Alternative hypothesis: Like basically every cruel mob, they have a cover story that they pretend is their "real" message, but their methods and actions reveal that the "on-message" thing is purely a fiction, and actually they're just in it to have a superficial cover story on being cruel and mocking people without doing even the most basic research on the topic they're being cruel about. I know some people with celiac. Some of them have weight problems, caused by untreated celiac, which can take a long time to treat and get better. Some of them have eating disorders because of people like the people at fatlogic, or other emotional abusers. But do you know what they all have in common? They have in common the ironclad absolute guarantee that a random stranger telling them things about how they should take care of their bodies cannot possibly be useful to them. The thing about the doctor being involved is that the doctor, not some random idiot on the internet who hasn't got a medical degree, is competent to give that advice. Uh, no. That's not even remotely a thing. There is no point at which biology is relying on immobility as a regulatory force. The problem it does have is that there's no way to predict whether the stockpile is beneficial or not, or whether it will be needed in the future, so biology takes shortcuts and guesses that if you've been starved, you probably need more stockpile. And that can work fairly well, but it turns out that one of the most reliable ways to trigger the failure modes in it is things like crash diets and significantly undereating. It's not a coincidence that companies that make billions of dollars selling small amounts of overpriced food have been lobbying so aggressively to create a perception that crash diets and undereating are important things and probably good for you. It's a strategy. So far, the specific things you've described as "bullying" have been, in general, not even much like bullying. It comes across as though you've been accused of bullying a lot, and when people accuse you of bullying other people agree with them, so when people upset you, you accuse them of bullying in the hopes that then other people will agree with you. You don't seem to have any kind of actual model of what makes one thing bullying and another thing not-bullying. I don't think you've come close to understanding the scope of how wrong your claims on this topic are. You got suckered by a bunch of assholes who know significantly less than jack shit about biology but had a nice cozy little set of explanations for why their mob mockery of targets is totally a good thing and not bullying, and you absorbed a lot of their claims without checking them against basic biology research or common sense. And the thing where every time you mention another group of people you read or follow or want to join, it turns out to be a group of people unified by wanting to bully and mock people? That ain't a good look.
... I don't doubt that it's true, but I'm not sure precisely how people with untreated celiac gain weight? The most well-known symptom is, after all, an inability to get adequate nutrition. Different dietary habits, maybe?
I haven't been in there for a while, so they might have become corrupt. It was bound to happen when you start calling people delusional for believing something that they debunked. But yeah, they weren't actually doing anything to fix problems anyway. If it were that important to determine if their weight was from fat or muscles, they would break out the calipers or order an immersion test. According to most of the charts I've seen, I haven't quite hit the morbidly obese benchmark, but my adipose is drooping. This is probably because I barely have enough muscle to move around. But what's the quality-of-life measurement equivalent to having weight-related mobility issues? I was talking about the chart that a celiac would get at diagnosis where it lists things like "no bread." I think there's a chart for FODMAP? There are typically whole sections of GF convenience foods now. Admittedly I haven't looked because from what I've heard, GF versions of wheat-based food aren't worth it for non-celiacs. My husband actually gave me the ultimatum that if I wanted to try GF baking, the only thing I could make was traditional Austrian nut-flour cakes. (Googles Barilla GF pasta, googles one of the ingredients, nopes out because it sounds too much like mad chemistry, looks up Diglyceride again, decides start avoiding that ingredient once the energy to be fussy comes back. Looks up GF cereal. Cheerios just had to change their supply-line to avoid cross-contamination, so yay GF fad for creating demand. The rest of the list looks like they were always GF.) The difficulty in finding things to eat is why GF was working as a fad diet. It was rough on the celiacs, especially when medical wisdom was against underweight people munching on a stick of butter. People who are trying to lose weight can do things like skip a meal because they're too tired to make food. Also, back when GF pasta was really expensive, fad-diet people could just wait until they were off the diet instead of using the higher-calorie option. Just as an aside about artificial sweeteners... sucralose burns my mouth. I don't notice when it's mixed with alcohol, so that leads to interesting bathroom times. I might be wrong about this one; xylitol is interesting for the "cold" sensation but I don't think I want it in anything but chewing gum.
Different bodily responses to starvation. The same way fat people can still be anorexic and die of complications from anorexia because their body is eating itself alive while frantically trying to build up its fat reserves. There's also differences in how quickly the autoimmune response onsets, especially in children, and whether or not they were having a wheat-minimal diet prior to triggering an autoimmune response. Ironically, if you're trying to at least minimally address the gluten intolerance, you're more likely to have brief moments of actual ability to process food, so you gain weight, and then you trigger the autoimmune response, and you can't lose the weight because you're not able to retain anything else, and it's a mess. More commonly, people with celiac are going to be experiencing a wide range of vitamin deficiencies, which don't always manifest as "getting thinner now". Losing weight because you can actually process the food you're eating is a pretty common effect of a gluten free diet for someone with celiac, and it's part of why so many celebs that were actually gluten intolerant experience ~miracles~ with this ~magical gfree diet~! edit: Or, to look at it another way, it's the feast-famine cycle happening to someone who doesn't even know it's happening, and when a lot of typical weightloss stuff has wheat involved, losing becomes harder and harder as your body latches on to what little it can absorb and refuses to let go.
What exactly did you type into Google to get that result? Because the first page of results when I Googled "celiac weight gain" supported it.
Yeah, see, that's the problem again: there's a sizable chunk of the medical profession that doesn't actually care about the fat content of the person in question, they care about the numbers on the scale. That's what the BMI cares about too. That's what the very smug, very condescending discussions about weightloss and obesity are based on: numbers on a scale. And now we're getting into more complicated reasoning! Because now we have "my weight hurts my ability to move" which is a valid reason to want to lose, but also "extensive joint instability means that moving, fat or thin, is not going to be in my future and trying to force myself to lose only hurts me". So we're back around to 'it's fine if you want to lose weight, but judging others for their perceived laziness is a shitty thing to do'. And also back on track with the 'no one is obliged to disclose their medical history to justify their existence' thing too, because not everyone's mobility issues are directly tied to weight. For some people, they've gained weight because they lost mobility, and judging them based on the idea that weight gain => mobility loss is getting the order of causality all wrong. Having a chart from the diagnosis seven years ago doesn't actually stop doctors from handing you a functionally useless chart every time you visit after that. Even if you say "I have celiac." Even if you say "I'm aware and I've adjusted my diet." That's not in the protocol for "person is fat, check, hand person chart, check, assume that they're lying if they say they're already following the relevant diet, check." "There are whole sections" and "I haven't looked" are not really good statements to mash together, by the way. Because two whole shelves of specifically GF foods in a store filled with about two hundred isn't, like an outrageous and excessive amount of food. It's still limited to about three major GF producers, maybe ten-twenty smaller companies, and then major companies adjusting their production processes for certain specific options. That last one is the one that the GF diet fad, as infuriating as it was, actually helped bring into motion, and I'm glad it did. Because believe me, there is nothing more annoying than finding out that something that shouldn't contain a major allergen does because some chucklefuck at the factor decided that all the rice flour needed to be rubbed in wheat before being sent off to produce the Ricey Rice Cakes Made Of Rice. So, again, let me reiterate, the negatives of the fad dieting craze with GF foods were not "now there are more GF options." That is an unequivocally good effect. Being able to tell someone 'I'm gluten free' and them being able to drive to a supermarket, pick up a package of GF noodles, and prepare your side of the family meal along with everyone else's without having to make the damn noodles themselves? Good thing! That's a very good thing! Making it easier for celiacs to eat is a good thing! And if that comes with a side order of 'oh no, now the celiacs can get cookies at the store just like everyone else!!', well hey, that's a 'negative side effect' I'm really, truly, okay with. "celiac obesity symptoms" pulls up those and a bunch of other articles about links between obesity and celiac; you were likely getting a lot of the articles regarding underweight celiacs that gain after they have access to food again (even by the numbers on these articles, that's about 40% of the population, remember) but it does go the other way as well.
'celiac overweight' For those who didn't click the links, 'disproved' as in 'disproved that celiacs are, due to their illness, underweight'. Sorry if that was confusing.
Did you not read my post about how working on the happy and ignoring the fat leads to loss of fat without focusing on - sometimes even, yes, ignoring - the fat?
Oh no, not the scawwy chemicals! Seriously. You need something to replace gluten as a structuring ingredient. And Diglyceride is literally just a seed oil.
Hey what up, I've been out of town and am only briefly back in town, but this caught my attention. I'm not in anything related to medicine, but I have got a straight-up PhD in a field very much about ergonomics, so here we go. As a general rule of thumb, if you have a modernized workplace, where the space itself has to be designed to be OSHA-compliant, etc., some kind of environment that makes an effort to not-kill the people in it? The greatest danger to the workers is typically the workers themselves. The rules for safe lifting postures and how many people are needed for a lift of a given weight, that stuff is SUPER established. Even for my desk job, I had to watch a video about how to pick up office supplies or whatever, and when something needed to be a two- or three-person lift. But even though these numbers are super established, lots of like, industrial workers still get back injuries, etc., from lifting heavy objects. Why does that happen? Because 1) it's a pain, and either being pushed to be extra productive OR not wanting to go to the bother on a personal level speeds things up, and 2) humans are really good at overestimating their ability to do a thing, and you don't necessarily realize that oh shit this isn't gonna work until you're in the middle of it. The maximum lift a person CAN do isn't the same as how much they can safely, consistently lift, but I know I've wrangled unsafe heavy loads because pfffft it'll be FINE. I get where these questions are coming from, but they also read as really challenging and condescending and hold one person in the industry accountable for knowing a lot of details about parts of the field they aren't necessarily familiar with. Some hospitals might have been understaffed and pressuring workers to perform at unsafe levels, some hospitals might have provided their staff with substandard gear, or not replaced old gear when they should have. Some workers might have individually made a poorly considered decision. Trying to break down where workplace accidents go wrong and how they can be prevented ,ore effectively was the general thrust of my dissertation, and my conclusion was basically "this shit is way too complicated to draw sweeping conclusions, even with a massive dataset". In practice, workplace accidents typically are analyzed on an individual level, and any of those questions could have different answers on a case by case basis, so it's going to frustrate someone if they're asked to come up with a single general answer.
This is your regular slightly off topic reminder that google produces different, often not reproducable results depending on your IP adress, calculated/observed online social network and digital footprint bc google uses prioritization algorithms, and something appearing on the first page of google for one person and not the other even using the same search terms can and does happen
Hmmmm, and here I thought that they were getting corrupted like the 10% of HAES/BoPo/related that they were going against. I guess (in the absence of a doctor) doing nothing is better than trying to find answers on the internet? Is the HAES crowd included? Can I still believe that the sugar industry demonizing fat, and then a lot of sugar being used to make low-fat foods palatable, wasn't some pre-planned conspiracy? Otherwise I'm going to start yelling at the Illuminati to get their shit together. Really, I think it's that since corporations have the power of a person without the moral responsibility outside of PR problems, it's more about doing the thing that gets the money and only worrying about PR because of what it does to the money. Therefore if it does a thing and see that it fulfills its purpose, it's going to keep doing the thing without a greater understanding of why or at what price. It's like the corporation is an evil AI, a program run on organic brains that are too afraid to rebell. Okay, this was either 7th or 8th grade math class, possibly both. During this time, I was half-mainstreamed, so I got called "Retard" often enough to internalize the pride of being "Special" as an alternative to being miserable all of the time. This guy would keep saying Babathee at me and ignore my requests for him to explain what it meant. He finally stopped when I got to the point of ignoring him even when he wanted to borrow a sheet of paper. But one day, tears started streaming down my face and I didn't know the reason. (Probably just a hormone thing.) I just sat there and pretended like it wasn't happening because I was hoping that the teacher wouldn't notice that I was showing emotions, or at least wouldn't punish me for it if I didn't do anything that disrupted the class. For a couple class-sessions after that, Babathee guy started spending as much time as he could going "cry, cry, cry" at me. I guess that wasn't bullying? I guess the people in Remedial English were right to be annoyed at me. Since my reading-level was consistently 5 grades above where it should be, I could complete the "look up these 10 words" assignment perfectly before they could pull out their dictionaries. And then I couldn't hold still or be quiet while they finished. In grade school, I was constantly getting privileges like "be able to get up from your desk and interact with classmates in the play area" taken away because I wasn't behaving at standard. I think even when I finally did learn to perform to their satisfaction, I started preferring the book rather than try to play with my peers, and those peers didn't particularly dislike me. I guess I should tell my family to fuck off next time they offer me my great-grandmother's paperwork so I can join the Daughters of the American Revolution? Seriously, you have to be able to trace your genealogy back to someone who participated in that war, possibly limited to the American side. I never did get an answer on the Redneck Revolt. Fatlogic was going in with the belief that they were the enemy and coming out with "they need a lot of work, but they're not completely wrong." If I go join a HAES/BoPo/ect. group, I guess I should run away screaming the first time someone says "skinny bitches."
Google-Scholaring, here's the journal article cited in one of Etansel's links. From the abstract Oh no. -_- Chemistry. -_- How frightening. -_-
Inadequate nutrition does not imply "can't get calories, either". So you're constantly short of proteins, amino acids, vitamins, etcetera, and your body goes into panic mode, and often "always hungry because always malnourished" kicks in. So the body does the "store calories because we're starving" thing.
