The Gluten Bell Curve and Why It's Better to Lie

You've probably heard of a bell curve. It's a figure used to explain that the majority of a population are "average" while there are a few outliers at opposite ends of the spectrum. You can use a bell curve to describe various things: grades in a math class, height of a group of people, etc. You could also use a bell curve to describe tolerance. Let's take the sun, for instance. The average person can tolerate a moderate amount of sunshine, while a few people can tolerate a great deal of sunlight (typically dark skinned people) and a few people can't tolerate much sunlight at all (very fair skinned people). This makes sense, but what's funny (actually, sad) is that when it comes to food and drink, people are generally more accepting of people at the EXTREME end of things. Allow me to explain. 

Have you ever been at a bar with people and decided not to drink? People look for a reason why. And more so, you might feel the need to give an excuse. "Oh, I have to get up early tomorrow," "I drank a lot last night,:" etc. even if you do, they look at you funny because it's socially expected to drink and not doing so is not "normal." However, if you said you were a recovering alcoholic, people back off and let you do your thing with your water and lemon. 

Same thing happens with bread, pasta, and other gluten-laden things. It's more acceptable to say you're celiac than it is to just say you don't want to eat bread, pasta. etc. To me, this is absolutely ridiculous. Knowing that gluten wrecks havoc on the human body, (whether you are diagnosed with celiac disease or not), why isn't it socially acceptable to just choose not to eat grains? 

Let's go back to the bell curve. I do think there is a spectrum of tolerance when it comes to gluten. Some folks simply cannot have it or else it sends them over the edge (think celiacs) while a small percentage of people can probably can tolerate a decent amount. What the middle of that bell curve (majority of people) doesn't realize is that gluten can affect and aggravate things such as ADHD, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, depression, and a plethora of other diseases. You might be saying, "Well, I don't have any of those things." Ok, tell that to a 14 year-old who smokes and says she doesn't have lung disease. Yet. In other words, just because there isn't an immediate reaction to gluten doesn't mean it's harmless. 

What's the end message? Try taking gluten out of your diet for 30 days. It's only a month! At the end of that 30 days, I bet you will have seen changes. (weight loss, less puffy face, less inflammation, less achy joints, etc) If you are truly itching for some gluten at the end of 30 days, go ahead and have it. I'll bet you have some adverse side effects (stomach ache, achy joints) Personally, if I have beer, even just a glass or two, I wake up with very swollen glands. You'll slowly, but surely realize that you're better off without it. 


And if you're in a situation where you just don't want to eat that birthday cake or dinner roll, maybe it's better to lie and just say you're celiac. You're 70 year-old self will thank you. 

P.S. All real food is gluten free, but not all gluten free food is real. 

Resources for the skeptics:

"Why Grains are Unhealthy"

"Type 1 Diabetes: The Gut Connection" - (read this if you believe you believe non-celiac people are fine to eat gluten)

Flawed Logic

Gluten-free. Sugar-free. Trans fat-free. We are all familiar with these phrases and even if you don't understand the science, there's a general acknowledgment that gluten, sugar, and trans fat are unhealthy (amongst other things). People like knowing what is GOOD for them vs. what is BAD for them. In general, people like STRUCTURE and categorizing things into black or white, good or evil, healthy or unhealthy, hot or not. However, having this "either/or" mentality can be dangerous. 

The omission of an unhealthy element does not automatically make a food healthy. 

Just because a food advertises itself as gluten-free does not make it good for you. It just means it is gluten-free. Check out the ingredients for Gluten-Free Brownie Mix from Betty Crocker: Rice flour, semi-sweet chocolate chips (sugar, chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, soy lecithin, vanilla), brown sugar, sugar, potato starch, potato flour, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, monocalcium phosphate), salt.

If someone has a gluten allergy, could they eat this? Sure. Does it make it healthy for them? I doubt it. This is why I cringe when people tell me they want to eat gluten-free and head to the "gluten-free" aisle in Whole Foods to pick up gluten-free cookies, and gluten-free cake, and gluten-free bagels. Are you kidding me? If gas stations marketed their gasoline as "gluten-free" would you drink it? Some of the chemicals in gluten-free food can be just as sketchy (ok, maybe not as crazy as gasoline, but you get my point)

The means do not always justify the ends.

People focus TOO MUCH on the end goal of being gluten-free/sugar-free/no trans fat and NOT ENOUGH on the means of getting there. Focusing on eating REAL, naturally occurring food is a better means to get to the same end. A steak, sweet potato, and avocado can be a great dinner that meets the same goals as gluten-free pasta, plus the former meal will leave you feeling full for longer and provide nutrients not found in the pasta. Would you rather eat food that has stood the test of time or food that has stood the test of an assembly line?

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. 

Remember this phrase from geometry? The nerd in me uses this analogy to further my point. If you replace "squares" with "real food" and "rectangles" with "gluten-free" or "trans fat-free," you get my point. All real food is gluten-free, but not all gluten-free food is real. This is where the rubber hits the road. How do you actually know what to eat and what not to eat? There are no black and white answers for everyone, but there are guidelines from me and a shopping list from Robb Wolf. I'm not going to advise a 400lb. man and a 90lb. girl to eat the same exact way, but the one thing they will have in common is food QUALITY.

At the other end of this flawed logic, there is another issue of food advertising itself using bad science. Food that is "cholesterol-free" or "fat-free" clearly is a marketing ploy and nothing more. There are no legitimate scientific studies to back up claims that fat and cholesterol are totally BAD for you. None. If you find one, please send it over. I've tried drilling this into your psyche, but if you still need to read up on it, start with Mark Sisson's take on saturated fat. Or look up "Ancel Keys" and find out exactly who he is and what he did. (Hint: He started the whole notion that "fat is bad" with VERY biased data)

At the end of the day, use your noggin. THINK about what your goals are and the best means to get there. Google, read, and absorb information from good sources. (aka the links on the right side of this blog) ASK questions and TALK about your food evolution with others. And at the very least, don't drink the gasoline. 

Are there other examples of flawed logic when it comes to nutrition? 

What are your thoughts on marketing tactics?
Other thoughts/comments/questions welcome