Hi all,
Some years ago I mentioned to the board that I had been invited to participate in a study at Oslo University Hospital, where people would be tested for gluten intolerance. Now, the test result is out, and I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
The test results indicate that the real "villain" here are fructans, not gluten...
59 persons participated in the tests; and these people did not have celiac, but they said that they were gluten sensitive.
They were given three different muesli bars that they would eat for one week each; one week they got bars that only contained gluten, the next week the bars contained only fructans and the third week the bar was used only to test for a placebo effect.
The result was: People did not react to the gluten bar, but the reactions that came was from the bars that contained fructans.
"We have not proved that people get better on a gluten or corn free diet, but the suspicion to gluten is not that strong anly longer. We cannot say that people are better off without gluten".
Here is an article from an international paper:
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0 ... 6302-3/pdf
Ooops..... the link does not work, so I have copied/pasted the text here:
Abstract
Background & Aims
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is characterized by symptom improvement after gluten withdrawal in absence of celiac disease. The mechanisms of non-celiac gluten sensitivity are unclear, and there are no biomarkers for this disorder. Foods with gluten often contain fructans, a type of fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols. We aimed to investigate the effect of gluten and fructans separately in individuals with self-reported gluten sensitivity.
Methods
We performed a double-blind crossover challenge of 59 individuals on a self-instituted gluten-free diet, for whom celiac disease had been excluded. The study was performed at Oslo University Hospital in Norway from October 2014 through May 2016. Participants were randomly assigned to groups placed on diets containing gluten (5.7 g), fructans (2.1 g), or placebo, concealed in muesli bars, for 7 days. Following a minimum 7-day washout period (until the symptoms induced by the previous challenge were resolved), participants crossed over into a different group, until they completed all 3 challenges (gluten, fructan, and placebo). Symptoms were measured by gastrointestinal symptom rating scale irritable bowel syndrome (GSRS-IBS) version. A linear mixed model for analysis was used.
Results
Overall GSRS-IBS scores differed significantly during gluten, fructan, and placebo challenges; mean values were 33.1±13.3, 38.6±12.3, and 34.3±13.9, respectively (P = .04). Mean scores for GSRS bloating were 9.3±3.5, 11.6±3.5, and 10.1±3.7, respectively, during the gluten, fructan, and placebo challenges (P = .004). The overall GSRS-IBS score for participants consuming fructans was significantly higher than for participants consuming gluten (P = .049), as was the GSRS bloating score (P = .003). Thirteen participants had the highest overall GSRS-IBS score after consuming gluten, 24 had the highest score after consuming fructan, and 22 had the highest score after consuming placebo. There was no difference in GSRS-IBS scores between gluten and placebo groups.
Conclusions
In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of individuals with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity, we found fructans to induce symptoms, measured by the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale irritable bowel syndrome version.Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02464150
PS: And then some "real" science:
https://www.stuffed-pepper.com/a-cure-f ... io-fasano/
Lilja
An "unscientific" test for gluten intolerance
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
An "unscientific" test for gluten intolerance
Collagenous Colitis diagnosis in 2010
Psoriasis in 1973, symptom free in 2014
GF, CF and SF free since April, 2013
Psoriasis in 1973, symptom free in 2014
GF, CF and SF free since April, 2013
.jpg){kind=avatar}
This study (like many medical studies done these days) just verifies that if the researchers are skilled enough (or dumb enough), they can "prove" virtually anything they want to prove.
Tex
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Yes, Tex, I agree. I got really p... off by the article.tex wrote:This study (like many medical studies done these days) just verifies that if the researchers are skilled enough (or dumb enough), they can "prove" virtually anything they want to prove.
Tex
Lilja
Collagenous Colitis diagnosis in 2010
Psoriasis in 1973, symptom free in 2014
GF, CF and SF free since April, 2013
Psoriasis in 1973, symptom free in 2014
GF, CF and SF free since April, 2013
Yes, this study is annoying. It is even more more annoying that Norwegian national television made a news report stating that it proves that gluten sensitivity doesn't exist.
I find it very disturbing that these researchers have made no attempt to use anykind of objective selection criterias for the participants. Studies focusing on DQ2 positive participants tend to give different results. The same goes for patients positive for IgG, and particularly IgA against gliadin. Patients with Marsh 1 tend to be gluten sensitive. First grade relatives of celiac patients (up to 50 %) tend to be gluten sensitive. People with microscopic colitis and diabetes 1 tend to be gluten sensitive. People with iron defiency and osteopenia/osteopoporis tend to be gluten sensitive, and so on. Actually, I am/have been positive to all of this myself.
Research with bad - or no - selection criteria often show conflicting results. IBS research and ME research are very good examples. What we see here is typical IBS research.
The second problem I have with this study, is the provocation protocol. It’s based on the Salerno criteria which in turn seems to be based on provocation protocols used for celiac disease. Celiacs tend to react much harder and faster than people without the autoimmue component, and 7 days with 5.7 g gluten is not long or much, IMHO.
I did a provocation test with my daughter this summer after we both had been gluten free for two years. All her antibodies (anti gliadin IgG and IgA, anti TG2 and many more) skyrocketed in two months, and so did her symptoms. The end result was a celiac diagnosis based on biopsies. In the same two months my IgA against gliadin became merely positive, IgG to some greater extent. IgA was 5 times higher two years ago. My symptoms (diarrhea!) slowly increased over the two months. But my slow reaction has not prevented me from acummulating 3-4 other autoimmune diseases over the last 25 years.
A third point is that even the end point in this study is purely subjective. It is well known that not all celiacs experience symptoms, and it would not be strange if the same applies for people with NCGS. I miss antibody measurements and measurements of inflammation in the intestines in this study, but then again the provocation period would have had to be longer. Good research shows that 68 % of celiacs will have Marsh 3 after two weeks of provocation and that only 65 % will have positive antibodies after a two week challenge period and two more weeks before measurements (http://gut.bmj.com/content/62/7/996.short). I think this indicates that 7 days challenge will be too short for most celiacs, and definitively too short for people with NCGS.
Tor
I find it very disturbing that these researchers have made no attempt to use anykind of objective selection criterias for the participants. Studies focusing on DQ2 positive participants tend to give different results. The same goes for patients positive for IgG, and particularly IgA against gliadin. Patients with Marsh 1 tend to be gluten sensitive. First grade relatives of celiac patients (up to 50 %) tend to be gluten sensitive. People with microscopic colitis and diabetes 1 tend to be gluten sensitive. People with iron defiency and osteopenia/osteopoporis tend to be gluten sensitive, and so on. Actually, I am/have been positive to all of this myself.
Research with bad - or no - selection criteria often show conflicting results. IBS research and ME research are very good examples. What we see here is typical IBS research.
The second problem I have with this study, is the provocation protocol. It’s based on the Salerno criteria which in turn seems to be based on provocation protocols used for celiac disease. Celiacs tend to react much harder and faster than people without the autoimmue component, and 7 days with 5.7 g gluten is not long or much, IMHO.
I did a provocation test with my daughter this summer after we both had been gluten free for two years. All her antibodies (anti gliadin IgG and IgA, anti TG2 and many more) skyrocketed in two months, and so did her symptoms. The end result was a celiac diagnosis based on biopsies. In the same two months my IgA against gliadin became merely positive, IgG to some greater extent. IgA was 5 times higher two years ago. My symptoms (diarrhea!) slowly increased over the two months. But my slow reaction has not prevented me from acummulating 3-4 other autoimmune diseases over the last 25 years.
A third point is that even the end point in this study is purely subjective. It is well known that not all celiacs experience symptoms, and it would not be strange if the same applies for people with NCGS. I miss antibody measurements and measurements of inflammation in the intestines in this study, but then again the provocation period would have had to be longer. Good research shows that 68 % of celiacs will have Marsh 3 after two weeks of provocation and that only 65 % will have positive antibodies after a two week challenge period and two more weeks before measurements (http://gut.bmj.com/content/62/7/996.short). I think this indicates that 7 days challenge will be too short for most celiacs, and definitively too short for people with NCGS.
Tor
Life's hard and then you die
Tor,
Thanks for sharing that information. Those of us who seek the truth (especially about gluten) seem to be up against some sort of well-organized medical propaganda conspiracy. When false medical claims are made, the media falls for it, but then, I suppose we can't expect them to know any better.
Tex
Thanks for sharing that information. Those of us who seek the truth (especially about gluten) seem to be up against some sort of well-organized medical propaganda conspiracy. When false medical claims are made, the media falls for it, but then, I suppose we can't expect them to know any better.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.