Saturday, March 21, 2015

How over-interpreted research has contributed to gluten anxiety

I have come across a very thorough article about gluten celiac disease and gluten intolerance in The New Yorker. The most interesting parts have to do the research done.


"Gluten, one of the most heavily consumed proteins on earth, is created when two molecules, glutenin and gliadin, come into contact and form a bond. When bakers knead dough, that bond creates an elastic membrane, which is what gives bread its chewy texture and permits pizza chefs to toss and twirl the dough into the air. Gluten also traps carbon dioxide, which, as it ferments, adds volume to the loaf. Humans have been eating wheat, and the gluten in it, for at least ten thousand years. For people with celiac disease—about one per cent of the population—the briefest exposure to gluten can trigger an immune reaction powerful enough to severely damage the brushlike surfaces of the small intestine. People with celiac have to be alert around food at all times, learning to spot hidden hazards in common products, such as hydrolyzed vegetable protein and malt vinegar. Eating in restaurants requires particular vigilance. Even reusing water in which wheat pasta has been cooked can be dangerous."


First, a first piece of research establishes an increase in celiac disease since the 50ies:

"But something strange is clearly going on. For reasons that remain largely unexplained, the incidence of celiac disease has increased more than fourfold in the past sixty years. Researchers initially attributed the growing number of cases to greater public awareness and better diagnoses. But neither can fully account for the leap since 1950. Murray and his colleagues at the Mayo Clinic discovered the increase almost by accident. Murray wanted to examine the long-term effects of undiagnosed celiac disease. To do that, he analyzed blood samples that had been taken from nine thousand Air Force recruits between 1948 and 1954. The researchers looked for antibodies to an enzyme called transglutaminase; they are a reliable marker for celiac disease. Murray assumed that one per cent of the soldiers would test positive, matching the current celiac rate. Instead, the team found the antibodies in the blood of just two-tenths of one per cent of the soldiers. Then they compared the results with samples taken recently from demographically similar groups of twenty- and seventy-year-old men. In both groups, the biochemical markers were present in about one per cent of the samples.

“That suggested that whatever has happened with celiac disease has happened since 1950,’’ Murray said. “The increase affected young and old people equally.” These results imply that the cause is environmental."


But this has to be contrasted with the much larger fraction of the population claiming that they are gluten intolerant. An there, it seems that research has played an unfortunate role...:


"Gluten anxiety has been building for years, but it didn’t become acute until 2011, when a group led by Peter Gibson, a professor of gastroenterology at Monash University and the director of the G.I. unit at the Alfred Hospital, in Melbourne, seemed to provide evidence that gluten was capable of causing illness even in people who did not have celiac disease. Gibson and his colleagues recruited thirty-four people with irritable-bowel syndrome, all of whom had complained of stomach ailments that largely disappeared when they stopped eating gluten. He put them all on a strictly monitored gluten-free diet, but, unbeknownst to the subjects, about half got muffins and bread with gluten. It was a double-blind study, so neither the doctors nor the patients knew which muffins and bread contained gluten. But most of those who ate the gluten reported that the pain returned; for most of the others it did not. The study was small but meticulous, and the results were compelling. Several similar studies are now under way, but dietary research is notoriously time-consuming and difficult.

Gibson published his findings in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, but, along with other experts, he urged restraint in interpreting data from such a small study. Nevertheless, millions of people with vague symptoms of gastric distress suddenly found something concrete for which to blame their troubles. The market boomed, but the essential mystery remained unsolved: Why was gluten suddenly so hazardous? Perhaps, researchers thought, farmers had increased the protein (and gluten) content of wheat so drastically that people could no longer digest it properly.

But there is more to wheat than gluten. Wheat also contains a combination of complex carbohydrates, and the Australian team wondered if these could be responsible for the problems. Gibson and his colleagues devised a different study: they recruited a group of thirty-seven volunteers who seemed unable to digest gluten properly. This time, the researchers attempted to rule out the carbohydrates and confirm gluten as the culprit. Gibson put all the volunteers on a diet that was gluten-free and also free of a group of carbohydrates that he and his colleagues called FODMAPs, an acronym for a series of words that few people will ever remember: fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols. Not all carbohydrates are considered FODMAPs, but many types of foods contain them, including foods that are high in fructose, like honey, apples, mangoes, and watermelon; dairy products, like milk and ice cream; and fructans, such as garlic and onions.

Most people have no trouble digesting FODMAPs, but these carbohydrates are osmotic, which means that they pull water into the intestinal tract. That can cause abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea. When the carbohydrates enter the small intestine undigested, they move on to the colon, where bacteria begin to break them down. That process causes fermentation, and one product of fermentation is gas. In Gibson’s new study, when the subjects were placed on a diet free of both gluten and FODMAPs, their gastrointestinal symptoms abated. After two weeks, all of the participants reported that they felt better. Some subjects were then secretly given food that contained gluten; the symptoms did not recur. The study provided evidence that the 2011 study was wrong—or, at least, incomplete. The cause of the symptoms seemed to be FODMAPs, not gluten; no biological markers were found in the blood, feces, or urine to suggest that gluten caused any unusual metabolic response.

In fact, FODMAPs seem more likely than gluten to cause widespread intestinal distress, since bacteria regularly ferment carbohydrates but ferment protein less frequently. Although a FODMAP-free diet is complicated, it permits people to eliminate individual foods temporarily and then reintroduce them systematically to determine which, if any, are responsible for their stomach problems. FODMAPs are not as trendy as gluten and not as easy to understand. But, biologically, their role makes more sense, Murray says.

“That first paper, in 2011, blew our minds,” Murray told me. “Essentially, it said that people are intolerant of gluten, and it was based on a well-designed, double-blind study. When people were challenged with gluten, by eating the muffins, they got sick. We just couldn’t figure it out. But then came the second study. By then, it was almost too late to put the genie back in the bottle. You have millions of people out there completely convinced that they feel better when they don’t eat gluten—and they don’t want to hear anything different.”"

Monday, February 16, 2015

Kinky budget constraint

This post explains the previous one (I was googling "kinky budget constraint" and found the funny graph depicted in he previous post...)

My experience is that many people misunderstand taxation by brackets, and assume that the higher marginal tax rate associated with a higher bracket (say, for income taxation) must be paid on the whole income, so that earning one more €/$/£ results in owing a lot more than one more €/$/£ in taxes.

Thanks to The Economist, I have found an example of a very badly conceived taxation scheme where the higher tax rate in higher brackets applies to the whole income: stamp duty in the UK:



Observe the nice bunching of transactions (in blue) just below the thresholds...

Oh, and the new rate (which is nicely linear by parts) will decrease the stamp duty for 98% of transactions.

Kinked or kinky?

Economist's humor...


Saturday, February 7, 2015

The suspect quality of undergraduate education in US Universities

From The New York Times: (my emphasis added in bold)


I talked to a half-dozen of Hugh Moren’s fellow students. A highly indebted senior who was terrified of the weak job market described George Washington, where he had invested considerable time getting and doing internships, as “the world’s most expensive trade school.” Another mentioned the abundance of rich students whose parents were giving them a fancy-sounding diploma the way they might a new car. There are serious students here, he acknowledged, but: “You can go to G.W. and essentially buy a degree.”

I went on the university’s website to look for some kind of data or study indicating how much students at George Washington were actually learning. There was none. This is not unusual, it turns out. Colleges and universities rarely, if ever, gather and publish information about how much undergraduates learn during their academic careers.

Flu drugs are not (that) effective ... when assessed properly

The CDC released figures Thursday showing that this season’s influenza vaccine is only about 23 percent effectiveand the federal agency recently sent a letter to doctors, urging them to write more prescriptions for influenza drugs.
“Antiviral flu medicines are underutilized. If you get them early, they could keep you out of the hospital and might even save your life,” CDC Director Tom Frieden told reporters Jan. 9. Flu season lasts, on average, about 13 weeks. We’re about midway through a particularly bad one.
(...)


The discrepancy between the CDC’s assertion that the flu drugs can prevent complications, hospitalizations and perhaps deaths, and the FDA’s insistence that the drugs have only been shown to cut the amount of time that symptoms persist comes down to how they weigh the evidence. The FDA requires randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of evidence in medicine, while the CDC also relies on non-randomized reports. “Observational studies from many countries have consistently found that early oseltamivir [Tamiflu] treatment of influenza patients reduces the duration of hospitalization and risk of severe outcomes such as intensive care unit admission or death,” CDC spokeswoman H. Amy Rowland told FiveThirtyEight in a statement.
But physician Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that assesses medical evidence, calls the studies that the CDC is using to tout the drugs poorly designed and unreliable, pointing out that they’re funded by the drugs’ maker and led by researchers tied to the manufacturers. More rigorously designed trials do not back them up. For example, a study published last month that randomly assigned 400 hospitalized patients to receive either the newly approved peramivir (Rapivab) or a placebo was halted early for “futility”when it became clear that patients receiving the drug weren’t benefitting.
(...)
And if the drugs are simply reducing fevers and making people feel better via some other mechanism, then it’s possible they’re nothing more than expensive alternatives to acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which alleviate aches and reduce fevers. (Tamiflu retails for about $130, Relenza goes for about $67, and Rapivab costs about $1,000.) Right now, there’s not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions on the drug’s actual mechanism of action, and Jefferson, his colleagues at Cochrane and editors at the British medical journal BMJ are embroiled in a years-long effort to obtain complete clinical trials data from the maker of Tamiflu.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Recherche

Salle de conférences de l'UQAM ...... j'y ai trouvé ma nouvelle devise (merci à Alice F pour la photo)

Question: qui est A.B.?