

This Is Your Brain on Gluten - srs0001
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/this-is-your-brain-on-gluten/282550/

======
ryanmcbride
When I started reading this article I was so very afraid that it was some sort
of ant-gluten garbage, attempting to link gluten to everything bad that
happens.

I'm glad I kept reading and got to the science part.

------
DonGateley
One fundamental thing has had millions (billions?) of years and countless
organisms to refine and that is the remarkable ability of life to turn what it
gets into what it needs and the ability to discard the rest.

Countless books have been written and people deceived, including the book's
authors, trying to contradict that simple reality. As always, follow the
money.

------
rebelidealist
Other doctors did a widespread popular study that claim protein and fat are
the root of all evils
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)

Clinton lost 20lbs after reading this book.

Which one is right?

~~~
icegreentea
I honestly think about are both flawed.

That said, they can both be right. The China Study is specifically about
animal protein and fat, not protein and fat in general. You can successfully
attempt to combine the two by going near full out vegan.

Furthermore, the "two sides" typically point out that their causal agent
typically drives disease development that focus in different areas. Obviously,
there's some overlap (diabetes being a big one), but overall, they claim
different effects.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that there is a diet that will
minimize risk across all possible health complications. In fact, I think that
it's incredibly unlikely that there is one given how complex the human body
is.

So long story short? Probably neither are right. And I'm going to invoke one
of the nastiest, meanest, dirtiest heuristic that I have. If it's in an idea
first spearheaded by a best-selling book, it's more likely than not seriously
flawed.

~~~
malandrew
The China Study also involves a large population of people who have
historically had a calorically restricted diet.

There are simply too many broad variables in culture, history and genetics for
the China study's claims to be valid. You can't compare two types of diets
when one group is heterogenous and the other group is homogenous, and if both
were homogenous or both were heterogenous, you'd have to draw subjects from
the same population.

