The vast majority of people who avoid gluten don’t have celiac disease or even a gluten sensitivity, but as reader Rachel can attest, there’s a big upside to the proliferation of all the GF products and menus fueled by the fad (even as Hamblin noted the downsides):
I found out 10 years ago this month that I had Celiac. I was having horrible stomach pain, reflux, ulcers, etc, and at 19 I had zero quality of life. My biopsy came back positive for Celiac but my blood-work was negative, so my doctors weren’t sure at the time how to diagnose me.
Going gluten-free 10 years ago was one of the most overwhelming and terrifying things I had ever experienced. My doctor flat told me I could continue to eat gluten but I would most likely develop colon cancer by the time I was 40.
I was living in Nashville, where everything was fried, I had no family around me, and nothing was labeled on food items. I remember crying in the grocery store because I had no idea what to buy. I thought, “Am I ever going to be able to eat a sandwich again??” I ate corn tortillas, hummus, eggs, and cheese for an entire month until I found some resources on Celiac.
As there has been a lot more awareness of Celiac over the years and even a cool factor to being gluten free, I have found it much easier to live this way without getting sick. I have traveled around the world and all over the U.S. and it’s been almost a non-issue with many places. I’m grateful for the awareness.
(Also, as a helpful hint, if I get gluten in my meal, I’ve found that sipping Apple Cider Vinegar in water helps alleviate the symptoms. I’m note a doctor, but it helps tremendously.)
On the flip side, I tend to get many disparaging looks when I ask for a gluten free menu, if something has gluten in it, or when I tell people I’m not able to eat it. In fact, I'm more likely to not tell someone and either go hungry or try to figure out an alternative option because of the negative responses.
I know that Celiac is genetic, and though I don’t have children right now, I worry about if they will inherit the gene and whether or not I should start them on a gluten-free diet as babies. I guess I’ll just have to take it one day at a time, but all I know is that I’ll still be gluten free even when it’s not a cool thing to do.
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.
American corporations are spending trillions of dollars to repurchase their own stock. The practice is enriching CEOs—at the expense of everyone else.
In the early 1980s, a group of menacing outsiders arrived at the gates of American corporations. The “raiders,” as these outsiders were called, were crude in method and purpose. After buying up controlling shares in a corporation, they aimed to extract a quick profit by dethroning its “underperforming” CEO and selling off its assets. Managers—many of whom, to be fair, had grown complacent—rushed to protect their institutions, crafting new defensive measures and lodging appeals in state courts. In the end, the raiders were driven off and their moneyman, Michael Milken, was thrown in prison. Thus ended a colorful chapter in American business history.
Or so it seemed. Today, another effort is under way to raid corporate assets at the expense of employees, investors, and taxpayers. But this time, the attack isn’t coming from the outside. It’s coming from inside the citadel, perpetrated by the very chieftains who are supposed to protect the place. And it’s happening under the most innocuous of names: stock buybacks.
Hailed as a savant, lampooned as a fraud, Britain’s likely next prime minister must lead his country through its moment of maximum peril—and opportunity.
Late morning on Tuesday, July 23, the denouement in Boris Johnson’s lifelong quest for political power will be revealed, when the committee that has organized the Conservative Party’s leadership election will announce the winner of the race to replace Theresa May. The following day, the winner—Johnson is the heavy favorite—will be driven to Buckingham Palace for an audience with the Queen, and be formally appointed prime minister.
It will be the culmination of seven weeks of national campaigning in which Johnson has slowly and cautiously closed in on the prize. Yet in reality it has been a 40-year pursuit, relentlessly driving forward, each step a mere prelude to the next on his seemingly unstoppable rise.
No one has done more to dispel the myth of social mobility than Raj Chetty. But he has a plan to make equality of opportunity a reality.
Raj Chetty got his biggest break before his life began. His mother, Anbu, grew up in Tamil Nadu, a tropical state at the southern tip of the Indian subcontinent. Anbu showed the greatest academic potential of her five siblings, but her future was constrained by custom. Although Anbu’s father encouraged her scholarly inclinations, there were no colleges in the area, and sending his daughter away for an education would have been unseemly.
But as Anbu approached the end of high school, a minor miracle redirected her life. A local tycoon, himself the father of a bright daughter, decided to open a women’s college, housed in his elegant residence. Anbu was admitted to the inaugural class of 30 young women, learning English in the spacious courtyard under a thatched roof and traveling in the early mornings by bus to a nearby college to run chemistry experiments or dissect frogs’ hearts before the men arrived.
America’s urban rebirth is missing something key—actual births.
A few years ago, I lived in a walkup apartment in the East Village of New York. Every so often descending the stairway, I would catch a glimpse of a particular family with young children in its Sisyphean attempts to reach the fourth floor. The mom would fold the stroller to the size of a boogie board, then drag it behind her with her right hand, while cradling the younger and typically crying child in the crook of her left arm. Meanwhile, she would shout hygiene instructions in the direction of the older child, who would slap both hands against every other grimy step to use her little arms as leverage, like an adult negotiating the boulder steps of Machu Picchu. It looked like hell—or, as I once suggested to a roommate, a carefully staged public service announcement against family formation.
ACLU lawyers have stopped border agents from demanding ID after domestic flights.
Commercial airliners are not usually restful environments, but February 2017 was a particularly fraught time for domestic air passengers. Donald Trump had become president a month earlier and had quickly issued his “travel ban” executive order, sparking chaos at the nation’s airports. Although on February 3 a federal district judge enjoined the ban, by February 21 White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was telling a press briefing that “the President want[s] to take the shackles off individuals in [immigration agencies].” The very next day, Customs and Border Protection agents met Delta Airlines flight 1583 at the gate at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The agents, and the Delta cabin crew, told the passengers that to exit, they would have to show government-issued ID.
A growing body of research has documented the health risks of getting certain breeds fixed early—so why aren’t shelters changing their policies?
In the 1970s, a time when tens of millions of unwanted dogs were being euthanized in the United States annually, an orthodoxy began to take hold: Spay and neuter early. Spay and neuter everything. It’s what vets were taught. It’s what responsible pet owners were told to do.
A growing body of research, however, suggests that spaying and neutering—especially in some large breeds when very young—are linked to certain disorders later in life. “As time has gone on, vets are starting to question the wisdom,” says Missy Simpson, a veterinary epidemiologist with the Morris Animal Foundation, which recently published a study that found higher rates of obesity and orthopedic injury in golden retrievers that had been fixed. Other studies have linked early spaying and neutering to certain cancers, joint disorders, and urinary incontinence—though the risks tend to vary by sex, breed, and living circumstances. As such, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) now says in a guide for veterinarians, “There is no single recommendation that would be appropriate for all dogs.”
I miss the closeness we had before our baby was born.
My husband and I have been married for three years. It was like a whirlwind of romance when we first met, and we couldn’t keep our hands off each other. We moved in together after just six months and were engaged after one year of being together. We got married two years later and I got pregnant soon after.
Our sex was always good before I got pregnant. When our baby was born, my husband had postnatal depression and I had to keep everything together. I was finding it hard inside, but just had to act strong for the both of us. That really put a strain on our marriage.
Our beautiful baby boy is now 15 months old and we never have sex. Our son has just started to sleep through the night, and I think we have gotten so used to taking care of our son at night and not having sex that now it feels so awkward. This is so upsetting, and I don’t know if we are attracted to each other anymore. We have date nights and nights off, but we still never want to have sex. He said it’s like having sex with his mate.
Matchmaking sites have officially surpassed friends and family in the world of dating, injecting modern romance with a dose of radical individualism. Maybe that’s the problem.
My maternal grandparents met through mutual friends at a summer pool party in the suburbs of Detroit shortly after World War II. Thirty years later, their oldest daughter met my dad in Washington, D.C., at the suggestion of a mutual friend from Texas. Forty years after that, when I met my girlfriend in the summer of 2015, one sophisticated algorithm and two rightward swipes did all the work.
My family story also serves as a brief history of romance. Robots are not yet replacing our jobs. But they’re supplanting the role of matchmaker once held by friends and family.
For the past 10 years, the Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld has been compiling data on how couples meet. In almost any other period, this project would have been an excruciating bore. That’s because for centuries, most couples met the same way: They relied on their families and friends to set them up. In sociology-speak, our relationships were “mediated.” In human-speak, your wingman was your dad.
The House Intelligence Committee chairman opens up about the Mueller investigation.
Adam Schiff was everywhere, until he was nowhere.
In nearly 20 years as a Democratic congressman from Southern California, Schiff has grappled with issues from national security, to intellectual property, to the Armenian genocide. But for the past two years, he has been perhaps the most visible face of ongoing inquiries into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the scourge of the White House, and the darling of cable-television bookers from coast to coast.
That is, he was until he wasn’t—when the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report last spring left Schiff’s sails luffing. Mueller’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge members of Donald Trump’s campaign team with conspiring with Russian entities to tip the election was a blow to Schiff and his fellow Democrats, who were becalmed by the underwhelming public, political, and media reaction to the end of an investigation that so many of them had hoped would pack a bigger punch.
“It’s not just how much you have—it’s what you do with it,” says one researcher who studies money and happiness.
These days, not even the rich feel rich. According to a recent survey by the financial-advisory firm Ameriprise Financial, only 13 percent of American millionaires classify themselves as wealthy. Even some of those surveyed who had more than $5 million across their bank accounts, investments, and retirement accounts said they didn’t feel rich. If multimillionaires don’t feel wealthy, who does?
I decided to go to Elizabeth Dunn, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia and a co-author of Happy Money: The Science of Happier Spending, with my question: Once people have enough money to cover their basic needs and then some, what would make them feel satisfied—happy, even—with what they have? Dunn said she didn’t know of any academic studies that addressed this question head-on, but she did point to some related research that provides possible answers.