Hi,
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before as well....but what exactly is the difference between celiac and gluten intolerence...is it just that celiacs have damage to the small intestine and gluten intolerence people don't? Do we all share the same risks or are they different? Since I have the genes for gluten intolerence....does that make me luckier and does that make it less likely for my kids to develope symptoms...since it's not celiac? This is confusing.
Thanks for your wisdom,
Cristi
celiac vs gluten intolerence
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Cristi,
Good questions. I think it was CAMary who coined the term "celiac lite", to describe the form of gluten sensitivity that most of us with MC have. Most doctors seem to consider celiac disease to be an either/or issue. Either a patient has it or she/he doesn't.
The problem with that definition is that a huge number of people are obviously quite gluten sensitive, and yet fail to be diagnosed by the classic tests for celiac disease, simply because they have not acrued sufficient villous atrophy to meet the definition of celiac sprue, nor do they have sufficient gliadin antibodies in their blood, to be detected by the clasic celiac blood test. IOW, the standards for celiac disease don't meet the needs of these individuals.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that celiac sprue is the end result of untreated gluten sensitivity. If gluten sensitivity is treated early enough, then we probably will never get to the celiac stage, even if we have one or more celiac genes. For those of us who have only non-celiac genes, then it is not lilely that we will ever be able to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of celiac sprue, but that does not mean that we will not be just as gluten sensitive as a full-blown celiac.
It appears that we share the same risks, but there hasn't been much research to verify this. As to whether or not non-celiac genes imply less likelyhood of our progeny developing symptoms during their lives, that's the 64 dollar question. I think the answer hinges on whether or not they find themselves in a situation with a potential to "trigger" the disease. With celiac sprue, it appears that just continuing to eat gluten is the primary trigger for symptoms, whereas a disease such as MC, is uaually triggered by some other event, such as an infection, ingestion of NSAIDS, cessation of a smoking habit, etc. Once MC is triggered, then gluten sensitivity is usually triggered at the same time.
At least that's the way I see it. YMMV. I'm sure there are others who have different views on this issue.
Wayne
Good questions. I think it was CAMary who coined the term "celiac lite", to describe the form of gluten sensitivity that most of us with MC have. Most doctors seem to consider celiac disease to be an either/or issue. Either a patient has it or she/he doesn't.
The problem with that definition is that a huge number of people are obviously quite gluten sensitive, and yet fail to be diagnosed by the classic tests for celiac disease, simply because they have not acrued sufficient villous atrophy to meet the definition of celiac sprue, nor do they have sufficient gliadin antibodies in their blood, to be detected by the clasic celiac blood test. IOW, the standards for celiac disease don't meet the needs of these individuals.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that celiac sprue is the end result of untreated gluten sensitivity. If gluten sensitivity is treated early enough, then we probably will never get to the celiac stage, even if we have one or more celiac genes. For those of us who have only non-celiac genes, then it is not lilely that we will ever be able to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of celiac sprue, but that does not mean that we will not be just as gluten sensitive as a full-blown celiac.
It appears that we share the same risks, but there hasn't been much research to verify this. As to whether or not non-celiac genes imply less likelyhood of our progeny developing symptoms during their lives, that's the 64 dollar question. I think the answer hinges on whether or not they find themselves in a situation with a potential to "trigger" the disease. With celiac sprue, it appears that just continuing to eat gluten is the primary trigger for symptoms, whereas a disease such as MC, is uaually triggered by some other event, such as an infection, ingestion of NSAIDS, cessation of a smoking habit, etc. Once MC is triggered, then gluten sensitivity is usually triggered at the same time.
At least that's the way I see it. YMMV. I'm sure there are others who have different views on this issue.
Wayne
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.
Hi Wayne,
This all makes sense. I was trying to explain all this to my daughter last night and realized i didn't understand the difference and if one was more serious than the other. Sounds like both can potentially make you sick....so having either gene is not so good. Sounds like more variables have to occur to trigger MC as opposed to celiac.
Thanks for being so generous of your time and knowledge,
Cristi
This all makes sense. I was trying to explain all this to my daughter last night and realized i didn't understand the difference and if one was more serious than the other. Sounds like both can potentially make you sick....so having either gene is not so good. Sounds like more variables have to occur to trigger MC as opposed to celiac.
Thanks for being so generous of your time and knowledge,
Cristi