= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Dec. 15 - Dec. 21, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (309)
Huh? Gluten sensitivity is an autoimmune problem, you don't acquire it by not eating wheat.
People who have done paleo can sometimes have issues processes carbs because you lose the stomach bacteria necessary to do so. It was poorly phrased. The transition back can be hard.
Even then, it's not like you "lose the ability" -- the gut microbiota changes fairly rapidly so you should be fine in a few days. But I agree that transitions between very different restrictive diets can be hard on the body.
This runs contrary to what I've ready, but not specifically on gluten-related microbiota. Apparently change in the overall ecology of gut microbes can be very difficult to recover from.
Here is some data on the ease of changing one's microbiota. However you have a valid point in that the persistence of particular kinds of microbiota is not well understood and evidently it's possible to fall into, um, local minima that are hard to get out of (thus the whole fecal transplant business).
I suspect the reality here is much more complicated than the simple "easy to change"/"hard to change" approach.
It's more complicated than that. Small intestine microbiota might have a role in the genesis of the celiac disease.
Link? There are theories that infection by certain viruses can trigger celiac in genetically susceptible people, but infection doesn't usually count as microbiota.
I've found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25483329
Well, it's behind the paywall, but even the abstract is pretty clear that there are no results (aka no evidence). The paper seems to want to "discuss future research directions".
What I read is: it's possible that microbiota alteration have a role in CD, but studies that focus on that link are missing, so we should investigate more. Your sentence seems to imply that you read in the article the exact opposites, that studies were made but didn't find any link. I know that's not what you stated, I just want to be clear on the presuppositions.
As you said: there is no evidence, but there might be if it was investigated. So a role of microbiota is possible and at least not fantastically improbable. That's why I used "might" five comments above.
I said "no results (aka no evidence)" which implies no data pointing one way or another. If I had said "negative results" that would have implied that there is evidence disproving the hypothesis.
LOL. There is a HUGE space of hypotheses for which there is no evidence but which are "not fantastically improbable". Oh, and there's a fellow with a razor here, he wants to talk to you... :-)
It's a review paper. Of course it doesn't present its own experimental results. It says it presents data (from other papers, no doubt) correlating CD with small intestine microbia, though this data is not sufficient to show causation.