Talk:Gluten-free diet

Sources

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)

People die from trying a gluten-free diet? I'm surprised you fact-tagged the obvious celiac and derm (whose wikilinked articles amply cover the issue), and there are adequate sources for others as phrased. Deletionism gone too far. And these continued reverts with popups and no discussion are anti WP:DR and just tend to escalate. Jim Butler^(talk) 06:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, please respect Wikipedia:Civility. The edit after your deletion was simply following guidelines according to Wikipedia:Citing sources --apers0n 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

G'day, agree that people don't die from going on a gluten free diet. Quite a ridiculous claim, indeed. Please do not revert without first discussing your grievances - or better still, find the appropriate citations and help us make this article more complete, not less. Webaware 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Webaware and Apers0n for properly formatting those ref's I added. It was late last night and I just wanted to get them in. Much appreciation, Jim Butler^(talk) 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just grateful that you dug them up, so that I didn't have to :) Webaware 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Crap like this leads to people dying." what? you have to be kidding!? Ignorance kills, gluten-free diets don't. There is plenty of evidence that gluten, wheat, dairy and sugar all contribute to health issues. Here are more of your "ridiculous claims". --Travisthurston 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=12454882

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1470899.stm

http://www.glutenfreeworks.com/gluten_explained.php

http://www.buffaloglutenfree.org/articles/article/1288898/12374.htm

Read these web sites and eat your words, not gluten, it will kill you… even if you’re a naive imbecile like these guys. - JoeMalacka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.167.238 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (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)

Holy external links Batman!

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)

Negative Side Effects

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)

Really? The extraction of gluten and the original use of purified gluten as a food product is thought to have occurred in Asia. Many Asian populations eat noodles the contain gluten. 68.46.99.241 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he was pointing out that many Asian cultures rely on rice/curry or rice/pulse or rice/enterfavoritefoodhere combinations. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2009 (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)

General Reorganization

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)

Gluten Free Beer

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)

Agree, this section is pretty much a direct cut&paste from Gluten-free beer. It has too much prominence here and should therefore be shortened. I'll have a go - please help. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My First Edit

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.

Hows 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I successfully made the edit.

But I wish to explain further changes.

-*

• Dr Steve Ford divides the market into two types: "no gluten" and "low gluten", writing that the resource promotes choice - to choose a beer if that is wanted, and to allow the coeliac to have a choice of brew that they may wish to consume. [17]*

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)

corn gluten

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

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5665152-description.htmlude=en_ProductMaster.jsp&layer=2&fseq=14&type=product

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)

Dairy and other products.

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

• Skimming down that list I noticed that Kasha is in the Avoid category. Since Kasha is pure buckwheat groats I have misgivings about the accuracy of the list. However, Kasha is also listed as avoid under the Mayo Clinic list. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gluten-free-diet/DG00063
  Yet it is listed as acceptable (as are buckwheat groats) at Beth Isreal Deacones Medical Center at http://www.bidmc.org/~/media/Files/CentersandDepartments/DigestiveDiseaseCenter/GlutenFreeDietBIDMCrevisedJan2006.ashx. It seems that for certain grains and foods it's not that the food itself is acceptable or not, it's if it has been contaminated during production and processing. This is one of the major hurdles to eating a 100% wheat-gluten free diet. Dogsgomoo (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC) dogsgomoo

Section on Accuracy of "Gluten-Free" Labels is bad

How can soemthing contain 10million -1 parts per million of anything? Peter 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

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)

Maltodextrin Inconsistancy

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)

Pictures?

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)

The crossed grain symbol of one of the coeliac societies would be ideal, e.g. [1]. They need to be emailed for permission. Njál (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholic Beverages

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)

Tartrazine

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)

Cost

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)

Coeliacs/Celiacs

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)

Autism

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)

Dining out

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)

Supplement section

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)

Deficiencies linked to maintaining a gluten-free diet

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)

There is a statement that gluten-free foods are often low in some nutrients, supported only by a citation of about.com, which doesn't seem to me to be a reliable source for this. (I doubt Wikipedia should be citing about.com about anything; seems similar to citing Wikipedia.) I found these refs, but I think we would probably need a secondary source:

• [2] Gluten-free diet survey: are Americans with coeliac disease consuming recommended amounts of fibre, iron, calcium and grain foods? T. Thompson1, M. Dennis2, L. A. Higgins3, A. R. Lee4, M. K. Sharrett5
• [3]Dietary habits of Swedish adult coeliac patients treated by a gluten-free diet for 10 years. Susanne Grehn, Karin Fridell, Margaretha Lilliecreutz, Claes Hallert Food & Nutrition Research, Vol 45 (2001)

This one might do:

• [4] Dietary guidelines and implementation for celiac disease Cynthia Kupper Gastroenterology Volume 128, Issue 4, Supplement 1 , Pages S121-S127, April 2005

☺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: [5] Does it need to be completely rewritten? Sshadow12 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Sshadow12

k12academics seems to get their content from wikipedia, not the other way around. Bhny (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

true, my bad. did you see any other sites that could be used for references as Coppertwig suggested?Sshadow12 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Medicines section

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." 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)