Low gluten diets linked to higher risk of type 2 diabetes
 

I'm not sure a 13 percent difference even warrants further investigation, let alone warranting confirmation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70309120626.htm

Edited to add the source.

They compared people who ate SAD with people who ate SAD using gluten-free products.

!!!!!!!

As Dr. Davis of Wheatbelly points out all the time, gluten free products ditch the wheat, but you still have the carbs from the cornstarch or tapioca or whatever they are using. And both have the same amounts of sugar.

It is trying to tell people gluten is a fad, I think.

I would bet that people with gluten allergies when finding a gluten free products or a different grain they can use probably eat it in large quantites.
Just like LF people eat lots of junk.

An example of just how unimpressive a 13 percent reduction in prevalence really is;



According to this study, increasing total fiber from 30 grams per day to 35 grams per day decreased type 2 diabetes prevalence (they say risk, they should mean prevalence, risk implies cause) by 13 percent. Not a lot of plausibility here. A more likely explanation is that people generally more health conscious at the time tended to eat more fiber. Not everybody who eats high fiber is health conscious. Some of them might just really really like Taco Bell, maybe correcting for Taco Bell would have yielded even better results. :p They talk about dose response, but as dose goes up, percent of group that's health conscious could very easily go up, dose response doesn't really imply causation.

Looks like they want to save the base of the crumbling food pyramid.

Dietary fiber is not a micronutrient. In fact, it provides exactly zero nutrition because we cannot digest it. In fact, that's the sole reason it's claimed to be beneficial.

And what kind of vitamin or mineral is dietary fiber, hm?

Thirty years ago, I knew exactly nothing about diet or health, let alone gluten. I was 18, never heard of gluten or celiac or anything like that. I find it very unlikely that anybody else would have known anything about gluten back then either. A thirty-year follow-up of ignorance is meaningless.

If we want to hypothesize an alternative explanation, it's the gluten-free vs whole grains. There's tons more whole-anything than gluten-free crap. The idea of whole-anything being more healthy than refined is much much stronger and prevalent than any idea about gluten. Ergo, any effect can be explained by the tendency to adopt a multitude of genuinely better choices non-diet when choosing whole-anything in diet, vs when choosing gluten-free.

The 13 percent figure is relative, not absolute. The absolute figure is closer to 0.1%, a quantity that is easily explained by even the most benign mistake.

Right. I've heard gluten-free carb foods (cookie/bread mixes, noodles etc.) are just as bad if not worse in terms of refined carbohydrate negative health effects (diabetes, etc.) as the refined wheat they replace. The key of course is to replace refined carbohydrates with whole real foods instead of just other highly refined stuff. For the person aware of the health detriment of too much carbohydrate such as readers here, that would likely mean replacing wheat with healthy fats/proteins/veggies, that sort of stuff, instead of just other non-gluten grains.

Exactly. Following people online, they are either celiacs who are on a never ending quest to eat just like they used to, only gluten-free; or they are people who act like gluten-free is all you need to do.

When the truth is, it is part of a whole foods diet with carbohydrate restriction; that's the right combination.

Dr. Davis, of Wheatbellyblog, on this study:

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2017/...ines-get-wrong/

That's because for all it's faults, wheat has more protein and fewer carbs than the stuff they replace it with, like tapioca.

Is this true I am on Gluten free for a long time :confused:

No, I don't think it's true. "Low" gluten intake was a bit under 4 grams. Google puts gluten in bread at 11-15 percent, so that's 44-66 grams of bread. Not low enough to spare people who are celiac or wheat sensitive. And there's not guarantee that what people ate instead of the wheat was any better for them than wheat. For instance--take somebody eating ten slices of wheat bread a day, and no sugar. Replace half the bread calories with sugar. Wheat went down, I'd say probability of diabetes went up.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but you just dragged a hidden memory from my brain. Is it possible as a child I actually buttered (most likely hydrogenated margarine) white bread and covered it with sugar.

Oh, the memories!!

I remember as a child slathering hot toast (white bread, of course) with margarine, covering with brown sugar and cinnamon, then sprinkling hot black coffee to melt the sugar. I felt so sophisticated and grown up!

Thus began my later adult addiction to food-court cinnamon buns washed down with coffee in a paper cup! :o :eek:

Thankfully, that's all gone now :)


:rose: