http://www.active.com/nutrition/Art...tm?cmp=17-1-393

The main problem I have with this article is the insinuation that gluten is somehow an essential nutrient and that it should only be avoided by those who have Celiac or gluten intolerance:

"Field warns that a poorly planned switch to gluten-free can backfire, leading to an inadequate intake of complex carbs, vitamins, and minerals found in runner staples"

and I really love this statement about going gluten-free:

"but a runner who isn't careful could end up eating a lot of refined carbs and added fats, leading to weight gain."

I thought most gluten containing products were refined carbs!

Once again, I remember why I a registered dietician is the last person I would look to for nutritional advice

Most gluten free products are refined carbs....

Yes, this is true of processed gluten-free products.

An adequate intake of complex carbs is zero.

Hmmmmm:
Really? And just what vitamins and minerals do you lack when you eliminate gluten? And seek guidance from a registered dietician before changing you diet? How many people actually do something like that?

But a man I sing in the church choir with told me that his wife was recently diagnosed as celiac, and he went with her to the nutritionist, who was trying to explain the wife's new diet for her, but then turned to the guy I know and said to him, "but don't you go trying to eat what your wife eats. It would be very dangerous for you to go gluten-free." Dangerous? Give me a break. And someone it's *healthy* for his wife, but *dangerous* for him?

People have been conditioned to believe that processed foods containing gluten are required nutrients. That is unbelievable. Just the fact that gluten causes so much damage to those with a gluten intolerance or celiac makes me think it's probably not so great for anyone. It certainly isn't "dangerous" to go gluten-free.

Not to mention that she will never be truly gluten free as long as gluten is still being prepared in the house.

I am doing my very best to be gluten-free, but I am only 25% of a household. The other 75% don't have gluten problems, so I have my own toaster, my own wooden spoons and chopping boards. This seems to work fine.

I think you are over-stating the case somewhat.

There are plenty of celiacs or gluten-intolerant people out there who share kitchens with gluten-eaters and do fine!!!

I do have to be careful and I do wash my hands a lot and wipe down surfaces a lot, but with a bit of care and attention, it seems to work.

After five weeks of practising this routine, my gluten-induced symptoms disappeared. No more diarrhoea!!!

I can't describe how happy I was when I realized I was pooing like a normal person again!!!

Mind you, that said, one must be ever vigilant. I think I managed to glutenate myself a few days ago: 1kg weight gain overnight, bloated and then an attack of diarrhoea. But that was the first time I got glutened at home since I began the GF WOE on November 22nd 2010.

Just my two cents...

amanda

Oh yeah. The overpriced university textbooks are still teaching people studying medicine no less that you'll die without enough carbs and that grains are absolutely required food. It's nauseating.

PJ

I wonder if that will ever change? Probably not as long as Dr. Oz is America's doctor.

Yes they are...I'm in nursing school, I have to read them all. If I have to read one more time that the necessary diet for type 2 diabetics is composed of 65% carbs I'm gonna scream. The only book I've had to read that says otherwise was my microbiology text.

What does your microbiology text say, and have your teachers noted the contradiction?

Unfortunately I had borrow my micro text so I do not still own it, but I remember it said specifically, "There is zero requirement of dietary carbohydrate." But we didn't get into that in class. We were taught the Krebs cycle with the glucose molecule. We were not required to learn the energy pathways of dietary fat or ketosis. I did look it up in the book and I noticed that metabolism of fat creates more ATP energy molecules than glucose. Something like 4 to 2 respectively. Sounds like a better deal to me. My teacher was also overweight and could be bribed with Snickers bars. I remember asking about the fat molecule's role in the energy cycle and was told we simply used glucose "as an example, because there is not enough time". As for my nursing teachers, I don't get into it with them. It's not worth it and I'm too shy and I don't have studies at the ready to back myself up. If asked (students have asked), they do say that a low-carb diet produces ketoacidosis. I just let it be and tell all my co-students later how wrong they are. Basically, I haven't read anything yet that is specifically wrong, just confusing. The books are constantly not clarifying "dietary carbs" and "blood glucose", treating them as one of the same, nor do they clarify ketosis and ketoacidosis. I hear over and over glucose is needed for energy. Makes one want to run over to the vending machine for some candy bar energy. I would probably speak up more if I had studies that proved ketosis doesn't cause a decrease in blood ph, or studies showing the ideal range of blood sugar and how much blood sugar any particular body cell needs for optimal function, you know, good studies, not biased ones. Anyone know of any?

Hmm...microbiology...a field run by scientists who watch reactions...or dieticians...a field run by a panel of government authorities...

Decisions, decisions.

I can see some merit to going gluten free being bad for someone IF they are only substituting corn, rice or soy flours for wheat, since you could theoretically be substituting more refined flours for whole wheat ones.

But that's a stretch and I fully claim it as being one.