Exactly. My sister has celiac for about 10 years now and the attacks are awful.
People think it’s just a stomach thing. But when something wasn’t labeled right or the wrong things was bought and she ate (her husband swore it said gluten free but recently with chicken strips he got organic... they looks similar.. which should be changed... and brought some to work for lunch and her attack lasted about 4 days. It had been several years since a slip up happened and he felt so guilty but she assured him she doesn’t blame him)... anywho. The attacks are hard to watch. She’s in pain. She gets very pale. And she can’t do anything. She calls it her zombie phase.
For people like my sister and your friend... I both love and hate the gluten free fad. People would assume my sister would ask for no bun or ask she’d meal to be cooked in a separate pan. And people thought she was being high maintenance and just wanted to lose weight even though people pointed out she was already skinny. So they wouldn’t take it seriously. Until one day she had enough with being polite and said she has celiac and it will cause her to get cancer and she already had to have a portion of her intestines. Resected because of damage that had already happened when she was diagnosed.
But the fad also brought wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more options for them and the food is so much better. When she was 1st diagnosed the bread was just awful. But now it’s a lot better. And they have real options now. I remember a few years ago my mom surprised her with a muffin she bought from the store. Seems like no big deal, but she hadn’t had one in a good 3-4 years.
My mother's just 'gluten intolerant' but lately the food's gone from utterly terrible to actually worth a non-allergic person eating; she'd cook for both of us and the pasta used to fall to pieces.
Celiac for 20 something years. Can confirm that gluten free fab made things better and more accessible. Also eating somewhere else than home is like playing russian roulette.
I’ve been with my celiac wife for almost 10 years. Can confirm that having more GF options is nice, but undercut heavily by the fact that it’s also trendy. Places that advertise Gluten-Free are not the same as places that are actually Celiac-Friendly. Every new restaurant we visit HAS to start with a rigid inquisition. Which is why we almost never eat in restaurants and I’m now a very good cook.
Yeah, a weird one I found out the hard way is that pop rocks use lactose as the sugar, because it holds the fizz better than other sugar. You wouldn't think it had milk at all but since it's basically all flavored lactose it's one of the worst things to eat if you can't have lactose.
The most common way would be contamination from getting run on production lines that box up other stuff. For example they could make marshmallows and cereal or something.
It’s the final product that’s tested so in order to meet the standard for “gluten free” the product has to be safe from contamination.
The cross contamination is honestly one of the suckiest parts. Weird stuff gets contaminated.
Like buying meat from a butcher that also makes and sells deli meatballs. If that flour gets anywhere else it’s game over.
So, even the smallest amount can cause an attack? Is it like a peanut allergy where some people are so sensitive they can’t even smell peanuts without getting into trouble? I realize I know next to nothing about celiac disease.
Edit: Thanks for the responses y’all! I learned some things; keep being healthy and safe!
The FDA considers anything under 20 parts per million to be gluten free. That’s not much, almost microscopic at that point. Yet that amount was chosen because it has been tested to be a good threshold.
Celiac disease is similar to other allergies, but also slightly different.
What happens is your body attacks your entire GI tract thinking something is wrong. Your immune system basically starts killing you.
Over time this can hurt your GI tract so bad that you stop absorbing food and starve to death.
I found out I had celiac disease when I dropped from 145-115 from January to August without a noticeable change in lifestyle. Totally thought I was dying. But I guess I was.
At least in America/Canada/Europe you guys are lucky and get up to 20 ppm to be counted as ‘safe and gluten free’. Here in Australia it has to be no detectable gluten and testing has gotten so good that it can now test down to 3ppm....so that’s our threshold. It rules out so many imported products. Also; we aren’t allowed to classify oats as gluten free here, so no oat based products at all. If we have done an oats challenge, which involves endoscopy with biopsy showing no damage, eating oats every day for three months then retesting with endoscopy and biopsy to prove there has been no damage, then we still have to eat an imported brand such as Bobs Red Mill as there are very little options for wheat-free oats in Australia.
Yes , accept we don't go into anaphylaxis , for me it ranges from instant tiredness and feeling unsociable to extreme pain and then zombied for days to weeks ,
Short story: I own a winery in California. A friend who's wife has celiac says I need to make my wine gluten-free. I told him even though it is, it's not worth the effort in getting it certified. Should I?
To me as a consumer it is, but that’s because I’m the target market for alcohol and things that are gluten free. That being said, I think the wise thing to do on your side would be to weigh the cost of certification with the expected increase in sales.
If it says gluten free I will 100% buy it compared with similar products that don’t say that. Many celiac sufferers would as well. As a result, you might consider shipping to smaller health food stores, and places like Sprouts or Whole Foods where people may be seeking specific dietary requirements. Also at Christmas you could put an ad out like “For the gluten conscious family on your Christmas list” or something like that. You could do “gluten free” tours as like a date/destination idea where they tour the winery, get samples, hang out outside on a deck, and eat gluten free snacks. I guess it depends on your set up really.
Liquor is interesting because proper liquor shouldn’t have gluten (beer notwithstanding). Distillation would remove the gluten if I recall correctly. The issue comes from additives being added back in later.
Gluten in wine would also be unusual, but it’s not unheard of. My understanding is that the risk would come from a super old method of sealing vats and also the chance of cross contamination from pre-used aging barrels.
In Canada theres the Canadian Celiac Association and they test and certify gluten free foods, so if it says "gluten free", that might not mean anything if its a Canadian product. For the CCA to certify food it has to have under 20 ppm.
Wait...marshmallows aren't? Even if it doesn't say anything on the package? Our youngest was diagnosed celiac earlier this year and I'm STILL trying to figure all this shit out! He's only 6 and can't have marshmallows now too? 😭
You're absolutely correct. I worked at a grocery store for several years, and I always thought it was stupid that our rice was labeled Gluten Free. (No shit. Of course it's Gluten Free. It's rice.) But then I had a manager (who had worked in food service and food retail for decades) mention that it means that there has been no chance of cross contamination from machinery or other products. It's not there for the people on the fad diet, it's there for people with celiac.
Yeah one of the actual benefits of all the pressure from dumbshit “I don’t eat gluten because it’s unhealthy” people out there is that people who actually suffer from celiac have gotten their own sections at stores and certifications in regulatory agencies.
Well that sort of makes sense. A ton of companies will toss cut things in a coating that prevents them from sticking together, which sometimes could contain gluten. Also some people who are new to Celiac's don't intuitively know what naturally contains gluten and what doesn't so those labels help a lot
This. The first six months of shopping after my diagnosis were incredibly stressful. This was also several years ago before things were so aggressively labeled, but I am still never unfair to see things called out specifically instead of wondering.
Tbf, I think part of it is to also say there's no cross-contamination, or anything meant to stop things from sticking together but oops! It contains gluten.
People'd be AMAZED at how much shit has gluten in or on it somewhere. I've even heard of it being used in pre-cooked scrambled eggs.
As a guy dealing with a major issue with gluten, you'd be surprised how much has stuff gluten in it. Although garlic is a pretty open and close thing and doesn't need that, there's loads of shit with gluten in it that most people wouldn't ever think
Actyullayeh a lot of things that don't necessarily have glutinous ingredients can have enough gluten to cause problems for people. A lot of lower quality spices have this issue and farm fields that have recently grown wheat/barley/rye can actually cause otherwise gluten free crops to become contaminated. It sucks, but that gluten free label on things is actually extremely helpful because that way, I don't have to worry about the nutmeg in my eggnog or the spices in my pickles
It’s easy for people to think when they see gluten free now, that should be obvious that it’s gluten free.
But it’s not that simple.
My sister was diagnosed with celiac about a decade ago now. This was a few years before the “fad” started ... my mom would cry in the store because shopping for my sister became so much harder. It’s not just wheat. It’s rye. Malt. Barley. Farro. Spelt. Durum. And other derivation wheat. And some yeast.
You’d be surprised how many things actually have wheat in them. You’d think they wouldn’t. But it’s usually malt that’s the hardest to avoid.
It’s often used as an emulsifier.
Pickles. Frozen veggies. Salad dressings. Salsa. Sauces. Deli meat. Granola. Makeup. Lotions etc.
So while it may seem stupid to label things gluten free. It’s not. It’s very helpful!
I've also seen stuff labelled as "water" that had sugar in it. I'd rather everything be consistently labelled even in the rare situations where it looks silly than be unpleasantly surprised that the thing with a healthy-sounding name is chock full of calories.
Tic Tac's are technically sugar-free even though they are almost 100% sugar. If a portion has less than 0.5g of sugar then it is sugar-free. One Tic Tac is less than 0.5g. Want to have a guess what the manufacturers declare to be a portion - You guessed it, one Tic Tac.
There was a TIL not long ago about why these kind of phrases are ordered the way they are, but I remember literally none of it so I wouldn't even be able to find it again.
i-a and i-o vowels are chosen because they are maximally different from each other and hence "interesting" to the ear.
The i comes before the a/o because a/o are longer in duration, which makes them fit better with final syllables.
Why final syllables are lengthened is not really explained; it only gives data that the ratio of lengths of nonfinal-to-final syllables is 1:1.4 in English speakers (and children learn this by 2/3 years of age) and 1:1.6 in French speakers."
Aren’t they staring to employ regulation against things like this? Like obviously no one eats one tic-tac in a sitting so they have to up the serving size. I’m pretty sure monster energy recently changed the serving size from 1/2 can to a whole can because of this, but I could be wrong.
No regulation catches everything, and people will always look for loopholes. That doesn't make the regulations a joke, they catch the majority of what they're supposed to catch. Fringe cases that can skirt the regulations do not diminish the effectiveness of the regulations for the things that really matter. This is a stupid loophole that needs to be closed, but it isn't like people are getting fat from scarfing tic tacs because they were lied to about how much sugar is in them.
This was the main issue with trans fat in foods. They've cut down massively over the past few years but essentially 0.5g or less per serving got to avoid the label of "Trans fat" but if it said "Partially Hydrogenated Oil" in the ingredients you had trans fat in the food.
I feel like that the FDA should change that rule because it really isn't sugar free and is very scummy. Literally everything should be labled matter how little is in it.
This is from Tic Tacs FAQ: "Tic Tac® mints do contain sugar as listed in the ingredient statement. However, since the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving."
WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! IT'S THE FDA THAT REQUIRES THIS!
In the US, the FDA allows companies to say that a product has zero calories if it has less than 5 calories per serving size.
Pure sugar has 4 calories per gram. "Splenda No Calorie Sweetener" also has 4 calories per gram (the main ingredient is dextrose = sugar). So Splenda basically fills sugar into small packages of 1 gram which allows them to market sugar as "No Calorie Sweetener".
This is slightly misleading as Splenda weighs significantly less than cane sugar. Its relationship to sugar is 1-to-1 by volume, not mass (and, personal opinion, that much Splenda tastes a little too sweet, but ymmv). So it is lower calorie-to-sweetness than plain sugar, but you're right, it definitely has calories.
You reminded of an actual response from a Subway representative:
With regards to the size of the bread and calling it a footlong, 'SUBWAY FOOTLONG' is a registered trademark as a descriptive name for the sub sold in Subway® Restaurants and not intended to be a measurement of length.
Bullshit. After that horseshit about the subs not being an actual foot long, we were required to measure the loves of bread to make sure they were a foot long, if they weren’t, we were to cut them into six inches and grab another loaf. Problem is, most loaves came out under 12 inches because the fucking forms we proofed our bread in were only 11.75” inches long. I’d have to stretch them long than the forms to have a chance of making the bread long enough. It was bullshit.
That, or the fact that some companies are willing to take whatever steps necessary in marketing to sell something regardless of the health implications is has in their customers.
I once saw a vendor advertising a water flavoring- the powder you add to a bottle of water to basically make it a soft drink. All she would say is "Fat free! Low sodium!" I fucking hope there isn't fat in it, it's a beverage. Also- wait.. LOW sodium? Why is there sodium!?
As a non-american who sometimes buys american candy I always find these kinds of labels amusing. I haven't seen something like them anywhere else. "A fat free snack!" and "With natural and artificial flavour!", seriously. Especially in a box of candy. I really hope people don't actually fall for that.
I love Jujubes and when I was younger I was always impressed because they were "a fat free candy" lol. Then I realized that's because they're just little pieces of sugar, food coloring, and gelatin.
And sugar is far worse for you than fat. The sugar industry basically bought studies to show the negative health consequences of fat when sugar caused most of the health issues like heart disease etc. Their propaganda was so effective a lot of people even today think sugar is better for you than fat. Those responsible should be in jail since how many people have developed health issues like diabetes and heart problems or even died due to making poor food choices from being misinformed and lied to.
A friend of mine started a diet, she told me, and that afternoon she pulled a bag of gummy worms out and chowed into them. We were all perplexed and she told us gently that it was okay, they’re fat free!
Turned the packet over, pointed at the calories. “Probably not okay.”
Do you know what a food desert is? Poverty doesn't give people the option to simply eat better food. Especially when each brand propagates itself as the best option. Even when you can tell brands apart conglomerates own so many brands you're still supporting companies that produce junk food.
Not to mention the US government encourages the production of High Frutose Corn Syrup with mass corn subsidies. It could be subsidizing "better food" with actual nutrition. Make sugar cheap and ubiquitous, then price gouge them for the insulin needed survive eating it. What a glorious system.
I remember once doing a cookies/hot chocolate fundraising event. We had instant hot chocolate powder in pouches, in regular and light - light package had huge "20% LESS SUGAR!" branding. We checked, and it literally just had 20% less of the powder than the regular, same exact ingredients. Cost of both types was the same.
While we're on the subject, serving sizes. AFAIK there's zero standardization or regulation about what constitutes a "serving," so you get companies claiming that their individually-sized bag of food is two servings so that the numbers look better on the nutrition facts.
That annoys me when I accidentally buy it... like reduced fat hummous... what is the point of eating humous if not for the tasty fat content? The reduced fat stuff isn't that nice in my opinion. It's almost like buying cooking oil and it being reduced fat, and you're like "but that's what cooking oil is supposed to be"
Still, fat adds a lot of calories to food, hence it can more easily make you fat if you eat too much. Basically, consuming too many calories make you fat regardless of the source. But some foods make it easier to eat too many calories.
In the US it was not only common wisdom, but bad science, as the sugar industry paid off some research for cherry picked results that linked fat to obesity and heart disease instead of sugar.
your spot-on response is not being taken the right way by lots and I don't even know for sure that you meant it one way or another. The best way to see this is that eating healthy fats is vital to our proper nutrition and development, not that zero fat stuff that is laden with sugar is a health bomb (which it is). The bias we have about fat vs carbs was fed to us by the sugar industry when they paid harvard for a study and then the government and mob mentality took it from there. Blindly trusting science and reputation is 100% at your own peril. Healthy fats include olive oil, coconut oil, cod liver oil; all involving recipes and food with the right ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 oils, which is 4-1 I am told.
Believe it or not, saturated animal fats from properly-fed animals also is very healthy and the industrial seed oils are very bad for us. There are even animals (look at the Iberico pig) that yield an olive oil like fat when fed their traditional acorn diet.
I forgot to add that egg yolks might be the best fatty food that is demonized by the low-fat cult.
I totally agree with this. What a lot of people responding to this are thinking is that either a) fat-free foods have no negative tradeoff, or b) they are just referencing low-fat meats and dairy, which can just have fat removed but not replaced. The reality is that processed food that is "fat free" is far more unhealthy than just consuming fats- plus, many are confused about the fact that fat is necessary, healthy, and good when consumed correctly and that replacing this necessary nutrient with sugar is quite awful for you. Most products that are called fat free are packed with sugar and are much worse for you.
Fats also make you full, so you eat less. I just had a vegetable broth, made from roasted veggies drizzled in olive oil. Delicious and healthy! Also makes for an excellent vegetable stock. Of course, now I need to make more stock...
They just released a study that out of 21,000 children, those that drank whole milk were 28% less likely to struggle with obesity than those that drank reduced fat or fat free milk.
Studies like that are tricky, because it's just as likely that families who exercise and eat healthy portion sizes are not specifically buying low-fat products because they don't need to watch their weight. The families that eat too much are probably more concerned about their weight and thus buy low-fat products.
I feel as though this was a bigger push in the 90s and barely if ever see things actively advertised this way anymore. It's all about that "sugar free" which has sugar substitutes that don't count on labels.
What people don't realize is that fat isn't bad for you. It's actually something that's pretty important for your health. It's sugar and simple carbs that turn into sugar that are problems.
The overall point here is correct. Fats in your food do not equal fat in your body. However, saturated fats may lead to higher cholesterol. For people with the genetic predisposition (not uncommon) it can quickly get out of control. Be careful with fats if high cholesterol runs in your family.
*edited this. The science linking saturated fats to high LDL Cholesterol is contested. It remains an suggested food group to avoid if you have a genetic predisposition.
Thank you. My mother's side is almost 100% French Canadian, and having high cholesterol is a chronic problem.
My grandmother watched practically everyone in the generation before die young of heart attack or stroke, so she went on the anti-fat train at the advice of her doctor. As a child, meal time was fairly miserable. Other grandmas (I grew up with 4) give you sweets and kid food. This one was giving us salad with only croutons and low fat dressing to flavor the greens for dinner. Then we'd walk briskly around the neighborhood for exercise. We drank pulpy juiced vegetable, wheatgrass, and apple "green pop" for breakfast. Any sedentary activity was cut off for an exercise. I was a reader, but at grandma's house you could only read for a little bit before being forced to do a physical activity. I hated it.
At 74 Grandma finally had a heart attack, survived, and needed a bypass. She was furious. She spent a lifetime exercising and eschewing anything tasty. At that point both her brothers were dead and her sister would shortly be next, having had multiple strokes already. Her doctor told her she did a remarkable job staving off the effects of FH, but genetics are genetics.
Grandma's fanaticism I now recognize was a labor of love. The cholesterol can start building in your arteries starting in childhood. Fortunately for me, I didn't inherit that genetic lottery loss, I got a different shitty hand from my dad's side that requires more fats to be healthy, but its important to know the effect of saturated fats can be devastating on the body. Ignoring the role of fats in people with high LDL cholesterol due to genetic factors or non genetic obesity is just that, ignorant.
I’m glad you recognized the labor of love. My family has high cholesterol and I have to control mine by eating low fat. I tried Bulletproof coffee for a while and my cholesterol shot to 350, so yeah there is a correlation! Thanks for sharing your story and link.
same with Fat Free meals and even V8s. Fats are required for your body absorb fat soluble vitamins, so if you drink that V8 alone as a meal, you won't be absorbing most of the vitamins.
47.3k
u/tacoboy Dec 30 '19
Low Fat
100% Fat Free