[Tuna-Fish]

Well, let's put it this way. It is in no way any less healthy than anything else you eat. Gluten is a mixture of proteins that are all useful to the body, and while you can get those proteins from other sources, none are as cheap and plentiful as wheat.

The beginning of agriculture caused an overall loss in lifespans, but in different agricultural societies the reduction was inversely correlated with primary crop protein content. If you restrict yourself to grass crops, high-gluten wheat is one of the most healthy things you can eat. (Only surpassed by properly cooked quinoa, because it has even more proteins than wheat.)

> And why is it "rather" healthy?

What is this, the fifth grade? I in no way implied any downside to gluten (to non-celiac people).

> I thought it causes "absolutely no health damage" for 6.9 of the 7 billion people out there?

And that would be correct.

[simplethird]

It's tempting to slice the reality of biology into over-simplistic models, but it's better to realize we have a ways to go. My intent was to point out that much to our chagrin, there is no set of food in which its members are "in no way any less healthy than anything else". What goes in this set and why are you so confident that they can be equated? Just trot out the line "mixtures of protein are all useful to the body"? Biology has only relatively recently established that not all proteins are created equal when held against the metabolic capabilities of a human. That even the context of those proteins matter. The field is only now experiencing an explosion in the ability to make truly meaningful models.

I encourage you to look into the fields of life-extension to reinforce the fact that our bodies and ecologies like them are in no way perfect. There is currently no food that causes absolutely zero health damage. I only mentioned your use of rather (i.e. "to a certain degree") because it seemed funny to then in the same breath claim an absolute---that there is no degree to even consider.

Where gluten lies in all of us this is up for debate because meaningful evidence interpreted in a dependable framework has yet to happen, as much as you'd like to think it's an utterly settled matter.