Interesting discussion yesterday in relationship to non-Celiac gluten sensitivity. Many of you reported relief in learning that this was a thing, and I heard over and over that there is the opinion out there (whether it is from friends, family, the peanut gallery or whoever) that non-Celiac gluten sensitivity is a psychological phenomenon. So, of course you can go on to any variety of blogs and see that people are saying this. Going to blogs to confirm your biases or opinions doesnt make them true, however. Because there is this little thing called science. Its not perfect and often raises more questions than it answers (that is why we love it, right?) but it can confirm and/or deny hypotheses. In any scientific endeavor, you will find evidence that both confirms and denies phenomenon. We see this frequently in nutrition and pharmaceutical studies. In the case of non-Celiac gluten sensitivity, there is a far larger body of evidence that CONFIRMS this phenomenon rather than denies it. Citing one study in which people with IBS that went gluten-free didnt have symptom improvement doesnt disprove the notion of NCGS, it supports the notion that not all with IBS are sensitive to gluten. This is confirmed by scientific and clinical data both - no major revelation there. Secondly, IBS and NCGS are two separate things. They cannot be simply lumped together to categorically make dismissive claims. I mean, one *could* do that, but it simply makes you look uninformed and biased. We are all biased. To be human is to be biased, in some way or another. But making health claims based on your opinion and supporting them with the opinions and biases of others isnt science. Its just…chatter. Confirmation of your own biases through a narrow lens. It shows you dont understand scientific inquiry and that you havent read the body of literature about the subject you are making a claim about. And that is NOT science. That is NOT objective. So, again, YES, non-Celiac gluten sensitivity is a thing. Go to Pub Med and search non-Celiac gluten sensitivity. The mark of a scientist, of a clinician, is to not be biased. Even when we want to be. Science is not a news channel or a political party or a sports team or a religion. In its purest form it is objective and unemotional. It casts a wide net and takes a broad view and the best scientists and clinicians read ALL of the literature out there before forming an opinion. And even after an opinion is formed, the scientist realizes that this opinion could change based on more data or more clinical experience. I understand there is frustration in some, who are treating being gluten-free like it is a fad. Undoubtedly there are people who are swept up in a fad. This is not new, this happens all the time. However, when the fad passes, there will still be plenty of people who must remain gluten-free. Your frustration with a perceived fad does not negate the premise of the fad. There are plenty of people out there who dont get it because theyve never experienced a sensitivity to a food - I get that too. And I say, lucky you, youve been spared, but your lack of experience does not negate the experiences of others. Just my two cents. Keep it to the science, loves...
Posted on: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 11:53:00 +0000