Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

As I've written before on my posts at the-sage.org, I'm not against the paleo diet - it's backed by a really shallow understanding of evolutionary theory and desperately needs a name change (Unprocessed/antigrain isn't very sexy, I guess), but overall, I don't see a huge worry for nutritional deficiencies - depending on the strictness/vigilance, an individual might be low in calcium, iodine, manganese and vitamin E. From a clinical perspective, I'm more concerned with those consuming standard American diets. From a scientific perspective, I'm mostly concerned with religious evangelization of a dietary mantra posing as science. I had a friend send me this link , claiming that gluten free diets are backed by 'real' science and asked me for my thoughts. For one, i'm familiar with Robb Wolfe, and generally like his and Matt LaLonde's call for a harder science approach to the Paleo movement. I am a big critic of the dietetics education standards...

A study came out in Gastroenterology (1), that I find to be nicely timed with my most recent post on the need for controlled studies surrounding issues like gluten. I am in no way saying this is the be all end all for the gluten-free fad, but this is a scientific step in the right direction for understanding the role of gluten, if any, in medical conditions. A lot of people are avoiding gluten for a number of reasons - they think it causes weight gain, it's 'toxic', causes GI discomfort, skin problems, etc etc. Much of the information that pushes gluten-free diets is anecdotal, and doesn't control for confounding factors - when it comes to food, there are hundreds of food components/chemicals to consider, at both the macro and micronutrient levels, as well as the many interactions between said components. I must admit a pretty non-scientific sentiment- I've always been a bit skeptical of the scientific community's acceptance of gluten sensitivity. Not that ...