Antioxidants, gluten intolerance and supplements?

My husband just found this guy’s website from a facebook link, and we spent part of last night arguing about his claims, among them that no one can be truly healthy without supplements, everyone is gluten-intolerant to some degree, that baked potatoes, meat that isn’t rare, and fried food cause cancer, and that antioxidants are the miracle cure for atherosclerosis.

I find people who are pushing their own line of supplements suspicious, I disbelieve the gluten intolerance claims, and I don’t think that ingesting huge amounts of antioxidants is going to make people amazingly healthy and reverse heart disease and cure cancer.

So, any health specialists or people with more than high school level organic chemistry, could you please refute, debunk, or correct this stuff?

I’m also suspicious of people that push supplements. I also agree that the new gluten intolerance fad is nonsense. The problem is that gluten is almost everywhere, so people that give up gluten have to modify their diet so drastically, that they may very well start to see improvements in some areas having nothing to do with gluten itself.

I have nno idea why baked potatoes would cause cancer, but there is a sliver of truth to meats and fried foods. Overcooking meats will make polyaromatic hydrocarbons which are very carcinogenic. I believe this is an issue with fried foods as well. But completely avoiding PAH’s is nearly impossible. They are literally the byproducts of any incomplete combustion. I say enjoy your meat however you like it. I know of no study that connects a well done steak with imminent death.

Antioxidants get a lot of buzz on these sites as well. While they do reduce cancer, there is no study indicating an overload of antioxidants reduces cancer more. In fact, anti-oxidants work by absorbing free radicals. In doing so, they become free radicals themselves. An over load of antioxidants could actually increase your cancer likelihood.

I’m sorry, I don’t have time to cite any of this, but nobody else was answering, so I gave it my best.

Well there are so many looney toon sites … I guess I’d ask why you specifically want to debunk this particular one, and which of that fairly long list of crock claims is of most interest to you?

Supplements? Clearly established that getting your vitamins in supplements is not as beneficial (if at all) as getting them in real foods. Extra A C and E have been associated with some increased risk even.

Gluten? Sure there are people with celiac disease, but “everyone”? That’s absurd. Funny enough, another group, led by so-called scientists like Campbell, are big on blaming animal protein for everything, and point to studies that show less progression of liver cancer in mouse models between mice fed gluten only as opposed to casein as proof of vegetable protein’s superiority. (Of course they fail to point out their own studies that demonstrate it is a result of the fact that gluten by itself is an incomplete protein and that when they also gave some lysine, an amino acid gluten is very low in but is high in beans and many other sources of vegetable protein, the cancer growth rate was the same.)

Baked potatoes? Huh?

Rare meat? Okay fine, grilled, processed, and highly cooked meat has some carcinogens (heterocyclic amines) and diets high in those products in particular are associated with an increased risk of colon cancer, but just between rare and medium? No data to justify such a claim.

Antioxidants? Solid data that a diet high in foods that have high antioxidant levels is associated with a host of health benefits, from lower cancer risk, to improved lipid profile, to lower risk of Alzheimer’s. How much is enough? Not so much data on. Any reason to believe taking supplements of antioxidants (as opposed to choosing real foods high in antioxidants) is beneficial? Not in general.

That said I personally do take two pills of turmeric a day along with supplemental fish oil caps.

If you want some cites you can find them by starting off at National cancer Institute’s site and you can pubmed for specific studies. Look for reviews and metanalyses in particular.

Sometimes I see supplements which are badly formulated, at least regarding minerals. Any element is provided in the form of a soluble salt, but sometimes two of those salts are “incompatible” (a term which may not be completely scientific, but more understandable and used than “mutually insoluble”): salt AB is soluble, salt CD is soluble, but salt AD is not - so, if you dissolve AB and CD in the same glass, you get a deposit of AD. One of my classmates’ chose as his Research Project (undergrad thesis) a little study where he bought several brands of OTC mineral supplements and examined each of them for salt incompatibility, in neutral and extreme pHs. Out of a dozen supplements, there wasn’t a single one which did not show incompatibilities.

Sucking on a CaCO3 pebble (insoluble in most pHs) does not do your bones any good. If the pebble also has some Li2CO3 (soluble), it may be good for your depression… but your bones won’t notice a thing. OTOH, calcium from biological sources is in biologically-absorbable forms: it will do your bones good.
ETA: yes, it’s simplified. I’m not trying to teach LiLi biochemistry or inorganic chemistry, just give her arguments.

Absolutely. Put your hand over your wallet and run.

Right you are. Gluten intolerance is a narrow and specific ailment that only a tiny fraction of people have.

Not a particle of evidence for these extravagant claims.

Look, the human body is an ecosystem that is part of a larger ecosystem. The entirety of those two ecosystems determines health. It’s the effects, synergistic or antagonistic, of hundreds or thousands or perhaps millions of parts over decades that is what we call health. Even the best longitudinal surveys of tens of thousands of participants is just beginning to tease out what the large factors really are. Nobody yet knows whether the smaller factors truly mean anything at all. Supplements are like UPS buying more expensive tires for its vans and then looking at the net earnings for the year. Are they getting their money’s worth? Ten accountants could make the case ten ways.

Next time you go out, order a well-done steak with a baked potato and dare your husband to tell you whether you have increased your chances of cancer over just breathing the air around you - which is a known cancer cause.

I want to debunk this site because it’s the one that my husband (who doesn’t know any organic chemistry- I know a little) is somewhat interested in right now.

We actually have friends with celiac and a few other real, diagnosed food intolerances, so I know something about the effect of gluten on celiac’s villi. I am strongly against the notion that a) humans are delicate flowers who only flourish if they take a huge range of nutritional substances and b)are almost universally allergic to some of the most basic foodstuffs which have supported cultures for millenia. Humans live almost everywhere, on an absurd range of diets- from blood and milk to exclusively sea animals and fish to tea and roasted barley flour.

My husband is pretty smart but knows much less about digestion, food, and history, and is heavily involved in martial arts, which tends to be filled with people pushing miracle diets and supplements.

I just did a little refresher on how redox reactions work, and it seems to me that a lot of the heavy antioxidants-pushing assumes that humans are meant (in some vague way) to live forevery, and that decay and breakdown ought not to be inevitable, if only we did the right series of incantations and took the right pills. I don’t see the logic- we’re animals, we’re alive, we degrade over time.

Wrong. Gluten intolerance/gluten sensitivity is estimated to affect 6-7% of the U.S. population. Around 1% have full-blown celiac disease.

I’ll have to believe you, because that site sure has all the markings of a reliable source of evidence-based information.

Do you have some actual facts to supplement your opinion?

Can we start with the fact that it’s a lot of unsourced claims about the evils of gluten, on a website which is selling gluten antibody testing by mail directly to the reader?

Did you read my post #7?

No, and I wasn’t addressing it.

According to medical experts I respect, there may be something to non-celiac gluten sensitivity, but it’s not affirmed, and mechanisms are unclear.

The quoted study shows that a certain percent of people without any problems have an antibody in their stool that obviously has no correlation with having problems, let alone any evidence of causing a problem, and no evidence of being likely to cause a problem in the future. Yeah? And?

Show me a double blinded study that documents that that many people with alleged gluten sensitivity get better when on the gluten free arm and worse when exposed to gluten (and better yet that the antibody level in the stool mentioned above predicts if that happens) and I will reduce my skeptics meter. Until then all that pings is “bullshit”.

Whether or not a larger gluten sensitivity exists is immaterial the fact that people I know, with no real health problems at all, are jumping on the “gluten is bad” bandwagon. Gluten is a natural protien that has been in the human diet for thousands of years, yet with any sign of any problem (even behavioral in nature), gluten is the first suspect nowadays. I consider these claims to be extraordinary.

I’ve been reading about the human microbiome and research into its interactions within its populations and between them and their host. Is there a chance that its the gut bacteria that are producing the antibody?

Also, has anyone else found these antibodies in stools from symptom free people, or certified the test as not giving false positives?

On a completely different tack, there has been a single study finding that microRNA from rice can pass into mammalian cells and affect gene expression. I can’t wait to hear what the garage-science guys come up with using that at a selling point.

The problem with the study that Surreal is referring to is exactly the sort of problem I mentioned earlier. It was a study of 26 people.

This may be a breakthrough study. It may change our perceptions of the entire subject. The full study is available here.

As of today, however, it’s a small, unreplicated study that should not generalized to an entire population. I’m frankly surprised that Fasano is making these claims.

A family member claims to be gluten intolerant, yet I see her eating a lot of foods–albeit highly processed ones–with wheat as an ingredient. I quietly smirk.