Talk:Wheat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Health effects section: pending revision

From the discussion above is a proposal to restate the content about gluten in more balanced and representative context as a minor wheat component having impact on a minor percentage of consumers. The current content and WP:CITECLUTTER sourcing on gluten are excessive and misleading to general users, exaggerating the importance of gluten with WP:UNDUE weight in a section discussing wheat health effects. Links to gluten-related disorders are sufficient to allow users access to more detailed articles and sources on gluten, celiac disease, gluten sensitivity, and wheat allergy.

Proposal: the two paragraphs and their sources in italics here:

Gluten, a mixture of proteins present in wheat and some other grains,[59] can trigger coeliac disease in genetically susceptible people.[60] This disease affects 1-2% of the general population.[61] There is evidence that many cases remain undiagnosed and untreated.[62] The only known effective treatment is a strict lifelong gluten-free diet.[63]

While coeliac disease is caused by a reaction to wheat proteins, it is not the same as a wheat allergy.[64] Other diseases triggered by eating gluten are non-coeliac gluten sensitivity,[65] (estimated in one study to affect the general population in a range from 0.5% to 13%),[66] gluten ataxia and dermatitis herpetiformis.[65]

will be replaced with these 2 sentences and new references:

Wheat contains gluten proteins that produce celiac disease in about 1% of the general population. While celiac disease is caused by a reaction to wheat proteins, it is different from gluten sensitivity or wheat allergy.

Support: the current content and sourcing on gluten are over-weighted for this article on wheat. Two general authoritative sources can be used rather than the 7 expert gluten-specific reviews currently cited for gluten (WP:CITECLUTTER), even though it is a minor topic for this article. --Zefr (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

100% support for replacing the current text with these two sentences. These two sentences are excellent, the two citations are authorative and completely adequate. Excellent sentences representing encyclpedic knowledge. RAMRashan (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

This proposal of Zefr makes no sense and has already been warned against it "Zefr you are cutting out important well referenced details. Three relatively small paragraphs is not excessive. There is more to gluten than celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis is also notable."

Zefr, when I read the things you say, as “misleading the typical encyclopedia user to believe that the main health issue about wheat is its small gluten content and the impact this has on only 1% of the general population. I find this uneven emphasis to be ridiculous” I'm stunned and worried, because you are an editor in matters of health. It is like saying that a virus is not important because it is very small or epilepsy has no importance, because it affects 1% of the population by age 20 and 3% of the population by age 75. Also, your are wrong, we're talking about 13% of the general population. And a data: gluten represents 80-90% of the total protein in wheat, but even minimal traces in a single dose are enough to trigger an autoimmune response in people with CD, whose effects can last for days or weeks, or even months.

And on that basis of knowledge [3] [4], Zefr is proposing to trim information, hide the incidence, and hide other health disorders, such as dermatitis herpetiformis and gluten ataxia.

In addition, his proposal contains inaccuracies, such as the denomination of "gluten sensitivity".

Also, Zefr is proposing major changes that would affect many pages on Wikipedia. Do we, for example, eliminate or trim the information about milk allergy, because it “only” affects 2-3% of children and less in adults, or peanuts allergy, because it “only” affects about 0.4-1.4 people in the US?

The page of milk has two separate sections on the negative effects on health: one for lactose intolerance, with 4 paragraphs and 4 references, another for Possible harms, with 5 paragraphs and 15 references. The page of peanut has a Health concerns section, with two sections: Allergies, with 6 paragraphs and 12 references and Contamination with aflatoxin, with 1 paragraph and 2 references.

In the case of wheat, two brief paragraphs with 7 references, included in a general section on health, is adjusted and even scarce.

Wikipedia has a specific policy on this issue WP:NPOV. For example, from the point of view of a farmer or an entrepreneur whose business is wheat, his greatest interest is to praise the advantages of his product, and may not be interested in talking about the possible negative effects, but from the point of view of medicine, a disease that affects 1-2% of the population as CD or up to 13% of the population as NCGS, is a very important health concern. From the point of view of a lay in matters of health, the quantity of gluten in the wheat may seem despicable to him and / or not to understand its effects, and he would believe that it is not necessary to talk about it. But the reader of an encyclopedia, wants and needs balanced information, and the Zefr's proposal does not meet WP:NPOV.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, please keep on topic. You are so deep in WP:ADVOCACY against gluten that you forget this article is about wheat, as the above rambling rant proves. The two sentences proposed do not detract from acknowledging that 1) wheat contains gluten and 2) gluten affects some people. WP contains abundant information about gluten disorders that are properly linked in the proposed revision which concisely states enough about gluten for a wheat article. Regarding the prevalence of 1% for CD, you can read for yourself the two authoritative sources provided where the numbers are plain to see. You can make your case for 13% prevalence of NCGS in some other article (most authorities say < 6% for all gluten disorders). "Gluten sensitivity" is a direct quote from NIDDK and there has already been sufficient discussion to not include dermatitis herpetiformis and gluten ataxia ("can be covered in the subarticle on the diseases themselves". Regarding the "important" references and details excluded in the proposed revison, the excluded information is about gluten, not wheat, and is WP:OFFTOPIC for this article. --Zefr (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"you forget this article is about wheat" "keep on topic" "the excluded information is about gluten, not wheat, and is WP:OFFTOPIC" And where is gluten, in potatoes, in lettuces...? Following your logic, we could not talk about the allergy to milk on the page of milk, because (mainly) casein produces it.

In addition, besides gluten, other proteins present in wheat, rye, barley, and their derivatives, named amylasetrypsin inhibitors (ATIs) are implicated. They seem to be the inducers of innate immunity in patients with celiac disease or NCGS. For this reason, the term non-celiac wheat sensitivity, rather than non-celiac gluten sensitivity, has been proposed, keeping in mind that other gluten-containing grains such as barley and rye also can trigger the symptoms. Perhaps we should talk about ATI's too.

And Zefr, remember not confuse WP:ADVOCACY with WP:STEWARDSHIP. I am in the second case.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, previous discussions on your behavior in appropriate forums have found the problem to be WP:UNDUE weight for gluten topics in your edits. Please reread those discussions if that isn't clear. That means the degree in which gluten and related topics were being introduced here was in violation of that policy (and Zefr's post above this seems to be an accurate depiction of the current content being discussed at first glance). Undue weight is the same problem whether it gets labeled as advocacy by one and stewardship by another. Especially in controversial topics, that policy is especially enforced to prevent what we call coatracks. That some edits about gluten aren't getting traction here is an intended function of Wikipedia policy, not a flaw. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"most authorities say < 6% for all gluten disorders" About the prevalence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity, data already present are the conclusions of a 2015 systematic review based on several studies. Systematic reviews are at the top of WP:MEDRS sources.

Table 1 | Prevalence figures for non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS)

Tanpowpong, 2012 New Zealand 916 children general population - 5% GFD (1% CoD)

Sapone, 2012 USA 5896 referred patients - 6%

DiGiacomo, 2013 USA 7762 general population free of CoD - 0.55%

Aziz, 2014 UK 1002 general population 13% - (GFD 3.7%, 0.8% CoD)

Volta, 2014 Italy 12,255 referred patients - 3.2%

CoD: coeliac disease

I will adjust this inaccuracy [5] (one study --> a 2015 systematic review).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not sure why "dermatitis herpetiformis" was removed? There are other conditions than just celiac disease that wheat / gluten can cause. Two small paragraphs is not too much in an article this size and is far from undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Good grief, 0.01% incidence. And that's worth mentioning in an article on wheat? One sage suggested to not include dermatitis herpetiformis and gluten ataxia because "these can be covered in the subarticles on the diseases themselves".--Zefr (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you not quote "IMO we should keep this sentence at least "Other diseases triggered by gluten consumption are non-coeliac gluten sensitivity,[65] (estimated in one study to affect the general population in a range from 0.5% to 13%),[66] gluten ataxia and dermatitis herpetiformis.[65]"" from that dif of mine you link? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Zefr covers himself with a layer of rigor, but his rigor is selective (two little examples [6] [7]). He is habitually very skillful doing juggling with Wikipedia policies and information, and takes advantage of his experience and years editing in Wikipedia.

Doc James, he is trying to juggle your words as well. What he is doing in this case with your words, is his usual way of proceeding in information directly or indirectly related to health and wheat/cereals. Fortunately, all keeps written and stored in the historials...

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

About the Zefr's rigor and neutrality, compare what he applies in the pages of milk or peanut, for the two examples above, which he habitually patrols, and contain such extensive information and high number of references related with health concerns [8]:

• He did 57 edits on peanut since January 2015 [9] and he kept the extensive information on health problems.
• He did 10 edits on milk page since July 2016 [10] and he kept the extensive information on health problems. In a very quick review, I have seen that the content of the lactose intolerance section is very poor and contains references that do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria. I did a couple of edits to trim it [11] [12], but need more work.

And does he dares to propose reducing the information here to two brief sentences??? And does he dares to argue against me using WP:UNDUE, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:X, WP:X, WP:X.......... and more and more WP:X, all the possible WP:X that he knows? It is, at least, worrying.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much content would be deleted if the proposal sticks. There is no clear explanation for deleting the content. There could be misleading content in the article. See "When eaten as the whole grain, wheat is a healthy food." It is healthy? How so? I'm curious what is the glycemic index. We can add the GI. Then we can find out if it is healthy to even eat. I think we need more content about the allergies in a separate section. QuackGuru (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with QuackGuru. We must separate the sections on benefits and health concerns, following the same scheme of the pages on milk, peanut, soybean, egg as food, maize,... And as in these pages, expand the content a little more. All these pages contain sections with a much larger extent than the two short paragraphs already present in wheat, with a summary of possible negative effects and linkage to the respective main articles.

Also, we must include the effects of phytic acid, with link to main article. Phytate concentrations are highest in foods based on unrefined cereals. It binds to iron, zinc, calcium, and other minerals to form an insoluble complex in the gastrointestinal tract that prevents mineral absorption that can have serious nutritional consequences. PMID 12949395 PMID 20715598

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously editors disagree. Some want to keep the section concise and others want to expand. I think it is time for a new article titled "Health effects of wheat". QuackGuru (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

02:16, 7 December 2016. The words of the Health Section has much improved, although there should definitely not be a "Gluten" subheading, and the references are too many. One or two authorative ones, as suggested by Zefr would defintiely be better. I agree that in principle that the section could mention some other things briefly, maybe phytate, maybe mycotoxins. However, the massive work and acrid discussions don't bode well for any additions at the moment. I strongly propose that any additions must be discussed in Talk and receive a broad consensus before adding. Or maybe it's just better to wait. Otherwise things will get into a real mess. RAMRashan (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely not separate Health effects into good and bad. This is a structure inherently favoring unbalance. RAMRashan (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What you propose has no basis. Read the messages above and look at the format of other similar Wikipedia pages [13] and the criteria that have been followed by the editors in them [14].

Also, you have made another mistake removing the wrong reference "Modern bread wheat varieties have been bred to contain greater amounts of gluten." is not supported by the source you kept PMID 25679450, but by PMID 23934026 you removed. Y fixed it [15].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4003198/#bib4 is really not a good reference. It uses fringe claims and supports them with citations which simply don't support these claims. It's simply not the sort of authorative source of accepted knowledge Wikipedia should use. The sentence about increased gluten is supported by a reference to another review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10823487, which actually looks like a reasonable review. I have substituted the first reference for the second reference.RAMRashan (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Zefr improved my edit by adding content for quality improvement and using a different reference. Thanks! RAMRashan (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

NCGS

What page support "estimated to affect less than 6% of people in the developed world"[16]? Read it and not seeing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I can not find it either. It seems an originality in this edit by Zefr [17] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Gluten has useful food qualities"

This ref PMID 22224557 [18] used by Zefr does not refer to healthy qualities, but to qualities from a functional point of view, due to the unique viscoelastic properties of gluten. It is a good reference to use in this section [19], but its inclusion and the added text is misleading in the context of health [20]. I fixed it [21] [22]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Could be readily argued that the favorable functional properties of gluten in wheat food products make those foods more desirable, leading to more consumption and nutrient intake, as discussed in PMID 24816770 and PMID 27321352. That was the message intended so will evaluate this further. --Zefr (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The section on gluten is unbalanced and presents only negative aspects of gluten-related disorders affecting a minor percentage of wheat consumers; it's an example of WP:BITR. Missing are plain facts that gluten 1) is a protein complex supplying amino acids when digested, and 2) imparts rheological and organoleptic qualities to wheat products that, when eaten because they are appealing, collectively furnish wheat's diverse nutritional value from protein, dietary fiber, B vitamins, and minerals. The gluten page lede presents a false argument that gluten protein has "low biological and nutritional value" citing this, part 4 (although with no scientific evidence), but does not discuss amino acids of digested gluten or acknowledge that gluten and its amino acids support normal growth in children and normal protein needs in adults, especially in less-developed countries where wheat foods are important in the diet. Stated in one review(under 'Wheat in nutrition and health'), "the nutritional importance of wheat proteins should not be underestimated, particularly in less developed countries."

Proposal for balanced lead-in to the gluten section:

Gluten, a mixture of proteins present in wheat and some other grains, is a significant source of amino acids supporting human health, particularly in less developed countries where wheat food products are commonly consumed. In manufacturing wheat products, gluten is valuable to impart viscoelastic functional qualities in dough, such as retention of gas bubbles to improve texture, structure, chewing quality, and stability of the finished product. These properties make wheat gluten useful in preparing diverse food products, including breads, noodles, and pasta.

Gluten can trigger coeliac disease in genetically susceptible people... etc. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This proposal contains numerous shortcomings. It is surprising in an editor who demands so much rigor.

"Could be readily argued that the favorable functional properties of gluten in wheat food products make those foods more desirable, leading to more consumption and nutrient intake..." Remember WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.

"Gluten, a mixture of proteins present in wheat and some other grains, is a significant source of amino acids supporting human health, particularly in less developed countries where wheat food products are commonly consumed."

(1) Millward book is not a WP:MEDRS. However, in the page 8 we can read: "Clearly wheat, sorghum and maize, especially in the faster growing children, have a low BV (BV: biological value)"

(2) Also, in this lists Biological value#Typical values we can see that wheat / gluten are in the last position, with the lowest biological value.

(3) The other source refers to wheat proteins, not specifically "gluten" "Therefore, the nutritional importance of wheat proteins should not be underestimated, particularly in less developed countries where bread, noodles and other products (eg bulgar, couscous) may provide a substantial proportion of the diet." It's a good source for expanding the Health effects section, not Gluten section, but also explaining that wheat proteins are deficient in the essential amino acid lysine.

"In manufacturing wheat products, gluten is valuable to impart viscoelastic functional qualities in dough, such as retention of gas bubbles to improve texture, structure, chewing quality, and stability of the finished product. These properties make wheat gluten useful in preparing diverse food products, including breads, noodles, and pasta."

(4) ?? None of this represents health benefits, only advantages from a functional point of view, and is already explained above [23]. It is a good content for bread page as well.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, BallenaBlanca's reply above is further display of anti-gluten bias and non-collaborative WP:CHERRY soapbox editing: "Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. A common fact picking device is listing great numbers of individual people's quotes criticizing the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader."

Responding briefly by paragraph number: (1) the Millward book reference was adequate for the statement, but is now to be replaced by a Shewry review. A MEDRS source and clinical research aren't needed to state that wheat gluten supplies dietary amino acids. Low biological value is a simple, semi-quantitative number relative among other protein foods. Wheat protein, of which gluten comprises 75% of total, is undeniably a protein-rich food (25% Daily Value) supplying amino acids necessary for nutrition and health – one nutrient reason why whole wheat is universally accepted as a health food. (2) the comment is pure cherry-picking to deflect away from the obvious protein value of wheat gluten; a BV of 64 for wheat and wheat gluten is presented on that page as low among other protein-rich foods, but its level is still moderate-high among all foods and certain to furnish amino acids in the diet. Note also the criticisms of BV are plentiful, as the BV determination is suspected of numerous inadequacies in measurement, and is not sufficiently reliable to use as firm evidence of bioavailability. I recommend not referring to it. (3) another WP:CHERRY statement based on relative amounts compared to other protein-rich foods. "Wheat proteins" are the gluten complex of glutenins and gliadins, so it is relevant. Discussing lysine levels specifically, however, is unnecessary for the Wheat article because wheat protein contains 11 amino acids (Shewry), does contain lysine in appreciable amounts, is not likely the only protein source in most diets (other foods consumed would supply lysine), and can be biofortified into engineered wheat crops (Hefferon reference). (4) The Shewry or Delcour reference is relevant to gluten and health because it is a factor in how wheat foods are prepared for human consumption, i.e., wheat is not consumed raw, so the food format is important to how people eat wheat products. --Zefr (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Zefr, in this edit [24], you removed "its effect on cognitive function, (need further evaluation)" and "A concern issue is the higher total sugar intake derived from the regular consumption of breakfast cereals", supported by the source: "The effect on body weight, intestinal health and cognitive function needs further evaluation. Of concern is the higher total sugar intake associated with frequent RTEC consumption. (RTEC: ready-to eat cereal)" It is in the context of breakfast cereals ("As a common component of breakfast cereals, whole wheat is..."), so we must reflect both positive and negative aspects.

I agree to talk about the virtues of wheat proteins, of course. Their place is in the "Health effects" section, in relation of the total protein content of wheat. The place of viscoelastic properties of gluten is the "As food" section, definitely not in the section on health.

I will move the text to the corresponding sections, without removing anything, and recover the unjustified removals.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

These were more constructive edits with thanks, BallenaBlanca, although the Gluten subsection is unbalanced without using the Shewry reviews showing that gluten contributes dietary amino acids (Table 1, 2009 Shewry, where whole wheat provides 22% more indispensable amino acids than recommended by FAO/WHO). It is misleading to omit saying that gluten and other wheat proteins supply amino acids, and to present only gluten's adverse reactions in the gluten subsection. --Zefr (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your words, Zefr.

However, I move here this content you have added, to review it:

"is a significant source of amino acids for human nutrition."

But the most recent reference of them you have added, of 2015, with the tag "shewry15", says the following:

The contribution of wheat to human diet and health

"Protein quality

Protein nutritional quality is determined by the proportions of essential amino acids, as these cannot be synthesized by animals and hence must be provided in the diet. If only one essential amino acid is limiting, the others will be broken down and excreted resulting in restricted growth in humans and loss of nitrogen present in the diet. Ten amino acids are strictly essential: lysine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, histidine, and methionine. However, cysteine is often also included as it can only be synthesized from methionine, with combined proportions of cysteine and methionine often being presented. The requirements for essential amino acids are lower for adults where amino acids are required only for maintenance, than for children where they are also required for growth.

Essential amino acids in wheat grain

Typical contents of essential amino acids reported for wholemeal wheat and white flour are compared with the minimum physiological requirements for adults in Table 4. The data in Table 4 support the widely accepted view that the first limiting amino acid in wheat grain is lysine with other essential amino acids being present in adequate amounts, at least for adults. The lower contents of essential amino acids in white flour compared with wholegrain relate to the high content of lysine‐poor prolamin storage proteins (gluten proteins) in the starchy endosperm. These proteins are restricted to the starchy endosperm cells, where they account for about 80% of the total proteins, and have unusual amino acid compositions with high contents of glutamine and proline and low contents of lysine (reviewed by Shewry and Halford 2002; Shewry 2007; Shewry et al. 2009a). This contrasts with the proteins present in the other grain tissues which are more lysine‐rich."

To achieve the neutrality and balance you are asking for, we must include a summary of these paragraphs. The higher percentage of gluten, which is deficient in lysine, the lower the nutritional value of wheat. "If only one essential amino acid is limiting, the others will be broken down and excreted resulting in restricted growth in humans and loss of nitrogen present in the diet" And "other essential amino acids being present in adequate amounts, at least for adults" means that is not clear in children.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion at Gluten. The concern is moot and can likely be addressed by a slight change in wording. Wheat gluten is not consumed in isolation, but rather among diverse food proteins whose amino acids would normalize a limiting effect by low lysine from wheat. The sentence phrase in question, "gluten is a significant source of amino acids for human nutrition", could be adjusted to "In a mixed diet of several protein sources, gluten – which makes up 75–80% of total wheat protein – also contributes amino acids for human nutrition." --Zefr (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(1)"Wheat gluten is not consumed in isolation" At last we get to the bottom of the matter! So it does not make sense to talk about "properties of gluten", because it is not consumed isolated. Belongs to another section, making reference to (total) wheat proteins: "In a mixed diet of several protein sources, gluten – which makes up 75–80% of total wheat protein – wheat proteins also contributes amino acids for human nutrition."

(2) You should to find a reference for this sentence you are proposing WP:NOR.

(3) Also, it is incomplete. There is no mention to lysine deficiency, which is a very important issue; both grain and flour are deficient in the strictly essential amino acid lysine, more deficient in white flour because of the higher percentage of gluten content. [25] "The lower contents of essential amino acids in white flour compared with wholegrain relate to the high content of lysine‐poor prolamin storage proteins (gluten proteins) in the starchy endosperm." It must be added to achieve neutrality and balance.

• (4) I propose this neutral wording, on the Nutrition or Health effects section (not Gluten section). Perhaps better on Nutrition:

"Despite the relatively low content of proteins in wheat (about 8–15%), they have nutritional importance, particularly in less developed countries where wheat food products constitute a significant proportion of the diet. Nevertheless, wheat proteins are deficient in lysine, a strictly essential amino acid, especially white flour because of the higher percentage of lysine‐poor gluten proteins. The content of other essential amino acids is adequate, at least for adults. Lysine deficiency may be balanced by combining with other sources of protein. (search a ref)"

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

*(5) Found a ref: PMID 27455320 However, with the exception of soy, most plant proteins are limited in one or more of the amino acids lysine, threonine, tryptophan, cysteine or methionine. Combining different plant proteins has been shown to be an effective way of attaining the necessary ratio of amino acids for meeting human requirements --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 02:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the numbered points above: (1) the gluten section needs to state two conspicuous points: i) gluten is the major protein complex in wheat and ii) gluten contributes amino acids for nutrition (Shewry 2009, 2015 references). (2) my edit for that statement included the 2015 Shewry review under Contribution of wheat to dietary intake of nutrients where a mixed diet is discussed using the two NDDS/Bates references for the UK Diet and Nutrition Survey, often cited as a representative population sample. (3)&(4) although you are trying to be thorough, I sense the suggested content is overly academic per WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7-8 and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. My suggestion remains accurate and simple: "In a mixed diet of several protein sources, gluten – which makes up 75–80% of total wheat protein – also contributes amino acids for human nutrition." (5) That's a comprehensive reference and suitable quote but does it add significantly to the content and references already in the health section? --Zefr (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Further note: by assessment of how it matters to human nutrition, wheat protein per 100 g provides 25% of the Daily Value, making it an "excellent" or "rich" source according to FDA/Health Canada labeling guidelines, as we state in the Nutrition section. Gluten (75% of total protein) by itself supplies 19% of the Daily Value for protein. --Zefr (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, It does not make sense to talk about nutritional value of gluten, since it is not consumed in isolation. What we have to talk about is value of wheat proteins. Any reader is able to understand it, gluten are proteins. But if we want to separate the nutritional value of gluten, then we must explain that the higher the content, the poorer the nutritional and biological value of wheat.

The problem is the wrong title of the section. It does not have to be named "Gluten", you put that title on your own [26] and I disagree. The previous title was Health concerns [27]. We have to get it back, that is to say, a section on Health benefits and another section on Health concerns, following the same scheme of other similar pages. You have been editing in all of them for about two years, and you have agreed with the format, since you have maintained it:

• Peanut Found 57 edits by Zefr on Peanut since 15 January 2015

9 Nutritional value
   9.1 Phytochemicals
   9.2 Oil composition
10 Health concerns
   10.1 Allergies
   10.2 Contamination with aflatoxin

• Soybean Found 36 edits by Zefr on Soybean since 02 November 2015

12 Health
   12.1 Cancer
   12.2 Alpha-linolenic acid
   12.3 Phytochemicals
       12.3.1 Isoflavones
   12.4 Cholesterol and heart diseases
   12.5 Phytic acid
13 Health risks
   13.1 Allergy
   13.2 Phytoestrogens
   13.3 Breast cancer
   13.4 Prostate cancer
   13.5 Brain
   13.6 Carcinogenicity
   13.7 Gout

• Milk [28] Found 10 edits by Zefr on Milk since 23 July 2016

10 Nutrition and health
   10.1 Cow's milk
   10.2 Nutritional value
   10.3 Recommended consumption
   10.4 Medical research
   10.5 Lactose intolerance
   10.6 Possible harms
   10.7 Flavored milk in US schools

• Egg as food Found 14 edits by Zefr on Egg as food since 24 May 2015

6 Health effects
   6.1 Cholesterol and fat
   6.2 Type 2 diabetes
   6.3 Cardiovascular risk
   6.4 Contamination
   6.5 Food allergy 

• Maize Found 13 edits by Zefr on Maize since 22 January 2015

9 Uses
   9.1 Human food
   9.2 Nutritional value
   9.3 Chemicals
   9.4 Bio-fuel
   9.5 Ornamental and other uses
   9.6 Fodder
   9.7 Commodity
   9.8 United States usage breakdown
10 Comparison to other staple foods
11 Hazards
   11.1 Pellagra
   11.2 Allergy

All these pages contain sections with a much larger extent than the two short paragraphs already present in wheat, with a summary of possible negative effects and linkage to the respective main articles. Peanut allergy affects 0.5% of children. Cow’s milk allergy (CMA) affects 2% to 3% of young children. Soy allergy has a prevalence about 0.4-1.2%. Egg affects 0.5 to 2.5% of young children. The prevalence of corn allergy in the U.S. is estimated to affect no more than 0.016%. The incidence of all allergies is decreased with age. And gluten-related disorders affect more than 13% of the general population and are chronic, permanent.

I'm going to ask you some numbered questions so you can answer them all:

1. What is the reason for following a criterion in wheat other than similar pages?
2. Why do you care so much to talk about the negative health effects of wheat on a part of the population, which can be about 13%, but you have not put any objection in the similar pages where you have been editing for about two years?
3. Why do you think "ridiculous" [29] to speak of diseases affecting 13% of the population, but you do not put any objection in speaking (and in a very extensive way) of diseases that affect a much smaller proportion of the population?
4. Why did you write a NCGS prevalence less than 6% that does not appear in the reference you provide [30] and why did not you answer when we asked [31] [32]?

I think you are being guided by and pushing your own point of view, which you have expressed repeatedly, which from the point of view of medicine and people affected is amazing, worrying, and even offensive, and is not neutral nor enciclopedic:

[33] "acknowledging the presence of gluten affecting a small percentage (1%) of consumers. It is not a matter so much about MEDRS as it is about content emphasis, which is currently over-weighted in gluten discussion, i.e., WP:UNDUE for an article on wheat."

[34] "topic affecting 1% of people = WP:UNDUE."

[35] "misleading the typical encyclopedia user to believe that the main health issue about wheat is its small gluten content and the impact this has on only 1% of the general population. I find this uneven emphasis to be ridiculous"

Also, to argue against saying that gluten has a low biological value, supported by this source you did not hesitate to say "protein consumption via gluten does not occur in isolation". Therefore, you must apply the same criteria and the same logic, and do not try to talk about and to extol the positive nutritional properties of gluten, but positive nutritional properties of wheat proteins. In addition, when you argued to trim the information about gluten-related disorders from the page on wheat, you did not hesitate to say "you forget this article is about wheat" "keep on topic" "the excluded information is about gluten, not wheat, and is WP:OFFTOPIC". Once again, you juggle to give the information the approach that you want, with the clearest example here [36], in which you extracted a distorted quotation to said the opposite of what has been said [37]. It seems that you only want to permit talking about gluten to praise its virtues.

Therefore, I propose to separate again the sections Health benefits and Health concerns, to expand the section of Health concerns and to include the information about the nutritional value of the proteins of wheat in Nutrition or Health benefits.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the above rant and obsessive recounting of history, reminding you that editing the encyclopedia is about content, not about me or other editors per WP:AVOIDYOU. A mix of experienced editors participated objectively in this discussion and could have intervened in support of your edits. Overall, the issues raised about the nutritional value and adverse reactions to gluten unveiled useful topics and sources. I will proceed to edits based on your last sentence above. --Zefr (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Zefr, I am glad to see you realize that attacking others, saying things as "obsessive", "you are so deep in advocacy", "pushing your POV", "anti-gluten bias and non-collaborative WP:CHERRY soapbox editing", etc. is not a good practice. I hope this means that from now you will apply it to me and we always can civilly collaborate. I have no problem doing so. ;-)

Your lasts edits are more constructive, neutral, and accurate. Thank you very much.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Inaccuracies: intestinal health and risk reduction of becoming obese

This paragraph contains inaccuracies [38]:

"As a common component of breakfast cereals, whole wheat is associated with several benefits of regular cereal consumption, including improved micronutrient intake and bowel function, reduced risk of becoming obese, and lower risk of several diseases."

The effects of whole grains on intestinal health and risk reduction of becoming obese are controversial. A 2014 systematic review found a positive association, ("wheat-based cereals can improve bowel function (grade A). Regular breakfast cereal consumption is associated with a lower body mass index and less risk of being overweight or obese (grade B).") while a 2016 systematic review concludes that both issues need further evaluation. ("The effect on body weight, intestinal health and cognitive function needs further evaluation.") I will adjust it.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Salt tolerance: relevant or not

My first contribution to the wheat article, introducing a section on "Salt tolerance", was wiped out by User:Zefr with motivation:

• "Unconvincing topic per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; poorly written and sourced; see WP:REFB for help. (wikipedia:TW))""

The 2nd, revised, effort was also deleted, see [39]. It looked like this:

==Salt tolerance== The irrigated wheat crop in Egypt has a salt tolerance of ECe=7.6 dS/m beyond which the yield declines. In many irrigated areas the problem of soil salinity arises, reason why efforts are made to increase the salt tolerance of wheat. (Munns et al.) Soil salinity can be determined as the electric conductivity (EC) of the extract of a saturated soil paste (ECe). The EC units are expressed in millimho/cm or dS/m. The critical ECe value of 7.6 dS/m in the figure, obtained from measurements in farmers' fields, indicates that in this case the wheat crop is fairly salt tolerant. References

In addition:

• The link I made to Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series) under "See also" was reverted.

The questions are:

• Is salt tolerance really irrelevant and, if not, what else would be wrong with this edit?
• Why can the link to the wheat fields of van Gogh (this is a beautiful page) not be given?

Water and Land (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In both wiki guidelines mentioned it is difficult to detect any flaw regarding the proposed section. Apart from that: Wikipedia articles need not be convincing, they are there just to present facts. To convince persons of something we have advertisements or propaganda. - Asitgoes (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article section The soil salinity problem one can read: "In the Indo-Gangetic Plain, home to over 10% of the world's population, crop yield losses for wheat, rice, sugarcane and cotton grown on salt-affected lands could be 40%, 45%, 48%, and 63%, respectively". A yield loss due to salinity of 40% for wheat in such a large area (not to think of other important crop growing regions in the world) should justify at least a small section in the wheat article on wheat response to soil salinity. It might even be worthwhile to write a bit more about crop production losses of wheat owing to salinity in general. However, with unresponsive deletionists active, who promote their own personal views of what is relevant and what is not, I am not inclined to do so. Water and Land (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Salt tolerance is relevant, but your edit was poor. Please write a draft here about the general significance of soil salinity, without use of the overly-technical graph and calculations. Further, use the correct template for inserting an inline reference, WP:CT. My view is that the Van Gogh series of paintings is about art, and is not informative about wheat. --Zefr (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not know that Zefr was appointed as the supervisor of Water and Land giving him instructions like that and calling his contribution poor. Further, it seems Zefr was elected to remove items he judges overly technical, like the graph in this case. That graph, by the way, is easy to read for anyone who has had elemenatry statistics in his school package. In the wheat article I read: Some wheat species are diploid, with two sets of chromosomes, but many are stable polyploids, with four sets of chromosomes (tetraploid) or six (hexaploid). That is way above my head, but I trust the person who has written that knows what he is doing and that he is providing useful and necessary information, so I will not have the arrogance to delete that sentence. Looking at the Wikipedia article Normal distribution, I see that it gets ratings as "top priority" and "top importance", even though it is full of complicated mathematical equations accessible only to those who have had a high level training in statistics. In my modest opinion, that article is overly tecnical, but who am I to condemn it? The notion "overly technical" is too subjective to be applied to Wikipedia content. Another subjective subject: Zefr writes: My view is that the Van Gogh series of paintings is about art, and is not informative about wheat. Yes it is about art, but it is also all about wheat. The paintings show how wheat is cultivated and how people make a living with it, and they tell more than can be put into words. It fits perfectly under the heading "See also". To emprison the world in compartments, claiming that one compartment should be kept isolated from the other, is denying the concepts of interaction and holism. Of course, Zefr is entitled to his private views, but he has no right to impose them on others just like that. Wikipedia is about communication and coming to an agreement, it is not a police state. Enough for now. Asitgoes (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit on salt tolerance is not poor. It states that there is a soil salinity problem, that therefore the salt tolerance of wheat is being improved and there is an illustration of wheat response to salinity. All very logical, supported by references, and .. important. The only thing you might say is that the edit is meagre. Conclusion: do not delete it (killing the healthy baby, which is not what Wikipedia wants), but help to give it more body and bring it to adulthood. Agreed, that requires effort, but do not follow the easy and lazy road. Asitgoes (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Content about whole grains

The page contained conclusions not applicable to wheat in particular, but to whole grain in general. I edited and moved this content to the corresponding page (whole grain). I have also added EFSA's position on health claims related to whole grains, supported by a source already present (and added the original ref from EFSA journal).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Phytic acid

In the new section on phytic acid the references don't seem to support any clinical effects in humans. I will transfer this section to talk, for discussion and consensus RAMRashan (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca proposes the introduction of a new subsection in Health effects on phytic acid. Here it is

"Phytic acid Cereals are rich in phytic acid.[1] The highest levels are found in whole-grain flours.[2] Phytic acid present in cereal mixtures used as complementary foods is a potent inhibitor of native and fortification iron absorption both in children an adults.[1][2] It also inhibits zinc absorption in adults, but it is not clear whether it influences zinc absorption in children.[1]"

I suggest the editors discuss this and, in particular, look if the established clinical significance in humans, recognized by authoratitive sources, justifies inclusion. Comments requested from any interested editors, including Zefr, Doc James, Alexbrn, Jytdog, QuackGuru and any others RAMRashan (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC) It's a matter of concern that BallenaBlanca is editing with such a clear soapbox agenda. Honestly, campaigning against "bread and other agents of mental disease" is fine, just not on Wikipedia - Please! RAMRashan (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The one journal has an impact factor of less than 1[40] and the other of just over one[41]

The 2010 review concludes "to ensure the World Health Organization estimated needs for these minerals from plant-based complementary foods for breastfed infants are met, dephytinization must be combined with enrichment with animal-source foods and/or fortification with appropriate levels and forms of mineral fortificants"

So the solution is simply fortify it or eat meat. Agree would like to see hard end points before including it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2] These are the refs used.

RAMRashan, I remember you that I suggested "we must include the effects of phytic acid, with link to main article" [42], you said "I agree in principle that the section could mention some other things briefly, maybe phytate, maybe mycotoxins." [43] and no one else opposed. So, why does it cause you strangeness?

Perhaps this other source maybe useful: PMID 12949395 J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2973S-7S. Influence of vegetable protein sources on trace element and mineral bioavailability. Hurrell RF J NUTR 2015 IMPACT FACTOR: 3.740 It explains the clinical significance that RAMRashan asks for, along with more useful information: "Phytic acid inhibits iron absorption in infants to an extent similar to that in adults (7,8), and low iron absorption from legume and cereal-based complementary foods is a major cause of the widespread iron deficiency in infants in developing countries. Iron deficiency in infants can lead to reduced psychomotor and mental development with possible long-term negative consequences on school performance (9)."

I agree with Doc James that it should be expanded with recommendations such as consumption along with meat. About fortification, this 2006 WHO recommendations pages 105, 106 and 107 But this 2010 ref concludes (full text): "There is an urgent need to address the problems associated with poor mineral bioavailability in both indigenous and commercially processed cereal-based complementary foods used in low-income countries. Many of these complementary foods have very high concentrations of phytate and phytate:mineral molar ratios at levels likely to inhibit absorption of iron, zinc, and calcium..... However, even when high-phytate complementary foods are fortified with minerals, the level and form of the mineral fortificants do not necessarily ensure that the fortified complementary foods meet the mineral needs of infants and young children. More effort should be made to ensure that fortified cereal- and/or legume-based complementary foods in low-income countries meet the WHO recommendations for iron, zinc, and calcium for breastfed infants and children. Attention must also be given when setting the fortificant levels to avoid antagonistic interactions between minerals and intakes that may exceed the tolerable upper intake levels."

RAMRashan, your last edit removed by error a subheading [44]. I fixed [45].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Other 2014 good source from Matern Child Nutr - Impact Factor: 3.505:

Reasons for raising the maximum acceptable daily intake of EDTA and the benefits for iron fortification of foods for children 6–24 months of age. Matern Child Nutr. 2014 Oct;10(4):481-95.

Millions of young children predominantly in developing and emerging countries may not reach their full physical and intellectual potential because of micronutrient deficiencies in their diet (Horton 2008). Among the most prominent micronutrient deficiencies are iron and zinc, and iron especially may adversely affect their long-term cognitive and emotional development (EFSA 2013; Lozoff et al. 2013). Yet, these problems could be overcome with relatively low investment in providing micronutrients through food fortification (Hoddinott et al. 2012). Minerals are often not well absorbed from food because of the presence of phytate, also referred to as phytic acid. It is the plant form of phosphorus and thus an essential component of plant foods. Plant-based diets are rich in phytate (Gibson et al. 2010). This otherwise health-beneficial food ingredient (Kumar et al. 2010) converts mineral ions, such as iron and zinc, to insoluble complexes that obstruct absorption in the gastrointestinal tract (Hurrell 2002). Many food products contain levels of phytic acid in excess of 100 mg per 100 g (Ma et al. 2005). .... The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) classifies iron EDTA as ‘suitable for use as a source of iron for food fortification’ (JECFA 2007). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends iron EDTA as the only iron compound suitable for fortification of high-extraction wheat and maize flour, and as one of only four iron compounds for fortification of low-extraction flours (WHO 2009). Recently, the use of iron EDTA in foods and food supplements was approved in the European Union (EU) (EFSA 2010; EU 2010; EU 2011) after earlier food approvals in China (PRC 1994; PRC 1996), the Philippines (Republic of the Philippines 1995), most Latin American countries by about 2000, United States (FDA 2004; FDA 2006), Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ 2008), and India (Gazette of India 2011). In spite of wide approval, iron EDTA cannot be used in the required amounts in complementary foods for older infants and young children (6–24 months of age) because of concern about exceeding the maximum acceptable daily intake (ADI) of EDTA (Yang et al. 2011).] .... In summary, based on the knowledge of how EDTA functions in the human body, the results of long-term animal studies, and the nearly 50 years' use of Ferrostrane, a rise of the maximum ADI of EDTA can be considered safe. Based on the NCI study (NCI 1977), the maximum ADI of EDTA can be raised to 9.1 μmol day−1 kgbw−1, which is 1.4 times higher than the current level. Based on the PhD thesis of Yang 1952 (BIBRA 1964), and the dosage level that did not show any adverse health effects, the maximum ADI of EDTA would be 14.9 μmol day−1 kgbw−1, which is 2.3 times higher than the current maximum. Based on the highest dosage group of Yang's study (BIBRA 1964), which resulted in continuous diarrhoea, reduced appetite and no offspring (but no organ changes), the maximum ADI of EDTA would be increased to 74.4 μmol day−1 kgbw−1, 11.4 times than the current maximum ADI of EDTA but only about one-third of the highest exposure level to EDTA molecules as provided by Ferrostrane. For a 5-kg infant, this regulatory change to a maximum ADI of EDTA of 14.9 μmol day−1 kgbw−1 would allow a daily intake up to 5 mg Fe as iron EDTA rather than the currently permitted level of maximum 2.2 mg. With respect to the fortification of complementary foods for infants and young children aged 6–24 months, an addition level ensuring a daily intake of 5 mg Fe as iron EDTA is likely to be sufficient to allow adequate iron absorption and would be entirely safe.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The WHO information could be used, but the Hurrell article does not specify wheat, commenting on cereals generally and legumes. There are no WP:MEDRS sources specifically about wheat phytate to justify it being more than a sentence, if at all. --Zefr (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"the Hurrell article does not specify wheat, commenting on cereals generally and legumes" The Hurrell article mentions wheat, it is easy to make a search in the text. If we can not use it, then we have to eliminate the whole section on the beneficial effects for health and all its references, none of them are wheat-specific, all of them refer to grains:

1. Whole grain Fact Sheet
2. Whole Grain Resource for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs
3. All about the Grains Group
4. The Benefits of Breakfast Cereal Consumption: A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base ^1,2,3,4
5. Effects of Ready-to-Eat-Cereals on Key Nutritional and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review
6. Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies
7. Whole Grains and Fiber
8. Health Claim Notification for Whole Grain Foods
9. Guidance for Industry: A Food Labeling Guide (11. Appendix C: Health Claims)
10. Nutritionally Enhanced Food Crops; Progress and Perspectives

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

BallenaBlanca Thanks for your talk message and respecting my moving the sentences on phytate to talk. I think additions should have established clinical significance in humans, and this should be recognized by authoritative sources. By which I mean a major medical association, or a recognized national health institute, or something like that. Looking now, I think phytate isn't. The references you included seem to have some hypothetical arguments for the importance of phytate, but importance doesn't seem established. Mycotoxins are of established historical significance, but the problem is pretty much eliminated now. I think it doesn't merit inclusion. Davidbertioli (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, before I go on talking, I want to clarify something, I'm confused.

You said "respecting my moving the sentences on phytate to talk" refering to this edits [46] [47] by RAMRashan but you are now signing as Davidbertioli. ?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A computer signed in, that was a mistake RAMRashan (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

When I say you signed I refer to you have answered logged in as another user, Davidbertioli, is not a mistake of the computer. The revison history keeps the records: Revision as of 02:12, 11 December 2016 (edit) (undo) (thank) Davidbertioli (talk | contribs) and Davidbertioli is an active user: User contributions For Davidbertioli --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• RAMRashan deleted my comments where I asked Davidbertioli who he is [48] [49] and I restored them (Undid revision 754136813 by RAMRashan (talk) (or Davidbertioli ...?) WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment".) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 02:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Health effects can be summarised in the WP:LEDE

Wheat#Health effects is not summarised in the WP:LEDE. I think it is time. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are right. WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies".

I made this edit [50]. I hope you agree.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a start. There are Wheat#Concerns that are not mentioned in the lede. See (PMID 26941586). QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, it is unclear what you are specifically suggesting. Although you highlight wheat "concerns" – implying that more discussion be devoted to wheat protein sensitivities and disorders – the 2016 Shewry review emphasizes the opposite: "The last few years have seen increasing concerns, particularly in the media and lay press, about the effects of wheat‐based foods on health, with the increasing adoption of wheat‐free or gluten‐free diets. These concerns have largely been propagated through the media, particularly the popular press, Internet and social media, rather than conventional medical and public health channels, and the evidence base is often obscure."

Shewry discusses:

1. all of the true gluten allergies which in combination amount to only 2.2% of the general population. This prevalence is so low it is questionable for mention in the lede at all.
2. NCGS is discussed as a poorly defined disorder affecting 6-13% of people in different studies, with no consistent biomarkers or diagnostic criteria established rigorously to date; however, it is NCGS that is so exaggerated, particularly in the European and American public as major segments of a $4.9 B global market (by 2021) for gluten-free foods, mostly purchased by gullible, misinformed consumers, i.e., truly a hoax on a grand scale. If there is any "concern" to be discussed in the article and its lede, it is this.
3. the opposite concerns about wheat consumption discussed in the Shewry review are 1) the relatively high cost and 2) the whole wheat nutrients not consumed when one follows a wheat-free diet. See this: "For healthy consumers, replacing gluten-containing products with GF foods is aligned with substantial cost differences but GF foods do not provide additional health benefits from a nutritional perspective." and this: "available evidence does not clearly support a gluten-free diet for NCGS patients." These reviews conclude that, for some 90+% of consumers, there are no health benefits gained from consuming wheat (gluten)-free foods. This is also worth discussing in the article as a "concern". --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

1. You wrote "Although you highlight wheat "concerns" – implying that more discussion be devoted to wheat protein sensitivities and disorders." I did not make that proposal or suggestion. It is clear what I am proposing. I am proposing to summarise Wheat#Concerns. See (PMID 26941586) for another source that can be used. There is little discussion in the lede about the "Concerns". QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Unclear

The text was clear. Now it is unclear. The part "other sensitivities" may be original research. It is more than other sensitivities. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Sensitivities" as discussed in gluten-related disorders, but the sources also discuss wheat sensitivities which are not specific to gluten. We could provide wheat allergy as the embedded link. --Zefr (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The text says "other sensitivities" but coeliac disease is not a type of sensitivity. There was no original research with the previous wording. The part dermatitis herpetiformis was removed. Not sure why. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You introduced the 2016 Shewry review which states under "Conditions related to CD" the term "gluten sensitivity" and the < 0.04% prevalence of dermatitis herpetiformis, so rare as to not justify mention in the lede, imo. According to Shewry 2016, all clinically-defined wheat/gluten disorders combined have a prevalence of 2.2%, while NCGS is clinically vague and variable. Not lede material to emphasize unless balanced with a) the loss of nutrition by avoiding whole wheat products, and b) the misleading, unscientific marketing of wheat- or gluten-free foods. --Zefr (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Death from neck manipulation is rare but it is mentioned in the lede of the chiropractic page. Dermatitis herpetiformis is not a sensitivity. That means the text that says "other sensitivities" is wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

1. "true gluten allergies"...??? Zefr again, this wording is wrong, because it talks about "other sensitivities", in addition to CD. Neither CD nor dermatitis herpetiformis nor gluten ataxia are sensitivities, nor allergies, nor intolerances, they are autoimmune disorders, and the nature of non-celiac gluten sensitivity is currently uncertain.

If an editor who edits on health related pages has this wrong concept, we can imagine what happens to the readers. This reinforces the need to include a definition of CD, which in fact has already been suggested here, although this definition is not accurate, not updated, we must use this from World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines - Celiac disease July 2016: "Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic, multiple-organ autoimmune disease that affects the small intestine in genetically predisposed children and adults."

2. The controversy over NCGS is due to the fact that its exact pathogenesis is not known, which is reflected in the article itself. You have put a quotation from this article: "available evidence does not clearly support a gluten-free diet for NCGS patients.", but you have not put for example this other: "Besides gluten, wheat, barley, rye and their derivatives contain other components that induce symptoms, including carbohydrates (fructans) and other proteins different from gluten, such as amylase-trypsin inhibitors, wheat germ agglutinin and gluten-peptides with opioid effects (exorphins)."

3. The the 2016 Shewry review, PMID 26941586, is published on Nutrition bulletin (Abbreviation: Nutr Bull - Other titles: British Nutrition Foundation bulletin BNF) but there is no impact factor infomation for this journal. It not complies with WP:MEDRS.

The problem with the gluten-free diet, is an unbalanced selection of food and an incorrect choice of gluten-free replacement because some gluten-free commercial replacement products are not enriched or fortified as their gluten-containing counterparts, and often have greater lipid / carbohydrate content. Children especially often over-consume these products and decrease the intake of other foods. Nutritional complications can be prevented by a correct dietary education, as happens with any diet (remember, for example, the epidemic of obesity in the US, and all its negative consequences on health). There is a misconception about what are "gluten-free foods": a gluten-free diet is not "to eat specific celiac products", but eating naturally gluten-free foods, which provide a good balance of micro and macro nutrients, as meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, legumes, nuts, fruits, vegetables, potatoes, rice, maize, and pseudocereals.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Adjusting to the sources

I adjusted to the sources from Shewry 2015 (a good source which was widely used to document the page) and FAO:

• [51] The data about wheat protein quality do not refer to a "comparison with proteins of animal origin". The nutritional value of a dietary protein source relates to the delivery of indispensable amino acids to the body. Protein nutritional quality is determined by the proportions of essential amino acids, as these cannot be synthesized by animals and hence must be provided in the diet. The content, pattern and bioavailability of indispensable amino acids determine the quality of the protein. DIAAS is based on the ileal digestible individual indispensable amino acids in the dietary protein relative to human reference amino acid requirement pattern. Scores may be greater than 1 (or 100%) if the protein contains a relatively high content of indispensable amino acids recognizing surplus amino acids in higher quality protein sources. Wheat proteins have a value of 40 (0,4 or 40%), classified according to DIAAS as low (Page 44, Table 6). This is because wheat is deficient in the essential amino acid lysine, as with other cereals. "The biological value and net protein utilization of cereal proteins is relatively low due to deficiencies in essential amino acids and low protein availability" If only one essential amino acid is limiting, the others will be broken down and excreted resulting in restricted growth in humans and loss of nitrogen present in the diet. Ten amino acids are strictly essential: lysine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, tyrosine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, histidine, and methionine. (...) The requirements for essential amino acids are lower for adults where amino acids are required only for maintenance, than for children where they are also required for growth. (...) The data in Table 4 support the widely accepted view that the first limiting amino acid in wheat grain is lysine with other essential amino acids being present in adequate amounts, at least for adults.

• [52] The source says: Increasing global demand for wheat is based on the ability to make unique food products and the increasing consumption of these with industrialization and westernization. In particular, the unique properties of the gluten protein fraction allows the processing of wheat to produce bread, other baked goods, noodles and pasta, and a range of functional ingredients. These products may be more convenient to produce or consume than traditional foods, and form part of a “western lifestyle”.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

About this edit [53]:

• There is not "continued edit warring": see definition of WP:EW and the content, dates and times of the edits, as well as the previous argumentations (above this message).
• There is not "OR". As I said several times, I am adjusting to the source from FAO, so it's me who's being neutral. Wheat proteins have a value of 40 (0,4 or 40%), classified according to DIAAS as low:

Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition. Report of an FAO Expert Consultation. Page 44, Table 6. Example of the use of DIAAS for protein quality assessment in the context of making claims.

Food	Amount	Protein content (g/100g)	DIAAS	Judged quality	Eligible for claim based on quantity	Eligible for claim based on quantity and quality
Wheat	100 g	11	40	Low	Yes, high	No, none
Peas	100 g	21	64	Low	Yes, high	No, none
Whole milk powder	100 g	28	122	High	Yes, high	Yes, High

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please pay attention to previous comments in the edit summaries. There have been repeated NPOV violations that have been brushed aside by repeatedly reinserting this and other content (I believe we've talked about concerns of cherrypicking sources negative towards wheat, gluten, etc. in the past). First, OR is in reference to you making comparisons of numbers to justify low and high ratings.

As for the source itself, the section you cite is entirely unreferenced and is more of a policy statement rather than scientific. The section doesn't quite reach WP:MEDRS quality in terms of demonstrating whether something is of high or low quality. Even within that, the source makes it clear it's making a relative comparison, hence why there was at least a compromise version including that text awhile ago while keeping the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: You have not read the information about the DIAAS method nor you did understand the table. They are not "relative" comparisons.

Are you suggesting that the studies and recommendations on health claims from the Food and Agriculture Organization are not WP:MEDRS? --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with FAO as a source. They are a major global well respected organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote and the source. FAO itself is fine in general as a secondary source (and usually a really good one depending on specific instances), but that particular section appears to be a novel (and arbitrary) comparison without citing any other sources. Content like that typically requires secondary sources to support it, and we're still getting into NPOV issues related to wheat, gluten, etc. that you've been made aware of already. To simply say it's a poor source of protein misrepresents the source in its entirety. The more accurate description would be a minor source of protein rather than a major source, but poor brings in different meaning than what the rest of the source was talking about. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about wheat having a "low protein quality" is skewed by the FAO and Wolffe references which are tailored toward protein needs of people at risk for low protein intake or malnutrition (infants, elderly, for whom high-protein foods like meat and dairy more readily supply amino acids). By not comparing protein content to the full range of foods in a mixed diet, the article currently ignores that wheat is relatively high in protein content. Using the nutrient table under Nutrition in the article, compare its protein content (13%) to any number of fruits, vegetables, and processed foods commonly consumed. Consuming protein is about supplying amino acids; even if lysine and tryptophan are "deficient" in wheat compared to meat, whole milk, or legumes, their contents are still significant among other amino acid contents following wheat protein digestion. In contrast to the way wheat protein quality is depicted as poor in the article, it is actually a rich protein and amino acid source when compared to the full range of foods in a typical diet. If the diet is deficient in protein and mixed food sources, then the "wheat deficiency" argument would apply. For most well-fed people, however, wheat is not a low-quality protein source, but a good one, among the richest amino acid sources commonly eaten. --Zefr (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Part of the issue with just saying "poor" is also because the source establishes that for something to be called a source of a protein, it must already meet some decent qualifications for protein content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr: I have read your comment carefully. I think your reasoning about the importance of putting the data in context is very interesting. It is an approach that can serve to complete the information and give a more global vision. I will look at it calmly. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)