I was curious about this, too, but kinda hesitated to say anything because I didn't want to sound inflammatory ... the thing is, though, Heather prefaced the article by making some comment like "gee, what a surprise" [about the red meat], but said nothing about the wheat -- even though so many of the foods she mentions as being safe are wheat-based things like French/sourdough bread, FF saltines, pretzels, etc. I guess it makes me uncomfortable that she would point to that study as further proof that red meat is bad but say nothing about the study's evidence that wheat is bad. Obviously IBS is a very individual thing, but red meat is one of those things that is supposed to be a trigger for everyone (like dairy). So if the study is supposed to be further proof of this, then wouldn't it also mean that we should all be avoiding wheat??? And if the part about wheat is a load of nonsense, then how come that doesn't mean that the part about red meat is a load of nonsense? 
Again, I'm NOT trying to sound inflammatory. I just feel that this is sending some confusing signals. And I don't know about you guys, but I'm confused enough on my own, thanks! 
--------------------
jen
"It's one of the most serious things that can possibly happen to one in a battle -- to get one's head cut off." -- LC
Print
Remind Me
Notify Moderator
|
Posts
Re: IBS Research Re: Wheat
