• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Why grains aren't healthy

Started by dalebert, September 22, 2013, 09:21 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

MaineShark

Quote from: Raineyrocks on November 11, 2013, 04:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 11, 2013, 12:49 PM NHFThttp://www.today.com/health/allergy-myths-busted-guess-what-you-didnt-know-about-gluten-8C11545200
I don't fully agree with this article.  :)

It's factually correct, but there are some misleading parts.

Yes, there's no such thing as a "gluten allergy," because an "allergy" is a specific type of incorrect immune response to a given substance.  Gluten does not cause that response.  But that doesn't mean it's healthy, or cannot cause damage.  Humans aren't "allergic" to sulphuric acid, but I wouldn't recommend dipping your hand in some - just because it's not an allegen, does not mean it won't harm you.  Substances can be directly caustic or toxic, like sulphuric acid, or rat poison.  Substances can trigger a chemical sensitivity, which is similar in symptoms to an allergy, but operates through different internal pathways.  Sulphite sensitivity is probably the most common in that class, but many folks will still call it a "sulphite allergy."  That annoys allergists because it is incorrect terminology, but if you suddenly stop breathing after ingesting a particular substance, I doubt your first thought will be, "I better not annoy any allergists by calling this an allergy."

So, other than correcting terminology, the article doesn't really say anything substantive about gluten.  Gluten could be horrible for you, or wonderful for you, but you wouldn't be able to figure it out from that article.

And on the child feeding thing, they are misunderstanding the goals of delayed introduction of high-risk foods.  It's not that delaying introduction will prevent someone from developing an allergy - it's that if the child already has an allergy, waiting until the child is older means the child is less likely to die from anaphylactic shock if the food in question triggers such a response.  The larger and more developed the child if such a response occurs, the more likely the child will survive long enough for help to arrive.  Delaying introduction won't prevent an allergy from developing, but it may save the child's life if the child already has an allergy.