Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
Mornin'
Just saw an interesting article in today's paper. Researchers performed celiac blood tests on blood that had been taken from military recruits over 50 years ago as well as recent recruits. They found that today's recruits have 4 times the number of positive tests compared to 50 years ago! Isn't that something? And we know that positive celiac blood tests are only the tip of the iceberg......far more people have gluten sensitivity that does not even show up on the celiac blood test.
Of course, the researchers don't really know why there is such a massive increase but guess that it has something to do with our food supply/processing.
Have a great day!
Polly
New Study Showing Increase in Gluten Sensitivity
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
New Study Showing Increase in Gluten Sensitivity
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
Eventually, I believe that medical researchers will realize that food is a primary cause of disease. They all seem to recognize that food has a major impact on health, but they seem to overlook the main connecting link between food and health, namely disease.
It's also very interesting that every time some group does a new study on the actual prevalence of celiac disease in the general population, the results are quite predictable - every study shows that there are many more cases than the precious study determined. And, more doctors are finally beginning to look for it, and so diagnoses are rapidly rising, too. I was reading an article about the study you mentioned, and this quote caught my eye:
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorder ... n-the-rise
From a statistical viewpoint, at that rate, before very many decades have passed, we will all be diagnosed with celiac disease. The prevalence is currently around one per hundred, and doctors are diagnosing about 10%, (roughly), of them, so the diagnostic rate is about one per thousand, in the general population, (actually, it's probably more like one in several thousand). If they continue to improve the diagnostic rate by a factor of 9, every 10 years, then in 10 years, they will be diagnosing one per 111, in 20 years it will be one per 12, and in 30 years, they will be diagnosing almost everyone in the general population.
Thanks,
Tex
Eventually, I believe that medical researchers will realize that food is a primary cause of disease. They all seem to recognize that food has a major impact on health, but they seem to overlook the main connecting link between food and health, namely disease.
It's also very interesting that every time some group does a new study on the actual prevalence of celiac disease in the general population, the results are quite predictable - every study shows that there are many more cases than the precious study determined. And, more doctors are finally beginning to look for it, and so diagnoses are rapidly rising, too. I was reading an article about the study you mentioned, and this quote caught my eye:
That's from this article:In a 2003 study, Murray and colleagues found that celiac disease was being diagnosed at a rate that was nine times higher than just a decade before.
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorder ... n-the-rise
From a statistical viewpoint, at that rate, before very many decades have passed, we will all be diagnosed with celiac disease. The prevalence is currently around one per hundred, and doctors are diagnosing about 10%, (roughly), of them, so the diagnostic rate is about one per thousand, in the general population, (actually, it's probably more like one in several thousand). If they continue to improve the diagnostic rate by a factor of 9, every 10 years, then in 10 years, they will be diagnosing one per 111, in 20 years it will be one per 12, and in 30 years, they will be diagnosing almost everyone in the general population.
Thanks,
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.
Isn't it true that the amount of gluten in wheat has gradually increased over the years? It's possible to purchase white wheat grain (for baking) vs. red wheat grain. I assume the white wheat has higher gluten.
In addition, we are told to increase the amount of grains and fiber we eat. When I was diagnosed with diverticulitis, I went on a campaign to increase my fiber, and I did it by adding bran to everything. My goal was to get a soft-formed stool. I certainly met my goal!
Gloria
In addition, we are told to increase the amount of grains and fiber we eat. When I was diagnosed with diverticulitis, I went on a campaign to increase my fiber, and I did it by adding bran to everything. My goal was to get a soft-formed stool. I certainly met my goal!
Gloria
You never know what you can do until you have to do it.
Sorry, Gloria.
I was sent home with instructions to increase my fiber for diverticulosis which was diagnosed at the same time as LC. The pain from it was one of the reasons that I went for my first colonoscopy. Of course, after reading here at the PP site, I cut out almost all fiber. I never had any problems at all until one day last week. At least the terrible pain was gone after a day.......
I was sent home with instructions to increase my fiber for diverticulosis which was diagnosed at the same time as LC. The pain from it was one of the reasons that I went for my first colonoscopy. Of course, after reading here at the PP site, I cut out almost all fiber. I never had any problems at all until one day last week. At least the terrible pain was gone after a day.......
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
Polly-
I'm sure you've also noticed an uptick in nut allergies among kids. I've got one (nut-allergic kid), my brother has one, and my SIL has one. Growing up I didn't know a *single* kid with it....along w/autism, ALL of this stuff is on the rise - it's be nice if the medical community tried to focus on WHY the prevalence is increasing so we can focus on prevention...
I'm thinking food supply/environmental causes are the culprit, as well!
Mary
I'm sure you've also noticed an uptick in nut allergies among kids. I've got one (nut-allergic kid), my brother has one, and my SIL has one. Growing up I didn't know a *single* kid with it....along w/autism, ALL of this stuff is on the rise - it's be nice if the medical community tried to focus on WHY the prevalence is increasing so we can focus on prevention...
I'm thinking food supply/environmental causes are the culprit, as well!
Mary
Gloria,
While the gliadin and glutenin fractions of wheat protein have probably been increased somewhat over the years, by selective breeding, the total protein content of wheat has not increased over the last half century or so. In fact, the average total protein content of wheat has actually declined during the last fifty years, as yields have increased, and this tends to offset somewhat, any increase in the gliadin and glutenin fractions of wheat protein. In general, the higher the production per acre, (in terms of bushels, or pounds), the lower the protein content is likely to be. This relates to growing rates of plants, and various other factors, but it is a very good general rule. I have posted a link below, to USDA records for Kansas wheat production, for the years 1918 to date. Kansas, of course, is known as the breadbasket of the country, the leader in wheat production.
Looking at the data, you will note that in 1948, they began to record the average protein content of the crop, typically in the 12 to 13% range, but sometimes lower. The highest average protein content was recorded in 1956, at 14.1%. In some recent years, the protein data are missing, but unless I overlooked something in the tables, the record set in 1956 has never been beaten, and in fact, in many years, the protein content has been significantly lower.
Personally, I blame the gluten-sensitivity "epidemic" on the government's persistent recommendations to eat enriched bread, cereals, and other grains, for most of my lifetime. IOW, I believe that it's not so much the protein content of wheat, as the way it is used in bread, (I believe that Polly mentioned in a post some time back, the fact that bread products, (and certain flours), are "enriched" with additional protein these days), and the fact that we probably eat more products containing wheat, than we did, historically. We're simply ingesting more gluten than we used to, because it's used in more products these days, and it's used in higher concentrations. It is true, though, that some of the ancient ancestors of wheat had far lower gliadin and glutenin fractions, and this was steadily "upgraded" over the centuries, by selective breeding.
Wheat genetics have not been significantly altered though, since the early 1980s, when the land grant colleges apparently gave up on trying to produce rust-resistant varieties of wheat. Prior to that, there was a lot of development, but most of it was targeted at yields per acre, because a plant disease called "wheat rust" which became an increasing serious problem during the 1970s and '80s. The university researchers gave up, because when they would develop a new rust-resistant strain, before they could get the seed out into commercial production channels, the rust would mutate, and attack the new variety, rendering it worthless.
Interestingly, after the researchers gave up, and stopped trying to develop rust-resistant varieties of wheat, the existing strains of rust, mutated into less-potent forms, and rust is no longer the problem in wheat, that it once was. (Maybe Mother Nature knows what she's doing, after all).
As far as I am aware, not much work has been done to enhance the gliadin and glutenin fractions of wheat, in the last 50 years or so, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention. Most of the "progress", (if you can call it progress), made recently, has probably been in the milling phase of the processing, and in computer-assisted selecting of batches to be blended, in order to gain the baking characteristics desired.
I believe that Durham wheat contains the highest average protein content, at around 18% and higher. It's priced at a premium, and it's used mostly for pasta products.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:vb ... =firefox-a
Regarding the escalating rates of nut allergies, (and other allergies), these days, that Mary mentioned, could it be that Dr. Ford has pinpointed the culprit, when he says that gluten causes neurological symptoms first? IOW, these alterations to the brain chemistry, due to the effects of gluten, might be causing all the other allergies and intolerances, even though other physical symptoms related to gluten sensitivity might remain asymptomatic, or at least unnoticed, in many individuals?
Tex
While the gliadin and glutenin fractions of wheat protein have probably been increased somewhat over the years, by selective breeding, the total protein content of wheat has not increased over the last half century or so. In fact, the average total protein content of wheat has actually declined during the last fifty years, as yields have increased, and this tends to offset somewhat, any increase in the gliadin and glutenin fractions of wheat protein. In general, the higher the production per acre, (in terms of bushels, or pounds), the lower the protein content is likely to be. This relates to growing rates of plants, and various other factors, but it is a very good general rule. I have posted a link below, to USDA records for Kansas wheat production, for the years 1918 to date. Kansas, of course, is known as the breadbasket of the country, the leader in wheat production.
Looking at the data, you will note that in 1948, they began to record the average protein content of the crop, typically in the 12 to 13% range, but sometimes lower. The highest average protein content was recorded in 1956, at 14.1%. In some recent years, the protein data are missing, but unless I overlooked something in the tables, the record set in 1956 has never been beaten, and in fact, in many years, the protein content has been significantly lower.
Personally, I blame the gluten-sensitivity "epidemic" on the government's persistent recommendations to eat enriched bread, cereals, and other grains, for most of my lifetime. IOW, I believe that it's not so much the protein content of wheat, as the way it is used in bread, (I believe that Polly mentioned in a post some time back, the fact that bread products, (and certain flours), are "enriched" with additional protein these days), and the fact that we probably eat more products containing wheat, than we did, historically. We're simply ingesting more gluten than we used to, because it's used in more products these days, and it's used in higher concentrations. It is true, though, that some of the ancient ancestors of wheat had far lower gliadin and glutenin fractions, and this was steadily "upgraded" over the centuries, by selective breeding.
Wheat genetics have not been significantly altered though, since the early 1980s, when the land grant colleges apparently gave up on trying to produce rust-resistant varieties of wheat. Prior to that, there was a lot of development, but most of it was targeted at yields per acre, because a plant disease called "wheat rust" which became an increasing serious problem during the 1970s and '80s. The university researchers gave up, because when they would develop a new rust-resistant strain, before they could get the seed out into commercial production channels, the rust would mutate, and attack the new variety, rendering it worthless.
Interestingly, after the researchers gave up, and stopped trying to develop rust-resistant varieties of wheat, the existing strains of rust, mutated into less-potent forms, and rust is no longer the problem in wheat, that it once was. (Maybe Mother Nature knows what she's doing, after all).
As far as I am aware, not much work has been done to enhance the gliadin and glutenin fractions of wheat, in the last 50 years or so, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention. Most of the "progress", (if you can call it progress), made recently, has probably been in the milling phase of the processing, and in computer-assisted selecting of batches to be blended, in order to gain the baking characteristics desired.
I believe that Durham wheat contains the highest average protein content, at around 18% and higher. It's priced at a premium, and it's used mostly for pasta products.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:vb ... =firefox-a
Regarding the escalating rates of nut allergies, (and other allergies), these days, that Mary mentioned, could it be that Dr. Ford has pinpointed the culprit, when he says that gluten causes neurological symptoms first? IOW, these alterations to the brain chemistry, due to the effects of gluten, might be causing all the other allergies and intolerances, even though other physical symptoms related to gluten sensitivity might remain asymptomatic, or at least unnoticed, in many individuals?
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.
I also wonder if genetically modified foods are involved in the allergy increase. I recently read a book called The Unhealthy Truth, written by a mom whose child developed an egg allergy - this set her on the warpath of investigating our food supply and how food companies, Monsanto and the government are in cahoots. Some of the info she uncovered was a bit scary (also a bit sensational and biased at times, but nonetheless scary) - such as Roundup Ready seeds (basically injecting Roundup pesticide into the plant DNA). This creates a totally new protein that our bodies don't recognize - some doctors admitted that this could be a problem in the developement of allergies. I am more organic than ever after reading that book- organic products cannot be GMOs.
There is a new movie out called Food, Inc, which is an expose on the food industry and how it impacts health and the environment. I plan on seeing it this week - it will be out on DVD in November. In my mind all of these environmental triggers are just what our genes needed to be activated.
Mary Beth
There is a new movie out called Food, Inc, which is an expose on the food industry and how it impacts health and the environment. I plan on seeing it this week - it will be out on DVD in November. In my mind all of these environmental triggers are just what our genes needed to be activated.
Mary Beth
Mary Beth,
I haven't read that book, but it sounds as though that author is confused about Monsanto's genetic "manipulation" process. I'm trying to recall the details of the Monsanto process, and as best I can recall, they created Roundup Ready seed, by injecting genetic material from a plant that has natural immunity to salt of glyphosate, (Roundup). There are precious few plant species in nature, that are naturally immune to Roundup, but it's my understanding that they located the best choice, and used genetic material from it. Therefore, Roundup Ready seed is simply a hybrid form, created by the combination of natural genetic material, by means of a mechanical process that eliminates the time element that is normally involved in the creation of hybrids. IOW, the combination could possibly occur in nature, but if it did, it would probably take hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years, to do so. "Genetic engineering" eliminates the wait.
Injecting salt of glyphosate into a seed would provide no benefit - that would kill the germ, so that it wouldn't be able to germinate.
It is true that such a process will create a new protein form, but I believe that we encounter proteins that are new to us, on a fairly regular basis. Anytime we travel to a foreign country, or eat a "new" imported food, (or even a "new" domestic food product, for that matter), we are exposing ourselves to "unrecognized", (by our immune system), proteins. Right?
Please don't misunderstand me - I am not a fan of Monsanto. They are in this strictly for the money, and they are as greedy as they can possibly be. Their only real concern is maximum profit. What you and I think, means nothing to them.
Tex
I haven't read that book, but it sounds as though that author is confused about Monsanto's genetic "manipulation" process. I'm trying to recall the details of the Monsanto process, and as best I can recall, they created Roundup Ready seed, by injecting genetic material from a plant that has natural immunity to salt of glyphosate, (Roundup). There are precious few plant species in nature, that are naturally immune to Roundup, but it's my understanding that they located the best choice, and used genetic material from it. Therefore, Roundup Ready seed is simply a hybrid form, created by the combination of natural genetic material, by means of a mechanical process that eliminates the time element that is normally involved in the creation of hybrids. IOW, the combination could possibly occur in nature, but if it did, it would probably take hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years, to do so. "Genetic engineering" eliminates the wait.
Injecting salt of glyphosate into a seed would provide no benefit - that would kill the germ, so that it wouldn't be able to germinate.
It is true that such a process will create a new protein form, but I believe that we encounter proteins that are new to us, on a fairly regular basis. Anytime we travel to a foreign country, or eat a "new" imported food, (or even a "new" domestic food product, for that matter), we are exposing ourselves to "unrecognized", (by our immune system), proteins. Right?
Please don't misunderstand me - I am not a fan of Monsanto. They are in this strictly for the money, and they are as greedy as they can possibly be. Their only real concern is maximum profit. What you and I think, means nothing to them.
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.
Not the author's fault - I do believe she described it similar to what you said, but with a little more fear factor (clearly I am not a scientist, but I am a concerned consumer). I clearly got the message that Monsanto was evil.
One of the points she makes in her book that I am also clear on is that there is a coincidence in the timeline of the rapid increase in genetically modified foods since the mid 90s (especially corn and soy, which we know are in everyrhing) and the rapid rise in food allergies in children in the same time period. In this country the FDA does not mandate labeling of items that are genetically modified - the only way we know they are not is if it is labeled organic. They also don't require testing of the "new proteins" for allergenicity. At this point we really don't know how safe or how risky gentically modified foods are because of lack of testing. I am so food sensitive at this point my preference is no GMOs until we know more.
Anyone who has a school age child like me knows that allergies in children are a huge problem - no peanuts in the classroom and an allergy free zone in the cafeteria. And I beleive there are many undiagnosed cases of food intolerance in children. My son had "colic" as an infant and I was told it was because I was a nervous new mother. After getting his Enterolab results back I am certain my child was in pain from casein intolerance (and possibly gluten exposure from my breast milk/leaky gut). Even when children are diagnosed with casein allergy as a child they are told they will outgrow it, which is not true - their bodies simply adapt to the allergen and the intolerance gets expressed in a different way. Their eczema may go away but they get constipation or headaches or some other seemingly unrelated symptom.
I know there are many on this site who are intolerant to multiple foods and we know at least with gluten that there is a genetic link. I know in my case I can look back and see that I had food intolerance symptoms for years, but it was never fully expressed until recently. I wonder if the concept of "genetic anticipation" applies to food intolerances. In some situations if parents have genetic disorders and they pass it on to their kids, the genetic disorder will be expressed at an earlier age in the children. Tex, do you think there is some validity to this concept?
Mary Beth
One of the points she makes in her book that I am also clear on is that there is a coincidence in the timeline of the rapid increase in genetically modified foods since the mid 90s (especially corn and soy, which we know are in everyrhing) and the rapid rise in food allergies in children in the same time period. In this country the FDA does not mandate labeling of items that are genetically modified - the only way we know they are not is if it is labeled organic. They also don't require testing of the "new proteins" for allergenicity. At this point we really don't know how safe or how risky gentically modified foods are because of lack of testing. I am so food sensitive at this point my preference is no GMOs until we know more.
Anyone who has a school age child like me knows that allergies in children are a huge problem - no peanuts in the classroom and an allergy free zone in the cafeteria. And I beleive there are many undiagnosed cases of food intolerance in children. My son had "colic" as an infant and I was told it was because I was a nervous new mother. After getting his Enterolab results back I am certain my child was in pain from casein intolerance (and possibly gluten exposure from my breast milk/leaky gut). Even when children are diagnosed with casein allergy as a child they are told they will outgrow it, which is not true - their bodies simply adapt to the allergen and the intolerance gets expressed in a different way. Their eczema may go away but they get constipation or headaches or some other seemingly unrelated symptom.
I know there are many on this site who are intolerant to multiple foods and we know at least with gluten that there is a genetic link. I know in my case I can look back and see that I had food intolerance symptoms for years, but it was never fully expressed until recently. I wonder if the concept of "genetic anticipation" applies to food intolerances. In some situations if parents have genetic disorders and they pass it on to their kids, the genetic disorder will be expressed at an earlier age in the children. Tex, do you think there is some validity to this concept?
Mary Beth
I've often wondered why medical professionals make such ridiculous claims, (that someone will outgrow a problem). They used to say the same thing about childhood celiac disease. As you point out, with time, the symptoms evolve, and the patient segues into another phase of allergy presentation. Apparently, medical science is typically not sufficiently sophisticated to recognize this, and it isn't flexible enough to allow for such events in the disease descriptions, so until they are forced to alter their policies, they choose to turn their backs on it, as if it doesn't exist. I had forgotten that gluten can be transmitted in breast milk, but that obviously puts gluten in the same category as the many mycotoxins that can be present in certain foods, under certain adverse conditions.Mary Beth wrote:Even when children are diagnosed with casein allergy as a child they are told they will outgrow it, which is not true - their bodies simply adapt to the allergen and the intolerance gets expressed in a different way. Their eczema may go away but they get constipation or headaches or some other seemingly unrelated symptom.
When I was growing up, I had heard of the rare possibility, but I personally never heard of anyone being allergic to peanuts, nor any other foods, for that matter. People were allergic to bee or wasp stings, or ragweed, or some other pollen, or animal dander, or mites, etc., but not food. When I was a kid, I was always out playing in the dirt, in the sun. Back then, no one was afraid of the sun. We worked outside, in the blazing sun, from daylight to dark. Air conditioning was a rare phenomenon - virtually no one had it, so there was no particular reason to spend an excessive amount of time inside. We went inside to eat, to relax, at the end of the day, and to sleep. During the coldest days of winter, of course, we spent more time indoors, but only when we had to. IOW, virtually everyone got plenty of vitamin D3 from the sun.
During the next generation, that all began to change. The medical "experts" told us how bad the sun was for us, and the sun screen industry pounced on that information and made the most of it. Air conditioning became more popular, so people spent more time indoors. There were fewer outdoor workers, and more office workers.
Now, an additional generation later, we're all short of vitamin D3, and allergies and intolerances abound. Why are allergies and intolerances so common these days, (and becoming worse by the day)? Because we were foolish enough to listen to the medical "experts". They told us that something that we had been doing for millions of years, (absorbing sunlight), was suddenly bad for us, and silly us - we believed them, and we started avoiding the sun, as much as possible. Now, we're paying the piper, for our lack of good judgment. The skin cancer scare came about because certain people craved more than just a tanned look - they weren't satisfied until until they broiled their skin to the darkest shade of bronze possible. And, as we all know - virtually anything in excess is bad, and conversely, virtually anything in moderation is just fine.
The moral of this story is - we should never believe the medical experts when they tell us that something that mankind has been doing since the beginning of time, is bad for us. The sad truth is, they make more money out of their "mistakes", (in the form of bad advice), than they make out of their successes, (in the form of good advice). Unfortunately, we are the ones who suffer from their bad advice, and to add insult to injury, we, (and our progeny), are the ones who foot the bill, trying to correct the damage done by their mistakes.
Regarding "genetic anticipation" - yes, since this phenomenon has been shown to be connected with neurological disorders, IMO, gluten is clearly a candidate. It crosses the blood/brain barrier, and it does indeed cause neurological disorders. I'm not aware that casein, (and other protein allergens), has been demonstrated to cross the blood/brain barrier, but that discovery will probably follow eventually, because it is known that casein, for example, can indeed cause villus atrophy in the small intestine, much like gluten.
Personally, while I don't like some of the things that are being done with GMO technology, I don't see how that could be causing the widespread problems with allergies, today. The implementation of that technology is still too new for the genetic consequences to be manifest. Genetic effects require a generation or two to "incubate". We will see the consequences of GMO, (if any), in the coming 20 to 50 years. The "epidemic" of problems that we are experiencing now, are due to events that occurred during the previous 20 to 50 years, IMO.
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.
Hi there,
Haven't had a chance to read all the responses, but just wanted to point out that there's another issue aside from the amount of protein in wheat that Tex explained. That has to do with the greatly increased amount of gluten that is included in bread. Think I read that there was only something like 3 percent back in the 50's, and now, it's many multiples of that, percentage wise -- wish I could remember the exact percentage. Do any of you long time gf people remember reading that figure?
This doesn't prove anything, but it looks as though facts like these would lead to more research on the effects of increasing the gluten in a population, doesn't it? Think we're finally getting there, at least.
Lots of other things going on during those years, so maybe other factors will surface that can be looked at in relation to the increase in gluten sensitivity (gs).
Yours, Luce
Haven't had a chance to read all the responses, but just wanted to point out that there's another issue aside from the amount of protein in wheat that Tex explained. That has to do with the greatly increased amount of gluten that is included in bread. Think I read that there was only something like 3 percent back in the 50's, and now, it's many multiples of that, percentage wise -- wish I could remember the exact percentage. Do any of you long time gf people remember reading that figure?
This doesn't prove anything, but it looks as though facts like these would lead to more research on the effects of increasing the gluten in a population, doesn't it? Think we're finally getting there, at least.
Lots of other things going on during those years, so maybe other factors will surface that can be looked at in relation to the increase in gluten sensitivity (gs).
Yours, Luce
Hi Luce,
Every so often, I see comments speculating about how much the protein content of bread has risen over the years, and since that doesn't seem logical, (due to the protein requirements for making leavened bread), after you piqued my curiosity tonight, I spent some time researching that topic. After reading many, many articles, it is clear to me that to make decent bread, (that rises properly), the protein content has to be a minimum of about 11.5%. At protein levels below that, not enough carbon dioxide can be generated during the fermentation process, to allow the bread to rise properly. Wheat grown 50 years ago had just as much protein as it does today, (in fact, as I pointed out in a post above, the record for the highest average protein content for the wheat crop in the state of Kansas, was set in 1956, with an average protein level of 14.1%;). True, there have been improvements made in milling processes, but if you buy a bag of flour specified for baking bread today, you will find that it shows roughly the same protein content that it did 50 years ago, typically 11.7 to 12.7%.
It is true that commercially baked bread today typically has a protein content of around 12.5%, but rarely is it any higher, (except for a few specialty breads), and while I can't find any statistical records from 50 years ago to verify the exact protein content typically used for bread, it was probably roughly the same as it is today, and varied somewhat each year, depending on crop conditions. At the very minimum, though, it had to be at least 11.5%, because I was around in those days, (I worked in a grocery store during the 1950s), and I can assure you that the bread looked just as good, (and tasted just as good), back in those days, as it does today. And when my mother, or my grandmother, baked bread at home, it rose just as well as bread rises today, so it absolutely had to have at least 11.5% protein, and it probably had approximately the same protein content that it has today, around 12.5%.
The reason why we are ingesting more gluten these days, than we did 50 years ago, is because of the rise of the fast food industry. Wheat consumption fell from a high of 225 lbs per person, in the 1890s, to a low of about 110 lbs per capita, in the 1960s. After the fast food industry boosted the demand for wheat, the per capita consumption rose to about 146 lbs, by the year 2000. That's about a 33% increase in the consumption rate, in about 30 years, and I believe that constitutes the bulk of our increased gluten consumption, during our lifetimes. Since 2000, wheat consumption has been falling, again. After a lot of searching, I located this report, which reveals just about anything anyone should care to know, about the use of wheat in this country, over a 176-year period. Note the per capita wheat flour consumption chart:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/consumption.htm
Tex
Every so often, I see comments speculating about how much the protein content of bread has risen over the years, and since that doesn't seem logical, (due to the protein requirements for making leavened bread), after you piqued my curiosity tonight, I spent some time researching that topic. After reading many, many articles, it is clear to me that to make decent bread, (that rises properly), the protein content has to be a minimum of about 11.5%. At protein levels below that, not enough carbon dioxide can be generated during the fermentation process, to allow the bread to rise properly. Wheat grown 50 years ago had just as much protein as it does today, (in fact, as I pointed out in a post above, the record for the highest average protein content for the wheat crop in the state of Kansas, was set in 1956, with an average protein level of 14.1%;). True, there have been improvements made in milling processes, but if you buy a bag of flour specified for baking bread today, you will find that it shows roughly the same protein content that it did 50 years ago, typically 11.7 to 12.7%.
It is true that commercially baked bread today typically has a protein content of around 12.5%, but rarely is it any higher, (except for a few specialty breads), and while I can't find any statistical records from 50 years ago to verify the exact protein content typically used for bread, it was probably roughly the same as it is today, and varied somewhat each year, depending on crop conditions. At the very minimum, though, it had to be at least 11.5%, because I was around in those days, (I worked in a grocery store during the 1950s), and I can assure you that the bread looked just as good, (and tasted just as good), back in those days, as it does today. And when my mother, or my grandmother, baked bread at home, it rose just as well as bread rises today, so it absolutely had to have at least 11.5% protein, and it probably had approximately the same protein content that it has today, around 12.5%.
The reason why we are ingesting more gluten these days, than we did 50 years ago, is because of the rise of the fast food industry. Wheat consumption fell from a high of 225 lbs per person, in the 1890s, to a low of about 110 lbs per capita, in the 1960s. After the fast food industry boosted the demand for wheat, the per capita consumption rose to about 146 lbs, by the year 2000. That's about a 33% increase in the consumption rate, in about 30 years, and I believe that constitutes the bulk of our increased gluten consumption, during our lifetimes. Since 2000, wheat consumption has been falling, again. After a lot of searching, I located this report, which reveals just about anything anyone should care to know, about the use of wheat in this country, over a 176-year period. Note the per capita wheat flour consumption chart:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/consumption.htm
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 thing that changed with wheat in the 1960s was the "Green Revolution", which quadrupled wheat production worldwide. Norman Borlaug, a Soil and Crop scientist from Texas A&M developed high yield wheat and farming practices to increase production to help end world hunger. I really don't know if the dwarf wheat that he worked on had a change in gluten content as a result. Dr. Borlaug's work is credited with ending hunger in Mexico and India and saving billions of lives. He is the only person to ever win a Nobel Prize in Agriculture. But his work has also been highly criticized as well. I actually had an opportunity to meet him about 6 years ago - he was an interesting old man. He totally defends his work and says that people who criticize him don't have any idea what it is like to live in poverty and hunger. The effects of the world eating so more more wheat/gluten will clearly have some health effects, as we all are too painfully aware of.
Mary Beth
Mary Beth
Hi Good Buddies,
I couldn't find any actual numbers for how much the gluten content in wheat has increased over the years, but here is a website that discusses the issue:
www.painbio.com/gluten-en.php
Note that it is a French website (pain=bread) and that they say that bakers over the years have demanded wheat with higher gluten. As a result, the varieties of wheat with the highest amounts of gluten have been selected for. The website is aware of the increasing problem of gluten intolerance and calls for a return to the older, lower-gluten cereals.
Polly
I couldn't find any actual numbers for how much the gluten content in wheat has increased over the years, but here is a website that discusses the issue:
www.painbio.com/gluten-en.php
Note that it is a French website (pain=bread) and that they say that bakers over the years have demanded wheat with higher gluten. As a result, the varieties of wheat with the highest amounts of gluten have been selected for. The website is aware of the increasing problem of gluten intolerance and calls for a return to the older, lower-gluten cereals.
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
More info (from the website www.baking911.com):
Selection criteria for flour for a recipe is based primarily on the end result you are trying to achieve; you do not want to use a high protein bread flour to make a cake or it will change its texture to dense. Conversely, when baking bread and you use cake flour, is too soft and has little gluten-forming proteins. This will cause the bread to fall because it requires a stronger structure that can trap the gases created by yeast, allowing the bread to rise. (More information).
TYPE OF WHEAT FLOUR PERCENT GLUTEN PROTEIN PER CUP OF FLOUR (Varies by region) USES WATER ABSORPTION: Approximate Volume Needed to Absorb 1 Cup Water
NOTE: A flour's protein amount can vary among brands. NOTE: Flour is measured by spooning flour into a dry measuring, filling it and leveling it to top.
Nutritional Composition of flour and grains.
Vital Wheat Gluten 40 - 80 % Added in small amounts to boost the protein content of bread for better rising.
Durham Wheat (Semolina) 13+ % Pasta
Whole Wheat (hard red spring wheat) 14% Best used in combination (50/50) with bread or all-purpose flour
Bread 13 - 14 % Pillsbury, Gold Medal Best for yeast bread recipes 14%: 2 cups (packed) + 1 tablespoon
All-purpose, Unbleached National Brands are at 12 % (Some brands can be at 13+ % Northern, Hecker's, King Arthur) General baking 2 cups Packed) + 2 tablespoons
All-purpose, Bleached National Brands are at 12 % - Pillsbury, Gold Medal, America's Choice (A & P) General baking 2-1/4 cups
All-purpose, Southern (Bleached and Unbleached) 10.5 % Martha White Depends on recipe 2-1/2 cups + 2 tablespoons
Self-rising 9 - 11 % Depends on recipe
Cake and Pastry 7.5 - 9 % Tender cakes and pastries 8% Cake: 2-3/4 cups
Instant Flour (soft wheat) 2 % Sauces and gravies because does not lump. (Chart Adapted From Shirley Corriher)
My take on this:
So I guess people are better off eating cakes and pastries, since the flour they are made from contains much less gluten than bread or pasta flours. Also, it appears that our lifetime over-exposure to white bread and pasta may be the main culprit in developing gluten intolerance. Weren't we all raised on "Wonderbread"? That is probably the biggest difference in our diets compared with our ancestors' diets. Whaddya think???
Polly
Selection criteria for flour for a recipe is based primarily on the end result you are trying to achieve; you do not want to use a high protein bread flour to make a cake or it will change its texture to dense. Conversely, when baking bread and you use cake flour, is too soft and has little gluten-forming proteins. This will cause the bread to fall because it requires a stronger structure that can trap the gases created by yeast, allowing the bread to rise. (More information).
TYPE OF WHEAT FLOUR PERCENT GLUTEN PROTEIN PER CUP OF FLOUR (Varies by region) USES WATER ABSORPTION: Approximate Volume Needed to Absorb 1 Cup Water
NOTE: A flour's protein amount can vary among brands. NOTE: Flour is measured by spooning flour into a dry measuring, filling it and leveling it to top.
Nutritional Composition of flour and grains.
Vital Wheat Gluten 40 - 80 % Added in small amounts to boost the protein content of bread for better rising.
Durham Wheat (Semolina) 13+ % Pasta
Whole Wheat (hard red spring wheat) 14% Best used in combination (50/50) with bread or all-purpose flour
Bread 13 - 14 % Pillsbury, Gold Medal Best for yeast bread recipes 14%: 2 cups (packed) + 1 tablespoon
All-purpose, Unbleached National Brands are at 12 % (Some brands can be at 13+ % Northern, Hecker's, King Arthur) General baking 2 cups Packed) + 2 tablespoons
All-purpose, Bleached National Brands are at 12 % - Pillsbury, Gold Medal, America's Choice (A & P) General baking 2-1/4 cups
All-purpose, Southern (Bleached and Unbleached) 10.5 % Martha White Depends on recipe 2-1/2 cups + 2 tablespoons
Self-rising 9 - 11 % Depends on recipe
Cake and Pastry 7.5 - 9 % Tender cakes and pastries 8% Cake: 2-3/4 cups
Instant Flour (soft wheat) 2 % Sauces and gravies because does not lump. (Chart Adapted From Shirley Corriher)
My take on this:
So I guess people are better off eating cakes and pastries, since the flour they are made from contains much less gluten than bread or pasta flours. Also, it appears that our lifetime over-exposure to white bread and pasta may be the main culprit in developing gluten intolerance. Weren't we all raised on "Wonderbread"? That is probably the biggest difference in our diets compared with our ancestors' diets. Whaddya think???
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.