Could two of the most popular foods consumed in the West be a major cause of psychiatric disorders?
Could there be a food-based cure for schizophrenia, bipolar, and depressive disorders? It is my firm conviction that diet – both what it may be deficient in as well as its potential toxicity – can cause what we label as mental illness. In medical school, we learn about the mental repercussions of nutrient deficiencies such as Beriberi (thiamin), Pellagra (niacin), and B12-deficiency induced dementia. We know that minerals such as magnesium and zinc are critical cofactors for basic functions, and that fatty acids are essential in the support of cell membrane health.
I believe in a partnership with my patients; however, my most paternalistic mandate, as a psychiatrist, is that of a gluten and casein free dietary trial.
What’s that? they often ask.
Gluten, from the Latin, “glue” is a composite of proteins comprised of gliadin and glutenin, found in wheat, with similar ‘glutinous’ proteins known as prolamines found in related grains such as rye (secalin), corn (zein), and barley (horedin), and casein is the name for a family of proteins in mammalian milk. How does this relate to the average patient scheduling an appointment with a psychiatrist? Is it possible that our modern, post-industrial foods – sugar, gluten, processed dairy, and genetically modified soy and corn are conspiring with nutrient deficiencies in an incendiary collaboration that will give rise to gut/brain pathology?
If we accept an inflammatory model of mental illness as having the strongest prospects for guiding preventive medicine interventions and non-toxic, reparative treatment approaches, then we must look at underlying drivers of inflammation.
Immune activating and inflammatory proteins, such as those found in wheat and dairy products, may be critical triggers to consider. One of the mostly highly processed foods in our diet – wheat – is almost exclusively rendered as high-glycemic flour, prepared with sugar, and often genetically modified vegetable oils which are oxidized (rancid). Dairy is homogenized and pasteurized, creating a dead, high-sugar liquid with distorted fats, denatured proteins and unabsorbable or thoroughly destroyed vitamins.
Cross-reactivity and stimulation of antibody response by foods like dairy, oats, corn, millet was examined in this study, suggesting that there is important overlap between grains and dairy. Why and how would these foods cause the problems that they do? There are a number of identified reasons for the disturbances caused by America’s darling duo, cheese and bread:
- Fire in the Hole
Lectins in grains and nightshade plants, and proteins in dairy and gluten – namely casein, gliadin and glutenin – can trigger intestinal changes, local, and systemic inflammation. Only recently have we begun to understand how and why. In the case of gluten, zonulin-mediated permeability affords gut contents, including bacterial toxins, access to the bloodstream, where they can play a significant role in driving inflammation and associated psychiatric symptoms, as discussed here.
- Bugging the Bugs
It turns out that diet can be a major determinant of what bugs are most active in our guts, and that the bacteria in our guts may also determine the degree to which we are sensitive to local inflammatory effects of gluten. Gut bacteria are the gatekeepers sounding the alarm by sending inflammatory messages to the rest of the body including the brain.
- Molecular mimicry
When the immune system reacts to a perceived threat such as a food protein, antibodies formed in response may also bind to tissue in glands and organs that share overlapping amino acid sequences. Antibodies can be formed against brain cells, specifically, at times with permanent resultant damage. A study of 400 volunteers found that half of those who reacted to wheat also reacted to brain-based peptides, and the same was found in the subgroup reacting to dairy, suggesting a clustering of reactivity to both brain tissue and these foods.
- The Pleasure of Pizza
Digested proteins from cow dairy and gluten, termed exorphins, interact with opiate receptors in the brain, which accounts for the potentially addictive quality of these foods, and the associated withdrawal when they are taken off the menu.
What does the evidence suggest?
Research into the etiology or cause of syndromes centers around two primary outcomes of interest – associative data that suggests a relationship between an exposure and a cluster of symptoms (% of people with gluten sensitivity who have psychiatric problems), and treatment data that suggests a causative role for that exposure based on the therapeutic effects of its removal (cutting out dairy leads to treatment of depression).
Suspect # 1: Gluten
Assessment of psychiatric pathology in celiac patients has supported a statistically significant incidence of anxiety (panic), depression (21% in this study), bipolar patients, and schizophrenia (27% in this study). When we consider the available evidence base, we have to zoom out to appreciate its inherent limitations – antibody-mediated immune response is just one mechanism by which the body can be alerted to a perceived threat. If you ask to be screened for gluten intolerance, that screening will typically include antibodies to only alpha gliadin, endomesial antibody, and one type of tissue transglutaminase. This testing neglects the role of the innate immune system in non-celiac gluten enteropathy, an inflammatory disorder that often has extra-intestinal manifestations. According to gluten-researcher, Dr. Hadjivassiliou, “gluten sensitivity can be primarily, and at times, exclusively, a neurological disease”.
Since 1953, there have been observations linking schizophrenia and Celiac disease, suggesting that the role of the immune system plays prominently in this poorly understood disorder.
A recent study contributes to the literature suggesting a bidrectional relationship between schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases. In this Danish cohort, individuals with schizophrenia and infectious exposures (hospitalization), the incidence of autoimmune disease was almost 3x as frequent.
The role of antibody complexes feature prominently in the work of Severance et al. who have explored gluten and casein in mental illness, primarily in a cohort of recent onset schizophrenics, non-recent onset schizophrenics, and non-psychiatric controls. In this study, they use complement fixation as an indication of immune reactivity to food/immune complexes that disrupt cellular functioning, demonstrating that those with immune reactions were 4.36 times more likely to be chronic schizophrenics. There is speculation as to the significance of in utero exposure to these foods, and how this may lead to changes to brain modeling, also supported by this study which found a 70% increase in adult schizophrenia in those who had gliadin antibodies at birth.
Even more compelling is the following case presentation:
“a 33-year-old patient, with pre-existing diagnosis of ‘schizophrenic’ disorder, came to our observation for severe diarrhoea and weight loss. A gluten-free diet was started, resulting in a disappearance of psychiatric symptoms, and normalization of histological duodenal findings and of SPECT pattern.”
This means that someone avoided a lifetime of medication with antipsychotics by eliminating gluten from their diet.
In a related report, a case series of three patients treated for depressive syndromes without active intestinal complaints experienced resolution of symptoms on a gluten free diet within 2-3 months, including one patient who was medicated during pregnancy and was able to stop medication within 2 months of dietary change
But I don’t have Celiac!
When I suggest elimination of gluten to patients, they sometimes tell me that they have already been tested, and “don’t have Celiac”. The limitations of currently available conventional testing are very real as most physicians who do a “Celiac panel” are only testing for alpha gliadin, tissue transglutaminase 2, and endomesial antibody, a small portion of the potential immune responses to this food. In a grain consisting of 6 sets of chromosomes, capable of producing greater than 23,000 proteins, this testing may just be too small a window into a very complex space. In one study, inflammatory response was noted in healthy volunteers, suggesting that gluten may cause reactions in everyone.
Suspect # 2 Dairy
The molecular similarity between gluten and casein makes them coconspirators. With quantitatively less literature; however, dairy immune provocation appears to be more variable from person to person. In cow dairy, there are 6 types of protein milk – 4 casein comprising 80% and 2 whey. Within the casein category, A1-beta casein is most commonly present in American cows (Holstein) and is thought to represent a mutated form of the protein, only 5,000 years old. Casomorphin, an opiate-stimulating compound, is released from A1-beta casein. A2-beta casein is found in the milk of sheep, goats, and Jersey cows.
Severence et al. have also identified elevated antibodies to alpha, kappa, and whole casein in new onset and treated schizophrenic patients, stating:
“The elevated IgG and unique patterns of antibody specificity to bovine casein among diagnostic groups provide a rationale for clinical trials to evaluate efficacies of dietary modifications in individuals with neuropsychiatric diseases.”
In patients with casein antibodies, there was a 7-8x increase in the diagnosis of schizophrenia, and they have similarly demonstrated a 3-5x increased risk of Bipolar disorder in patients with casein antibodies (IgG), stating:
“anti-casein IgG associations with bipolar I diagnoses, psychotic symptom history, and mania severity scores suggest that casein-related immune activation may relate to the psychosis and mania components of this mood disorder.”
Beyond direct brain stimulation and poor digestion with local inflammation, cow dairy may also be a source of folate antibodies which can gum up receptors responsible for transporting this critical nutrient to the brain. This study established a linear relationship between these antibodies and exposure to milk – demonstrating resolution of antibodies on a milk-free diet and return with reintroduction of milk.
Gluten and casein free diets have been systematically studied in the autistic population, including in randomized trials; however, no such study design could account for the potential high yield outcomes in any given individual. For this reason, I recommend an empirical trial of at least one month in all individuals struggling with psychiatric symptoms. There are many wonderful and freely available guides to converting to a gluten free life, but the basic principle is to eliminate rye, barley, wheat, and unspecified oats. The difficulty is in identifying the hidden sources of gluten in sauces, condiments, soups, and flavorings. Essentially, going gluten-free should mean eliminating processed food from your life, which is why I have a low threshold to also recommend elimination of co-reactive foods like dairy (casein), corn, soy, and in some cases legumes (including peanuts), and gluten free grains like rice and millet. Dairy elimination would include all milk-based foods and products including yogurt, cheese, and ice cream. Think of these changes as a prescription for brain healing and for bringing your wellness onto a higher plane.
Are you eating a gluten-free diet, but you don’t have celiac disease? A new study suggests that you may not want to make that move. Not only does a gluten-free diet not prevent heart disease, but researchers say avoiding gluten when you don’t have celiac disease could lead to cardiovascular disease and more.
According to the study, people without celiac disease who go gluten-free could wind up with serious health problems, because a gluten-free diet is associated with lower consumption of whole grains, which are associated with a lower risk of heart disease. 
For people with gluten sensitivity – those who don’t have celiac disease, but have abdominal pain and other problems when they eat gluten – it still makes sense to restrict gluten intake.
However, Dr. Andrew T. Chan, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, says:
“It is important to make sure that this [gluten restriction] is balanced with the intake of non-gluten containing whole grains, since these are associated with a lower risk of heart disease.”
Wheat, rye, and barley are all sources of gluten. When people with celiac disease eat foods containing gluten, it triggers an immune reaction that damages the lining of the small intestine. Based on that knowledge, many people who don’t have celiac disease adopt a gluten-free diet, assuming that it is a healthier lifestyle choice.
“The popularity of a low gluten or gluten-free diet in the general population has markedly increased in recent years.
However these findings underscore the potential that people who severely restrict gluten intake may also significantly limit their intake of whole grains, which may actually be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes.
The promotion of gluten-free diets among people without celiac disease should not be encouraged.” 
For the study, researchers looked at data from nearly 120,000 health professionals over the age of 26. The participants periodically answered questions over a 26-year period concerning the types of food they ate. Based on participants’ answers, the Harvard team estimated how much gluten each individual consumed in his or her diet.
The researchers also gathered data on whether participants suffered a heart attack during the study, which was considered a proxy for the development of coronary artery disease. 
The scientists, upon dividing the participants in to 5 groups based on the amount of gluten they ate, discovered that those in the group that ate the most gluten were no less likely to have a heart attack than those in the group that ate the least gluten.
At first glance, the data appeared to show that gluten intake was associated with a lower risk of heart attack. But the lower risk wasn’t due to gluten consumption itself. Instead, it was linked with the consumption of whole grains associated with gluten intake.
The team wrote:
“These findings do not support the promotion of a gluten-restricted diet with a goal of reducing coronary heart disease risk.”
The news gets worse. The researchers also found that eating only small amounts of gluten, or not eating it at all, increased the risk of diabetes by 13%. Another “Debbie Downer” finding was that people who ate the least gluten were 15% more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease compared with those who ate the most. 
The researchers concluded that “promotion of gluten-free diets for the purpose of coronary heart disease prevention among asymptomatic people without celiac disease should not be recommended.” 
 The Telegraph
 The Sun
By Lisa Egan
Take a look at some headlines that have been flooding the internet [recently]:
Gluten-Free Diets May Be Tied to an Increased Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
Going Gluten Free May Raise Your Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
Downside to Gluten-Free Diets: Diabetes Risk?
Type 2 Diabetes Linked to Low Gluten Diets
Gluten-Free Diets Could Lead to Deficiencies and Cause Illness
Low-Gluten Diet May Be Linked to Diabetes Risk
Gluten May Be Healthier For You Than You Think
Going Gluten-Free Might Actually Increase Your Risk of Diabetes
What were your first thoughts upon reading those headlines?
Did they make you think that avoiding gluten will increase your risk of developing one of the most dangerous chronic conditions that plagues humanity…and that maybe consuming gluten is actually GOOD for you?
Here’s the source
of disinformation those articles used as a reference:
There are many problems with this claim…first, this isn’t a study that is published…anywhere.
The “study” itself is filled with flaws, but none of the mainstream media outlets seemed to notice. All of them stuck with the narrative that was given. None questioned the veracity of the claims made.
The study comes from Harvard researchers, which may sound impressive, but they don’t always get things right. I’m not saying they are always wrong, but…Harvard “scientists” are largely to blame for the decades-long fear of fat trend that led people to believe that dietary fat causes disease. They also downplayed the role sugar plays in the development of heart disease.
An excerpt from my article Big Sugar Paid Harvard Scientists to Tell Big Fat Lies About Heart Disease summarizes the scandal:
In the 1950s, studies showing a link between coronary heart disease (CHD) and sugar intake started to emerge.
When the sugar industry (which many not-so-affectionately call “Big Sugar”) got wind of this not-so-sweet news, they paid scientists to downplay the link and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead.
Big Sugar paid Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to influence the review, and subsequently spent $600, 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistry… that sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.”
The studies used in the two-part review – which was published in the respected New England Journal of Medicine in 1967 – were handpicked by the sugar group.
Now, let’s define what gluten IS:
Gluten is a complex two-part protein found in grains such as wheat, rye, barley, and spelt. The two different proteins that comprise gluten are called glutelin and gliadin. Breads, cereals, and baked goods are obvious sources of gluten (unless they are labeled gluten-free), but they aren’t the only foods that contain the protein – it can be found in many items, even those you wouldn’t expect.
It is also important to explain a condition related to gluten called Celiac disease, because it is relevant to this story:
People who have celiac disease, a chronic autoimmune/inflammatory disorder, must avoid the consumption of gluten. Celiac disease originates in the gut, but affects the entire body when untreated. In people with celiac disease, the villi of the small intestine are damaged when gluten is consumed. When a person with celiac disease continues to eat gluten, serious health problems can develop, including neurological conditions, osteoporosis, other autoimmune disorders – and depression.
Now, back to this new “study” – let’s take a look at the flaws, and oh boy, there are many.
From the press release:
The researchers estimated daily gluten intake for 199,794 participants in three long-term health studies — 69,276 from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), 88,610 from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) and 41,908 from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) — from food-frequency questionnaires completed by participants every two to four years. The average daily gluten intake in grams was 5.8 g/d for NHS, 6.8 g/d for NHSII, and 7.1 g/d for HPFS, and major dietary sources were pastas, cereals, pizza, muffins, pretzels, and bread.
Over the course of the study, which included 4.24 million person-years of follow-up from 1984-1990 to 2010-2013, 15,947 cases of Type 2 diabetes were confirmed.
I hope you noticed a few red flags in that passage.
First, the researchers based their study on dietary recall questionnaires that were completed by participants. Those kinds of questionnaires are notoriously unreliable. The researchers “estimated” gluten intake based on those self-reported assessments.
This is casually mentioned in the press release:
Study participants reported their gluten consumption and the study was observational, therefore findings warrant confirmation by other investigations.
While their study size was massive -199,794 people is a lot – it still did not establish a cause-effect relationship.
At best, this kind of review can only suggest a potential association, but this particular study didn’t even achieve that (I’ll explain why later in the article).
In the Popular Science article Gluten-Free Diets Are Not Actually Linked to Diabetes, Sara Chodosh elaborates:
These large data sets are perfect for finding significant links between certain lifestyles and diseases. They’re not so great at finding causes—in that they cannot determine causality at all. For example, the data could tell you that there’s a statistically significant link between eating nuts and heart health, but it can’t tell you that eating nuts causes a healthier heart. It may be that people who eat nuts tend to exercise more, or that people who eat nuts also eat other foods that are good for the heart. Or maybe nuts really do directly improve your cardiac capabilities—we just can’t tell that from correlational data.
Let’s look at another passage from the press release:
In this long-term observational study, researchers found that most participants had gluten intake below 12 grams/day, and within this range, those who ate the most gluten had lower Type 2 diabetes risk during thirty years of follow-up. Study participants who ate less gluten also tended to eat less cereal fiber, a known protective factor for Type 2 diabetes development.
“Cereal fiber”? Why did they specify “cereal” fiber and not just…fiber?
It is an interesting choice of words, especially considering that the majority of the research supporting the benefits of dietary fiber come from epidemiological studies that link the consumption of fiber-rich fruits and vegetables with a lowered risk of certain diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and cancer (particularly colon cancer).
And, when tested in the lab, controlled intervention trials that simply add fiber supplements to an otherwise consistent diet have not shown these protective effects.
Fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds are all excellent sources of fiber, in varying degrees. In addition, they all naturally contain far more nutrients than cereal or other grain-based foods (especially the processed ones).
So, one can’t help but wonder why these “researchers” failed to point that out.
Also, why did Geng Zong, Ph.D, one of the researchers, say this?
“Gluten-free foods often have less dietary fiber and other micronutrients, making them less nutritious and they also tend to cost more. People without Celiac disease may reconsider limiting their gluten intake for chronic disease prevention, especially for diabetes.”
What does he mean by “gluten-free foods”? That is not specified in the press release.
I can’t help but wonder if this is intentionally misleading. Why not say something like, “People without Celiac disease (or heck, everyone) may consider consuming more fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds to increase their intake of dietary fiber and other micronutrients, and to prevent chronic disease and diabetes”?
This is strange, too: If the researchers truly believe that people who don’t consume enough “cereal fiber” might be at higher risk of developing diabetes, then why not recommend gluten-free grains that are high in fiber, like quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat, sorghum, gluten-free oats, and teff? Why did they specifically refer to “gluten intake?” Gluten itself is NOT a form of fiber – it is a protein.
Hmm. I wonder if the push to consume GLUTEN has anything to do with the fact that for Big Pharma and others who profit from unhealthy humans, type 2 diabetes is a goldmine.
Ironically, in 2016, Harvard shared a press release with the following headline:
Cost of Diabetes Hits 825 Billion Dollars a Year
Type 2 diabetes is largely caused by lifestyle factors – and is therefore avoidable, controllable, and even reversible in most cases.
For the majority of people, type 2 diabetes (and sometimes, type 1) is caused by the very dietary advice “experts” have been giving for decades, as Dr. Davis explains in Diabetes, Inc:
- Cutting dietary fat and cholesterol–as advised the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the USDA, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
- Increased consumption of grains–that raise blood sugar higher than table sugar, as also advised by the same agencies
- Big Food and the soft drink industry–who have made high-carb grain-based products and soft drinks the centerpiece of their business model, while paying the same above agencies/experts to divert attention away from carbs and sugar and advocate silly notions like “everything in moderation”
In fact, if you want to avoid type 2 diabetes, avoiding grains (and gluten!) altogether is a great idea!
Dr. Davis writes,
I’m sometimes accused of exaggeration when I say that conventional dietary advice to cut fat and increase consumption of “healthy whole grains” causes type 2 (as well as much type 1) diabetes. But I can say with complete confidence that any food that 1) raises blood sugar and insulin to high levels every time you consume it, 2) plays a dominant role in diet, 3) provokes inflammation via multiple mechanisms, 4) can trigger immune destruction of pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin, and 5) acts as an appetite-stimulant (via gliadin protein-derived opiate peptides and blockade of the leptin hormone) all adds up to an astoundingly powerful way to cause diabetes.
Speaking of diabetes and avoiding gluten, this is certainly interesting (emphasis mine):
Our group just published a research study that shows those with celiac disease are much less likely to get type 2 diabetes compared to people without celiac disease. This was an unexpected finding and to our knowledge is the first study looking at the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in celiac disease. While we found that people with celiac disease have substantial protection from type 2 diabetes, it’s not clear why. (source)
If those study participants were strictly following a gluten-free diet (as people with Celiac disease NEED to do), then…perhaps we can speculate that avoiding gluten is what protected them from developing type 2 diabetes.
It’s just an idea – an intriguing one, I think.
What else were the people who were studied eating, or not eating? That crucial bit of information is not shared with us.
Also – and this is a BIG problem – the researchers did not specifically study people on gluten-free diets. They only studied associations between eating less gluten and developing diabetes.
They even admit this in the press release:
Also, most of the participants took part in the study before gluten-free diets became popular, so there is no data from gluten abstainers.
The researchers claim a 13% difference in type 2 diabetes incidence, but that is minor, especially considering the inherent flaws associated with epidemiological studies. As Dr. William Davis explains, “…confident associations are typically much larger than this: 40% or 50%, for instance. This does not stop, of course, media people, who are journalists at best, paid marketing people for the grain industry at worst, to propagate their misinterpretations.”
As Chodosh points out:
It’s possible that gluten intake actually has nothing to do with diabetes risk, it’s that people who eat less gluten also eat less fiber, and the lack of fiber is what’s affecting the likelihood of getting diabetes. Maybe people who ate less gluten in the ’80s and ’90s also tended to eat worse overall. Maybe those people ate not just fewer whole grains, but also more sugar. Maybe gluten has nothing to do with it. We just don’t know yet.
All of this does raise an important question: COULD avoiding gluten lead to the development of type 2 diabetes?
Definitely – if you replace products that contain gluten with substitutes that are made with cornstarch, rice flour, tapioca starch, and potato flour. There are plenty of gluten-free junk foods on the market – cookies, brownies, cupcakes, crackers, chips, bagels, breads, pancakes, waffles, muffins – you name it, you can probably find a gluten-free version. Of course, many of these “food” items are also filled with sugar…and I think by now everyone knows sugar is linked with the development of type 2 diabetes (and a long list of other chronic, debilitating diseases).
Another deceptive claim…
In the beginning of the press release, the researchers make the claim that there “is lack of evidence that reducing gluten consumption provides long-term health benefits.”
I guess they haven’t been keeping up with research.
Maybe they should take a look at these studies…
Intestinal cell damage and systemic immune activation in individuals reporting sensitivity to wheat in the absence of coeliac disease (My article on this study: Trust Your Gut: Now There’s Proof That Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity Exists)
There are many more.
Many people believe that “gluten free” is a silly diet trend and that there’s not a thing wrong with consuming products that contain gluten. It’s become fashionable to mock and belittle people who don’t have an official Celiac diagnosis, but decide to live a gluten-free lifestyle anyway.
But Celiac disease isn’t the only problem associated with gluten. Some have wheat allergies, and now researchers are trying to determine how to best diagnose people with a recently identified condition called Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity.
It is now becoming apparent that reactions to gluten are not limited to CD, rather we now appreciate the existence of a spectrum of gluten-related disorders. The high frequency and wide range of adverse reactions to gluten raise the question as to why this dietary protein is toxic for so many individuals in the world.
I have a few thoughts on this…
One: Why do those people care what other people eat/don’t eat? Is it somehow a threat to them?
Two: Why would people voluntarily restrict their diets if they weren’t actually feeling better and noticing improvements in health? I am one of the people who feels infinitely better on a gluten and grain-free diet, and I know many others.
Three: Products that contain gluten are not necessary for health anyway. There’s not a thing in them that you can’t get from other dietary sources.
Four: So what if there are a lack of studies that “prove” a particular food/ingredient is “bad” for us? Does it really matter? If a person feels better on a certain kind of diet, who is anyone else to say they are wrong?
In the article How to Avoid Clickbait on Nutrition Studies, Kamal Patel writes…
You don’t need a study for everything.
This cannot be repeated enough. Let’s say that you have a friend who SUPPOSEDLY developed a allergy to red meat a few years ago. But instead of it happening within minutes of eating the food, like a normal allergy, it happens hours after. Ridiculous! Preposterous! And there weren’t any studies on this supposed allergy when you looked it up … so it must be psychosomatic.
Wrong. Studies started being published in the last few years of red meat allergies caused by tick bites.
Humans are so sure of their limited cognitive abilities that they’ll disregard anything that doesn’t fit into their predefined mold. If someone reliably gets an allergic reaction after eating red meat, that’s a very valuable observation, and the starting point for further thought. It’s not something that has to be backed up by a study, because studies aren’t always available for what’s happening to you.
The body is infinitely more complex than we understand, and isolated trials will never be able to answer all the questions we want to know about. Your personal experiences are worth as much, and sometimes more, than the studies that are out there.
What does this mean for you?
If you believe you may have celiac disease, it is important to consult with your healthcare provider because of the seriousness of the disorder. If you don’t think you have celiac disease, but believe you might benefit from avoiding gluten, it couldn’t hurt to try. Humans don’t NEED to consume gluten, and many people report feeling better after going gluten-free. Just be sure to avoid gluten-free junk foods.
For those who are still skeptical (or want inspiration), please read my dear friend Melissa’s personal story about her battle with NCGS and the amazing health transformation she experienced when she removed gluten from her diet.
Let this study be a cautionary tale: always, always read press releases and associated articles with a critical eye.
Lisa Egan Runs Nutritional Anarchy, where this article first appeared, and appears here with permission.
Nutritional Anarchy is owned and operated by Lisa Egan and may contain advertisements, sponsored content, paid insertions, affiliate links or other forms of monetization.
Nutritional Anarchy abides by word-of-mouth marketing standards. We believe in honesty of relationship, opinion, and identity. The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics, or posts made in this blog. That content, advertising space, or post will be clearly identified as paid or sponsored content.
Nutritional Anarchy is never directly compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites, and various other topics. The views and opinions expressed on this website are purely those of the authors. If we claim or appear to be experts on a certain topic or product or service area, we will only endorse products or services that we believe, based on our expertise, are worthy of such endorsement. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
This site does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest.
Nutritional Anarchy makes no representations, warranties, or assurances as to the accuracy, currency, or completeness of the content contain on this website or any sites linked to or from this site.
Nutritional Anarchy may offer health, fitness, nutritional, and other such information, but such information is designed for educational and informational purposes only. The information contained on the site does not and is not intended to convey medical advice and does not constitute the practice of medicine. You should not rely on this information as a substitute for, nor does it replace, professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Nutritional Anarchy is not responsible for any actions or inaction on a user’s part based on the information that is presented on the site.
originally posted: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/05/no-gluten-free-diets-do-not-cause-diabetes-new-study-flaws.html
I have already discussed my disdain for gluten in previous articles, citing numerous research studies reporting its negative effects on the brain and digestive health. Gluten is a very hard protein found in wheat, barley, and rye products, and most individuals today are sensitive — if not downright intolerant — to its structure. One topic frequently overlooked is the relationship between gluten consumption and thyroid disease. Although the connection between nutrition and thyroid health has been circulating in the medical and nutrition literature for years, it’s only recently that we’re seeing an increasing amount of scrutiny being placed on gluten’s effects on thyroid health.
The Problem with Gluten
Gluten contains gliadin, a protein that is foreign to the human body. The unfamiliarity leads to the initiation of an immune response, an action that is amplified in individuals with Celiac disease. Many people today are sensitive or intolerant to gluten, and an immune response is not just excluded to those with Celiac. Depending on the intensity of the immune response, an individual may notice little effect; for intolerant individuals, profound symptoms may present themselves immediately.
Through the years, wheat has been extensively cultivated and gluten has become much harder to digest. The wheat of our ancestors resemble nothing of what it is today, as evidenced by the ever-increasing cases of Celiac disease in the last 50 years. Individuals merely sensitive to gluten may experience symptoms that seem unrelated to wheat consumption. These symptoms include hormonal imbalance, skin issues, brain fog, fatigue, depression, arthritis, and migraines. Many of these annoying symptoms remain prevalent in the lives of many people today simply because it’s difficult to connect these symptoms to eating gluten-containing products.
Gluten and Thyroid Health: What’s the Connection?
To the body, gliadin looks very similar to transglutaminase, an enzyme needed to form chemical bonds throughout the human body.  While present in many organs, the thyroid possesses a higher concentration of this enzyme. When the immune system attacks gliadin, the antibodies also attack the thyroid.  As the immune response continues, the thyroid suffers damage for up to 6 months after gluten consumption.
Not only can digestive health suffer when people with Celiac disease or intolerance/sensitivity participate in prolonged gluten consumption, but thyroid health also drastically degrades. An inactive or underproductive thyroid can interfere with proper hormone synthesis and metabolism, and it can also affect weight and energy.
Thyroid Disease and Gluten Intolerance
Researchers have determined those with an autoimmune thyroid disease (ATD), especially Hashimoto’s (hypothyroidism) or Grave’s (hyperthyroidism) disease, should be regularly screened for Celiac disease and gluten intolerance.   A significant focus of research to date has examined the incidences of gluten intolerance in patients with ATD. Many patients with ATD do show an immune response to gluten, indicating a need to introduce nutritional approaches for individuals with chronic and debilitating autoimmune disorders.
Does Gluten Only Affect the Thyroid?
When gluten stimulates an immune response, other areas of the body can also be affected, such as the brain. Research has also found that patients with ATD suffer immune attacks on the endocrine system, the main system responsible for managing hormones.  In patients with Celiac disease, gluten is a known to be a prime trigger for endocrine disorders. 
Gluten and Hormonal Imbalance: The Hidden Link Behind Common Health Concerns
Any chemical, whether it be natural or synthetic, that interferes with thyroid and endocrine function creates an imbalance within the entire human body. That’s because these organs control hormone production, and malfunctioning hormones can interfere with metabolism, fertility, and mood. Even cardiovascular health is related to proper hormone function, making it crucial that you employ various health strategies (like avoiding gluten) to keep hormones in check. In this light, gluten may be contributing to many of our most common health problems in a much more significant way than previously considered.
One Final Thought
If you have an autoimmune thyroid disorder, it is imperative that you completely avoid gluten. For those who suffer from a gluten sensitivity, avoiding gluten may be the best choice to protect your thyroid and overall health. Many people who have chosen a gluten-free lifestyle either by need or by choice report incredible and even dramatic improvements in their health. The best answer for all of us may be a gluten-free lifestyle, especially if we are seeking to balance hormone levels. Instead of wheat, choose gluten-free whole grains like quinoa, buckwheat, and millet.
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, ND, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
- Griffin M1, Casadio R, Bergamini CM. Transglutaminases: nature’s biological glues. Biochem J. 2002 Dec 1;368(Pt 2):377-96.
- Naiyer AJ1, Shah J, Hernandez L, Kim SY, Ciaccio EJ, Cheng J, Manavalan S, Bhagat G, Green PH. Tissue transglutaminase antibodies in individuals with celiac disease bind to thyroid follicles and extracellular matrix and may contribute to thyroid dysfunction. Thyroid. 2008 Nov;18(11):1171-8. doi: 10.1089/thy.2008.0110.
- Hakanen M1, Luotola K, Salmi J, Laippala P, Kaukinen K, Collin P. Clinical and subclinical autoimmune thyroid disease in adult celiac disease. Dig Dis Sci. 2001 Dec;46(12):2631-5.
- Sategna-Guidetti C1, Bruno M, Mazza E, Carlino A, Predebon S, Tagliabue M, Brossa C.. Autoimmune thyroid diseases and coeliac disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998 Nov;10(11):927-31.
- Akay MN1, Akay G. The presence of the antigliadin antibodies in autoimmune thyroid diseases. Hepatogastroenterology. 2003 Dec;50 Suppl 2:cclxxix-cclxxx.
- Kumar V1, Rajadhyaksha M, Wortsman J. Celiac disease-associated autoimmune endocrinopathies. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2001 Jul;8(4):678-85.
Did your grandparents have food allergies? Mine sure didn’t. A stark comparison to the growing epidemic of food allergies, worsening with every generation.
So why didn’t your grandparents have food allergies? It’s really quite simple…
1) THEY ATE SEASONAL REAL FOOD.
Food came from farms and small markets in the early 1900’s, and because food preservatives were not widely used yet, food was fresh. Because of the lack of processed food, their diets were nutrient dense allowing them to get the nutrition they needed from their food.
For babies, breast milk was valued and it was always in season.
2) THEY DIDN’T DIET, AND PLAY RESTRICTIVE GAMES WITH THEIR BODY AND METABOLISM. THEY ATE FOOD WHEN FOOD WAS AVAILABLE.
Our grandparents did not fall victim to fad diets, food marketing, calorie counting, and other detrimental dieting habits that are popular today (in part because the marketing infrastructure didn’t exist yet). Because of this they had a healthy metabolism, and ate according to their body’s needs andcravings.
3) THEY COOKED FOOD AT HOME, USING TRADITIONAL PREPARATION METHODS FROM SCRATCH.
Buying processed food was not an option, and eating out was a rare luxury. Lucky for our grandparents these habits actually increased their health.
4) THEY DIDN’T EAT GMOS, FOOD ADDITIVES, STABILIZERS AND THICKENERS.
Food was not yet treated with additives, antibiotics and hormones to help preserve shelf life and pad the pockets of food producers in the early 1900’s at the expense of the consumer’s health.
5) THEY ATE THE WHOLE ANIMAL THAT INCLUDED MINERAL RICH BONE BROTHS AND ORGAN MEATS.
Animal bones were saved or bought to make broths and soups, and organ meats always had a special place at the dinner table. These foods were valued for their medicinal properties, and never went to waste.
6) THEY DIDN’T GO TO THE DOCTOR WHEN THEY FELT SICK OR TAKE PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS. DOCTOR VISITS WERE SAVED FOR ACCIDENTAL INJURIES AND LIFE THREATENING ILLNESS.
When they got a fever, they waited it out. When they felt sick, they ate soups, broths and got lots of rest. They did not have their doctor or nurse on speed dial, and trusted the body’s natural healing process a whole lot more than we do today. Their food was medicine, whether they realized it or not.
7) THEY SPENT LOTS OF TIME OUTSIDE.
Our grandparents didn’t have the choice to stay inside and play on their phones, computers and gaming systems. They played on the original play-station: bikes, swing-sets and good ol’ mother nature!
AND WHAT DO THESE THINGS HAVE TO DO WITH FOOD ALLERGIES?
Nutrition affects EVERY cell in our body. The health of our cells is dependent on diet and lifestyle. Cells create tissues, tissues create organs, and we are made up of a system of organs. If your nutrition is inadequate, the integrity of each cell, tissue and organ in your body will suffer, thus you may be MORE sensitive to certain foods.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agencies investigated the appearance of what appeared to be GE wheat on an Oregon farm, and concluded that it was an isolated incident. The investigation was closed after ‘exhausting all leads,’ but new GMO wheat has been detected at the Montana State University’s Southern Agricultural Research Center (SARC) in Huntley, Montana, where Monsanto and researchers grew GE wheat as part of field trials from 2000 to 2003.
The Oregon wheat was later suspected by environmentalists to be a development by Monsanto, meant to withstand the spraying of RoundUp. The APHIS found no evidence at that time that the GE wheat had been released into the market. Just this week, the agency is releasing its full findings on their investigation with personal information and confidential business information redacted.
This time; however, a new investigation will be opened to investigate regulatory compliance issues with the GE wheat found growing at the research facility in Montana. While this site was previously authorized for Monsanto to conduct field trials, the company is not supposed to be growing GM wheat or any other GM crop there now.
Furthermore, the GM wheat found growing there now has been genetically tested and is significantly different from the GE wheat found growing in Oregon last year.
Since the original field trials granted to Monsanto, the APHIS has not deregulated any GE wheat varieties. They are not to be for sale or in commercial production in the U.S.
During the Oregon farm GE wheat investigation, conducted over a period of ten months, 291 interviews were held with wheat growers, grain elevator operators, crop consultants, and wheat researchers. Thousands of pages of evidence were collected and carefully reviewed.
Also, 100 samples were collected from businesses that purchased and sold ‘certified’ seeds from the farm in Oregon, as well as harvested grain that was gathered from the grower. It was after researching this incident exhaustively that the APHIS concluded that the incident was a one-off. No one was sure how the GM wheat was found to be growing at the Oregon farm.
A copy of the 12,842 pages that comprise the complete report of investigation and evidence file is available on the APHIS website.
Though Monsanto’s initial GM wheat field tests were conducted under APHIS’ regulatory approval, they have no business growing GM wheat now. This is a serious breech of compliance, and as many have suspected, Monsanto has little regard for regulatory approval for their GM crop experiments, though they often receive it through political maneuvering and illegal campaign contributions nonetheless. The field trials were supposed to be a part of research conducted on the safety of GM crops, not a free pass to develop new wheat strains to sell to the unwitting public.
The APHIS claims that it is taking steps to make sure that other strains of GM wheat do not show up elsewhere in the U.S., and that they will inspect field trials planted in 2014. Additionally, they will remove plants that appear ‘as volunteer plants,’ meaning that they appeared later after an initial harvest, as plants sometimes do.
It is clear with this new Montana GM scandal that cross-breeding, the scarce but resilient GM plant that lasts after a crop has been cleared, as well as the insidious business habits of Monsanto are still threatening organic farmers’ fields and the right of the U.S. public to have GMO-free food.
Source: http://naturalsociety.com/montana-monsanto-scandal-causes-reopening-us-investigation-gmo-wheat/#ixzz3FMldYrNV Author: Christina Sarich
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
Having battled with what I assumed was seasonal allergies for several years and then I started reading about wheat and gluten intolerance and I noticed that the symptoms I had not only matched seasonal allergies but also could fit for wheat allergy.
If you have a wheat allergy you are likely to develop symptoms within minutes to hours after eating something containing wheat.
Wheat allergy symptoms include:
• Swelling, itching or irritation of the mouth or throat
• Hives, itchy rash or swelling of the skin
• Nasal congestion
• Itchy, watery eyes
• Difficulty breathing
• Cramps, nausea or vomiting
For some people, wheat allergy may cause a life-threatening reaction called anaphylaxis.
In addition to other signs and symptoms of wheat allergy, anaphylaxis may cause:
• Swelling or tightness of the throat
• Chest pain or tightness
• Severe difficulty breathing
• Trouble swallowing
• Pale, blue skin color
• Dizziness or fainting
• Fast heartbeat
*If you experience any of the above extreme symptoms please go to the ER.
Nasal congestion, extreme sometimes debilitating headache on one side of my head, watery eyes – that was me.
Having tried and had pretty good success with essential oils, which I am sure cleared the gluten from my system, allowing relief, I had assumed my “seasonal environmental” allergies were cured only to come back over time.
In frustration, and despite my knowledge and belief that medication does not fix – only covers symptoms, for relief and to be able to function day to day in my job, I had turned to trying pharmaceuticals. Advil Cold and Sinus as well as Zyrtec D, both of which contain pseudophedrine (having a gigantic list of dangerous side effects). I knew this wasn’t the answer, but was thankful for the break.
In doing some research I came across Dr. William Davis, Cardiologist, Author and Health Crusader’s website based on his book
In reading through the blog posts I became more and more convinced this could possibly be part of my problem.
The wheat of today is not the same plant it was in our grandparent’s years.
It’s a completely new genetically modified grain, which is the product of 40 years of genetics research aimed at increasing yield-per-acre, not nutritional value.
The result is a genetically unique plant that stands 18-24 inches tall, not 4 1/2-foot tall wheat that nature created.
Watch the video:
The Gluten & Gliadin present within wheat (also Rye and Barley) creates an auto immune from your body that literally turns your body’s defenses against itself. This causes inflammation, which leads to a variety of illness (mental and physical) as well as general body pain.
Deciding to test it out – I stopped eating anything containing wheat.
I noticed results right away.
-Within the first week I had less headaches and less fogginess.
-By week two I was no longer feeling the need to take or even carry allergy medication (just in case) around with me.
-By the end of week two my headaches, watery eyes, foggy feeling and as a bonus 5 lbs were all gone. -My belt loop moved in two notches and I felt less bloated (though honestly I did not realize I had felt bloated in the first place).
Then I did something truly stupid.
I was not thinking and a friend made me dinner, which included home made ravioli.
They were delicious.
However, 15-20 minutes after we finished eating I began feeling worse and worse.
My eye started watering down my face, my head felt like someone stuck a fork in my temple, I was hot and my sinuses were becoming very stuffy – feeling like my head was stuffed with cotton batting.
As uncomfortable as this was, it of course passed and was a wonderful verification that wheat was in fact the culprit.
What do you have to lose? – If you are experiencing horrible allergy symptoms and cant seem to find permanent relief stop eating wheat for a week or two.
I think you just might be pleasantly surprised!
Come back and post your personal results – We would love to hear them!
*Last additional note: If you are having major cravings for carbs/wheat/sugar – you may want to consider doing a Candida cleanse. CandidaEx from Universal Formulas is the best one I have found.
Author: Sarah J. Barendse
For the first time since their initial commercialization in the mid-1990s, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are on the decline in the industrialized world, says a new report by the pro-biotech lobbying group International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, or ISAAA.
Despite heavy promotion of the technology by the chemical industry, which has been hiding GMOs in the food supply for nearly 20 years, overall plantings of GM crops have dropped in places like Canada and the U.S. by about 2 percent, according to the report. And the crops hit the largest include both cotton and canola.
“Growth is plateauing as far as the major industrial countries are concerned,” stated Clive James, author of the new report and founder of the Ithica, New York-based ISAAA, to Businessweek. “The major trend is going to be in the developing countries, which for the second consecutive year planted more [GMOs] than industrial countries.”
Canada, whose canola crop is currently 96 percent GMO, recently cut back on this oil-making crop, driving down the numbers. And Australia, which is shamed by a cotton crop that is currently 99 percent GMO, reportedly shed some of this commodity as well, replacing it with non-GMO wheat.
GM cotton in the U.S. also saw a decline, falling from 94 percent in 2012 to 90 percent in 2013. A combination of drought conditions and growing consumer awareness and rejection of GMOs has driven many farmers to scrap their transgenic crops altogether in favor of conventional seeds, according to experts watching the scenario unfold.
“Consumers are the final arbitrators, [and] Gmo farmers are already starting to lose market shares,” wrote one commenter in response to a recent Vancouver Sun piece which falsely claims that an “overwhelming” number of farmers support GM crops. “Gmo and massive pesticide use go hand in hand and the public is becoming aware.”
Many farmers were coerced into adopting GMO – nobody really wants the failed technology!
The interesting thing about GMOs and how they ever came to be accepted is that they never really were accepted, at least not by an informed public. Backroom deals between powerful corporations and corrupt politicians helped pave the way for chemical companies like Monsanto to quietly make absurd promises to farmers about lower costs, increased yields and less required labor if they transitioned to transgenic.
Fast forward 20 years and many farmers are essentially stuck with the technology, which has never provided any of the promised benefits. Fearful that they might become the next victims of a predatory business model that could sue them for patent infringement when GMO traits drift from nearby fields into their own, these farmers are forced to grit their teeth and continue until an opportunity to escape emerges.
“Even farmers who once believed GM offered benefits are now in doubt, owing to the cost and difficulty of controlling rapidly evolving weed tolerance to the herbicides employed with the herbicide-tolerant crops,” wrote E. Ann Clark, a retired professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph in a letter of rebuttal to The Vancouver Sun, which never actually published it.
“As of 2012, 49% of 3000 surveyed US farmers had glyphosate-tolerant weeds on their farms (glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup) –up from 34% in 2011,” she adds. “Hundreds of biotypes from 25 different weed species are now glyphosate-tolerant. As of 2012, glyphosate-tolerant weeds covered 25 million ha (61 million ac) of US crop land — and growing.”
Sources for this article include:
Author: Jonathan Benson
University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann announced the outcomes of his genetic study into the wheat, a kind engineered by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), at a conference last month.
Recently, Australian researchers claimed to have developed a form of salt-tolerant wheat that would allow farmers to grow crops in soil with high salinity.
Heinemann discovered that the molecules developed in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes. With consumption, these molecules can enter the human body and potentially silence our genes, he explained. “The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist.”
Flinders University Professor Judy Carman and Safe Food Foundation (SFF) Director Scott Kinnear accepted Heinemann’s analysis.
Just last year, scientists from Rothamsted Research, based in Hertfordshire, used biotechnological tools to genetically engineer a wheat plantthat produced high levels of an aphid repelling odour.
That strain of wheat would not require treatment with insecticide because it would repel colonisation by the aphid pests and also attract natural predators. Critics charged that there are natural symbioses that take place between aphids and crops which are essential to their survival and the initiative to repel colonisation is another direct attack on much larger ecosystems.
“These scientists are very short-sighted and they aren’t looking at the whole picture and consequences of introducing GM wheat. There are many bacterial symbioses that take place between aphids and other microorganisms that will affect their entire ecosystem should an intolerant species be introduced into the food chain,” said microbiologist Joseph Sagarese.
“If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat — well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five,” stated Professor Carman.
Based on the research, long-term testing must be performed before the wheat is offered to grocery retailers.
“We firmly believe that long term chronic toxicological feeding studies are required in addition to the detailed requests made by Heinemann for the DNA sequences used,” Kinnear stated.
“The industry routinely does feeding studies anyway, so it should not be too much more difficult to do long term (lifetime) studies and include inhalation studies,” Heinemann added. “These should be tuned to the way people would be exposed to the product.”
The researchers also cautioned consumers against eating the wheat if it is approved prematurely. “I would advise citizens to request that these tests be done and the evidence meet with their standards of scientific rigour if in the end it is approved for use,” said Heinemann.
If the concerns surrounding CSIRO’s GM wheat are not resolved, the issue could end up in court, according to Kinnear: “If CSIRO was to consider moving towards human feeding trials without conducting these studies, we would be looking at what legal avenues are available to stop them.”
Approximately 700 million tons of wheat are now cultivated worldwide making it the second most-produced grain after maize. It is grown on more land area than any other commerical crop and is considered a staple food for humans.
In July 2009 Monsanto announced new research into GM wheat, and industry groups kicked their promotion of GM wheat into high gear. “Widespread farmer and consumer resistance defeated GM wheat in 2004 and this global rejection remains strong, as demonstrated by today’s statement,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
View the press conference held last month on the threat of CSIRO’s GM wheat.
About the author:
Natasha Longo has a master’s degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.
This article was reposted with the express permission of the kind crew at preventdisease.com
Ancient solution to a modern wheat problem? Einkorn may provide a new grain alternative for those suffering from gluten intolerance
Over the last several years, many who value health are becoming aware of the dangers of gluten, especially when it’s consumed as modern wheat. Severe digestive distress, celiac disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ADHD, multiple sclerosis and even mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are just a few of the maladies linked to the protein in wheat, barley and rye. As reactions continue to escalate at a staggering rate in the United States, both researchers and private organizations are beginning to take a look at ancient cereal grains as a possible solution to our wheat troubles.
Commonly known as einkorn, Triticum monococcum is an intriguing heritage grain that was harvested as early as 16,000 BCE. Cultivation began during the Neolithic Era and early Bronze Age (10,000-4,000 BCE) and continued into the early 20th century, when much of einkorn production was replaced by hybridized, high-yield, pest-resistant strains of what we now recognize as modern wheat.
Einkorn is nutritionally superior to hard red wheat, supplying higher levels of protein, fat, phosphorous, potassium, pyridoxine and beta-carotene. It’s also much lower in problematic gluten. Enthusiasts of einkorn believe it tastes better, lending a “light rich taste which left common bread wheat products tasteless and insipid by comparison,” according to the ASHS publication Progress in New Crops. What’s really garnering attention, however, is that einkorn may be nontoxic to individuals suffering from gluten intolerance.
Safe for celiacs?
Several studies indicate that einkorn could provide a new grain option for the millions with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity. In one experiment, intestinal biopsies were taken from 12 treated celiac patients, as well as 17 control subjects, and cultured with either standard bread gliadin or einkorn gliadin for 24 hours. At the end of the testing, researchers concluded, “[This study shows] a lack of toxicity of T. monococcum gliadin in an in vitro organ culture system, suggesting new dietary opportunities for celiac patients.”
Another study involved 12 celiac patients who had been adhering to a gluten-free diet for at least one year. In a single-blind, cross-over investigation, each participant was given einkorn wheat, rice or amygluten on days 0, 14 and 28. At the end of the study, researchers noted that, although “[n]o definite conclusion can be drawn on the safety of Tm [einkorn]. . . Tm was, however, well tolerated by all patients providing the rationale for further investigation on the safety of this cereal for CD patients.”
Additionally, Norwegian researchers have identified a T-cell stimulatory gluten peptide in modern wheat which triggers an autoimmune response in people sensitive to the protein. Alpha-gliadin genes on wheat chromosome 6D appear to be the culprit. Of particular interest to individuals with celiac disease is that einkorn wheat does not contain this troublesome peptide. Further research is needed, but preliminary findings hold promise for those suffering from gluten reactions.
Source: Natural News -About the author:
Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website www.Thrive-Living.net she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people who share a similar vision.
Find at Diaspora: email@example.com
Follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Thrive_Living
At Facebook, connect here: www.facebook.com/pages/Thrive-Living/4995788…
For Pinterest fans: www.pinterest.com/thriveliving/natural-news/