http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier

It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a sensitivity.

If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?

On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>
> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a sensitivity.
>
> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>
Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.

Jill

On 07/07/2015 4:11 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>>>
>>
>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>> sensitivity.
>>
>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>
> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>
> Jill

Ever since that guy wrote "Wheat Belly".
Graham
--

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/07/2015 4:11 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>>> sensitivity.
>>>
>>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>>
>> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Ever since that guy wrote "Wheat Belly".
> Graham

He's a nut. I tried to watch that show. Had to change the channel.

On 7/7/2015 6:53 PM, graham wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 4:11 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>>> sensitivity.
>>>
>>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>>
>> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Ever since that guy wrote "Wheat Belly".
> Graham

I personally don't have any food intolerences. But if I did I wouldn't
try to find excuses not to eat something that bothers me. Gluten,
carbs, whatever. If it doesn't agree with me, I don't eat it. It
doesn't have to become a fad. It's just common sense.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/7/2015 6:53 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 4:11 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>>>> sensitivity.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>>>
>>> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Ever since that guy wrote "Wheat Belly".
>> Graham
>
> I personally don't have any food intolerences. But if I did I wouldn't
> try to find excuses not to eat something that bothers me. Gluten, carbs,
> whatever. If it doesn't agree with me, I don't eat it. It doesn't have
> to become a fad. It's just common sense.
>

but then you can't [expect] demand people to treat you as "special".

On 07/07/2015 5:34 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 7/7/2015 6:53 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 4:11 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>>>> sensitivity.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>>>
>>> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Ever since that guy wrote "Wheat Belly".
>> Graham
>
> I personally don't have any food intolerences. But if I did I wouldn't
> try to find excuses not to eat something that bothers me. Gluten,
> carbs, whatever. If it doesn't agree with me, I don't eat it. It
> doesn't have to become a fad. It's just common sense.
>
> Jill

Of course people who praise the fad because it seems to work for them,
don't seem to realise that they have been taking much greater care over
their diets and the quantities they eat. It's that care and not the
absence of gluten that has made them feel better.
Graham

--

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>>
>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>> sensitivity.
>>
>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>
> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.

Maybe where you're at. It's not here.

jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> > > http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...-free-diet-rea
> > > lly-healthier
> >
> > It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
> > sensitivity.
> >
> > If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
> >
> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>
> Jill

I think that is true. I will grant some folks do seem to have a real
intolerance (not celiac, but issues yet the same) I suspect many who go
'gluten free' are following a trendy diet idea.

Carol

--

On 7/7/2015 8:23 PM, cshenk wrote:
> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...-free-diet-rea
>>>> lly-healthier
>>>
>>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>>> sensitivity.
>>>
>>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>>
>> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>>
>> Jill
>
> I think that is true. I will grant some folks do seem to have a real
> intolerance (not celiac, but issues yet the same) I suspect many who go
> 'gluten free' are following a trendy diet idea.
>
> Carol
>
It seems that way to me, Carol. Merely because it's being talked about
so much, and only in recent years. I'd never heard much about problems
with gluten. Then there was a recent explosion of gluten-free products.
Everyone's talking gluten-free. Um. Remember when eggs were bad for
you? Then they weren't? That's about the way I feel about the
gluten-free thing. All you have to do is wait a minute, popular opinion
will change.

I've only ever met one person who actually had celiac disease. She was
an executive at the company where I worked. She flew in from corporate.
She told me she really wished she could try cornbread one day but
couldn't find a recipe that didn't call for flour. Granted, this was
around 1997 and she obviously wasn't very proficient with computers.
Back then I couldn't find many references to celiac or recipes. I did
find her a recipe for cornbread that did not contain wheat flour. No
idea if she ever tried it.

Jill

jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 7/7/2015 8:23 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> > > > > http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...uten-free-diet
> > > > > -rea lly-healthier
> > > >
> > > > It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or
> > > > even a sensitivity.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why
> > > > bother?
> > > >
> > > Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Jill
> >
> > I think that is true. I will grant some folks do seem to have a
> > real intolerance (not celiac, but issues yet the same) I suspect
> > many who go 'gluten free' are following a trendy diet idea.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> It seems that way to me, Carol. Merely because it's being talked
> about so much, and only in recent years. I'd never heard much about
> problems with gluten. Then there was a recent explosion of
> gluten-free products. Everyone's talking gluten-free. Um.
> Remember when eggs were bad for you? Then they weren't? That's
> about the way I feel about the gluten-free thing. All you have to do
> is wait a minute, popular opinion will change.
>
> I've only ever met one person who actually had celiac disease. She
> was an executive at the company where I worked. She flew in from
> corporate. She told me she really wished she could try cornbread
> one day but couldn't find a recipe that didn't call for flour.
> Granted, this was around 1997 and she obviously wasn't very
> proficient with computers. Back then I couldn't find many references
> to celiac or recipes. I did find her a recipe for cornbread that did
> not contain wheat flour. No idea if she ever tried it.
>
> Jill

Yup, it's like the MSG free craze. I don't doubt many people are
positive they have MSG issues but scientific testing has debunked it
time and again. People with 'chinese food syndrome' (aka MSG evil) are
shown to be reactive to other items in those dishes, not the MSG alone.
For example, a lot were reacting to shellfish but blaming the MSG,
others to iodine in seaweed and blaming the MSG.

Some may have minor reactions, but science can't proof it yet because
so far, all scienfifically conducted tests whrre they tell one set it
has MSG, you get some reactors and others where you dont tell them it
has any, do not react at all. My favorite was on a Mac-n-cheese test.
Both control groups were fed the same with a normal MSG content used in
asian dishes. One set was told, one was not. Both contained people
claiming to be sensitive to MSG. Only the set told it had MSG reacted
with headaches and so on. They took the set that reacted, and told
them they needed to rule out anything else in the Mac-n-cheese being a
problem so told them they were feeding them a set with no MSG (then fed
them a set idential with MSG) and suprise! No one reacted.

Carol

--

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/7/2015 8:23 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On 7/7/2015 6:05 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...-free-diet-rea
>>>>> lly-healthier
>>>>
>>>> It is healthier for you if you have an allergy to gluten or even a
>>>> sensitivity.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't have a gluten allergy or sensitivity then why bother?
>>>>
>>> Because it's trendy. Gluten free seems to be the big thing right now.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> I think that is true. I will grant some folks do seem to have a real
>> intolerance (not celiac, but issues yet the same) I suspect many who go
>> 'gluten free' are following a trendy diet idea.
>>
>> Carol
>>
> It seems that way to me, Carol. Merely because it's being talked about so
> much, and only in recent years. I'd never heard much about problems with
> gluten. Then there was a recent explosion of gluten-free products.
> Everyone's talking gluten-free. Um. Remember when eggs were bad for you?
> Then they weren't? That's about the way I feel about the gluten-free
> thing. All you have to do is wait a minute, popular opinion will change.

The only people I hear talking gluten free are the few celiacs I know
online. I only know of one in real life. She used to own the health food
store near here. I know of two girls who had what Angela did. Gluten
intolerance. One outgrew it. Not sure about the other one as I am no
longer in contact with her mom. My friend's dad has both celiac and type 1
diabetes but I have never met him.
>
> I've only ever met one person who actually had celiac disease. She was an
> executive at the company where I worked. She flew in from corporate. She
> told me she really wished she could try cornbread one day but couldn't
> find a recipe that didn't call for flour. Granted, this was around 1997
> and she obviously wasn't very proficient with computers. Back then I
> couldn't find many references to celiac or recipes. I did find her a
> recipe for cornbread that did not contain wheat flour. No idea if she
> ever tried it.

There are recipes for hot water cornbread that don't use flour. I never
tried them. Was going to but I discovered that I can't have corn. I
suspect they would come out more like a corn pancake though and not
cornbread.

Used to be a company called Allergy Free or Allergen Free or something
similar that made out of this world cornbread! No dairy, eggs or flour of
any kind. I bought it from them once. Came in a huge, sheet cake sized
pan. I was on my way out when it arrived. I left it in the garage but it
had fallen by the time I got back and had cracked. I saved a huge chunk
which we ate as is. The rest was cubed, frozen and saved for stuffing.

They began selling some of their things on either HSN or QVC. Can't
remember. But the price went way up. I bought a cake from them. It lasted
a year in the freezer. They also made a faux cheese that tasted good buy
made me very sick. They said they were going to reformulate it and bring it
back but that never happened. They also made gluten free chicken in various
forms. Came frozen. They made that available through something called
Angel Networks.

I am not sure of the particulars on that because it wasn't available in this
area but I think they worked with churches to provide food to the needy.
Yet you didn't have to be needy to take advantage of it. Depending on how
much money you had to spend, you could get the chicken and some other things
like rice, gluten free pasta and fresh fruits and vegetables delivered to
you. I did look at the various packages that had been available and the
prices were quite cheap! I read online about some people who used them and
they said that you'd quickly grow tired of that chicken because it was the
only protein they offered but for some, it was the only way they could
afford to get food.

Something bad happened with this though. I think someone embezzled money or
some such thing. I think someone else took it over. Not sure. But the
prices went up and the foods offered have changed.

I don't know what became of the food company though. They stopped selling
premade items and sold only mixes. I bought the cornbread and made it.
Just add water. It was good but I discovered weevils (dead ones) in one of
the two remaining packages. And now? The company seems to have vanished.

I have bought many different brands of gluten free cornbread and biscuit mix
in the past and most of it is just awful. Sickly sweet and the texture is
all off. I like a dense cornbread and this stuff was fluffy like cake.
Like they used corn flour instead of corn meal.

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier

Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
word in anything.

I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
most nutritious was Lucky Charms.

Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
analysis only.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>
>Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
>word in anything.

Depends on the study...no reason to discount such an analysis without
some specific reasons for it. What are your objections?
>
>I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
>nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
>most nutritious was Lucky Charms.

It was Cheerios, Special K And A version of Maypo, actually, but hey,
don't let that stop you....

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...28,54236&hl=en
>
>Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
>time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
>analysis only.

While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?

On 7/7/2015 5:10 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?

What fun would that be?

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> >> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
> >
> >Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
> >word in anything.
>
> Depends on the study...no reason to discount such an analysis without
> some specific reasons for it. What are your objections?

Take the source you point us to, below. Consumer Reports is quoted as
saying, "But it was impossible to decode the [nutritional] labels
in a way that would predict nutritional performance in the tests."


> >
> >I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
> >nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
> >most nutritious was Lucky Charms.
>
> It was Cheerios, Special K And A version of Maypo, actually, but hey,
> don't let that stop you....
>
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...28,54236&hl=en

Hon, when have you ever known me to be wrong?
Take a gander at the February, 1981, Consumer Reports. In case you
lack access, the study is referred to he
http://www.feingold.org/PF/archives/1981-05.pdf

> >
> >Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
> >time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
> >analysis only.
>
> While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cereals.htm
Click on "Nutrition score." No more feeding rats. Just looking
at labels.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:47:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>> >> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
>> >
>> >Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
>> >word in anything.
>>
>> Depends on the study...no reason to discount such an analysis without
>> some specific reasons for it. What are your objections?
>
>Take the source you point us to, below. Consumer Reports is quoted as
>saying, "But it was impossible to decode the [nutritional] labels
>in a way that would predict nutritional performance in the tests."

And that is problematic within their initial study which was one of
feeding because....?

The CU study is from 1974-75 and it was a feeding one- labeling
analysis was rejected due to the above problem.. Nutritional labeling
has changed since then...quite a bit, in fact. That complaint is 40
years old. Times change. Labeling changes.

Try again.


>> >I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
>> >nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
>> >most nutritious was Lucky Charms.
>>
>> It was Cheerios, Special K And A version of Maypo, actually, but hey,
>> don't let that stop you....
>>
>> https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...28,54236&hl=en
>
>Hon, when have you ever known me to be wrong?

How about now, for a start? And if Google Usenet searches still
worked, I could add to this list very easily.

>Take a gander at the February, 1981, Consumer Reports. In case you
>lack access, the study is referred to he
>http://www.feingold.org/PF/archives/1981-05.pdf

Ummm...Feingold Association is a bunch of net-kook freaks. Next you'll
be offering up Mercola and Mehmet Oz, I suppose.....

They are reporting the results incorrectly and using a study years out
of date

Try again.
>
>> >
>> >Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
>> >time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
>> >analysis only.
>>
>> While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?
>
>http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cereals.htm
>Click on "Nutrition score." No more feeding rats. Just looking
>at labels.

I asked proof that the rat results so "freaked out the CR poobahs,"
that they used a different testing methodology next time.

I have no qualms about nutritional analysis...I want *you* to prove
the bullshit claim you made that such an analysis was chosen out of CU
being "freaked" by previous results and somehow tailored the next
study to, perhaps, favor the results somehow.

Now go away...."Feingold".....LOL LOL HA HA HA.

On 7/9/2015 9:19 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:47:22 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
The United States, to use a quaint old fashioned term, has been invaded
successfully only once, and that was by the Neocons. 9/11 was the only
combat necessary to force the capitulation of large segments of the
American government, which driven by pure greed or authoritarian
impulses deeply at odds with our better traditions, accepted
uncritically the ridiculous “official” story of the September attacks.
Now believing any number of absurd lies is a basic requirement for
success in Washington. I used to think these f$$kers might just die off
before creating total havoc and destroying us, but I guess that was
foolish. Now there are too many highly paid idiots like Friedman
infesting the media to imagine any popular uprising that would force a
purge of these scum bags. I know we don’t have a spotless history, but I
do believe 9/11 probably marked the beginning of the Fall. So there we
have it, a preposterous false narrative like a malignancy, metastasizing
throughout the society as the warfare/welfare state expands breeding
poverty and repression.
--
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers"
-Ronald Reagan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier

Who would possibly think that they were?

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 7:25:29 PM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> Who would possibly think that they were?

My wife. Lyme disease.
I hate that stuff. Smells horrible when I cook with it, be it pasta or even bread crumbs. Expensive too. I see no appeal to it unless medically required.

When I was a kid I don't remember any other kids that were allergic to peanuts, now it seems like half of them are.