re the link, there are some concerns listed on that page, and a lot of page references are provided at the bottom. they could do a better job with in text citation.
re not showing that bound ones were accessible - is the criticism that the research exists showing that they are released, but that it wasn't covered in detail?
results of a generic preliminary searchhttp://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=inte ... _sdt=0%2C5
sourdough is definitely another good option for reducing gluten intake - still fun sourcing the products with the best ingredient list. i was offered some sourdough yesterday and accepted a taste, but it was white bread so meh.
time for a tantrum yet, anon?
I've become quite a cynic of scientific studies and claims over the years, just pulled out one by the relevant researcher from your link.http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0205099
Bound phytochemicals could survive stomach and intestinal digestion to reach the colon. This may partly explain the mechanism of grain consumption in the prevention of colon cancer, other digestive cancers, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, which is supported by epidemiological studies.
Firstly, could and may give it away entirely, they are suggestive of possibilities and these contain both positive and negative outcomes, so their statement covers them even if it is shown that grains are detrimental to ones health because they have not made a definitive statement. The other point is thgat nothing in the world can be supported by an epidemialogical study, it can only be suggested, i.e. a hypothesis can be proposed, so in actuality they have used a hypothesis to support a possibility that bound antioxidants in grains might be accessible in the colon and carefully leaving the door open to the negative outcome being just as likely to cover themselves.
The journal it was published in does not instil me with great confidence either, the title reads like an agri-business vehicle, I could not get access to full paper or disclosure information, but I could suggest with more certainty than they have in their conclusion that funding was most likely from a grain corporation.
My cynicisim is continually reinforced as I read through different studies, more and more they are worded with a drive to achieve greater funding by overstating conclusions without adequate evidence, once this is ascertained, then it is hard to recover the value in the study as any valuable data has been distorted and made over to achieve as close as possible to the predetermined conclusions as outlined by the sponsor.
Having said that there are some gems out there, some really good stuff does come out of university phd's and other indipendent sources, but they are few and far between.
Not quite a "tanty", but does qualify as a decent "rant"
I am just an interested individual trying to crack the autoimmune nut.
Partner has Graves Disease, 5 years, showing good test results, looking forward to potential remission in the near future.
3 friends have MS, 1 just recently diagnosed, severity 7/10.