Gluten Could Be Wrongly Blamed for Americans’ Stomach Troubles

Millie; I vehemently disagree with this study. Their assessment is saying that if people think gluten is causing their symptoms then it can cause symptoms!  This is simply not true. (see my article here;  Everyone SHOULD Eat Gluten Free). Gluten does damage to the epithelial cells that line the stomach, diminishing our ability to secrete digestive juices as well as letting undigested proteins into the blood stream which leads to an antigen reaction. It causes bloating, brain fog and skin issues. The reason for this simple, grains are not a natural food for humans, it is devoid of nutrients and has to be fortified to be considered food by the FDA. We could not have evolved eating grains as until we had fire we had no way to consume it. Everyone feels better with out it. I was shocked that this this study cited eating “starches, an obsolete term. Referring to them  as starches is misleading because it lumps them in with nutrient-dense foods like root vegetables, which in reality can trigger inflammation, disrupt gut integrity, and offer far less nutritional value. Unlike whole-food starches, such as potatoes or squashes, gluten containing grains deliver more harm than benefit particularly for sensitive individuals.

By Ed Cara Published July 22, 2025

For many of us, gluten is a dietary villain, capable of causing all sorts of gastrointestinal troubles. Research out this week looks to complicate that narrative, however, finding that people are sometimes wrongly blaming gluten for triggering their symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome.

Scientists at McMaster University in Canada conducted the study, a small, randomized trial of IBS patients. People became sicker just as often after eating food containing gluten or wheat as they did after eating food without the ingredient, they found. Gluten is likely safer to eat for those with IBS than commonly thought, the researchers say.

“These findings suggest that expectations played a major role in symptom generation and that only some of these patients could benefit from gluten or wheat restriction,” they wrote in their paper, published Monday in The Lancet Gastroenetrology and Hepatology.

IBS is a complex, chronic, and relatively common condition, estimated to affect between 5 and 10% of the population worldwide (including up to 45 million people in the U.S.). Its symptoms include stomach pain, bloating, and diarrhea or constipation. Unlike the closely named inflammatory bowel disorder, IBS isn’t marked by physical changes or visible damage along the digestive tract, but it can still be a debilitating burden for many, with around 20% of sufferers experiencing severe bouts. The exact causes of IBS remain unclear, though scientists have speculated it can arise from a miscommunication between the nerves found in the gut and the brain.

People with IBS tend to report having specific triggers that can cause a flare-up of illness, gluten included, and often manage their condition by avoiding these triggers. The researchers behind the new study aimed to better understand gluten’s potential role in IBS, so they recruited over two dozen people with IBS for their randomized, double-blinded trial, all of whom had reported improving after switching to a gluten-free diet.

At first, the volunteers were randomly assigned to one of three groups. All the groups were first told to eat cereal bars for a week. One group ate bars made with flour containing gluten, the second ate bars made with wheat flour, and the third ate bars made with gluten- and wheat-free flour. Afterward, the volunteers took a break for two weeks. Then they switched to eating the bars they hadn’t eaten yet for another round of testing, a process repeated twice. By the study’s end, all the volunteers had eaten all three kinds of bars, though on different schedules and without knowing which bars they had eaten on a given week.

A total of 28 people completed the trial. A significant percentage of people reported having worsening IBS symptoms after eating gluten or wheat bars, the study showed, but about just as often as they did after eating non-gluten/wheat bars (roughly a third experienced worsening IBS during each of the three conditions). 93% of participants also reported having adverse events after each scenario of bar-eating. Interestingly enough, tests of the participants’ stool found that only a third strictly followed their diets as instructed, with likely many fearing they would get sick.

The findings are based on a very small sample size, so it’s not yet certain that they apply to the general population of people with IBS tied to gluten. There are also, of course, digestive conditions clearly caused by an intolerance to gluten, particularly celiac disease. And the researchers aren’t saying gluten can’t sometimes be a genuine trigger for people’s IBS. But they argue that in many cases, people’s negative perception of gluten is causing a nocebo effect, the dark cousin of the placebo effect. In other words, someone’s belief that gluten is bad for them can potentially spark or worsen the IBS symptoms seen after eating it, rather than gluten itself.

The researchers say better communication and follow-up care from doctors are needed for IBS patients, given the findings.

“What we need to improve in our clinical management of these patients is to work with them further, not just tell them that gluten is not the trigger and move on. Many of them may benefit from psychological support and guidance to help destigmatize gluten and wheat and reintroduce them safely in their diet,” said senior author Premysl Bercik, a professor at McMaster’s Department of Medicine, in a statement from the university.

That may be easier said than done, though. The researchers note that most patients, upon learning the team’s findings, staunchly refused to entertain the idea of gluten not being a trigger for their IBS symptoms. So it looks like gluten may need a promotional campaign to win back its reputation.

Landmark Study Flips Decades of Cholesterol Panic Aimed at Eggs

In a groundbreaking clinical trial, researchers have unraveled the effects of cholesterol and saturated fat, finding that eggs may be far less harmful – and potentially more beneficial – than previously thought. It’s the latest research, using robust scientific work, to recast a nutritional villain in a new light.

In a world-first study, University of South Australia (UniSA) researchers investigated the independent impact of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat on “bad” cholesterol – low-density lipoprotein, or LDL – levels. What they found was that even eating two eggs a day, in an overall high-cholesterol but low-saturated-fat diet, lowered LDL levels and cardiovascular disease risk.

“Eggs have long been unfairly cracked by outdated dietary advice,” said lead researcher Jon Buckley, a professor at UniSA. “They’re unique – high in cholesterol, yes, but low in saturated fat. Yet it’s their cholesterol level that has often caused people to question their place in a healthy diet.

In the randomized, controlled, cross-over trial, 61 healthy adults each tried three different diets for five weeks, with breaks in between to allow for a reset. While all diets contained the same amount of daily calories, the cholesterol and saturated fat content differed. An egg diet (two eggs a day) was high in cholesterol but low in saturated fat; an egg-free diet was low in cholesterol (no eggs) but high in saturated fat; and a control was high in both cholesterol and saturated fat, but included only one egg per week.

Investigating the mechanisms involved in this change, the scientists found that things got a little more complex. LDL cholesterol is made up of distinctly sized particles: large, fluffy LDL particles, which are generally considered less risky, and small, dense ones, which are more likely to sneak into artery walls and cause plaque buildup. The egg diet reduced overall LDL but changed the particle makeup – fewer large ones and a slight increase in the small ones. While this isn’t necessarily negative, looking at the LDL drop overall compared to not eating any eggs, it’s certainly something that isn’t well understood and needs more research.

It’s also worth noting that the no-eggs diet also saw a rise in small particles and a slight drop in large ones, but overall did nothing impactful in lowering LDL cholesterol levels.

However, the results revealed that the real culprit for raising LDL levels appears to be saturated fat, not the cholesterol in eggs as has long been believed. Cutting eggs out of a diet for health reasons, without also reining in saturated fat intake, is unlikely to shift the needle when it comes to LDL cholesterol.

Secondary results from the study also found that the egg diet raised levels of lutein and zeaxanthin – carotenoids in egg yolk known to support brain and eye health, and help protect the body from inflammation – in plasma. The scientists also found a link between a spike in these levels and an increase in incidental movement among the participants. While not causal, the researchers hypothesized that the carotenoids, known antioxidants, could play a role in regulating the brain’s motivation or energy systems.

“In this study, we separated the effects of cholesterol and saturated fat, finding that high dietary cholesterol from eggs, when eaten as part of a low saturated fat diet, does not raise bad cholesterol levels,” said Buckley. “Instead, it was the saturated fat that was the real driver of cholesterol elevation.”

This research follows on from the results of an observational study conducted by Monash University researchers in February, which found that eating up to six eggs a week was linked to a 29% lower likelihood of developing heart disease compared to no or infrequent consumption.

While some cynical readers might be quick to write off these studies as good PR work from “Big Yolk,” they lift the lid on a broader discussion that needs to be had about how, in Western societies in particular, the villainization of certain foods was a byproduct of the “nutrient reductionism” era. Think “fat-free” trends and how cow’s milk is a non-negotiable for human health.

From the 1950s, as the link between high blood cholesterol and cardiovascular disease risk became established, it was quickly accepted that eating high-cholesterol foods (like eggs) would also raise blood cholesterol levels and, in turn, jeopardize heart health. Dietary guidelines promoting low-cholesterol diets became entrenched in health messaging over the next few decades – despite limited scientific evidence that foods high in cholesterol were driving the rise in heart disease. And egg yolks – with around 185 mg of cholesterol in each – became “bad” for heart health.

Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, as low-fat, calorie-counting diets rose to prominence, eggs endured another identity crisis. Egg whites – low in calories and with almost no fat content – were embraced, while the yolks – with around 60 calories each and plenty of fat – were to be avoided. What that simplified good/bad approach ignored, however, was that the fat in yolks was largely healthy fats (unsaturated) and it housed most of the egg’s nutrients (vitamins A, D, E, K, and choline).

The egg is a great example of nutrient reductionism, which focuses on a single nutrient – fat, protein, carbohydrates, cholesterol – in isolation, rather than assessing the entire package or considering the person consuming it. While nutritional guidelines are moving away from the good/bad dichotomy, we’ve lived through decades of poor scientific evidence and strong marketing campaigns that tell us where to get calcium (milk) and protein (meat), and that bread (carbs) will sabotage weight loss. After sugar was cast out, the rise of sugar-free artificial sweeteners became the healthy replacement – and there’s growing scientific evidence linking various types to a host of health issues.

What this reductive approach missed is that our bodies don’t metabolize isolated nutrients in a vacuum – they’re absorbed and processed in a much more complex way, affecting health over time. Food exists in the context of meals, habits, microbiome and timing. While we’re not advocating for an all-egg diet (as a vegan, I actually belong to the egg-free cohort), the UniSA research underpins the fact that, scientifically speaking, how food impacts our long-term health is far more nuanced.

“So, when it comes to a cooked breakfast, it’s not the eggs you need to worry about – it’s the extra serve of bacon or the side of sausage that’s more likely to impact your heart health,” Buckley added.

That said, this research also demonstrates how more work is needed to better understand how eggs don’t just impact LDL levels but the composition of that “bad” cholesterol itself.

Currently, the American Heart Association says that healthy people can eat one egg each day and that “older people with healthy cholesterol levels can have two” because of the nutritional value they provide.

The study was published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.