You're very welcome, and it's good to see that you're back.
Tex
sprouted grain bread
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Hi Jen,
That's an interesting point, and I have to agree with you that we are all different in our sensitivity to certain prolamins, such as gluten. Most of the claims about "gluten intolerance", (though they may be correct), are based on assumptions. For example, the complete amino acid sequence of the main type of gliadin, (alpha), found in spelt has been compared with alpha-type gliadin sequences from the common varieties of wheat used in making bread, and found to have a 98.5% similarity. Therefore, since the sequences are so similar, it is "assumed" that the gliadins in spelt protein are just as "potent" as the gliadins in the more common forms of wheat. However, there is no commercial lab test available to specifically test for antibodies to spelt alpha-gliadin, in either blood or stool samples, so there is no medical way to actually test for it. Also, there are many protein components in wheat, (and presumably in spelt, rye, barley, oats, etc.), to which we are intolerant, in addition to the alpha class of gliadins, (such as beta, gamma, and omega), plus various other glutenins, etc., none of which can be tested for in serum or stool samples. The reason why many experts "claim" that "most" celiacs can safely eat oats, (but can't prove that claim with a "dedicated" medical test, is because there is no test to detect antibodies to the avenin, (the prolamin equivalent to the gluten in wheat), that is present in oats. And indeed, it is apparent that many celiacs can eat pure oats, (at least for a while - until they build up a serious enough intolerance to it that they begin to react), but, of course, some of us are intolerant of it - me, for example.
The bottom line is that in reality, much of this is guesswork, and our own experience, (IOW, or own interpretation of how our body reacts to various potential allergens/toxins), is often our best guide. The safest path, obviously, is to avoid them all, but while it is often said that either we are intolerant or not, (which is true of course), our reactions to those intolerances vary immensely. The trick is to be sure that by eating something to which we may be intolerant of, but do not necessarily react to, we are not allowing damage to our digestive system to accrue, which might some day cause serious problems for us, (such as certain types of intestinal cancer). Additionally, there is the general rule that allergic reactions usually become progressively worse each time that we are exposed to a particular type of allergen, and it is "assumed" that this rule also apples to food intolerances, though I'm not aware that this theory has ever been proven, (for food intolerances).
My "gut" feeling is that, as long as you don't experience any adverse symptoms after eating it, you're probably OK, but I'm certainly no doctor.
Tex
That's an interesting point, and I have to agree with you that we are all different in our sensitivity to certain prolamins, such as gluten. Most of the claims about "gluten intolerance", (though they may be correct), are based on assumptions. For example, the complete amino acid sequence of the main type of gliadin, (alpha), found in spelt has been compared with alpha-type gliadin sequences from the common varieties of wheat used in making bread, and found to have a 98.5% similarity. Therefore, since the sequences are so similar, it is "assumed" that the gliadins in spelt protein are just as "potent" as the gliadins in the more common forms of wheat. However, there is no commercial lab test available to specifically test for antibodies to spelt alpha-gliadin, in either blood or stool samples, so there is no medical way to actually test for it. Also, there are many protein components in wheat, (and presumably in spelt, rye, barley, oats, etc.), to which we are intolerant, in addition to the alpha class of gliadins, (such as beta, gamma, and omega), plus various other glutenins, etc., none of which can be tested for in serum or stool samples. The reason why many experts "claim" that "most" celiacs can safely eat oats, (but can't prove that claim with a "dedicated" medical test, is because there is no test to detect antibodies to the avenin, (the prolamin equivalent to the gluten in wheat), that is present in oats. And indeed, it is apparent that many celiacs can eat pure oats, (at least for a while - until they build up a serious enough intolerance to it that they begin to react), but, of course, some of us are intolerant of it - me, for example.
The bottom line is that in reality, much of this is guesswork, and our own experience, (IOW, or own interpretation of how our body reacts to various potential allergens/toxins), is often our best guide. The safest path, obviously, is to avoid them all, but while it is often said that either we are intolerant or not, (which is true of course), our reactions to those intolerances vary immensely. The trick is to be sure that by eating something to which we may be intolerant of, but do not necessarily react to, we are not allowing damage to our digestive system to accrue, which might some day cause serious problems for us, (such as certain types of intestinal cancer). Additionally, there is the general rule that allergic reactions usually become progressively worse each time that we are exposed to a particular type of allergen, and it is "assumed" that this rule also apples to food intolerances, though I'm not aware that this theory has ever been proven, (for food intolerances).
My "gut" feeling is that, as long as you don't experience any adverse symptoms after eating it, you're probably OK, but I'm certainly no doctor.
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.