Re: Re: Invasive Breast Cancer

[Guest guest]

Well, when the reference I put up said 70-80% amylopectin, I have no idea if

that's 70% of ____, i.e. of the *starch*, of the grain itself, and if so, in

volume, calories, etc??? It also lists sorghum as something like 76% starch

on average, which could mean it's almost all amylopectin, or could mean 70% of

that 76% (more likely as ave 76% would mean 70-80% was 100% of the starch).

Anyway, the reference Suze had had two corns, one was 70% amylose, one was 70%

amylopectin. The 70% amylose, for whatever reason, had 30 times the RS of

the 70% amylopectin corn, so it sounds more complicated than amylose=RS.

I don't know... I think we agree it is better not to consume a whole lot of

grains regardless.

Chris

In a message dated 7/23/03 1:46:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

>

> In this reference, sorghum 36% RS in whole grain form, which puts it up

> with legumes, but 1.6% as a flour -- I don't know if that means " dehulled

> flour "

> or what. Interestingly I also found a link that says sorghum protein

> is slower to digest than wheat protein (good or bad? who knows) and that

> it is less digestible after cooking. But even if it is 36% RS, wouldn't that

>

> leave about 64% NOT RS? So the two numbers aren't that far off, between

> this and Suze's. And there are lots of different kinds of sorghum too!

>

> Corn seems to keep it's RS after it is turned into flour.

>

> http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/02legume.html

>

> Anyway, I repeat: I eat sorghum mainly because it is NOT WHEAT,

> and I use it for a lot of absolutely decadent stuff that I'm

> not going to defend on a health basis (except maybe that

> sharing a nice gooey family dessert weekly is good for

> the social brain).

>

> For RS, I think legumes are a better bet, and they have lots of

> other good stuff in them too.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>There must be more than one way of preventing the gut cancer.  Resistant

>starch comes mostly in grains, no?  And most humans never ate any grains,

and

>humans evolved on low-starch diets.  Hunter-gatherers would probably have

little

>if any in the diet, wouldn't they?

Was thinking this morning about stomach cancer and the few studies that show

it's preponderance in blood type A. The most common but not the only is

D'Adamo's Eat Right For Your Blood Type. Am blood type A and know I could not

function off his near vegetarian diet recommendation. IIRC, he places this

blood group originating in Europe. After reading DG and seeing the number of

Italian (just out of the Fertile Crescent grain originated in) 6 year olds

(new

standard school testing) that are being found with celiac disease or gluten

sensitivity and the statistics Heidi posted regarding insurance and a CD

diagnosis it pretty clear grain is an implication.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>-----> i don't think so. her bio in the back of the book says that she spent

>four years postgraduate, when she was a member of the dept. of cell science

>at u. western ontario zoology dept. " investigating the effects of various

>sugars on the digestive tract working mainly on the cellular level. " then

>she got her (2nd?) grad degree from that dept. in '79. so that work was in

>the 70s. then she continued studying " the changes that occur in the bowel

>wall in inflammatory bowel disease " the following year. so maybe most of her

>investigative work is about 20 years old? the book's first publication

>appears to be in '94, so i would guess that it would at least be up to date

>in '94.

That sounds plausible. I'm not sure how much she has kept up with

more recent developments though, based on the one interview

I've read. I had the same issue with Lutz ( " Life without Bread " ) -- he

did some great experiments, but didn't really integrate

other people's work to the degree I would have liked.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> Are you saying that because the gliaden attaches to the starch?

>>

>According to Gottschal, the gliaden molecule *surrounds* the starch, until it

>begins to be digested.

OK. Oil does that too, when you cook starch with oil.

>I don't know whether most get better or not, but some don't, and those who

>don't often get better on SCD, which seems to indicate for those individuals

SCD

>is working for the reasons Gottschal claims it works.

It COULD be for those reasons, but it could also be because it forces the

people onto a better diet in general. Celiacs are notorious for going

on starch binges after learning they can't eat wheat -- a lot of the

starch is contaminated, and high-starch diets just aren't conducive

to healing. AND they don't eat probiotics. A lot of people in the celiac

group have discussed that. A lower-starch diet plus probiotics is

VERY effective, though most people who do that aren't quite as

draconian as the SCD.

>Sure. But I'll speak from my experience. I've had some problme for the last

>few weeks that has been very mild in symptoms, but has been producing

>rumbling in my tummy, gas I can hear moving around (though not too much

farting), and

>odd stools that are almost diarrhea but not quite, (soft and formless but not

>really fluid) and very light in color, sometimes brown, sometimes grey and

>once or twice real diarrhea. I was drinking a half gallon of kefir a day. Now

>I've been pretty much following SCD for the third day and I've been making

>half as much kefir fermented for 48 hours, which according to Dom eliminates

all

>the lactose. Before I was still drinking the kefir, but it wasn't fighitng

>off the bug very well, and in fact when I drank it, I would here a little bit

of

>rumbling inside, though not as much as other foods. When I drink the 48-hr

>kefir, I don't get any rumbling. I made a smoothie for my mom this morning

>with straight milk in it and I tasted a bit to check the sweetness and one sip

>gave me some rumbling. (could have been coincidence, but maybe not). Anyway,

>more importantly, my symptoms are going away very fast, whereas before they

>were staying steady for 2-3 weeks, despite a half gallon a day of kefir,

>kombucha, kimchi, etc.

Which to me sounds like you might be lactose intolerant, or to fructose (i.e.

not digesting them). And probiotics may not help completely. Undigested

sugars and starches sure can cause problems, no dispute there.

>I don't know why you think this. People " starve out " candida all the time--

>it's one of the main parts of all the candida protocols!

You can get rid of candida specifically by eating stuff that encourages bacteria

--

i.e. less starch and sugar, more meat/fats. But you can't get rid

of " bacteria/yeast " in general -- bacteria eat meat and cabbage

and just about everything else. If you want to get rid of bacteria

in general, you have to take a broad spectrum antibiotic and

maybe Pepto Bismol and clean out the whole gut, and they'll

come right back as soon as you eat something.

>There must be more than one way of preventing the gut cancer. Resistant

>starch comes mostly in grains, no? And most humans never ate any grains, and

>humans evolved on low-starch diets. Hunter-gatherers would probably have

little

>if any in the diet, wouldn't they?

>

>Some studies indicate the exact opposite, such as one Gottschal cites that

>found an increase relationship between bad bacteria in the colon and increased

>intake of RS. I would guess the discrepancies could be attributed to different

>bacterial make-up of the colon in different people.

I'd think that is true. Most cultures eat lots of probiotics. Like I said

before, I don't think bacteria are that picky, and if you have the

wrong ones, food in general feeds them. Yeasts DO seem to

feed more on sugars, so you can tilt the balance more toward

bacteria by eating less sugar/starch. I base this mainly on my

counter-bacteria. But undigested lactose and fructose in

particular, and the sugar in beans, seem to encourage the rumbly

kind of bacteria more? Or is it yeasts? Although lately I've had

no issues with beans either, so who knows.

>I'm not going to say RS is bad for everyone, and I don't think there's

>grounds to say it. I do think that for people with gut problems it would be

easier

>to health the gut while eliminating starch, though, resistant or not.

I'd tend to agree. Esp. the grain starches -- there are just too

many issues with grains. And for most people, avoiding ALL

of something is easier than avoiding SOME of it. My dispute

with Gottschal has to do with the idea that celiacs can go

back to eating gluten eventually -- I disagree with her theorizing,

not with the results. Telling celiacs they can eat gluten someday is

downright irresponsible, unless you have some really good

evidence, which no one has. Telling people with got problems

not to eat starch might really help some people, isn't likely

to hurt anyone.

>Because they'd choke on the corn flour!

No, you mix it with liquid. For instance, they feed pigs old bread

mixed with milk. Or I feed my chickens flour mixed with water

(to get rid of breading etc.).

>

>According to several things I've read, in NT and on the internet, *raw* honey

>does *not* cause blood sugar/insulin problems in the same amounts that other

>sugars do.

Hm. I should test that with my handy blood glucose tester ...

>> used to eat a LOT of oatmeal. My grandad said he " grew up " on oatmeal. But

>> whole-grain

>> oatmeal doesn't digest very quickly.

>>

>

>

>Does it when it's fermented in a fish head?

?? IN a fish head? That sounds interesting ... hey, fermenting anything

makes it more digestible. I've never fermented oats

long (I don't eat oats).

>I think kefir has helped me a lot, but see my experience above in response to

>this. Depends on the problem and the degree, I'm sure.

I can't eat a huge amount of kefir -- I AM IgA reactive to casein though,

(via stool test, it's not me guessing) so I don't know if it is a lactose

issue or a casein issue. I make kefir-beer though (kefir grains plus fruit

juice)

and that seems to give the probiotic effect without the milk. Kefir breaks

down the lactose and maybe the casein to some degree, but it might not

>be enough.

>

> >

>> Like I said above, there seem to be some very detailed studies about the

>> action of RS

>> in intestines (mainly mouse intestines!), and they focus on the butyrate.

>> I'd guess you can get butyrate from meat/fat too -- the other main source

>> of it is rancid butter,

>

>Rancid or sour? What about in the butter fat of kefir?

I think Dom mentioned that kefir does in fact have butyrate. I don't

know if " rancid butter " is rancid or sour, all I know is someone said

that butyrate is what makes rancid butter smell bad.

>Yes, but why the best results with no-lactose yogurt/kefir....

Maybe butterfat is particularly good for making butyrate?

What I really don't get is that the gut seems to be designed

to feed off butyrate -- that is likely true for all animals,

because at a cellular level we tend to work similarly.

Animals eating grass could get it from digesting cellulose,

I guess, but what about meat eaters? The studies are

all concentrating on grains, but if butyrate is so important,

it's got to be available from another source -- grains are

rare in nature.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/23/03 1:39:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> OK. Oil does that too, when you cook starch with oil.

It does? I'm not sure I communicated that correctly. A single gliaden

molecule envelopes the wheat starch so that, simplifying a little bit, the

starch

is basically a ball inside a larger gliaden ball.

>

> >I don't know whether most get better or not, but some don't, and those who

> >don't often get better on SCD, which seems to indicate for those

> individuals SCD

> >is working for the reasons Gottschal claims it works.

>

> It COULD be for those reasons, but it could also be because it forces the

> people onto a better diet in general. Celiacs are notorious for going

> on starch binges after learning they can't eat wheat -- a lot of the

> starch is contaminated, and high-starch diets just aren't conducive

> to healing. AND they don't eat probiotics. A lot of people in the celiac

> group have discussed that. A lower-starch diet plus probiotics is

> VERY effective, though most people who do that aren't quite as

> draconian as the SCD.

Well, it's still moving in the SCD direction. And in fact, it is supportive

of Gottschal's position whether they are doing SCD or not, becuase it

indicates that a)bacteria and b)starch are both operative in celiac, rather than

the

more simple (simplistic?) theory that gluten is singularly operative.

> Which to me sounds like you might be lactose intolerant, or to fructose

> (i.e.

> not digesting them). And probiotics may not help completely. Undigested

> sugars and starches sure can cause problems, no dispute there.

I might be very very mildly lactose intolerant. I ordinarly don't have a

problem with this, but do get *occasional* rumblings. But no pain, no bloating,

and no excessive flatulence. It's my understanding that almost everyone gets

some mild gas from drinking milk. I read a study on medline that found

kefiring milk reduced farting by 40%. I imagine that's because it digested

about

40% of the lactose.

I think I also have a mild allergy to pasteurized casein. Do you use raw or

pasteurized milk for your kefilli? Sometimes I get asthmatic symptoms from

milk-- usually large amounts of pizza or ice cream-- and even kefir once or

twice when I made it with pasteurized milk. But I've never gotten the reaction

from raw milk, even in enormous quantities.

> You can get rid of candida specifically by eating stuff that encourages

> bacteria --

> i.e. less starch and sugar, more meat/fats. But you can't get rid

> of " bacteria/yeast " in general -- bacteria eat meat and cabbage

> and just about everything else. If you want to get rid of bacteria

> in general, you have to take a broad spectrum antibiotic and

> maybe Pepto Bismol and clean out the whole gut, and they'll

> come right back as soon as you eat something.

But apparently excessive starch/sugar, especially undigested, causes

overgrowths, and cutting that out seems to be effective in getting rid of the

overgrowth. Of course it doesn't eliminate them, and I don't know why anyone

would

have that goal.

> I'd think that is true. Most cultures eat lots of probiotics. Like I said

> before, I don't think bacteria are that picky, and if you have the

> wrong ones, food in general feeds them. Yeasts DO seem to

> feed more on sugars, so you can tilt the balance more toward

> bacteria by eating less sugar/starch. I base this mainly on my

> counter-bacteria. But undigested lactose and fructose in

> particular, and the sugar in beans, seem to encourage the rumbly

> kind of bacteria more? Or is it yeasts? Although lately I've had

> no issues with beans either, so who knows.

>

I don't know... but that's Gottschal's position.

> >I'm not going to say RS is bad for everyone, and I don't think there's

> >grounds to say it. I do think that for people with gut problems it would

> be easier

> >to health the gut while eliminating starch, though, resistant or not.

>

> I'd tend to agree. Esp. the grain starches -- there are just too

> many issues with grains. And for most people, avoiding ALL

> of something is easier than avoiding SOME of it. My dispute

> with Gottschal has to do with the idea that celiacs can go

> back to eating gluten eventually -- I disagree with her theorizing,

> not with the results. Telling celiacs they can eat gluten someday is

> downright irresponsible, unless you have some really good

> evidence, which no one has. Telling people with got problems

> not to eat starch might really help some people, isn't likely

> to hurt anyone.

She doesn't seem to say that explicitly, but she does sort of imply it. She

stresses to be very careful adding foods back into the diet, and not to add

more than one food a week so you can guage the reaction. She should emphasize

more that celiacs should not introduce gluten without careful monitoring beyond

symptoms though.

> >Because they'd choke on the corn flour!

>

> No, you mix it with liquid. For instance, they feed pigs old bread

> mixed with milk. Or I feed my chickens flour mixed with water

> (to get rid of breading etc.).

>

Oh, ok.

> >

> >According to several things I've read, in NT and on the internet, *raw*

> honey

> >does *not* cause blood sugar/insulin problems in the same amounts that

> other

> >sugars do.

>

> Hm. I should test that with my handy blood glucose tester ...

>

I'd be interested to hear the results.

Granted, large amounts beyond a certain point will throw it off just the same

I'd think.

>

> ?? IN a fish head? That sounds interesting ... hey, fermenting anything

> makes it more digestible. I've never fermented oats

> long (I don't eat oats).

The folks Price studied ate the oats fermented in fish heads. I don't know

whether they did the fermenting in the fish head, or fermented it first, and

then served it in fish heads.

I'm just wondering if something ferments for a while, if it would take a few

hours to make it into your lower intestine or colon and then get digested by

bacteria, how it could not get digested in a matter of *days* by bacteria.

>

> I can't eat a huge amount of kefir -- I AM IgA reactive to casein though,

> (via stool test, it's not me guessing) so I don't know if it is a lactose

> issue or a casein issue. I make kefir-beer though (kefir grains plus fruit

> juice)

> and that seems to give the probiotic effect without the milk. Kefir breaks

> down the lactose and maybe the casein to some degree, but it might not

> >be enough.

Is it raw? You've said before raw milk is hard for you to get. Like I said

above, I have a mild reaction to casein, but only pastuerized. Mercola's had

some stuff on this recently.

> I think Dom mentioned that kefir does in fact have butyrate. I don't

> know if " rancid butter " is rancid or sour, all I know is someone said

> that butyrate is what makes rancid butter smell bad.

>

Someone told me yesterday they could never eat yogurt because it's always

smelled to them like " milk that went bad. " I think some people confuse sour and

rancid, if they aren't accustomed to fermented foods.

>

> >Yes, but why the best results with no-lactose yogurt/kefir....

>

> Maybe butterfat is particularly good for making butyrate?

> What I really don't get is that the gut seems to be designed

> to feed off butyrate -- that is likely true for all animals,

> because at a cellular level we tend to work similarly.

> Animals eating grass could get it from digesting cellulose,

> I guess, but what about meat eaters? The studies are

> all concentrating on grains, but if butyrate is so important,

> it's got to be available from another source -- grains are

> rare in nature.

Butter is 4% butyric acid according to Know Your Fats, so I would expect

butyrate to be the conjugate base of butryic acid judging by the make-up of the

word, iow what happens when butyric acid donates an H+

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> OK. Oil does that too, when you cook starch with oil.

>

>

>It does? I'm not sure I communicated that correctly. A single gliaden

>molecule envelopes the wheat starch so that, simplifying a little bit, the

starch

>is basically a ball inside a larger gliaden ball.

Which is how the cooking books describe what happens to starch with

oil. Oil slows down digestion of starch, which makes you feel full

longer, and also is required in certain recipes, and also makes

high-starch foods become lower on the GI. Oil has a habit of coating

things -- I don't know if it is on the one-molecule level or not.

> >

>

>Well, it's still moving in the SCD direction. And in fact, it is supportive

>of Gottschal's position whether they are doing SCD or not, becuase it

>indicates that a)bacteria and b)starch are both operative in celiac, rather

than the

>more simple (simplistic?) theory that gluten is singularly operative.

I think a lot of people realize there is a bacterial and starch issue. In

fact, I would recommend the book to help people EXCEPT that

she insists on discounting the gluten-allergy connection and claiming

that it can be cured -- this is a real sticking point in the celiac

community. NO ONE has been able to consistantly " cure " any allergic

reaction to anything -- peanuts is one they'd love to cure, and latex. The

allergic part in celiac extends beyond the gut and is massively

dangerous, and she has no good response to the current research.

>> Which to me sounds like you might be lactose intolerant, or to fructose

>> (i.e.

>> not digesting them). And probiotics may not help completely. Undigested

>> sugars and starches sure can cause problems, no dispute there.

>

>I might be very very mildly lactose intolerant. I ordinarly don't have a

>problem with this, but do get *occasional* rumblings. But no pain, no

bloating,

>and no excessive flatulence. It's my understanding that almost everyone gets

>some mild gas from drinking milk. I read a study on medline that found

>kefiring milk reduced farting by 40%. I imagine that's because it digested

about

>40% of the lactose.

>

>I think I also have a mild allergy to pasteurized casein. Do you use raw or

>pasteurized milk for your kefilli? Sometimes I get asthmatic symptoms from

>milk-- usually large amounts of pizza or ice cream-- and even kefir once or

>twice when I made it with pasteurized milk. But I've never gotten the reaction

>from raw milk, even in enormous quantities.

I use pasteurized milk -- I don't have a good source of raw milk to experiment

with, and it's not on my short list of things to do. If I DO decide raw milk

is ok, I'd probably get a milk goat though. Basically I have a love-hate

relationship

with milk: when I don't drink it, a dislike it, when I drink it, I get addicted

to it.

That is a bad sign!

But apparently excessive starch/sugar, especially undigested, causes

>overgrowths, and cutting that out seems to be effective in getting rid of the

>overgrowth. Of course it doesn't eliminate them, and I don't know why anyone

would

>have that goal.

Well, my point was about " starving them out " . I just don't think it

is doable. Sure, not eating foods that don't get digested will

cut down on overgrowths, which is a good thing.

>

>She doesn't seem to say that explicitly, but she does sort of imply it. She

>stresses to be very careful adding foods back into the diet, and not to add

>more than one food a week so you can guage the reaction. She should emphasize

>more that celiacs should not introduce gluten without careful monitoring beyond

>symptoms though.

" Careful monitoring beyond symptoms " meaning what? Right now it is darn

hard for anyone to even test for gluten intolerance -- the only test that

seems consistent is only available in Europe, and from the Web talk,it

seems people can have health issues that go away when they stop gluten,

and still test negative.

> I'd be interested to hear the results.

>

>Granted, large amounts beyond a certain point will throw it off just the same

>I'd think.

Maybe test 1tsp raw on an empty stomach vs. 1 tsp " cooked " ?

The folks Price studied ate the oats fermented in fish heads. I don't know

>whether they did the fermenting in the fish head, or fermented it first, and

>then served it in fish heads.

We were talking about how my dad used to always eat the trout heads,

and the Inuit kids got the fish heads. How the heck DO you eat a fish head?

I've been eating dried anchovies, which kind of just crunch -- but my

kid noticed that the hamster ALWAYS eats the head first, then the body,

and leaves the rest. So she bites off the tail (the part she likes) and feeds

the rest to the hamster.

>I'm just wondering if something ferments for a while, if it would take a few

>hours to make it into your lower intestine or colon and then get digested by

>bacteria, how it could not get digested in a matter of *days* by bacteria.

Every ferment is different. Your gut has enzymes too, so it works faster,

plus it is pretty warm. When you ferment oats, you get a lot of yeast

action, which makes it all bubbly and a bit alchoholic.

>Is it raw? You've said before raw milk is hard for you to get. Like I said

>above, I have a mild reaction to casein, but only pastuerized. Mercola's had

>some stuff on this recently.

That's a good question. The problem is, I don't react directly to milk. When

I drink a lot of it, I get more migraines -- but it isn't an immediate reaction.

Also I feel " spacey " . So I just eliminated all dairy to see if it made a

difference,

and it did ... but I haven't gone as far as to figure out what *kind* of dairy.

Someone told me yesterday they could never eat yogurt because it's always

>smelled to them like " milk that went bad. " I think some people confuse sour

and

>rancid, if they aren't accustomed to fermented foods.

Likely. I used to love cream and butter and kefir though, and once I stopped

drinking it, they started to smell bad. I have food aversion problems

though, so I don't know! My kimchi smells great though, as does my kefir-beer.

>Butter is 4% butyric acid according to Know Your Fats, so I would expect

>butyrate to be the conjugate base of butryic acid judging by the make-up of the

>word, iow what happens when butyric acid donates an H+

So there you go ... eat butter and milk for butyrate ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/24/03 4:02:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> " Careful monitoring beyond symptoms " meaning what? Right now it is darn

> hard for anyone to even test for gluten intolerance -- the only test that

> seems consistent is only available in Europe, and from the Web talk,it

> seems people can have health issues that go away when they stop gluten,

> and still test negative.

Well that *could* be because there was a secondary factor eliminated when

they eliminated gluten.

Anyway, you know more about the testing than I do. I'm saying it's dangerous

to rely on symptoms. If was thinking of intestinal biopsies and IgA

reactions.

> Maybe test 1tsp raw on an empty stomach vs. 1 tsp " cooked " ?

That would be interesting too, but it would also be interesting to compare it

to some other type of sugar, since the sugars are the same. That way you can

compare the effect of different sugars or nutrient profile to the effect of

enzymes and whatever else might be heat-sensitive.

I think you've got to cook it for quite a while to equal non-raw honey, since

it's usually heat-extracted, heated for almost 20 minutes to thin it out, and

then canned!

>

> The folks Price studied ate the oats fermented in fish heads. I don't know

> >whether they did the fermenting in the fish head, or fermented it first,

> and

> >then served it in fish heads.

>

> We were talking about how my dad used to always eat the trout heads,

> and the Inuit kids got the fish heads. How the heck DO you eat a fish head?

No idea.

> I've been eating dried anchovies, which kind of just crunch -- but my

> kid noticed that the hamster ALWAYS eats the head first, then the body,

> and leaves the rest. So she bites off the tail (the part she likes) and

> feeds

> the rest to the hamster.

Cute.

Chris

[Guest guest]

and others,

Her own words summarize her position most clearly:

A rule of thumb is to stay on the diet for at least one year after the last

symptom has disappeared.

At that time, introduce one forbidden food at a time. It is advisable to

addd only one food per week, starting with very small amounts and increasing the

amount as the week progresses. The next week, another food may be added. If

these foods appear to be well tolerated, one may decide to return to a regular

diet. If symptoms recur upon the introduction of a forbidden food, it is

best to remain on the SCD longer.

It is hoped that no one who recovers from his or her problem by following the

SCD ever returns to a diet high in refined sugar and refined flours. These

are lacking or low in nutrients, will not nourish the immunological system

adequately, and can make the individual more susceptible to intestinal

infections.

We kept our child on the diet for seven years although the symptoms had

disappeared at the end of two. We enjoyed this way of eating and preferred to

be

cautious. Since Dr. Haas had died two years after tehd iet was initiated, we

had no way of knowing the right time to go off the diet and, realizing how

highly nutritious the diet was, we decided not to risk going off it too soon.

[Guest guest]

>>>>>So there you go ... eat butter and milk for butyrate ...

---->except, i think it gets digested, which means it doesn't reach the

cells lining the colon walls, that depend on it for a fuel source.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

> Maybe butterfat is particularly good for making butyrate?

> What I really don't get is that the gut seems to be designed

> to feed off butyrate -- that is likely true for all animals,

> because at a cellular level we tend to work similarly.

----->i know i've posted about this before, but i have no idea under what

heading, so am looking in my book at the studies on what type of SCFAs dogs

colonocytes seem to prefer. i'm guessing there's some similarities to SCFA

preferences by human colonic cells, and probably are some similarities with

what our *enterocytes* (cells lining the walls of the *small*intestines*)

prefer as energy sources, as well.

from: " Energetic Substrates for Intestinal Cells " Drackley, Beaulieu and

Sunvold. In " Recent Advances in Canine and Feline Nutrition. Vol. II " 1998.

(a publication of IAMS)

--one study found canine coloncytes rate of oxygen consumption was higher

when they were provided with a combo of glucose, glutamine and SCFAs

(butyrate, proprionate an acetate) than when they incubated the cells with

either butyrate proprionate or glutamine *separately*. (this is in vitro)

-- " canine colonic cells readily oxidize butyrate, proprionate, glucose and

glutamine " according to the authors.

--they had difficulty measuring the rate of oxidation of acetate, but report

" In the absence of alternate substrates, rates of oxidation were greates for

the SCFA proprioate and butyrate, followed by glutamine and glucose.

Although proprionate had the greatest oxidation rate when it was the only

exogenous substrate supplied to the colonic cells, its oxidation was

inhibitied by 96% when the media also contained the mixture of butyrate,

aceteate, glutamine and glucose " . (oxidation of butyrate was not similarly

affected by being mixed with other substrates.)

---while the colonocytes seemed to prefer proprionate, the enterocytes

preferred glutamine in this study.

--*enterocytes* apparently also oxidize butyrate at a " relatively high rate "

--interesting quote meat-based diets and butyrate oxidation:

" Based on data largely obtained from rats, dogma state that epithelial cells

of the jejunum would be exposed to very little butyratre from either the

serosal or luminal surfaces. While this dogma also appears to hold true in

dogs fed cereal-based diets, dogs fed meat-based diets had substantial

concentrations of SCFA in the mid-section of the jejunum. Therefore, the

high rate of butyrate oxidation in canine enterocytes may be physiologically

important, because dogs have evolved as primarily carnivorous animals. As a

result, their enterocytes may be more highly adapted to utilizing butyraste

that would be produced in the small intestine when the animals consume a

meat-based diet. During cereal-based dietary regimes, glutamine and glucose

presumably would be the major fuels for enterocytes in dogs, similar to the

situation in other species. "

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/24/03 2:20:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> OK, so that seems to indicate that meat-based diets DO produce

> a fair amount of butyrate? Even more so than cereals? Interesting

> they don't mention that in the articles where they are

> trying to raise RS cereals.

How odd that grain-promoters are leaving out important information ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/24/03 2:23:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> But the symptoms go away when they eliminate gluten, and come

> back when they eat gluten. And starch from other sources don't

> cause that reaction. So you could say they are uniquely sensitive

> to *wheat* starch and no other starches?

It could be possible. BTVC says wheat starch is uniquely hard to digest

because of the way it forms with the gliaden complex, and cites a study where

wheat flour *starch* was not digested properly in (presumably) non-celiacs, but

when it was heavily processed to remove the gliaden it was digested, even when

the gliaden was added back in after separation.

In the absence of IgA or any other signs of gluten allergy, I think its

feasible.

> Hmm. Well, I usually eat molasses or maple syrup, and both of those

> are REALLY cooked. I'm not sure what reactions sugars would

> have when cooked though.

I dont' know, of course it would be impossible to have " raw " maple syrup.

The raw honey versus heated honey would be the most interesting test. It would

be interested to compare to *filtered* honey too, but there might be some

value in using the same honey, as honey might have wide variation in different

nutrients depending on what plants its from, I'm nost sure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Man, I've been skimming this thread, and there are a LOT of wrong details

flying around! I don't mean to jump on you -- in fact, I appreciate that

you're kind of taking up my part and arguing for the SCD theory of how

things work while I'm too busy to -- but I thought I at least ought to

correct this.

Elaine definitely does not advocate taking up eating bad foods after

healing. She does, however, say that after you're healed you can, if you

insist, experiment with *small* amounts of SCD-illegal foods to see how you

respond. Some people who are eating plenty of fat and probiotics where

they weren't before can in fact tolerate small amounts of fermentable foods

because their intestinal populations of good organisms are strong

enough. (Just as different people find they can tolerate different

SCD-legal carbs in different amounts and at different stages of the healing

process due to differences in the particulars of their gut and gut organism

populations.) Elaine's daughter (for whom she started researching the

whole thing in the first place) eats a little bread and a little potato

every week, as I understand it, and many other people do too.

That doesn't mean she recommends the practice, but it does support the

fermentation theory as opposed to the strict gluten theory, since as Heidi

has told me many, many times, even traces of a protein the body deems

hostile can elicit a massive reaction, whereas fermentable carb reactions

are more dose dependent, though of course everyone has his or own dose

response curve, and it changes with changes in health.

>She doesn't seem to say that explicitly, but she does sort of imply it.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/24/03 2:23:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

>

> And it is likely that the same diet will help all of them,

> though if a person has *only* celiac, then just avoiding

> gluten seems to heal up the villi and the blood (they still

> get all the other issues from the SAD). " Improper

> fermentation " DOES cause a lot of gut problems -- for some

> people, the " improper fermentation " begins with a

> genetic issue (like allergy to wheat, casein, eggs, or the

> inability to make a certain enzyme). For other people,

> a bad diet might lead to serious gut damage without

> underlying issues.

Heidi,

While there's significant evidence (not *conclusive* in my mind however) that

some allergies such as gliaden are genetic, I find it very, very hard to

believe casein and egg protein allergies are genetic.

I've had *both* casein and egg allergies and I now have *neither*. My

mother has had problems with dairy before, and has a reaction to egg whites

beyond

an egg or two. My grandparents have no allergies to either. But both my

mother and I have had dog/cat allergies (my mother still does; I don't), pollen

allergies, etc.

There really isn't any consistency within our family. But if you look at it

from a developmental perspective, My mother was second to last in a string of

8 siblings, with no particular care to spacing. My grandparents grew up with

lard and butter, but when they were raising kids, over time they switched to

margarine. They used to use cod liver oil, they raised some of the kids with

it, but stopped at some point when it went out of fashion (so my mom didn't

get any). They used to use whole milk, but at some point swtiched their kids to

skim milk. So the folks at the bottom like my mom got pretty bad nutrition.

My mom's always had allergies, horrible dental problems, etc. She had me

early on her party phase (that didn't help) and I was born with her problems but

worse-- colic and all those baby problems, pollen allergies, food allergies

(milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables), infant eczema, etc.

It just fits a lot more with the developmental theory than the genetic

theory. How about the fact that they're gone now? Plus there are some

explanations

out there about how allergies can develop. According to Mercola (not sure

what his evidence is) cooked egg protein is allergenic and pasteurized casein

is, but neither are raw. If they are used chronically, allergies can develop,

and even to the raw protein if they are bad enough.

Anyway, yeah, allergies and gut damage go with each other, but every shred of

evidence I've ever seen (and no, I'm not an expert, nevertheless...) has

indicated that gut damage causes the allergies, not allergies cause gut damage.

That's why allergies can be fixed by fixing the gut damage. There are some

studies on Primal Defense curing allergies-- the people can eat the food and do

*not* end up with gut damage, when they heal the gut with the PD.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> " Careful monitoring beyond symptoms " meaning what? Right now it is darn

>> hard for anyone to even test for gluten intolerance -- the only test that

>> seems consistent is only available in Europe, and from the Web talk,it

>> seems people can have health issues that go away when they stop gluten,

>> and still test negative.

>

>Well that *could* be because there was a secondary factor eliminated when

>they eliminated gluten.

But the symptoms go away when they eliminate gluten, and come

back when they eat gluten. And starch from other sources don't

cause that reaction. So you could say they are uniquely sensitive

to *wheat* starch and no other starches?

>Anyway, you know more about the testing than I do. I'm saying it's dangerous

>to rely on symptoms. If was thinking of intestinal biopsies and IgA

>reactions.

I agree it is dangerous to rely on symptoms. It takes years sometimes,

however, to get enough damage to show up on a biopsy, and the biopsies

are often incorrect (the damage can be patchy) and they don't even

count the biopsy as positive until you get " level 3 " damage. (or maybe

level 4). If they had a good test that showed up during the first few weeks

of a " silent " reaction, then I'd tend to agree -- people could take more

chances -- like one can experiment with diabetes because the blood

monitors are so darn good.

>> Maybe test 1tsp raw on an empty stomach vs. 1 tsp " cooked " ?

>

>That would be interesting too, but it would also be interesting to compare it

>to some other type of sugar, since the sugars are the same. That way you can

>compare the effect of different sugars or nutrient profile to the effect of

>enzymes and whatever else might be heat-sensitive.

>

>I think you've got to cook it for quite a while to equal non-raw honey, since

>it's usually heat-extracted, heated for almost 20 minutes to thin it out, and

>then canned!

Hmm. Well, I usually eat molasses or maple syrup, and both of those

are REALLY cooked. I'm not sure what reactions sugars would

have when cooked though.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>As a

>result, their enterocytes may be more highly adapted to utilizing butyrate

>that would be produced in the small intestine when the animals consume a

>meat-based diet. During cereal-based dietary regimes, glutamine and glucose

>presumably would be the major fuels for enterocytes in dogs, similar to the

>situation in other species. "

OK, so that seems to indicate that meat-based diets DO produce

a fair amount of butyrate? Even more so than cereals? Interesting

they don't mention that in the articles where they are

trying to raise RS cereals.

I have heard that eating butyrate causes it to be digested,

but since kefir seems to produce it, I would think digesting

milk would?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Elaine's daughter (for whom she started researching the

>whole thing in the first place) eats a little bread and a little potato

>every week, as I understand it, and many other people do too.

>

>That doesn't mean she recommends the practice, but it does support the

>fermentation theory as opposed to the strict gluten theory, since as Heidi

>has told me many, many times, even traces of a protein the body deems

>hostile can elicit a massive reaction, whereas fermentable carb reactions

>are more dose dependent, though of course everyone has his or own dose

>response curve, and it changes with changes in health.

Exactly -- but the massive reaction is not always *visible* is the problem.

Some people react with obvious symptoms, some don't. But there

is no reason to assume that Elaine's daughter had celiac, unless

she was tested. Crohn's is a different disease -- though they seem

to overlap (some people have both). Crohn's is a lot harder

to treat! But Crohn's is often mis-diagnosed as celiac and

vice versa. Microscopic colitis and IBS are also very similar,

as is fructose intolerance and a couple of others. The same

person can have two or more completely separate diseases.

And a person can have celiac-like villi damage that doesn't

come from gluten at all.

And it is likely that the same diet will help all of them,

though if a person has *only* celiac, then just avoiding

gluten seems to heal up the villi and the blood (they still

get all the other issues from the SAD). " Improper

fermentation " DOES cause a lot of gut problems -- for some

people, the " improper fermentation " begins with a

genetic issue (like allergy to wheat, casein, eggs, or the

inability to make a certain enzyme). For other people,

a bad diet might lead to serious gut damage without

underlying issues.

The testing situation right now is so pathetic though, that

I doubt many people are diagnosed ever. The average

duration from onset of symptoms to diagnosis in

Celiac is something like 11 YEARS: I'm not sure

about the others.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>It just fits a lot more with the developmental theory than the genetic

>theory. How about the fact that they're gone now? Plus there are some

explanations

>out there about how allergies can develop. According to Mercola (not sure

>what his evidence is) cooked egg protein is allergenic and pasteurized casein

>is, but neither are raw. If they are used chronically, allergies can develop,

>and even to the raw protein if they are bad enough.

The question is mainly, " what kind of allergy? " . IgG allergies DO develop

from gut permeability, and they DO go away. IgE allergies often go away,

but some (like to peanuts and bees) tend to stick. IgA allergies haven't been

studied much, except celiac, and THAT one does not seem to go away.

But you can have an IgE allergy to wheat, or IgG to wheat, or IgA to wheat.

Or all three. They are three different types of immune reactions.

Casein and egg IgA intolerance seem to be a lot rarer than to gliadin,

and less damaging. And it may well be only the cooked forms of the

proteins (proteins change a lot when cooked!). Bakers yeast IgA

allergy seems to be pretty common among people with allergies

to gliadin. But baker's yeast is kind of a modern food too --

wild yeasts don't seem to give the same reaction.

I use the term " IgA allergy " to emphasize the immune reaction

not the " lack of enzyme " issue (i.e. in fructose intolerance, the

person lacks the enzymes to process fructose, but they have no

immune reaction to it especially). Most allergists, when they

use the term " allergy " , refer only to IgE allergies (the ones you

can use a skin test for). Or sometimes IgG ( testing). Those

allergies go away, and the allergist can prove it by re-testing after

the person has resumed eating the food again for 6 months or so.

Healing the gut is a good way to get rid of IgG allergies.

The IgA reaction is just not well-studied,

but the evidence that DOES exist suggests it is a big, big health

problem. I don't claim to know anything much about it either:

and maybe someday there will be a protocol that really will

make an IgA sensitive person not sensitive anymore. To date

though, there is no such protocol that has ever been proven

with blood tests etc. (symptoms don't count, in my book,

because with IgA allergies the symptoms often go into

" remission " ).

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Presumably it's just part of the same institutional blindness which ignores

fats and animal foods as sources of nutrients.

>OK, so that seems to indicate that meat-based diets DO produce

>a fair amount of butyrate? Even more so than cereals? Interesting

>they don't mention that in the articles where they are

>trying to raise RS cereals.

-