This section is a turkey , makes little sense and makes claims that the references don't back up. I'm refering mainly to the "indicating a selective evolution for toxic motifs" section. The references in the Lancet and JI are nothing more than interesting observations that are taken out of context in this article.
Finally, gluten is not "toxic" per se, intolerance to it is the result of an autoimmune response, not any direct effect of the gluten protiens on the gut. Kantokano 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A March, 2015 PBS special "Brain Change" features Dr. David Perlmutter, a practicing, board certified neurologist, who cites gluten as a promoter of inflammation in the body, and the brain in particular, and cites it as a cause of brain damage including Alzheimer's disease. Presumably fact-checkers at PBS did their homework before engaging him for a 90-minute special and if someone with access to the literature can cite support for Perlmutter's contentions, this thesis should be added to the article. Perlmutter also cites sugar and carbs as similar promoters of inflammation. Frankatca ( talk) 01:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
working at the Pike Place Market today a customer came by and asked if wheat in Europe contains gluten, I answered it did but after his next comment I had to take to the wiki. This man had been told that wheat has been cross-polinated with tumbleweeds during the depression. Can anyone shine any light on this for me, and is there any validity to his statement? Feb 26, 2007
American wheat and tumbleweeds are Not exactly cross pollinated according to Texan author and historian C.F Eckhardt, but they do have a history together. You can read about it in the following link (look under tumbleweeds): http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Aliens-Amongst-Us.htm [1] Wellesradio 03:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio
All wheat contains gluten, but the composition of the protein fractions in the gluten might differ.-- Joel Markgren ( talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The two sections overlap. I find nothing in "Extraction" that is not already said in "History." There the stated activities of the Bhuddist Monks apparently are suppostitious; I can find no reliable authority as support. Does anyone object to removing "History" completely and adding its scanty verifiable content to the "Extraction" section? Wugo 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Wugo 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "If a saline solution is used instead of water, a purer protein is obtained, with certain harmless impurities departing to the solution with the starch. Where starch is the prime product, cold water is the favored solvent because the impurities depart from the gluten.". I read this multiple times, but it didn't make sense. It seems to say that when gluten (not starch) is the target product, a saline solution is used because the impurities will leave the gluten and go with the start; and when starch (not gluten) is the target, pure water is used because the impurities will leave the gluten and go with the starch (sic). Should the wording in the final sentence be changed to "impurities *remain with* the gluten"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.16.255 ( talk) 21:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
To some extent the article conflates allergy and intolerance ... I'm certainly no medical person, but I believe there is an important distinction to be made regarding the body's allergic response (histamines, and so on) and the immune response of the celiac.
- Scrafford
I agree... an allergy is a specific response (raised histamine levels) to the allergic agent. Coeliac disease is not an allergic response to Gluten and I propose this article is edited accordingly. CustardJack
Done. As far as I know, what people call "allergy to gluten" is really celiac disease, which most definately is not an allergy. I've fixed this now. Also, I'm pretty sure spelt is fine for people with celiac disease - the page on spelt seems to think so. I changed the last line in the article to reflect this, but it'd be great if an MD could weigh in on the subject. -- Eirinn 09:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The page on spelt is wrong as far as I know. I'm gluten intollerant and have always been told that spelt is off limits. Just my two cents
everday more and more people are asking for gluten free products, I am certain the information they are receiving is incorrect,, just as spelt is off limits.. spelt,epeautre,dinkel (the same grain) is water soluble. however I would not advise anyone with celiac to use it,¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catweasel ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
From looking around on the net it appears that spelt (and kamut) are bad for people with celiac disease (but not as bad as ordinary wheat it seems). I've updated the page to reflect this. -- Eirinn 02:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be worthwhile to mention differing levels of gluten sensitivity instead of jumping straight to cœliac disease. The last paragraph of the main section only mentions cœliac disease and it comes off as if all gluten sensitivity is under the umbrella of cœliac disease. Samewordberger ( talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the reference to non-cœliac gluten sensitivity be removed? See http://www.businessinsider.com/gluten-sensitivity-and-study-replication-2014-5 for details. -- Resuna ( talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
From Coeliac disease:
This contradicts this article, which states:
It appears the word gluten is being used in two different ways.
The applicable definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary is:
Further to this, the American Heritage Dictionary (which is known for using corpus linguistics and combining prescriptive and descriptive elements) gives the following definition:
This article defines gluten as "composed of the proteins gliadin and glutenin". This is a definition which appears from my research to be a common one among food scientists and celiac patients, but it is not the usual dictionary definition. I can find many cases of the broader definition in present use; for example, there are agricultural by-products called "corn gluten meal" and "rice gluten meal" which are used as animal feed. Also, the OED notes a historical precedent:
Comments? -- Dforest 16:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
--- inconsistency between this page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten-free_diet regarding whether kamut is or is not gluten-free (i.e. acceptable in a gluten-free diet). I have no idea what the truth might be.
visitor - Scott Carter
Kamut is wheat, and thus has gluten. However, for some reason, it appears to be suitable for people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Just an FYI: whet, rye, and barley are angiosperms and therefore have fruit NOT seeds (seeds are restricted to gymnosperms). I have thus corrected the two places I found where you used seeds instead of fruit. TheBryologist ( talk) 18:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just an FYI: The paragraph above this one is 100% incorrect on its face. Angiosperms definitely have seeds. Also, there is no confusion among plant scientists or cereal breeders about what gluten is. It was not something "loosely called gluten in the past", I am not going to edit this article, it is mostly accurate, but I would urge food scientists and gluten free evangelists to get on board with the naming convention for these types of proteins, because it has existed for a couple of centuries, and it is confusing to scientists who study endosperm in the grasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.93.5 ( talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In fact, people with GSE who are CD- should avoid all Triticeae glutens, no matter the source, it is unclear whethere people with idiopathic gluten sensitivities should avoid rye and barley, and people with wheat-allergy-sensitive rheumatoid arthritis may be able to avoid exascerbating disease eating rye bread. The last sentence should be deleted.
There is no debate, this is incorrect, the current popular definition has no place in encyclopedia that strives for accuracy. Glutens are the seed storage proteins in plants. There are four groups:albumins, globulins, prolamins and glutelins. Each group is composed of many members. Oats have prolamins just as wheat and the dominant prolamins in oats are similar to the omega-glaidin component of wheat.
Pdeitiker
02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) The issue of definitions was taken from
a chemical point of veiw and not all points of veiw, this confusion is cleared up below.
Pdeitiker
Pdeitiker, you are not signing your comments so I'm not certain which is yours. And interspersing them with mine makes the reading difficult. Let's do this systematically, one problem at a time. First the citations. You seem familiar with the subject, so you should add the ones you think are best. Please go ahead and do it, there's no reason why you shouldn't. Once that's done, we should talk about the gluten definitions. (I'm assuming you're the author of that section of this Discussion.)
Wugo
23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Brown, A., Understanding Food Principles and Preparation, Second Ed., Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA, pp. 402-403 and 420-421, 2004.
Meaning of the Term "Gluten". There is no single definition of the term "gluten". [From the US government]
The term "gluten" refers to a specific complex of proteins that forms when wheat flour is mixed with a liquid and physically manipulated, such as in the kneading of a bread. [Source US government] The complex is composed of all four classes of 'glutens' but the structural components are made up of prolamins and glutelins, and in fact with prolamins three distinct classes of proteins, alpha, gamma and omega gliadins- contributed by different genomes (AA,BB and DD) make up the largest group. Note a page on gluten (wheat) already exists. Protein extracts include over 200 proteins with similarity to other proteins in many other plants.
"Technically", rye nor barley contain gluten. For example rye requires an additional step, acidification, to activate its glutens, and barley cannot for bread because of the low level or protein. So that the technical definition is of little use unless you are discussing bread making.
..If this is the case, I must then ask, why is there an article titled Corn gluten meal? Weasel5i2 ( talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Gluten in one context of medical treatment is an artefact of gluten sensitivity in the subclass of coeliac disease. It pertains to, in the order of significance, wheat, rye and barley. This type of gluten is specifically defined on the wiki page Triticeae glutens already exists and makes clear its definition. As it just so happens the three cereals with poisonous glutens fit nicely into a predefined taxa. The immunochemistry is defined on Gluten_sensitivity#HLA_class_II_restrictions of gluten sensitive enteropathy (which includes coeliac disease) is also defined.
Note: the medical definiton of gluten is only as precise as the immunochemistry. If tomorrow a new food grass appeared in Bromeae or Aveneae that had similarly toxic glutens the medical definition would be extended to cover those new CD causing glutens. Alternatively if it was shown the barley (pure) was free of toxic glutens it would be removed (over a decade of ranchorous discussion). What defines purity- serological approaches and thorough feild inspections. What defines reactivity- other than ambiguous biopsy results, T-cell assays and immunochemistry.
Note:Allergies to wheat albumins and globulins are also considered gluten allergies even though these allergies extend, often, over broad taxa. The medical definition of gluten is for clinical application of treatment, the Gluten-Free diet. A gluten-free diet that is strictly gluten-free (by the strinct definition) can contain rye and barley, therefore the strict is not being used.
Glutens are defined by genetic relationships (Homologs) within plant phyla, which extends over the common seed producing plants, but especially cereal grasses. These definitions are in wide use in the literature. These definitions are largely based on the components of glutens within seeds of plants, most of which evolved from common ancestral seeds. For example the gamma gliadins in wheat are ancestral to omega and alpha gliadins. Though by definition none would be recognized as glutens, strictly, or gliadins in that ancestral species. In fact the prolamins contributed by aegilops tauschii strangulatum as a result of introgression into wheat (8000 years ago) are not recognized as terminologically as gliadins. but as A. tauschii prolamins and glutelins, none the less they are identical to that wheat subset.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr070123.html
Although, strictly speaking, "gluten" pertains only to wheat proteins, this term is frequently used to refer to the combination of prolamin and glutelin proteins naturally occurring in other grains, including those that have not been demonstrated to cause harmful effects in individuals with celiac disease (e.g., "corn gluten" and "rice gluten)
This definition is not restricted to both glutelin, prolamin but also includes albumins and globulins as cofactors. Gluten amylase is responsible for converting starch to sugar that allows a better rise, although amylase is now supplimented.
J Sci Food Agric. 1967 Sep;18(9):405-9. J Anim Sci. 1973 Dec;37(6):1351-5. J Anim Sci. 1974 Aug;39(2):335-7. Q J Med. 1978 Jan;47(185):101-110. J Chromatogr. 1983 Jan 21;255:219-38. J Mass Spectrom. 1998 Oct;33(10):1023-8. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Mar;71(3):694-703.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn.html Finding 8.The safety assessment-based approach is a viable approach to establish a threshold for gluten using currently available LOAEL data for celiac disease. An overall uncertainty factor should be estimated from the data and applied to the LOAEL to establish a threshold for gluten. Any threshold derived from this approach should be reevaluated as new research data become available. Available data are insufficient at the current time to use this approach to establish a threshold for oat gluten for those individuals with celiac disease who are also sensitive to oats. However, it is likely that a threshold based on wheat gluten would be protective for individuals susceptible to oat gluten.
When one uses the word [grain] gluten it is implicit that these are discussing the seed storage proteins (comparable to [wheat] gluten) of that plant.
Therefore if you want to discuss gluten in any of the various context it should be defined first. The error in this page from the beginning is that it does not define what specific gluten documentation it is refering to, so that we assume it is the general role. What the page should be is a calving of the definitions with appropriate links and scraping off the misinformation (such as, without references, the immunochemistry of oat avenins, spelt or kamut gliadins)
Re: "Wheat flour with a high gluten content is called "strong" flour, and is used for breads, whereas flour with a lower gluten content is called "soft" flour, and is used for cakes."
I have lived across Canada and high-gluten-content wheat has always been called "hard" not "strong".
I have editted as such.
Is Gluten suitable for vegans?
Hard and soft are descriptions of wheat texture, not dough strength. Hard textured wheats can have strong or weak gluten on a continuous scale. Likewise, soft textured wheats can have strong gluten or weak gluten, but tend to have mostly weak gluten. Even in the soft wheats with strong gluten, the gluten tends to be weaker than most hard textured wheats.(I'm a soft wheat breeder)-- Edgeben ( talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC) User:edgeben
Should we put some info about the pet food recalls here? It appears that wheat gluten is the culprit, with either aminopterin or melamine being the specific agent found on the wheat gluten. -- zandperl 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As the Gluten article now stands, a reader might assume gliadin and glutenin are the names of two single proteins. In fact, both names encompass classes of proteins, grouped together because they have properties in common. I think discussing this complexity is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, so have not attempted it. If outvoted, I will accept the task. {Note: The "Further Reading" section includes sufficient data for the purpose.) Wugo 02:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
References
I have assessed the article to a B level for the WikiProject Food and drink. Overall it is a decent article but certainly needs some work and expansion to bring it to the next level. Here are some suggestions that you should consider before submitting it for GA status.
-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we add something in here about gluten substitutes (for bread, etc.). Is agar a possible substitute? talk 2:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.152.238 ( talk)
Elmer's finger paints. Traditional wheat pastes (often used in schools) Traditional soaps (See Korres Wheat Soaps) It is not uncommon for moisturizing creams and soaps to contain gluten [2] www.celiac.com lists the following as possibly containing gluten Lotions, creams and cosmetics (primarily for those with dermatitis herpetaformis). Stamps, envelopes or other gummed labels. Toothpaste and mouthwash. Pdeitiker 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
List of gluten containing products not for consumption User:Pdeitiker 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I reformatted the refs as per WP:REFS using the citation template hoping to make a more readable layout. I am not sure it is any better. Triwbe 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is intended to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and should be kept within that scope. Gluten pathologies have been extensively discussed in a series of articles listed in Gluten sensitivity and should only briefly mentioned in this one. Unless someone disagrees, I shall substantially reduce this article's discussion of celiac disease and other sensitivities. Wugo 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC) See Coeliac disease.
I have greatly reduced the Adverse Reactions section. If you think I've gone too far, please review the Gluten sensitivity articles then restore as you see fit. Wugo ( talk) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(Discussion moved here from User talk:Socrates2008#Gluten in ice cream)
Hello, Socrates- I'm trying to find a supporting reference for use of gluten as a stabilizer. Do you know one? I found a list of other uses at http://www.iwga.net/04_app.htm but no stabilizing.
Still looking, Wugo ( talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The reference you supplied does not support the statement. It gives me an idea though: Let's look up lists of foods prohibited to celiac patients; they should include foods with gluten added. Wugo ( talk) 14:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Bingo! Read the Beware List at http://www.celiacsyndrome.com/index.php?id=14 Wugo ( talk) 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a fairly subtle example of the way food faddists and hucksters have learned to subvert Wikipedia to advance their own interests. Sentences like, “Enough of the human population suffers from gluten sensitivity of one kind or another that many foods are now labeled to clarify whether they contain gluten“ are questionable. “Enough” is hardly a scientific term. Further on the article claims that 0.5 to 1% of the population has celiac disease, a figure I believe to be five to ten times the actual number, closer to 0.01%. [I wish it were easier to comment here.] JohnFMayer (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC) John Mayer
This section is probably someone having a bit of fun: "Known examples occur when people share silverware or other eating instruments. There have also been confirmed reports of cross contamination through oral sex. Doctors have warned that this is possible for as many as 30 days after a person ingests gluten containing products. People known to be allergic to gluten often cite this as an area of "extreme frustration". [19] The source cited says no such thing (the link is dead, but the article is available elsewhere), and the gluten-in-semen report is probably fabricated, as I've found only a lot of debate and doctors suggesting that semen is too refined to maintain large protein molecules like gluten in it, but that as far as they know, no studies have been done. Mind you, it seems gluten can transfer through breast milk, so one never knows, but unless one's sensitivity is extreme it's unlikely to be an issue (or, as someone on Yahoo Answers said, "unless you're gonna be downing the stuff like Crystal Light,I wouldn't worry too much"). In any case, without evidence it should be removed. 184.175.3.229 ( talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The link under "Sources" and the link for "The Gluten Effect" are clearly nothing but blatant advertisements. I would remove them, but some jerk would probably just put them back. 65.68.190.60 ( talk) 09:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not permitted. See WP:REFSPAM. I posted subst:welcomespam to the Erichealthnow's talk page and removed the reference. I believe a similar link in Further Reading qualifies as WP:BOOKSPAM, so I have removed it as well. Kullanari ( talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Why is wheat starch redirecting here to gluten? It would be better to redirect to starch, as gluten and starch are pretty different.
lg -- Crotha 11:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well:
Peace, Dusty| 💬| You can help! 18:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know how I have read that Spelt(English),Epeautre (French),Dinkel (German)
gluten is water soluble and here I read it is not. More importantly it will be a response to my spelt bread customers of which I make my living from Catweasel ( talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit.------- Being insoluble in water,-------- they can be purified by washing away the associated starch.
Perhaps spelt, if it is water soluble, paves the way for those that have celiac disease. As it seems the problem with those that have celiac disease stems from digestion because the wheat is not water soluble. Catweasel ( talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
the lede describes gluten being discovered by buddhist monks. per http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-gluten.html this Buzzle article. I don't think this source really meets RS, the site kinda looks like a wiki in that the articles are contributed by non-vetted authors. any opposition to removing this bit/retag it with a citation needed? Jonathanfu ( talk) 07:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the protein in Gluten a complete protein? Many grains have incomplete proteins (the amino acid "profiles") in contrast to milk (cow juice)for example. I was wondering how the amino acid profile compares with whey isolate protein.....
Thanks
Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:9200:32:491C:CFCC:C551:46A4 ( talk) 00:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
This whole article seems heavily biased in that it makes it makes it sound like gluten is primarily some sort of additive or food byproduct, rather than a basic component of certain grains (correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here). The reader could easily miss or lose sight of the basic facts about gluten's role in human diets--it's a part of certain grains and it is therefore a part of almost any food made from these grains.
For example look at the fact that "extraction" is at the very top of the article and also that it is followed by "uses: in bread products". Gluten is found in bread products because it is a part of bread because it is a part of flour because it is a part of these grains, right? So, except for the part on "added gluten" this should be called something like "function of gluten in bread-making", not "use of gluten in bread products".
This is just one example...there are issues throughout the article and bigger questions of balance/organization. I suspect this apparent bias is unintentional but it should really be fixed (by someone who knows a lot more than me!). I did change "found in foods processed from wheat and related grains" to "found in wheat and related grains".
Someone tell me if I'm totally off base here...there seems to be some confusion in the sources about whether "gluten" is "gluten" when its still in the grain, unprocessed. 146.115.132.122 ( talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This "duck" really looks like mock...has it been predigested by a cow or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.236.24 ( talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been much emphasis recently on people who have various problems with gluten in their diet. I think the article reflects this concern.
Is there any broad general statement that can be made in the lead of this article about the importance of gluten in the human diet, historically and currently? (I'm assuming that any such statement would be suitably qualified that gluten is a problem for some people.)
Thanks, CBHA ( talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Does gluten have any link to autism? 85.76.129.115 ( talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Quoting the article: "Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit. Being insoluble in water, they can be purified by washing away the associated starch."
I'm paraphrasing this. Please tell me if I get it right. (I'm not suggesting my wording is better, just trying to find out if I understand this.)
"Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains." --> "Gluten is the combination of a gliadin and a glutenin. It is found, along with starch, in some grains. Gluten is not starch and starch is not gluten. But they are found together in grain."
"The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit. --> I'm puzzled here, is Prolamin another name for Gliadin? Is "wheat fruit" a synonym for "wheat endosperm"? And what is the other 20% of the protein that is NOT gluten?
"Being insoluble in water, they can be purified by washing away the associated starch." --> "Gluten can be separated from starch by grinding grain and dissolving it in water. The part that does not dissolve is the gluten." Does the other 20% of the protein dissolve?
Thanks, CBHA ( talk) 19:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What is gluten free diet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.166.89 ( talk) 14:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
“foggy mind”, fatigue, fibromyalgia, joint and muscle pain, leg or arm numbness, tingling of the extremities, peripheral neuropathy, dermatitis, atopic disorders, allergy to one or more inhalants, foods or metals, asthma, rhinitis, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, schizophrenia, autism, ataxia or attention-deficit disorders.
Extracted from the article as fringe topics per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gluten/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I read that Gliadin, a component of gluten, interacts with Zonulin leading to Intestinal permeability (more significantly in sensitive people) and that this has a range of implications for health, in those who are sensitive. I'm not sure if this fits in with an existing section like gluten sensitivity. Perhaps a new sub-section under adverse reactions? What do you guys think? See: /info/en/?search=Intestinal_permeability#Modulation Zarkme ( talk) 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The following is nonsense:
Gluten proteins have low biological and nutritional value, as opposed to the grains of pseudocereals (gluten free), which are rich in proteins with high biological value ( albumins and globulins).
Comparing a kind of protein from X to whole grains of Y is just silly. Jytdog ( talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
These edits [5] removed this sentence "Gluten proteins have low biological and nutritional value. [2]" and added these two paragraphs:
Lead: "Gluten comprises 75% of total wheat protein [3] and is a significant protein source of amino acids for human nutrition, particularly in underdeveloped countries where wheat food products are commonly consumed. [4]"
Bread products: "As the principal protein source in wheat, gluten contributes nutritional value to wheat food products, particularly in underdeveloped countries where wheat consumption is relatively high. [4]"
I agree to use these references to improve the information, but we must adjust. This reference states: [4]
Gluten has low content in the essential amino acid lysine and therefore, it has a low biological value (see Biological value#Properties of the protein source), as stated in the ref [2] ("From a nutritional point of view, gluten exclusion does not entail particular problems, being a mixture of proteins with low nutritional and biological value") and lower than the rest of proteins in wheat. We can not say that it is the most important source of protein in wheat from a nutritional point of view, but the most abundant.
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
00:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Hi,
The first source from FDA is from 2007, it would be best to get an updated version if available since many changes could occur during 10 years of period. The information of source 14, 15, 19, 21 seem to from blog posts and webpages that could be replaced by peer-reviewed articles. The link to source 51,52,53 does not work. Another section that could be added to this article is how gluten is detected. For example an overview of immunological and spectroscopic methods such as gas chromatography, mass spectrometer, ELISA, and commercially available ELISA kit.
Jei1 08:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeileee ( talk • contribs)
This seems irresponsible to me. The graphic purports to be showing the difference in size, but in effect it implies that gluten is innately dangerous and infectious. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 09:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The occurrence of oat avenin toxicity depends on the oat cultivar consumed, because the immunoreactivities of toxic prolamins are different among oat varieties. Also, many oat products are cross-contaminated with other gluten-containing cereals.
It's not about gluten per se. It seems to me to be specifically worded to maximize the occurrence of the word "toxic". It belongs on the Gluten-free diet page. It definitely doesn't belong in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) DolyaIskrina ( talk) 14:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In home or restaurant cooking, gluten is prepared from flour by kneading the flour under water, agglomerating the gluten into an elastic network known as a dough, and then washing out the starch. Starch granules disperse in low-temperature water, and the dispersed starch is sedimented and dried. If a saline solution is used instead of water, a purer protein is obtained, with certain harmless impurities departing the solution with the starch. Where starch is the prime product, cold water is the favored solvent because the impurities depart from the gluten.
I'd rewrite it if I understood its reason for existing. Nobody sets out to make gluten anything. What this describes is baking. Are we describing kneading dough to an alien who did very well on the SAT? Using gluten free flour would be indistinguishable from this process. What does the paragraph have to do with gluten per se? The subsequent paragraph of industrial isolation of gluten makes sense to me. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm drawing out a discussion I've had on this page because I think we need consensus on this question. On this page gluten is said to be cytotoxic which to the average lay reader means that gluten is in and of itself poisonous to most people at most doses. The cytotoxicity page refers to spider and snake venom as well the the chemicals used in chemo-therapy.
But the source do indeed say "gluten toxicity"
It's true that the sources refer to "gluten toxicity" but my reading of those sources seems to show that they are using that phrase as a shorthand. In a similar way a physicist might say "water always chooses the shortest route" or "electrons want to move to the lowest orbital". Even though the physicists literally said "water chooses" "and electrons want" you would be guilty of WP:SYNTH if you said "physics proves water and electrons want and think."
But gluten has real toxic effects of patients with celiacs and NCGRD
Yes, but those patients are less than 10% of the population. Spider venom is toxic to 99% of the people who are exposed to it. Whatever the technical definition of toxic is, I don't think gluten qualifies in the same way as spider venom. My proposal. Every reference to the bad effects of gluten should be phrased to reflect the idea that gluten triggers responses (immune and autoimmune) in some people which have toxic effects. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The reasons alleged by Zefr for the removals are "on one side are anti-gluten advocates who loosely use the term 'cytotoxic'" "while others, myself among them". In order to sustain such arguments, he needs to provide references. The personal opinions of an editor have no value WP:TALKNO.
After two weeks, he has not provided any reference supporting such claims discrediting the research that dozens of scientists worlwide have done for half a century. If so, Zefr would also have to provide notices that these multiple studies have been withdrawn.
The content was correctly referenced with WP:MEDRS sources. And Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSOR.
The problem with this information about cytotoxicity is that the reader knows that it is in the context of celiac disease. So what I have done has been to rewrite the text so that there are no ambiguities and adding new references, in a separate section on pathophysiology. I hope this solves the problems.-- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
ImperfectlyInformed: The article is about gluten which is a benign non-issue in ~ 98% of people, yet there is a prominent disorders/pathophysiology section of speculation based entirely on primary lab research - a review of primary research, although becoming a secondary source, is still primary information and not convincing; see my comment three entries above and WP:MEDREV: "avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments." The section as existing is over-prominent and lacks WP:BALANCE because one editor wants to persuade about the (possibly unreplicable) pathology of gluten shown only in lab studies. This section is premature to discuss and is unencyclopedic. It might be fine for a book review, but disqualifies on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I'm removing the section and image as these are theories and conjecture from lab research that mislead the non-science reader to believe there is impending pathology upon consuming gluten, possibly for everyone and certainly - as stated now - for those with gluten sensitivity, although these effects cannot be determined in human subjects. The quote used in PMID 28810029 [ref 27] is speculation and unprovable in vivo, and the authors acknowledge this. As stated in their JAMA review under Specific Events in Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity Pathogenesis, "The pathophysiology of nonceliac gluten sensitivity remains largely undetermined," indicating this is a weak MEDRS source - at the bottom of the evidence pyramid (left) in WP:MEDASSESS - and cannot be used to discuss increased intestinal permeability as a certain outcome. The image from outdated 2011 PMID 21248165 concerning zonulin is pure conjecture, and misleads the reader about gluten-related additional disease mechanisms (autoimmune disorders, cancer) currently impossible to clinically assess or define. Use of this source and the image is alarmist, not based on rigorous evidence, and misleading in its attempt to persuade there are serious disease risks which remain unproven.
Revising from the article, the subhead should read Potential for increased intestinal permeability (since it does not occur in 99% of people, and no pathological permeability can be proven in vivo if it occurs in gluten-sensitive people)
References 69 and 70 should be deleted because they are outdated speculation derived from lab research. Please refrain from edit warring and let other editors comment on whether this section has merit. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit by Zefr ('alarmist', shown only in vitro and at high doses, are of relevance unconfirmed) is based on WP:UNFAMILIAR and WP:LACK.
That the editor does not have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject does not justify the reversion.
It is not "alarmist", it is a fact. No scientist, no doctor or pathologist in the world questions it.
Zefr ignores that these damages are perfectly described and classified for years, since the beginning of performing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies (currently classified according to the Marsh scale). [1]
-- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
This section is a turkey , makes little sense and makes claims that the references don't back up. I'm refering mainly to the "indicating a selective evolution for toxic motifs" section. The references in the Lancet and JI are nothing more than interesting observations that are taken out of context in this article.
Finally, gluten is not "toxic" per se, intolerance to it is the result of an autoimmune response, not any direct effect of the gluten protiens on the gut. Kantokano 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A March, 2015 PBS special "Brain Change" features Dr. David Perlmutter, a practicing, board certified neurologist, who cites gluten as a promoter of inflammation in the body, and the brain in particular, and cites it as a cause of brain damage including Alzheimer's disease. Presumably fact-checkers at PBS did their homework before engaging him for a 90-minute special and if someone with access to the literature can cite support for Perlmutter's contentions, this thesis should be added to the article. Perlmutter also cites sugar and carbs as similar promoters of inflammation. Frankatca ( talk) 01:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
working at the Pike Place Market today a customer came by and asked if wheat in Europe contains gluten, I answered it did but after his next comment I had to take to the wiki. This man had been told that wheat has been cross-polinated with tumbleweeds during the depression. Can anyone shine any light on this for me, and is there any validity to his statement? Feb 26, 2007
American wheat and tumbleweeds are Not exactly cross pollinated according to Texan author and historian C.F Eckhardt, but they do have a history together. You can read about it in the following link (look under tumbleweeds): http://www.texasescapes.com/CFEckhardt/Aliens-Amongst-Us.htm [1] Wellesradio 03:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio
All wheat contains gluten, but the composition of the protein fractions in the gluten might differ.-- Joel Markgren ( talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The two sections overlap. I find nothing in "Extraction" that is not already said in "History." There the stated activities of the Bhuddist Monks apparently are suppostitious; I can find no reliable authority as support. Does anyone object to removing "History" completely and adding its scanty verifiable content to the "Extraction" section? Wugo 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Wugo 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "If a saline solution is used instead of water, a purer protein is obtained, with certain harmless impurities departing to the solution with the starch. Where starch is the prime product, cold water is the favored solvent because the impurities depart from the gluten.". I read this multiple times, but it didn't make sense. It seems to say that when gluten (not starch) is the target product, a saline solution is used because the impurities will leave the gluten and go with the start; and when starch (not gluten) is the target, pure water is used because the impurities will leave the gluten and go with the starch (sic). Should the wording in the final sentence be changed to "impurities *remain with* the gluten"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.16.255 ( talk) 21:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
To some extent the article conflates allergy and intolerance ... I'm certainly no medical person, but I believe there is an important distinction to be made regarding the body's allergic response (histamines, and so on) and the immune response of the celiac.
- Scrafford
I agree... an allergy is a specific response (raised histamine levels) to the allergic agent. Coeliac disease is not an allergic response to Gluten and I propose this article is edited accordingly. CustardJack
Done. As far as I know, what people call "allergy to gluten" is really celiac disease, which most definately is not an allergy. I've fixed this now. Also, I'm pretty sure spelt is fine for people with celiac disease - the page on spelt seems to think so. I changed the last line in the article to reflect this, but it'd be great if an MD could weigh in on the subject. -- Eirinn 09:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The page on spelt is wrong as far as I know. I'm gluten intollerant and have always been told that spelt is off limits. Just my two cents
everday more and more people are asking for gluten free products, I am certain the information they are receiving is incorrect,, just as spelt is off limits.. spelt,epeautre,dinkel (the same grain) is water soluble. however I would not advise anyone with celiac to use it,¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catweasel ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
From looking around on the net it appears that spelt (and kamut) are bad for people with celiac disease (but not as bad as ordinary wheat it seems). I've updated the page to reflect this. -- Eirinn 02:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be worthwhile to mention differing levels of gluten sensitivity instead of jumping straight to cœliac disease. The last paragraph of the main section only mentions cœliac disease and it comes off as if all gluten sensitivity is under the umbrella of cœliac disease. Samewordberger ( talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the reference to non-cœliac gluten sensitivity be removed? See http://www.businessinsider.com/gluten-sensitivity-and-study-replication-2014-5 for details. -- Resuna ( talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
From Coeliac disease:
This contradicts this article, which states:
It appears the word gluten is being used in two different ways.
The applicable definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary is:
Further to this, the American Heritage Dictionary (which is known for using corpus linguistics and combining prescriptive and descriptive elements) gives the following definition:
This article defines gluten as "composed of the proteins gliadin and glutenin". This is a definition which appears from my research to be a common one among food scientists and celiac patients, but it is not the usual dictionary definition. I can find many cases of the broader definition in present use; for example, there are agricultural by-products called "corn gluten meal" and "rice gluten meal" which are used as animal feed. Also, the OED notes a historical precedent:
Comments? -- Dforest 16:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
--- inconsistency between this page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten-free_diet regarding whether kamut is or is not gluten-free (i.e. acceptable in a gluten-free diet). I have no idea what the truth might be.
visitor - Scott Carter
Kamut is wheat, and thus has gluten. However, for some reason, it appears to be suitable for people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Just an FYI: whet, rye, and barley are angiosperms and therefore have fruit NOT seeds (seeds are restricted to gymnosperms). I have thus corrected the two places I found where you used seeds instead of fruit. TheBryologist ( talk) 18:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just an FYI: The paragraph above this one is 100% incorrect on its face. Angiosperms definitely have seeds. Also, there is no confusion among plant scientists or cereal breeders about what gluten is. It was not something "loosely called gluten in the past", I am not going to edit this article, it is mostly accurate, but I would urge food scientists and gluten free evangelists to get on board with the naming convention for these types of proteins, because it has existed for a couple of centuries, and it is confusing to scientists who study endosperm in the grasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.93.5 ( talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
In fact, people with GSE who are CD- should avoid all Triticeae glutens, no matter the source, it is unclear whethere people with idiopathic gluten sensitivities should avoid rye and barley, and people with wheat-allergy-sensitive rheumatoid arthritis may be able to avoid exascerbating disease eating rye bread. The last sentence should be deleted.
There is no debate, this is incorrect, the current popular definition has no place in encyclopedia that strives for accuracy. Glutens are the seed storage proteins in plants. There are four groups:albumins, globulins, prolamins and glutelins. Each group is composed of many members. Oats have prolamins just as wheat and the dominant prolamins in oats are similar to the omega-glaidin component of wheat.
Pdeitiker
02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) The issue of definitions was taken from
a chemical point of veiw and not all points of veiw, this confusion is cleared up below.
Pdeitiker
Pdeitiker, you are not signing your comments so I'm not certain which is yours. And interspersing them with mine makes the reading difficult. Let's do this systematically, one problem at a time. First the citations. You seem familiar with the subject, so you should add the ones you think are best. Please go ahead and do it, there's no reason why you shouldn't. Once that's done, we should talk about the gluten definitions. (I'm assuming you're the author of that section of this Discussion.)
Wugo
23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Brown, A., Understanding Food Principles and Preparation, Second Ed., Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA, pp. 402-403 and 420-421, 2004.
Meaning of the Term "Gluten". There is no single definition of the term "gluten". [From the US government]
The term "gluten" refers to a specific complex of proteins that forms when wheat flour is mixed with a liquid and physically manipulated, such as in the kneading of a bread. [Source US government] The complex is composed of all four classes of 'glutens' but the structural components are made up of prolamins and glutelins, and in fact with prolamins three distinct classes of proteins, alpha, gamma and omega gliadins- contributed by different genomes (AA,BB and DD) make up the largest group. Note a page on gluten (wheat) already exists. Protein extracts include over 200 proteins with similarity to other proteins in many other plants.
"Technically", rye nor barley contain gluten. For example rye requires an additional step, acidification, to activate its glutens, and barley cannot for bread because of the low level or protein. So that the technical definition is of little use unless you are discussing bread making.
..If this is the case, I must then ask, why is there an article titled Corn gluten meal? Weasel5i2 ( talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Gluten in one context of medical treatment is an artefact of gluten sensitivity in the subclass of coeliac disease. It pertains to, in the order of significance, wheat, rye and barley. This type of gluten is specifically defined on the wiki page Triticeae glutens already exists and makes clear its definition. As it just so happens the three cereals with poisonous glutens fit nicely into a predefined taxa. The immunochemistry is defined on Gluten_sensitivity#HLA_class_II_restrictions of gluten sensitive enteropathy (which includes coeliac disease) is also defined.
Note: the medical definiton of gluten is only as precise as the immunochemistry. If tomorrow a new food grass appeared in Bromeae or Aveneae that had similarly toxic glutens the medical definition would be extended to cover those new CD causing glutens. Alternatively if it was shown the barley (pure) was free of toxic glutens it would be removed (over a decade of ranchorous discussion). What defines purity- serological approaches and thorough feild inspections. What defines reactivity- other than ambiguous biopsy results, T-cell assays and immunochemistry.
Note:Allergies to wheat albumins and globulins are also considered gluten allergies even though these allergies extend, often, over broad taxa. The medical definition of gluten is for clinical application of treatment, the Gluten-Free diet. A gluten-free diet that is strictly gluten-free (by the strinct definition) can contain rye and barley, therefore the strict is not being used.
Glutens are defined by genetic relationships (Homologs) within plant phyla, which extends over the common seed producing plants, but especially cereal grasses. These definitions are in wide use in the literature. These definitions are largely based on the components of glutens within seeds of plants, most of which evolved from common ancestral seeds. For example the gamma gliadins in wheat are ancestral to omega and alpha gliadins. Though by definition none would be recognized as glutens, strictly, or gliadins in that ancestral species. In fact the prolamins contributed by aegilops tauschii strangulatum as a result of introgression into wheat (8000 years ago) are not recognized as terminologically as gliadins. but as A. tauschii prolamins and glutelins, none the less they are identical to that wheat subset.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr070123.html
Although, strictly speaking, "gluten" pertains only to wheat proteins, this term is frequently used to refer to the combination of prolamin and glutelin proteins naturally occurring in other grains, including those that have not been demonstrated to cause harmful effects in individuals with celiac disease (e.g., "corn gluten" and "rice gluten)
This definition is not restricted to both glutelin, prolamin but also includes albumins and globulins as cofactors. Gluten amylase is responsible for converting starch to sugar that allows a better rise, although amylase is now supplimented.
J Sci Food Agric. 1967 Sep;18(9):405-9. J Anim Sci. 1973 Dec;37(6):1351-5. J Anim Sci. 1974 Aug;39(2):335-7. Q J Med. 1978 Jan;47(185):101-110. J Chromatogr. 1983 Jan 21;255:219-38. J Mass Spectrom. 1998 Oct;33(10):1023-8. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Mar;71(3):694-703.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn.html Finding 8.The safety assessment-based approach is a viable approach to establish a threshold for gluten using currently available LOAEL data for celiac disease. An overall uncertainty factor should be estimated from the data and applied to the LOAEL to establish a threshold for gluten. Any threshold derived from this approach should be reevaluated as new research data become available. Available data are insufficient at the current time to use this approach to establish a threshold for oat gluten for those individuals with celiac disease who are also sensitive to oats. However, it is likely that a threshold based on wheat gluten would be protective for individuals susceptible to oat gluten.
When one uses the word [grain] gluten it is implicit that these are discussing the seed storage proteins (comparable to [wheat] gluten) of that plant.
Therefore if you want to discuss gluten in any of the various context it should be defined first. The error in this page from the beginning is that it does not define what specific gluten documentation it is refering to, so that we assume it is the general role. What the page should be is a calving of the definitions with appropriate links and scraping off the misinformation (such as, without references, the immunochemistry of oat avenins, spelt or kamut gliadins)
Re: "Wheat flour with a high gluten content is called "strong" flour, and is used for breads, whereas flour with a lower gluten content is called "soft" flour, and is used for cakes."
I have lived across Canada and high-gluten-content wheat has always been called "hard" not "strong".
I have editted as such.
Is Gluten suitable for vegans?
Hard and soft are descriptions of wheat texture, not dough strength. Hard textured wheats can have strong or weak gluten on a continuous scale. Likewise, soft textured wheats can have strong gluten or weak gluten, but tend to have mostly weak gluten. Even in the soft wheats with strong gluten, the gluten tends to be weaker than most hard textured wheats.(I'm a soft wheat breeder)-- Edgeben ( talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC) User:edgeben
Should we put some info about the pet food recalls here? It appears that wheat gluten is the culprit, with either aminopterin or melamine being the specific agent found on the wheat gluten. -- zandperl 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As the Gluten article now stands, a reader might assume gliadin and glutenin are the names of two single proteins. In fact, both names encompass classes of proteins, grouped together because they have properties in common. I think discussing this complexity is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, so have not attempted it. If outvoted, I will accept the task. {Note: The "Further Reading" section includes sufficient data for the purpose.) Wugo 02:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
References
I have assessed the article to a B level for the WikiProject Food and drink. Overall it is a decent article but certainly needs some work and expansion to bring it to the next level. Here are some suggestions that you should consider before submitting it for GA status.
-- Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we add something in here about gluten substitutes (for bread, etc.). Is agar a possible substitute? talk 2:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.152.238 ( talk)
Elmer's finger paints. Traditional wheat pastes (often used in schools) Traditional soaps (See Korres Wheat Soaps) It is not uncommon for moisturizing creams and soaps to contain gluten [2] www.celiac.com lists the following as possibly containing gluten Lotions, creams and cosmetics (primarily for those with dermatitis herpetaformis). Stamps, envelopes or other gummed labels. Toothpaste and mouthwash. Pdeitiker 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
List of gluten containing products not for consumption User:Pdeitiker 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I reformatted the refs as per WP:REFS using the citation template hoping to make a more readable layout. I am not sure it is any better. Triwbe 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is intended to be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and should be kept within that scope. Gluten pathologies have been extensively discussed in a series of articles listed in Gluten sensitivity and should only briefly mentioned in this one. Unless someone disagrees, I shall substantially reduce this article's discussion of celiac disease and other sensitivities. Wugo 04:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC) See Coeliac disease.
I have greatly reduced the Adverse Reactions section. If you think I've gone too far, please review the Gluten sensitivity articles then restore as you see fit. Wugo ( talk) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(Discussion moved here from User talk:Socrates2008#Gluten in ice cream)
Hello, Socrates- I'm trying to find a supporting reference for use of gluten as a stabilizer. Do you know one? I found a list of other uses at http://www.iwga.net/04_app.htm but no stabilizing.
Still looking, Wugo ( talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The reference you supplied does not support the statement. It gives me an idea though: Let's look up lists of foods prohibited to celiac patients; they should include foods with gluten added. Wugo ( talk) 14:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Bingo! Read the Beware List at http://www.celiacsyndrome.com/index.php?id=14 Wugo ( talk) 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a fairly subtle example of the way food faddists and hucksters have learned to subvert Wikipedia to advance their own interests. Sentences like, “Enough of the human population suffers from gluten sensitivity of one kind or another that many foods are now labeled to clarify whether they contain gluten“ are questionable. “Enough” is hardly a scientific term. Further on the article claims that 0.5 to 1% of the population has celiac disease, a figure I believe to be five to ten times the actual number, closer to 0.01%. [I wish it were easier to comment here.] JohnFMayer (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC) John Mayer
This section is probably someone having a bit of fun: "Known examples occur when people share silverware or other eating instruments. There have also been confirmed reports of cross contamination through oral sex. Doctors have warned that this is possible for as many as 30 days after a person ingests gluten containing products. People known to be allergic to gluten often cite this as an area of "extreme frustration". [19] The source cited says no such thing (the link is dead, but the article is available elsewhere), and the gluten-in-semen report is probably fabricated, as I've found only a lot of debate and doctors suggesting that semen is too refined to maintain large protein molecules like gluten in it, but that as far as they know, no studies have been done. Mind you, it seems gluten can transfer through breast milk, so one never knows, but unless one's sensitivity is extreme it's unlikely to be an issue (or, as someone on Yahoo Answers said, "unless you're gonna be downing the stuff like Crystal Light,I wouldn't worry too much"). In any case, without evidence it should be removed. 184.175.3.229 ( talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The link under "Sources" and the link for "The Gluten Effect" are clearly nothing but blatant advertisements. I would remove them, but some jerk would probably just put them back. 65.68.190.60 ( talk) 09:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not permitted. See WP:REFSPAM. I posted subst:welcomespam to the Erichealthnow's talk page and removed the reference. I believe a similar link in Further Reading qualifies as WP:BOOKSPAM, so I have removed it as well. Kullanari ( talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Why is wheat starch redirecting here to gluten? It would be better to redirect to starch, as gluten and starch are pretty different.
lg -- Crotha 11:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well:
Peace, Dusty| 💬| You can help! 18:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know how I have read that Spelt(English),Epeautre (French),Dinkel (German)
gluten is water soluble and here I read it is not. More importantly it will be a response to my spelt bread customers of which I make my living from Catweasel ( talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit.------- Being insoluble in water,-------- they can be purified by washing away the associated starch.
Perhaps spelt, if it is water soluble, paves the way for those that have celiac disease. As it seems the problem with those that have celiac disease stems from digestion because the wheat is not water soluble. Catweasel ( talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
the lede describes gluten being discovered by buddhist monks. per http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-gluten.html this Buzzle article. I don't think this source really meets RS, the site kinda looks like a wiki in that the articles are contributed by non-vetted authors. any opposition to removing this bit/retag it with a citation needed? Jonathanfu ( talk) 07:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the protein in Gluten a complete protein? Many grains have incomplete proteins (the amino acid "profiles") in contrast to milk (cow juice)for example. I was wondering how the amino acid profile compares with whey isolate protein.....
Thanks
Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:9200:32:491C:CFCC:C551:46A4 ( talk) 00:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
This whole article seems heavily biased in that it makes it makes it sound like gluten is primarily some sort of additive or food byproduct, rather than a basic component of certain grains (correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here). The reader could easily miss or lose sight of the basic facts about gluten's role in human diets--it's a part of certain grains and it is therefore a part of almost any food made from these grains.
For example look at the fact that "extraction" is at the very top of the article and also that it is followed by "uses: in bread products". Gluten is found in bread products because it is a part of bread because it is a part of flour because it is a part of these grains, right? So, except for the part on "added gluten" this should be called something like "function of gluten in bread-making", not "use of gluten in bread products".
This is just one example...there are issues throughout the article and bigger questions of balance/organization. I suspect this apparent bias is unintentional but it should really be fixed (by someone who knows a lot more than me!). I did change "found in foods processed from wheat and related grains" to "found in wheat and related grains".
Someone tell me if I'm totally off base here...there seems to be some confusion in the sources about whether "gluten" is "gluten" when its still in the grain, unprocessed. 146.115.132.122 ( talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This "duck" really looks like mock...has it been predigested by a cow or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.236.24 ( talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been much emphasis recently on people who have various problems with gluten in their diet. I think the article reflects this concern.
Is there any broad general statement that can be made in the lead of this article about the importance of gluten in the human diet, historically and currently? (I'm assuming that any such statement would be suitably qualified that gluten is a problem for some people.)
Thanks, CBHA ( talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Does gluten have any link to autism? 85.76.129.115 ( talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Quoting the article: "Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains. The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit. Being insoluble in water, they can be purified by washing away the associated starch."
I'm paraphrasing this. Please tell me if I get it right. (I'm not suggesting my wording is better, just trying to find out if I understand this.)
"Gluten is the composite of a gliadin and a glutenin, which is conjoined with starch in the endosperm of various grass-related grains." --> "Gluten is the combination of a gliadin and a glutenin. It is found, along with starch, in some grains. Gluten is not starch and starch is not gluten. But they are found together in grain."
"The prolamin and glutelin from wheat (gliadin, which is alcohol-soluble, and glutenin, which is only soluble in dilute acids or alkalis) constitute about 80% of the protein contained in wheat fruit. --> I'm puzzled here, is Prolamin another name for Gliadin? Is "wheat fruit" a synonym for "wheat endosperm"? And what is the other 20% of the protein that is NOT gluten?
"Being insoluble in water, they can be purified by washing away the associated starch." --> "Gluten can be separated from starch by grinding grain and dissolving it in water. The part that does not dissolve is the gluten." Does the other 20% of the protein dissolve?
Thanks, CBHA ( talk) 19:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What is gluten free diet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.166.89 ( talk) 14:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
“foggy mind”, fatigue, fibromyalgia, joint and muscle pain, leg or arm numbness, tingling of the extremities, peripheral neuropathy, dermatitis, atopic disorders, allergy to one or more inhalants, foods or metals, asthma, rhinitis, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, schizophrenia, autism, ataxia or attention-deficit disorders.
Extracted from the article as fringe topics per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. -- Zefr ( talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gluten/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I read that Gliadin, a component of gluten, interacts with Zonulin leading to Intestinal permeability (more significantly in sensitive people) and that this has a range of implications for health, in those who are sensitive. I'm not sure if this fits in with an existing section like gluten sensitivity. Perhaps a new sub-section under adverse reactions? What do you guys think? See: /info/en/?search=Intestinal_permeability#Modulation Zarkme ( talk) 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The following is nonsense:
Gluten proteins have low biological and nutritional value, as opposed to the grains of pseudocereals (gluten free), which are rich in proteins with high biological value ( albumins and globulins).
Comparing a kind of protein from X to whole grains of Y is just silly. Jytdog ( talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
These edits [5] removed this sentence "Gluten proteins have low biological and nutritional value. [2]" and added these two paragraphs:
Lead: "Gluten comprises 75% of total wheat protein [3] and is a significant protein source of amino acids for human nutrition, particularly in underdeveloped countries where wheat food products are commonly consumed. [4]"
Bread products: "As the principal protein source in wheat, gluten contributes nutritional value to wheat food products, particularly in underdeveloped countries where wheat consumption is relatively high. [4]"
I agree to use these references to improve the information, but we must adjust. This reference states: [4]
Gluten has low content in the essential amino acid lysine and therefore, it has a low biological value (see Biological value#Properties of the protein source), as stated in the ref [2] ("From a nutritional point of view, gluten exclusion does not entail particular problems, being a mixture of proteins with low nutritional and biological value") and lower than the rest of proteins in wheat. We can not say that it is the most important source of protein in wheat from a nutritional point of view, but the most abundant.
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
00:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Hi,
The first source from FDA is from 2007, it would be best to get an updated version if available since many changes could occur during 10 years of period. The information of source 14, 15, 19, 21 seem to from blog posts and webpages that could be replaced by peer-reviewed articles. The link to source 51,52,53 does not work. Another section that could be added to this article is how gluten is detected. For example an overview of immunological and spectroscopic methods such as gas chromatography, mass spectrometer, ELISA, and commercially available ELISA kit.
Jei1 08:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeileee ( talk • contribs)
This seems irresponsible to me. The graphic purports to be showing the difference in size, but in effect it implies that gluten is innately dangerous and infectious. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 09:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The occurrence of oat avenin toxicity depends on the oat cultivar consumed, because the immunoreactivities of toxic prolamins are different among oat varieties. Also, many oat products are cross-contaminated with other gluten-containing cereals.
It's not about gluten per se. It seems to me to be specifically worded to maximize the occurrence of the word "toxic". It belongs on the Gluten-free diet page. It definitely doesn't belong in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) DolyaIskrina ( talk) 14:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In home or restaurant cooking, gluten is prepared from flour by kneading the flour under water, agglomerating the gluten into an elastic network known as a dough, and then washing out the starch. Starch granules disperse in low-temperature water, and the dispersed starch is sedimented and dried. If a saline solution is used instead of water, a purer protein is obtained, with certain harmless impurities departing the solution with the starch. Where starch is the prime product, cold water is the favored solvent because the impurities depart from the gluten.
I'd rewrite it if I understood its reason for existing. Nobody sets out to make gluten anything. What this describes is baking. Are we describing kneading dough to an alien who did very well on the SAT? Using gluten free flour would be indistinguishable from this process. What does the paragraph have to do with gluten per se? The subsequent paragraph of industrial isolation of gluten makes sense to me. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm drawing out a discussion I've had on this page because I think we need consensus on this question. On this page gluten is said to be cytotoxic which to the average lay reader means that gluten is in and of itself poisonous to most people at most doses. The cytotoxicity page refers to spider and snake venom as well the the chemicals used in chemo-therapy.
But the source do indeed say "gluten toxicity"
It's true that the sources refer to "gluten toxicity" but my reading of those sources seems to show that they are using that phrase as a shorthand. In a similar way a physicist might say "water always chooses the shortest route" or "electrons want to move to the lowest orbital". Even though the physicists literally said "water chooses" "and electrons want" you would be guilty of WP:SYNTH if you said "physics proves water and electrons want and think."
But gluten has real toxic effects of patients with celiacs and NCGRD
Yes, but those patients are less than 10% of the population. Spider venom is toxic to 99% of the people who are exposed to it. Whatever the technical definition of toxic is, I don't think gluten qualifies in the same way as spider venom. My proposal. Every reference to the bad effects of gluten should be phrased to reflect the idea that gluten triggers responses (immune and autoimmune) in some people which have toxic effects. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The reasons alleged by Zefr for the removals are "on one side are anti-gluten advocates who loosely use the term 'cytotoxic'" "while others, myself among them". In order to sustain such arguments, he needs to provide references. The personal opinions of an editor have no value WP:TALKNO.
After two weeks, he has not provided any reference supporting such claims discrediting the research that dozens of scientists worlwide have done for half a century. If so, Zefr would also have to provide notices that these multiple studies have been withdrawn.
The content was correctly referenced with WP:MEDRS sources. And Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSOR.
The problem with this information about cytotoxicity is that the reader knows that it is in the context of celiac disease. So what I have done has been to rewrite the text so that there are no ambiguities and adding new references, in a separate section on pathophysiology. I hope this solves the problems.-- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
ImperfectlyInformed: The article is about gluten which is a benign non-issue in ~ 98% of people, yet there is a prominent disorders/pathophysiology section of speculation based entirely on primary lab research - a review of primary research, although becoming a secondary source, is still primary information and not convincing; see my comment three entries above and WP:MEDREV: "avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments." The section as existing is over-prominent and lacks WP:BALANCE because one editor wants to persuade about the (possibly unreplicable) pathology of gluten shown only in lab studies. This section is premature to discuss and is unencyclopedic. It might be fine for a book review, but disqualifies on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I'm removing the section and image as these are theories and conjecture from lab research that mislead the non-science reader to believe there is impending pathology upon consuming gluten, possibly for everyone and certainly - as stated now - for those with gluten sensitivity, although these effects cannot be determined in human subjects. The quote used in PMID 28810029 [ref 27] is speculation and unprovable in vivo, and the authors acknowledge this. As stated in their JAMA review under Specific Events in Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity Pathogenesis, "The pathophysiology of nonceliac gluten sensitivity remains largely undetermined," indicating this is a weak MEDRS source - at the bottom of the evidence pyramid (left) in WP:MEDASSESS - and cannot be used to discuss increased intestinal permeability as a certain outcome. The image from outdated 2011 PMID 21248165 concerning zonulin is pure conjecture, and misleads the reader about gluten-related additional disease mechanisms (autoimmune disorders, cancer) currently impossible to clinically assess or define. Use of this source and the image is alarmist, not based on rigorous evidence, and misleading in its attempt to persuade there are serious disease risks which remain unproven.
Revising from the article, the subhead should read Potential for increased intestinal permeability (since it does not occur in 99% of people, and no pathological permeability can be proven in vivo if it occurs in gluten-sensitive people)
References 69 and 70 should be deleted because they are outdated speculation derived from lab research. Please refrain from edit warring and let other editors comment on whether this section has merit. -- Zefr ( talk) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit by Zefr ('alarmist', shown only in vitro and at high doses, are of relevance unconfirmed) is based on WP:UNFAMILIAR and WP:LACK.
That the editor does not have a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject does not justify the reversion.
It is not "alarmist", it is a fact. No scientist, no doctor or pathologist in the world questions it.
Zefr ignores that these damages are perfectly described and classified for years, since the beginning of performing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies (currently classified according to the Marsh scale). [1]
-- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References