I am not sure what you think copying a complete article does to the value of your point. I read the link. I was just completely unimpressed. There is a claim that there may be up to 20 million Americans with gluten sensitivity, but no basis was provided for such a claim. None. Searching the literature databases I can find nothing that would substantiate such a claim either.
Quoting an alleged “expert” claiming something is not enough.
Meanwhile I am still unsure about something more widely accepted by the medical community - the alleged benefit to diagnosing “silent” celiac disease (CD). There are many people who if screened will be positive for the antibodies associated with CD. Once identified they are advised to be on a gluten free diet. Yet older adults who were found to have had undiagnosed silent celiac disease are not overall less healthy than control populations. Same mortality rate. Yes poor bone health and a higher chance of having thyroid disease, but better BMI and better cholesterol. Oh there are a few studies that show there may be some benefits as well, but it seems to me that we have jumped the gun in presuming a significant benefit.
Nope. I mentioned that a few studies go the other way too. But that study had a grand total of 14 people who were “undiagnosed CD”, and it is hard for me to feel that medical policy that looks for “a condition” and then commits individuals with that “condition” to a lifelong significant intervention, should be based on such small n’s when larger cohorts have not confirmed the finding.
Again, I note that my view is divergent from that of the experts in this regard, and am open to being pointed to the studies that I have missed. I suspect they exist … but so far I’m not seeing studies large enough to justify such a solid conclusion. Instead I find a mixed bag of results. Looking more just now I found this recent review that states it as follows:
Two studies each way. On the worse mortality side that one with 14, and another with 63 cases of “silent CD”, and on the no excess mortality side one with 74 and one with 129 cases. It just does not seem like enough to draw firm conclusions and base interventions off of with any confidence.
Sorry for the double post, but my skeptics bell rings even louder.
If it was demonstrated that antibody positivity was correlated with increased mortality, then really demonstrating that gluten elimination was indicated in those with “silent disease” would also require an interventional study, a study that showed that health outcomes were significantly improved by elimination. Correlation does not mandate causation; antibody positivity could be a marker for an individual being at risk for other conditions without the gluten exposure being causative. In fact we know that such is the case to some degree. Celiac antibody positivity is correlated with a host of conditions that we do not believe the gluten causes, from other autoimmune diseases like diabetes and thyroid disease, to Down Syndrome. IF increased mortality in the antibody positive was well established then it might merely be that responding with antibodies to gluten identified you as someone likely to respond to other things in maladaptive ways, but that gluten elimination would make no outcome difference. Instead it would signify a need for closer follow up.
Again no question that eating lots of real foods that are high in antioxidants is correlated with lots of good health outcomes. But studies of supplementing antioxidants have often had either no benefit or paradoxically poor outcomes.
This review may be what you are looking for overall. In general few studies supporting supplement use in a typical Western diet population. A study in a province of China known to have “low intakes of numerous nutrients and the world’s highest rate of esophageal cancer” found “a 13% reduction in cancer mortality” from β-carotene–vitamin E–selenium supplementation, but
Each claim should be evaluated on its own merits or lack of however. Again, I am personally convinced of the benefits of turmeric supplementation. There is good (albeit not conclusive) evidence that turmeric (the active portion being curcumin) protects against Alzheimer’s, helps make for healthy endothelium, and has good effects on lipid profiles. Taking some in a pill with a meal once a day seems close enough to its “real food” form for me. Likewise with the data on fish oil caps since my diet is not as high in the fatty fish as I’d like it to be. I’ll get my extra selenium in an occasional Brazil nut. (One Brazil nut a day is enough right there.)
I’m gluten intolerant (as far as I can determine on my own), and I eat food with wheat. Why? Because I’m a frickin’ moron sometimes and if I don’t have that brownie, I’ll just die! Or because it looked safe, but I forgot to read the entire ingredients list. Or because I didn’t plan ahead, and I can’t find any damn gluten free food.
And I pay for it. Oh, do I pay for it.
If your family member spends a lot of time dashing to the bathroom, can’t remember mundane details to save their life, or has problems with migraines and depression, they’re probably paying for it as well.
To address the OP, the website to which Lissla Lissar has linked shows a guy who’s merely attached himself to some old, already-debunked sales pitches originally put forth by Joel Wallach, who runs a multi-level marketing supplement scheme — once called “American Longevity” (or, in other markets, “Canadian Longevity” or “Australian Longevity”). Now it’s called American Youngevity.
Google these two phrases, side-by-side: “peter glidden” “joel wallach”, and you’ll see the connection. It looks like Glidden is spouting Wallach’s garbage — Glidden’s website is even flogging Wallach’s MLM supplements and books.
A couple things to add to the good points already made:
What happens when a person with vague symptoms i.e. fatigue gets put on a gluten-free diet as an experiment, or in response to finding an antibody of questionable significance? If they feel better it may have no connection at all with the diet (maybe they had a self-limited viral illness) but then they’ll likely feel compelled to follow a restrictive diet for life, unnecessarily.
People like the Dr. Glidden cited in the OP (a naturopath, it figures) want us to believe that modern medicine foists drugs on us that we don’t need, but at the same time they argue that we are such frail flowers that we need a raft of supplements to stay healthy.
There’s a contradiction there, I fear. Or it’s BS (As in Dr. Glidden, BS).
Jackmannii, what are your thoughts on screening asymptomatic individuals for celiac antibodies (e.g. t-transglutamase) and the sometimes now advised repeated screening if negative the first time? (See posts 23 and 24.) Is my skepticism way out of left field here?
I can’t answer for Jackmannii but that screening idea seems totally insane to me, with us having no idea at the present time of the specificity or selectivity of the screen, no idea of whether the test results will help or harm, and no idea of the cost of trying to screen.