Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
Since you are in the wheat business you probably know the answer to this question. Way way back, like frontier days and prior, was wheat a problem back then? I mean many people relied on grains to get them thru the hard winters, and long hard days. Did the whole gluten intolerance happen from the years of genetically altering, or processing wheat, or whatever else has been done to a natural food?
Second question, totally unrelated to the above...does avoiding grains cause any vitamin deficiencies? Is it B and E vitamins that are in grains? Is it necessary to take those supplements?
Tex, here's a question about wheat and other grains
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
-
IDreamInColor
- Adélie Penguin
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:20 pm
- Location: Ohio
While whole wheat contains around 16 minerals and 11 vitamins, most of them are removed in processing white flour. Removing the hull, and bleaching the flour, is pretty hard on the vitamin and mineral content, so the flour is "enriched", to add them, (and others), back into the final product. IOW, the quality of the finished product depends not on what it contained originally, but on what is added, after processing.
Wheat has changed only slightly in the last couple of hundred years. Most of the changes to wheat took place roughly 10,000 years ago, (or more), when ancient ancestors of wheat, (which didn't look much like wheat), were crossed, to yield the grass plant that we know as modern wheat. Before that cross was made, not enough grain was produced by the parent strains, to make the plants worth cultivating for food. The cross provided an offspring with enough yield potential to make it worth trying to cultivate. Through selective breeding, for thousands of years, the yield potential of the plant was increased some more, and a few hundred years ago, growers found ways to improve the baking qualities of wheat flour, by selecting for higher gluten content. Gluten is what gives wheat flour it's baking qualities. Without gluten, (or with less gluten), the quality of baked goods declines, (they lose their light, fluffy qualities, and they lose the ability to hold together well).
The biggest changes in wheat flour have not been due to changes in the grain itself, but rather in the processing of flour. If you look at the protein content of the various wheat varieties, for example, little has changed in roughly the last hundred years, at least. (Data records on the production and grading characteristics of Kansas wheat are available on the internet, going back around 120 years, (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me - it's been a while since I've reviewed them), and since about 1930, protein content is also listed.) If you look at those data, you will see that in the drier years, production was lower, and protein content was higher, and in the highest production years, protein content was the lowest. However, on the average, protein content, (respective to the various varieties of wheat), is virtually unchanged over all those years. Protein content varies by growing conditions, but time has not significantly changed it, (nor has selective breeding).
Okay, getting back to the flour. These days, processors custom blend flour formulations for the task at hand, and they "concentrate" gluten, as desired. Bread typically contains more gluten than other uses, (such as cookies and cakes, for example). IOW, good bread flour may contain more gluten than the wheat from which it is milled, originally contained, and it is processed differently these days, to enhance the baking qualities to match the characteristics needed in the final product. And that is the gist of the problem, IMO. Therefore, it isn't so much the wheat, as the flour, that has exacerbated issues related to gluten-sensitivity so much in the last 50 to 100 years. The wheat itself, has changed by only a small amount, in contrast with the flour made from it, which has changed significantly.
Celiac disease has surely been around since wheat was first eaten, but back in those days, evolution, (natural attrition), was left to deal with the problem. The disease was first named about 250 AD, but it has only been described in the medical literature in any detail, for about 200 years. (Doctors have always had a rather cavalier attitude toward the disease, for some unknown reason).
Avoiding grains shouldn't cause any vitamin deficiencies, because grains are very poor sources of vitamins to begin with. A lot of processed foods made from grains contain a few vitamins, but that is mostly because they are "enriched" during the processing. Grains, for the most part, are rather poor sources of nutrients in general, in the first place - they're primarily sources of carbohydrates, with the addition of a little protein, and fiber. Fruits, vegetables, and meat, are much better sources of nutrients.
B and E vitamins are usually added to grains during processing, but meat and veggies are much better sources. It's usually a good idea for us to take a good multivitamin if we're reacting, because absorption is often a problem during flares. Once we are in remission, we can usually get enough vitamins from our food, (except for vitamin D), but it still might be helpful to take a supplement, to provide optimum conditions for healing.
I think I read somewhere that most doctors recommend that patients get their vitamins and minerals from food, not vitamin supplements, and yet, according to surveys, most doctors take vitamins.
Go figure. Apparently they don't believe their own "official" advice. 
Tex
Wheat has changed only slightly in the last couple of hundred years. Most of the changes to wheat took place roughly 10,000 years ago, (or more), when ancient ancestors of wheat, (which didn't look much like wheat), were crossed, to yield the grass plant that we know as modern wheat. Before that cross was made, not enough grain was produced by the parent strains, to make the plants worth cultivating for food. The cross provided an offspring with enough yield potential to make it worth trying to cultivate. Through selective breeding, for thousands of years, the yield potential of the plant was increased some more, and a few hundred years ago, growers found ways to improve the baking qualities of wheat flour, by selecting for higher gluten content. Gluten is what gives wheat flour it's baking qualities. Without gluten, (or with less gluten), the quality of baked goods declines, (they lose their light, fluffy qualities, and they lose the ability to hold together well).
The biggest changes in wheat flour have not been due to changes in the grain itself, but rather in the processing of flour. If you look at the protein content of the various wheat varieties, for example, little has changed in roughly the last hundred years, at least. (Data records on the production and grading characteristics of Kansas wheat are available on the internet, going back around 120 years, (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me - it's been a while since I've reviewed them), and since about 1930, protein content is also listed.) If you look at those data, you will see that in the drier years, production was lower, and protein content was higher, and in the highest production years, protein content was the lowest. However, on the average, protein content, (respective to the various varieties of wheat), is virtually unchanged over all those years. Protein content varies by growing conditions, but time has not significantly changed it, (nor has selective breeding).
Okay, getting back to the flour. These days, processors custom blend flour formulations for the task at hand, and they "concentrate" gluten, as desired. Bread typically contains more gluten than other uses, (such as cookies and cakes, for example). IOW, good bread flour may contain more gluten than the wheat from which it is milled, originally contained, and it is processed differently these days, to enhance the baking qualities to match the characteristics needed in the final product. And that is the gist of the problem, IMO. Therefore, it isn't so much the wheat, as the flour, that has exacerbated issues related to gluten-sensitivity so much in the last 50 to 100 years. The wheat itself, has changed by only a small amount, in contrast with the flour made from it, which has changed significantly.
Celiac disease has surely been around since wheat was first eaten, but back in those days, evolution, (natural attrition), was left to deal with the problem. The disease was first named about 250 AD, but it has only been described in the medical literature in any detail, for about 200 years. (Doctors have always had a rather cavalier attitude toward the disease, for some unknown reason).
Avoiding grains shouldn't cause any vitamin deficiencies, because grains are very poor sources of vitamins to begin with. A lot of processed foods made from grains contain a few vitamins, but that is mostly because they are "enriched" during the processing. Grains, for the most part, are rather poor sources of nutrients in general, in the first place - they're primarily sources of carbohydrates, with the addition of a little protein, and fiber. Fruits, vegetables, and meat, are much better sources of nutrients.
B and E vitamins are usually added to grains during processing, but meat and veggies are much better sources. It's usually a good idea for us to take a good multivitamin if we're reacting, because absorption is often a problem during flares. Once we are in remission, we can usually get enough vitamins from our food, (except for vitamin D), but it still might be helpful to take a supplement, to provide optimum conditions for healing.
I think I read somewhere that most doctors recommend that patients get their vitamins and minerals from food, not vitamin supplements, and yet, according to surveys, most doctors take vitamins.
Go figure. Apparently they don't believe their own "official" advice. Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
The other thing to consider is that even as little as 50 years ago, wheat was only in obvious things. So no doubt some people would work out that bread and baked goods upset them, and could avoid those.
Nowadays gluten is in all sorts of processed foods, and we eat lots more processed food. So you are getting exposed to it much more than previous generations. I am pretty sure things like ham never had gluten, nor tomato ketchup nor mustard etc.
And sweet baked goods tended to be eaten only on special occasions.
That has got to make a difference IMHO.
Lyn
Nowadays gluten is in all sorts of processed foods, and we eat lots more processed food. So you are getting exposed to it much more than previous generations. I am pretty sure things like ham never had gluten, nor tomato ketchup nor mustard etc.
And sweet baked goods tended to be eaten only on special occasions.
That has got to make a difference IMHO.
Lyn
-
MBombardier
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:44 am
- Location: Vancouver, WA
Tex, I read somewhere that in Europe there is less gluten in wheat, and that people of northern European extraction have more trouble with American wheat because of that ancestry. Have you read this? A friend said that her naturopath told her that she would probably not have trouble with gluten if she lived in Europe.
Frankly, I feel so much better and feel like I have my brain back again without any gluten. I can't imagine eating gluten at all. What is it they say about ex-smokers making life uncomfortable for any smokers they run across? Hopefully I won't be that bad.
Frankly, I feel so much better and feel like I have my brain back again without any gluten. I can't imagine eating gluten at all. What is it they say about ex-smokers making life uncomfortable for any smokers they run across? Hopefully I won't be that bad.
Marliss Bombardier
Dum spiro, spero -- While I breathe, I hope
Psoriasis - the dark ages
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis - Dec 2001
Collagenous Colitis - Sept 2010
Granuloma Annulare - June 2011
Dum spiro, spero -- While I breathe, I hope
Psoriasis - the dark ages
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis - Dec 2001
Collagenous Colitis - Sept 2010
Granuloma Annulare - June 2011
Marliss,
I wasn't aware of that difference in gluten content, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me, because protein is definitely influenced by climate, and the climate in Europe, (especially Northern Europe), is very different from the climate in Kansas, where most of our wheat is grown. Compared with Northern Europe's relatively cool, often foggy and damp climate, the climate in Kansas is typically much dryer and warmer. Wheat grows better in a cooler climate, such as is predominant in Northern Europe. The plants are healthier, and they produce more grain.
As you may be aware, wheat grows much better, and has much higher yields, (2 to 3 times as much), in the state of Washington, than wheat grown in Kansas. And yet, Kansas is the "breadbasket" of this country, because millers love the higher protein content of the wheat varieties that are suitable for that climate. It seems counterintuitive that better growing conditions would result in lower protein levels, but that's the way it works, (for all grain crops, as far as I'm aware). So you are probably correct that European wheat contains less gluten than U. S. wheat. However, I doubt that the gluten level makes a significant difference in morbidity rates. I suspect that most celiacs in Europe would be "gobsmacked" to learn of your friend's naturepath's claim. IMO, human genetics trump protein/gluten levels in wheat. I note that the highest incidence of diagnosed celiac disease is found in Ireland, where U. S. wheat is probably rarely seen, (if ever).
You're right on target there. One of the most common causes of serious rifts between members here, is due to overzealous promotion of the GF diet, (at least, that's the way it's viewed in the eyes of some of those who would rather "fight than switch"). More than one member has left in a huff, because they unsuccessfully tried to promote the idea that gluten sensitivity is not nearly as widespread among people with MC, as the members of this board seem to believe. And they're correct - according to Dr. Fine's research, only about two-thirds of those with MC are gluten-sensitive. For some strange reason, though, very, very few of those who are not gluten-sensitive, show up on this board. My guess is that most cases where gluten-sensitivity is not a problem, are caused by a drug, and discontinuing the drug in that situation, will usually bring lasting remission. Sometimes GI docs catch that connection, and they are then easily able to resolve the patient's symptoms. We have several members who have learned of that connection, and discovered that solution after they joined us. In general, though, history shows that many of those who complain the loudest about others promoting the GF diet, are usually stuck in the denial stage. They are lucky enough to enjoy spontaneous remission much of the time, interspersed with episodes of "ideopathic" relapses. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone who is unwilling or "unable" to adhere to the diet. Meticulously following the diet required to control this disease is tough, no doubt about it. I have all the respect in the world for anyone and everyone who is willing and able to do it, and I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is in a position where they are able to do that. Self-discipline can be an extremely difficult concept to master, and I can certainly empathize with that. I have no sympathy, though, for those who argue that the problem does not exist, simply because they tried a diet of some sort for a couple of weeks or so, and didn't see any miraculous improvement, so therefore, they are not gluten-sensitive.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away.
Tex
I wasn't aware of that difference in gluten content, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me, because protein is definitely influenced by climate, and the climate in Europe, (especially Northern Europe), is very different from the climate in Kansas, where most of our wheat is grown. Compared with Northern Europe's relatively cool, often foggy and damp climate, the climate in Kansas is typically much dryer and warmer. Wheat grows better in a cooler climate, such as is predominant in Northern Europe. The plants are healthier, and they produce more grain.
As you may be aware, wheat grows much better, and has much higher yields, (2 to 3 times as much), in the state of Washington, than wheat grown in Kansas. And yet, Kansas is the "breadbasket" of this country, because millers love the higher protein content of the wheat varieties that are suitable for that climate. It seems counterintuitive that better growing conditions would result in lower protein levels, but that's the way it works, (for all grain crops, as far as I'm aware). So you are probably correct that European wheat contains less gluten than U. S. wheat. However, I doubt that the gluten level makes a significant difference in morbidity rates. I suspect that most celiacs in Europe would be "gobsmacked" to learn of your friend's naturepath's claim. IMO, human genetics trump protein/gluten levels in wheat. I note that the highest incidence of diagnosed celiac disease is found in Ireland, where U. S. wheat is probably rarely seen, (if ever).
Marliss wrote:What is it they say about ex-smokers making life uncomfortable for any smokers they run across? Hopefully I won't be that bad.
You're right on target there. One of the most common causes of serious rifts between members here, is due to overzealous promotion of the GF diet, (at least, that's the way it's viewed in the eyes of some of those who would rather "fight than switch"). More than one member has left in a huff, because they unsuccessfully tried to promote the idea that gluten sensitivity is not nearly as widespread among people with MC, as the members of this board seem to believe. And they're correct - according to Dr. Fine's research, only about two-thirds of those with MC are gluten-sensitive. For some strange reason, though, very, very few of those who are not gluten-sensitive, show up on this board. My guess is that most cases where gluten-sensitivity is not a problem, are caused by a drug, and discontinuing the drug in that situation, will usually bring lasting remission. Sometimes GI docs catch that connection, and they are then easily able to resolve the patient's symptoms. We have several members who have learned of that connection, and discovered that solution after they joined us. In general, though, history shows that many of those who complain the loudest about others promoting the GF diet, are usually stuck in the denial stage. They are lucky enough to enjoy spontaneous remission much of the time, interspersed with episodes of "ideopathic" relapses. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone who is unwilling or "unable" to adhere to the diet. Meticulously following the diet required to control this disease is tough, no doubt about it. I have all the respect in the world for anyone and everyone who is willing and able to do it, and I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is in a position where they are able to do that. Self-discipline can be an extremely difficult concept to master, and I can certainly empathize with that. I have no sympathy, though, for those who argue that the problem does not exist, simply because they tried a diet of some sort for a couple of weeks or so, and didn't see any miraculous improvement, so therefore, they are not gluten-sensitive. Sorry, I got a bit carried away.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
MBombardier
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:44 am
- Location: Vancouver, WA
