There is no evidence that high gluten intake among non-celiac people is linked to heart disease, researchers say today.
Increasing numbers of people without coeliac disease are turning to gluten-free replacements for bread, pasta, biscuits and other popular foods.
These usually contain alternative grains, but researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital, USA, point out there may be a tendency towards a lower overall intake of grains.
Dr Andrew Chan and colleagues looked at gluten intake and heart health in an observational study of 64,714 women and 45,303 men. This showed no significant link between gluten intake over the previous 26 years and coronary heart disease.
They publish their results in today’s (3 May) BMJ. The authors explain that in people with coeliac disease, consuming gluten triggers inflammation and intestinal damage, and may raise risk of coronary heart disease. This risk has been shown to be lowered when following a gluten-free diet.
In addition, "people with intestinal or extra-intestinal symptoms triggered by gluten but who do not meet formal criteria for celiac disease may have non-coeliac gluten sensitivity, a clinical entity with an as yet uncharacterised biological basis".
They add: "On the basis of evidence that gluten may promote inflammation in the absence of coeliac disease or non-coeliac gluten sensitivity, concern has arisen in the medical community and lay public that gluten may increase the risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, neuropsychiatric symptom and cardiovascular risk among healthy people."
The team explain that the observational evidence to date has not confirmed a heart benefit of avoiding gluten among people without coeliac disease.
They write: “Promotion of gluten-free diets for the purpose of coronary heart disease prevention among asymptomatic people without celiac disease should not be recommended.”
Lebwohl, B. et al. Long term gluten consumption in adults without celiac disease and risk of coronary heart disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ 3 May 2017; doi: 10.1136/bmj.j1892 [abstract]
Leave a Reply