Gluten: was Chips

[Guest guest]

>Ergo IgA intolerance *CANNOT*

>> account for all the possibly-IgA-related health problems out there.

>>

>> Heart disease, impaired digestion,

>>obesity, diabetes, syndrome X, etc., must by virtue of

>> this simple statistical fact have other causes, whether or not IgA

>> intolerance is one cause for some people.

:

I agree, and I don't recall saying otherwise. If you take one subset of people

.... those with IBS for example ... and give them IgA antigliadin tests, you will

find a higher percentage have IgA intolerance than the population at large. Not

ALL of them will have it, but where the blood tests show 10% for the average

American, the subset of those with IBS will show, say, 40%, which makes it

logical to test for it. Having the DQ8 or DQ2 gene predisposes you to having

certain diseases if you have those genes AND you eat gliadin. If you have those

genes and don't eat gliadin, no problems from THAT source. It's a genetic die

off issue ... those genes have already died off in populations that have been

eating wheat for 5,000 years. So it makes sense, to me, to know which camp you

are in. I'd say the same thing if there were a gene that predisposes one to have

problems with tomatoes ... if you have that gene, it's better not to eat

tomatoes.

Also, if you have a big group of people with problems like that, it skews the

statistical results of epidemiological studies.,

which was what I was trying to say in regard to the Finns. The Finns are one

group where wheat was introduced *extremely* recently, and they, along with the

Scotch and Irish, have big wheat problems, statistically. Any group of humans

that are eating foods that don't get along with them genetically, will be less

healthy than they would be otherwise, regardless of the innate nutritional value

of the food.

Which is NOT the same thing as saying " gluten intolerance causes everything " ,

which you seem to think I believe?

>

Heidi Jean