Bordering on the TMI side, this writer has adopted a gluten free lifestyle. It wasn't one so much of choice, but knowing that symptoms related to gastro-intestinal pyrotechnics were alleviated while eating a sort of Paleo diet (without any grains), after succumbing to family pressure to eat what was in front of me without complaint and the symptoms returned, I just made a hardline commitment.
No more gluten. That means no wheat, rye or barley. No official diagnosis, but the migraines are gone as is the bloating, the brain fog, the phantom sunburn, and so much more. (And, actually, my final flare-up started with barley, so gluten is more likely the culprit than some of the things expressed below.)
That being the case, I'm pretty committed to this endeavor for no other reason than I feel 1000x better. Naturally, being an online kind of gal, on most social media platforms, I'm following gluten free threads. The main problem on them is the nay sayers and the folks who swear up and down that - and this is quote from a family member - it's a hoax and all in our heads.
On one recent thread, comments claimed:
- The physician who first discovered non-celiac gluten sensitivity has denounced it.
- The real problem is actually that wheat is sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup) before harvest.
- People are reading the article wrong.
- Yada yada yada
No mention of the simple reality that American wheat has been hybrided several times in the last 50 years to aid the mechanization process, and with the hybrids came ten times the gluten that the grain previously carried. (Study asking about this was actually done.) Perhaps the problem then is a matter of volume.....
So why all the arguments online with people we've never met over a topic that everyone commenting has a vested interest in getting others to see things their way? Perhaps the answer comes from a strange source, Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennett. She tells her Mr. Darcy that they both wanted amaze everyone in a room with what they had to say. There is also a deep seated need for people with iron clad convictions to "correct" others...even if the convictions are wrong.
This phenomenon is not in any way limited to gluten issues. (They are real, this writer is here to say.) Religion has probably the most vitriolic of all online arguments, especially when the Pope talks to Catholics about some issue that only effects us and everyone and their brother seems to think it's just fine and dandy to butt in and tell us how the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2,000 years. Politics, of course, has been known to be a wedge in relationships online and otherwise. Being childless by choice...name the topic, there will be disagreement.
And there will be engagement online because we are all shielded by the screen. There are no consequences for the words said to strangers. No repercussions to personal relationships. And, ultimately, just about everyone engaged in the discussion gets to feel good about what they have done...even if they are wrong.
P.S. Commenting without knowing all the facts is a pet peeve ever since a romantic interest told me I did not have a leg length discrepancy, but a muscle imbalance. The man had no idea that my mother spotted it when I started walking, or that the bones were measured by a Johns Hopkins orthopod. He based his comments on his own experience. Yes, that SOB was an asshat.
No comments:
Post a Comment