raw eggs?

[Guest guest]

And these were store-bought eggs. Didn't have a source for good eggs then,

but do now.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

At 02:39 PM 3/5/03 -0500, you wrote:

>Before I started the binge my thighs were rough and bumpy, but today they

>are as smooth and free of lumps as can be. I can only attribute it to the

>eggs as increasing them is the only way we changed our diet.

>

>Judith Alta

Interesting. As a teen my upper legs and upper arms had what seemed to be

almost ingrown hairs. This coincided with buying store bought milk and eggs

which we'd been able to get from neighbors till the egg man retired and the

raw

milk wasn't legal anymore. Didn't seem to be an acne type rash. When I cut

down

on both for quite a few years it went away.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Sure, glad to share the eggnog recipe.

You can use any milk. I put about one cup of coconut milk diluted with two

parts water in the blender. Add anywhere from two to six eggs depending on

my mood and how hungry I am. Half a dropper of stevia liquid and a dash or

two of nutmeg. Sometimes I add a teaspoon of vanilla. Turn the blender on

low until well mixed. Pour into your favorite drinking vessel and enjoy.

Glad to hear the comparison of cellulite to egg consumption. These are the

kinds studies I have the most faith in.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Can you share your egg nog recipe?

Thanks

Donna

p.s. I have eaten eggs everyday of my life that I can remember. I am 52.

I have no cellulite. My friend rarely eats eggs and has alot of cellulite.

A double, not blind study. Chuckle.

[Guest guest]

Interesting. I have the feeling that the raw eggs in my " nogs " do not stay

with me as long as cooked eggs. And it doesn't matter how they are cooked.

Usually fried or scrambled. Sometimes boiled.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

I have noticed the same thing as well. Raw eggs give me an energy boost

while fried, scrambled or other forms tend to drag me down. In fact, I

won't even eat scrambled eggs as they make me almost nauseous.

danny

Creek Bend Dairy Farm

Harry & Peggy Strite

11917 Snug Harbor Lane

port, MD 21795

301-582-4135

cbdfarm@...

[Guest guest]

The amount of coconut milk seems misleading. I dilute the coconut milk and

then put one cup of it in the blender. As it reads you'd have three cups of

coconut milk for your eggnog. But if that's what you want - go for it!

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Sure, glad to share the eggnog recipe.

You can use any milk. I put about one cup of coconut milk diluted with two

parts water in the blender. Add anywhere from two to six eggs depending on

my mood and how hungry I am. Half a dropper of stevia liquid and a dash or

two of nutmeg. Sometimes I add a teaspoon of vanilla. Turn the blender on

low until well mixed. Pour into your favorite drinking vessel and enjoy.

Glad to hear the comparison of cellulite to egg consumption. These are the

kinds studies I have the most faith in.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Can you share your egg nog recipe?

Thanks

Donna

p.s. I have eaten eggs everyday of my life that I can remember. I am 52.

I have no cellulite. My friend rarely eats eggs and has alot of cellulite.

A double, not blind study. Chuckle.

[Guest guest]

So it's one cup of milk to six eggs?

Thanks

Donna

----- Original Message -----

From: Judith Alta

Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:33 PM

Subject: RE: Re: raw eggs?

The amount of coconut milk seems misleading. I dilute the coconut milk and

then put one cup of it in the blender.

[Guest guest]

At 08:10 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>Heidi-

>

> >It's not always straightforward. In Dangerous Grains (and on Dogtor's

> >website) there is the thought that all grain proteins can be

> >an issue.

>This isn't to say that these proteins aren't a problem, but you seem

>unwilling to even consider that most starches might not be healthy.

Not at all. I'm currently reading " Life without bread " , and am experimenting

with carb levels. I'm pretty sure I do better on a lower-carb diet, and

that is

how I used to eat by default anyway.

But the statistics are that 1 in 5 Americans over-produces IgA antigliadin

antibodies, and those antibodies DO cause damage, and THAT is a protein

problem.

The starch problem is a separate problem, is all. The people that are into

low-carb

have not, for the most part, taken that into account. In " Life without

Bread " they have some GREAT low-carb studies, but in all of them, wheat is

the main carb, as they are all done on Americans or Europeans.

Also, if you have high IgA, it *damages your pancreas* (as shown in vitro, plus

people with high IgA also happen to get type 1 diabetes a lot). THAT throws all

the calculations off.

As for whether starches in general are healthy, I'm still trying to figure

that out.

It seems from Price's work (and from a lot of Asians) that a lot of people

can be healthy on a high starch diet. But most grains, at least, are

problematic,

whether it is from anti-nutrients or proteins or starch or all three, I

don't think

there is enough information to tell! I have not seen any good research on

*carbs*

that does not use *wheat* as the main carb, so it is difficult to

disentangle the two.

I'm trying, in my own life, to do just that!

>In fact she says the opposite: the sicker you are, the more effect even a

>tiny little bit of starch will have on you, which is why it's so important

>to be absolutely rigorous when following her diet.

Again, how do you disintangle " wheat " from " carb " ? From what I have read of

her,

she based most of her thoughts on observations of people, and if you observe

someone like me, I get really really sick off a tiny bit of bread. Some of

the symptoms

resemble Crohn's, in fact. But I don't get really sick off a whole big

plate of hash browns. Almost all the carbs in the American diet have gluten

in them, or are contaminated by gluten (esp. packaged products). Most

people with gluten IgA issues also react to other foods, usually grains --

like corn, oatmeal, rice -- and they also often react to yeast and milk. By

the time you eliminate all those foods, you end up with Gottschall's diet,

so it would work just fine.

But someone that is truly reacting to carbs from insulin or bacteria does

not react to a tiny bit of carb -- say a half inch square slice of bread.

If you react to that, I'd say it was an immune reaction. OK, so Gottschall

would disagree -- maybe the people who get sick off a tiny piece of peanut

have a bacterial problem too!

So how do you separate the two issues? She basically just says Celiac

doesn't exist, which ignores a HUGE body of research. To really separate

the issues, you would have to have a group of people that eat carbs in some

moderation, but not grain carbs, and see if that works. To my knowledge, no

one has tried that experiment. Well, actually some people have -- people

who are diagnosed as Celiac and then " cure " their other disorders.

As to whether carbs in huge amounts damage people -- I'd tend to say that

they do, esp. without fats and esp. finely ground (I think I've said that a

lot on this list!).

> >Those often go away after awhile, though the

> >gluten sensitivity does not go away (again, this is in contrast

> >with Gottschall, who believes the problem is purely microbial).

>

>Not purely microbial -- the intestines themselves sustain a lot of damage

>and have to be healed.

Right. But she believes the damage is from microbes, while the gluten folks

feel

it is from an immune response to gluten. Again, it is difficult to disentangle,

because when the immune system goes bonkers, it DOES cause the microbes

to go nuts too, which also causes damage.

>1. Immune system response

> >2. Insulin reaction

> >3. Microbes (yeast, bacteria)

>

>But they're not separate. Bowel dysbiosis and organism overgrowth damage

>the intestinal walls, in turn both impairing digestion and allowing

>undigested and incompletely-digested proteins to pass through and create

>immune problems. Once your immune system has been sensitized to certain

>proteins that immune memory will always be there, but look at the way all

>sorts of food allergies disappear once the diet is changed to eliminate

>sugars, starches, refined foods, additives, and so on, and to emphasize

>good meats and fats. People who were formerly allergic to beef can once

>again eat beef, and the same is true for other protein foods.

I agree, they are hard to separate. But the folks who are sensitive to

gluten almost always have one of two genes, and it seems to be very much

gene-related and there have been lots of studies to show it does not go

away. Other allergies DO disappear, this one does not. It is a special

case, for some reason. But telling people it will go away is pretty

dangerous -- the symptoms do in fact go away pretty easily, but the gut

damage is usually asymptomatic until it gets really, really bad. They did

biopsies on some of those " cured " people, and guess what? They had all

kinds of flattened villi -- but the ones who remained gluten free did not.

Really, I used to believe exactly what you say, until I got " bit " . I was

diagnosed as gluten intolerant when I was 17, went off wheat for a year,

was " cured " , and forgot about it. But my body endured much suffering in the

meantime! took another 20 years before I figured out what was going on. The

symptoms I got the 2nd time were completely different and it did not occur

to me wheat could be the problem.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>I'd also like to add that the gluten theory is dosage dependent too, in

>that the hypothesis is that we've gotten into more and more trouble as

>we've bred our grains to have more and more gluten (and other grain

>proteins; I know, I should be more precise in my language). But there's a

>huge and very important hole in that theory. While it's true that we've

>bred some of our grains to have much more protein, there's another recent

>change in our practices which has enormous consequences: the abandonment of

>proper preparation, e.g. soaking in a slightly acid medium to neutralize

>anti-nutrients and partially pre-digest the starch.

Agreed. I guess what I meant by " dosage " is after you get sensitized.

Kind of like latex or peanuts. If you react to latex, you can't even be

in the same ROOM with a balloon or you get sick. You would get

even sicker if you held the balloon. But that is fundamentally a different

reaction than the fact that most people would in fact get sick

from eating a balloon, and the fact people develop the allergy in

the first place is because they are over-exposed to latex usually.

People with gluten intolerance are really really sensitive, far

more than you would expect from a bacterial or insulin reaction.

We are talking about people who get sick off a potato chip if

it was made on a machine that also processes wheat chips.

The IgA theory is interesting in that the genes involved have

mostly died out in areas like the Middle East, where wheat

has been eaten for a long time. And those genes died out

before there was high-gluten wheat, and while people soaked the

wheat. So, if the IgA theory is bogus, why are those genes

missing? What made two particular genes associated with

IgA wheat reactions happen to disappear *only* in areas where

wheat has been eaten for thousands of years?

This is not to say that people without those 2 genes might

not get sick from finely ground grains in some OTHER way,

but they don't get the villi damage and high IgA levels

usually associated with gluten intolerance.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>

> But the statistics are that 1 in 5 Americans over-produces IgA antigliadin

> antibodies, and those antibodies DO cause damage, and THAT is a protein

> problem.

When you wrote about that in the past, I understood that it was related

to wheat and probably other grains. Are you now saying it's protein, in

general?

> As to whether carbs in huge amounts damage people -- I'd tend to say that

> they do, esp. without fats and esp. finely ground (I think I've said that a

> lot on this list!).

I must have missed it. Why are finely ground carbs so bad? Are you

referring to flour? Is there a safe level of " fineness " ?

Roman

[Guest guest]

You know it's funny because a couple people have mentioned raw eggs fine but

can't tolerate fried eggs. For me, for some reason, I can digest fried eggs

reasonably well, raw eggs best, and HARD BOILED I have the biggest problem

with!!! I really don't understand why I would do better on FRIED eggs than

hard-boiled, but it seems to be the case. Nevertheless, I don't have major

problems with any of them if I have good enough doses of lacto-fermented foods,

and when I have been lacking, that's when I notice the biggest difference

between individual foods.

Chris

___

Danny wrote:

I have noticed the same thing as well. Raw eggs give me an

energy boost while fried, scrambled or other forms tend to drag

me down. In fact, I won't even eat scrambled eggs as they make

me almost nauseous.

[Guest guest]

At 05:29 AM 3/6/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> >

> > But the statistics are that 1 in 5 Americans over-produces IgA antigliadin

> > antibodies, and those antibodies DO cause damage, and THAT is a protein

> > problem.

>

>When you wrote about that in the past, I understood that it was related

>to wheat and probably other grains. Are you now saying it's protein, in

>general?

No, I love protein and it's not generally *bad*. But most things that

people have immune responses to happen to be proteins (Latex, peanuts,

eggs, milk, gluten). Because the immune system is basically looking for

viruses, and it recognizes the viruses by certain protein shapes.

With wheat the " starch vs. protein " issue is an issue because the two can

be separated -- so you can buy " wheat starch " and " pure gluten " . The pure

gluten is used a lot in vegetarian cooking as artificial meat, and also in

some of the " low carb " foods.

Some folks believe the " wheat " problem is mainly a starch problem.

Other folks believe it is mainly the wheat protein that is a problem.

Some folks think *both* are a problem (but they cause problems via

different mechanisms).

I'm pretty much in the 3rd camp.

> > As to whether carbs in huge amounts damage people -- I'd tend to say that

> > they do, esp. without fats and esp. finely ground (I think I've said that a

> > lot on this list!).

>

>I must have missed it. Why are finely ground carbs so bad? Are you

>referring to flour? Is there a safe level of " fineness " ?

The issues I've come across so far are:

1. It digests too quickly, causing an insulin surge.

2. It feeds the gut bacteria too quickly, causing bacterial/yeast overgrowth.

3. It is too easy to eat too much of them too quickly.

4. Because they digest so quick, you get hungry quicker and tend to overeat.

All of which are more of an issue on a low-fat diet. If you eat bread like the

Italians do -- dipping it in lots of olive oil -- you are not likely to eat

a whole lot in one sitting, AND you eat it with other foods. I think that may

be one reason why potatoes tend to be better (for me at least) -- because

one usually eats them fried in good fat (or should) or topped with

lots of good stuff.

Starches digest into sugars really quickly (the process even starts in

your mouth). Which probably isn't an issue in reasonable amounts

-- there are plenty of healthy cultures that eat starches -- but

Americans eat them in very unreasonable amounts!

I also think the starch issue is more of an issue combined with

the gluten issue, which is why I wish there was more research.

Since something like 1 in 5 Americans is reacting to gliadin,

and that would throw the numbers off on all the carb research.

Celiacs have been shown to have antibodies that attack

the pancreas (and other organs), so of course their carb

metabolism would not work right! Only 1 in 100 people have

full-blown celiac, but those 1 in 5 have many of the same

issues, and exactly the same antibody. See article below.

=======

CELIAC DISEASE

Organ-Specific Autoantibodies Linked to Dietary Gluten in Celiac Disease

Patients

WESTPORT, Sep 07 (Reuters Health) - Patients with celiac disease have

high levels of diabetes- and thyroid-related autoantibodies that

" disappear " when the patients are placed on a gluten-free diet.

The finding confirms the high prevalence of organ-specific

autoantibodies in patients with celiac disease, and supports the theory

that these antibodies are gluten-dependent, Dr. Alessandro Ventura, of

the Universita di Trieste, Italy, and colleagues say in the August issue

of the Journal of Pediatrics.

The investigators tested 90 children with celiac disease for serum

antibodies to islet cells, glutamic acid decarboxylase, insulin, and

thyroperoxidase. The overall prevalence of diabetes- and thyroid-related

autoantibodies was 11.1% and 14.4%, respectively.

Prior studies have suggested that the presence of organ-specific

autoantibodies in patients with celiac disease is " related to the

presence of a second autoimmune disease. " However, the fact that serum

organ-specific autoantibodies tended to disappear in the current study

when patients were placed on a gluten-free diet supports the position

that these antibodies are at least partly gluten-dependent.

" A gluten-free diet started early may prevent the other autoimmune

diseases frequently associated with celiac disease, " Dr. Ventura and

colleagues hypothesize. However, further studies will be needed to

determine the clinical significance of the organ-specific autoantibodies

in these patients and to confirm this hypothesis.

J Pediatr 2000;137:263-265.

>Roman

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Cabrita Software

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>We are talking about people who get sick off a potato chip if

>it was made on a machine that also processes wheat chips.

And people with bowel disease can get sick if they eat a tiny piece of

chicken that has been velvetted -- soaked in water in which a little

cornstarch has been dissolved. AFAIK there's no protein left in pure

cornstarch, but many people will still get violently ill, because the bad

organisms in their gut can flare on even tiny amounts of fuel.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>But the statistics are that 1 in 5 Americans over-produces IgA antigliadin

>antibodies, and those antibodies DO cause damage, and THAT is a protein

>problem.

In an ideal future (one we may not get or even come close to) the science

of genetics would yield tremendous insights into the human organism. Right

now, though, it's every bit as bad as the science of the lipid hypothesis,

and maybe even worse. These so-called " scientists " are not looking at the

human mechanism as a whole, they're looking at individual genes and

reactions taken completely out of context in the hope of developing

patentable and highly profitable drugs.

So my basic attitude is that any given " discovery " may or may not be

meaningful, but most likely it doesn't mean what they say it means. The

situation is actually worse than with the lipid hycrapesis because at least

with that nonsense there's a reasonably large opposition camp. Genetics is

just too new a discipline for there to be that kind of opposition. Look at

all the genetic nonsense reported practically every day about heart

disease. We _know_ that's a crock of **** because we know a lot about the

opposing views and about anthropological data like Price's which flat-out

disproves the lipid hypothesis and therefore any LP-supporting genetic

research. But we don't have that advantage with other " discoveries " from

the miracle science of genetics.

I repeat my earlier point: many protein sensitivities go away once

SCD-illegal starches and sugars are eliminated for long enough to allow the

bowel to heal. So, for example, someone who was allergic to eggs could,

after sufficient healing, eat eggs without difficulty. The same cannot be

said of SCD-illegal carbs. Those people were producing egg protein

antibodies, but that production wasn't the root cause of the problem.

And I add another point: people with bowel disease suffer flares even when

consuming purified illegal starches and sugars with zero protein content.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Again, how do you disintangle " wheat " from " carb " ? From what I have read of

>her,

>she based most of her thoughts on observations of people,

No, she based most of her thoughts on biochemistry. Her observations of

people were merely experimental confirmation.

>get really really sick off a tiny bit of bread. Some of

>the symptoms

>resemble Crohn's, in fact. But I don't get really sick off a whole big

>plate of hash browns.

Sick how?

Anyway, people are always going to react differently to different starches

depending on what the bugs in their guts prefer. And the hash browns are

no doubt made with tons of fat, which slow down the digestion and absorption.

>But someone that is truly reacting to carbs from insulin or bacteria does

>not react to a tiny bit of carb -- say a half inch square slice of bread.

>If you react to that, I'd say it was an immune reaction. OK, so Gottschall

>would disagree -- maybe the people who get sick off a tiny piece of peanut

>have a bacterial problem too!

Heidi, I'm getting sick of repeating myself, and I'm not going to keep

doing it indefinitely. If you can't or won't hear what I'm saying, fine,

we'll end this discussion. But if you can, I'll repeat, one last time:

TAKE THE BREAD OUT OF THE EQUATION SINCE IT HAS GLUTEN AND REPLACE IT WITH

AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF PURIFIED STARCH OR SCD-ILLEGAL SUGAR AND YOU'LL

HAVE THE SAME REACTION. (I don't mean you specifically; I don't know what

kind of bowel problems you might have and I'm not going to speculate.)

Now, you can protest that there must have been some infinitesimal quantity

of protein in there, but it begins to sound like the desperate flailing of

the lipid proponents, endlessly trying to justify their nonsense theory in

the face of ever-mounting evidence that they're dead wrong -- and I mean

dead wrong literally, because those ******** have killed thousands,

probably millions, of people. The difference is that there is some value

to the gluten theory, but it has to be understood in context.

>To really separate

>the issues, you would have to have a group of people that eat carbs in some

>moderation, but not grain carbs, and see if that works. To my knowledge, no

>one has tried that experiment. Well, actually some people have -- people

>who are diagnosed as Celiac and then " cure " their other disorders.

Exactly. Nobody's done a proper study of people who follow the SCD diet

and do exactly that, but nonetheless it's very clear that it works. I wish

some doctors would publish retrospective studies of their patients who

follow the SCD -- retrospective studies are far from ideal, but at least

such a publication might help get the ball rolling -- but doctors in

general are either hostile or indifferent to Gottschall's work, at least

partly because it has the potential to reduce their income. Still, there

are some doctors who know about it and ought to be doing more.

>Again, it is difficult to disentangle,

>because when the immune system goes bonkers, it DOES cause the microbes

>to go nuts too, which also causes damage.

Heidi, think about how the immune system become sensitized to these

proteins in the first place: intestinal permeability is altered and

increased because of damage to the gut. Now, how does this happen? Are

you really going to say that when candida overgrows, converts to its fungal

form and starts penetrating the intestine that it's done so by feeding on

gluten? Or that gluten has damaged the intestine, ripping holes in the

wall which candida then just takes advantage of? Sugars and starches are

food sources for microbes of all kinds. This isn't to say gluten is a

great thing. All the low-carb people eating isolated gluten are merely

trading one problem for another, particularly since their guts are no doubt

already compromised. But the mechanism in Gottschall's theory is clear and

not contradicted by anything, while the mechanisms of the gluten theory are

very uncertain.

As to the gene issue, I'll comment further. Wheat is a food of

civilization and agriculture, and as such is a very recent addition. Prior

to agriculture our carb consumption -- and particularly our starch

consumption -- was much, much lower. As people discovered the healthy (or

less unhealthy) ways of preparing these grains, no doubt there were many

waves of bowel disease -- and many people dying from proximate causes

including the resulting immune reaction to various proteins crossing the

intestinal walls incompletely digested.

-

[Guest guest]

>And people with bowel disease can get sick if they eat a tiny piece of

>chicken that has been velvetted -- soaked in water in which a little

>cornstarch has been dissolved. AFAIK there's no protein left in pure

>cornstarch, but many people will still get violently ill, because the bad

>organisms in their gut can flare on even tiny amounts of fuel.

>

>-

OK -- but how do you know whether they are getting sick from

1. The starch or

2. From the corn protein?

Yes, there is leftover corn protein in cornstarch, and

it is common for immune disorders to " flare " at microscopic amounts

of something. But when I grow bacteria in a jar (i.e. yeast or kefir),

microscopic

amounts of sugar don't do diddly for them -- they flare at LOTS of sugar.

Bacteria grow in direct response to the amount of food they get, so do

yeast.

On the other hand, if there is an immune response, the chicken will

not be properly digested, and the chicken will thereby become food

for bacteria, and you will get a bacterial overgrowth. The immune response

will suppress the pancreatic enzymes, and maybe even the stomach

acids, resulting in lots of undigested chicken and fat for the bacteria to

eat. THEN you get the bacterial overgrowth, which results in all kinds

of bad things. In both #1 and #2 you get bacterial overgrowth, but

the mechanisms are different.

So my intuition would go with #2 -- but unless someone took samples

from the guts of those people, or watched with an endoscope, how would

you tell the difference? Neither you nor I could know for sure unless someone

tested the hypothesis. Has Gottschall actually taken biopsies or gut samples

and analyzed them? To my knowledge all her information is based on empirical

experimentation " we did this and it worked " (and I agree, it does work).

Anyway, if you listen in on any of the celiac groups, you will hear a lot

of people getting violently ill off something like soy sauce (fermented

but maybe has wheat in it) on some chicken. I got really sick once off

a lamb chop that was cut in a deli that was also processing " stuffing "

for chops (this one wasn't stuffed, but it must have gotten some stuffing

on it at one point). But it isn't the starch I reacted to -- and I can test

this hypothesis by eating a whole boiled potato (which would put me

to sleep but would not bother my gut at all).

The argument is a little moot in one sense because a large

number of people with gluten intolerance also react to other

grains -- esp. the " intractable " group that tend to go with Gottschall.

But it is an important point because some people also react

to things like eggs and cheese, which are low carb.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

>In an ideal future (one we may not get or even come close to) the science

>of genetics would yield tremendous insights into the human organism. Right

>now, though, it's every bit as bad as the science of the lipid hypothesis,

>and maybe even worse. These so-called " scientists " are not looking at the

>human mechanism as a whole, they're looking at individual genes and

>reactions taken completely out of context in the hope of developing

>patentable and highly profitable drugs.

Well, that's a generalized statement and doesn't really address

the specific issue. Most of the " scientists " are in Europe, and they

are trying to lower health care costs by doing research into non-drug

therapies. It's easy to say " well, genetics is bad science " , but when

a person has a certain gene, and everyone with that gene develops

disease X, then that is pretty good evidence that the gene means something.

Some gene mapping is more accurate than others, and some genetics are

very complicated (and the gene folks will say so) but the HLA gene connection

with celiac is pretty well figured out. 98% of celiacs have one of two genes,

and 1/3 of the general population has those genes. So either it is a really

weird example of random chance, or maybe, as someone suggested, wheat

allergy changes your genes, or maybe the gene means something.

Anyway, there is a huge opposition to this idea, and it has taken about 40

years to even get any publicity. You are right that the drug companies

are going to try for a quick fix though.

>I repeat my earlier point: many protein sensitivities go away once

>SCD-illegal starches and sugars are eliminated for long enough to allow the

>bowel to heal. So, for example, someone who was allergic to eggs could,

>after sufficient healing, eat eggs without difficulty. The same cannot be

>said of SCD-illegal carbs. Those people were producing egg protein

>antibodies, but that production wasn't the root cause of the problem.

It's an interesting hypothesis. No research on it yet. I agree that many

protein sensitivities DO go away. It depends on the kind of sensitivity.

IgE allergies come and go, and IgG probably does. There is no evidence

that IgA ones do though. The immune system is a funny thing -- in theory

when you get a cold, you never get the same one again. But if you get

some other viruses, your body forgets after 5 years. This isn't bad science,

it is just new science -- until recently " food allergies " were assumed to

be a form of hysteria, all psychological.

>And I add another point: people with bowel disease suffer flares even when

>consuming purified illegal starches and sugars with zero protein content.

Which points more to an allergy. In Europe they are using purified wheat

starch, which does not cause damage in short term use (or so the studies

say). But in long term use, people who eat it do get damage. But other

people who eat lots of rice and soda pop have zero gut damage.

I'm sure there are people who react *only* to starches too, which

confounds the issue.

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Cabrita Software

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

>Heidi, I'm getting sick of repeating myself, and I'm not going to keep

>doing it indefinitely. If you can't or won't hear what I'm saying, fine,

>we'll end this discussion. But if you can, I'll repeat, one last time:

>TAKE THE BREAD OUT OF THE EQUATION SINCE IT HAS GLUTEN AND REPLACE IT WITH

>AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF PURIFIED STARCH OR SCD-ILLEGAL SUGAR AND YOU'LL

>HAVE THE SAME REACTION. (I don't mean you specifically; I don't know what

>kind of bowel problems you might have and I'm not going to speculate.)

But that is in fact exactly what thousands of people with bowel problems are

doing! Replacing wheat with other carbs, and doing just fine. That is

my point. My problems were similar to Crohns, but never diagnosed (I just

started experimenting).

>Now, you can protest that there must have been some infinitesimal quantity

>of protein in there, but it begins to sound like the desperate flailing of

>the lipid proponents,

It is not flailing to the people who suffer from the problem. None of them

are trying to defend a hypothesis, none that I know are scientists.

They are just trying to feed themselves without feeling like they swallowed

rat poison. And their reactions have been well-studied -- one of the best

tests out now is the " rectal challenge " where they put a little gluten solution

in the rectum and watch the reaction -- the reaction is much too fast for

bacteria, it is like a skin-prick test for allergies. The tissues get red

and inflamed,

when exposed to gluten (no starch).

>Exactly. Nobody's done a proper study of people who follow the SCD diet

>and do exactly that, but nonetheless it's very clear that it works.

Sure. It works great.

> I wish

>some doctors would publish retrospective studies of their patients who

>follow the SCD -- retrospective studies are far from ideal, but at least

>such a publication might help get the ball rolling -- but doctors in

>general are either hostile or indifferent to Gottschall's work, at least

>partly because it has the potential to reduce their income. Still, there

>are some doctors who know about it and ought to be doing more.

Part of the problem is that her theories don't jibe with a TON of

research, and she has not accounted for the descrepency. The current

research would indicate that her diet would work great, but not

for the reasons she thinks it does.

>Heidi, think about how the immune system become sensitized to these

>proteins in the first place: intestinal permeability is altered and

>increased because of damage to the gut. Now, how does this happen? Are

>you really going to say that when candida overgrows, converts to its fungal

>form and starts penetrating the intestine that it's done so by feeding on

>gluten? Or that gluten has damaged the intestine, ripping holes in the

>wall which candida then just takes advantage of?

The latter. In vitro (and microscopically, via biopsy), gliaden sticks to

the villi (it is a lectin, and likes to stick to carbs, which are on the

villi).

Then the IgA attacks it, and damages the villi. The villi flatten, then start

getting shorter and shorter, and finally there are no more villi. Sure,

candida would take advantage of this, esp. since, without the villi,

there would be lots of stuff for them to eat. Candida does not eat

gluten, but gluten is a kind of toxin in its own right, and the IgA

is really hard on the gut. Again, in vitro, you can watch the antibodies

attack tissues (that is how they used to test for it, I think, using

monkey gut).

> But the mechanism in Gottschall's theory is clear and

>not contradicted by anything, while the mechanisms of the gluten theory are

>very uncertain.

Here is where we disagree. The mechanisms of the gluten theory

are not uncertain at all -- they have been studied for decades and they

can be watched on a microscope. Whereas no one has watched Gottschall's

reaction at all (seeing bacteria multiply on minute amounts of starch

and attack gut tissue). If Gottschall's hypothesis is sound, it SHOULD

be really easy to do in vitro -- bacteria are easy to grow, after all.

So on one hand you have hundreds of studies, and experience of

thousands of people with gluten reactions. On the other side you

have one woman with a theory and a decent diet that works. It's a

little imbalanced! Quoting the lipid issue doesn't prove anything --

the pro-lipid people also have tons of studies on their side, it isn't

just theory. The gluten theory is NOT at odds with the SCD in

practice, just in theory.

>As to the gene issue, I'll comment further. Wheat is a food of

>civilization and agriculture, and as such is a very recent addition. Prior

>to agriculture our carb consumption -- and particularly our starch

>consumption -- was much, much lower. As people discovered the healthy (or

>less unhealthy) ways of preparing these grains, no doubt there were many

>waves of bowel disease -- and many people dying from proximate causes

>including the resulting immune reaction to various proteins crossing the

>intestinal walls incompletely digested.

Agreed. More people died, though, and are dying, if they have a certain

gene. Would they have died if they treated the grains correctly? Again, it

is untested. There is the possibility, though, isn't there, that maybe, just

maybe, there are toxins in foods that really do hurt people that you

can't get out by soaking or preparing correctly? That maybe some

people react to some foods no matter what?

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

Yes. I use one cup of milk, or diluted coconut milk, per shake, and anywhere

from two to six eggs.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

So it's one cup of milk to six eggs?

Thanks

Donna

----- Original Message -----

From: Judith Alta

Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:33 PM

Subject: RE: Re: raw eggs?

The amount of coconut milk seems misleading. I dilute the coconut milk

and then put one cup of it in the blender.

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Well, that's a generalized statement and doesn't really address

>the specific issue.

Not the specific issue, just the reliance on scientific consensus and

argument on authority. Look where that got us with animal fat.

>when

>a person has a certain gene, and everyone with that gene develops

>disease X, then that is pretty good evidence that the gene means something.

Sure, the gene means something, but remember that there is no phenotype

without the environment. Countless researchers are barking up dozens of

wrong trees by looking at how certain genes (seem to them to) work in the

current SAD environment. They're coming at the problem with a fervent

belief in the lipid hypothesis, so all their conclusions are colored and

even altered by that belief. That's why their conclusions tend to be

garbage -- " more kaka from the schlockmeisters " , as Dr. Byrnes put it. ALL

dietary " science " is suspect and has to be examined rigorously.

>98% of celiacs have one of two genes,

>and 1/3 of the general population has those genes. So either it is a really

>weird example of random chance, or maybe, as someone suggested, wheat

>allergy changes your genes, or maybe the gene means something.

Let's postulate a few hypothetical foods, GLOP and GOOP and GUNK. They're

starchy foods, like wheat, and they also have somewhat difficult-to-digest

proteins which we'll call URK and UCK and UGH for the purpose of this

example. Now imagine that in the distant past, various tribes and peoples

found out via trial and error how to prepare GLOP and GOOP and GUNK in such

a way that their starch was partially predigested and all their

antinutrients were neutralized.

This process of discovery would've taken time, and during that process,

many people would've gotten sick, and many of those would have died. But

it wouldn't have taken so much time that every single potentially sensitive

person died, because then the entire species might have died, and people

would've adapted faster anyway.

Anyway, during this process, many people would've suffered from bowel

disease, increased intestinal permeability, and then a resulting immune

sensitization to URK and UCK and UGH. Depending on which processes URK and

UCK and UGH interfered with, some people might die. Maybe people with URK

sensitivities died the fastest and UGH the slowest, with the UCK-sensitive

somewhere in between.

And then everyone discovered that you have to soak these foods in an acid

medium for awhile and eat them with plenty of animal fat and so on and so

forth, and everyone got healthier again (for the time being).

Fast-forward to the present. The modern fashion is to eat GLOP and GOOP

and GUNK straight out of the box, so to speak, with no tedious

preparation. Is it really that surprising that you're going to notice

certain ailments correlating with certain genes? Of course not! Back when

the G-foods were introduced, preparation technology was devised before

certain genes could be entirely bred out of the species. But that most

certainly doesn't mean that the genes -- or even the U-proteins in the

G-foods -- *cause* the ailments. They're merely links in the chain of

causation.

>It's an interesting hypothesis. No research on it yet. I agree that many

>protein sensitivities DO go away.

No, there's little to no research just the way that there's very little

research designed to test the idea that animal fat is good for you. That

recent preliminary trial at, I think, Duke, of a low-carb diet, which

Atkins had to sponsor himself, is one of the first. Because medicine is an

industry, a commercial venture.

And BTW, look at the continuum of protein sensitivities. Generally

speaking, the more " foreign " the protein, the faster someone is likely to

become sensitive to it and the longer it's likely to take to get rid of the

sensitivity. So as bowel disease progresses, you'll tend to see an immune

response to grain proteins first, then to milk and egg proteins (I'm not

sure which generally comes first, but I'd assume milk) and only to meat at

the very end. And these sensitivities tend to resolve in the reverse order

-- meat first. Because meat protein is like our protein, and is our

natural diet, it takes the largest amount of leakage of incompletely

digested protein through damaged intestinal walls to elicit a response.

>Which points more to an allergy.

No, it doesn't. You cannot physically be allergic to a carbohydrate,

Heidi, only to a protein. And furthermore, what is so hard to believe

about the idea that an infusion of food causes an organism to bloom? It's

not exactly a controversial idea that you ought to completely cut out sugar

if you have a candida problem, for example. And BTW, look at the preferred

culturing medium for organisms in the laboratory -- agar, a starch.

>But other

>people who eat lots of rice and soda pop have zero gut damage.

Obviously different people have different genetic adaptations to

carbs. And even then, how reliable is this data? How long have the people

who've been eating lots of rice and soda actually been eating it? And look

at the fact that just as obesity has risen as the low-fat theory has been

pushed and animal fat consumption has declined, bowel disease has risen as

sugar and starch consumption have increased.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>But when I grow bacteria in a jar (i.e. yeast or kefir),

>microscopic

>amounts of sugar don't do diddly for them -- they flare at LOTS of sugar.

>Bacteria grow in direct response to the amount of food they get, so do

>yeast.

This is true, and I admit that on the surface, this is where Gottschall's

theory seems to break down, but there are two reasons it actually holds

up. First, the gluten theory requires a protein to be there to precipitate

a flare, even if it's just a trace amount of corn protein in purified corn

starch. But pure sucrose, which has absolutely no trace of protein at all,

causes flares in people sensitive to sucrose. Second, the human gut is not

a jar, in which the only available food is the sugar you add to the

solution. As rotting flesh and other diseases attest, microbes can eat

other foods too, but their ability to do so in the human body depends on

the strength of the immune system. A relatively small amount of sugar and

provide the initial impetus for a flare which seems out of all proportion

to the amount of sugar consumed. Also, these microbes spew out toxic waste

products. The sicker you are, the more sensitive you'll be to smaller

amounts of these poisons, so a " flare " doesn't even have to be a dramatic

microbe population bloom.

>So my intuition would go with #2

Well, look at how the two theories handle the overall available body of facts.

In Gottschall's theory, you damage the gut by flooding it with starch and

sugar it's unsuited or insufficiently suited to digest. These starches and

sugars provide fuel for microbes which overgrow, damage the mucous lining,

damage the walls of the intestines, increase intestinal permeability, and

cause undigested and incompletely digested food molecules to pass through

the intestinal walls and into the rest of the body where they provoke an

immune response. This immune response proceeds from the most foreign

proteins through progressively less and less foreign proteins until even

auto-immune reactions occur. Ceasing consumption of the offending starches

and sugars, IOW following the Specific Carbohydrate Diet, allows the gut to

heal by starving bad bugs -- only foods the body itself can digest are

eaten. And in the early stages of healing, when the gut is still very

damaged, most people find that they can't even eat many " legal " carbs

because their gut is still too damaged to digest them and those carbs

therefore wind up being fuel for bad microbes.

This is a very clean theory that squares with available biochemistry and

all the evident facts. Patients recover and the diet has a very high

success rate -- and typically you find that those few patients who don't

recover are eating way too many " legal " carbs, like honey, and not enough

of the fats and fat-soluble vitamins (and other nutrients) that we WAP

types know and love so much. Elaine didn't really discuss macronutrient

ratios, and I think that's one of her few failings. (I find it very

interesting that while Sally didn't really discuss macronutrient ratios in

NT, and NT could support an extremely carby diet, every single one of the

WAPF board members who supplied a food diary for the latest issue of Wise

Traditions got more than half of their calories from fat on every day the

diary covered, without exception.)

The gluten theory by contrast doesn't account for the development of

similar sensitivities to other proteins, or for the abatement of those

sensitivities.

Certainly a lot of scientific work needs to be done on this subject, but

there's still a lot of very telling information available.

>But it isn't the starch I reacted to -- and I can test

>this hypothesis by eating a whole boiled potato (which would put me

>to sleep but would not bother my gut at all).

Again, " starch " is not a single thing. There are many different starches

out there just as there are different sugars and proteins and

fats. Treating all starch as " starch " is the same as treating all fat as

" fat " , or all omega 3 fats as the same thing.

Look on the SCD mailing list and in the archives. Different people

tolerated different legal and illegal carbs to different degrees, and

individuals tolerated individual carbs differently at different stages of

their lives and their diseases. Did you ever have extreme bowel

disease? If you did, I'm willing to bet you'd have trouble with

potatoes. But as far as potatoes go, I'm not aware of any traditional

societies which ate potatoes and took special pains to prepare them to

neutralize antinutrients the way healthy traditional societies always

prepared grains and legumes. And that preparation has absolutely nothing

to do with the protein content of any of those foods.

>But it is an important point because some people also react

>to things like eggs and cheese, which are low carb.

These people have severely compromised their intestines, so all sorts of

proteins pass into their bodies and provoke immune reactions.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>But that is in fact exactly what thousands of people with bowel problems are

>doing! Replacing wheat with other carbs, and doing just fine.

Has replacing wheat with the same amount of, I don't know, spelt, say,

cured anybody? (And I'm not talking about spelt; since I can't eat any

grains I haven't kept up on the different protein and carb profiles of

different grains, so if you're prefer to replace spelt with some other

low-gluten grain, that's fine.) The SCD diet, which doesn't restrict carbs

per se, only specific carbs (and which also doesn't restrict healthy fats

like butter and meat fat and lard, though it unfortunately doesn't make a

point of incorporating a lot of those fats into the diet) shows extreme

success by removing certain carbs based exclusively on the types of

starches and sugars they contain and allowing only those carb foods which

we're biochemically well-adapted to digest.

That's why disaccharides are illegal (and dairy has to be fermented for 24

hours, to break down virtually all the lactose) -- most people just don't

have much capacity for generating enzymes which will break them down, and

so the relentless consumption of sugar eventually stresses out their

digestive systems and allows bad microbes to flourish.

>It is not flailing to the people who suffer from the problem. None of them

>are trying to defend a hypothesis, none that I know are scientists.

Actually, I've observed extreme fanaticism on many mailing lists. Many

places, for example, are *extremely* hostile to the SCD theory and won't

even allow mention of it. (It probably doesn't help that a lot of these

organizations and lists are run and supported secretly by commercial

interests which stand to lose if everybody followed Gottschall and gain if

everybody starts taking drugs and manufactured food products.)

>And their reactions have been well-studied -- one of the best

>tests out now is the " rectal challenge " where they put a little gluten

>solution

>in the rectum and watch the reaction -- the reaction is much too fast for

>bacteria, it is like a skin-prick test for allergies. The tissues get red

>and inflamed,

>when exposed to gluten (no starch).

Sure, but this is getting the cart before the horse. Take somebody who's

become sensitized to beef protein and perform the same test -- you'll see

the same result. I'm not arguing that these immune reactions don't cause a

lot of problems. I'm just arguing that they're not the root cause of the

disease. Heal the gut, heal the person and you'll see the beef reaction go

away. Do the same and you'll at the very least see the gluten reaction

diminish, though as it's much more alien to the body than beef proteins are

the reaction may never go away entirely once it's shown up.

>Part of the problem is that her theories don't jibe with a TON of

>research, and she has not accounted for the descrepency.

She's an old woman now, and frankly I don't think she'll be doing a lot

more accounting for anything. (And I worry that there's nobody else to

carry the torch. At least with the lipid hypothesis there are a few

scientists who are in the opposition. It may be that a lot more people

will have to suffer from bowel disease -- that bowel disease will have to

reach the same sort of critical mass that obesity and heart disease already

have -- before much more of an opposition forms.)

As to the " TON " of research, I argue that it's just as flawed as all the

" research " supporting the lipid hypothesis.

>Again, in vitro, you can watch the antibodies

>attack tissues (that is how they used to test for it, I think, using

>monkey gut).

In vitro is quite dramatically different from in vivo, and even in vivo

results can be highly misleading. I can cite countless in vitro AND in

vitro tests to support the lipid hypothesis, for example. Here's an

obvious question about these gluten-theory-supporting tests: in what

condition was the gut when it was exposed to the gluten in the

experiment? Since the conventional wisdom is that starch is harmless,

scientists aren't going to bother securing guts which are healthy according

to *Gottschall's* standards, but you can bet they'll tout any immune

reaction as proof that they're right.

As to Gottschall addressing it, the latest edition of her book (which I

don't have; I think I have the second-to-last) has a supplement

specifically about celiac disease and the gluten hypothesis.

>Here is where we disagree. The mechanisms of the gluten theory

>are not uncertain at all -- they have been studied for decades and they

>can be watched on a microscope. Whereas no one has watched Gottschall's

>reaction at all (seeing bacteria multiply on minute amounts of starch

>and attack gut tissue). If Gottschall's hypothesis is sound, it SHOULD

>be really easy to do in vitro -- bacteria are easy to grow, after all.

I've already addressed part of this elsewhere, but again, you're

mischaracterizing her theory. I'm not arguing that there's no such thing

as an immune response to gluten -- or to egg protein or casein or beef

proteins for that matter. And obviously that response plays a role in the

disease condition once the sensitivity is created, and obviously people

will reduce their symptoms by avoiding proteins they've become sensitive

to. So somebody who has bowel disease and has become sensitive to, say,

beef, obviously has to avoid beef like the plague for awhile, until the gut

is healed. Similarly, somebody who has become sensitive to gluten will

take care of some symptoms by avoiding gluten. But the root microbe

problem will not be addressed as long as there are substantial fuel-sources

in the diet for those microbes, and in fact countless people have tried to

modify the SCD by trying gluten-free carb foods, and they've only gotten

somewhat better, and generally only for some time.

How do you address the problem of people who are not cured by avoiding

gluten (and gliadin, etc.) but are cured by following the SCD, which

distinguishes between good and bad foods based on the types of sugars and

starches to be found in them, irrespective of protein content?

How do you address the fact that so many people who can't tolerate plain

milk can tolerate fully-fermented milk in which there's virtually no

residual lactose, and that even most people who've developed a serious

immune sensitization to casein can consume yoghurt after the gut has been

allowed to heal? This is a huge, gaping hole in the gluten/gliadin/casein

theory.

>The gluten theory is NOT at odds with the SCD in

>practice, just in theory.

It's at odds in practice as well as theory, because many starchy and sugary

foods are allowed on a gluten-avoidance diet which are not allowed under

the SCD, and many, many people have only gotten better after eliminating

even those starches and sugars which the SCD doesn't allow but the gluten

people do.

>Agreed. More people died, though, and are dying, if they have a certain

>gene. Would they have died if they treated the grains correctly? Again, it

>is untested.

Actually, it might have been tested, but I don't know, we might not have

all the data available. How many cultures actually eschewed grains

altogether? The Masai, the Eskimos, sure, but how many others? Surely

almost everyone with bowel disease had grain-eating ancestors. My

background is Russian and British -- both cultures which ate abundantly of

grains, and yet I can't touch them with a ten-foot pole. But this is at

least partly an assumption. We don't have Weston A. Price-style data on

every culture which gave rise to all of us today.

>There is the possibility, though, isn't there, that maybe, just

>maybe, there are toxins in foods that really do hurt people that you

>can't get out by soaking or preparing correctly? That maybe some

>people react to some foods no matter what?

Well, in one sense it's a certainty in that there are poisons in the

natural world which will harm at least most people, if not all.

But bowel disease is a modern disease, yes, a disease of civilization, but

especially of modern civilization. Look at all those cultures which

successfully ate grains by preparing them properly. (And this is probably

Elaine's biggest mistake, not considering the preparation issue, except

that proper preparation comes too late for somebody who's already

sick. Just as it took a few generations for Pottenger to restore full

healthy and vitality to his cats, I expect many lines of people would need

to avoid grains even properly prepared not just for months or years but for

generations.)

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Again, in vitro, you can watch the antibodies

>attack tissues (that is how they used to test for it, I think, using

>monkey gut).

To extend my earlier point further, have these experiments demonstrating

antibody reaction been done with people and tissues already sensitized to

gluten? Because if so, the experiments reveal nothing about the *origins*

of the immune reaction and therefore don't in any way contridict

Gottschall's theory.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>>In Gottschall's theory, you damage the gut by flooding it with starch

and

sugar it's unsuited or insufficiently suited to digest. These starches and

sugars provide fuel for microbes which overgrow, damage the mucous lining,

damage the walls of the intestines, increase intestinal permeability...

------>paul, this is the part of gottschall's book that confused me the

most. i read it a long time ago (last year when you first recommended it to

me) so i'm going on memory...but i think i remember reading the section on

how various foods feed gut microbes that overgrow and cause problems. and i

remember thinking that she didn't differentiate between *beneficial* and

*harmful* bacteria. since beneficial bacteria are extremely important for

maintaining health, i couldn't understand why she lumped all gut bacteria

into the " harmful " category. am i remembering wrong...? does she discuss how

to develop and maintain *healthy* gut bacterial colonies?

>>>>>But as far as potatoes go, I'm not aware of any traditional

societies which ate potatoes and took special pains to prepare them to

neutralize antinutrients the way healthy traditional societies always

prepared grains and legumes. And that preparation has absolutely nothing

to do with the protein content of any of those foods.

------> " primitive " south american indians ate potatoes and dipped them in

clay to neutralize toxins. IIRC, their potatoes had much higher protein

content than modern ones, and they had to breed them to be more starchy

because the proteins were difficult to digest. i remember reading this in

" 10,000 years from eden " but leant the book out so can't verify.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>i couldn't understand why she lumped all gut bacteria

>into the " harmful " category. am i remembering wrong...? does she discuss how

>to develop and maintain *healthy* gut bacterial colonies?

She absolutely does. In fact, daily consumption of homemade full-fat

yoghurt (fermented for 24 hours to remove virtually all the lactose) is an

absolutely essential cornerstone of the diet specifically because it

provides beneficial bacteria to colonize the gut. (And a lot of people on

the SCD diet make their yoghurt using half cream and half milk; that's

where I got the idea, and I haven't looked back since.)

>------> " primitive " south american indians ate potatoes and dipped them in

>clay to neutralize toxins. IIRC, their potatoes had much higher protein

>content than modern ones, and they had to breed them to be more starchy

>because the proteins were difficult to digest. i remember reading this in

> " 10,000 years from eden " but leant the book out so can't verify.

Hmm, that sort of rings a bell (I read that book recently) but what does

dipping them in ashes mean? With lacto-fermentation and acid soaking there

are clear processes that go on to render a food healthier and more

digestible, but what does a little ash accomplish?

-

[Guest guest]

>------> " primitive " south american indians ate potatoes and dipped them in

>clay to neutralize toxins. IIRC, their potatoes had much higher protein

>content than modern ones, and they had to breed them to be more starchy

>because the proteins were difficult to digest. i remember reading this in

> " 10,000 years from eden " but leant the book out so can't verify.

>>>>Hmm, that sort of rings a bell (I read that book recently) but what does

dipping them in ashes mean? With lacto-fermentation and acid soaking there

are clear processes that go on to render a food healthier and more

digestible, but what does a little ash accomplish?

---->i don't think it was ashes, i think it was clay suspended in water. in

fact, i think WAP writes about this too - they carried the clay/water

solution around in their napsacks when they traveled. IIRC, the clay binds

toxins, preventing absorption.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>i don't think it was ashes, i think it was clay suspended in water. in

>fact, i think WAP writes about this too - they carried the clay/water

>solution around in their napsacks when they traveled. IIRC, the clay binds

>toxins, preventing absorption.

Ack, you're right, my brain fart. (Must be eating too much fiber! <g>)

-