Only people with celiac disease benefit from a gluten-free diet. For others, excluding gluten can be dangerous.
Actress Gwyneth Paltrow is the hyperactive apostle. At his side, Miley Cyrus and Victoria Beckham actively support the gluten-free diet. These celebrities don’t suffer from celiac disease, also known as gluten intolerance. Ill inspired would be those who plan to follow in the footsteps of these stars.
Indeed, American researchers have observed that the exclusion of wheat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Conversely, consuming it improves the balance sheet, they note in the British Medical Journal.
The authors of this study sifted through the files of tens of thousands of healthcare professionals followed for a quarter of a century. Between 1986 and 2010, these volunteers scrupulously completed food questionnaires. Among those who ate the least gluten, more coronary heart disease developed. Those who consumed the most saw their risk reduced by 15%.
A rare intolerance
The phenomenon can be explained by the dietary imbalances caused by the exclusion of gluten. By stopping eating wheat, followers “limit their intake of whole grains, which may be associated with poorer cardiovascular outcomes,” the researchers say. In fact, the benefits of whole grains are well established in this regard.
Under these conditions, it is best not to encourage total crowding out in the absence of celiac disease. It remains, let us remember, very rare, since it affects only 0.5 to 1.5% of the population. In these patients, excluding gluten is life-saving and significantly reduces inflammation. But the benefits are limited to this select group.
That seems clear. But this is not the case for everyone. The gluten-free diet is convincing more and more people. In the United States, the number of followers more than tripled between 2009 and 2013. According to national surveys, 30% of Americans try to avoid this component.
A food “neophobia”
The problem of “gluten-free” actually lies in another pathology: hypersensitivity to gluten. The term itself remains very controversial within the medical community. “We do not have precise diagnostic criteria”, underlined Dr. Jean-Luc Fauquert, pediatrician-allergist in Clermont-Ferrand (Puy-de-Dôme) during the Francophone Congress of Allergology. Biological markers are non-existent.
The vagueness is such that it is estimated that 0.5 to 13% of the population would be affected. Some even evoke a “food neophobia”. The diagnosis of hypersensitivity is therefore made by default, after exclusion of gluten. Often in the absence of a health professional.
However, without medical support, changes in the diet can lead to major imbalances. “The diets are often excessive and not very diversified, estimates Dr. Jean-Luc Fauquert. They risk exposure to uncontrolled additives. “For Dr Arnaud Cocaul, nutritionist in Paris, it goes even further. “By excluding gluten, we create other diseases. The digestive flora may no longer recognize certain foods, ”he explains.
Nutritional deficiencies
In terms of nutritional intake, it is worse. The cereals in question are sources of protein, of group B vitamins, but also of zinc or iron … Gluten-free products tend to be too fatty and too sweet, as recalled by Dr Corinne Bouteloup – gastroenterologist and nutritionist – during the Rencontres de Santé Publique France in June 2016. Without providing the necessary nutrients. Especially since, if exclusion regimes accumulate, bad behavior too.
This depletion, the UFC Que Choisir has also pointed out: not only are gluten-free foods less rich in nutrients, but they offer many more additives and texture agents. Not to mention that the substitutes are not necessarily better for your health. Rice, often used as a substitute, contains more arsenic and mercury than wheat. It is better, under these conditions, to apply the official recommendations. Eating a variety of foods, and therefore alternating between wheat and other starchy foods, is of greater interest.
.
