This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Cross contamination issues. I added some referenced facts about cross contamination and oats. The section is still choppy. I might try to edit and clean it up. Cableknitpower ( talk) 02:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not revert unless you can provide good sources for the ridiculous claims. The article is not about attention deficit which was what the source was about. The source did not mention the other diseases. Crap like this leads to people dying.
Mccready
02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems from the links above that Gluten is harmful if a person has a specific condition and not to the majority of the public. Nukeguy04 ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Are these all really relevant, per WP:EL? I don't know enough (even with a Coeliac mum-in-law) to know for sure which links to prune, but I'll get on it if the regular contributors don't. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. MKoltnow 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please add a section on the "bad" things that happen when one is placed on a gluten-free diet? There must be some else why would an entire probiotic industry have arisen to "treat" these poor gluten-sensitive folk?? Thank you kindly. JimScott 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'bad things that happen?' Do you mean physical side effects or just missing out on favorite foods?-- AndrewSullman 07:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge the probiotic supplements are used only as an aid to counter the intestinal damage already caused before the patient went on a gluten free diet. I'm not sure even then if they are proven to be helpful in speeding a recovery or if its an industy thats popped up because desperate people want to feel better and are willing to spend money trying. If you have something specific in mind though it would be helpful to know what it is.
There are no negative side effects to a gluten-free diet as long as the diet you consume is nutritionally balanced; Gluten is not necessary for life and contains no unique nutrition. Many cultures around the world are more or less gluten-free already (think Asia, India, etc). I am not sure what's up with the probiotics, probably just another way to get money from sick people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.171.189 ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how a segement that says efficacy of gluten free diet is poor,in the sense of a fad diet, and then the next paragraph says this is why you should avoid gluten.I didnt know this was a debate sight. are there any scientific studies not done by the supplement industry that we could reference//// user nick acton 2011, march 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick acton ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Since this article has important facts in it but those facts were scattered about throughout, I took it upon myself to create headings/sub-headings to help readers navigate the info better. -- Demosfoni 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
DIAGNOSIS? WHAT TYPE OF TEST/TESTS ARE REQUIRED TO DETECT GLUTEN INTOLERANCE - BESIDES ELIMINATING FROM DIET TO SEE IF SIDE EFFECTS SUBSIDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.25.61 ( talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of redundancy in the paragraphs here compared to the main article elsewhere. Someone needs to read both articles and prune the repeated information from this sub-heading. -- Demosfoni 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some gluten-free (or, more correctly, 'denatured-gluten') barley beers on the market now that have undergone ELISA testing on every batch that is produced in the brewery. One example is Widmar Brewer's 'Omission' beer. Another is Estrella Damm Daura, which is brewed in Spain and meets the more stringent European standards of gluten free. These are beers that, like many newer GF beers, undergo an enzyme process that essentially breaks the gluten down into amino acids or other particles that don't cause a problem for the majority of sensitive individuals. I'm a true celiac/coeliac and have enjoyed Omission with no problems, though I certainly can't speak for all sensitive people. Daura, on the other hand, caused me and some others a few (or many) problems, so it might be a different process or enzyme. The brewer of Omission makes the results of each batch testing available, and all tests have fallen well below the 10 ppm level. I believe the makers of Daura do the same. I would personally accept the ELISA tests as valid. However, before I make any edits to this portion of the article, I wanted to run it by the rest of the group. I do not want to have the edit sound like an advert for Omission or any other GF or denatured beer by mentioning the product by name, yet I also wish to avoid the use of 'weasel words'. Also, US labeling laws do not allow any product made with barley, wheat or other gluten grain to be called 'gluten free', even if tests do not detect gluten at the acceptable limits for other GF product that isn't made with gluten grains. Suggestions, anyone? 108.217.49.112 ( talk) 22:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I am about to attempt my first Wikipedia edit.
The subheading, Gluten-free Beer, was tagged: "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers." I agree. I have tried to improve the language while keeping the accuracy of the statements, as I understand them. I used direct sentences and dropped terms that were overly hedging, that is where a hedging words were used excessively in a sentence.
I am no expert on the subject, I am a writer. If you wish to add equivocation to my edit, I would be curious to know why.
I also took issue with the conclusion. The information did not serve the heading "Gluten-Free Beer" and actually seemed preachy considering the topic. I suggest moving the information elsewhere.
"Celiacs Disease is a condition in which if caught early, future problems can be prevented. Unfortunately, most cases are commonly found in 40, 50 and 60 year olds. If future health problems are not prevented, some consequences can be as bad as diabetes. From celiacs disease, one's body if practically destroying itself when in contact with gluten. This can be prevented with a gluten-free diet."
However, you'll see I have paraphrased the idea and tied it into the topic of this section. Even at that, this last paragraph seems inappropriate considering the title of the main entry: Gluten-free diet.
The reasons for maintaining a gluten-free diet should be condensed in one sub topic, "health benefits?" I would welcome the deletion of my paraphrase of the above text from the sub heading Gluten-Free Beer.
I also believe the subheading title is inaccurate. It should read "Gluten-free Beer and Brewed Beverages"
I will try to enter the edit now. If I am unsuccessful in entering my edit, I may return here to post it for another to enter.
I successfully made the edit.
But I wish to explain further changes.
-*
This seems to suggest that Dr Steve Ford is saying the promoted choice is between "no gluten" and "low gluten" and may be seen as a convolution of his statements.
I was unable to find a source for his statement "divides the market into two types 'no gluten' and 'low gluten'" in the References sited. Also, the "resource" which Dr Ford says promotes choice is the glutenfreebeerfestival. I found his statement at http://www.glutenfreebeerfestival.com/aims.html (used in the entry) to be awkward, so I added "(a)" to clarify his intention. And in truth, that web-page lacks a by-line and may have been written by any of the promoters of glutenfreebeerfestival without the consent or consensus of Dr Ford, whom was cited as the author.
I believe Low-Carb suggests Diet as opposed to Health. Carbohydrates are healthful. I could debate this. But regardless, I believe the statement reflects a new fad, like low-fat, which does not relate to health as much as diet choice. I assume the inference was taken from promotional material offered by the brewer, who would prefer their beer was seen as 'healthy' rather than a 'diet' food.
I believe the italics were superfluous. My writers instinct says that the use of italics took emphasis away from the overall statement and created an impassioned and forced voice.
PS my browser doesn't work with the wikipedia block quote, I have changed the spelling to try and avoid it. is there any way around the block quote?
. Hows 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe certain corn does have gluten. I can't find any indication of an amount or if it occurs naturally, is modified, hybrid, etc. Although I think there are certain types that have a significant amount.
www.tradekey.com/ks-glutinous-corn/
www.neda.gov.ph/Knowledge-Emporium/details.asp?DataID=210
www.knownyou.com/en_index.jsp?bodyincl
Most grains contain a protein that is referred to as "gluten." However, each grain has its own form of gluten. As commonly used, the term "gluten" (as in "gluten-free") refers only to the forms found in varieties of wheat, rye, barley, and possibly oats. Corn gluten (found most commonly in livestock feeds and lawn-care products) is considerably different. Carol the Dabbler 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a whole list of gluten and gluten free products. Maybe we should include some of these? http://www.gicare.com/pated/edtgs06.htm
How can soemthing contain 10million -1 parts per million of anything? Peter 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The introduction needs improvement but I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself, safely.
It currently reads: A gluten-free diet is a diet completely free of ingredients derived from gluten-containing cereals: wheat (including Kamut and spelt), barley, rye, oats and triticale. Though most, but not all, patients can tolerate pure oat products, there is a controversy about including them in a gluten-free diet: some medical practitioners say they may be permitted, but the Coeliac Society advises against them.
At the point when the term "patients" is introduced, there has been no mention that there is a connection between gluten-free requirements and any particular set of patients or any particular ailment. As written, it would imply that medical patients generally have some requirement for gluten-free food. Perhaps some mention of coeliac illness can be made earlier in the piece.
Ordinary Person 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Also: ". . . .some medical practitioners[attribution needed] say they may be permitted, . . ."
I am somewhat surprised that someone would may the above statement without having bothered to review the large mass of literature to the contrary.
Its actually not 'practitioners', there are now close to a dozen, peer-reviewed scientific articles that have examined the immunochemistry of oats and found them to be safely used in between 90 and 98% of celiacs. There is a new article out last month indicating that there is no increase in antibodies to oats when oats are consumed.
The Celiac Society is concerned about oats because of 2 phenomena, the first is contamination of the US Oat supply which one could describe as critically contaminated with wheat. The other problem is the problem of developing a cross-reaction during the period (1 year) when ATA, AGA are still high and wheat contamination in the diet may still occur, this, according to the recent oat study markedly increases the risk of an oat reaction. However, once wheat is entirely removed oat antibodies disappear.
The oat supply in the US market is definitely a problem, however this is changing, there are currently two companies selling 'Triticeae' free oats in the US, and Bob's red mill is now marketing its own gluten-free oat, so that I suspect with the increased availability of laboratory-defined Triticeae-free oats they will change that position. Pdeitiker ( talk) 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In this article Maltodextrin is said to normally not include gluten, but then later its listed as a compound containing gluten according to the Australian gluten-free guidelines, maybe someone who knows more about this could clear that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repapetilto ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Maltodextrin can be formulated from gluten containing grains or not. It is up to the manufacturer to tell the CD patient what their maltodextrin is made of. Most US producers now use corn maltodextrin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.171.189 ( talk) 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This article has no images. What sort of images/illustrations would be helpful? Foods? Flours? Cells? Damaged intestines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.177.1 ( talk) 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cider was listed twice in the list of gluten-free beverages. I removed one reference. 75.150.127.121 ( talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way to mention the high cost of the gluten free diet (at least in the US), and perhaps an explaination for why that is so? (I'd sure like to hear it!). Fuzbaby ( talk) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tartrazine contains no gluten, but causes adverse reactions to sufferers (Due to lack of recognition of this, and a lack of publication of this adverse effect)
While I can prove this using my own celiac suffering family, personal research apparently is utter rubbish and only something written about somebodies personal research can be cited. Can anybody find a link on the net that shows this link? Most celiac associations claim tartrazine to be a safe additive and will be of no use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.234.11 ( talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please fix this article by not calling people who suffer from coeliac disease coeliacs (or celiacs for the Americans). It is incorrect to call someone a coeliac. They have coeliac disease, it does not define their person and it is, IMHO, quite offensive and gramatically incorrect to call someone a coeliac. We don't call people with Chron's disease Chronies... Well at least not to their face or in an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.176.25 ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Get over yourself. Christ, I think there are more important issues. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.248.142 ( talk) 11:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Health benefits section needs to be cleaned up. It contains a great deal of information about research on gluten-free diets and autism -- specifically that there is no statistical link. This is the first mention of autism in the article. It's not terribly appropriate to spend a lot of time disproving something that hasn't been stated in the first place. Even if it were revised to have an introduction, "Health benefits" is not where it belongs. I propose that the information be either removed, or better explained and moved under a different heading. Exaybachay ( talk) 01:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I reduced it and moved it to "Popular Diets". Bhny ( talk) 04:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The dining out section looks completely out of place in the article, both in tone and in content. I'll go ahead and remove it if there are no objections. Fishing Chimp ( talk) 21:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one that finds the supplements section to be sparsely cited for as huge as it is? A whole table full of recommendations based on one person's book? I believe there has been a Dutch researcher or two that have published papers making a good case for B supplements. I'd love to see more journal articles cited or this section axed until it was based on more than the one Dr's book. It would come a lot closer to matching the quality of the main celiac article then. 24.171.76.80 ( talk) 22:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section. It was from a book by Lieberman- "a major promoter of nutrition misinformation" according to National Council of Health Fraud - http://www.ncahf.org/digest09/09-41.html) Bhny ( talk) 15:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I added some facts about the nutritional deficiencies and cited the facts. I am not sure of the next step--do I remove the statement that didn't have the facts cited? Cableknitpower ( talk) 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) The section "Deficiencies linked to maintaining a gluten-free diet" is not logically coherent and the English grammar is poor. I have deleted the worst offense (a citation that explained the health effects of celiac disease which is not the same as the health effects of a gluten free diet), but it needs more work. -- Vajrapoppy ( talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm fairly new, but I was pretty sure "facts" on Wikipedia weren't supposed to be copy and pasted from another source. Being interested in this topic, I was going to try to find a good citation for the missing ones as Coppertwig suggested. After copying and pasting a portion into Google, I got the exact article. It can be found here: [4] Does it need to be completely rewritten? Sshadow12 ( talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Sshadow12
The last paragraph says "GF foods are raw foods ..." I think that's wrong! I think lots of cooked foods are GF. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm deleting the medicines section, the content of which was: "With gluten being incredibly pervasive, it is highly advised that a person with celiac disease consume gluten only when advised by their doctor and within a controlled environment, where the gluten can be added to the food under the supervision of the person with celiac disease. [1]" This doesn't seem to make sense to me; I wonder if the word "gluten" was accidentally used where "medicine" was meant. I searched on the cited web page and failed to find any similar statement there; maybe I missed it, or if it's on another page of the same website then a more specific citation would be needed. Furthermore, this is advice, whereas Wikipedia's role is to provide facts ( WP:ASF, WP:WEASEL); if such a statement is to be made, the article should state specifically who or what organization said it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I too think that this is a misprint since it is under the heading MEDICINE. Most medications do not contain gluten but it is always advisable to check with the pharmacist or the specific drug company before taking any prescribed or over the counter medication. Cableknitpower ( talk) 12:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
For those who have celiac disease or are gluten intolerant, I think it is important to note the mental health and emotional side effects (depression, insomnia, anxiety), gluten can have on ones system. It is important to distinguish these from the more common physical side effects felt.
"Nutrient deficiencies related to celiac disease, both pre- and post-diagnosis, may have an impact on cognitive function, which impedes mental health. Newly diagnosed individuals often have nutritional deficiencies due to malabsorption, including low iron and vitamin D. Among those who are diagnosed and on a gluten-free diet, the gluten-free diet can lead to deficiencies in B-vitamins, iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin D because many gluten-free products are not fortified like their gluten-containing counterparts. Proper supplementation may be required to achieve a healthy nutritional status."
"Individuals with celiac disease also may experience problems related to their affect, or emotions. The most common “affective” disorders reported by patients with celiac disease include depressive and anxiety disorders. Common signs and symptoms of depression and anxiety include:
irritability fatigue sleep disturbances lack of energy loss of appetite
" [2]
Mentioned in the Bread page, gluten-free breads were also listed under 'types' of bread as we are trying to expand the Bread page.
Mentioned in the Bread page, gluten-free breads were also listed under 'types' of bread as we are trying to expand the Bread page. Kfj8 ( talk) 17:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cornellier, I redid the reduction of text in the section "Eating gluten-free"; it seemed like a significant loss in information. Thoughts? Alrich44 ( talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the introduction used to be this:
"A significant demand has developed for gluten-free food from both the Americans diagnosed with CD and from the 1.6 million Americans who have decided to start eating gluten-free without a diagnosis. Of the approximately 1.8 million Americans who have CD, about 1.4 million of them may not know they have it. CD is on the increase, up four times from 50 years ago."
Which I deleted as it only pertained to one country, was not WP:NPOV and was rather poorly structured and not entirely relevant. Something about the rising demand for gluten free food in the world would be nice but I couldn't see a way to salvage the current paragraph. Kattfisk ( talk) 15:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I read this article because I wanted to find out why so many people are adopting this diet. However, it doesn't really say. Surely they don't all have chronic diarreah, wheat allergies or fear autism? It wold be helpful to read the common reasons, and fin out what science has to say about them.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
I also came here to find out why "gluten free" is so popular now, but there wasn't any such information. Suddenly everybody's allergic to gluten? I've been eating extra gluten just to keep the gluten industry alive. At night I worry about the poor gluten producers. --
67.165.140.73 (
talk)
02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"Dr Morbius" you are wrong. Studies have shown that avoiding gluten prevents or reverses hypothyroidism in untreated coeliacs AND noncoeliacs. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so this article needs people to contribute who know the subject and are not just pedalling their point of view. I refer you to three peer-reviewed clinical studies: 1.Sategna-Guidetti C, Volta U, Ciacci C, Usai P, Carlino A, De Franceschi L, Camera A, Pelli A, Brossa C. "Prevalence of thyroid disorders in untreated adult celiac disease patients and effect of gluten withdrawal: an Italian multicenter study". 2. Counsell CE, Taha A, Ruddell WSJ. "Coeliac disease, and autoimmune thyroid disease". Gut 1994;35:844–6. 3.Sategna-Guidetti C, Bruno M, Mazza E, et al. Autoimmune thyroid disease, and coeliac disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998;10:927–31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.73.107 ( talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong, the studies show that 'normal healthy disease free people' can prevent thyroid issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.48.79 ( talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That section doesn't address the topic except for a brief mention in the final paragraph re buffet-style restaurants. 77Mike77 ( talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In a few places Davis either makes some very careless interpretations of the studies he cites or he deliberately misrepresents them. Only 39% of the celiac patients in the 215 patient study were overweight but he claims over 50%. Only 25 of the 215 lost weight on a GF diet while 91 actually gained weight. His major premise of the book is that a GF diet will cause most people to lose weight: that is just not what the cited studies state in their results. Over 2 years 81% of the patients gained weight including 82% of patients that were already overweight at the beginning. [5] When 19% of people on a GF diet lose weight after 2 years you can not make the claim it is a weight loss diet.
Lastly he makes the claim from the naloxone study that after administration the binge eaters ate 28% less wheat based products. The study says very clearly that they actually ate 40% more bread sticks. Odd for a doctorate's reading comprehension to be this poor. 97.85.168.22 ( talk) 17:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The whole book is about removing gliadin from the diet and how wheat is become a poisonous and addictive grain since the introduction of dwarf strains. 97.85.168.22 ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It is apparent that there are several editors with very strongly held opinions watching this page, who appear to be here to " right wrongs" and set people straight to convince them to stop eating gluten-free diets. This is not the appropriate place to conduct that campaign. It is a place to describe, with good references from both sides, the various reasons for the gluten-free diet. It is not the case the reason people are adopting gluten-free diets is "Because the reasons are complete nonsense and not backed up by science" (quoting Dr. Morbius above). For one thing, if you live in a household with a person who has celiac disease, it may be helpful for them for you to adopt it as well, greatly increasing its prevalence. For another, the prevalence of celiac disease has increased and diagnosis is costly and time-consuming. The first study finding increased prevalence was Rubio-Tapia et al 2009 followed by Catassi et al 2010 ("Natural history of celiac disease autoimmunity in a USA cohort followed since 1974"). The hypothesis which I see most often floated is changes in gliadin due to breeding of wheat - for example, it is mentioned by Joseph Murrary, an investigator in Rubio-Tapia et al 2009. It is not, as described by Bhny above, "nonsense". Saying such things just seems a little silly. I'm not even going to get into Sapone et al 2010's recent finding on gluten-sensitive people (who apparently cannot be diagnosed through traditional methods) right now, which is discussed in recent NYTimes ("medical experts largely agree that there is a condition related to gluten other than celiac")and CBS 20120 news articles. As a mainstream and prominent line of research, it deserves some coverage in this article - but I have to go right now. II | ( t - c) 03:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The article cited here says, "“People might think I had a bias, but I couldn’t find any published literature on the health benefits of gluten-free diets for people without celiac disease, gluten sensitivity or autoimmune disorders. There should be some studies, but there are none." Suggesting that there are studies to indicate benefits for people in all three of those categories. The text in the article here left out the gluten sensitive and those with autoimmune disorders. Leaving out those large groups of people invalidates the point whoever wrote this article is trying to make about the popularity of gluten free diets
I don't know that much about the subject, but whoever wrote this article seems to have a bias against possible benefits. A more even-handed approach is needed.
Couple questions:
A ref in the lead concludes "Thus, the GFD may constitute an environmental variable to be considered in treated CD patients for its possible effects on gut health.", i.e. GFD changes the gut microbiota (as many foods do). This is kind of interesting but it is a primary source and doesn't say anything about the value of GFD and I don't see what point it is supporting in the article. I'll remove it unless someone can justify it. Bhny ( talk) 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Quotations were unnecessary on this phrase. If this phrase was referencing a specific quote, it needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.13.180 ( talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. "This does not seem like encyclopedia content" is a reference to the editor doing the reading, not to the content. Comedy is a legitimate activity. It was placed in the proper section. I didn't add a trivia section. I take the liberty of making a revert and placing this explanation here in hopes of avoiding an edit war. The source says 10 percent of people need to be on this diet (but my grocer is bringing in gluten-free items to beat the band). - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Under the "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity" section, I'm wondering if it would be worth mentioning the research that has been done to tease apart non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) from FODMAP sensitivity. For example, see:
Biesiekierski JR, Peters SL, Newnham ED, Rosella O, Muir JG, Gibson PR: No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates.
The study examined the hypothesis that gluten would cause gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with self-reported NCGS. After controlling for FODMAP intake, the study was not able to confirm the hypothesis (though they did find a "nocebo" effect where participants felt worse when they knowingly consumed higher quantities of gluten). This suggests that most/all patients who think they have NCGS actually have FODMAP sensitivity, and it explains why those patients see a benefit from gluten-free/dairy-free diets -- the patients think they're avoiding two bad proteins, but they're actually avoiding several bad carbohydrates that happen to be in exactly the same foods.
At any rate, given how much research has been published on this topic (the article above has been cited 67 times), it seems like it at least deserves a mention here. SashaMarievskaya ( talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I disputed the claim that non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) "has not been shown to exist" (stated in initial paragraph of Gluten-Free Diet article, and again asserted, in different wording, under NCGS heading). The claim cited a journal article-- Biesiekierski, et al. (2012)--which does not make this claim. That study [1] found that gluten increased the symptoms for self-reported NCGS patients, but a diet lower in FODMAPs improved symptoms. However the study found that gluten was unlikely to be the culprit in their sample. NCGS may have only recently been seriously studied, but it has been recognized as a clinical syndrome since 2012 (Mansueto, et al., 2014) [2] and certainly "exists" in clinical studies. The condition of NCGS was initially received with skepticism because it was novel and increasing in prevalence (Mooney, Aziz, & Sanders, 2013) [3] and probably due to the extent it is mocked in entertainment. Further scientific study revealed it as a clinical condition with subgroups of varying pathogenesis and symptoms (Mansueto, et al., 2014).2
A review by Nijeboer, et al. (2013)4 concluded that the causes of NCGS remain debated. [4] Like the Biesiekiersk et al 1. study, FODMAPs, found in grain are hypothesized to be responsible (Nijeboer, et al.)4. Interestingly, in a response to the Biesiekierski et al.1 article, Carrochio, Rini & Mansueto (2014) [5] state that "wheat sensitivity" may be a better label than "gluten sensitivity". NCGS is generally diagnosed after Celiac's disease and wheat allergy are ruled out (Mansueto, et al., 2014)2. It has also been difficult to locate reliable biomarkers for the disease (Guandalini & Polanco, 2014; [6] Catassi et al., 2012 [7] ). Regardless of whether gluten, wheat, grain or FODMAPs (or perhaps all as they relate to the different subgroups of NCGS)are responsible, the prevalence of symptoms including intestinal distress, fatigue and headaches that resolve after excluding wheat from the diet, cannot be ignored (Nijeboer, et al., 2013)4.
I don't know whether I should have asked permission to make changes as I did regarding the Wiki article. It is concerning that a study is being erroneously interpreted. The Biesiekierski, et al., article is also incorrectly referenced. It is marked with superscripts 2 and 8, using Gibson incorrectly as the first researcher for the initial reference. This adds an extra reference making it appear as if there are 2 studies to support the claim. My interpretation of the Wikipedia NCGS article is that because gluten wasn't isolated as factor in one study, gluten sensitivity doesn't exist. An article on NCGS (as it's heading) should discuss the clinical syndrome from the perspective of current research, which is abundant. The Wiki article also cites Lundin & Alaedini (2012) [8](superscripted as 8 and incorrectly referenced) to state research is limited and symptoms are not specific (Knut & Armin, 2012). A more accurate citation would be that specific biomarkers are unknown. NCGS has been recognized since the 1980s and research is quite extensive (Catassi et al., 2013)8. I apologize for any mistakes I've made (first time here). I should have drafted this offline and I hope the edits aren't confusing! Miniakiva ( talk) 03:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2400:340:7C99:58E3:18B:E7E6 ( talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by adapting the "does not exist" part. I cannot edit the introductory paragraph, and my edit to the NCGS would rather contradict it. I understand this is not an article on NCGS so I have attempted to sticking to how gluten may or may not affect these individuals. Please share your opinions on this:
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) has been recognized as a clinical syndrome since 2012 [9]. The condition of NCGS was initially described as a condition that improved when switching to a gluten-free diet, after celiac's disease and wheat allergy were excluded. [10] Symptoms include gastrointestinal distress, dizziness, brain fog, ataxia, and dermatitis herpetiformis and improve with either a gluten-free or wheat free diet. [11] It has been concluded that NCGS is a syndrome triggered by gluten ingestion resulting in increased human leukocyte antigen and anti-gliadin antibodies, but it has also been suggested that wheat amylase-trypsin inhibitors and low-fermentable, poorly-absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates (FODMAPs) may be responsible for gastrointestinal symptoms.. [12] Cytokine levels in NCGS patients in response to gluten ingestion was found to be higher than in control groups [13]. As research has evolved, NCGS has been revealed as a complex clinical condition with subgroups of varying pathogenesis and symptoms. [14] Some individuals who have reported to have NCGS symptoms were found to not have gluten-sensitivity but a FODMAPs sensitivity. [15] FODMAPs are found in wheat and therefore self-reported NCGS individuals would notice a reduction in symptoms by switching to either a gluten-free diet or a low FODMAPs diet as both eliminate wheat. [16] There is an ongoing debate whether gluten or wheat is the offending antigen, or whether the term should be non-celiac's gluten sensitivity or non-celiac wheat sensitivity. [17]. Miniakiva ( talk) 07:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |itle=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06149.x/full" ignored (
help)
I agree. And I simplified my edit. I hope it is clearer and to the point. Thank you. Miniakiva ( talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved here for discussion. I think a MEDRS source is needed if we want to present it this way: -- Ronz ( talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A low-gluten or gluten free diet has also been suggested for athletes such as distance runners, an estimated 20 to 50 percent of whom suffer from gastrointestinal issues, and the risk of inflammation from gluten or wheat. [1]
17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Best regards.-- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 10:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Buie T (2013) "The relationship of autism and gluten". Clin Ther (Review) 35 (5): 578–83. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.04.011. PMID 23688532 CONCLUSIONS: A variety of symptoms may be present with gluten sensitivity. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support instituting a gluten-free diet as a treatment for autism. There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear.
@ Alexbrn: there are mainly two weaknesses in your reasons for deleting the text I added about autism:
1. You said that “There is nothing in the source to support your "probably" - that was a word from the dodgy source which has now been deleted.” And then, in this edition you removed “but there probably is a subset of patients who might improve with a gluten-free diet.22”. Let’s look again the source 22:
Buie T (2013) "The relationship of autism and gluten". Clin Ther (Review) 35 (5): 578–83. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.04.011. PMID 23688532 CONCLUSIONS: A variety of symptoms may be present with gluten sensitivity. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support instituting a gluten-free diet as a treatment for autism. There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear.
I paraphrased the source and wrote “probabily” to substitute “may be”, wich is perfectly correct:
probably Sinónimos de probably en inglés (Synonyms for probably in english): adverbio • I knew I would probably never see her again in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, very likely, most likely, likely, as like as not, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt, all things considered, taking all things into consideration, all things being equal, possibly, perhaps, maybe, it may be, presumably, on the face of it, apparently
archaic like enough, belike
probably (ˈprɒbəblɪ ) Definitions adverb (sentence modifier; not used with a negative or in a question) in all likelihood or probability ⇒ I'll probably see you tomorrow
sentence substitute I believe such a thing or situation may be the case
2.
In that same edition, you wrote in the edit summary box (→As a fad diet: reword, add quotation to ref for avoidance of doubt), and so you modified the reference:
...but you didn't write the rest of the paragraph of the source: There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear and you said in this talk page "This speculation about a (possible) subgroup (which possibly might benefit) should not be included as it's undue and will give a lay audience a false impression of where the weight of current knowledge sits."
In my opinion, this way of acting may be a “cherry picking”:
Cherry picking (fallacy) Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]
...and not fit WP:NPOV. We must write the information with a neutral point of view, and let the reader to make his own decisions.
Now, let’s take a look at the latest reviews (newer than the 2008 Cochrane review), wich also include the results of Cochrane review in their conclusions:
First, this one of 2013:
PMID:24077239 Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26;5(10):3839-53. doi: 10.3390/nu5103839. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Despite its popularity, the efficacy of the GFCF diet in improving autistic behavior remains not conclusively proven. A 2008 Cochrane review reported that only two small RCTs investigated the effect of GFCF diet in children with ASD (n = 35). There were only three significant treatment effects in favor of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = −5.60; social isolation, MD = −3.20 and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70. In addition three outcomes were not different between the treatment and control group while differences for ten outcomes could not be analyzed because data were skewed. The review concluded that the evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor, and large scale, good quality randomized controlled trials are needed (28). By using a two-stage, randomized, controlled study of GFCF diet of children with ASD, Whiteley and coworkers recently reported significant group improvements in core autistic and related behaviors after eight and 12 months on diet. The results showed a less dramatic change between children having been on diet for eight and children in diet for 24 months, possibly reflective of a plateau effect (29). The above data suggest that removing gluten from the diet may positively affect the clinical outcome in some children diagnosed with ASD, indicating that autism may be part of the spectrum of NCGS, at least in some cases. However, a word of caution is necessary to stress the fact that only a small, selected sub-group of children affected by ASD may benefit from an elimination diet. Additional investigations are required in order to identify phenotypes based on best- and non-response to dietary modifications and assess any biological correlates including anthropometry before considering a dietary intervention. 29. Whiteley P., Haracopos D., Knivsberg A.M., Reichelt K.L., Parlar S., Jacobsen J., Seim A., Pedersen L., Schondel M., Shattock P. The ScanBrit randomised, controlled, single-blind study of a gluten- and casein-free dietary intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Nutr. Neurosci. 2010;13:87–100. doi: 10.1179/147683010X12611460763922.
Another review, of 2014:
PMID:24789114 J Child Neurol. 2014 Dec;29(12):1718-27. doi: 10.1177/0883073814531330. Epub 2014 Apr 30. Evidence of the gluten-free and casein-free diet in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Marí-Bauset S, Zazpe I, Mari-Sanchis A, Llopis-González A, Morales-Suárez-Varela M Few studies can be regarded as providing sound scientific evidence since they were blinded randomized controlled trials, and even these were based on small sample sizes, reducing their validity. We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak. We recommend that it should be only used after the diagnosis of an intolerance or allergy to foods containing the allergens excluded in gluten-free, casein-free diets. Future research should be based on this type of design, but with larger sample sizes.
Another review, of 2014:
PMID:25433099 Nutr Hosp. 2014 Dec 1;30(6):1203-10. doi: 10.3305/nh.2014.30.6.7866. Is gluten the great etiopathogenic agent of disease in the XXI century? Article in Spanish San Mauro Martín I, Garicano Vilar E, Collado Yurrutia L, Ciudad Cabañas MJ Millward C et al. (2008)23 ha sugerido que los péptidos del gluten y la caseína pueden tener un papel en los orígenes del autismo y que la fisiología y la psicología del trastorno pueden ser explicadas por la excesiva actividad opioide vinculada a dichos péptidos23. Catassi C et al.24, en 2013, trabajaron en esta misma línea, sugiriendo una relación entre la SGNC y los trastornos neuropsiquiátricos, entre ellos el autismo. 23. Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G. Glutenand casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16 ;(2):CD003498. 24. Catassi C, Bai JC, Bonaz B, Bouma G, Calabrò A, Carroccio A et al. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26; 5(10):3839-3.
Another review, of 2015:
PMID:26060112 Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun;29(3):477-91. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 May 9. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: a work-in-progress entity in the spectrum of wheat-related disorders. Volta U, Caio G, De Giorgio R, Henriksen C, Skodje G, Lundin KE Among psychiatric disorders, a minority (6%) of patients with NCGS showed a previous clinical history of eating behavior abnormalities, while autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have been hypothesized to be associated with NCGS [47,48]. Notably, a gluten- and casein-free diet might have a positive effect in improving hyperactivity and mental confusion in some patients with ASD. This very exciting association between NCGS and ASD deserves further study before conclusions can be firmly drawn.
Furthermor, the 2008 Cochrane review that you cited found in some studies that the gluten-free diet is effective in some autistic symptoms:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD003498. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub3. PMID 18425890. “Two small RCTs were identified (n = 35). No meta-analysis was possible. There were only three significant treatment effects in favour of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = -5.60 (95% CI -9.02 to -2.18), z = 3.21, p=0.001 (Knivsberg 2002) ; social isolation, MD = -3.20 (95% CI -5.20 to 1.20), z = 3.14, p = 0.002) and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.90), z = 2.77, p = 0.006) (Knivsberg 2003). In addition three outcomes showed no significant difference between the treatment and control group and we were unable to calculate mean differences for ten outcomes because the data were skewed. No outcomes were reported for disbenefits including harms.”
So, supported for all those reliable secondary, PubMed indexed sources, and adjusting to the recomendations of @ Heaviside glow: "Ideally, it should not say anything—pro or con—about the value of going gluten free for people who don't have celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity unless backed up by sources that meet WP:MEDRS" I think that there is no reason not to say that in a subset of patients, the diet can improve some autistic behaviours. There is no reason to hide this information. And then, I will edit in the gluten-free diet page and add a brief sentence. Nevertheless, I'm going to take another approach, more critical, and instead of saying that "some patients may benefit...", I'll write "Only a subset of patients may improve some autistic behaviours with a gluten-free diet".
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
My intention is to reflect what the references say, with neutrality.
The fact that there is a subset, subgroup, some... patients who improve with a gluten-free diet is not the doubt.
PMID:26060112 Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun;29(3):477-91. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 May 9. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: a work-in-progress entity in the spectrum of wheat-related disorders. Volta U, Caio G, De Giorgio R, Henriksen C, Skodje G, Lundin KE Notably, a gluten- and casein-free diet might have a positive effect in improving hyperactivity and mental confusion in some patients with ASD.
PMID:24077239 Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26;5(10):3839-53. doi: 10.3390/nu5103839. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. The above data suggest that removing gluten from the diet may positively affect the clinical outcome in some children diagnosed with ASD (...) indicating that autism may be part of the spectrum of NCGS, at least in some cases.
The main problem is to determinate "the symptom or testing profile of these candidates" PMID 23688532 (2013) "The relationship of autism and gluten" and what are the "effects in favor of the diet intervention". PMID:24077239 (2013) Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. (2008) Cochrane Database Syst Rev
The double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, with big sample sizes, that are the gold standard in Medicine, wich in this case also require a gluten challenge and the reappearance of the autistic symptoms to validate the relationship, are very complicated in this population and even questionable from an ethical point of view. Also, they have a very high cost. Other problems detected at current trials are the lack of strict adherence to the diet (that is essential), voluntary or accidental, repeatedly observed, which may make the diet ineffective; the lack of a control group and/or clear definitions of inclusion criteria; interventions being of variable duration and generally short; risk of bias in data on the behavioral variables attributable to memories of parents; etc. Thus, the current studies suffer from "lack of rigor" and it will be difficult to have rigorous trials in the future.
In my opinion, the current text is well adjusted, but I think that is a good idea to talk at WT:MED and see the opinions of other users. Thank you very much, @ Alexbrn:. Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 08:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I hope nobody minds that I archived a whole load of old stuff from this page, and I am aware that the way I did it wasn't elegant, but it is better than having a whole lot of redundant info here that is irrelevant to current discussion. I'm about to move the reflist template to the bottom of the page too, and that probably wont be the best solution either. - Roxy the dog™ woof 12:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: can you, please, explain the reasons for revert this edition (→As a fad diet: Expanding. Source: Fasano A, Sapone A, Zevallos V, Schuppan D (May 2015). "Nonceliac gluten sensitivity". Gastroenterology 148 (6): 1195–204. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2014.12.049. PMID 25583468)?
You said: (Reverted to revision 689838327 by BallenaBlanca (talk): Rv. copyright violation - do not cut and paste text into Wikipedia. (TW))
This is my text:
Although there is a evident "fad component" to the recent rise popularity of the gluten-free diet, there are also growing and unquestionable evidences about the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
And this one the original:
"Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS."
Is this realy a "cut and paste"???
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 20:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Smyth
First, I want to thank your effort rewording the text of the picture Amount of gluten that can causes a reaction. You did a good job.
However, it seems that there was an error in this edition yours: (→Rationale behind adoption of the diet: Copyedit)
You deleted this bold text “consuming gluten even in small quantities, whether voluntary or not” due to “copyedit”. Where is a “copyedit”? There is not a copyedit: not a close paragraph, nor copypaste, and therefore there is any copyvio/copyedit problem. Let’s take a look at the text of the source that supported this sentence. This is not a free access article, but I have the paper:
Even the most fanatic patients will have occasional issues with contamination. Some are aware that they are less strict than necessary. Some of our patients believe that they are strictly following the diet, but are making regular errors due to their poor basic education and understanding of the diet.
So, I will restore this text “whether voluntary or not”.
Also, I will add a new source:
Even small amounts of gluten (50 mg/day) can be immunogenic; therefore all food and food items and drugs that contain gluten and its derivatives must be eliminated from the diet completely
Best regards and very thanks again. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 19:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I opened this article to see what Wiki had to say about oats and celiac / gluten free diet because my father's company sells gluten free products made from oats. I was disappointed to see the first paragraph reads like an anti-oat advertisement. I have no intention of trying to use wiki to sell our product, but it would be nice if it less aggressively worded and more accurate. An increasing number of companies are providing safe, truly gluten free oats that are perfectly fine in a gluten free diet.. [1]
Current paragraph "A gluten-free diet (GFD) is a diet that excludes gluten, a protein composite found in wheat, barley, rye,[1][2] and all their species and hybrids (such as spelt,[1] kamut, and triticale[1][2]). The inclusion of oats in gluten-free diet remains controversial. Avenin present in oats may be also toxic for coeliac people.[2] Its toxicity depends on the cultivar consumed.[3] Furthermore, oats is frequently cross contaminated with gluten-containing cereals.[2]"
Proposed revision "A gluten-free diet (GFD) is a diet that excludes gluten, a protein composite found in wheat, barley, rye,[1][2] and all their species and hybrids (such as spelt,[1] kamut, and triticale[1][2]). The inclusion of oats in gluten-free diet is dependent upon the source and variety of the oats in question. [2]"
The lines about avenin and cross contamination should be part of a subsection on contamination in gluten free products. Trust me, you could write a book on the topic.
Scislacker ( talk) 23:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The signs of gluten-related enteropathy out of duodenal biopsy range from an increase in the intraepithelial lymphocytes to villous atrophy, as staged by Marsh et al and successively by Oberhuber et al.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |date2014=
(
help)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me last year. I fully understand the seriousness of a gluten free diet (I'm a cell biologist and spent some time researching celiac disease and gluten testing methods).
I wanted to let you know about an article that just came out that describes a "Purity Protocol" for growing gluten free oats, which has become a standard for quality gluten free oat producers. Purity Protocl Publication in Cereal Chemistry Journal
Additionally, a previous publication shows that the varieties of oats which cause reactions in people with CD can be detected by the G12 antibody. Official link and Full Text. This strongly suggests that oats grown with a purity protocol and verified with the G12 antibody are safe for people with CD.
Is there a way to include this information in this wiki page?
Moving this here for discussion - this was in the section on the fad diet - Gluten-free_diet#As_a_fad_diet. This was introduced somewhere in this slew of edits.
However, in a subset of autistic patients who have a genuine gluten sensitivity, there is limited evidence that suggests that a gluten-free diet may improve some autistic behaviors. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
At this time, the studies attempting to treat symptoms of autism with diet have not been sufficient to support the general institution of a gluten-free or other diet for all children with autism
- This is exactly the kind of hype that Wikipedia needs to be an antidote against per NPOV and I will go so far as to cite PSCI here. Jytdog ( talk) 20:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I will restore the text which was previously talked, approved and included on version of 15:03, 9 November 2015, and is not supported by "primary sources", nor "weasel wording" not "junk science" [9].
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 12:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I rectified: the sources already present that support the deleted phrase are all (three). Also the third, 2008 Cochrane review.
Of all existing literature until 2008, only two studies meet criteria for for include them on Cochrane review, which only focuses on RCTs. One study showed significant lower autistic traits and the other one is questionable because the diet may have been breached by participants. That is, with strict diet, there was positive results.
We can read at the abstract PMID 18425890: "Two small RCTs were identified (n = 35). No meta-analysis was possible. There were only three significant treatment effects in favour of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = -5.60 (95% CI -9.02 to -2.18), z = 3.21, p=0.001 (Knivsberg 2002) ; social isolation, MD = -3.20 (95% CI -5.20 to 1.20), z = 3.14, p = 0.002) and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.90), z = 2.77, p = 0.006) (Knivsberg 2003). In addition three outcomes showed no significant difference between the treatment and control group and we were unable to calculate mean differences for ten outcomes because the data were skewed. No outcomes were reported for disbenefits including harms." (Again, it supports "...gluten-free diet may improve some autistic behaviors.")
We can read at the full text [12]: One study showed significant lower autistic traits in the intervention group compared to the control group and the other study showed no difference between the intervention and the control group.... The second trial... was a small scale study, intended only as a pilot for a much larger study and the authors declared their suspicions that the integrity of the diet may have been breached by participants requesting food from siblings and peers.
Besides knowing what means "standard treatment", we must differentiate "solid scientific evidence" (RCTs, 2008 Cochrane review) from "documented evidence". Nevertheless, in both cases it is clear that gluten-free diet can improve some autistic behaviors.
What we can do is change the wording and be more specific. The objective is that readers know the reality, without vagueness, and find the specific details here, and not resort to trashy forums or websites, or put unfounded hopes (sorry if I do not get properly express what I mean).
First, I will now add the results of 2008 Cochrane (Main results, at abstract). You cannot be opposed because as you said, is a gold-standard source.
And second, I propose to modify the deleted text, and say something like this, to achieve a neutral point of view ("As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public") and make a necessary distinction between standard treatment and a therapy useful in a subgroup of patients, supported by the more recent reviews of 2013 and 2015:
I await your opinions.
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 17:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I think there has been an effort in this article to focus on a gluten-free diet as a medical practice, in an attempt to avoid promoting pseudoscience. It might make more sense to give more space to addressing/debunking the pop culture, non-scientifically supported forms of this diet, rather than pretending they do not exist. 2601:644:0:DBD0:7D80:BEBE:70E2:E197 ( talk) 21:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
NB: I did
this. Was reverted
here. (added this header
Jytdog (
talk)
18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC))
so a gluten-free diet is put under the "treatment" bucket in schematic discussions, as it is the only way we have to manage the condition. it doesn't really treat the condition. Happy to have an RfC on this. The distinction is somewhat important. Jytdog ( talk) 22:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) Are you insisting that we only use the term "treatment" in this article with respect to using the GFD? 2) Does that reflect the developing consensus of discussion here in your view? Just brief answers please. Yes or no would be enough actually. Jytdog ( talk) 20:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify Jytdog ( talk) 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC))
@
Jytdog: I've been asking you several times to take the time to read and check. It is clear you did not do it, because otherwise you would not be saying these things. Please, it's not a game. Respect my work, I am wasting a lot of time for explaining clearly, trying to reach an agreement, that you are not valuing.
This diff is the result of the page after my edit, therefore, those are your changes (that I did not touch) what is being shown. It's just a matter of choosing the versions to compare.
I will detail them and, please, take the time to check them. In your second change, you made 8 changes. I undid 5 and maintained 3 of them:
02:31, 1 May 2017 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (62,616 bytes) (+2) . . ("treat" >> "manage")
And all these changes are the same as this dif.
I do not know what else I can do to make you understand me... -- BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It must be time to move on from this discussion. Management and Treatment are both reasonable in context. See what the sources use. This kind of bitter, to-and-fro is likely to be what puts editors off from continuing to be part of the WP community. Jrfw51 ( talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Cross contamination issues. I added some referenced facts about cross contamination and oats. The section is still choppy. I might try to edit and clean it up. Cableknitpower ( talk) 02:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not revert unless you can provide good sources for the ridiculous claims. The article is not about attention deficit which was what the source was about. The source did not mention the other diseases. Crap like this leads to people dying.
Mccready
02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems from the links above that Gluten is harmful if a person has a specific condition and not to the majority of the public. Nukeguy04 ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Are these all really relevant, per WP:EL? I don't know enough (even with a Coeliac mum-in-law) to know for sure which links to prune, but I'll get on it if the regular contributors don't. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. MKoltnow 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Would someone please add a section on the "bad" things that happen when one is placed on a gluten-free diet? There must be some else why would an entire probiotic industry have arisen to "treat" these poor gluten-sensitive folk?? Thank you kindly. JimScott 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'bad things that happen?' Do you mean physical side effects or just missing out on favorite foods?-- AndrewSullman 07:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge the probiotic supplements are used only as an aid to counter the intestinal damage already caused before the patient went on a gluten free diet. I'm not sure even then if they are proven to be helpful in speeding a recovery or if its an industy thats popped up because desperate people want to feel better and are willing to spend money trying. If you have something specific in mind though it would be helpful to know what it is.
There are no negative side effects to a gluten-free diet as long as the diet you consume is nutritionally balanced; Gluten is not necessary for life and contains no unique nutrition. Many cultures around the world are more or less gluten-free already (think Asia, India, etc). I am not sure what's up with the probiotics, probably just another way to get money from sick people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.171.189 ( talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how a segement that says efficacy of gluten free diet is poor,in the sense of a fad diet, and then the next paragraph says this is why you should avoid gluten.I didnt know this was a debate sight. are there any scientific studies not done by the supplement industry that we could reference//// user nick acton 2011, march 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick acton ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Since this article has important facts in it but those facts were scattered about throughout, I took it upon myself to create headings/sub-headings to help readers navigate the info better. -- Demosfoni 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
DIAGNOSIS? WHAT TYPE OF TEST/TESTS ARE REQUIRED TO DETECT GLUTEN INTOLERANCE - BESIDES ELIMINATING FROM DIET TO SEE IF SIDE EFFECTS SUBSIDE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.25.61 ( talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of redundancy in the paragraphs here compared to the main article elsewhere. Someone needs to read both articles and prune the repeated information from this sub-heading. -- Demosfoni 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some gluten-free (or, more correctly, 'denatured-gluten') barley beers on the market now that have undergone ELISA testing on every batch that is produced in the brewery. One example is Widmar Brewer's 'Omission' beer. Another is Estrella Damm Daura, which is brewed in Spain and meets the more stringent European standards of gluten free. These are beers that, like many newer GF beers, undergo an enzyme process that essentially breaks the gluten down into amino acids or other particles that don't cause a problem for the majority of sensitive individuals. I'm a true celiac/coeliac and have enjoyed Omission with no problems, though I certainly can't speak for all sensitive people. Daura, on the other hand, caused me and some others a few (or many) problems, so it might be a different process or enzyme. The brewer of Omission makes the results of each batch testing available, and all tests have fallen well below the 10 ppm level. I believe the makers of Daura do the same. I would personally accept the ELISA tests as valid. However, before I make any edits to this portion of the article, I wanted to run it by the rest of the group. I do not want to have the edit sound like an advert for Omission or any other GF or denatured beer by mentioning the product by name, yet I also wish to avoid the use of 'weasel words'. Also, US labeling laws do not allow any product made with barley, wheat or other gluten grain to be called 'gluten free', even if tests do not detect gluten at the acceptable limits for other GF product that isn't made with gluten grains. Suggestions, anyone? 108.217.49.112 ( talk) 22:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I am about to attempt my first Wikipedia edit.
The subheading, Gluten-free Beer, was tagged: "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers." I agree. I have tried to improve the language while keeping the accuracy of the statements, as I understand them. I used direct sentences and dropped terms that were overly hedging, that is where a hedging words were used excessively in a sentence.
I am no expert on the subject, I am a writer. If you wish to add equivocation to my edit, I would be curious to know why.
I also took issue with the conclusion. The information did not serve the heading "Gluten-Free Beer" and actually seemed preachy considering the topic. I suggest moving the information elsewhere.
"Celiacs Disease is a condition in which if caught early, future problems can be prevented. Unfortunately, most cases are commonly found in 40, 50 and 60 year olds. If future health problems are not prevented, some consequences can be as bad as diabetes. From celiacs disease, one's body if practically destroying itself when in contact with gluten. This can be prevented with a gluten-free diet."
However, you'll see I have paraphrased the idea and tied it into the topic of this section. Even at that, this last paragraph seems inappropriate considering the title of the main entry: Gluten-free diet.
The reasons for maintaining a gluten-free diet should be condensed in one sub topic, "health benefits?" I would welcome the deletion of my paraphrase of the above text from the sub heading Gluten-Free Beer.
I also believe the subheading title is inaccurate. It should read "Gluten-free Beer and Brewed Beverages"
I will try to enter the edit now. If I am unsuccessful in entering my edit, I may return here to post it for another to enter.
I successfully made the edit.
But I wish to explain further changes.
-*
This seems to suggest that Dr Steve Ford is saying the promoted choice is between "no gluten" and "low gluten" and may be seen as a convolution of his statements.
I was unable to find a source for his statement "divides the market into two types 'no gluten' and 'low gluten'" in the References sited. Also, the "resource" which Dr Ford says promotes choice is the glutenfreebeerfestival. I found his statement at http://www.glutenfreebeerfestival.com/aims.html (used in the entry) to be awkward, so I added "(a)" to clarify his intention. And in truth, that web-page lacks a by-line and may have been written by any of the promoters of glutenfreebeerfestival without the consent or consensus of Dr Ford, whom was cited as the author.
I believe Low-Carb suggests Diet as opposed to Health. Carbohydrates are healthful. I could debate this. But regardless, I believe the statement reflects a new fad, like low-fat, which does not relate to health as much as diet choice. I assume the inference was taken from promotional material offered by the brewer, who would prefer their beer was seen as 'healthy' rather than a 'diet' food.
I believe the italics were superfluous. My writers instinct says that the use of italics took emphasis away from the overall statement and created an impassioned and forced voice.
PS my browser doesn't work with the wikipedia block quote, I have changed the spelling to try and avoid it. is there any way around the block quote?
. Hows 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe certain corn does have gluten. I can't find any indication of an amount or if it occurs naturally, is modified, hybrid, etc. Although I think there are certain types that have a significant amount.
www.tradekey.com/ks-glutinous-corn/
www.neda.gov.ph/Knowledge-Emporium/details.asp?DataID=210
www.knownyou.com/en_index.jsp?bodyincl
Most grains contain a protein that is referred to as "gluten." However, each grain has its own form of gluten. As commonly used, the term "gluten" (as in "gluten-free") refers only to the forms found in varieties of wheat, rye, barley, and possibly oats. Corn gluten (found most commonly in livestock feeds and lawn-care products) is considerably different. Carol the Dabbler 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a whole list of gluten and gluten free products. Maybe we should include some of these? http://www.gicare.com/pated/edtgs06.htm
How can soemthing contain 10million -1 parts per million of anything? Peter 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The introduction needs improvement but I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself, safely.
It currently reads: A gluten-free diet is a diet completely free of ingredients derived from gluten-containing cereals: wheat (including Kamut and spelt), barley, rye, oats and triticale. Though most, but not all, patients can tolerate pure oat products, there is a controversy about including them in a gluten-free diet: some medical practitioners say they may be permitted, but the Coeliac Society advises against them.
At the point when the term "patients" is introduced, there has been no mention that there is a connection between gluten-free requirements and any particular set of patients or any particular ailment. As written, it would imply that medical patients generally have some requirement for gluten-free food. Perhaps some mention of coeliac illness can be made earlier in the piece.
Ordinary Person 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Also: ". . . .some medical practitioners[attribution needed] say they may be permitted, . . ."
I am somewhat surprised that someone would may the above statement without having bothered to review the large mass of literature to the contrary.
Its actually not 'practitioners', there are now close to a dozen, peer-reviewed scientific articles that have examined the immunochemistry of oats and found them to be safely used in between 90 and 98% of celiacs. There is a new article out last month indicating that there is no increase in antibodies to oats when oats are consumed.
The Celiac Society is concerned about oats because of 2 phenomena, the first is contamination of the US Oat supply which one could describe as critically contaminated with wheat. The other problem is the problem of developing a cross-reaction during the period (1 year) when ATA, AGA are still high and wheat contamination in the diet may still occur, this, according to the recent oat study markedly increases the risk of an oat reaction. However, once wheat is entirely removed oat antibodies disappear.
The oat supply in the US market is definitely a problem, however this is changing, there are currently two companies selling 'Triticeae' free oats in the US, and Bob's red mill is now marketing its own gluten-free oat, so that I suspect with the increased availability of laboratory-defined Triticeae-free oats they will change that position. Pdeitiker ( talk) 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
In this article Maltodextrin is said to normally not include gluten, but then later its listed as a compound containing gluten according to the Australian gluten-free guidelines, maybe someone who knows more about this could clear that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repapetilto ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Maltodextrin can be formulated from gluten containing grains or not. It is up to the manufacturer to tell the CD patient what their maltodextrin is made of. Most US producers now use corn maltodextrin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.171.189 ( talk) 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This article has no images. What sort of images/illustrations would be helpful? Foods? Flours? Cells? Damaged intestines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.177.1 ( talk) 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cider was listed twice in the list of gluten-free beverages. I removed one reference. 75.150.127.121 ( talk) 19:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way to mention the high cost of the gluten free diet (at least in the US), and perhaps an explaination for why that is so? (I'd sure like to hear it!). Fuzbaby ( talk) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tartrazine contains no gluten, but causes adverse reactions to sufferers (Due to lack of recognition of this, and a lack of publication of this adverse effect)
While I can prove this using my own celiac suffering family, personal research apparently is utter rubbish and only something written about somebodies personal research can be cited. Can anybody find a link on the net that shows this link? Most celiac associations claim tartrazine to be a safe additive and will be of no use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.234.11 ( talk) 07:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please fix this article by not calling people who suffer from coeliac disease coeliacs (or celiacs for the Americans). It is incorrect to call someone a coeliac. They have coeliac disease, it does not define their person and it is, IMHO, quite offensive and gramatically incorrect to call someone a coeliac. We don't call people with Chron's disease Chronies... Well at least not to their face or in an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.176.25 ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Get over yourself. Christ, I think there are more important issues. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.248.142 ( talk) 11:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Health benefits section needs to be cleaned up. It contains a great deal of information about research on gluten-free diets and autism -- specifically that there is no statistical link. This is the first mention of autism in the article. It's not terribly appropriate to spend a lot of time disproving something that hasn't been stated in the first place. Even if it were revised to have an introduction, "Health benefits" is not where it belongs. I propose that the information be either removed, or better explained and moved under a different heading. Exaybachay ( talk) 01:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I reduced it and moved it to "Popular Diets". Bhny ( talk) 04:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The dining out section looks completely out of place in the article, both in tone and in content. I'll go ahead and remove it if there are no objections. Fishing Chimp ( talk) 21:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one that finds the supplements section to be sparsely cited for as huge as it is? A whole table full of recommendations based on one person's book? I believe there has been a Dutch researcher or two that have published papers making a good case for B supplements. I'd love to see more journal articles cited or this section axed until it was based on more than the one Dr's book. It would come a lot closer to matching the quality of the main celiac article then. 24.171.76.80 ( talk) 22:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section. It was from a book by Lieberman- "a major promoter of nutrition misinformation" according to National Council of Health Fraud - http://www.ncahf.org/digest09/09-41.html) Bhny ( talk) 15:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I added some facts about the nutritional deficiencies and cited the facts. I am not sure of the next step--do I remove the statement that didn't have the facts cited? Cableknitpower ( talk) 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) The section "Deficiencies linked to maintaining a gluten-free diet" is not logically coherent and the English grammar is poor. I have deleted the worst offense (a citation that explained the health effects of celiac disease which is not the same as the health effects of a gluten free diet), but it needs more work. -- Vajrapoppy ( talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm fairly new, but I was pretty sure "facts" on Wikipedia weren't supposed to be copy and pasted from another source. Being interested in this topic, I was going to try to find a good citation for the missing ones as Coppertwig suggested. After copying and pasting a portion into Google, I got the exact article. It can be found here: [4] Does it need to be completely rewritten? Sshadow12 ( talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Sshadow12
The last paragraph says "GF foods are raw foods ..." I think that's wrong! I think lots of cooked foods are GF. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm deleting the medicines section, the content of which was: "With gluten being incredibly pervasive, it is highly advised that a person with celiac disease consume gluten only when advised by their doctor and within a controlled environment, where the gluten can be added to the food under the supervision of the person with celiac disease. [1]" This doesn't seem to make sense to me; I wonder if the word "gluten" was accidentally used where "medicine" was meant. I searched on the cited web page and failed to find any similar statement there; maybe I missed it, or if it's on another page of the same website then a more specific citation would be needed. Furthermore, this is advice, whereas Wikipedia's role is to provide facts ( WP:ASF, WP:WEASEL); if such a statement is to be made, the article should state specifically who or what organization said it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I too think that this is a misprint since it is under the heading MEDICINE. Most medications do not contain gluten but it is always advisable to check with the pharmacist or the specific drug company before taking any prescribed or over the counter medication. Cableknitpower ( talk) 12:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
For those who have celiac disease or are gluten intolerant, I think it is important to note the mental health and emotional side effects (depression, insomnia, anxiety), gluten can have on ones system. It is important to distinguish these from the more common physical side effects felt.
"Nutrient deficiencies related to celiac disease, both pre- and post-diagnosis, may have an impact on cognitive function, which impedes mental health. Newly diagnosed individuals often have nutritional deficiencies due to malabsorption, including low iron and vitamin D. Among those who are diagnosed and on a gluten-free diet, the gluten-free diet can lead to deficiencies in B-vitamins, iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin D because many gluten-free products are not fortified like their gluten-containing counterparts. Proper supplementation may be required to achieve a healthy nutritional status."
"Individuals with celiac disease also may experience problems related to their affect, or emotions. The most common “affective” disorders reported by patients with celiac disease include depressive and anxiety disorders. Common signs and symptoms of depression and anxiety include:
irritability fatigue sleep disturbances lack of energy loss of appetite
" [2]
Mentioned in the Bread page, gluten-free breads were also listed under 'types' of bread as we are trying to expand the Bread page.
Mentioned in the Bread page, gluten-free breads were also listed under 'types' of bread as we are trying to expand the Bread page. Kfj8 ( talk) 17:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cornellier, I redid the reduction of text in the section "Eating gluten-free"; it seemed like a significant loss in information. Thoughts? Alrich44 ( talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the introduction used to be this:
"A significant demand has developed for gluten-free food from both the Americans diagnosed with CD and from the 1.6 million Americans who have decided to start eating gluten-free without a diagnosis. Of the approximately 1.8 million Americans who have CD, about 1.4 million of them may not know they have it. CD is on the increase, up four times from 50 years ago."
Which I deleted as it only pertained to one country, was not WP:NPOV and was rather poorly structured and not entirely relevant. Something about the rising demand for gluten free food in the world would be nice but I couldn't see a way to salvage the current paragraph. Kattfisk ( talk) 15:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I read this article because I wanted to find out why so many people are adopting this diet. However, it doesn't really say. Surely they don't all have chronic diarreah, wheat allergies or fear autism? It wold be helpful to read the common reasons, and fin out what science has to say about them.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
I also came here to find out why "gluten free" is so popular now, but there wasn't any such information. Suddenly everybody's allergic to gluten? I've been eating extra gluten just to keep the gluten industry alive. At night I worry about the poor gluten producers. --
67.165.140.73 (
talk)
02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
"Dr Morbius" you are wrong. Studies have shown that avoiding gluten prevents or reverses hypothyroidism in untreated coeliacs AND noncoeliacs. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so this article needs people to contribute who know the subject and are not just pedalling their point of view. I refer you to three peer-reviewed clinical studies: 1.Sategna-Guidetti C, Volta U, Ciacci C, Usai P, Carlino A, De Franceschi L, Camera A, Pelli A, Brossa C. "Prevalence of thyroid disorders in untreated adult celiac disease patients and effect of gluten withdrawal: an Italian multicenter study". 2. Counsell CE, Taha A, Ruddell WSJ. "Coeliac disease, and autoimmune thyroid disease". Gut 1994;35:844–6. 3.Sategna-Guidetti C, Bruno M, Mazza E, et al. Autoimmune thyroid disease, and coeliac disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998;10:927–31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.73.107 ( talk) 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong, the studies show that 'normal healthy disease free people' can prevent thyroid issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.48.79 ( talk) 23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That section doesn't address the topic except for a brief mention in the final paragraph re buffet-style restaurants. 77Mike77 ( talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In a few places Davis either makes some very careless interpretations of the studies he cites or he deliberately misrepresents them. Only 39% of the celiac patients in the 215 patient study were overweight but he claims over 50%. Only 25 of the 215 lost weight on a GF diet while 91 actually gained weight. His major premise of the book is that a GF diet will cause most people to lose weight: that is just not what the cited studies state in their results. Over 2 years 81% of the patients gained weight including 82% of patients that were already overweight at the beginning. [5] When 19% of people on a GF diet lose weight after 2 years you can not make the claim it is a weight loss diet.
Lastly he makes the claim from the naloxone study that after administration the binge eaters ate 28% less wheat based products. The study says very clearly that they actually ate 40% more bread sticks. Odd for a doctorate's reading comprehension to be this poor. 97.85.168.22 ( talk) 17:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The whole book is about removing gliadin from the diet and how wheat is become a poisonous and addictive grain since the introduction of dwarf strains. 97.85.168.22 ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It is apparent that there are several editors with very strongly held opinions watching this page, who appear to be here to " right wrongs" and set people straight to convince them to stop eating gluten-free diets. This is not the appropriate place to conduct that campaign. It is a place to describe, with good references from both sides, the various reasons for the gluten-free diet. It is not the case the reason people are adopting gluten-free diets is "Because the reasons are complete nonsense and not backed up by science" (quoting Dr. Morbius above). For one thing, if you live in a household with a person who has celiac disease, it may be helpful for them for you to adopt it as well, greatly increasing its prevalence. For another, the prevalence of celiac disease has increased and diagnosis is costly and time-consuming. The first study finding increased prevalence was Rubio-Tapia et al 2009 followed by Catassi et al 2010 ("Natural history of celiac disease autoimmunity in a USA cohort followed since 1974"). The hypothesis which I see most often floated is changes in gliadin due to breeding of wheat - for example, it is mentioned by Joseph Murrary, an investigator in Rubio-Tapia et al 2009. It is not, as described by Bhny above, "nonsense". Saying such things just seems a little silly. I'm not even going to get into Sapone et al 2010's recent finding on gluten-sensitive people (who apparently cannot be diagnosed through traditional methods) right now, which is discussed in recent NYTimes ("medical experts largely agree that there is a condition related to gluten other than celiac")and CBS 20120 news articles. As a mainstream and prominent line of research, it deserves some coverage in this article - but I have to go right now. II | ( t - c) 03:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The article cited here says, "“People might think I had a bias, but I couldn’t find any published literature on the health benefits of gluten-free diets for people without celiac disease, gluten sensitivity or autoimmune disorders. There should be some studies, but there are none." Suggesting that there are studies to indicate benefits for people in all three of those categories. The text in the article here left out the gluten sensitive and those with autoimmune disorders. Leaving out those large groups of people invalidates the point whoever wrote this article is trying to make about the popularity of gluten free diets
I don't know that much about the subject, but whoever wrote this article seems to have a bias against possible benefits. A more even-handed approach is needed.
Couple questions:
A ref in the lead concludes "Thus, the GFD may constitute an environmental variable to be considered in treated CD patients for its possible effects on gut health.", i.e. GFD changes the gut microbiota (as many foods do). This is kind of interesting but it is a primary source and doesn't say anything about the value of GFD and I don't see what point it is supporting in the article. I'll remove it unless someone can justify it. Bhny ( talk) 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Quotations were unnecessary on this phrase. If this phrase was referencing a specific quote, it needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.13.180 ( talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. "This does not seem like encyclopedia content" is a reference to the editor doing the reading, not to the content. Comedy is a legitimate activity. It was placed in the proper section. I didn't add a trivia section. I take the liberty of making a revert and placing this explanation here in hopes of avoiding an edit war. The source says 10 percent of people need to be on this diet (but my grocer is bringing in gluten-free items to beat the band). - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Under the "Non-celiac gluten sensitivity" section, I'm wondering if it would be worth mentioning the research that has been done to tease apart non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) from FODMAP sensitivity. For example, see:
Biesiekierski JR, Peters SL, Newnham ED, Rosella O, Muir JG, Gibson PR: No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates.
The study examined the hypothesis that gluten would cause gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with self-reported NCGS. After controlling for FODMAP intake, the study was not able to confirm the hypothesis (though they did find a "nocebo" effect where participants felt worse when they knowingly consumed higher quantities of gluten). This suggests that most/all patients who think they have NCGS actually have FODMAP sensitivity, and it explains why those patients see a benefit from gluten-free/dairy-free diets -- the patients think they're avoiding two bad proteins, but they're actually avoiding several bad carbohydrates that happen to be in exactly the same foods.
At any rate, given how much research has been published on this topic (the article above has been cited 67 times), it seems like it at least deserves a mention here. SashaMarievskaya ( talk) 06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I disputed the claim that non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) "has not been shown to exist" (stated in initial paragraph of Gluten-Free Diet article, and again asserted, in different wording, under NCGS heading). The claim cited a journal article-- Biesiekierski, et al. (2012)--which does not make this claim. That study [1] found that gluten increased the symptoms for self-reported NCGS patients, but a diet lower in FODMAPs improved symptoms. However the study found that gluten was unlikely to be the culprit in their sample. NCGS may have only recently been seriously studied, but it has been recognized as a clinical syndrome since 2012 (Mansueto, et al., 2014) [2] and certainly "exists" in clinical studies. The condition of NCGS was initially received with skepticism because it was novel and increasing in prevalence (Mooney, Aziz, & Sanders, 2013) [3] and probably due to the extent it is mocked in entertainment. Further scientific study revealed it as a clinical condition with subgroups of varying pathogenesis and symptoms (Mansueto, et al., 2014).2
A review by Nijeboer, et al. (2013)4 concluded that the causes of NCGS remain debated. [4] Like the Biesiekiersk et al 1. study, FODMAPs, found in grain are hypothesized to be responsible (Nijeboer, et al.)4. Interestingly, in a response to the Biesiekierski et al.1 article, Carrochio, Rini & Mansueto (2014) [5] state that "wheat sensitivity" may be a better label than "gluten sensitivity". NCGS is generally diagnosed after Celiac's disease and wheat allergy are ruled out (Mansueto, et al., 2014)2. It has also been difficult to locate reliable biomarkers for the disease (Guandalini & Polanco, 2014; [6] Catassi et al., 2012 [7] ). Regardless of whether gluten, wheat, grain or FODMAPs (or perhaps all as they relate to the different subgroups of NCGS)are responsible, the prevalence of symptoms including intestinal distress, fatigue and headaches that resolve after excluding wheat from the diet, cannot be ignored (Nijeboer, et al., 2013)4.
I don't know whether I should have asked permission to make changes as I did regarding the Wiki article. It is concerning that a study is being erroneously interpreted. The Biesiekierski, et al., article is also incorrectly referenced. It is marked with superscripts 2 and 8, using Gibson incorrectly as the first researcher for the initial reference. This adds an extra reference making it appear as if there are 2 studies to support the claim. My interpretation of the Wikipedia NCGS article is that because gluten wasn't isolated as factor in one study, gluten sensitivity doesn't exist. An article on NCGS (as it's heading) should discuss the clinical syndrome from the perspective of current research, which is abundant. The Wiki article also cites Lundin & Alaedini (2012) [8](superscripted as 8 and incorrectly referenced) to state research is limited and symptoms are not specific (Knut & Armin, 2012). A more accurate citation would be that specific biomarkers are unknown. NCGS has been recognized since the 1980s and research is quite extensive (Catassi et al., 2013)8. I apologize for any mistakes I've made (first time here). I should have drafted this offline and I hope the edits aren't confusing! Miniakiva ( talk) 03:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:2400:340:7C99:58E3:18B:E7E6 ( talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by adapting the "does not exist" part. I cannot edit the introductory paragraph, and my edit to the NCGS would rather contradict it. I understand this is not an article on NCGS so I have attempted to sticking to how gluten may or may not affect these individuals. Please share your opinions on this:
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) has been recognized as a clinical syndrome since 2012 [9]. The condition of NCGS was initially described as a condition that improved when switching to a gluten-free diet, after celiac's disease and wheat allergy were excluded. [10] Symptoms include gastrointestinal distress, dizziness, brain fog, ataxia, and dermatitis herpetiformis and improve with either a gluten-free or wheat free diet. [11] It has been concluded that NCGS is a syndrome triggered by gluten ingestion resulting in increased human leukocyte antigen and anti-gliadin antibodies, but it has also been suggested that wheat amylase-trypsin inhibitors and low-fermentable, poorly-absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates (FODMAPs) may be responsible for gastrointestinal symptoms.. [12] Cytokine levels in NCGS patients in response to gluten ingestion was found to be higher than in control groups [13]. As research has evolved, NCGS has been revealed as a complex clinical condition with subgroups of varying pathogenesis and symptoms. [14] Some individuals who have reported to have NCGS symptoms were found to not have gluten-sensitivity but a FODMAPs sensitivity. [15] FODMAPs are found in wheat and therefore self-reported NCGS individuals would notice a reduction in symptoms by switching to either a gluten-free diet or a low FODMAPs diet as both eliminate wheat. [16] There is an ongoing debate whether gluten or wheat is the offending antigen, or whether the term should be non-celiac's gluten sensitivity or non-celiac wheat sensitivity. [17]. Miniakiva ( talk) 07:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |itle=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06149.x/full" ignored (
help)
I agree. And I simplified my edit. I hope it is clearer and to the point. Thank you. Miniakiva ( talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved here for discussion. I think a MEDRS source is needed if we want to present it this way: -- Ronz ( talk) 17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
A low-gluten or gluten free diet has also been suggested for athletes such as distance runners, an estimated 20 to 50 percent of whom suffer from gastrointestinal issues, and the risk of inflammation from gluten or wheat. [1]
17:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Best regards.-- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 10:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Buie T (2013) "The relationship of autism and gluten". Clin Ther (Review) 35 (5): 578–83. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.04.011. PMID 23688532 CONCLUSIONS: A variety of symptoms may be present with gluten sensitivity. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support instituting a gluten-free diet as a treatment for autism. There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear.
@ Alexbrn: there are mainly two weaknesses in your reasons for deleting the text I added about autism:
1. You said that “There is nothing in the source to support your "probably" - that was a word from the dodgy source which has now been deleted.” And then, in this edition you removed “but there probably is a subset of patients who might improve with a gluten-free diet.22”. Let’s look again the source 22:
Buie T (2013) "The relationship of autism and gluten". Clin Ther (Review) 35 (5): 578–83. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.04.011. PMID 23688532 CONCLUSIONS: A variety of symptoms may be present with gluten sensitivity. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support instituting a gluten-free diet as a treatment for autism. There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear.
I paraphrased the source and wrote “probabily” to substitute “may be”, wich is perfectly correct:
probably Sinónimos de probably en inglés (Synonyms for probably in english): adverbio • I knew I would probably never see her again in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, very likely, most likely, likely, as like as not, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt, all things considered, taking all things into consideration, all things being equal, possibly, perhaps, maybe, it may be, presumably, on the face of it, apparently
archaic like enough, belike
probably (ˈprɒbəblɪ ) Definitions adverb (sentence modifier; not used with a negative or in a question) in all likelihood or probability ⇒ I'll probably see you tomorrow
sentence substitute I believe such a thing or situation may be the case
2.
In that same edition, you wrote in the edit summary box (→As a fad diet: reword, add quotation to ref for avoidance of doubt), and so you modified the reference:
...but you didn't write the rest of the paragraph of the source: There may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear and you said in this talk page "This speculation about a (possible) subgroup (which possibly might benefit) should not be included as it's undue and will give a lay audience a false impression of where the weight of current knowledge sits."
In my opinion, this way of acting may be a “cherry picking”:
Cherry picking (fallacy) Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]
...and not fit WP:NPOV. We must write the information with a neutral point of view, and let the reader to make his own decisions.
Now, let’s take a look at the latest reviews (newer than the 2008 Cochrane review), wich also include the results of Cochrane review in their conclusions:
First, this one of 2013:
PMID:24077239 Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26;5(10):3839-53. doi: 10.3390/nu5103839. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Despite its popularity, the efficacy of the GFCF diet in improving autistic behavior remains not conclusively proven. A 2008 Cochrane review reported that only two small RCTs investigated the effect of GFCF diet in children with ASD (n = 35). There were only three significant treatment effects in favor of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = −5.60; social isolation, MD = −3.20 and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70. In addition three outcomes were not different between the treatment and control group while differences for ten outcomes could not be analyzed because data were skewed. The review concluded that the evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor, and large scale, good quality randomized controlled trials are needed (28). By using a two-stage, randomized, controlled study of GFCF diet of children with ASD, Whiteley and coworkers recently reported significant group improvements in core autistic and related behaviors after eight and 12 months on diet. The results showed a less dramatic change between children having been on diet for eight and children in diet for 24 months, possibly reflective of a plateau effect (29). The above data suggest that removing gluten from the diet may positively affect the clinical outcome in some children diagnosed with ASD, indicating that autism may be part of the spectrum of NCGS, at least in some cases. However, a word of caution is necessary to stress the fact that only a small, selected sub-group of children affected by ASD may benefit from an elimination diet. Additional investigations are required in order to identify phenotypes based on best- and non-response to dietary modifications and assess any biological correlates including anthropometry before considering a dietary intervention. 29. Whiteley P., Haracopos D., Knivsberg A.M., Reichelt K.L., Parlar S., Jacobsen J., Seim A., Pedersen L., Schondel M., Shattock P. The ScanBrit randomised, controlled, single-blind study of a gluten- and casein-free dietary intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Nutr. Neurosci. 2010;13:87–100. doi: 10.1179/147683010X12611460763922.
Another review, of 2014:
PMID:24789114 J Child Neurol. 2014 Dec;29(12):1718-27. doi: 10.1177/0883073814531330. Epub 2014 Apr 30. Evidence of the gluten-free and casein-free diet in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Marí-Bauset S, Zazpe I, Mari-Sanchis A, Llopis-González A, Morales-Suárez-Varela M Few studies can be regarded as providing sound scientific evidence since they were blinded randomized controlled trials, and even these were based on small sample sizes, reducing their validity. We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak. We recommend that it should be only used after the diagnosis of an intolerance or allergy to foods containing the allergens excluded in gluten-free, casein-free diets. Future research should be based on this type of design, but with larger sample sizes.
Another review, of 2014:
PMID:25433099 Nutr Hosp. 2014 Dec 1;30(6):1203-10. doi: 10.3305/nh.2014.30.6.7866. Is gluten the great etiopathogenic agent of disease in the XXI century? Article in Spanish San Mauro Martín I, Garicano Vilar E, Collado Yurrutia L, Ciudad Cabañas MJ Millward C et al. (2008)23 ha sugerido que los péptidos del gluten y la caseína pueden tener un papel en los orígenes del autismo y que la fisiología y la psicología del trastorno pueden ser explicadas por la excesiva actividad opioide vinculada a dichos péptidos23. Catassi C et al.24, en 2013, trabajaron en esta misma línea, sugiriendo una relación entre la SGNC y los trastornos neuropsiquiátricos, entre ellos el autismo. 23. Millward C, Ferriter M, Calver S, Connell-Jones G. Glutenand casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16 ;(2):CD003498. 24. Catassi C, Bai JC, Bonaz B, Bouma G, Calabrò A, Carroccio A et al. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26; 5(10):3839-3.
Another review, of 2015:
PMID:26060112 Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun;29(3):477-91. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 May 9. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: a work-in-progress entity in the spectrum of wheat-related disorders. Volta U, Caio G, De Giorgio R, Henriksen C, Skodje G, Lundin KE Among psychiatric disorders, a minority (6%) of patients with NCGS showed a previous clinical history of eating behavior abnormalities, while autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have been hypothesized to be associated with NCGS [47,48]. Notably, a gluten- and casein-free diet might have a positive effect in improving hyperactivity and mental confusion in some patients with ASD. This very exciting association between NCGS and ASD deserves further study before conclusions can be firmly drawn.
Furthermor, the 2008 Cochrane review that you cited found in some studies that the gluten-free diet is effective in some autistic symptoms:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD003498. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub3. PMID 18425890. “Two small RCTs were identified (n = 35). No meta-analysis was possible. There were only three significant treatment effects in favour of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = -5.60 (95% CI -9.02 to -2.18), z = 3.21, p=0.001 (Knivsberg 2002) ; social isolation, MD = -3.20 (95% CI -5.20 to 1.20), z = 3.14, p = 0.002) and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.90), z = 2.77, p = 0.006) (Knivsberg 2003). In addition three outcomes showed no significant difference between the treatment and control group and we were unable to calculate mean differences for ten outcomes because the data were skewed. No outcomes were reported for disbenefits including harms.”
So, supported for all those reliable secondary, PubMed indexed sources, and adjusting to the recomendations of @ Heaviside glow: "Ideally, it should not say anything—pro or con—about the value of going gluten free for people who don't have celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity unless backed up by sources that meet WP:MEDRS" I think that there is no reason not to say that in a subset of patients, the diet can improve some autistic behaviours. There is no reason to hide this information. And then, I will edit in the gluten-free diet page and add a brief sentence. Nevertheless, I'm going to take another approach, more critical, and instead of saying that "some patients may benefit...", I'll write "Only a subset of patients may improve some autistic behaviours with a gluten-free diet".
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
My intention is to reflect what the references say, with neutrality.
The fact that there is a subset, subgroup, some... patients who improve with a gluten-free diet is not the doubt.
PMID:26060112 Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun;29(3):477-91. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 May 9. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: a work-in-progress entity in the spectrum of wheat-related disorders. Volta U, Caio G, De Giorgio R, Henriksen C, Skodje G, Lundin KE Notably, a gluten- and casein-free diet might have a positive effect in improving hyperactivity and mental confusion in some patients with ASD.
PMID:24077239 Nutrients. 2013 Sep 26;5(10):3839-53. doi: 10.3390/nu5103839. Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. The above data suggest that removing gluten from the diet may positively affect the clinical outcome in some children diagnosed with ASD (...) indicating that autism may be part of the spectrum of NCGS, at least in some cases.
The main problem is to determinate "the symptom or testing profile of these candidates" PMID 23688532 (2013) "The relationship of autism and gluten" and what are the "effects in favor of the diet intervention". PMID:24077239 (2013) Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. (2008) Cochrane Database Syst Rev
The double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, with big sample sizes, that are the gold standard in Medicine, wich in this case also require a gluten challenge and the reappearance of the autistic symptoms to validate the relationship, are very complicated in this population and even questionable from an ethical point of view. Also, they have a very high cost. Other problems detected at current trials are the lack of strict adherence to the diet (that is essential), voluntary or accidental, repeatedly observed, which may make the diet ineffective; the lack of a control group and/or clear definitions of inclusion criteria; interventions being of variable duration and generally short; risk of bias in data on the behavioral variables attributable to memories of parents; etc. Thus, the current studies suffer from "lack of rigor" and it will be difficult to have rigorous trials in the future.
In my opinion, the current text is well adjusted, but I think that is a good idea to talk at WT:MED and see the opinions of other users. Thank you very much, @ Alexbrn:. Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 08:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I hope nobody minds that I archived a whole load of old stuff from this page, and I am aware that the way I did it wasn't elegant, but it is better than having a whole lot of redundant info here that is irrelevant to current discussion. I'm about to move the reflist template to the bottom of the page too, and that probably wont be the best solution either. - Roxy the dog™ woof 12:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: can you, please, explain the reasons for revert this edition (→As a fad diet: Expanding. Source: Fasano A, Sapone A, Zevallos V, Schuppan D (May 2015). "Nonceliac gluten sensitivity". Gastroenterology 148 (6): 1195–204. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2014.12.049. PMID 25583468)?
You said: (Reverted to revision 689838327 by BallenaBlanca (talk): Rv. copyright violation - do not cut and paste text into Wikipedia. (TW))
This is my text:
Although there is a evident "fad component" to the recent rise popularity of the gluten-free diet, there are also growing and unquestionable evidences about the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
And this one the original:
"Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS."
Is this realy a "cut and paste"???
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 20:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Smyth
First, I want to thank your effort rewording the text of the picture Amount of gluten that can causes a reaction. You did a good job.
However, it seems that there was an error in this edition yours: (→Rationale behind adoption of the diet: Copyedit)
You deleted this bold text “consuming gluten even in small quantities, whether voluntary or not” due to “copyedit”. Where is a “copyedit”? There is not a copyedit: not a close paragraph, nor copypaste, and therefore there is any copyvio/copyedit problem. Let’s take a look at the text of the source that supported this sentence. This is not a free access article, but I have the paper:
Even the most fanatic patients will have occasional issues with contamination. Some are aware that they are less strict than necessary. Some of our patients believe that they are strictly following the diet, but are making regular errors due to their poor basic education and understanding of the diet.
So, I will restore this text “whether voluntary or not”.
Also, I will add a new source:
Even small amounts of gluten (50 mg/day) can be immunogenic; therefore all food and food items and drugs that contain gluten and its derivatives must be eliminated from the diet completely
Best regards and very thanks again. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 19:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I opened this article to see what Wiki had to say about oats and celiac / gluten free diet because my father's company sells gluten free products made from oats. I was disappointed to see the first paragraph reads like an anti-oat advertisement. I have no intention of trying to use wiki to sell our product, but it would be nice if it less aggressively worded and more accurate. An increasing number of companies are providing safe, truly gluten free oats that are perfectly fine in a gluten free diet.. [1]
Current paragraph "A gluten-free diet (GFD) is a diet that excludes gluten, a protein composite found in wheat, barley, rye,[1][2] and all their species and hybrids (such as spelt,[1] kamut, and triticale[1][2]). The inclusion of oats in gluten-free diet remains controversial. Avenin present in oats may be also toxic for coeliac people.[2] Its toxicity depends on the cultivar consumed.[3] Furthermore, oats is frequently cross contaminated with gluten-containing cereals.[2]"
Proposed revision "A gluten-free diet (GFD) is a diet that excludes gluten, a protein composite found in wheat, barley, rye,[1][2] and all their species and hybrids (such as spelt,[1] kamut, and triticale[1][2]). The inclusion of oats in gluten-free diet is dependent upon the source and variety of the oats in question. [2]"
The lines about avenin and cross contamination should be part of a subsection on contamination in gluten free products. Trust me, you could write a book on the topic.
Scislacker ( talk) 23:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The signs of gluten-related enteropathy out of duodenal biopsy range from an increase in the intraepithelial lymphocytes to villous atrophy, as staged by Marsh et al and successively by Oberhuber et al.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |date2014=
(
help)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me last year. I fully understand the seriousness of a gluten free diet (I'm a cell biologist and spent some time researching celiac disease and gluten testing methods).
I wanted to let you know about an article that just came out that describes a "Purity Protocol" for growing gluten free oats, which has become a standard for quality gluten free oat producers. Purity Protocl Publication in Cereal Chemistry Journal
Additionally, a previous publication shows that the varieties of oats which cause reactions in people with CD can be detected by the G12 antibody. Official link and Full Text. This strongly suggests that oats grown with a purity protocol and verified with the G12 antibody are safe for people with CD.
Is there a way to include this information in this wiki page?
Moving this here for discussion - this was in the section on the fad diet - Gluten-free_diet#As_a_fad_diet. This was introduced somewhere in this slew of edits.
However, in a subset of autistic patients who have a genuine gluten sensitivity, there is limited evidence that suggests that a gluten-free diet may improve some autistic behaviors. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
At this time, the studies attempting to treat symptoms of autism with diet have not been sufficient to support the general institution of a gluten-free or other diet for all children with autism
- This is exactly the kind of hype that Wikipedia needs to be an antidote against per NPOV and I will go so far as to cite PSCI here. Jytdog ( talk) 20:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I will restore the text which was previously talked, approved and included on version of 15:03, 9 November 2015, and is not supported by "primary sources", nor "weasel wording" not "junk science" [9].
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 12:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I rectified: the sources already present that support the deleted phrase are all (three). Also the third, 2008 Cochrane review.
Of all existing literature until 2008, only two studies meet criteria for for include them on Cochrane review, which only focuses on RCTs. One study showed significant lower autistic traits and the other one is questionable because the diet may have been breached by participants. That is, with strict diet, there was positive results.
We can read at the abstract PMID 18425890: "Two small RCTs were identified (n = 35). No meta-analysis was possible. There were only three significant treatment effects in favour of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = -5.60 (95% CI -9.02 to -2.18), z = 3.21, p=0.001 (Knivsberg 2002) ; social isolation, MD = -3.20 (95% CI -5.20 to 1.20), z = 3.14, p = 0.002) and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.90), z = 2.77, p = 0.006) (Knivsberg 2003). In addition three outcomes showed no significant difference between the treatment and control group and we were unable to calculate mean differences for ten outcomes because the data were skewed. No outcomes were reported for disbenefits including harms." (Again, it supports "...gluten-free diet may improve some autistic behaviors.")
We can read at the full text [12]: One study showed significant lower autistic traits in the intervention group compared to the control group and the other study showed no difference between the intervention and the control group.... The second trial... was a small scale study, intended only as a pilot for a much larger study and the authors declared their suspicions that the integrity of the diet may have been breached by participants requesting food from siblings and peers.
Besides knowing what means "standard treatment", we must differentiate "solid scientific evidence" (RCTs, 2008 Cochrane review) from "documented evidence". Nevertheless, in both cases it is clear that gluten-free diet can improve some autistic behaviors.
What we can do is change the wording and be more specific. The objective is that readers know the reality, without vagueness, and find the specific details here, and not resort to trashy forums or websites, or put unfounded hopes (sorry if I do not get properly express what I mean).
First, I will now add the results of 2008 Cochrane (Main results, at abstract). You cannot be opposed because as you said, is a gold-standard source.
And second, I propose to modify the deleted text, and say something like this, to achieve a neutral point of view ("As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public") and make a necessary distinction between standard treatment and a therapy useful in a subgroup of patients, supported by the more recent reviews of 2013 and 2015:
I await your opinions.
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 17:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I think there has been an effort in this article to focus on a gluten-free diet as a medical practice, in an attempt to avoid promoting pseudoscience. It might make more sense to give more space to addressing/debunking the pop culture, non-scientifically supported forms of this diet, rather than pretending they do not exist. 2601:644:0:DBD0:7D80:BEBE:70E2:E197 ( talk) 21:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
NB: I did
this. Was reverted
here. (added this header
Jytdog (
talk)
18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC))
so a gluten-free diet is put under the "treatment" bucket in schematic discussions, as it is the only way we have to manage the condition. it doesn't really treat the condition. Happy to have an RfC on this. The distinction is somewhat important. Jytdog ( talk) 22:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) Are you insisting that we only use the term "treatment" in this article with respect to using the GFD? 2) Does that reflect the developing consensus of discussion here in your view? Just brief answers please. Yes or no would be enough actually. Jytdog ( talk) 20:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify Jytdog ( talk) 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC))
@
Jytdog: I've been asking you several times to take the time to read and check. It is clear you did not do it, because otherwise you would not be saying these things. Please, it's not a game. Respect my work, I am wasting a lot of time for explaining clearly, trying to reach an agreement, that you are not valuing.
This diff is the result of the page after my edit, therefore, those are your changes (that I did not touch) what is being shown. It's just a matter of choosing the versions to compare.
I will detail them and, please, take the time to check them. In your second change, you made 8 changes. I undid 5 and maintained 3 of them:
02:31, 1 May 2017 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (62,616 bytes) (+2) . . ("treat" >> "manage")
And all these changes are the same as this dif.
I do not know what else I can do to make you understand me... -- BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It must be time to move on from this discussion. Management and Treatment are both reasonable in context. See what the sources use. This kind of bitter, to-and-fro is likely to be what puts editors off from continuing to be part of the WP community. Jrfw51 ( talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)