You asked, so here’s my gluten-free story (safe for Celiacs to read):
I’m not a Celiac, but I do have Crohn’s disease, an inflammatory autoimmune disorder which often causes similar symptoms in the digestive tract. When I was first diagnosed with Crohn’s, a course of steroids followed by immunosuppressive drugs was enough to keep me in relatively good health.
Slowly, though, my symptoms returned. After two years, I was again underweight and anemic (a six-foot-tall male in my twenties, I weighed about 130 pounds at my lightest), with chronic, debilitating stomach pains and other symptoms which made my life very hard.
Friends who hadn’t seen me in months asked about my health as soon as they laid eyes on me. On more than one occasion, I experienced stomach cramps so severe I vomited until there was nothing left but bile. Occasionally, upon standing up too quickly, my vision would fade and my head would spin until I fell to the ground or found something to hold onto. These weren’t the kind of symptoms that can be alleviated through the placebo effect.
People suggested going gluten-free, but I resisted it until I was desperate for many of the reasons laid out in James Hamblin’s piece (much of which I still agree with). But it worked. The pain receded. My digestion improved. I gained 30 pounds, leaving me thin, but not skeletally so.
I asked my gastroenterologist about this, and they suggested I pursue a low-FODMAP diet, which restricts foods like wheat which contain sugars that ferment during digestion. It kept the worst of the symptoms at bay and, along with my medicine, kept my inflammation at a low level. Eventually, even that low level of inflammation caused enough complications that I was put on more powerful medicine, but I've never again been as sick as I was.
In the end, it wasn’t the gluten that bothered me; it was the wheat itself. I found I could drink gluten-free beer, for example, but only the kind that was made from sorghum or other wheat substitutes. Wheat beer with the gluten removed still made me sick, and trace amounts of gluten never bothered me at all. But despite the fact that I wasn’t a Celiac, the availability of gluten-free products was a huge boon for me.
I appreciate what you, James, and TheAtlantic are trying to do by educating the public on these issues. There’s so much pseudoscience surrounding this topic that I’m sometimes embarrassed to admit that I prefer to avoid wheat. But to suggest, by omission or otherwise, that Celiacs are the only people who can benefit from the explosion of gluten-free products ignores the clinical and day-to-day experiences of a great number of people, and I think that’s worth mentioning.
This reader’s on the same page:
Credible sources place the percent of Americans with celiac as high as 1-in-35. But that understates the problem by ignoring people who are allergic to wheat but do not have celiac.
Since I was young my fingers swell (not subtly) when I eat wheat products, and it seems to be more likely to happen with products that are known to be high in gluten (like pizza). Yet I test negative for celiac.
Is the test imperfect? Am I allergic to wheat? I’ve no idea, but it is not a trivial matter. I’m afraid we are in another of those moments when experts think they know it all, while there is much more to be learned.
A reader in Bend, Oregon, is far from gluten-free but nevertheless provides some good, er, food for thought:
Some people have commented that the increased gluten sensitivity in recent decades is due to modern, hybrid wheat varieties, high processing, added gluten, and/or a move away from traditional bread dough fermentation. Michael Pollan’s view was summarized in The Huffington Post piece “Michael Pollan Wants You To Eat Gluten”:
Pollan goes on to say that some people would do well to experiment with fermentation. More specifically, he thinks fermented sourdough is a smart alternative for a healthy gut. Fermented foods in general have been found to be beneficial for gut health, but sourdough bread has a more specific benefit, according to Pollan.
“[The] tradition of fermenting flour with sourdough breaks down the peptides in gluten that give people trouble,” he said. “Anecdotally, I’ve heard from lots of people that when they eat properly fermented bread, they can tolerate it.”
There is some emerging research to support Pollan’s perspective: A 2008 study fed subjects with gluten intolerances either sourdough or regular bread. Similarly, a very small 2012 study fed sourdough to participants with celiac, finding few to no physical side effects.
There are essentially two ways to turn flour into bread. The first is the way it was done for most of human history: let the flour absorb as much water as possible and give it time to ferment, a process that allows yeast and bacteria to activate the dough. Kneading then binds the two proteins that come together to form gluten.
Most of the bread consumed in the United States is made the other way: in place of hydration, fermentation, and kneading, manufacturers save time by relying on artificial additives and huge industrial mixers to ram together the essential proteins that form gluten. . . . Most bakers, even those who would never go near an industrial mixing machine, include an additive called vital wheat gluten to strengthen the dough and to help the loaf rise.
I’m lucky; I can eat plenty of gluten and stay extremely healthy. I even eat seitan sometimes, which is pure wheat gluten. Yum.
[Avoiding gluten] has not been shown (in placebo-controlled studies) to benefit people who do not have the disease. Celiac disease is known to affect about one percent of people. Yet in a global survey of 30,000 people last year, fully 21 percent said that “gluten free” was a “very important” characteristic in their food choices. Among Millennials, the number is closer to one in three. The tendency to “avoid gluten” persists across socioeconomic strata, in households earning more than $75,000 just the same as those earning less than $30,000, and almost evenly among educational attainment. The most common justification for doing so: “no reason.”
He goes on to detail the downsides of gluten-free replica products. A reader responds with a solid bit of advice:
As someone who has had a lifelong gluten allergy (and gave it to two of my three kids), the increased “trendiness” is a mixed bag. Yes, it mean more choices, but it also means that people think my disease is just a trendy lifestyle choice and not a real thing. My general recommendation is not to use too many wheat substitutes. Instead of a gluten-free sandwich, have a salad or meat and veg. Instead of beer, have wine or hard liquor.
One of my part-time jobs right out of college, while interning and waiting tables, was doing research for a book that my roommate and his celiac-suffering business partner were putting together to help people travel and dine out gluten free. This was late 2004, and I had never heard of gluten, nor had any peers I talked to about the research gig. So over the past decade it’s been remarkable to see how rapidly and widespread “gluten free” has become. Now my best friend is GF, for dermatological reasons, as is my mother, who swears that her GF diet has snuffed out some mild health problems—and she’s been a nurse for 40 years, so she’s very science- and health-oriented. Here’s another gluten-free reader who works in the sciences:
I work in human research. Getting people to keep accurate records of what they eat, or to maintain a specific diet for a long enough time without keeping them in a lab environment 24/7 is incredibly difficult if not impossible. I am gluten-free due to promising science on Hashimoto’s thyroiditis (I am not celiac). If you have a problem linked to inflammation, it makes sense to see if going gluten-free can reduce that inflammation.
In the future, as more and more studies are done, they may find the culprit is other than gluten, or that gluten without other natural enzymes in food that’s more alive or containing more of the plants original components might be healthier.
As an N of 1, if I eat gluten now, I get depressed the next day. I don’t seem to have any other negative symptoms as others with celiac do. There is no other “cure” for Hashimotos, but I tend to have fewer symptoms of Hashimotos (lethargy, weight gain, skin issues) when I remain gluten free. I went off it for a while, started eating gluten again, and gained 20 lbs. But this might be also attributable to the fact that more foods were available (i.e. a whole pan of brownies).
I am realistic and yet still making the best choice for myself. I can understand if others are concerned it’s a harmful fad, but there also might actually be something to it, and so I don’t think it should be readily dismissed either.
Neither does this reader:
I recall Nobel prize winner Dr. Barry Marshall commenting that half of what is taught in academic gastroenterology is flat wrong. [CB note: I couldn’t quickly find that quote, but here’s a Kathryn Schulz interview with Marshall about how he was right about ulcers when everyone else was wrong.] So it was not surprising to find see solid research in the last few weeks showing that common reflux medications, proton pump inhibitors, pushed so hard by gastroenterologists, are strongly linked to dementia and cardiac dysfunction. [CB: Here’s a recent report along those lines.]
I have been gluten free for a dozen years. I am not celiac, don’t even have the DNA for it. Prior to going gluten free, which was against gastroenterologists advice, I suffered from chronic severe reflux and GI problems daily and was becoming overweight. Within months after going strictly gluten free, every trace of reflux and GI distress disappeared and over 12 years have never returned. Within six months of going gluten free, I lost the 35 excess pounds I was carrying and have stayed at my ideal weight ever since.
My toughest problem in going gluten free was weaning myself off the proton pump inhibitors that GI docs had pushed on me. What they failed to tell me is that if you start these meds and go off them, you get rebound hyper-acidity at double your pre-med levels, and that lasts a couple of months. Great for pharma marketers. I used an Internet protocol from Jacob Teitelbaum MD to wean myself off PPIs in a couple of months. Never a hint of reflux since, in a dozen years.
I wonder what is motivating the recent quasi-academic push back against gluten-free living? So many such as myself have found gluten-free living to resolve a host of problems even though not celiac. I wonder if the financial interests involved are pushing back. But then I recall Hanlon's razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence.”
I know through experience that GF people love to talk about going gluten free, so if you’d like to sound off on the subject, drop us an email. Update from a reader with some quick advice:
To those out there (like myself) who are gluten free to decrease inflammation, I caution you about the risk of added sugar in products labeled as GF. What has helped me is to not eat processed GF foods as much as possible and focus on fruits, veggies, nuts, good fats and protein. It is not easy because I often feel deprived. Hence my new focus on detoxing myself off the sugar as much as I can without adding another feeling of deprivation. Sigh.
A former Jehovah's Witness is using stolen documents to expose allegations that the religion has kept hidden for decades.
Updated at 3:34 p.m. ET on March 25, 2019.
In March 1997, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the nonprofit organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses, sent a letter to each of its 10,883 U.S. congregations, and to many more congregations worldwide. The organization was concerned about the legal risk posed by possible child molesters within its ranks. The letter laid out instructions on how to deal with a known predator: Write a detailed report answering 12 questions—Was this a onetime occurrence, or did the accused have a history of child molestation? How is the accused viewed within the community? Does anyone else know about the abuse?—and mail it to Watchtower’s headquarters in a special blue envelope. Keep a copy of the report in your congregation’s confidential file, the instructions continued, and do not share it with anyone.
The surprisingly short life of new electronic devices
Updated on March 22 at 9:06 p.m. ET.
Two years ago, Desmond Hughes heard so many of his favorite podcasters extolling AirPods, Apple’s tiny, futuristic $170 wireless headphones, that he decided they were worth the splurge. He quickly became a convert.
Hughes is still listening to podcasters talk about their AirPods, but now they’re complaining. The battery can no longer hold a charge, they say, rendering them functionally useless. Apple bloggers agree: “AirPods are starting to show their age for early adopters,” Zac Hall, an editor at 9to5Mac, wrote in a post in January, detailing how he frequently hears a low-battery warning in his AirPods now. Earlier this month, Apple Insider tested a pair of AirPods purchased in 2016 against a pair from 2018, and found that the older pair died after two hours and 16 minutes. “That’s less than half the stated battery life for a new pair,” the writer William Gallagher concluded.
In hindsight, there were plenty of indications over the past decade that American politics were headed toward the partisan sniping and low-stakes media obsessions that crowd the news cycle today. Take Arugulagate. In 2007, Barack Obama was in Iowa, speaking as a presidential hopeful to a group of farmers who were worried about the stagnation of their crop prices while America’s grocery bills continued to rise.
In his speech, Obama referred to the inflated cost of arugula at Whole Foods, which was a small gaffe: Iowa didn’t have a Whole Foods, and the leafy vegetable wasn’t then familiar enough to be name-checked in a broad point about American grocery costs. But political media turned arugula into its own news cycle, with conservatives charging Obama with elitism. Around the same time, lattes were also being slandered. It was a big moment for food as proof of one’s true ability to govern.
Our birth-control methods failed, and we can’t afford a second child financially or career-wise.
My wife and I recently discovered she's about six weeks pregnant. This is devastating news for both of us. We have a 17-month-old daughter and we planned on having only one child. The birth control we had been using failed. I tried to have a vasectomy nine months ago and my wife objected at the doctor's office without citing reasons. She said she would get an IUD instead, but she was unable to get the IUD, because doctors had to remove a fibroid first. She learned about the pregnancy at the doctor's office during a consult on removing the fibroid.
Since hearing the news, I have been honest with her about my feelings. I reminded her that we simply cannot afford a second child and we can kiss our joint career aspirations goodbye if we have another baby. She agrees with me. More important, I said our marriage will be over in the sense that we will just be co-parents rather than lovers because I will resent her, and the baby will always be a reminder of my career sacrifice and our indebtedness.
The scandal is how much corruption it exposed—and how much turns out to have been perfectly legal.
So much about the rise of Donald Trump defied reason. But in the spring of 2016, he displayed one habit that I found beyond perplexing: He couldn’t stop praising Vladimir Putin. What made his obsequiousness so galling was that it often came in response to questions that warranted moral disdain: What about the assassination of journalists critical of the Russian government? Are you bothered by the invasion of Crimea? Whereas most of Trump’s policy positions shifted over the course of the campaign, his apologetics for Putin were a rare source of constancy.
As Trump raced to the Republican nomination, I began to search for ulterior explanations for Trump’s adoration of Putin—and the fact that his campaign served as a magnet for so many advisers and consultants with ties to Russian interests. On July 4, 2016, I published a piece in Slate pointing to Putin’s pattern of intervening on behalf of candidates hostile to the Western alliance, and arguing that we were seeing the same sort of interference unfolding in the United States. And I spent much of the next three years trying to understand the nature of that interference.
Newsmakers, pundits, and hustlers banked their future on the investigation taking down the president. The jig is up.
In a letter to Congress on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr declared that while Robert Mueller’s report found evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and did not exonerate President Donald Trump, it also did “not conclude that the president committed a crime.” And so the special counsel’s months-long investigation into Trump’s dealings with Russia ended with an inconclusive conclusion: No smoking gun would result in Trump’s hasty removal from office.
Not just Democratic lawmakers had been banking on a final blow to the Trump administration. Pundits, commentators, and opportunistic entrepreneurs had all held up Mueller as a hero for their cause—and, in the process, constructed a cottage industry of Mueller-pegged media content and accessories.
Half of the electorate is likely to reject Attorney General William Barr’s decision on obstruction.
The justice system cannot please everyone, but it at least aims to provide some sort of closure. That’s why one of the least satisfying outcomes of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the election, as summarized by Attorney General William Barr, is its approach to the question of whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.
Though this message was delivered in a very different way, it is reminiscent not of Watergate or any of the other past presidential standards that have become common analogues, but instead of former FBI Director James Comey’s 2016 recommendation that Hillary Clinton not be charged with a crime in connection with her use of a personal email server while secretary of state. In both cases, Justice Department officials found evidence both for and against a crime. In both cases, they determined that prosecuting a case wasn’t tenable. And in both cases, the outcome is likely to enrage nearly half of the American electorate, splitting the country rather than providing a reconciliation.
Between 1965 and 1969, more than a million American soldiers served in combat in Vietnam. One can argue that they should never have been sent there, but no one would argue that, once committed to battle, they should have been given inferior equipment. Yet that is what happened. During those years, in which more than 40,000 American soldiers were killed by hostile fire and more than 250,000 wounded, American troops in Vietnam were equipped with a rifle that their superiors knew would fail when put to the test.
The rifle was known as the M-16; it was a replacement for the M-14, a heavier weapon, which was the previous standard. The M-16, was a brilliant technical success in its early models, but was perverted by bureaucratic pressures into a weapon that betrayed its users in Vietnam. By the middle of 1967, when the M-16 had been in combat for about a year and a half, a sufficient number of soldiers had written to their parents about their unreliable equipment and a sufficient number of parents had sent those letters to their congressmen to attract the attention of the House Armed Services Committee, which formed an investigating subcommittee. The subcommittee, headed by Representative Ichord, a Democrat from Missouri, conducted a lengthy inquiry into the origins of the M-16 problem. Much of the credit for the hearings belongs to the committee’s counsel, Earl J. Morgan. The hearing record, nearly 600 pages long, is a forgotten document, which received modest press attention at the time and calls up only dim recollections now. Yet it is a pure portrayal of the banality of evil.
Even without a physical state, the Islamic State can still fund its main product: political violence.
BEIRUT—If you’re looking to transfer money here, there’s a chance you will be directed to Abu Shawkat. He works out of a small office in a working-class suburb of the Lebanese capital, but won’t give you its exact location. Instead, he’ll direct you to a nearby alleyway, and whether he shows up depends on whether he likes the look of you.
Abu Shawkat—not his real name—is part of the hawala system, which is often used to transfer cash between places where the banking system has broken down or is too expensive for some to access. If he agrees to do business, you’ll set a password and he will take your cash, then provide you with the contact information of a hawala broker in the city where your money is headed. Anyone who offers that specific password to that particular broker will get the funds. Thus, cash can travel across borders without any inquiry into who is sending or receiving it, or its purpose.
The country’s leader is trying to strong-arm policy prescriptions for a teetering economy. But his critics say he could be making Turkey more fragile in the long run.
ISTANBUL—Every morning, men and women queue up outside a cavernous white tent on Taksim Square, here in central Istanbul, well before the first government trucks arrive carrying tomatoes, peppers, and other supplies. When they are let in, they calmly stock up on the few kilograms of fruit and vegetables they are allowed.
The scene is becoming a familiar one as Turkey sinks into recession. Dozens of these municipality-run stands, which sell produce at less than half what privately owned stores charge, have popped up across the country. Supermarket chains—accused by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of “treasonous” profiteering—are meanwhile selling some products below cost, or even pulling expensive vegetables from their shelves to avoid risking public ire.