I GAVE Up PASTA... should I give up dairy too

mmapags

You are some random internet person. Why would I take your word for anything without proof?

Like I said, believe me, don't believe me; I don't really care. I have no motive/reason to lie about what I read and it's of no benefit to me if you believe me and improve your health, or instead argue that I haven't cited my sources appropriately.

Best of luck to you.

The argument isn't whether you have cited your sources. The argument is whether you have any proof for the statements you've made regarding 85% of the population having a problem with wheat. The clear answer is you don't. So, you are comfortable making unsubstantiated statements that may or may not be true. And we should all just believe you? No thanks. I'll trust proof and not some stranger on the internet's opinion.

Do I have proof that I read the articles I'm saying I did, or that they exist? No. I don't have the source in front of me, and I'm unwilling to make the effort to find it in order to convince you (and ultimately improve your health). What I'm comfortable doing, is sharing with the people on the forum the information I have read, even if I don't have a database or list citing everything I've read over the past year to "back it up". You can choose to believe me, or not; and it's always an option to do the searching/investigating yourself...but I'm not going to do it for you.

Hey, I read an article that says there life on Mars and the people there have 3 eyes. It must be true! So, who knows about what is now articles that started as studies, if you didn't make the whole thing up? You obviously don't get the whole "the person that makes the claim get's to substantiate it" thing. Maybe you shouldn't be making claims about studies that you don't really have and can't really post.

Either that or stop making things up.

Capt_Apollo

i gave up smoking.

won't give up anything else.

LuckyAng

I be damn if I give anything I love!

Moderation = Success

Same here.

MrDangerSass

I be damn if I give anything I love!

Moderation = Success

Same here.

^^^ This. If one's strategy for being fit and healthy starts with "giving up"....that is more than likely where it will end as well. This process shouldn't be about denying yourself the grea things in life. Find the balance. Eat well, burn it hard, be happy.

monicalosesweight

Jeepers. I decided to type in that 85% part that everyone has been discussing. I found this on a study but I'm not quite sure what the whole thing is talking about. I'm guessing that the number involves people who were within the study experiencing issues related to allergies and wheat who showed some sort of antibody reaction but it's a lot of confusing data. Unfortunately, I'm not a medical researcher so I feel like I need a special dictionary to work through it. This is the quote I found:

Antibodies against tTG2 and tTG6 combined can be found in 85% of patients with ataxia who are positive for AGA antibodies [41]. It is unclear at present whether combined detection of anti-tTG2 and anti-tTG6 IgA and IgG without the use of AGA identifies all patients with gluten ataxia.

I'd be happy if someone with the right background could peek and maybe give us a simple explanation. I did an edit/find function to locate the 85% data. It's like halfway down the page.

Here's the link: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/13

TheGlen

Hey, I read an article that says there life on Mars and the people there have 3 eyes. It must be true! So, who knows about what is now articles that started as studies, if you didn't make the whole thing up? You obviously don't get the whole "the person that makes the claim get's to substantiate it" thing. Maybe you shouldn't be making claims about studies that you don't really have and can't really post.

Either that or stop making things up.

<sigh> OK, lets go with your example, and see if you finally get it.

If you said that you read an article that there is life on Mars, and people there have 3 eyes, then I have two decisions to make:
1) Are you lying about reading the article?
2) Is the article accurate?

My answers would be:
1) I have no reason to believe you are lying, so I would accept that you have read this article.
2) This is against all my previous conventional thinking, so I don't believe the validity of the article.
Therefore I can...
- Ask for the source of the study to review it myself (as you did)
- Look for the article myself
- Look for articles that support this new information
- Look for articles that contradict this information

In my case, I'm saying I read a study that said approximately 85% of people have some level of intolerance to wheat/gluten, many of which don't even know it (this is the comment you are stuck on).

You have asked for the source, and appear to feel I'm lying about reading this study, because I can't produce it for you to review and disagree with (sorry that I haven't kept a running log of everything I've read and the sources over the past year). I feel bad for you though, that your level of trust is so low, that you can't believe a person (even a stranger on the internet) when they say they have read a study. Just because I cannot produce a link for you, does not infer that I am lying; just that I no longer have the link. This doesn't mean I need to remove my "claim" that I read the study.

If I've misunderstood your circular argument, and you are actually only questioning the validity of the study, then I apologize. I no longer have the study at my finger tips to give to you for you to review/question. Just as in all other aspects of health and fitness, you can only be set on the right path, but doing the work is up to you. Since this has become such a significant point of interest in your life at the moment, I would suggest taking it upon yourself to do the work:
- Try to find the study
- Look for articles that support this information I have provided to you
- Look for conventional thinking information that contradicts my statement

Mr. Mmapags, this has already wasted more of my time (and everyone else's) than necessary, so I will withdraw from the thread and leave you to your studying. Best of luck with your health journey.

MissFit0101

Yes, give up each food group one at a time until there's nothing left to eat... then you're guaranteed to lose weight!

Witchmoo

No pasta and dairy = a life not worth living.

True^^^^

moonlightturk

I be damn if I give anything I love!

Moderation = Success

IronmanPanda

I gave up pasta a couple of weeks ago. I have been substituting cauliflower and zucchini. I can honestly say I really don't miss it. It's just filler after all. I am now considering the whole dairy option. I don't include a lot of dairy in my diet anyhow.... but I do like cheese. Is this another step I should take and are there things that I can substitute for the inevitable craving?

I would give it up. too much fat.....don't want to get fat. Good call on the pasta too......Carbs are totally the problem.....well that and fat.

And protein, I'd just drink water to be safe

Nope. Water has a bunch of chemicals in it. Best to stop drinking that too.

FelicityEliza36

No pasta and dairy = a life not worth living.

^^ LOVE IT.

I don't think a lifestyle change includes giving up things you like / love. You should be able to eat anything in moderation, once in a while, etc. Giving up pasta is one thing - I dont even eat pasta almost EVER just because I dont like it. But I could never imagine a person giving up dairy!

AbbsyBabbsy

You have asked for the source, and appear to feel I'm lying about reading this study, because I can't produce it for you to review and disagree with (sorry that I haven't kept a running log of everything I've read and the sources over the past year). I feel bad for you though, that your level of trust is so low, that you can't believe a person (even a stranger on the internet) when they say they have read a study.

Well that's just adorable.

In the time it took you to make multiple posts about how it was everyone's job but your own to prove your claim correct, you could have just found one of the several studies you claim exist and linked to it. I'm pretty sure I know why you didn't, though.

Leeanne1974

I gave up pasta a couple of weeks ago. I have been substituting cauliflower and zucchini. I can honestly say I really don't miss it. It's just filler after all. I am now considering the whole dairy option. I don't include a lot of dairy in my diet anyhow.... but I do like cheese. Is this another step I should take and are there things that I can substitute for the inevitable craving?

I would give it up. too much fat.....don't want to get fat. Good call on the pasta too......Carbs are totally the problem.....well that and fat.

And protein, I'd just drink water to be safe

I think water is dangerous... If you whip up some air in a blender and add a drop of non-fat-non-dairy-no-carb-no-sugar-no-salt-no-soda-no-nonsense-non-existant fairy dust it is an absolutely divine water substitute.

jofjltncb6

Everything in Moderation is the One True Way.

There is no other way.

Everyone knows that.

To suggest that there is an alternative that may work for some people is crazy-talk.

And a diet without grains is just dangerous. It's one of the food groups, so it is absolutely necessary for optimal health. Oh, and it's "heart healthy".

Leeanne1974

Everything in Moderation is the One True Way.

There is no other way.

Everyone knows that.

To suggest that there is an alternative that may work for some people is crazy-talk.

And a diet without grains is just dangerous. It's one of the food groups, so it is absolutely necessary for optimal health. Oh, and it's "heart healthy".

Totally agree.
The reason that most of use (who are using this site to lose weight due to being big) have got the way we are through not knowing how to do things in moderation. I can honestly say that most people that I know who are naturally slim do things in moderation. They do eat chocolate, they do have a burger, they do have a sandwich... They just don't eat "naughty" things all of the time. If they fancy a cupcake they will have one, just not every day. If they fancy a frozen latte with cream on they will have one, again just not every day.
I am trying to learn to enjoy things in moderation and, although it has taken me 7 and 1/2 months of dieting, I am getting there. I do enjoy certain foods more than others but I am eating the ones I don't LOVE (such as fruit and veggies) more than the ones I love. Which is a complete reversal for me.

slkehl

You have asked for the source, and appear to feel I'm lying about reading this study, because I can't produce it for you to review and disagree with (sorry that I haven't kept a running log of everything I've read and the sources over the past year). I feel bad for you though, that your level of trust is so low, that you can't believe a person (even a stranger on the internet) when they say they have read a study.

I believe that you read a study on gluten sensitivity. However, I also believe that you MISREAD the article, and that the 85% was out of a specific group of sensitive individuals rather than of a sample of the general population.

And actually, it isn't a good idea to blindly trust people without viewing the source. Scientific studies are difficult to read and subject to misinterpretation, especially by those without a scientific background. They are also taken out of context all the time to promote fad diets and "miracle" pills. I don't believe everyone who promotes these things is lying but rather misled.

Since this has become such a significant point of interest in your life at the moment, I would suggest taking it upon yourself to do the work:
- Try to find the study
- Look for articles that support this information I have provided to you
- Look for conventional thinking information that contradicts my statement

I did. I can find no such article of the supposed several that are out there. I can't produce it for you if I can't find it. I found plenty of 85% statistics, all of which pertained to undiagnosed people of everyone with Celiacs. Which understandably makes me suspicious you just read the study wrong.

And it is contradicted by many many years of people eating products with gluten with no major concerns.

I guess we'll never see this study, if it truly exists, since you've decided to peace out because doing so is too time consuming.

Silverkittycat

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, just adding something I read recently.

Is gluten the new Candida?
Published by Scott Gavura under Basic Science,Nutrition,Science and Medicine
Comments: 71

Much of the therapeutics I was taught as part of my pharmacy degree is now of historical interest only. New evidence emerges, and clinical practice change. New treatments replace old ones – sometimes because they’re demonstrably better, and sometimes because marketing trumps evidence. The same changes occurs in the over-the-counter section of the pharmacy, but it’s here marketing seems to completely dominate. There continues to be no lack of interest in vitamin supplements, despite a growing body of evidence that suggests either no benefit, or possible harm, with many products. Yet it’s the perception that these products are beneficial seem to be seem to continue to drive sales. Nowhere is this more apparent than in areas where it’s felt medical needs are not being met. I covered one aspect a few weeks ago in a post on IgG food intolerance blood tests which are clinically useless but sold widely. The diagnosis of celiac disease came up in the comments, which merits a more thorough discussion: particularly, the growing fears over gluten consumption. It reminds me of another dietary fad that seems to have peaked and faded: the fear of Candida.

It wasn’t until I left pharmacy school and started speaking with real patients that I learned we are all filled with Candida – yeast. Most chronic diseases could be traced back to candida, I was told. And it wasn’t just the customers who believed it. One particular pharmacy sold several different kits that purported to eliminate yeast in the body. But these didn’t contain antifungal drugs – most were combinations of laxative and purgatives, combined with psyllium and bentonite clay, all promising to sponge up toxins and candida and restore you to an Enhanced State of Wellness™. There was a strict diet to be followed, too: No sugar, no bread – anything it was thought the yeast would consume. While you can still find these kits for sale, the enthusiasm for them seems to have waned. Whether consumers have caught on that these kits are useless, or have abandoned them because they don’t actually treat any underlying medical issues, isn’t clear.

The trend (which admittedly is hard to quantify) seems to have shifted, now that there’s a new dietary orthodoxy to question. Yeast is out. The real enemy is gluten: consume it at your own risk. There’s a growing demand for gluten labeling, and food producers are bringing out an expanding array of gluten-free (GF) foods. This is fantastic news for those with celiac disease, an immune reaction to gluten, where total gluten avoidance is essential. Only in the past decade or so has the true prevalence of celiac disease has become clear: about 1 in 100 have the disease. With the more frequent diagnosis of celiac disease, the awareness of gluten, and the harm it can cause to some, has soared. But going gluten free isn’t just for those with celiac disease. Tennis star Novak Djokovic doesn’t have celiac disease, but went on a GF diet. Headlines like “Djokovic switched to gluten-free diet, now he’s unstoppable on court” followed. Among children, there’s the pervasive but unfounded linkage of gluten consumption with autism, popularized by Jenny McCarthy and others. Even in the absence of any undesirable symptoms, gluten is being perceived as something to be avoided.

What’s been lost in an enthusiasm for gluten avoidance, is the fact that there are some people who do experience undesirable symptoms from gluten consumption, but don’t have celiac disease. It’s this group that was the focus of a recent paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine: Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: Sense or Sensibility? It’s behind a paywall, but I’ll try to summarize the paper in the context of what we know, and what we don’t know, about celiac disease and possible non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

Celiac disease

Celiac disease (CD) is an autoimmune disease, not an allergy or intolerance. The disease manifests with inflammation and injury to the bowel lining when gluten is consumed. It can cause gastrointestinal scarring and cilia death – resulting in permanent damage. While it normally presents with gastrointestinal symptoms, symptoms can also manifest as conditions like skin rash.The disease has been described as protean, which is appropriate. A 2001 survey of patients with confirmed celiac disease indicated patients reported symptomatic disease an average of 11 years before a diagnosis was reached. A similar survey of pediatric patients suggested a similar trend: Multiple physicians and other diagnoses. By manifesting in so many different ways, it cannot be diagnosed based on symptoms alone. So why is it so difficult to identify? It isn’t – but you need to look for it.

The immunologic response in celiac disease is a reaction to gliadin, a protein found in wheat, barley and rye. A highly effective test is now widely available. Blood is tested for IgA antibody human recombinant tissue transglutaminase (IgA-tTGA) or endomysium (IgA-EMA). These tests are both highly sensitive (90%–96%) and specific (>95%) for celiac disease. Positive results are followed by biopsy, necessary to establish a diagnosis. That diagnosis is confirmed by evaluating the effectiveness of a gluten-free diet on reported symptoms. (The full diagnostic workup is nicely summarized in the AGA Institute Medical Position Statement on the Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease.) Given the availability of a sensitive and specific test for celiac disease, there has been some discussion on whether widespread and routine screening for celiac disease should occur. The evidence and risk/benefit currently suggests screening in the absence of any symptoms is still unwarranted.

Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity

We have a sensitive and specific test for celiac disease, so diagnosis should be straightforward, right? If you have celiac disease, you must avoid gluten for life. But what about those that test negative for celiac disease, but have symptoms from eating gluten-containing foods? There are at least five possible scenarios:

You could be IgA deficient, in which case there’s a false negative. Other laboratory tests may be done, and compared with the biopsy.
You may already be on a gluten-free diet, which will cause a false negative result.
It could simply be a false negative laboratory test result (no laboratory test is 100% sensitive and specific).
There may be some form of subclinical CD present (not yet established as fact, but plausible)
It may not be celiac disease, and other causes need to be evaluated.
It’s this last category, deemed non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) which is the subject of the recent Annals paper. Despite the identification of NCGS over 30 years ago, it’s only recently that interest seems to have exploded – I count about 336,000 Google results, but only 10 results in PubMed. Remarkably, the Annals paper points out that the public awareness of NCGS exceeds that of celiac disease [PDF].

So how do we distinguish between the CD and NCGS, objectively? Here the Annals paper includes a nice table which summarizes the challenge:


Table 1 from Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: Sense or Sensibility?

It is the protean nature of CD that makes NCGS seem so prevalent. As there’s a myriad of non-specific symptoms that could signal true CD, any any of these symptoms can also be attributed to NCGS. So what high-quality evidence exists to establish NCGS is real? Not a lot, yet. The Annals paper identifies only a single placeb0-controlled rechallenge trial, which concluded that NCGS “may exist”. There is a lack of systematic research, but lots of opinions. A recent essay [PDF] from Sapone et al in Biomed Central used a consensus-based approach to evaluate NCGS and other gluten-related disorders. It concludes by labeling gluten “toxic”, declaring celiac disease an “epidemic”, and suggesting that the prevalence of gluten sensitivity will continue to increase, supposedly because of a lack of adaptive response to deliberate changes bred into wheat strains.

But is that accurate? There are no accurate prevalence estimate for NCGS – because there are no objective signs or symptoms that can be evaluated. Given the magnification of fears of gluten among the general population, I suspect prevalence will increase simply because of perceived health concerns and rank fearmongering over gluten: nocebo effects, where an inert substances causes negative symptoms. From a scientific perspective a few possible mechanisms that have been postulated for NCGS, none of which have been established yet:

a stress response, rather than an immune response, which is unlikely given the varied manifestations of NCGS
an IgE-mediated reaction to wheat flour, possibly to another chemical compound it contains
starch malabsorption
opioid-like effects of gluten on the colon (opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract are the reason narcotics cause constipation)
some degree of low-grade inflammation, possibly signalling some sort of subclinical CD, presenting in a way that cannot be diagnosed with the current tests

Conclusion

The idea that gluten sensitivity is real and widespread goes far beyond the current scientific evidence, and the well-established facts of celiac disease. Time will tell if gluten avoidance follows the path of Candida, and other dietary fears and fads that preceded it. But it doesn’t need to. Given the protean nature of CD, symptoms cannot be dismissed as nocebo effects: A CD diagnosis needs to be ruled out before NCGS is even contemplated. Going gluten-free in the absence of a proper medical evaluation may not be directly harmful, but it complicates a diagnosis. Moreover, it can be expensive, and difficult to maintain 100% avoidance – essential with CD, but not established as necessary with NCGS. Besides, who really wants to cut out all gluten-containing products if they don’t need to? Until better diagnostic criteria are established, the N of 1 trial is probably the most science-based (if impractical) approach: single-blind challenges to measure for subjective or objective symptoms. Our challenge in dealing with dietary fads as health professionals is to recognize that some of our patients are suffering, and evaluate them in a science based way: without dismissing the symptoms, and without advocating dietary transformations that may be unnecessary.

Reference

Di Sabatino A, & Corazza GR (2012). Nonceliac gluten sensitivity: sense or sensibility? Annals of internal medicine, 156 (4), 309-11 PMID: 22351716

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-gluten-the-new-candida/#more-19478

monicamcisaac

Hey good on you! I just wanted to tell you that I was diagnosed with high cholesterol so I gave up cheese. At first it was a bit hard - I thought a sandwich without cheese was a crime - but you quickly get used to it. Now when I eat cheese it tastes disgusting - just like fat! Cheese is a high fat cholesterol timebomb! Yuck! And I used to be a cheese lover! I find that if you eat some other kind of protein like nuts or egg then that gets rid of any cravings.
Having said all that I still eat yoghurt (a tiny bit) and there's no way I'm giving up milk as I love my milky coffees!
I think small steps are good - don't give up everything you love as it will never last. Just switch to low fat milk and yoghurt, make sure you drink calcium enriched milk so you're getting enough.
and don't torture yourself! Don't commit to anything that you're not prepared to do for the rest of your life.
Good luck!

MSeel1984

Have you tried spaghetti squash? I am totally addicted to it! I usually go through 2 squash a week by myself. Like you I love pasta and this is a great alternative. Plus 2 cups is only 84 calories!!

I have been ,meaning to try spaghetti squash...how do you usually eat it? With marinara or other toppings?

MSeel1984

Everything in Moderation is the One True Way.

There is no other way.

Everyone knows that.

To suggest that there is an alternative that may work for some people is crazy-talk.

And a diet without grains is just dangerous. It's one of the food groups, so it is absolutely necessary for optimal health. Oh, and it's "heart healthy".

Lol...troll much :P