The diet and arthritis controversy

Because of my own experiences in resolving my rheumatoid arthritis I am very keen that others hear about my story and my theories of what works and what doesn't.   That means not only talking about my diet of choice but also the wider issues around diet.  Such a discussion can quickly become very controversial for various reasons, not least of which is there are many diets to choose from.  To further make life difficult some of these diets come from seemingly polarised positions.  However the biggest challenge comes from those who argue that diet has no effect.

Leading the cause arguing diet has no effect tend to be the charities, the doctors and the rheumatologists.  These are backed by pharmaceutical companies, copious gold standard research sponsored by the same.  And most of all government guidelines.

So how come such big players seem committed to denying what I consider a well researched and proven subject?  The starting point has to be that the leaky gut theory is the new kid on the block.   Big players always have considerable momentum on their side.  They can, by definition be highly influential in creating national and even international guidelines.  Such people tend to sit on the right committees and it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that they accept the status quo.

Also it is relatively easy to create a high-quality test when considering drugs and medication.  Placebo tablets that look identical to active medication is very cheap to design and run.  On the other hand creating a placebo that looks like a grass-fed cow of a standard size and weight, or a lettuce of a particular colour very quickly becomes a joke.  So instead creating meaningful results for dietary solutions can take years of collecting data on large populations.  Even then problems persist, for instance, one might challenge exactly how well diets were followed.

The good news is that those advocating diet are gaining strength and credibility.  The program I favour, the Paddison Program now argues that 19 our of 20 people who are committed to its program can gain considerable relief in just a few days, and that the remaining 1 in 20 often take longer because of long term damage done by certain drugs or combinations thereof.  If this claim is proved true then it cannot be too long before good verifiable statistics should be available.  I, for one, look forward to that day with great relish.