What about all the people who eat/drink tons of aspartame and can see just fine? Somehow that part always gets overlooked in these impromptu n=1 studies.
It’s a big world out there, people recover from illnesses all the time, people stop drinking diet soda all the time. Sometimes the two coincide.
The real problem here is that people don’t get the scientific method.
They don’t increase true and accurate knowledge about food allergies, they spread falsehoods about it. They make anyone saying “food allergy” look like a loon. They cheat on their food restrictions, leading others to think that complete avoidance is not as essential as it is. I’m not convinced the benefit outweighs the harm here.
I used to sit next to a gluten-free whack-a-doodle. She threw the word “toxins” around all the time, obviously having no idea what the word means. She declared bread was poison. She yelled at her mother-in-law for giving her son a banana because “it’s full of sugar!!!”
Ignoring her daily lectures to others became a major part of my routine. She never spoke to me - maybe she picked up on my opinion of her. She was nuts!
I have a friend who is allergic to wheat. As in, actually diagnosed by qualified professionals.
She LOVES the fact that a gajillion idiots think gluten is poison, because it makes it much easier for her to avoid wheat products in her diet.
Anyway, it is entirely possible to be sensitive to wheat and not have celiac. It isn’t an either/or situation.
There is the idea that people aren’t sensitive to the gluten, but instead to the long chain carbs in bread and other stuff (including cabbage and asparagus - basically the foods that make people gassy).
As someone who does get incredibly gassy if I eat too much bread - or pretty much anything else on this list, it may be in my head, but I’m really unpleasant to be around when I’m crampy, cranky, and gassy.
Her anecdote is not data, no matter how much she might like it to be. Especialyl since you say her sib was not affected!
And anyone who lectures anyone else on their health, unwarranted, often comes across as overbearing. She certainly has the right to go on about it, but I don’t have to listen and if I am stuck and can’t get away, I’m not going to walk away going “Ohhhh I never thought about that,” I’m going to walk away thinking “God, I’m glad I finally got away. Let me avoid her in the future.”
Are you my doctor? No? Then it’s not ok for you to lecture me, it’s rude and kind of obnoxious, no matter how well-meaning you are.
This is pretty close to my position. I worked 20+ years in a pharmacy, and have met quite a few True Celiacs, and plenty of hangers-on. Thing is, the hangers-on increased the economic viability of gluten-free for my customers/patients to the point that they could shop in normal grocery stores, instead of specialty shops. The hypochondriacs financially support the folks who truly can’t consume gluten, and get the placebo effects for themselves.
I also commiserate; as a vegetarian in the 80s, there wasn’t crap available to me without going to expensive hippie head shops and dubious health-food stores. I ate poorly and blandly. The rise of fears about non-freerange/antibiotic-free meat and concern for cute little calves led to an environment where I can eat my meals on the cheap, and even indulge on convenient pre-prepared meals from the local Walmart. The special flowers essentially turned my diet into a widely-available, cheaper, more varied, and healthier diet than it had been when I switched.
This situation is a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, the more gluten-avoiders there are, the more gluten-free products will be widely available.
However, as with allergies, the prevalence of people who say that they cannot eat gluten (or have allergies) but then can tolerate small amounts of these products make complete avoidance more difficult. As noted, for true celiacs, even a minute amount of gluten can make them seriously sick. If restaurant cooks, for example, think that they can dust a chicken breast with flour before cooking it because most of the people who are “gluten intolerant” will not have a reaction to the small amount of flour, it makes it very difficult for the true celiacs to insure that their food is truly gluten free. We see the same thing with allergies (and I have seen true allergic patients intubated in the ICU because somebody didn’t believe that no shellfish really means NO TRACES OF SHELLFISH ANYWHERE NEAR MY FOOD! and used a little shrimp stock in their stew).
Her anecdote is most certainly data, no matter how inconvenient.
It’s only one data point, true, and the fact that her sibling was not affected is another data point in the opposite column. However, it is hardly scientific to simply ignore outlier data because it doesn’t support the current accepted wisdom.
I know another sibling group: one is seriously allergic to strawberries, and the other four are not affected at all! Does that mean that the one who is can be ignored or mocked?
I would certainly say No. She shouldn’t be able to tell you that you can’t eat strawberries, but then again you shouldn’t simply ignore her either. (And her allergy, medically diagnosed and verified, doesn’t cause anaphylactic shock either, and it took a long time before she was able to correlate her symptoms with the root cause.)
What about them? What about all of the people who can eat tons of peanut butter and experience no reaction? Does their experience negate that of the people who are allergic? n=1 represents a data point–maybe it is an anomaly, maybe it is coincidence, and maybe it is evidence that some people react differently than others. The proper scientific method does not call for throwing out or ignoring data points not yet explained.
There are actually people who can tolerate small amounts of shellfish or nuts, but have reactions of increasing severity as the quantities of the substance increase. By this logic, are they also harming those who can tolerate no shellfish or nuts whatsoever?
Aspartame is nothing more that two common amino acids and a small amount of methanol. A normal diet and digestion produces far more methanol than aspartame provides when it’s broken down.
Only someone with Phenylketonuria will have trouble with the two amino acids and that condition is diagnosed soon after birth.
It cannot be acquired later in life nor is it survivable without a special diet.
Ah, but now you introduce people who are allergic to peanut butter into the conversation. Were these people professionally diagnosed or did they self-diagnose? Doctors go to school for a decade and a half or so in order to be able to do that even somewhat reliably.
We know that people incorrectly claim aspartame has very harmful effects. As far as I know, there is not even a suggestion that aspartame causes blindness. And now we should believe that this is the case just because a single person claims it is?
Like I said, people recover from illnesses all the time. People stop drinking diet soda all the time. Just because the two things happened around the same time doesn’t mean the blindness was caused by the aspartame.
Yes, there is a data point. But there’s a reason why scientists experiment in a lab, preferably on near-identical test animals under controlled conditions to remove as many variables as possible and then use control groups, and when they have to experiment on people this happens in a double blind fashion. Without any of these constraints your single data point can mean so many things that it’s impossible to use it for much other than conclude that the observed condition exists. Well, not even that, really, mistakes happen.
When someone makes an improbable claim, then the explanation that the claimer is mistaken or even lying is usually a more likely explanation than the existence of big foot, a conspiracy to hide the fact that global warming is caused intelligent penguins that are sick and tired of the weather in antarctica or that drinking sea water will cure diabetes.
Not sure I follow your logic. Salt is nothing more than sodium and chlorine…both deadly poisons. Lots of things are harmless in one configuration but dangerous when combined with something else (or vice versa). Aspartame’s safety – or danger – is not necessarily established by the fact that it can be broken down into harmless products.
As a vegan, I find the gluten-free craze ironically amusing. Many people who know me will suggest, “you can eat that because it’s gluten-free!”
I don’t care about gluten. Bring on the gluten! I explain to them (sometimes for the umpteenth time) that it’s animal products I won’t eat (or wear, etc.).
“Oh, but you eat fish, right?” Yeah, fish aren’t animals. :smack:
“But this is gluten-free! You’ll love it!”
Or, maybe gluten doesn’t really cause illness (for non-celiacs), but it’s still reasonable to avoid it for the health benefits. Like any number of non-essential foods.
???
Illness would be lack of health. So if it doesn’t cause that, how can not eating it be a health benefit?
People have been eating grains for millennia. You’re not a special snowflake.
Restricting one’s food choices can be a weight loss method. So if someone goes gluten-free and winds up avoiding carb-heavy food (presumably replacing them with something healthy), then losing weight, that might improve their health.
But there’s more that chain of events than just removing gluten foods from the diet.
I avoid eating certain raw vegetables. Not because they make me sick, but because the gasses they make my body produce are uncomfortable.
I try to avoid excessive sugar consumption. Not just because I’m concerned about the long-term health effects, because I don’t like the way I feel when I eat a bunch of sugar. I just feel like shit.
I feel like shit when I eat greasy foods too. Not bad enough to call in sick or label it an “illness”, but bad enough not to notice it and want to avoid it.
You don’t have to be a special snowflake to notice when certain foods do a number on you. I’m guessing some gluten-condriacs aren’t totally crazy. They are responding to something. But I’m guessing they are responding to something other than gluten. I know that I can eat plate after plate of white rice and not suffer any ill effect. But a little bit of brown rice makes me extremely bloated.
I re-quoted and bolded the part you left out.
What are the health benefits of avoiding gluten?
Gluten-free foods are not lower in calories and are often higher in calories, higher in sodium and lower in B vitamins especially thiamine, folic acid and riboflavin, than their gluten-containing counterparts. In addition, they can be lower in fiber and in iron than gluten-containing foods.
While it is possible to eat a healthy gluten-free diet, there are no good studies showing that it is beneficial to health for the average person and it is just as easy or easier as well as less expensive to eat a healthy gluten-containing diet…