Yesterday, Slate published one of its patented “I’m calling bullshit!” pieces, this time by Daniel Engber. The subject? Are we over-(self)diagnosing gluten intolerance?
These patients are described as having "gluten intolerance," a nebulous condition that amounts to something like celiac-lite: They feel pain or discomfort after eating wheat, rye, or barley but lack the hallmark signs of intestinal deterioration.[...]
Since there's no way to "prove" a case of gluten-intolerance in the lab, the diagnostic criteria are rather lax. To qualify for the condition, you need only discover (with or without medical supervision) that going "G-free" makes you feel better—in body or mind or spirit.
But what about all those people who insist that quitting gluten really, really does make them feel better, really for reals? Blame your amazing, adaptable body
Now imagine that you've cut out gluten from your diet completely—that means no bread, no cereal, no wheat whatsoever. Chances are you'll have reduced your total intake of carbs, and thus the amount of α-amylase in your gut. In other words, the mere fact of being on a gluten-free diet could make you more sensitive to grains and cereals—which would only reinforce your conviction that you're gluten-intolerant. Slip up for even one meal, and you'll pay the price with indigestion. (Same goes for people who don't eat meat or dairy: A momentary lapse can yield a nasty stomachache.)
We wish Engber luck with this line of argument. Biology can never hope to compete with anecdote, placebo, or peer-group affirmations. Trying to talk someone out of being G-free is like trying to reason with an anorexic.
Best sentence in the article: “As an erstwhile Neapolitan, he did seem disturbed that people might be giving up pizza without legitimate medical reasons.”
Posts
