Eliminating gluten is not bad: the bad thing is eating badly

It seems that there is not a week in which we do not meet at some point with controversial news related to nutrition and food. The last few days have been especially prolific, on the one hand we have witnessed the implementation of taxes on sugary drinks in Catalonia and, on the other, the star nutri-news has been related to a study recently published in the british medical journal about gluten consumption (1).

Gluten-free diet and heart: a fictitious risk

As usual, the headlines in the press in relation to the study have been biased and yellowish, with claims that are far from credible to the study results.

The vanguardwithout going any further, titled “Eating gluten-free can harm the cardiovascular health of non-celiacs”, The country left us a “Gluten is only bad for celiacs” and Antena 3 opted for “A study warns that those who stop eating gluten without being celiacs have a greater chance of having type 2 diabetes.” All this while the stunned nutritionists were trying with great difficulty to sow a little common sense on social networks.

Why don’t we read what the study actually says?

One of the conclusions of the work is the following: “Long-term gluten intake was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease”, anyone with a modest reading comprehension understands that this does not mean that removing gluten worsens cardiovascular healthsimply that consuming it does not make it worse, which is very different.

What else does the study say? That “eliminating gluten from the diet may result in lower intake of beneficial whole grains that protect against cardiovascular risk.” The key to that sentence is the “may,” which is conditional, not imperative. A gluten-free diet based on processed foods labeled “gluten-free” It will probably be a bad diet, but not because of the lack of gluten, but because of the excess of not recommended products.

Gluten-free cereals, even healthier

A gluten-free diet allows the inclusion of cereals and pseudocerals such as Integral ricehe darlinghe buckwheatthe quinoa or the corn. The benefits of these foods for health are not inferior to those provided by cereals with gluten such as wheat, rye or barley. In fact, in many cases its benefits are superior.

Let’s put aside that the important thing is that the diet is rich in vegetables and fruits (all gluten-free), not in cereals… And it is that vegetables and fruits have more evidence in the prevention of non-communicable, cardiovascular and diabetes diseases included.

A gluten-free diet is not always healthy

Of course, if we ate whole wheat bread and changed it for gluten-free muffins, which are pastries, our diet will undoubtedly worsen. But not for having removed gluten, but for having changed a healthy food for another unhealthy one, whether or not it has gluten. Luckily we have much better alternatives.

The last conclusion reads such that “the promotion of gluten-free diets in non-celiac people it should not be recommended” and indeed, we should recommend a healthy diet to non-celiac people, not a gluten-free diet.

But that doesn’t mean a gluten-free diet is dangerous or increases your risk of disease. per se. To assume that is a terrible mistake. A gluten-free diet can be disastrous or unhealthydepending on the foods that are chosen to make it up.

Eliminating gluten can benefit non-celiac people

And finally, it is not true that it is only people diagnosed with celiac disease who benefit from a gluten-free diet. Today we know that there are non-celiac gluten intolerances and also that in certain inflammatory or autoimmune pathologies the patient may benefit from a gluten-free diet. So that last statement is today highly reductionist.

Lebwohl Benjamin, Cao Yin, Zong Geng, Hu Frank B, Green Peter HR, Neugut Alfred I et al. Long term gluten consumption in adults without celiac disease and risk of coronary heart disease: prospective cohort study BMJ 2017; 357:j1892