Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

6

Do we have this? According to Chris Masterjohn, we don't.

Chris Masterjohn on How to Properly Interpret Ex Vivo Studies -- Gluten and Leaky Gut As an Example:

Consequently, neither Dr. Fasano's most recent study showing that non-celiac gluten-sensitive patients do not have leaky gut nor the double-blind controlled trial showing that gluten does not cause leaky gut in non-celiac gluten-sensitive patients rule out the possibility that there is some subset of non-celiac subjects, somewhere on the face of the earth, perhaps autistics, perhaps not, who actually do respond to gluten by developing leaky guts. But to my knowledge there is no solid evidence of this and if anyone knows of some, again, please post it in the comments.

But according to Aaron B.(resident paleo hacker)

If you think science hasn't already provided "undeniable evidence wheat messes you up," then I'd say you're setting the bar for "undeniable" so high it can never be reached.

Can someone show me this science Aaron B eludes to?

flag	asked Jul 10 2011 at 12:51 WaveHunter 870●1●7

There is none.....not one. – The Quilt Jul 10 2011 at 20:52

David Rourke · Answer 1 · 2011-07-10 14:29:23Z UTC

6

From what I have read, the evidence just isn't there. I suspect that evidence will be coming as more studies are done, but I can't prove it.

I have clear evidence that eating gluten grains causes me to get skin rashes. I believe that eliminating gluten has also contributed to a number of other health benefits I experience on paleo. But we must clearly distinguish between what has been established empirically and what is merely suggested by multiple lines of evidence and reasoning.

answered Jul 10 2011 at 14:29

David Rourke
3,871●2●14

2

I agree completely. I wouldn't say there is "no solid evidence" but not enough evidence to meet scientific standards. I also believe that the evidence will be coming as more studies are done. – Shari Bambino Jul 10 2011 at 15:48

4

Great answer, I agree too. And I think that, in the meantime, the paleo community should be careful to avoid falling into zealous attachment to a nutritional tenet without rock-solid evidence for all our claims. Isn't that what we always criticise conventional dietary advice for? I mean, look at how upset a few (not most, mind you) people in the paleo community get if you try to suggest that maybe eating some pasta once a week isn't basically the same thing as drinking arsenic once a week, or that gluten isn't a death sentence for everyone. – Olivia Jul 10 2011 at 20:37

1

I'd agree Olivia. Which is why rather than citing a study or something I find it easier and more convenient to simply answer the why with a, "because I just feel very good eating this way." is there a better answer? – ben61820 Jul 10 2011 at 21:35

The prevalence of these paleo-skeptic questions and responses i. The paleo community is what I love about it most – Coja Mar 25 2012 at 18:59

Kirill · Answer 2 · 2011-07-10 20:39:11Z UTC

6

Yes, it has been proven. Look up WGA on Pubmed. It trashes the brush border of intestinal lining whether you digest gluten or not. Are there people who are somehow not affected by it? Maybe. But they have not been found yet.

We have a mechanism for direct damage and a ton of massive negative associations, but we DO NOT have a mechanism for avoiding damage or positive associations. So the logically sound thing to do is to consider wheat a toxic food and avoid it.

answered Jul 10 2011 at 20:39

Kirill
827●2●5

1

I looked it up and found lots of contradictions in your statement. Check this out for example digitool.library.colostate.edu/webclient/… "According to the protocol utilized, WGA was not detected in venous plasma samples from any of the subjects following consumption of 50 g of wheat germ, thereby indicating that the available WGA in wheat germ either did not breach the gut barrier"..."Processing appeared to alleviate the bioactivity of WGA in one study that showed that the lectin was no longer detectable in wholemeal pastas after cooking at 65º C for 30 minutes" – WaveHunter Jul 10 2011 at 22:30

1

I found this ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332085 "At nanomolar concentrations WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory cytokines and thus the biological activity of WGA should be reconsidered by taking into account the effects of WGA on the immune system at the gastrointestinal interface. These results shed new light onto the molecular mechanisms underlying the onset of gastrointestinal disorders observed in vivo upon dietary intake of wheat-based foods." – WaveHunter Jul 10 2011 at 22:45

2

Yes, it's toxic at nanomolar concentrations. So it doesn't need to be heat stable, because any nanomole that survives will damage the brush border. Add the other effects of wheat(some below) and multiply by a few months of consuming this staple food and additive. – Kirill Jul 11 2011 at 2:18

4

WGA perturbed the integrity of the epithelium and increased the permeability of the tissue in a dose- and time-dependent manner: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/… Along with a few wheat storage proteins WGA also happens to be an insulin memetic, interacting directly with the receptor sites. – Kirill Jul 11 2011 at 2:19

1

Gliadin upregulates zonulin, increasing intestinal permeability: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/… The above is basically Alicio Fasano's proposed mechanism shown to work. – Kirill Jul 11 2011 at 2:20

show 4 more comments

Jeff · Answer 3 · 2011-07-10 19:45:39Z UTC

4

Is it possible that the implications of implicating gluten as being harmful to EVERYONE are too much for the scientific community and the government to be responsible for?

I mean, what would be the public response to a government statement that said gluten causes inflammation, which can lead to auto-immune diseases, heart disease, etc.

Even if there were indisputable evidence I don't see it being released.

answered Jul 10 2011 at 19:45

Jeff
16.6k●1●8●33

Good point. A lot of nutritional information we believe and wish more people knew about fall into a similar dilemma: that the implications of a government body coming out and acknowledging a harm in something they've professed to be healthy are simply too great. So, the truth of the nutrition doesn't matter. Rather, a more political issue of towing the line and culpability. – ben61820 Jul 10 2011 at 21:32

why would I get 2 downvotes for this? – Jeff Jul 10 2011 at 22:36

3

sounds like a conspiracy theory – WaveHunter Jul 10 2011 at 22:37

it may but it's also a legitimate question – Jeff Jul 10 2011 at 22:44

I gave you a +1! – HeatherC Jul 10 2011 at 23:27

show 5 more comments

miked · Answer 4 · 2011-07-11 15:40:52Z UTC

The question you're asking can't be answered. Basically when it comes to applying science to our diets there are two approaches (I think we need to use both because there are limits in either case).

First, there's the "Gary Taubes" approach. Where he cares mostly about observables. This is close to your question: I.e., "does gluten mess up healthy people"? In this situation you need to both define "mess up" and "healthy people", and then do a study and look at the outcomes at the level of "what happened to the people".

The other approach (and where I lean), I'll call the "Mat Lalonde" approach. (I probably lean this way because I'm a chemist too.) In this approach we concern ourselves with the biochemical mechanisms: Glutens cause some types of cells to "fall apart". The types of cells that it interferes with are in the gut. When the gut lining breaks down, whole proteins get into the blood. When whole proteins get into the blood you can get autoimmune responses. Etc. Here we're talking at the chemical level. And as you're concerned maybe that doesn't happen with "healthy" people and there may not be an observable.

So back to your question, you want "scientific evidence" that gluten "messes up" "healthy people". I put the quotes in there because those terms need to be defined. Lets start from the back of the question:

"Healthy People" How do you define healthy people? There are lots of people that may appear healthy but have some weird skin rash that they wouldn't attribute to gluten, they may just call it dry skin. Or someone may have a permanently runny nose, and they just say it's allergies. So you'll need some (hopefully simple and easy to defend to your audience) metric that distinguishes between health and non-healthy people

"Messes Up" What do you mean messes up? Autoimmune problems? Seemingly random diarrhea? Chronically runny nose? Skin rashes? Bloating after eating? You need to pick the metric you're comparing in your study.

"Scientific Evidence" Given that you've defined healthy people (at a level that your audience can understand) and that you've defined "messes up" to single out 1 or 2 (at most) illnesses. You need to split your people up into multiple groups, control their food, and hopefully not have any other confounds in your study.

I'm stopping here before this gets longer, but in reality science is hard, and it's even harder to get right. That's why you'll never find a "definitive" study either way that something is good or bad for you, you have to look at how the good and bad were defined in THAT study. That's why I generally lean towards the mechanistic approach, we can understand what the molecules are doing and then extrapolate and say "if I don't eat gluten, I won't damage my gut and get all the problem that come along with a damaged gut". Then, as I did, I quit eating gluten and things are better. So, FOR ME, I'm happy.

One study (Key's Seven Country Study) is the only study out there that said "fat is bad" and then people interpreted it as the definitive study that and said that fat was bad. There was no mechanistic given. Just "fat messes up people" and everyone bought it.

luckybastard · Answer 5 · 2011-07-11 15:57:39Z UTC

2

http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ajg2010487a.html

answered Jul 11 2011 at 15:57

luckybastard♦
12.5k●1●14●65

BAMBAM · Answer 6 · 2011-07-10 14:01:27Z UTC

0

Drink gluten smoothies for breakfast every morning if you're convinced it provides some health benefit.

answered Jul 10 2011 at 14:01

BAMBAM
3,821●4●23

2

I am not convinced gluten has a health benefit. My question is, does gluten mess up healthy people? – WaveHunter Jul 10 2011 at 14:10

HeatherC · Answer 7 · 2011-07-10 14:53:01Z UTC

I never thought I had any problems with gluten and I absolutely love bread so I've eaten I'm sure, more than my fair share over the years. That being said, a couple of years ago when I first read about paleo, I cut all grains and bread out for about 2-3 months before the occasional sandwich started to creep back into my diet. It was at that point when I started paying attention to how I felt whenever I would eat bread/gluten. I felt bloated, sluggish, and just overall shitty. Since then, knowing that gluten does have an effect on me, it has still been a struggle to not slip back into eating it periodically.

And now, I turned 40 last week and my present was finding out I have developed an autoimmune disease. I cannot say that grains or gluten are to blame but it certainly is possible and no one else in my family has ever had an autoimmune disease so I can't trace it in genes either.

Nita · Answer 8 · 2011-07-10 15:34:22Z UTC

0

How would you go about proving this? You'd need a group of healthy people who've never (or not recently) eaten gluten for a baseline before giving half of them gluten and testing both for differences.

Or you could do what most of us have done and take people (us) who have been eating gluten all their lives, remove the gluten from their diets, and then find out if they're healthier than they were eating gluten. Everyone here who feels better when they're not eating gluten raise your hand. Not exactly scientific, but if you're waiting around for the scientific community to do that study, don't hold your breath.

answered Jul 10 2011 at 15:34

Nita
274●2●3

Another good point. This goes back to the "don't believe me? Just try it" line of discussion. I got one friend completely into the paleo thing from exactly this. She's doing very well. – ben61820 Jul 10 2011 at 21:33

We also have lots of N=1 of people giving up gluten sometimes for years and going back to gluten with no problems. People like Matt Stone, Daniel Vitalis, Chris Masterjohn. – WaveHunter Jul 10 2011 at 22:33

1

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Unless what you're really trying to say is that to prove that wheat is a problem in general the standard would have to be that every person in the world would have to have a provable negative response. Let me put it this way. At what point do you draw the line? If you took a random sampling of 100 healthy people & ran them through an elimination/challenge test for gluten, how many of those 100 people would have to have a negative reaction to gluten for you to conclude that gluten causes problems for otherwise healthy people? – Nita Jul 11 2011 at 1:59

Going back to gluten and having no problems happens... but that doesn't mean they won't have problems in future. (they may, they may not). It isn't always an instant reaction. – waywardsister Jul 11 2011 at 21:52

Conch Shell · Answer 9 · 2011-08-03 23:28:03Z UTC

0

None.

Zero.

Period.

answered Aug 3 2011 at 23:28

Conch Shell
91●2

Scientific Evidence Gluten messes up healthy people?

9 Answers