On Sep 1, 12:31*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:02*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

wrote:
I'm not sure any claim is being made, Doug, other than in his own
practice (and in various other studies) small LDL particles are a
significant risk factor for CHD. More studies would need to be done to
confirm any link between eating "gluten-free foods" and having small
LDL particles.

That "the nice people" bit does imply that the folks who put such
products on the market are/were unaware of such risks. *That's
definitely true of the folks who put maragine on the market decades ago.
A lot of people though maragerine was beneficial until the long term
studies showed otherwise.

Given what we now know about HFCS, etc., it's not hard to imagine that
"the nice people" knew exactly what they were doing.

Another evil conspiracy theory. *It couldn't be the
perfectly logical idea that the "nice people" are just giving people
what they want,

I don't remember any great demand from the people that food
manufacturers stop using sugar and start using a bunch of chemicals in
their place, or that they stop making butter and start making tubs of
chemicals instead, etc.

The market demand is for a product that does not use
a specific component, be that gluten, transfat, fat, etc.
That demand is driven by what people are choosing to buy
based on the latest information from govt, health "experts",
fads, etc. In the specific case, the alleged evils of wheat
and gluten, there is demand emerging for products that
are gluten free. So, maufacturer's are coming up with
new formulations that leave the gluten out. That is what
the market is demanding. So, they try to products similar
to what is selling well now, except leave the gluten out.
What they put in instead is up to them and will be driven
by how it effects the product, what it tastes like, what it
costs, etc.

You example of sugar is a particulalry poor one.
Are you suggesting manufacturers just leave out sugar
and sell sugar free soda with no sweetener?
Who would buy that? Geez.... So, they take out the
sugar and put in sucralose. Suddenly that is some
example of a company doing bad things deliberately?








See: "pull" marketing.

Nota bene: One of the worst decisions (in my opinion) ever made was to
allow Big Pharma to directly advertise presciption drugs to the
public, another case of "pull" marketing (or "conspiracy") that has
had serious health consequences.

It's called free speech. And I have no problem with it.
The more info a consumer has so they can learn more,
discuss options with their doctor, the better.




ie gluten free products very similar to the ones
they are currently consuming.

You're an excellent example of why a good number of people who eat
low-carb are unsuccessful.

You want to have your cake, and eat it, too.

Good luck with that!

--

I've been doing LC for decades. As usual, you're just going off
the rails. I never suggested that eating gluten free products that
are very similar to the products people are now eating, minus the
gluten was a good idea. I really don't give a rat's ass about
gluten in particular one way of the other. The discussion was
about food manufacturer's
offering foods similar to the ones they already sell, with just the
gluten and/or wheat removed. There are enough people out
there that want products minus the gluten. So, that is what
some manufacturer's are doing, just taking the gluten out.

I don't see that as something evil, just companies responding
to customer demand. It's like taking the sugar out of say
bread and butter pickles or soda and replacing it with sucralose.
Is that a bad thing too? If company A didn't do it, company
B would because there is a market for it.