A little information about William Davis, MD: Dr. Davis is a preventive cardiologist whose unique approach to diet allows him to advocate reversal, not just prevention, of heart disease. He is the founder of the Track Your Plaque program. He lives in Wisconsin. Nothing here should be construed as medical advice, but only topics for further discussion with your doctor.

– – –

In 1985, the National Cholesterol Education Panel delivered its Adult Treatment Panel guidelines to Americans, advice to cut cholesterol intake, reduce saturated fat, and increase “healthy whole grains.” Congress followed suit with legislation requiring that the USDA provide dietary advice to the American public.

Per capita wheat consumption increased accordingly. Wheat consumption today is 26 lbs per year greater than in 1970 and now totals 133 lbs per person per year, or the equivalent of approximately 200 loaves of bread per year. Because infants and children are lumped together with adults, average adult consumption is likely much greater than 200 lbs per year, or the equivalent of approximately 300 loaves of bread per year. (Nobody, of course, eats 300 loaves of bread per year; tallying up the pretzels, pizza, bagels, focaccia, bruschetta, breading, rolls, etc., it all adds up to approximately 300 loaves-equivalent.)

Another twist: The mid- and late-1980s also marks the widespread adoption by U.S. farmers of the genetically-altered semi-dwarf variants of wheat to replace traditional wheat. While in 1980 the loaf of bread–or bagel, pretzel, pizza, bruschetta, ciabatta, or roll–likely came from 4 1/2-foot tall traditional wheat, in 1988 it was almost certainly a product made from high-yield semi-dwarf wheat. No questions were asked about its appropriateness for human consumption, no questions asked about animal safety testing. Just grown, processed, and sold.

And that’s when the dough hit the fan.

The Centers for Disease Control has been tracking multiple health conditions, including diabetes. Here is the curve for diabetes up until 2009:

From 1958 until 1985, the number of diabetics nationwide was climbing. After 1985, the curve shifted sharply upward reflecting the explosion in the number of diabetics across the U.S. The data (not shown) for 2010 are even worse, with the curve now headed straight upward.

Eat more “healthy whole grains” . . . indeed.

Visit Dr. Davis’ Website »

“Why Grains Are Unhealthy” was originally posted on the Mark’s Daily Apple Website on November 5, 2010 and has been reposted in its entirety with the permission of Mark Sisson.

— — —

I find that grain bashing makes for a tasty, but ultimately unsatisfying meal.

You all know how much I love doing it, though. But no matter how often I sit down to dine on the stuff (and I’ve done it with great gusto in the past), I always leave the table feeling like I left something behind. Like maybe I wasn’t harsh enough about the danger of gluten, or I failed to really convey just how much I hated lectins. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the mere mention of grains was eliciting a crazy insulin-esque response and throwing my satiety hormones all out of whack. I was filling up on anti-grain talk, but I just couldn’t fill that void for long.

Well, I’ve got the hunger today, and this time I aim to stuff myself to the point of perpetual sickness. I don’t ever want to have to look at another anti-grain argument again (yeah, right). If things get a little disjointed, or if I descend into bullet points and sentence fragments, it’s only because the hunger has taken over and I’ve decided to dispense with the pleasantries in order to lay it all out at once.

So please, bear with me.

Apart from maintaining social conventions in certain situations and obtaining cheap sugar calories, there is absolutely no reason to eat grains. Believe me – I’ve searched far and wide and asked everyone I can for just one good reason to eat cereal grains, but no one can do it. They may have answers, but they just aren’t good enough. For fun, though, let’s see take a look at some of the assertions:

“You need the fiber!”

Okay, for one: no, I don’t. If you’re referring to its oft-touted ability to move things along in the inner sanctum, fiber has some unintended consequences. A few years back, scientistsfound that high-fiber foods “bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering” which “increases the level of lubricating mucus.” Err, that sounds positively awful. Banging and tearing? Rupturing? These are not the words I like to hear. But wait! The study’s authors say, “It’s a good thing.” Fantastic! So when all those sticks and twigs rub up against my fleshy interior and literally rupture my intestinal lining, I’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s all part of the plan, right?

Somehow, I’m not convinced that a massive daily infusion of insoluble grain fiber is all that essential. And that “lubricating mucus” sounds an awful like the mucus people with irritable bowel syndrome complain about. From personal experience I can tell you that once I completed my exodus from grains, the IBS completely stopped. If you’re not yet convinced on the fiber issue I’ll refer you to Konstantin Monastyrsky’s Fiber Menace. Anyway, there’s plenty of fiber in the vegetables and fruit I eat. Which takes me to the next claim:

“You need the vitamins and minerals!”

You got me. I do need vitamins and minerals, like B1 and B2, magnesium and iron, zinc and potassium. But do I need to obtain them by eating a carb-heavy, bulky grain? No, no I don’t. You show me a serving of “healthy whole grains” that can compete – nutrient, vitamin, and mineral-wise – with a Big Ass Salad. What’s that? Can’t do it? Thought so.

“But it forms the foundation of the governmental food pyramid!”

You know, I should have just started the entire post with this one. I could have saved my fingers the trouble of typing and your eyes the trouble of reading. Governmental endorsements are not points in your favor, grain-eater; they are strikes against you. An appeal to authority (unless that “authority” is actually a preponderance of scientific evidence, of course) does not an effective argument make. Conventional Wisdom requires consistent, steady dissection and criticism if it is to be of any value.

There’s a reason grains are first and foremost on the list of foods to avoid when following the Primal Blueprint: they are completely and utterly pointless in the context of a healthy diet. In fact, if your average unhealthy person were to ask for the top three things to avoid in order to get healthy, I would tell them to stop smoking, to stop drinking their calories (as soda or juice), and to stop eating grains. Period. Full stop. They really are that bad.

I’ve mentioned this time and again, but the fundamental problem with grains is that they are a distinctly Neolithic food that the human animal has yet to adapt to consuming. In fact, cereal grains figured prominently in the commencement of the New Stone Age; grains were right there on the forefront of the agricultural revolution. Hell, they were the agricultural revolution – einkorn wheat, emmer, millet, and spelt formed the backbone of Neolithic farming. They could be stored for months at a time, they were easy enough to grow in massive enough quantities to support a burgeoning population, and they promoted the construction of permanent settlements. Oh, and they were easily hoarded, meaning they were probably an early form of currency (and, by extension, a potential source of income inequality). And here’s the kicker: they were harsh, tough things that probably didn’t even taste very good. It also took a ton of work just to make them edible, thanks to their toxic anti-nutrients.

Toxic anti-nutrients? Do tell.

Living things generally do not want to be consumed by other living things. Being digested, for the most part, tends to interrupt survival, procreation, propagation of the species – you know, standard stuff that fauna and flora consider pretty important. To avoid said consumption, living things employ various self defense mechanisms. Rabbits, for example, with their massive ears, considerable fast-twitch muscle fibers, and nasty claws, can usually hear a predator coming, outrun (out-hop?) nearly anything, and (in a pinch) slash a tender belly to shreds. Blue whales are too big to fit into your mouth, while porcupines are walking reverse pincushions. Point is, animals have active defense mechanisms. They run, fight, jump, climb, fly, sting, bite, and even appeal to our emotions (if you’ve ever seen a puppy beg for a treat with sad eyes, you know that isn’t just accidental cuteness) in order to survive. All the while, predators are constantly evolving and generating adaptations.

Plants, though, are passive organisms without the ability to move, think, and react (for the most part). They must employ different tactics to ensure propagation, and they generally have to rely on outside forces to spread their seed. And so various methods are “devised” to dissuade consumption long enough for the seed to get to where it’s going. Nuts have those tough shells, and grains have the toxic anti-nutrients, lectins, gluten, and phytates. (Of course there are some obvious exceptions. Fruits are tasty, nutritious, and delicious so that animals will eat them whole and poop out the seeds, preferably into some fertile soil. The seed stays intact throughout the digestive process; it is indigestible by design. No seed “wants” to be digested, because this would defeat the purpose. They “want” to be swallowed, or borne by the wind, or carried by a bee to the next flower, but they do not want to be digested.)

Some animals are clearly adapted to grain consumption. Birds, rodents, and some insects can deal with the anti-nutrients. Humans, however, cannot. Perhaps if grains represented a significant portion of our ancestral dietary history, things might be a bit different. Some of us can digest dairy, and we’ve got the amylase enzyme present in our saliva to break down starches if need be, but we simply do not have the wiring necessary to mitigate the harmful effects of lectins, gluten, and phytate.

Lectins are bad. They bind to insulin receptors, attack the stomach lining of insects, bind to human intestinal lining, and they seemingly cause leptin resistance. And leptin resistancepredicts a “worsening of the features of the metabolic syndrome independently of obesity”. Fun stuff, huh?

Gluten might be even worse. Gluten, found in wheat, rye, and barley, is a composite of the proteins giladin and glutenin. Around 1% of the population are celiacs, people who are completely and utterly intolerant of any gluten. In celiacs, any gluten in the diet can be disastrous. We’re talking compromised calcium and vitamin D3 levels, hyperparathyroidism, bone defects. Really terrible stuff. And it gets worse: just because you’re not celiac doesn’t mean you aren’t susceptible to the ravages of gluten. As Stephan highlights, one studyshowed that 29% of asymptomatic (read: not celiac) people nonetheless tested positive for anti-gliadin IgA in their stool. Anti-gliadin IgA is an antibody produced by the gut, and it remains there until it’s dispatched to ward off gliadin – a primary component of gluten. Basically, the only reason anti-gliadin IgA ends up in your stool is because your body sensed an impending threat – gluten. If gluten poses no threat, the anti-gliadin IgA stays in your gut. And to think, most Americans eat this stuff on a daily basis.

Phytates are a problem, too, because they make minerals bio-unavailable (so much for all those healthy vitamins and minerals we need from whole grains!), thus rendering null and void the last, remaining argument for cereal grain consumption.

What, then, is the point to all this grain madness? Is there a good reason for anyone (with access to meat, fruit, and vegetables, that is) to rely on cereal grains for a significant portion of their caloric intake?

The answer is unequivocally, undeniably no. We do not need grains to survive, let alone thrive. In fact, they are naturally selected to ward off pests, whether they be insects or hominids. I suggest we take the hint and stop eating them.

And with that, I’m done. I don’t think I could eat another bite.

Visit Mark’s blog, Mark’s Daily Apple »

Emily Deans, M.D.: I’m a psychiatrist in Massachusetts searching for evolutionary solutions to the general and mental health problems of the 21st century. Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to be personal medical advice. Please ask your physician about any health guidelines seen in this blog, as everyone is different in his or her medical needs.

This article was originally posted on the Psychology Today Website on August 16, 2011 and has been reposted in its entirety with the permission of Emily Deans, M.D.

— — —

Odd wheat immune reactions are found in folks with bipolar disorder.

Not too long ago I wrote an article on the possible links between wheat and schizophrenia.  It turns out that intrepid investigators have been looking at connections between wheat consumption and other serious illness too, such as bipolar disorder.  While there is nothing that would definitively prove wheat causes bipolar disorder, the research findings raise a lot of questions that we should really look at more closely.  So let’s dive in.

Bipolar disorder is an illness of mania or hypomania plus or minus depressive episodes. Bipolar disorder does not equal “moody” or “irritable,” though those can certainly be signs as part of a bigger clinical picture. It is not the disorder unless the symptoms are bad enough to get you into some serious trouble. You might spend too much orsleep around too much, you don’t sleep, you are possibly more religious and grandiose – in cycles, often alternating with depressive episodes. Another form of the illness results in the occasional hypomanic episode amidst a lot of chronic depression.

It is important to know that bipolar disorder is associated with inflammation and metabolic syndrome (1), diabetes (2) and a“western” style diet.  I believe that a combination of chronic stress, genetic vulnerability, nutrient deficiencies, and food toxins (including gluten) are responsible for most of the chronic disease in the western world, including mental illness.  To put it another way, I’d bet a monkey that a combination of sugar, trans fats and vegetable oil, and high doses of refined wheat products (as I’ve mentioned before, the evidence against wheat is circumstantial) are culprits behind metabolic syndrome and diabetes. And maybe a subset of the population suffers at the brain level too and manifests bipolar disorder. Hey, seems as good a theory as any.

So if wheat possibly plays a role in the etiology of schizophrenia, why would we look at bipolar disorder, which is an entirely separate diagnosis?  Well, it turns out the two disorders can overlap sometimes in symptoms. While depressed people can be psychotic, a frank manic psychosis will look pretty much the same in the hospital as a schizophrenic psychotic episode, and there may even be some genetic overlaps (3)(4).  This new paper by Faith Dickerson’s group  is the first to study celiac and wheat-associated antibodies in bipolar disorder. In schizophrenia, there is a definite increase in wheat-associated antibodies in the serum (5) and these antibodies aren’t the same ones that are seen in celiac disease. Well, with bipolar disorder, seems the same thing is true. Bipolar folks had a significant IgG gliadin reaction (antibodies to specific types of wheat proteins) compared to controls, but there weren’t really differences with respect to tTG and IgA gliadin antibodies which are typically elevated in celiac disease.  So what we find is that people with celiac, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia all have weird immune responses to wheat that healthy people don’t seem to have.

Ooh ooh ooh, wheat is BAD. Well, probably, for various reasons. But, of course, I don’t necessarily believe that a positive IgG test to the wheat protein gliadin means one has a sensitivity to gliadin.  Al a positive IgG test means is that your blood has been exposed to that protein and you made an imune reaction to it.  Could be you sliced your finger while cutting a loaf of bread or something.  I griped about IgG food sensitivity tests not too terribly long ago. I think a robustly positive IgG test to lots of things means one may have a leaky gut, so lots of proteins are getting through and are exposed to your immune system. Gliadin is a pretty common thing to eat, so folks with leaky guts may come up positive for gliadin.

The most robust evidence in humans I’ve seen for leaky guts linked to wheat (or maybe casein, a milk protein) consumption was from this nifty study in autism (6), where the kids on the gluten-free/casein-free diets had pretty tight junctions in their guts (so no leakiness), especially compared to the autistic kids and their relatives. However, the study was small and the link is awfully tenuous.  Boy, I bet the researchers have really pounced on this diet and mental health link and studied leaky guts in bipolar disorder (7)(9)! Er, no. But, links have been found between major depressive disorder and leaky guts (8 - an interesting enough paper for another day).

So all we have is a mystery – why the strange immune reaction to wheat? Best I can consolidate from all this information – it may be that folks with bipolar disorder have gut issues, and gut issues are inflammatory issues, and a higher IgG response to gliadin occurs, and inflammation causes the body to release cytokines and general badness, and those cytokines may predispose the genetically vulnerable to psychosis. Also, there may be particular bad inflammation associated with the exorphins in wheat being neuroactive. And is it just wheat? There’s a paper linking recent onset psychosis and schizophrenia to IgG and IgA antibodies to th dairy protein casein (10). In this study, the severity of psychosis was linked to the level of antibody response to casein (actually, the alpha and kappa subunits moreso than the beta, which is interesting, though first onset psychosis had a robust immune response to the beta subunit).

And I’m not entirely off the wall here, because here is an excerpt of the discussion from paper 10 (another one from Faith Dickerson’s group, as a matter of fact):

We can speculate that a subset of individuals with recent onset psychosis and/or schizophrenia may have cellular junction pathology that allows peptide fragments generated from the digestion of bovine milk to permeate the intestinal tract, and enter the bloodstream… Dohan… hypothesized that the aberrent proteolysis of milk and grain products may produce small neuroactive peptides that can enter into the circulation and ultimately cross the blood-brain barrier.

So, lesson number one. Don’t have a leaky gut. Lesson number two. If your gut is leaky, best to avoid creepy neuroactive peptides. Lesson number three. There is nothing horribly definitive here, but plenty to study.

Copyright Emily Deans, M.D.

More articles like this one at Evolutionary Psychiatry

While I’m an advocate of the paleo diet myself, I don’t think that everyone should abandon quinoa just yet.  The paleo diet can be seemingly restrictive in  nature (it’s really not once you get used to it) but it’s usually something that people have to grow into — usually (like myself) as a result of being gluten-free already. I haven’t had any quinoa myself in quite a while, but for those new to the gluten-free diet and looking for a good grain substitute, quinoa is a great choice.

I’d love to hear more about what you think of quinoa and some interesting ways that you’ve used it.

— — —

“Quinoa gets major attention in health food circles. Some foodies hail it as a “super food,” while others assert it is a threat to gastrointestinal health. Quinoa is often misidentified as a grain, but I wanted to learn if there is anything besides this confusion that concerns those on a gluten-free or grain-free diet.

Quinoa is Not a Grain

A “grain” is the word commonly applied to the botanical term “caryopses.” All cereal grains (such as wheat, oats, barley, rye, rice, etc.) are members of the grass family and produce caryopsis/grain. The “pericarp” (the external wall) is fused to a single “carpel” (the structure that encloses the “ovule”).

Quinoa is not part of the grass family. It is a flowering plant in the “chenopod” family. Other members include beets, chard, and spinach. The quinoa seed is not fused to its pericarp. Based on these two criteria, quinoa can not be called a grain.

Confusingly, the agricultural term “grain” is based only on the appearance of a food product. As a result, packaging, articles, advertising, etc. may refer to “quinoa grain.” The term “pseudocereal” is also applied to quinoa, because the plant’s appearance and use is similar to that of true grains. Botanically speaking quinoa is a grain-free food…”

Read the full post »

— — —

There is another post-worthy probiotics paper on the hopper, but before that I wanted to cover an article called Breakfast Staple Types Affect Brain Gray Matter Volume and Cognitive Function in Healthy Children (freely available on PLoS one). I like some parts of this paper, though it is observational in nature, so keep that in mind.

As we all know, our big old brains develop not only prenatally, but also throughout childhood and adolescence. In children, several studies have been done showing nourishing breakfasts help cognitive performance compared to skipping breakfast – especially the “high quality” breakfasts, with one study showing that a breakfast of low glycemic index foods having an immediate positive effect on attention throughout the morning (1).

In other introductory information, many studies in children have been able to correlate the amount of brain gray matter (vs. white matter) and IQ, especially gray matter in the prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex and the cingulate gyrus. Therefore, since breakfast types affect cognitive function, and brain structure can correlate with IQ, does breakfast type correlate with brain structure and IQ? I don’t know. Let’s find out.

These Japanese researchers (funded by a national Young Scientists’ grant) studied 290 healthy children ages 5-18 years. In Japan, apparently boiled white rice or white bread make up a typical breakfast. (I remember eating a lot of this cereal plus sugar in skim milk when I was a kid. Kapow!) The scientists were able to split the children into groups of habitual rice-eaters, habitual white bread eaters, and those who consumed both regularly. Then they tested the IQs (using standard measures for kids <16 and a separate standard test for 16 and older), scanned the kids in a MRI, and collected their data. Questionnaires were filled out by the kids or their parents with respect to morning eating habits, health, wealth, etc.

Using varying statistical techniques and a couple varieties of imaging data collection, the researchers found that the gray matter ratios (gray matter volume divided by intracranial volume) were significantly higher among the rice eaters vs. the white bread eaters, even after adjusting for age, gender, wealth, average weekly frequency of eating breakfast, and number of breakfast side dishes. The Verbal IQ in the rice group averaged 104.7, in the bread group 100.3. The Performance IQ was 102.1 in the rice group and 97.9 in the bread group. This difference was non-significant.

As the kids became older, the differences in gray matter ratio increased between bread and rice groups. Overall, calories consumed among rice eaters were slightly lower than those who habitually ate bread.

Now the researchers spend a lot of time talking about how all of these findings can be explained by the lower glycemic index of rice compared to white bread. They feel that low GI foods provide steadier blood glucose levels, and “stable and efficient glucose supply is important for neurons.” It is notable that “cerebral metabolic rates of glucose utilization are approximately two times higher in children compared with adults.” (Could be why children seem to have so much more of a natural “sweet tooth” than most adults). The researchers also felt that since white bread has more fat than white rice, that the increased fat content might be a problem for the brains of white bread eaters (they suggest fat decreases neuronal plasticity). I rather strongly disagree with them here and will have to pull their supporting paper when I have a minute… right now I have to finish up and dash off to work.

So all told, this study is only an observation, and causal factors cannot be determined with this dataset. And I think the whole high GI/low GI chase is probably a red herring. These Japanese kids were all likely relatively low-fat and high carb compared to say, American kids of the same age, and I do tend to think that healthy, low-toxicity carbs and fruit are fine for kids, who are not as likely to have leptin resistance as their adult counterparts. As for the fat issue – I think a common sense way to think about this issue is to look at neonates. They are the extreme version of the child, after all, and everyone can agree about the best food for them (human breast milk). Neonates need a diet high in sugar (though lactose does not contain fructose) and 50% fat with lots of saturated fat. I don’t see how fat can be vital for the baby brain but somehow becomes toxic for the growing child brain. I wish someone could explain that to me in a way that makes any physiologic sense, because it seems to be taken for truth by so many medical professionals and scientists. If you can explain exactly when and how fat becomes toxic (somewhere presumably between the ages of 3 and 5, which is when ancestral humans were weaned?) drop me a comment. “Lipotoxicity” doesn’t count without more information as to the specific mechanism – neither do studies poisoning animals and/or humans with large amounts of corn oil or trans fats.

I’m perfectly willing to accept that the bread, derived from wheat, has toxic factors that cause inflammation or hurts the microbiota or interfere with absorption of minerals or whatever, and theoretically could be a casual factor as part of the differences seen in the children’s brains in this paper. My kids get rice and potatoes and fruit and milk as carb staples, in addition to meat, fish, nuts, and vegetables. All in all, I believe metabolic flexibility and low-toxicity and premium quality food for premium micronutrients are the most important things for a healthy diet and a healthy brain.

End note – thanks to Jamie for the paper!!! Also, Blogger comments were acting up for a few days. If you asked me a question in the last few posts, I’ve been meaning to chime in when I get a moment. Don’t despair.

More articles like this one at Evolutionary Psychiatry

Amy Leger

Amy Leger (aka The Savvy Celiac) continually uncovers and shares great information on celiac disease research. This post in particular talking about the underdiagnosis of celiac disease in the United States is an eye-opener in terms of what we are and aren’t doing. Hopefully, the new guidelines that were put in place will make the difference.

— — —

“New research out this month investigates why there’s such a high rate of “under-diagnosis” of celiac disease in the United States. Researchers said doctors performing biopsies on the small intestine may be, in part, to blame for the 97%* of the celiac population that remains undiagnosed.

Most of us who have experienced a celiac diagnosis (or suspected celiac) have gone through a biopsy after testing positive to blood tests. The biopsy is considered the gold standard in celiac testing. But what many of us may not have known, until this study was released, is that the recommended guidelines for a celiac biopsy say doctors should take at least 4 samples in the small intestine.

The Celiac Test Research

According to an article in e! Science News and research published in the July issue of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, researchers looked at the records of 132,000 patients who had had a biopsy of the small intestine for a variety of medical symptoms : diarrhea, abdominal pain, esophageal reflux and anemia. Plus, doctors suspected celiac disease — only 35 percent of the patients had at least four samples taken.

“Celiac disease can affect the small intestine in a patchy distribution, and so just one or two biopsy samples could potentially miss the evidence of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Benjamin Lebwohl from the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University Medical Center.

So what was the most common number of specimens taken? 2! What may have happened if the correct number of specimens was taken? The article explains “adhering to the recommendation of submitting at least four specimens more than doubled the diagnosis rate of celiac disease…”

See the entire post from The Savvy Celiac Website »

• The link between diet and Alzheimer’s
• Can nutritional changes effect depression?
• Does gastric bypass surgery lead to mental health issues?
• Can gluten intolerance induce mental disorders?
• What role does the “modern lifestyle” play in the increasing prevalence of mental health problems?
• How does an individual’s mental state influence his/her biology?
• Does iron deficiency anemia contribute to mental health problems?

Read the full post and listen to the podcast »

Amy Leger

As always, Amy Leger (aka The Savvy Celiac) has come up with some great “how-to” advice on how to “empower a gluten-free child”.  Getting kids to want to follow a gluten-free diet is hard and this is welcomed advice from someone who’s raised children gluten-free. I’ve listed the first five of her top ten list, be sure to continue on to her site to see the other five.

— — —

“These are in no particular order– some may be big picture, some may be very specific, but I hope by the time “we’re done with her” she’ll be ready to face the world as a strong gluten-free woman.

1. Speak up when something’s not right. This goes for many things in life actually, but when it comes to celiac disease, not speaking up could make you sick. So far, this has been a challenge, Emma isn’t even correcting her teachers who are mispronouncing her last name (it’s Lezh-AY, not LEG-ger, LEE-ger, or LEDG-er). But we continue to work on it.
2. Know your ingredients. This goes for gluten free and gluteny ingredients. She needs to be able to look at a label and based on that, decide of she can have it. She did this for the first time with a “Fudgesicley” ice cream treat on Tuesday– with success. She’s 12, so I am happy to see signs of her taking control.
3. Don’t let another adult try and tell you differently. I find even adults my age, younger and older try to explain gluten free to me and they sell it like they have experience, when in actuality, they only know a small amount or nothing at all. These could be sales people, friends’ parents, or even a restaurant server. Don’t let these people steer you away from what you know. If in doubt, don’t eat it.
4. Learn how to tactfully turn people down when they offer food. You can go with the truth, “I can’t eat it if it’s not gluten free” (this can be turned into an educational opportunity). Or perhaps a white lie, “I already ate, thanks for offering”.
5. Learn how to manage that dreaded pizza party. How many times in high school or college did YOU order pizza after a basketball game or on a Friday night with a group of friends? Exactly. It’s a whole new challenge for gluten-free kids– one we haven’t had to deal with yet…”

See the entire top ten list on The Savvy Celiac Website »

As hard as this has been to watch unfold, I’ve done my best to remain a friend and support them in any way that I can. This hasn’t always been an easy task as I am often the focus of their delusional beliefs and conspiracy theories. So far, I’ve been able to rationalize it all and know that this is the illness talking and not my friend. While I know I’ll probably never get my friend back in the way that they used to be, there will always be a part of me that hopes so.

This leads me into a few issues that I have about diet and how it relates to illness. While I have some obvious opinions about how gluten (and all grains) can have a negative impact on the health of everyone (not just those with celiac disease), I’m not one who will preach to people and insist that everyone go on a gluten-free diet (that’s not to say that I would love this), but for people who know me, they know what my opinions are. One thing that I’ve noticed — especially in the context of my friends hospitalizations and treatment — there has never been one shred of concern with diet as part of their treatment. My friend is a vegetarian and while in the hospital, they usually survive on things like salad, mac & cheese, and juice. This is the menu that’s offered to a vegetarian by a hospital dietitian? Hardly a diet to promote health and wellness.

I recently came across the writings of Dr. Emily Deans, a psychiatrist near Boston who talks in depth about the possible connection between gluten and mental illness. Her blog, Evolutionary Psychiatry is full of wonderful articles on this topic and some of which I’ve shared here before. On a few occasions, I’ve brought this topic up with my friend’s doctors, most of them dismiss it before I can even finish my first sentence. Why is there such a concerted effort to not look at food as a possible cause? I’m not saying that it is the cause, but isn’t it at least worth looking at? It kind of reminds me of doctors not recognizing that cigarettes had an impact on health back in the 1950’s — maybe 50 years from now (hopefully it won’t take that long), doctors will recognize the necessity of real food as a first line of defense against disease.

With people getting sicker and sicker and a nonsensical business model of treating disease instead of learning to prevent it in the first place — I wonder how long it will take folks to make the food connection on their own. If people do make that connection, then doctors will take notice and start to move in the right direction. Doctors now cater to people’s quick-fix mentality of taking a pill to fix something after it’s broken. I guess doctors work off of the same supply and demand model that most businesses work on.

For the sake of my friend as well as the millions of other people suffering from a chronic illness, I hope this shift in attitude happens sometime soon. I’m not sure that it will, but again, it’s something I can hope for.