Gluten Free

[Pogo]

I have a good friend who has trouble with gluten foodstuffs. She, being a grown up, is able to articulate what she can and cannot eat. Hopefully your friend is of similar character.

Well hopefully yes, because from what we've read it seems Gluten Free people can't actually eat anything, unless it's their own special stuff.

It's not that complicated, really. Gluten is found in wheat, rye and barley (and triticale if you have that in Europa). Just avoid those grains, and you're on your way. Rice is a common substitute, especially for making breads, cakes and pastas. Potato flour too.

You will have to read ingredient labels for unlikely sources, like soy sauce.

Rice does not contain gluten, however rice does contain a protein that cross-reacts with gluten antibodies. Therefore people with gluten sensitivity do not tolerate rice very well.

Never heard that before
But then I wouldn't have been told that by my doctor since I'm not gluten-intolerant AFAIK. I dabble in it because the GF label on foods is an easy way to avoid wheat, which is my objective. So it depends on what the eater's reasoning is for going gluten-free. Not sure if the OP knows that reason in this case...

Anyway GF is a convenient label in that it guarantees the food involved won't have wheat, just as the "organic" label on a tomato guarantees it isn't Frankenfooded (GM). Same thing -- I'll buy an organic tomato not specifically because it's organic, but because I know Monsanto didn't get to fuck with it (or an heirloom tomato for the same reason).

Here's a tip for avoiding wheat:

Since some people have a very severe allergic reaction to wheat, under federal food lableing laws any food product that contains wheat must say so in bold capital lettering just below the ingredients list.

CONTAINS WHEAT

Same thing with some other allergens such as soy, eggs, milk and peanuts.

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well hopefully yes, because from what we've read it seems Gluten Free people can't actually eat anything, unless it's their own special stuff.

It's not that complicated, really. Gluten is found in wheat, rye and barley (and triticale if you have that in Europa). Just avoid those grains, and you're on your way. Rice is a common substitute, especially for making breads, cakes and pastas. Potato flour too.

You will have to read ingredient labels for unlikely sources, like soy sauce.

Rice does not contain gluten, however rice does contain a protein that cross-reacts with gluten antibodies. Therefore people with gluten sensitivity do not tolerate rice very well.

Never heard that before
But then I wouldn't have been told that by my doctor since I'm not gluten-intolerant AFAIK. I dabble in it because the GF label on foods is an easy way to avoid wheat, which is my objective. So it depends on what the eater's reasoning is for going gluten-free. Not sure if the OP knows that reason in this case...

Anyway GF is a convenient label in that it guarantees the food involved won't have wheat, just as the "organic" label on a tomato guarantees it isn't Frankenfooded (GM). Same thing -- I'll buy an organic tomato not specifically because it's organic, but because I know Monsanto didn't get to fuck with it (or an heirloom tomato for the same reason).

Here's a tip for avoiding wheat:

Since some people have a very severe allergic reaction to wheat, under federal food lableing laws any food product that contains wheat must say so in bold capital lettering just below the ingredients list.

CONTAINS WHEAT

Same thing with some other allergens such as soy, eggs, milk and peanuts.

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

There is a significant difference between GF and GMO. While GF labeling may be required, the companies that profit from GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent label identification of their un-tested, mutant abominations.

 

[Pogo]

It's not that complicated, really. Gluten is found in wheat, rye and barley (and triticale if you have that in Europa). Just avoid those grains, and you're on your way. Rice is a common substitute, especially for making breads, cakes and pastas. Potato flour too.

You will have to read ingredient labels for unlikely sources, like soy sauce.

Rice does not contain gluten, however rice does contain a protein that cross-reacts with gluten antibodies. Therefore people with gluten sensitivity do not tolerate rice very well.

Never heard that before
But then I wouldn't have been told that by my doctor since I'm not gluten-intolerant AFAIK. I dabble in it because the GF label on foods is an easy way to avoid wheat, which is my objective. So it depends on what the eater's reasoning is for going gluten-free. Not sure if the OP knows that reason in this case...

Anyway GF is a convenient label in that it guarantees the food involved won't have wheat, just as the "organic" label on a tomato guarantees it isn't Frankenfooded (GM). Same thing -- I'll buy an organic tomato not specifically because it's organic, but because I know Monsanto didn't get to fuck with it (or an heirloom tomato for the same reason).

Here's a tip for avoiding wheat:

Since some people have a very severe allergic reaction to wheat, under federal food lableing laws any food product that contains wheat must say so in bold capital lettering just below the ingredients list.

CONTAINS WHEAT

Same thing with some other allergens such as soy, eggs, milk and peanuts.

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

There is a significant difference between GF and GMO. While GF labeling may be required, the companies that profit from GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent label identification of their un-tested, mutant abominations.

That's absolutely true. The comment was about labeling, not intended to imply a comparison between GF and GMO. But the point on the latter is well taken.

 

[HenryBHough]

Oh shit!

The header said "Gluten FREE" (emphasis added) and 10,000 Bernie Sanders supporters started salivating for their free gluten....whatever that might be.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Rice does not contain gluten, however rice does contain a protein that cross-reacts with gluten antibodies. Therefore people with gluten sensitivity do not tolerate rice very well.

Never heard that before
But then I wouldn't have been told that by my doctor since I'm not gluten-intolerant AFAIK. I dabble in it because the GF label on foods is an easy way to avoid wheat, which is my objective. So it depends on what the eater's reasoning is for going gluten-free. Not sure if the OP knows that reason in this case...

Anyway GF is a convenient label in that it guarantees the food involved won't have wheat, just as the "organic" label on a tomato guarantees it isn't Frankenfooded (GM). Same thing -- I'll buy an organic tomato not specifically because it's organic, but because I know Monsanto didn't get to fuck with it (or an heirloom tomato for the same reason).

Here's a tip for avoiding wheat:

Since some people have a very severe allergic reaction to wheat, under federal food lableing laws any food product that contains wheat must say so in bold capital lettering just below the ingredients list.

CONTAINS WHEAT

Same thing with some other allergens such as soy, eggs, milk and peanuts.

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

There is a significant difference between GF and GMO. While GF labeling may be required, the companies that profit from GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent label identification of their un-tested, mutant abominations.

That's absolutely true. The comment was about labeling, not intended to imply a comparison between GF and GMO. But the point on the latter is well taken.

Interesting that gluten is considered such a threat that foodstuffs must be labeled and GMOs are not. IMO, GMOs are a far greater threat to public health than gluten. As a matter of fact, the increased sensitivity of many people to gluten might be a result of GMOs being introduced into the food chain. Many people don't realize that GMOs have been part of our diet for around 30 years already. While comprehensive testing of the affects of GMOs on people and animals have been severely curtailed, anecdotal evidence would tend to implicate GMOs in many of the health issues that have skyrocketed in the past 20-30 years. Go figure!

 

[Pogo]

So Loooooseee.... we never heard how the Scottish gluten-free visit went. I suspect it was so uneventful it wasn't worth mentioning.

I just bought some GF brownie mix so I can gift the Mexicans next door who brought me tamales. That way I can have some too.

 

[Pogo]

Never heard that before
But then I wouldn't have been told that by my doctor since I'm not gluten-intolerant AFAIK. I dabble in it because the GF label on foods is an easy way to avoid wheat, which is my objective. So it depends on what the eater's reasoning is for going gluten-free. Not sure if the OP knows that reason in this case...

Anyway GF is a convenient label in that it guarantees the food involved won't have wheat, just as the "organic" label on a tomato guarantees it isn't Frankenfooded (GM). Same thing -- I'll buy an organic tomato not specifically because it's organic, but because I know Monsanto didn't get to fuck with it (or an heirloom tomato for the same reason).

Here's a tip for avoiding wheat:

Since some people have a very severe allergic reaction to wheat, under federal food lableing laws any food product that contains wheat must say so in bold capital lettering just below the ingredients list.

CONTAINS WHEAT

Same thing with some other allergens such as soy, eggs, milk and peanuts.

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

There is a significant difference between GF and GMO. While GF labeling may be required, the companies that profit from GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent label identification of their un-tested, mutant abominations.

That's absolutely true. The comment was about labeling, not intended to imply a comparison between GF and GMO. But the point on the latter is well taken.

Interesting that gluten is considered such a threat that foodstuffs must be labeled and GMOs are not. IMO, GMOs are a far greater threat to public health than gluten. As a matter of fact, the increased sensitivity of many people to gluten might be a result of GMOs being introduced into the food chain. Many people don't realize that GMOs have been part of our diet for around 30 years already. While comprehensive testing of the affects of GMOs on people and animals have been severely curtailed, anecdotal evidence would tend to implicate GMOs in many of the health issues that have skyrocketed in the past 20-30 years. Go figure!

Yes indeedy. That's sort of, in a broad sense, the implication in this article:

>> So how—and when—did this ancient grain become such a serious health threat? Author and preventive cardiologist William Davis, MD, says it was when big agriculture stepped in decades ago to develop a higher-yielding crop. Today's "wheat," he says, isn't even wheat, thanks to some of the most intense crossbreeding efforts ever seen. "The wheat products sold to you today are nothing like the wheat products of our grandmother's age, very different from the wheat of the early 20th century, and completely transformed from the wheat of the Bible and earlier," he says.

Plant breeders changed wheat in dramatic ways. Once more than four feet tall, modern wheat—the type grown in 99 percent of wheat fields around the world—is now a stocky two-foot-tall plant with an unusually large seed head. Dr. Davis says accomplishing this involved crossing wheat with non-wheat grasses to introduce altogether new genes, using techniques like irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose x-rays to induce mutations. (See how your brain heals when you start eliminating grains.)

Clearfield Wheat, a variety grown on nearly 1 million acres in the Pacific Northwest and sold by BASF Corporation—the world's largest chemical manufacturer—was created in a geneticist's lab by exposing wheat seeds and embryos to the mutation-inducing industrial toxin sodium azide, a substance poisonous to humans and known for exploding when mishandled, says Dr. Davis. This hybridized wheat doesn't survive in the wild, and most farmers rely on toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep it alive when growing it as a crop. (It's important to note, however, that the intensive breeding efforts that have so dramatically transformed wheat should not to be confused with genetic engineering of food, or GMOs. This type of technology has its own set of problems, though.) <<​

 

[gallantwarrior]

Here's a tip for avoiding wheat:

Since some people have a very severe allergic reaction to wheat, under federal food lableing laws any food product that contains wheat must say so in bold capital lettering just below the ingredients list.

CONTAINS WHEAT

Same thing with some other allergens such as soy, eggs, milk and peanuts.

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

There is a significant difference between GF and GMO. While GF labeling may be required, the companies that profit from GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent label identification of their un-tested, mutant abominations.

That's absolutely true. The comment was about labeling, not intended to imply a comparison between GF and GMO. But the point on the latter is well taken.

Interesting that gluten is considered such a threat that foodstuffs must be labeled and GMOs are not. IMO, GMOs are a far greater threat to public health than gluten. As a matter of fact, the increased sensitivity of many people to gluten might be a result of GMOs being introduced into the food chain. Many people don't realize that GMOs have been part of our diet for around 30 years already. While comprehensive testing of the affects of GMOs on people and animals have been severely curtailed, anecdotal evidence would tend to implicate GMOs in many of the health issues that have skyrocketed in the past 20-30 years. Go figure!

Yes indeedy. That's sort of, in a broad sense, the implication in this article:

>> So how—and when—did this ancient grain become such a serious health threat? Author and preventive cardiologist William Davis, MD, says it was when big agriculture stepped in decades ago to develop a higher-yielding crop. Today's "wheat," he says, isn't even wheat, thanks to some of the most intense crossbreeding efforts ever seen. "The wheat products sold to you today are nothing like the wheat products of our grandmother's age, very different from the wheat of the early 20th century, and completely transformed from the wheat of the Bible and earlier," he says.

Plant breeders changed wheat in dramatic ways. Once more than four feet tall, modern wheat—the type grown in 99 percent of wheat fields around the world—is now a stocky two-foot-tall plant with an unusually large seed head. Dr. Davis says accomplishing this involved crossing wheat with non-wheat grasses to introduce altogether new genes, using techniques like irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose x-rays to induce mutations. (See how your brain heals when you start eliminating grains.)

Clearfield Wheat, a variety grown on nearly 1 million acres in the Pacific Northwest and sold by BASF Corporation—the world's largest chemical manufacturer—was created in a geneticist's lab by exposing wheat seeds and embryos to the mutation-inducing industrial toxin sodium azide, a substance poisonous to humans and known for exploding when mishandled, says Dr. Davis. This hybridized wheat doesn't survive in the wild, and most farmers rely on toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep it alive when growing it as a crop. (It's important to note, however, that the intensive breeding efforts that have so dramatically transformed wheat should not to be confused with genetic engineering of food, or GMOs. This type of technology has its own set of problems, though.) <<​

That's why I've started using some of the "ancient grains" available, like amaranth, spelt, and quinoa. Spelt has worked out well, but be aware that the lack of gluten will affect bread and such. I'm thinking I might try to grow amaranth up here once I get some land cleared.

 

[ChrisL]

Hey, something's gonna kill ya eventually.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

 

[ChrisL]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Kind of like germaphobes. Lol.

 

[Pogo]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

 

[Pogo]

Yup, there's that too. Don't know if Lucy has such a law in Europa but I've seen it here.

I already read ingredient labels to screen other things but a big splash "GF" label on the package or the section in the store makes it easier.

So does shopping at Trader Joe's, who pledge that nothing with their name on it will have GMO in it. It's another shortcut.

There is a significant difference between GF and GMO. While GF labeling may be required, the companies that profit from GMOs are fighting tooth and nail to prevent label identification of their un-tested, mutant abominations.

That's absolutely true. The comment was about labeling, not intended to imply a comparison between GF and GMO. But the point on the latter is well taken.

Interesting that gluten is considered such a threat that foodstuffs must be labeled and GMOs are not. IMO, GMOs are a far greater threat to public health than gluten. As a matter of fact, the increased sensitivity of many people to gluten might be a result of GMOs being introduced into the food chain. Many people don't realize that GMOs have been part of our diet for around 30 years already. While comprehensive testing of the affects of GMOs on people and animals have been severely curtailed, anecdotal evidence would tend to implicate GMOs in many of the health issues that have skyrocketed in the past 20-30 years. Go figure!

Yes indeedy. That's sort of, in a broad sense, the implication in this article:

>> So how—and when—did this ancient grain become such a serious health threat? Author and preventive cardiologist William Davis, MD, says it was when big agriculture stepped in decades ago to develop a higher-yielding crop. Today's "wheat," he says, isn't even wheat, thanks to some of the most intense crossbreeding efforts ever seen. "The wheat products sold to you today are nothing like the wheat products of our grandmother's age, very different from the wheat of the early 20th century, and completely transformed from the wheat of the Bible and earlier," he says.

Plant breeders changed wheat in dramatic ways. Once more than four feet tall, modern wheat—the type grown in 99 percent of wheat fields around the world—is now a stocky two-foot-tall plant with an unusually large seed head. Dr. Davis says accomplishing this involved crossing wheat with non-wheat grasses to introduce altogether new genes, using techniques like irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose x-rays to induce mutations. (See how your brain heals when you start eliminating grains.)

Clearfield Wheat, a variety grown on nearly 1 million acres in the Pacific Northwest and sold by BASF Corporation—the world's largest chemical manufacturer—was created in a geneticist's lab by exposing wheat seeds and embryos to the mutation-inducing industrial toxin sodium azide, a substance poisonous to humans and known for exploding when mishandled, says Dr. Davis. This hybridized wheat doesn't survive in the wild, and most farmers rely on toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep it alive when growing it as a crop. (It's important to note, however, that the intensive breeding efforts that have so dramatically transformed wheat should not to be confused with genetic engineering of food, or GMOs. This type of technology has its own set of problems, though.) <<​

That's why I've started using some of the "ancient grains" available, like amaranth, spelt, and quinoa. Spelt has worked out well, but be aware that the lack of gluten will affect bread and such. I'm thinking I might try to grow amaranth up here once I get some land cleared.

That's great. But I believe spelt is still wheat.

 

[ChrisL]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

What's wrong with wheat? I eat wheat bread all the time.

 

[Pogo]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

What's wrong with wheat? I eat wheat bread all the time.

I used to do that too. If I went back to it I'd weigh three hundred pounds. Word to the wise...

First time this dawned on me, I cut wheat out from my diet, and made no other changes. My food volume intake actually went up as I shifted from sandwiches to salads. And just by doing that -- eliminating wheat -- I dropped 40 pounds. It's insidious. And I've given this advice to others who have confirmed the same result.

Wheat is not what it used to be. I wish it were, food would be a lot easier. See my link in 47 for the gory details.

 

[ChrisL]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

What's wrong with wheat? I eat wheat bread all the time.

I used to do that too. If I went back to it I'd weigh three hundred pounds. Word to the wise...

First time this dawned on me, I cut wheat out from my diet, and made no other changes. My food volume intake actually went up as I shifted from sandwiches to salads. And just by doing that -- eliminating wheat -- I dropped 40 pounds. It's insidious. And I've given this advice to others who have confirmed the same result.

Wheat is not what it used to be. I wish it were, food would be a lot easier. See my link in 47

Funny because I've always eaten wheat bread and I've never had a weight problem.

 

[Pogo]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

What's wrong with wheat? I eat wheat bread all the time.

I used to do that too. If I went back to it I'd weigh three hundred pounds. Word to the wise...

First time this dawned on me, I cut wheat out from my diet, and made no other changes. My food volume intake actually went up as I shifted from sandwiches to salads. And just by doing that -- eliminating wheat -- I dropped 40 pounds. It's insidious. And I've given this advice to others who have confirmed the same result.

Wheat is not what it used to be. I wish it were, food would be a lot easier. See my link in 47

Funny because I've always eaten wheat bread and I've never had a weight problem.

Lucky you. Keep doing that as long as you can. When you find yourself chunky -- try cutting out wheat and watch what happens. Thank me later.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

There is an artisan baker, actually several here, that use sour yeast and whole grains. No modified wheats. I hear you. But what I want people to know that bread is the greatest invention man has EVER made. PERIOD. Without it - civilization on a grand scale would never have been possible.
Bread/Gluten is not evil. What is "evil" is modern fast acting yeast and modified grains..as well as modern white flour. All it takes is to consider "Do I really want to trust multi-national corporations to supply my dinner table?".
Eat natural.

 

[ChrisL]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

What's wrong with wheat? I eat wheat bread all the time.

I used to do that too. If I went back to it I'd weigh three hundred pounds. Word to the wise...

First time this dawned on me, I cut wheat out from my diet, and made no other changes. My food volume intake actually went up as I shifted from sandwiches to salads. And just by doing that -- eliminating wheat -- I dropped 40 pounds. It's insidious. And I've given this advice to others who have confirmed the same result.

Wheat is not what it used to be. I wish it were, food would be a lot easier. See my link in 47

Funny because I've always eaten wheat bread and I've never had a weight problem.

Lucky you. Keep doing that as long as you can. When you find yourself chunky -- try cutting out wheat and watch what happens. Thank me later.

It's not what you eat but HOW MUCH you eat. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Kudos to some posters here...good to see that there are people who don't fall for the hype.
Gluten, for normal people who are not allergic/intolerant of it - is not unhealthy. Complete garbage.

Yeah unfortunately the set of "normal people who are not intolerant of it" is fast disappearing, whether that's attributable to the gluten specifically or to the degradation of wheat.

Like a great many other I'm not intolerant to gluten, but selecting "Gluten Free" food automatically means "Wheat Free". That's why I do it.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that "gluten is eeebil". People simply make choices to filter out the kind of foods that will act detrimentally. There's nothing "hype" about that --- it's simple self-preservation.

What's wrong with wheat? I eat wheat bread all the time.

I used to do that too. If I went back to it I'd weigh three hundred pounds. Word to the wise...

First time this dawned on me, I cut wheat out from my diet, and made no other changes. My food volume intake actually went up as I shifted from sandwiches to salads. And just by doing that -- eliminating wheat -- I dropped 40 pounds. It's insidious. And I've given this advice to others who have confirmed the same result.

Wheat is not what it used to be. I wish it were, food would be a lot easier. See my link in 47

Funny because I've always eaten wheat bread and I've never had a weight problem.

Lucky you. Keep doing that as long as you can. When you find yourself chunky -- try cutting out wheat and watch what happens. Thank me later.

I'm 37 years old and I've eaten wheat bread for my entire life. As long as you eat things in moderation and get exercise, you aren't going to get fat from eating wheat bread.