Why Going Gluten-Free Could Be A Bad Idea
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Is A Gluten-Free Diet Right For You?
This is Rachel Begun, MS, RD. She’s a nutritionist who, since her own diagnosis with Celiac disease, has shifted her career into a position of educating the public (and correcting misconceptions) about gluten sensitivity, wheat allergy, and Celiac disease. In short, the whole “gluten-free” field.
First, a quick recap
We’ve written on this topic ourselves before; here’s what we had to say:
On “Everyone should go gluten-free”
Some people who have gone gluten-free are very evangelical about the lifestyle change, and will advise everyone that it will make them lose weight, have clearer skin, more energy, and sing well, too. Ok, maybe not the last one, but you get the idea—a dietary change gets seen as a cure-all.
And for some people, it can indeed make a huge difference!
Begun urges us to have a dose of level-headedness in our approach, though.
Specifically, she advises:
- Don’t ignore symptoms, and/but…
- Don’t self-diagnose
- Don’t just quit gluten
One problem with self-diagnosis is that we can easily be wrong:
But why is that a problem? Surely there’s not a health risk in skipping the gluten just to be on the safe side? As it turns out, there actually is:
If we self-diagnose incorrectly, Begun points out, we can miss the actual cause of the symptoms, and by cheerfully proclaiming “I’m allergic to gluten” or such, a case of endometriosis, or Hashimoto’s, or something else entirely, might go undiagnosed and thus untreated.
“Oh, I feel terrible today, there must have been some cross-contamination in my food” when in fact, it’s an undiagnosed lupus flare-up, that kind of thing.
Similarly, just quitting gluten “to be on the safe side” can mask a different problem, if wheat consumption (for example) contributed to, but did not cause, some ailment.
In other words: it could reduce your undesired symptoms, but in so doing, leave a more serious problem unknown.
Instead…
If you suspect you might have a gluten sensitivity, a wheat allergy, or even Celiac disease, get yourself tested, and take professional advice on proceeding from there.
How? Your physician should be able to order the tests for you.
You can also check out resources available here:
Celiac Disease Foundation | How do I get tested?
Or for at-home gluten intolerance tests, here are some options weighed against each other:
MNT | 5 gluten intolerance tests and considerations
Want to learn more?
Begun has a blog:
Rachel Begun | More than just recipes
(it is, in fact, just recipes—but they are very simple ones!)
You also might enjoy this interview, in which she talks about gluten sensitivity, celiac disease, and bio-individuality:
Want to watch it, but not right now? Bookmark it for later
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Level-Up Your Fiber Intake! (Without Difficulty Or Discomfort)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)
First things first… How much fiber should we be eating?
- The World Health Organization recommends we each get at least 25g of fiber per day:
- A more recent meta-review of studies, involving thousands of people and decades of time, suggests 25–29g is ideal:
- The British Nutritional Foundation gives 30g as the figure:
- The US National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine recommends 21g–38g per day, depending on age and sex:
- A large study last year gave 30–40g as the figure:
*This one is also a great read to understand more about the “why” of fiber
Meanwhile, the average American gets 16g of fiber per day.
So, how to get more fiber, without piling on too many carbs?
Foods that contain fiber generally contain carbs (there’s a limit to how much celery most people want to eat), so there are two key ideas here:
- Getting a good carb:fiber ratio
- Making substitutions that boost fiber without overdoing (or in some case, even changing) carbs
Meat → Lentils
Well-seasoned lentils can be used to replaced ground beef or similar. A cup of boiled lentils contains 18g of fiber, so you’re already outdoing the average American’s daily total.
Meat → Beans
Black beans are a top-tier option here (15g per cup, cooked weight), but many kinds of beans are great.
Chicken/Fish → Chickpeas
Yes, chicken/fish is already meat, but we’re making a case for chickpeas here. Cooked and seasoned appropriately, they do the job, and pack in 12g of fiber per cup. Also… Hummus!
Bonus: Hummus, eaten with celery sticks.
White pasta/bread → Wholewheat pasta/bread
This is one where “moderation is key”, but if you’re going to eat pasta/bread, then wholewheat is the way to go. Fiber amounts vary, so read labels, but it will always have far more than white.
Processed salty snacks → Almonds and other nuts
Nuts in general are great, but almonds are top-tier for fiber, amongst other things. A 40g handful of almonds contains about 10g of fiber.
Starchy vegetables → Non-starchy vegetables
Potatoes, parsnips, and their friends have their place. But they cannot compete with broccoli, peas, cabbage, and other non-starchy vegetables for fiber content.
Bonus: if you’re going to have starchy vegetables though, leave the skins on!
Fruit juice → Fruit
Fruit juice has had most, if not all, of its fiber removed. Eat an actual juicy fruit, instead. Apples and bananas are great options; berries such as blackberries and raspberries are even better (at around 8g per cup, compared to the 5g or so depending on the size of an apple/banana)
Processed cereals → Oats
5g fiber per cup. Enough said.
Summary
Far from being a Herculean task, getting >30g of fiber per day can be easily accomplished by a lentil ragù with wholewheat pasta.
If your breakfast is overnight oats with fruit and some chopped almonds, you can make it to >20g already by the time you’ve finished your first meal of the day.
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Are Supplements Worth Taking?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small 😎
❝There seems to be a lot of suggestions to take supplements for every thing, from your head to your toes. I know it’s up to the individual but what are the facts or stats to support taking them versus not?❞
Short answer:
- supplementary vitamins and minerals are probably neither needed nor beneficial for most (more on this later) people, with the exception of vitamin D which most people over a certain age need unless they are white and getting a lot of sun.
- other kinds of supplement can be very beneficial or useless, depending on what they are, of course, and also your own personal physiology.
With regard to vitamins and minerals, in most cases they should be covered by a healthy balanced diet, and the bioavailability is usually better from food anyway (bearing in mind, we say vitamin such-and-such, or name an elemental mineral, but there are usually multiple, often many, forms of each—and supplements will usually use whatever is cheapest to produce and most chemically stable).
However! It is also quite common for food to be grown in whatever way is cheapest and produces the greatest visible yield, rather than for micronutrient coverage.
This goes for most if not all plants, and it goes extra for animals (because of the greater costs and inefficiencies involved in rearing animals).
We wrote about this a while back in a mythbusting edition of 10almonds, covering:
- Food is less nutritious now than it used to be: True or False?
- Supplements aren’t absorbed properly and thus are a waste of money: True or False?
- We can get everything we need from our diet: True or False?
You can read the answers and explanations, and see the science that we presented, here:
Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?
You may be wondering: what was that about “most (more on this later) people”?
Sometimes someone will have a nutrient deficiency that can’t be easily remedied with diet. Often this occurs when their body:
- has trouble absorbing that nutrient, or
- does something inconvenient with it that makes a lot of it unusable when it gets it.
…which is why calcium, iron, vitamin B12, and vitamin D are quite common supplements to get prescribed by doctors after a certain age.
Still, it’s best to try getting things from one’s diet first all of all, of course.
Things we can’t (reasonably) get from food
This is another category entirely. There are many supplements that are convenient forms of things readily found in a lot of food, such as vitamins and minerals, or phytochemicals like quercetin, fisetin, and lycopene (to name just a few of very many).
Then there are things not readily found in food, or at least, not in food that’s readily available in supermarkets.
For example, if you go to your local supermarket and ask where the mimosa is, they’ll try to sell you a cocktail mix instead of the roots, bark, or leaves of a tropical tree. It is also unlikely they’ll stock lion’s mane mushroom, or reishi.
If perchance you do get the chance to acquire fresh lion’s mane mushroom, by the way, give it a try! It’s delicious shallow-fried in a little olive oil with black pepper and garlic.
In short, this last category, the things most of us can’t reasonably get from food without going far out of our way, are the kind of thing whereby supplements actually can be helpful.
And yet, still, not every supplement has evidence to support the claims made by its sellers, so it’s good to do your research beforehand. We do that on Mondays, with our “Research Review Monday” editions, of which you can find in our searchable research review archive ← we also review some drugs that can’t be classified as supplements, but mostly, it’s supplements.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Do Hard Things – by Steve Magness
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s easy to say that we must push ourselves if we want to achieve worthwhile things—and it’s also easy to push ourselves into an early grave by overreaching. So, how to do the former, without doing the latter?
That’s what this book’s about. The author, speaking from a background in the science of sports psychology, applies his accumulated knowledge and understanding to the more general problems of life.
Most of us are, after all, not sportspeople or if we are, not serious ones. Those few who are, will get benefit from this book too! But it’s mostly aimed at the rest of us who are trying to work out whether/when we should scale up, scale back, change track, or double down:
- How much can we really achieve in our career?
- How about in retirement?
- Do we ever really get too old for athletic feats, or should we keep pressing on?
Magness brings philosophy and psychological science together, to help us sort our way through.
Nor is this just a pep talk—there’s readily applicable, practical, real-world advice here, things to enable us to do our (real!) best without getting overwhelmed.
The style is pop-science, very easy-reading, and clear and comprehensible throughout—without succumbing to undue padding either.
Bottom line: this is a very pleasant read, that promises to make life more meaningful and manageable at the same time. Highly recommendable!
Click here to check out Do Hard Things, and get the most out of life!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Toxic Gas That Sterilizes Medical Devices Prompts Safety Rule Update
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Over the past two years, Madeline Beal has heard frustration and even bewilderment during public meetings about ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing gas that is used to sterilize half of the medical devices in the U.S.
Beal, senior risk communication adviser for the Environmental Protection Agency, has fielded questions about why the agency took so long to alert people who live near facilities that emit the chemical about unusually high amounts of the carcinogenic gas in their neighborhoods. Residents asked why the EPA couldn’t close those facilities, and they wanted to know how many people had developed cancer from their exposure.
“If you’re upset by the information you’re hearing tonight, if you’re angry, if it scares you to think about risk to your family, those are totally reasonable responses,” Beal told an audience in Laredo, Texas, in September 2022. “We think the risk levels near this facility are too high.”
There are about 90 sterilizing plants in the U.S. that use ethylene oxide, and for decades companies used the chemical to sterilize medical products without drawing much attention. Many medical device-makers send their products to the plants to be sterilized before they are shipped, typically to medical distribution companies.
But people living around these facilities have been jolted in recent years by a succession of warnings about cancer risk from the federal government and media reports, an awareness that has also spawned protests and lawsuits alleging medical harm.
The EPA is expected to meet a March 1 court-ordered deadline to finalize tighter safety rules around how the toxic gas is used. The proposed changes come in the wake of a 2016 agency report that found that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide is more dangerous than was previously thought.
But the anticipated final rules — the agency’s first regulatory update on ethylene oxide emissions in more than a decade — are expected to face pushback. Medical device-makers worry stricter regulation will increase costs and may put patients at higher risk of infection from devices, ranging from surgical kits to catheters, due to deficient sterilization. The new rules are also not likely to satisfy the concerns of environmentalists or members of the public, who already have expressed frustration about how long it took the federal government to sound the alarm.
“We have been breathing this air for 40 years,” said Connie Waller, 70, who lives with her husband, David, 75, within two miles of such a sterilizing plant in Covington, Georgia, east of Atlanta. “The only way to stop these chemicals is to hit them in their pocketbook, to get their attention.”
The EPA says data shows that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide can increase the risk of breast cancer and cancers of the white blood cells, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia. It can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and has been linked to damage to the brain and nervous and reproductive systems. Children are potentially more vulnerable, as are workers routinely exposed to the chemical, EPA officials say. The agency calculates the risk based on how much of the gas is in the air or near the sterilizing facility, the distance a person is from the plant, and how long the person is exposed.
Waller said she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004 and that her husband was found to have non-Hodgkin lymphoma eight years later.
A 2022 study of communities living near a sterilization facility in Laredo found the rates of acute lymphocytic leukemia and breast cancer were greater than expected based on statewide rates, a difference that was statistically significant.
Beal, the EPA risk adviser, who regularly meets with community members, acknowledges the public’s concerns. “We don’t think it’s OK for you to be at increased risk from something that you have no control over, that’s near your house,” she said. “We are working as fast as we can to get that risk reduced with the powers that we have available to us.”
In the meantime, local and state governments and industry groups have scrambled to defuse public outcry.
Hundreds of personal injury cases have been filed in communities near sterilizing plants. In 2020, New Mexico’s then-attorney general filed a lawsuit against a plant in Santa Teresa, and that case is ongoing. In a case that settled last year in suburban Atlanta, a company agreed to pay $35 million to 79 people who alleged ethylene oxide used at the plant caused cancer and other injuries.
In Cook County, Illinois, a jury in 2022 awarded $363 million to a woman who alleged exposure to ethylene oxide gas led to her breast cancer diagnosis. But, in another Illinois case, a jury ruled that the sterilizing company was not liable for a woman’s blood cancer claim.
Greg Crist, chief advocacy officer for the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical device trade group that says ethylene oxide is an effective and reliable sterilant, attributes the spate of lawsuits to the litigious nature of trial attorneys.
“If they smell blood in the water, they’ll go after it,” Crist said.
Most states have at least one sterilizing plant. According to the EPA, a handful, like California and North Carolina, have gone further than the agency and the federal Clean Air Act to regulate ethylene oxide emissions. After a media and political firestorm raised awareness about the metro Atlanta facilities, Georgia started requiring sterilizing plants that use the gas to report all leaks.
The proposed rules the EPA is set to finalize would set lower emissions limits for chemical plants and commercial sterilizers and increase some safety requirements for workers within these facilities. The agency is expected to set an 18-month deadline for commercial sterilizers to come into compliance with the emissions rules.
That would help at facilities that “cut corners,” with lax pollution controls that allow emissions of the gas into nearby communities, said Richard Peltier, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Stronger regulation also prevents the plants from remaining under the radar. “One of the dirty secrets is that a lot of it is self-regulated or self-policed,” Peltier added.
But the proposed rules did not include protections for workers at off-site warehouses that store sterilized products, which can continue to emit ethylene oxide. They also did not require air testing around the facilities, prompting debate about how effective they would be in protecting the health of nearby residents.
Industry officials also don’t expect an alternative that is as broadly effective as ethylene oxide to be developed anytime soon, though they support researching other methods. Current alternatives include steam, radiation, and hydrogen peroxide vapor.
Increasing the use of alternatives can reduce industry dependence on “the crutch of ethylene oxide,” said Darya Minovi, senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.
But meeting the new guidelines will be disruptive to the industry, Crist said. He estimates companies will spend upward of $500 million to comply with the new EPA rules and could struggle to meet the agency’s 18-month timetable. Sterilization companies will also have difficulty adjusting to new rules on how workers handle the gas without a dip in efficiency, Crist said.
The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates drugs and medical devices, is also watching the regulatory moves closely and worries the updated emissions rule could “present some unique challenges” if implemented as proposed, said Audra Harrison, an FDA spokesperson. “The FDA is concerned about the rule’s effects on the availability of medical devices,” she added.
Other groups, like the American Chemistry Council and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, assert that ethylene oxide use isn’t as dangerous as the EPA says. The EPA’s toxicity assessment has “severe flaws” and is “overly conservative,” the council said in an emailed statement. Texas, which has several sterilizing plants, has said ethylene oxide isn’t as high a cancer risk as the agency claims, an assessment that the EPA has rejected.
Tracey Woodruff, a researcher at the University of California-San Francisco who previously worked at the EPA, said it can be hard for the agency to keep up with regulating chemicals like ethylene oxide because of constrained resources, the technical complications of rulemaking, and industry lobbying.
But she’s hopeful the EPA can strike a balance between its desire to reduce exposure and the desire of the FDA not to disrupt medical device sterilization. And scrutiny can also help the device sterilization industry think outside the box.
“We continue to discover these chemicals that we’ve already been exposed to were toxic, and we have high exposures,” she said. “Regulation is an innovation forcer.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Unprocess Your Life – by Rob Hobson
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Rob Hobson is not a doctor, but he is a nutritionist with half the alphabet after his name (BSc, PGDip, MSc, AFN, SENR) and decades of experience in the field.
The book covers, in jargon-free fashion, the science of ultra-processed foods, and why for example that pack of frozen chicken nuggets are bad but a pack of tofu (which obviously also took some processing, because it didn’t grow on the plant like that) isn’t.
This kind of explanation puts to rest a lot of the “does this count?” queries that a reader might have when giving the shopping list a once-over.
He also covers practical considerations such as kitchen equipment that’s worth investing in if you don’t already have it, and an “unprocessed pantry” shopping list.
The recipes (yes, there are recipes, nearly a hundred of them) are not plant-based by default, but there is a section of vegan and vegetarian recipes. Given that the theme of the book is replacing ultra-processed foods, it doesn’t mean a life of abstemiousness—there are recipes for all manner of things from hot sauce to cakes. Just, healthier unprocessed ones! There are classically healthy recipes too, of course.
Bottom line: if you’ve been wishing for a while that you could get rid of those processed products that are just so convenient that you haven’t got around to replacing them with healthier options, this book can indeed help you do just that.
Click here to check out Unprocess Your Life, and unprocess your life!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Dental Diet – by Dr. Steven Lin
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
As it turns out, there’s a lot more to healthy teeth than skipping the sugar and getting some calcium.
The author’s journey started with the realization that most of his work as a dentist should be unnecessary, and not just in the “you should have been flossing” sense. Rather, he came to the same conclusions as his fellow dentist Weston Price before him, and this time (unlike Price) he stuck to his own field, dentistry—meaning that the conclusions he kept were the more valid ones.
Another thing he does better than Price is that he contextualizes the information—we don’t need, for example, to be eating seal fat as a main component of our diet, but we do need to be getting sufficient amounts of certain fat-soluble vitamins. And most people aren’t. Same with what’s good or bad for our oral microbiome, and by extension, our saliva, and by extension, our teeth and gums.
There’s a lot of nutritional information in here; macros and micronutrients alike, but the book goes further than that, to also recommend minimally-processed food that requires more chewing, for example. Not just for its nutritional content, but because that helps our teeth move to (and then stay) where they are ideally supposed to be. No amount of perfectly-blended nutritional supplement drink will align your maxilla for you, say. But chomping on raw carrots? Different story.
Dr. Lin offers a 40-day meal plan, but aware that if you’re vegetarian or vegan you’re probably going to have to rethink it yourself using the information he gives, because his meal plan includes animal products.
Bottom line: if you’d like to eat for better oral health (nutritionally, physically, and for your oral microbiome), this book has all the information you’ll need.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: