..yes?

For people dying from famine, the hipster nutrition trends are not on the radar.

Well, mankind didn't eat wheat for around a million years. Then after eating wheat for around 10,000 years we've only been eating Frankenwheat during the last century.

So the "hipster fad" is actually the eating of wheat. It's not a natural food for mankind to be consuming.

"Natural" food is not necessarily good. "Unnatural" food is not necessarily bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

What species are you including in mankind? Cause homo sapiens (sapiens) haven't been around nearly that long...

Well, mankind didn't use medicine for around a million years. Then after using herbal medicines for around 10,000 years, we've only been using antibiotics during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the using of medicine. It's not a natural thing for mankind to be doing.

Well, mankind practiced almost universal cannibalism for around a million years [note: this is true]. Then after restricting cannibalism to certain tribes and certain occasions for around 10,000 years, we've only ceased cannibalism entirely during the last century. So the "hipster fad" is actually the lack of cannibalism. It's not a natural thing for mankind to not be consuming the brains of its vanquished enemies.

Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Gluten causes absolutely no health damage for 99%-99.5% of the population. If you are trying to avoid it without being diagnosed as a celiac, you are an idiot, as it is rather healthy unless your immune system has an adverse reaction to it.

I'd like to know from what evidence you can state this so confidently. We live in a world where it is well understood that our understanding of human health and what substances are good / bad is not well understood. That's without saying anything in regards to how nutrition relates to how the body is being used, which complicates the matter considerably. How incredibly arrogant.

And why is it "rather" healthy? I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there?

Well, let's put it this way. It is in no way any less healthy than anything else you eat. Gluten is a mixture of proteins that are all useful to the body, and while you can get those proteins from other sources, none are as cheap and plentiful as wheat.

The beginning of agriculture caused an overall loss in lifespans, but in different agricultural societies the reduction was inversely correlated with primary crop protein content. If you restrict yourself to grass crops, high-gluten wheat is one of the most healthy things you can eat. (Only surpassed by properly cooked quinoa, because it has even more proteins than wheat.)

> And why is it "rather" healthy?

What is this, the fifth grade? I in no way implied any downside to gluten (to non-celiac people).

> I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there?

And that would be correct.

It's tempting to slice the reality of biology into over-simplistic models, but it's better to realize we have a ways to go. My intent was to point out that much to our chagrin, there is no set of food in which its members are "in no way any less healthy than anything else". What goes in this set and why are you so confident that they can be equated? Just trot out the line "mixtures of protein are all useful to the body"? Biology has only relatively recently established that not all proteins are created equal when held against the metabolic capabilities of a human. That even the context of those proteins matter. The field is only now experiencing an explosion in the ability to make truly meaningful models.

I encourage you to look into the fields of life-extension to reinforce the fact that our bodies and ecologies like them are in no way perfect. There is currently no food that causes absolutely zero health damage. I only mentioned your use of rather (i.e. "to a certain degree") because it seemed funny to then in the same breath claim an absolute---that there is no degree to even consider.

Where gluten lies in all of us this is up for debate because meaningful evidence interpreted in a dependable framework has yet to happen, as much as you'd like to think it's an utterly settled matter.

A few related skeptoid episodes, with a few excerpts:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4239 "Are gluten free diets really good for your general wellness?"

Gluten free diets actually are necessary for some people, and advisable for others. [...] Yet those whose business is the sale of gluten free products would often have us believe that many more of us should buy them. [...] So think of gluten sensitivities in the same way you'd think of bee stings or peanut allergies: of great and very real concern to a small number of people, of some concern for a few more, and of no concern to the rest of us. Don't let anyone tell you that gluten is harming you in some way that's so far not supported by any science, or that you should avoid it for the purpose of general wellness. For most of us, gluten is our friend; but never forget that it is also, like many compounds, definitely harmful to some.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 "Are GMO crops dangerous, or a boon to mankind?"

Nature's method of genetically hybridizing plants is cross pollination, and for most of human history, this is how farmers and scientists have created new and improved species of crops. [...] When it comes to food crops, the idea is to take the strengths of one plant strain, such as an immunity to a certain disease or a hardiness to certain adverse conditions, and transfer that strength to another plant strain that needs it. [...] and by 1962, a new strain of rice called IR8 was feeding people all over the world. IR8 was the first really big modified crop to make a real impact on world hunger.

1) So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version of wheat and the grain crops human's have adapted to is dismissed with an uncited "gluten is our friend".

2) Er, no, the question was about genetic modification, which is not the same as hybridization.

Interesting how many people, who quite clearly know nothing about what they're writing, revel in the supposed scientific credibility the word "skeptic" gives them.

This kind of drivel gives skeptics a bad name, making them look as ignorant as the unquestioning who blindly accept the opposite story.

> So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version

Modern wheat is not high gluten. It's actually probably lower gluten than what our ancestors had.

They even invented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process in order to manage to work with the low gluten wheats that are common.

> the question was about genetic modification, which is not the same as hybridization.

Yes, it is, at least until you define precisely what kinds of genetic modification you're talking about, and we can get down to the nuts-and-bolts instead of generalities.

Borlaug won his Nobel based on selective breeding of crops. Do you really expect Borlaug to have known in the sixties what you know today about wheat / gluten? Gluten intolerance is a nice health problem to have for people who were previously starving.

I don't know about USA but in Russia people who avoid GMO are the older, perennialy scared of life, intolerant and homophobic demography who vote for Putin or who ever he brings forth.

I mean, why would you do that if you actually took biology classes?

The only people who are avoiding GMOs because of "health damage" are hipsters like yourself without an ounce of scientific knowledge.

Check out Amanda Maxham's GMOMonday. She writes about advances and setbacks in GMOs on a weekly basis with a level of clarity and flair I have not been able to find anywhere else:

http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/amaxham/

I was going to make a joke post about how he was really killing all those people with gluten but you beat me to it. Well done.