Gluten free fad.

Losty Dublin

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Your own tummy must be in bad way to write that sh!te.

No, it's fine ever since I swapped gluten for lactose free kale in my diet.

Risteard

Diagnosed coeliac. Keep going everybody. I remember when my mother would have to go to the doctor to get a prescription to bring to a chemist to buy bread which was only stocked once in a blue moon.

Now I can just walk into any old supermarket/cafe and have a gluten free sandwich if I so choose. It's great

Arbie

There was a good article about this in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/16/leave-it-out-are-food-intolerances-fact-or-fad-gluten-dairy-free-from-coeliac

witchgirl26 wrote: »

And in fact for a lot of intolerance, the advice from a medically trained dietitian I got was that completely eliminating the item from your diet can led to a higher level of intolerance as if you accidentally ingest some of it, your body won't have any idea how to deal with it. You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems. And obviously none if it's a full on allergy as opposed to an intolerance.

Did a qualified dietitian tell you that? You may have misunderstood them or maybe they explained it poorly, either way it's not correct. Some people can still ingest small amounts of the offending food product and not have symptoms, but it is not true that elimination can make it worse.

Turtle_

Arbie wrote: »

There was a good article about this in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/16/leave-it-out-are-food-intolerances-fact-or-fad-gluten-dairy-free-from-coeliac



Did a qualified dietitian tell you that? You may have misunderstood them or maybe they explained it poorly, either way it's not correct. Some people can still ingest small amounts of the offending food product and not have symptoms, but it is not true that elimination can make it worse.

I'm lactose intolerant too and what that poster said is 100% correct. I butter my toast, but a glass of milk? Not a hope. I'll be in ribbons. Cheddar cheese is fine, but a creamy Brie is out of the question. An intolerance is basically a reduced ability to digest a substance, not a complete allergic inability to handle any of it. Adults who can digest milk do so as a result of a mutation that allows them to produce lactase beyond infancy. By completely eliminating lactose you allow the lactase production to shut down completely.

Very arrogant of people who say "oh well you can't have the chips because they're fried in oil that fries food with gluten." Those people know their own tolerance level a whole heap better than you do.

witchgirl26

Arbie wrote: »

Did a qualified dietitian tell you that? You may have misunderstood them or maybe they explained it poorly, either way it's not correct. Some people can still ingest small amounts of the offending food product and not have symptoms, but it is not true that elimination can make it worse.

Yes a qualified dietitian in a hospital told me that. I underwent the FODMAP diet for intolerance under their care and the first part of that was total elimination followed by re-introduction of groupings to identify not only intolerance but levels of same. She told me that the most recent evidence was saying that if you are able to handle a small piece without side effects, then it is actually beneficial to keep it in your diet as it means the reaction may not be as severe if it is ingested accidentally.

Winterlong

I dont know why people get so hung up on what other people eat to be honest.
If yeast products do not agree with you and this causes you to eat less of them then good for you. None of my business as long as you are happy.
My diet, my body, my health and my life.

We don't stand outside McDonalds and point and stare at people going in for their double mc fatboy burger with fries and milkshake - go large!

witchgirl26

Turtle_ wrote: »

I'm lactose intolerant too and what that poster said is 100% correct. I butter my toast, but a glass of milk? Not a hope. I'll be in ribbons. Cheddar cheese is fine, but a creamy Brie is out of the question. An intolerance is basically a reduced ability to digest a substance, not a complete allergic inability to handle any of it. Adults who can digest milk do so as a result of a mutation that allows them to produce lactase beyond infancy. By completely eliminating lactose you allow the lactase production to shut down completely.

Very arrogant of people who say "oh well you can't have the chips because they're fried in oil that fries food with gluten." Those people know their own tolerance level a whole heap better than you do.

Thank you! Like I said - that is only for intolerance not for people with a full blown allergy. Two completely different things.

Mr.Wemmick

Losty Dublin wrote: »

No, it's fine ever since I swapped gluten for lactose free kale in my diet.

Oh, I am glad.. that is indeed good to know.

Be careful, tho' with the lactose-free kale, the sh!te tends to go the wrong way.

Which explains..

Arbie

Turtle_ wrote: »

I'm lactose intolerant too and what that poster said is 100% correct. I butter my toast, but a glass of milk? Not a hope. I'll be in ribbons. Cheddar cheese is fine, but a creamy Brie is out of the question. An intolerance is basically a reduced ability to digest a substance, not a complete allergic inability to handle any of it. Adults who can digest milk do so as a result of a mutation that allows them to produce lactase beyond infancy. By completely eliminating lactose you allow the lactase production to shut down completely.

Very arrogant of people who say "oh well you can't have the chips because they're fried in oil that fries food with gluten." Those people know their own tolerance level a whole heap better than you do.

Turtle, please don't call people arrogant when they are trying to be helpful. I have been polite in all my posts and if you read back, I defended people who choose to avoid certain foods even if they don't eliminate them or don't have a diagnosis. What people eat is up to them, my concern is that they should be given accurate information and that they are not confused by anecdotal evidence or unclear advice.

Eliminating lactose does not completely stop lactase production. Depending on the population and the genetics, it may be constitutively secreted (always on) or may be induced (requires a stimulus, i.e. lactose ingestion) - usually a combination of both. Avoiding lactose does not prevent the body from producing lactose in the future, even years down the line, that's not how it works. If you have clear evidence that says otherwise, please share it, as I am not a professor of food intolerances and am open to learning.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

for a lot of intolerance, the advice from a medically trained dietitian I got was that completely eliminating the item from your diet can led to a higher level of intolerance as if you accidentally ingest some of it, your body won't have any idea how to deal with it. You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems. And obviously none if it's a full on allergy as opposed to an intolerance.

So next time you think someone is just following a fad coz they can handle a little bit of gluten in their diet, maybe remember that they may have an intolerance and probably know their body better than you.

...

Thank you! Like I said - that is only for intolerance not for people with a full blown allergy. Two completely different things.

witchgirl26, you are correct that allergy (an immune reaction) and intolerance (typically an enzyme deficiency) are different but many - perhaps most - people are not clear on this, which is why it is important to avoid generalisations like "for a lot of intolerance" and "You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems". There are some specific cases, e.g. lactose intolerance, where it may be beneficial (not least to ensure adequate dietary calcium intake), in which case elimination may be followed by reintroduction over time, but this should be under the guidance of a dietitian. It has to be handled cautiously as it is not appropriate for everyone, even if others with that particular intolerance have been successful. Patients can feel worse during elimination diets, which can be misconstrued, but there is not good evidence for what you say your dietitian advised.

This is veering a bit off topic and we are just anonymous randomers on the internet, so anyone affected by this should speak to their GP + dietitian rather than taking what we say as gospel.

witchgirl26

Arbie wrote: »

witchgirl26, you are correct that allergy (an immune reaction) and intolerance (typically an enzyme deficiency) are different but many - perhaps most - people are not clear on this, which is why it is important to avoid generalisations like "for a lot of intolerance" and "You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems". There are some specific cases, e.g. lactose intolerance, where it may be beneficial (not least to ensure adequate dietary calcium intake), in which case elimination may be followed by reintroduction over time, but this should be under the guidance of a dietitian. It has to be handled cautiously as it is not appropriate for everyone, even if others with that particular intolerance have been successful. Patients can feel worse during elimination diets, which can be misconstrued, but there is not good evidence for what you say your dietitian advised.

This is veering a bit off topic and we are just anonymous randomers on the internet, so anyone affected by this should speak to their GP + dietitian rather than taking what we say as gospel.

Arbie - with respect I'm going to take the word of my dietitian and the medical research pieces she gave to me for reading on this as I was interested as I had always been led to believe that even with an intolerance to a food, you should avoid completely. Which more and more research is showing isn't always the best approach.

I wasn't giving any medical advice. If you are coeliac then you have an allergy & have been diagnosed as such so of course you should follow your medical professional's advice. I was more pointing out to people who were being scornful of people being ok with a small amount of gluten etc. Example being the sandwich and chips scenario mentioned previously.

Arbie

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Arbie - with respect I'm going to take the word of my dietitian and the medical research pieces she gave to me for reading on this as I was interested as I had always been led to believe that even with an intolerance to a food, you should avoid completely. Which more and more research is showing isn't always the best approach.

I wasn't giving any medical advice. If you are coeliac then you have an allergy & have been diagnosed as such so of course you should follow your medical professional's advice. I was more pointing out to people who were being scornful of people being ok with a small amount of gluten etc. Example being the sandwich and chips scenario mentioned previously.

No-one said you should not follow your dietitian's advice. In fact, I highlighted the importance of engaging with a GP + dietitian. Querying the advice of your dietitian is different and is reasonable on a public forum where you are offering an anecdote. Please share the evidence for your claims so we can all learn from it. It's much more useful for people to be able to read and print off the research that you mentioned so that they can consider it and discuss it with their GP/dietitian, rather than them discussing something vague mentioned on an anonymous forum.

No-one said you were giving medical advice, but now that you bring it up, saying "You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems" could be read as giving medical advice.

The point has been made repeatedly by several posters that people should be free to eat (or not eat) what they want and that some people may need to cut down rather than eliminate, and that's fine. It is not scornful or impolite to expect that when someone makes a statement about managing a medical condition that it should be open to discussion and challenge.

witchgirl26

Arbie wrote: »

No-one said you should not follow your dietitian's advice. In fact, I highlighted the importance of engaging with a GP + dietitian. Querying the advice of your dietitian is different and is reasonable on a public forum where you are offering an anecdote. Please share the evidence for your claims so we can all learn from it. It's much more useful for people to be able to read and print off the research that you mentioned so that they can consider it and discuss it with their GP/dietitian, rather than them discussing something vague mentioned on an anonymous forum.

No-one said you were giving medical advice, but now that you bring it up, saying "You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems" could be read as giving medical advice.

The point has been made repeatedly by several posters that people should be free to eat (or not eat) what they want and that some people may need to cut down rather than eliminate, and that's fine. It is not scornful or impolite to expect that when someone makes a statement about managing a medical condition that it should be open to discussion and challenge.

I'd love to share it but it was print outs given to me and I don't have them to hand at the moment as it was last year. I didn't get any soft-copies.

As for the second piece - you're right, that does in isolation sound like medical advice but the actual quote should be "...the advice from a medically trained dietitian I got was that completely eliminating the item from your diet can led to a higher level of intolerance as if you accidentally ingest some of it, your body won't have any idea how to deal with it. You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems." which doesn't read like that at all but as a follow on sentence from the previous one stating my experience.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be open for discussion but what I was saying was that people who eye roll because some-one has asked for gluten free bread but are ok with chips fried in something that may have had gluten in it is a bit scornful as you don't know to what level that person's intolerance is.

Arbie

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I'd love to share it but it was print outs given to me and I don't have them to hand at the moment as it was last year. I didn't get any soft-copies.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Which more and more research is showing isn't always the best approach

Ok, if you can find them do please share. You also said "more and more research" so maybe you can locate on PubMed, etc.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

As for the second piece - you're right, that does in isolation sound like medical advice but the actual quote should be "...the advice from a medically trained dietitian I got was that completely eliminating the item from your diet can led to a higher level of intolerance as if you accidentally ingest some of it, your body won't have any idea how to deal with it. You should try to keep a small level in your diet but only an amount that won't cause problems." which doesn't read like that at all but as a follow on sentence from the previous one stating my experience.

In full context it sounds even more like medical advice as you say it came from a healthcare professional.

Again, this is veering off topic and mods will send us packing.

PandaPoo

I'm reading this thread and my son is watching a kids tv show called Henry danger.

The little girl who is around 11 is currently going through her cupboards throwing anything out that has gluten in it. She told her mam it's because all the celebrities are doing it.

What a coincidence!