Professor Ravindra Chibbar of the University of Saskatchawan says the hubbub about wheat being unhealthy is bunk. Thank goodness he said it, because an enormous number of people who thought they experienced symptoms from eating gluten can now be confident it was all in their heads.
The gold standard for testing a food reaction is by eliminating the food for a period of time (at least 2 weeks to allow immune reactivity to calm), then reintroducing the food to see if symptoms appear. So how many subjects did Dr. Chibbar do this kind of study with? What immune markers did he track in order to determine that there is no response to gluten? How many interviews did he conduct with people reporting gluten sensitivity to see if there was consistency in their reported symptoms.
He did none of that. He had no subjects for his study other than 37 strains of wheat that were assessed for their protein content. And what did he find about the gluten content of those 37 strains of wheat? Well, he didn't test that, either. He tested the total protein content. Gluten, you see, is just one of hundreds of wheat proteins.
So, we have a researcher taking issue with gluten sensitivity who didn't test wheat for gluten content, and didn't survey any people who actually report symptoms from eating gluten.
Gosh, that's compelling.
If you want to know if you react to gluten, completely avoid it for 3 weeks (3 weeks is better than 2 weeks for avoidance). Then reintroduce it with a significant challenge, like a plate of wheat spaghetti. If you experience fatigue, headaches, joint pain, stomach pain or other negative symptoms very shortly after eating that meal, then welcome to the crowd of people who's wheat reactions are apparently all in their head.