Poliquin on Gluten

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
Cr: There is one other thing I would have to add back in to your list that would make this a complete experiment.

  • Person removes gluten.
  • gets “better”
  • eventually adds gluten back in
  • feels like complete shit and relapses on all symptoms previously experienced before removing gluten.
  • Person removes gluten - cycle continues.

Are you saying all issues are just in our head?

[/quote]

What I would say is this: to make it a fair test, the person removing gluten from their diet would have to have an identical diet composition post-removal than they did before they stopped eating it. Same ratio of macronutrients etc. Then you can most likely attribute the ‘getting better’ to the absence of gluten.

The trouble is I’d bet 99% of people removing gluten from their diets also change a lot of other things e.g. proportion of carbohydrates in their diets, and by extension the timing of when they eat carbohydrates. They might be forced to eat more leafy greens or salads, and therefore be getting a better quality diet. Even subbing out pasta for a potato would give you more vitamins, even if total % carbs stayed the same.

IMO There’s just too much going on to be able to clearly see a signal of the gluten removal amongst all the nose of everything else thats changing.

22

there are som practioners though that remove one item at a time, such as grains and people still report back with a decrease in symptoms. I havent seen any persons come back post removal and say nothing happened. But this is one persons observations in one given area etc etc.

Moral of the story is do it or dont. Let people preach or believe in whatever they want, let em remove it and call it evil, if its helping people who cares?! Removing it isnt killing anyone, its not tanking the economy. the pro glutenists are mad because people show improvements in well being and then associate causality, let them.

23

[quote]BrentGoose wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
Cr: There is one other thing I would have to add back in to your list that would make this a complete experiment.

  • Person removes gluten.
  • gets “better”
  • eventually adds gluten back in
  • feels like complete shit and relapses on all symptoms previously experienced before removing gluten.
  • Person removes gluten - cycle continues.

Are you saying all issues are just in our head?

[/quote]

What I would say is this: to make it a fair test, the person removing gluten from their diet would have to have an identical diet composition post-removal than they did before they stopped eating it. Same ratio of macronutrients etc. Then you can most likely attribute the ‘getting better’ to the absence of gluten.

The trouble is I’d bet 99% of people removing gluten from their diets also change a lot of other things e.g. proportion of carbohydrates in their diets, and by extension the timing of when they eat carbohydrates. They might be forced to eat more leafy greens or salads, and therefore be getting a better quality diet. Even subbing out pasta for a potato would give you more vitamins, even if total % carbs stayed the same.

IMO There’s just too much going on to be able to clearly see a signal of the gluten removal amongst all the nose of everything else thats changing.

[/quote]

80% of my meals are 40g protein, 50g carbs, & 20g fat. No I do not use a food scale anymore, but I assure you that my macros are accurate within 10%. When I first started I cut out all gluten for about a month, and then as a cheat meal I ate a pizza…felt like shit, not hungry for +12 hours, and had some acne flare up in the days following.

I tried this a few different times, with different foods, and the same result. When I cheat with gluten free foods, I do not experience this. Yeah, maybe I’ll be real full after stuffing myself, but I digest it much quicker and I am hungry no later than 4-5 hours no matter the size of the meal.

As someone mentioned, the real test is to eliminate gluten for a couple weeks and then eat a gluten heavy meal…observe carefully how you feel. If you don’t feel any different, than go ahead keep eating it.

I don’t really agree with any of Poliquin’s claims, and I found Wheat Belly to be middling pop-sci fare…but for my bodybuilding and physique goals, avoiding gluten is the best thing for me. That’s why I said to try it out.

24

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
there are som practioners though that remove one item at a time, such as grains and people still report back with a decrease in symptoms. I havent seen any persons come back post removal and say nothing happened. But this is one persons observations in one given area etc etc.

Moral of the story is do it or dont. Let people preach or believe in whatever they want, let em remove it and call it evil, if its helping people who cares?! Removing it isnt killing anyone, its not tanking the economy. the pro glutenists are mad because people show improvements in well being and then associate causality, let them.[/quote]

kinda well said. No ones’s health will get worse by removing gluten, like it did by cutting back on the evil sat fat/chol. Now of course, marketers are getting clever and creating “gluten-free” foods that will still pose issues for people, so that’s another issue to consider.

25

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
Cr: There is one other thing I would have to add back in to your list that would make this a complete experiment.

  • Person removes gluten.
  • gets “better”
  • eventually adds gluten back in
  • feels like complete shit and relapses on all symptoms previously experienced before removing gluten.
  • Person removes gluten - cycle continues.

Are you saying all issues are just in our head?

[/quote]

Nowhere in my post did it say that. It was merely concerned with biases towards accepting false hypotheses based upon self experimentation rather than proper double blind scientific studies. Not accounting for the placebo effect or assuming that prior hypotheses were true simply because one felt better is a sign of poor methodology. Even with carefully planned individual elimination diets, there are observational biases and other variable changes that can impact the outcome.

Simply put, that gluten removal makes one feel better does not mean that hyperbolic claims made about gluten are necessarily true. I’m all for finding what food works best for one’s self but to extrapolate scientific significance or any truth from that, without serious caveats, is probably a step too far.

26

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
there are som practioners though that remove one item at a time, such as grains and people still report back with a decrease in symptoms. I havent seen any persons come back post removal and say nothing happened. But this is one persons observations in one given area etc etc.

Moral of the story is do it or dont. Let people preach or believe in whatever they want, let em remove it and call it evil, if its helping people who cares?! Removing it isnt killing anyone, its not tanking the economy. the pro glutenists are mad because people show improvements in well being and then associate causality, let them.[/quote]

kinda well said. No ones’s health will get worse by removing gluten, like it did by cutting back on the evil sat fat/chol. Now of course, marketers are getting clever and creating “gluten-free” foods that will still pose issues for people, so that’s another issue to consider.[/quote]

Tell that to people whose main source of significant caloric value is GMO wheat stock such as the varieties produced by Norman Borlaug.

Not everyone lives in the first world.

27

jehovz: its hard to say things very well at 5am but I try. People still make an issue out of this when I was under the assumption that it is mostly excepted as fact, no one has seen the opposite, meaning no one has removed gluten and seen a decline in health and wellness. The links to autism prograin peeps shout bullshit but from every parent I have heard from that has removed grains from the childs diet there has been improvement in cognitive function. I cant quote the dudes name but the gent who posted below you I can relate. In 1 day I had two pizookies, the 1st none gluten free gave me a mild stomach ache and I maybe felt like I was gona shit my pants. a few hours later I had another one gluten free and had no ill symptoms. Interesting. I live gluten free 98% of the time. I do tell others to go gluten free as well. My brother thrives off the shit, but he is a freak of nature anyways. No science just a statment.

CR: Im not kidding when I ask this but what study/studies can you full support that havent been swayed in some form or another or the study did not have an errors within it? The reason I ask is because I am finding it harder and harder to look at studies seriously. Every one that comes out gets ripped to shreds by other experts. We have studies backing the claims of almost everything and things that we know almost can not be accepted as correct. Have you tried going gluten free? (Sorry if I missed that answer in another post) What were the results?

28

also, and Im just asking, what did Poliquin say in the article that was incorrect?

29

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
jehovz: its hard to say things very well at 5am but I try. People still make an issue out of this when I was under the assumption that it is mostly excepted as fact, no one has seen the opposite, meaning no one has removed gluten and seen a decline in health and wellness. The links to autism prograin peeps shout bullshit but from every parent I have heard from that has removed grains from the childs diet there has been improvement in cognitive function. I cant quote the dudes name but the gent who posted below you I can relate. In 1 day I had two pizookies, the 1st none gluten free gave me a mild stomach ache and I maybe felt like I was gona shit my pants. a few hours later I had another one gluten free and had no ill symptoms. Interesting. I live gluten free 98% of the time. I do tell others to go gluten free as well. My brother thrives off the shit, but he is a freak of nature anyways. No science just a statment.

CR: Im not kidding when I ask this but what study/studies can you full support that havent been swayed in some form or another or the study did not have an errors within it? The reason I ask is because I am finding it harder and harder to look at studies seriously. Every one that comes out gets ripped to shreds by other experts. We have studies backing the claims of almost everything and things that we know almost can not be accepted as correct. Have you tried going gluten free? (Sorry if I missed that answer in another post) What were the results? [/quote]

I’m with ya, specially on the studies part. The latest “red meat is killing us” study has made me question even somewhat newer stuff saying that coffee is good for us, in low/mod quantities. While I think there is actual benefit, one must look further into how the study is conducted.

30

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
also, and Im just asking, what did Poliquin say in the article that was incorrect?[/quote]

That’s the point - without citations, it isn’t even possible for someone to read the literature Poliquin supposedly used in his research and come to a conclusion one way or another. He’s simply passing it all off as fact without any substantiating evidence.

As for Jehova’s complaints about the red meat study being indicative of the accuracy of studies as a whole, comparing in vivo double blind studies or a typical in vitro study to a statistical analysis of observational data is somewhat absurd. They’re not methodologically similar in a large number of ways.

At the end of the day, there’s a very big difference between saying “Exorphins in gluten might cause the following symptoms: x, y and z” versus claiming “Exorphins in wheat are like heroin and are dangerous because they do: x, y an z.” The former could possibly supported by studies (and might need more research) but the latter is tinged with dogmatism and not at all supported by the record.

31

Cr: Word. That makes sense but if know Poliquin you would know why he doesnt quote anything. Does it make him invalid in any comments he says? No. Whats crazy is a lot of people rip on the dude but is getting results. Dude has a hell of a resume. He is like a walking google so i can imagine it would be difficult to reference everything. Just what I have learned in the past few months even it would be hard to track down the source and then we would have to verify and test, analyze and reform and it all will be shot down by some yahoo online. I google brain inflammation and gluten, lots of references and resources out there…

32

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
jehovz: its hard to say things very well at 5am but I try. People still make an issue out of this when I was under the assumption that it is mostly excepted as fact, no one has seen the opposite, meaning no one has removed gluten and seen a decline in health and wellness. The links to autism prograin peeps shout bullshit but from every parent I have heard from that has removed grains from the childs diet there has been improvement in cognitive function. I cant quote the dudes name but the gent who posted below you I can relate. In 1 day I had two pizookies, the 1st none gluten free gave me a mild stomach ache and I maybe felt like I was gona shit my pants. a few hours later I had another one gluten free and had no ill symptoms. Interesting. I live gluten free 98% of the time. I do tell others to go gluten free as well. My brother thrives off the shit, but he is a freak of nature anyways. No science just a statment.

CR: Im not kidding when I ask this but what study/studies can you full support that havent been swayed in some form or another or the study did not have an errors within it? The reason I ask is because I am finding it harder and harder to look at studies seriously. Every one that comes out gets ripped to shreds by other experts. We have studies backing the claims of almost everything and things that we know almost can not be accepted as correct. Have you tried going gluten free? (Sorry if I missed that answer in another post) What were the results? [/quote]

I’m with ya, specially on the studies part. The latest “red meat is killing us” study has made me question even somewhat newer stuff saying that coffee is good for us, in low/mod quantities. While I think there is actual benefit, one must look further into how the study is conducted.[/quote]

You would not BELIEVE how the local media here in Los Angeles ran with the “red meat is killing us” idea.

Everyone from Vegans to PETA was out in full force, claiming it was the reason for our fatness as Americans.

I would like to think it was the open 24-hour drive thru joints that take credit card and even give you the complimentary eat-in-your-car-because-your-fat-ass-can’t-wait-til-you-get-home paper bib to wear as you chomp on your double fried mega burger while sitting on the 4-level interchange.

But I am curious about something.

Food today is not what it was years back, before the chemical pesticide revolution. Would grains have the same effect if they were the grains of our grandparents time ? Or has this neo-grain caused these problems with gluten ?

33

Well the wheat that we eat today has only been around for 50-60 years, so no these are not the grains of our grandparents.

34

[quote]Cr Powerlinate wrote:

… It was merely concerned with biases towards accepting false hypotheses based upon self experimentation rather than proper double blind scientific studies. Not accounting for the placebo effect or assuming that prior hypotheses were true simply because one felt better is a sign of poor methodology. Even with carefully planned individual elimination diets, there are observational biases and other variable changes that can impact the outcome.

Simply put, that gluten removal makes one feel better does not mean that hyperbolic claims made about gluten are necessarily true. I’m all for finding what food works best for one’s self but to extrapolate scientific significance or any truth from that, without serious caveats, is probably a step too far.
[/quote]

I just read Wheat Belly. You’ll love this. The author engages in some hardcore science. Here’s the experiment.

On the first day he eats 4 oz. of bread made from “ancient wheat”. He feels fine. No symptoms at all.

The next day he eats 4 oz. of bread made from “modern wheat”. He feels terrible, stomach aches, bloating, diarrhea, and even mental confusion. Yep, he’s walking around befuddled and unable to concentrate for 3 DAYS all from eating 4 oz of wheat. :slight_smile:

I’m not saying that he doesn’t have some wheat intolerance, but his “science” - big quotes there - had me wondering where in the hell he went to medical school. That experiment wouldn’t get past the local science fair.

He also makes some crazy analogies. Modern wheat is to ancient wheat as chimpanzees are to humans. Genetically similar, but not the same. Seriously? There’s some hilarious stuff in that book. Regardless of whether you think wheat is good for your health or your body composition, it’s pretty hard to respect that kind of logic.

35

But is he wrong? He may be drawing some jackss experiments and using string theory to hold everything together but by moral of the story is it off? Most of our basis in “science” and what we know today about nurition was because we did testing on mental patients or people of the like. We gave rabbits meat. Its tough for me to take any testing seriously. Because someone always digs into it and says “nope, right there, bullshit!” No one asks Dr. Oz for references.

At the end of the day, I think we are all blinded by science :confused:

36

And yet people earlier were crying “test it yourself”… granted, someone who writes a book about it may be a bit biased on “feelings”… that said, I’m pretty sure he also testing his glucose and found that modern wheat spiked it more than einkorn wheat :wink:

37

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
No one asks Dr. Oz for references.

[/quote]

because nobody believes what doctor oz says. the other day he had a segment on freakin green coffee bean pills being magical little pills that just melt off bodyfat with no diet or exercise.

38

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
No one asks Dr. Oz for references.

[/quote]

because nobody believes what doctor oz says. the other day he had a segment on freakin green coffee bean pills being magical little pills that just melt off bodyfat with no diet or exercise.[/quote]

so… I should return the jar I bought? fack… btw- tons of people look at Dr. Oz as gospel, though I’ve heard some rumblings that he pushes too many supplements and that they don’t work

39

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
No one asks Dr. Oz for references.

[/quote]

because nobody believes what doctor oz says. the other day he had a segment on freakin green coffee bean pills being magical little pills that just melt off bodyfat with no diet or exercise.[/quote]

so… I should return the jar I bought? fack… btw- tons of people look at Dr. Oz as gospel, though I’ve heard some rumblings that he pushes too many supplements and that they don’t work[/quote]

LOL. keep it, try it out and let us know if you “melt away”. i know lots of people look at oz as the end all be all of medical advice. he just pushes wayyy too many supplements. every show he has at least 3 or 4 new breakthrough advances in supplementation.

40

Ketogenic diets have long been used for pediatric patients with intractable seizures. Strictly cutting all gluten may put many kids closer to keto. We are still a ways away from pinning down Autism’s etiology. I guess what I’m saying is all of the evidence listed in the OP link is anecdotal, and even if EVERY client saw results
the data is full of confounders and basically proves nothing.

That being said, I have found that cutting most gluten from my diet has SEEMINGLY helped with my Crohn’s, and I will continue to do so.