Low Gluten diets can increase Type II Diabetes risk

I’m not going to keep repeating myself about correlations. I think most folks know they are used to make all sorts of spurious claims.

The dietary basis of type 2 diabetes is excess dietary carbohydrate and the hormonal changes they create, whether gluten free or not. The fact that GF free products are higher in starch doesn’t mean folks are eating more carbs on a GF diet, they very likely are also replacing grains with healthier, non grain sources of carbs that are higher in protein. For me, that involves more protein, from nut flours, for one example. An awful lot of GF folks are paleo dieters, so eating less starch overall, with plenty of protein.

You may have missed the reporting that non celiac wheat intolerance causes measurable inflammation, too. I don’t know how many folks are following a “fad” and how many are doing it because it gives them noticeable relief for and, frankly, neither do you. Calling someone else’s interventions a “fad” is a way to dismiss the legitimate concerns of others without having taken time to ascertain the reasons for their choices.

https://www.ueg.eu/press/releases/ueg-press-release/article/new-study-links-protein-in-wheat-to-the-inflammation-of-chronic-health-conditions/

Yes they are used to support spurious claims. That really doesn’t mean they are all false or spurious. Quite a lot are evidence of causal relationships.

Cereal fibre is known to be a protective dietary factor against Type II Diabetes. People on low gluten diets cut down of fibre sourced from cereals. Mass produced GF foods often have less fibre than non GF foods.

No not missed it at all. Its starting to demonstrate there maybe a group of people who don’t tolerate a number of food products including wheat and FODMAPS. But the rise in consumption of GF foods is is far in excess of these populations. And if Gluten isn’t the culprit then the GF foods are not only less than ideal but also potentially have a risk of raising the risk of diabetes.

It doesn’t really matter if people exclude Gluten because its a fad or because it gives them relief. What matters is that their diet is such that the exclusion of Gluten doesn’t raise their risk of diabetes.

There was a classic article some years ago which interviewed a lot of GF people. Most didn’t know what gluten was…I think that is evidence of a fad.

So here’s how you know that’s false; “associations” and “correlations” are always reported in trustworthy publications as not yet proven causal.

Cereal fiber is not protective against type 2, it’s just better for you than the part your body actually digests. The best cereal is the one you pass without metabolizing.

Those folks may be experimenting to see if they feel better and/or less inflamed. That may be because they know many who feel better on it. Most are probably benefiting, since wheat is quite properly becoming known as an inflammatory agent more generally, not only in special populaitons. But again, the problem isn’t GF diet, which does not require starch substitutes and for many wiser folks, does not. The problem is folks who eat higher carb and lower protein than optimal for their health. GF good, high carb bad. Atkins dieters early on ate junkie stuff made with crap ingredients that were subs for the crap they used to eat, too, but most got wise and stopped with the Frankenfood and moved to lots more veg and whole foods. A lot of GF folks seem to be moving that way, in some measure due to the Paleo fad, which is a pretty good match for GF dieters, except it’s frequently high in fruit sugars if done unwisely.

I’ve always thought that if grain metabolism is bad for you, the last thing you should do is search for replacement starches, but I’ve come to believe starches are just a crap nutrition deal for anyone who cares about nutrient value per calorie. Making a fuss over sugary sodas and not bread and pasta or fries makes no sense to me.

I’m sure the “classic article” was full of snark and attitude about dopey faddists and their diet choices and smug, too. I never would have known wheat was inflaming my gut until I tested allergic to it (no major symptoms or signs) a couple of years ago. Lately I’ve been avoiding it and staying mostly away from gluten. I really notice the difference now that it’s some or none to compare. It was the same with carbs and sugar; had no idea how bad they made me feel until my metabolism totally broke and I went off, and then each time I slipped up, the results were a smack in the face. I didn’t join the low carb fad, I left claw marks on my pasta boxes because I had to give it all up. I herd the same sort of pejorative stuff about that, too. It’s like a sport, or something.

I really don’t think you understand what I am trying to say. I keep saying correlations in experimental data are evidence of cause if there is a causal mechanism and confounding factors are taken into account. You can go both ways, develop a theory and then look for the data to prove it. Or you can observe the data and then look for the theory. Both work. In this instance its was the latter.

Are you certain. [Studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11858448) show, fibre, especially soluble fibre helps control/lower the level blood glucose.

It was a double blind, randomised control trial conducted by Monash University - for the Snark was a Boojum, you see

Final entry on this topic: yes, I am quite sure that even tons of fiber in meal, especially one with starch, does nothing to control a nasty glucose spike. I don’t eat that way any more for a reason. Lots of studies also say lots of wrong things, and this is one of them. In fact, the findings have been really inconsistent for the reason that fiber is only protective if you eat starches/high carbs; it’s inferior protection as compared to not eating them. Glucose meters used pre and post meal at one hour PP tell more truth than any other kind of diabetes study.

I am saying that calling “gluten free diets a risk for diabetes” is false. It’s not the gluten, it’s the carbs. Whether they are gluten free or not, they promote diabetes, they are the only macronutrient that raises blood glucose, which is diabetes by definition. How much it takes to do so in each individual and how soon it happens is very variable for a number of reasons.

Now, may we agree to stop boring the living sh*t out of everyone else with this?