Gut 1994;35:844–6. 3.Sategna-Guidetti C, Bruno M, Mazza E, et al. Autoimmune thyroid disease, and coeliac disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998;10:927–31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.73.107 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those studies were about people who had either coeliac disease, hypothyroidism or both so those studies are irrelevant because his question was about why normal healthy disease free people eat gluten free diets. My response stands. Normal healthy people have no reason to avoid gluten. Dr. Morbius (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, the studies show that 'normal healthy disease free people' can prevent thyroid issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.48.79 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions don't matter. Just give us a good reference and we'll happily include it Bhny (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-contamination.

That section doesn't address the topic except for a brief mention in the final paragraph re buffet-style restaurants.77Mike77 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wheat Belly

In a few places Davis either makes some very careless interpretations of the studies he cites or he deliberately misrepresents them. Only 39% of the celiac patients in the 215 patient study were overweight but he claims over 50%. Only 25 of the 215 lost weight on a GF diet while 91 actually gained weight. His major premise of the book is that a GF diet will cause most people to lose weight: that is just not what the cited studies state in their results. Over 2 years 81% of the patients gained weight including 82% of patients that were already overweight at the beginning. [5] When 19% of people on a GF diet lose weight after 2 years you can not make the claim it is a weight loss diet.

Lastly he makes the claim from the naloxone study that after administration the binge eaters ate 28% less wheat based products. The study says very clearly that they actually ate 40% more bread sticks. Odd for a doctorate's reading comprehension to be this poor. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure wheat belly diet is relevant since it's not specifically gluten free. It's not mentioned in this article at all Bhny (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole book is about removing gliadin from the diet and how wheat is become a poisonous and addictive grain since the introduction of dwarf strains. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opinions and NPOV

It is apparent that there are several editors with very strongly held opinions watching this page, who appear to be here to "right wrongs" and set people straight to convince them to stop eating gluten-free diets. This is not the appropriate place to conduct that campaign. It is a place to describe, with good references from both sides, the various reasons for the gluten-free diet. It is not the case the reason people are adopting gluten-free diets is "Because the reasons are complete nonsense and not backed up by science" (quoting Dr. Morbius above). For one thing, if you live in a household with a person who has celiac disease, it may be helpful for them for you to adopt it as well, greatly increasing its prevalence. For another, the prevalence of celiac disease has increased and diagnosis is costly and time-consuming. The first study finding increased prevalence was Rubio-Tapia et al 2009 followed by Catassi et al 2010 ("Natural history of celiac disease autoimmunity in a USA cohort followed since 1974"). The hypothesis which I see most often floated is changes in gliadin due to breeding of wheat - for example, it is mentioned by Joseph Murrary, an investigator in Rubio-Tapia et al 2009. It is not, as described by Bhny above, "nonsense". Saying such things just seems a little silly. I'm not even going to get into Sapone et al 2010's recent finding on gluten-sensitive people (who apparently cannot be diagnosed through traditional methods) right now, which is discussed in recent NYTimes ("medical experts largely agree that there is a condition related to gluten other than celiac")and CBS 20120 news articles. As a mainstream and prominent line of research, it deserves some coverage in this article - but I have to go right now. II | (t - c) 03:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"breeding wheat with higher protein" is nonsense. What does it mean? It also wasn't in the reference which was the main reason I removed it. Bhny (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source discussed Murray's hypothesis that it may be due to changes made to wheat, but I may have accidentally channeled a little of my background knowledge. Higher protein means exactly that. Gluten is a protein, and wheat has been bred to have more of it. II | (t - c) 00:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it was nonsense, I meant grammatically or logically. "Higher" doesn't mean "more", maybe it meant "higher percentage" but as it stood it seemed to say the protein was now near the top of the plant. Anyway I couldn't see what it might mean in the reference. Bhny (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Largely agree with ImprefectlyInformed, there is apparently a new condition that is being recognized now (non-celiac gluten sensitivity) and this should be covered in this article as well as the gluten sensitivity article. For the WP:MEDRS inclined, this review would be a good place to start as a recent review in a very high impact medical journal. Yobol (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non-celiac gluten sensitivity is already in the article Bhny (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited here says, "“People might think I had a bias, but I couldn’t find any published literature on the health benefits of gluten-free diets for people without celiac disease, gluten sensitivity or autoimmune disorders. There should be some studies, but there are none." Suggesting that there are studies to indicate benefits for people in all three of those categories. The text in the article here left out the gluten sensitive and those with autoimmune disorders. Leaving out those large groups of people invalidates the point whoever wrote this article is trying to make about the popularity of gluten free diets

I don't know that much about the subject, but whoever wrote this article seems to have a bias against possible benefits. A more even-handed approach is needed.

  • Wikipedia articles that touch on scientific subjects (which includes describing whether or not a diet has any medically-acknowledged benefit) have to reflect verifiable scientific consensus; and the verifiable scientific consensus on Gluten-free diets (as the article provides copious citations for) is that there is no benefit whatsoever to it if you lack a specific condition that requires it. It's important to capture all the nuances of the topic, of course (which can be lost if editors get too invested in a point of view), but trying to avoid the appearance of bias by presenting 'both sides' equally without regard for the verifiable research behind each is not an encyclopedic approach to writing. --Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse effects of the gluten-free diet?

Couple questions:

  • Gaesser & Angandi et al 2012 does appear to be a review article, but it has no abstract (somewhat strange) and was financially supported by the Grain Foods Foundation. I don't have access to this paper. Please provide the quotes which support the evidence of adverse effects, including what sources are used. I'm not sure this is really an appropriate source but perhaps it has information which I'm not aware of.
The URL you posted has the full text. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Palma et al 2009 is a primary source of 10 subjects. Based on an online copy, it seems no details were provided on the diet. The reduction in polysaccharides is heavily dependent upon what one eats in a gluten-free diet. The language in the lead overstates the evidence and also the information does not appear to be fleshed out in the body as required. In reviewing papers citing it, I can't find anything which really makes this case. One 2011 review says "microbial communities of treated patients share some patterns with the known microbial communities of healthy adults, although the patterns in the unknown bacteria communities are dissimilar; something is still missing from the restoration of the 'normal bacteria microbiota'". This is inconsistent with the statement by the primary study, as these patients are on a long-term gluten-free diet but the reviewer does not conclude that their gluten-free diet is causing a significant change in the micriobota but rather that differences are attributable to prior damage. In any case, the effect of gut flora on health is a fairly speculative area of research at this point. II | (t - c) 02:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it wasn't clear. The source doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS. II | (t - c) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your complaint is that it's a primary source, delete it. The Gaesser & Angandi source is sufficient for the statement anyway. Simply because it was funded by a grain group doesn't mean that it isn't valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling.M.Archer (talkcontribs) 09:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no don't delete it. It's far better than most of the sources in the article. After the references for things like CBS news have been cleaned up, then we should start nit-picking about which peer-reviewed articles are better. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of a gluten-free diet on gut microbiota and immune function in healthy adult human

A ref in the lead concludes "Thus, the GFD may constitute an environmental variable to be considered in treated CD patients for its possible effects on gut health.", i.e. GFD changes the gut microbiota (as many foods do). This is kind of interesting but it is a primary source and doesn't say anything about the value of GFD and I don't see what point it is supporting in the article. I'll remove it unless someone can justify it. Bhny (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow what you're planning to remove. Sterling.M.Archer (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reference 4 Gluten-free_diet#cite_note-De_Palma-4
Yeah, please do remove it. As I discuss in the thread above, this is very speculative (and likely later contradicted) research). II | (t - c) 02:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health/ Emotional Issues associated with gluten foods

For those who have celiac disease or are gluten intolerant, I think it is important to note the mental health and emotional side effects (depression, insomnia, anxiety), gluten can have on ones system. It is important to distinguish these from the more common physical side effects felt.

"Nutrient deficiencies related to celiac disease, both pre- and post-diagnosis, may have an impact on cognitive function, which impedes mental health. Newly diagnosed individuals often have nutritional deficiencies due to malabsorption, including low iron and vitamin D. Among those who are diagnosed and on a gluten-free diet, the gluten-free diet can lead to deficiencies in B-vitamins, iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin D because many gluten-free products are not fortified like their gluten-containing counterparts. Proper supplementation may be required to achieve a healthy nutritional status."

"Individuals with celiac disease also may experience problems related to their affect, or emotions. The most common “affective” disorders reported by patients with celiac disease include depressive and anxiety disorders. Common signs and symptoms of depression and anxiety include:

   irritability
   fatigue
   sleep disturbances
   lack of energy
   loss of appetite

" [2]

Gluten free breads

Mentioned in the Bread page, gluten-free breads were also listed under 'types' of bread as we are trying to expand the Bread page.

Gluten free breads

Mentioned in the Bread page, gluten-free breads were also listed under 'types' of bread as we are trying to expand the Bread page. Kfj8 (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quotations from "unnecessarily turning to the diet as a food fad"

Quotations were unnecessary on this phrase. If this phrase was referencing a specific quote, it needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.13.180 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy

Hello. "This does not seem like encyclopedia content" is a reference to the editor doing the reading, not to the content. Comedy is a legitimate activity. It was placed in the proper section. I didn't add a trivia section. I take the liberty of making a revert and placing this explanation here in hopes of avoiding an edit war. The source says 10 percent of people need to be on this diet (but my grocer is bringing in gluten-free items to beat the band). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, you put this trivial material in the middle of a paragraph where it makes no sense. I don't argue that comedy isn't a "legitimate activity", but I don't think a daily late night show is a prime example artistic commentary. There are many examples someone can find on the internet of a gluten-free diet as a "subject of comedy", and I don't think any of them are worthy sources for an encyclopedia. I'll revert again unless someone has an intelligent solution for this. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Globe is a perfectly acceptable secondary reliable source. I have absolutely no allegiance to Jimmy Kimmel Live but there's no doubt his program was significant and it's in its third day on Google News. What other example can you provide? I'd be happy if you wish to reword or move the sentence if you don't like where it is. Please don't remove it entirely. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'd like to thank you for trying. The lead of this article does explain that this diet is not for the general population. But we've reached a groundswell of how ludicrous nutrition books and dietetics can be. Perhaps it's better to highlight comedy than the tragedy of people following nutrition fads. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My problem isn't with the Boston Globe as a source, it's with the actual mention of Jimmy Kimmel in an encyclopedia article about a diet. Even if the point belonged in the article, its current form is probably recentism. In the sentence you wrote, you lead the reader to believe that the "topic" Kimmel addressed was that a gluten-free diet apparently offers no benefits to about 90% of the population. But that's not what he did, he just made a few people look stupid, a pretty cheap and easy form of comedy if it's comedy at all. If anything at all, his "topic" was that a few people don't know what gluten is. And besides he could have interviewed another 10 people that did know what it was, and just not edited them in. My point is that the point you're trying to make with this sentence is already made in other places in the article with other references, unless the point you're trying to make is that some people like to make fun of gluten-free diets, in which case I don't think that's encyclopedia-worthy. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick clarifications. No intention on my part to make fun of gluten-free diets. Your article does a great service for those who must eat gluten-free (in that respect, it's amazingly good). Second, no that's not what this sentence would lead the reader to believe. The source does quote a doctor who thinks there's no benefit to 90% of the population, but the sentence itself is neutral about that point. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right (and I knew it when I posted that this topic was three days on Google News) Jimmy Kimmel Live is recentism. But jokes on late night TV in the US stretch back more than three years (John Pinette, Jimmy Fallon, Erin Foley on Conan O'Brien). Perhaps we can arrive at a sentence we can agree on. I'm glad you like The Boston Globe (superior in my opinion to the Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, TIME magazine etc. coverage of Kimmel's show). Simply adding the phrase "late-night talk show comedy" or "US television comedians" anywhere here would satisfy my requirements. What do you think? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call the claim "A gluten-free diet offers no benefits to 90% of the population" A. The reason why the sentence you wrote leads the reader to believe that Kimmel addressed A is the context the sentence is embedded in. The previous sentence basically says that the diet isn't beneficial to non-celiacs. Then your sentence says that "the topic" became the subject of comedy; the only reasonable way to interpret this is that Kimmel somehow addressed A through comedy. But he didn't. He made fun of four people, mostly through editing his video. To be clear, what I'm saying is that the only thing Kimmel addressed about gluten, in any form, is what it is, not anything about benefits or lack thereof of the diet. I don't really see that it even matters that you picked Boston Globe as a source, rather than HuffPost or something else, because the actual sentence in the encyclopedia article isn't about anything substantive in the piece, just Jimmy Kimmel. If you had put in some other stuff that the piece addressed regarding the lack of benefits of the diet to non-celiacs, then that particular source would make more sense. Anyway, I have to say that I'm still not convinced it's even true that the lack of benefits of the diet have been a subject of comedy. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the source: it's superior to the Huffington Post and Time because the author's source is Dr. Fasano who is a coauthor of a study that is a source in this article (ref #58 at this time). Also the author bothered to ask a good question of her readers (Why are you on a gluten-free diet?). She's not making fun of anybody.
I'm sorry for the placement of a sentence and for the poor writing ("the topic" got me in trouble). But I'm not sorry for trying. Kimmel's editors did a great job on their Pedestrian Question. Better to laugh than to cry, maybe. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being patient with me and my concerns, I see that you removed the sentence, thanks. Again, to be perfectly clear, what's in the Boston Globe article is not important to me because even though that's your source, the content you actually put in the article based on it was not at all unique to that source. If you had put something that that article specifically addressed, it would be different. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much safer to argue for Kimmel being hilarious. If I had gotten into Dr. Fasano's ideas this argument could have become one of WP:UNDUE which I'm not prepared to argue. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undo deletion

Hi Cornellier, I redid the reduction of text in the section "Eating gluten-free"; it seemed like a significant loss in information. Thoughts? Alrich44 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted US gluten-free-diet statistics from introduction

The second paragraph of the introduction used to be this:

"A significant demand has developed for gluten-free food from both the Americans diagnosed with CD and from the 1.6 million Americans who have decided to start eating gluten-free without a diagnosis. Of the approximately 1.8 million Americans who have CD, about 1.4 million of them may not know they have it. CD is on the increase, up four times from 50 years ago."

Which I deleted as it only pertained to one country, was not WP:NPOV and was rather poorly structured and not entirely relevant. Something about the rising demand for gluten free food in the world would be nice but I couldn't see a way to salvage the current paragraph. Kattfisk (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FODMAPs

Under the "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity" section, I'm wondering if it would be worth mentioning the research that has been done to tease apart non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) from FODMAP sensitivity. For example, see:

Biesiekierski JR, Peters SL, Newnham ED, Rosella O, Muir JG, Gibson PR: No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates.

The study examined the hypothesis that gluten would cause gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with self-reported NCGS. After controlling for FODMAP intake, the study was not able to confirm the hypothesis (though they did find a "nocebo" effect where participants felt worse when they knowingly consumed higher quantities of gluten). This suggests that most/all patients who think they have NCGS actually have FODMAP sensitivity, and it explains why those patients see a benefit from gluten-free/dairy-free diets -- the patients think they're avoiding two bad proteins, but they're actually avoiding several bad carbohydrates that happen to be in exactly the same foods.

At any rate, given how much research has been published on this topic (the article above has been cited 67 times), it seems like it at least deserves a mention here. SashaMarievskaya (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a section on that in the article Non-celiac gluten sensitivity. I've added the "Main article" information now to make it easier to find. I think readers will likely find information on FODMAPs there now. If you think that's not enough, you could add a sentence on FODMAPs in the "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity" section. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Neutrality dispute. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity as a clinically evident syndrome vs. "doesn't exist"

I disputed the claim that non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) "has not been shown to exist" (stated in initial paragraph of Gluten-Free Diet article, and again asserted, in different wording, under NCGS heading). The claim cited a journal article-- Biesiekierski, et al. (2012)--which does not make this claim. That study [1] found that gluten increased the symptoms for self-reported NCGS patients, but a diet lower in FODMAPs improved symptoms. However the study found that gluten was unlikely to be the culprit in their sample. NCGS may have only recently been seriously studied, but it has been recognized as a clinical syndrome since 2012 (Mansueto, et al., 2014)[2] and certainly "exists" in clinical studies. The condition of NCGS was initially received with skepticism because it was novel and increasing in prevalence (Mooney, Aziz, & Sanders, 2013)[3] and probably due to the extent it is mocked in entertainment. Further scientific study revealed it as a clinical condition with subgroups of varying pathogenesis and symptoms (Mansueto, et al., 2014).2

A review by Nijeboer, et al. (2013)4 concluded that the causes of NCGS remain debated.[4] Like the Biesiekiersk et al 1. study, FODMAPs, found in grain are hypothesized to be responsible (Nijeboer, et al.)4. Interestingly, in a response to the Biesiekierski et al.1 article, Carrochio, Rini & Mansueto (2014)[5] state that "wheat sensitivity" may be a better label than "gluten sensitivity". NCGS is generally diagnosed after Celiac's disease and wheat allergy are ruled out (Mansueto, et al., 2014)2. It has also been difficult to locate reliable biomarkers for the disease (Guandalini & Polanco, 2014 [6]; Catassi et al., 2012 [7] ). Regardless of whether gluten, wheat, grain or FODMAPs (or perhaps all as they relate to the different subgroups of NCGS)are responsible, the prevalence of symptoms including intestinal distress, fatigue and headaches that resolve after excluding wheat from the diet, cannot be ignored (Nijeboer, et al., 2013)4.

I don't know whether I should have asked permission to make changes as I did regarding the Wiki article. It is concerning that a study is being erroneously interpreted. The Biesiekierski, et al., article is also incorrectly referenced. It is marked with superscripts 2 and 8, using Gibson incorrectly as the first researcher for the initial reference. This adds an extra reference making it appear as if there are 2 studies to support the claim. My interpretation of the Wikipedia NCGS article is that because gluten wasn't isolated as factor in one study, gluten sensitivity doesn't exist. An article on NCGS (as it's heading) should discuss the clinical syndrome from the perspective of current research, which is abundant. The Wiki article also cites Lundin & Alaedini (2012)[8](superscripted as 8 and incorrectly referenced) to state research is limited and symptoms are not specific (Knut & Armin, 2012). A more accurate citation would be that specific biomarkers are unknown. NCGS has been recognized since the 1980s and research is quite extensive (Catassi et al., 2013)8. I apologize for any mistakes I've made (first time here). I should have drafted this offline and I hope the edits aren't confusing! Miniakiva (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2400:340:7C99:58E3:18B:E7E6 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to ask permission. (P.S.: Just in case you're one of the authors of one of the papers, however, then please read WP:COI first.) --Chris Howard (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) And thanks for your explanations here. But I think you forgot so far to adjust the last sentence of the lead (that is, of the introductory section) of this article "Gluten-free diet" which still says "... may not exist". You may want to adapt that, too. By the way, the article on "Non-gluten celiac sensitivity" gives a more differentiated view of all this.[reply]
One suggestion: why not create an account with a nickname under which you can edit? That would give other editors the opportunity to see all your edits and leave you messages etc. But you can also continue as an IP if you prefer. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by adapting the "does not exist" part. I cannot edit the introductory paragraph, and my edit to the NCGS would rather contradict it. I understand this is not an article on NCGS so I have attempted to sticking to how gluten may or may not affect these individuals. Please share your opinions on this:

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) has been recognized as a clinical syndrome since 2012[9]. The condition of NCGS was initially described as a condition that improved when switching to a gluten-free diet, after celiac's disease and wheat allergy were excluded.[10] Symptoms include gastrointestinal distress, dizziness, brain fog, ataxia, and dermatitis herpetiformis and improve with either a gluten-free or wheat free diet.[11] It has been concluded that NCGS is a syndrome triggered by gluten ingestion resulting in increased human leukocyte antigen and anti-gliadin antibodies, but it has also been suggested that wheat amylase-trypsin inhibitors and low-fermentable, poorly-absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates (FODMAPs) may be responsible for gastrointestinal symptoms. [12]. Cytokine levels in NCGS patients in response to gluten ingestion was found to be higher than in control groups[13]. As research has evolved, NCGS has been revealed as a complex clinical condition with subgroups of varying pathogenesis and symptoms.[14] Some individuals who have reported to have NCGS symptoms were found to not have gluten-sensitivity but a FODMAPs sensitivity [15]. FODMAPs are found in wheat and therefore self-reported NCGS individuals would notice a reduction in symptoms by switching to either a gluten-free diet or a low FODMAPs diet as both eliminate wheat.[16] There is an ongoing debate whether gluten or wheat is the offending antigen, or whether the term should be non-celiac's gluten sensitivity or non-celiac wheat sensitivity.[17].Miniakiva (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's an improvement. It is a bit too technical for this article, and probably with a bit too much detail. Again, our goal here should be to summarize Non-celiac gluten sensitivity, focusing on details relevant to a gluten-free diet. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now also adapted the introductory paragraph. As far as I am concerned, the "Neutrality" template can be removed. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And I simplified my edit. I hope it is clearer and to the point. Thank you.Miniakiva (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about the simplification, because it introduces the expression "silent celiac disease" which is defined differently elsewhere (see Link: "Silent CD is equivalent to asymptomatic CD. We discourage the use of the term silent CD."). True that the cited source of 2013 says "NCGS (also known as silent celiac disease)". However, that reference is a mere Case Report, so we should better stick to the nomenclature used in most other medical review articles where possible. So I think it will need a bit more work. (Maybe I can get round to it later.) --Chris Howard (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on it more now (Difflink). --Chris Howard (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the new info describing the diagnosis and treatment. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind whether it's in or out, because anyway the "Symptoms & Diagnosis" information for NCGS is accessible via the indicated main article. Regarding your edit comment ("way beyond"), I point out that by the way the recommendation to first(!) have CD tested before undertaking any gluten-free diet in case of suspected NCGS is indeed a general recommendation that is also put forward in recent review articles on NCGS diagnosis. (I have none at hand right now, but could retrieve one if requested.) Anyway, as far as I am concerned, NCGS symptoms & diagnosis need not be in this article.
In any case, in my view again at this moment the neutrality template is no longer needed. --Chris Howard (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes

Moved here for discussion. I think a MEDRS source is needed if we want to present it this way: --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A low-gluten or gluten free diet has also been suggested for athletes such as distance runners, an estimated 20 to 50 percent of whom suffer from gastrointestinal issues, and the risk of inflammation from gluten or wheat.[18]

Reverted edits

Those editions were reverted by Axelbrn, who only maintained biased information that does not correspond to the total focus of the article. I removed the text but I did not add again which I had edited in my first editions: (But, is it or is not verifiable?? I agree that Macleans is the only questionable source of recent editions, but my intention was to respect Ashton Banfield's editions. But if we use it, say all views containing, without biasing the information. WP:NPV) If it is a verifiable source, so we have to write what it says, with neutrality, and therefore include again this text: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gluten-free_diet&oldid=689259700#As_a_fad_diet

Best regards.--BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Biesiekierski, J; Peters, S; Newnham, E; Rosella, O; Muir, J; Gibson, P (2013). "No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates". Gastroenterology. 145 (2): 320–8. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051. PMID 23648697.
  2. ^ Mansueto, P; Seidita, A; D'Alcamo, A; Carroccio, A (2014). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: literature review". Journal of the American College of Nurtrition. 33 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1080/07315724.2014.869996. PMID 24533607.
  3. ^ Mooney, P; Aziz, I; Sanders, D (2013). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: clinical relevance and recommendations for future research". Neurogastroenterology & Motility. 25 (11): 864–871. doi:10.1111/nmo.12216. PMID 23937528.
  4. ^ Nijeboer, P; Bontkes, H; Mulder, C; Bouma, G (2013). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Is it in the gluten or the grain?". Journal of gastrointestinal and liver disorders. 22 (4): 435–40. PMID 24369326.
  5. ^ Carroccio, A; Rini, G; Mansueto, P (2014). "Non-celiac wheat sensitivity is a more appropriate label than non-celiac gluten sensitivity". Gastroenterology. 146 (1): 320–1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.08.061. PMID 24275240.
  6. ^ Guandalini, S; Polanco, I (2014). "Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity or Wheat Intolerance Syndrome?". Journal of Pediatrics. [In press]. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.12.039.
  7. ^ Catassi; Bai; Bonaz; Bouma; Calabro... (2013). "Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: The New Frontier of Gluten Related Disorders". Nutrients. 5 (10): 3839–3853. doi:10.3390/nu5103839.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  8. ^ Lundin, K; Alaedini, A (2012). "Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity". Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America. 22 (4): 723–734. doi:10.1016/j.giec.2012.07.006.
  9. ^ Mansueto, P; Seidita, A; D'Alcamo, A; Carroccio, A (2014). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: literature review". Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 33 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1080/07315724.2014.869996. PMID 24533607.
  10. ^ Mooney, P; Aziz, I; Sanders, D (2013). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: clinical relevance and recommendations for future research". Neurogastroenterology & Motility. 25 (11): 864–871. doi:10.1111/nmo.12216. PMID 23937528.
  11. ^ Nijeboer, P; Bontkes, H; Mulder, C; Bouma, G (2013). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Is it in the gluten or the grain?". Journal of gastrointestinal and liver disorders. 22 (4): 435–40. PMID 24369326.
  12. ^ Catassi; Bai; Bonaz; Bouma; Calabro... (2013). Nutrients. 5 (10): 3839–3853. doi:10.3390/nu5103839. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |itle= ignored (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  13. ^ Valeriia, M; Riccib, C; Spisnia, E; Silvestroc, R; Fazioa, L; Cavazzaa, E; Lanzinib, A; Campierid, M; Dalpiaze, A; Pavanf, B; Voltad, U; Dinellic, G (2015). "Responses of peripheral blood mononucleated cells from non-celiac gluten sensitive patients to various cereal sources". Food Chemistry. 176: 167–171. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.12.061.
  14. ^ Mansueto, P; Seidita, A; D'Alcamo, A; Carroccio, A (2014). "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: literature review". Journal of the American College of Nurtrition. 33 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1080/07315724.2014.869996. PMID 24533607.
  15. ^ Biesiekierski, J; Peters, S; Newnham, E; Rosella, O; Muir, J; Gibson, P (2013). "No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates". Gastroenterology. 145 (2): 320–8. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051. PMID 23648697.
  16. ^ Gibson, P; Shepherd, S (2009). "Evidence-based dietary management of functional gastrointestinal symptoms: The FODMAP approach". Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 25 (2): 252–8. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06149.x. {{cite journal}}: Text "/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06149.x/full" ignored (help)
  17. ^ Carroccio, A; Rini, G; Mansueto, P (2014). "Non-celiac wheat sensitivity is a more appropriate label than non-celiac gluten sensitivity". Gastroenterology. 146 (1): 320–1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.08.061pmid=24275240.
  18. ^ https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/03/30/boston-marathon-can-right-preparation-really-make-one-person-faster/btxCBnT3zYf4zT96nVu8rM/story.html