Re: digestibility of amylose vs. amylopectin ( Re: Invasiv...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/22/03 6:35:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->i understand that to mean that the amylose diet had 16% starch that

> resisted digestion, while the amylopectin diet had less than 0.01% starch

> that resisted digestion. meaning the latter is significantly more

> digestible, in contrast to what gotschall is claiming. Do you have a

> different understanding of it?

Ok, you're right, I must have misread something. I agree Gotschall is

probably wrong.

> ---->that may be, but i'd like to know if gotschall is mistaken about the

> digestibility of these starches, because people are reading that in her book

> and on the web and believing it.

It's really a non-issue and very minor point in terms of Gottschal's book and

the SCD. I got the impression that the understanding of these starches has

evolved quite a bit, especially considering the remodeling of what the

amylopectin even looks like. I mean, I think she's wrong, but it's not like

she's

suckering people with it.

> the above explanations are my understanding of the difference between the

> two. in fact, this also indicates (and i read elsewhere) that amylose starch

> is fodder for colonic bacteria, albeit the beneficial kind that produce

> SCFAs from it. if amylose has a lower GI index, that's also pretty

> indicative that it's less digestible than amylopectin. yet gotschall has

> spent a number of years researching the effects of starch on the digestive

> tract...? so either she's wrong about something that she should know very

> well, or these other sources are wrong, and the GI indexes are wrong.

I'm guessing she's wrong. Gottschal's work is in sugars, not starches.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> ---->that may be, but i'd like to know if gotschall is mistaken about the

> digestibility of these starches, because people are reading that in her

book

> and on the web and believing it.

It's really a non-issue and very minor point in terms of Gottschal's book

and

the SCD.

------>it may be a minor issue as it relates to her diet recommendations,

but she is seen as an expert on the effects of various foods (mainly

starches and sugars) on the digestive tract, yet she doesn't seem to know a

very basic fact about the digestibility of these two extremely common

starches. and not only doesn't she know it, but she wrote the opposite and

incorrect version of their digestiblity in a book about digestibility.

>>>I got the impression that the understanding of these starches has

evolved quite a bit, especially considering the remodeling of what the

amylopectin even looks like.

---->maybe, but that abstract i posted was 9 years old. has she not updated

the book in the past 9 years?

>>> I mean, I think she's wrong, but it's not like she's suckering people

with it.

---->oh, i don't think she's trying to " sucker " anyone either. i just get

the feeling she doesn't know what she's talking about on some issues. for

accuracy and credibility's sake, i think she should correct that section in

her book.

> the above explanations are my understanding of the difference between the

> two. in fact, this also indicates (and i read elsewhere) that amylose

starch

> is fodder for colonic bacteria, albeit the beneficial kind that produce

> SCFAs from it. if amylose has a lower GI index, that's also pretty

> indicative that it's less digestible than amylopectin. yet gotschall has

> spent a number of years researching the effects of starch on the digestive

> tract...? so either she's wrong about something that she should know very

> well, or these other sources are wrong, and the GI indexes are wrong.

I'm guessing she's wrong. Gottschal's work is in sugars, not starches.

----->she's studied biology, nutrition, bowel disesaes and the effects of

various foods on digestion. she *specializes* in sugar digestion, but she

couldn't recommend a total diet without know how other foods are digested as

well. how would she know NOT to recommed starches if she didn't understand

how they're digested?

i understand the digestibility of these starches is not relevant to the diet

other than that they're both avoided, and i don't mean to be overly

critical. i'm not sold on the scd, but i understand it's worked well for

some folks. i just wanted to point out one piece of info in the book that i

found questionable, and that it's something basic enough and relevant to her

area of expertise that it surprises me a little that she didn't know it.

maybe she does know it and simply hasn't updated the book in recent years,

or maybe feels it's not important enough to correct. *shrug*

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

Re: digestibility of amylose vs. amylopectin

( Re: Invasiv...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/22/03 11:58:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

>----->she's studied biology, nutrition, bowel disesaes and the effects of

>various foods on digestion. she *specializes* in sugar digestion, but she

>couldn't recommend a total diet without know how other foods are digested as

>well. how would she know NOT to recommed starches if she didn't understand

>how they're digested?

Because as far as I understand she didn't invent SCD. SCD is like 50 years

old... it's a modification of the original diet used to treat celiacs from I

think the 1920s before the gluten-theory became dominant. It seems to me her

role in the book is mostly to explain the science and add lots of recipes! She

may have modified the diet by further research, I'm not sure.

I also think she should correct that part of the book.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>----->she's studied biology, nutrition, bowel disesaes and the effects of

>various foods on digestion. she *specializes* in sugar digestion, but she

>couldn't recommend a total diet without know how other foods are digested

as

>well. how would she know NOT to recommed starches if she didn't understand

>how they're digested?

Because as far as I understand she didn't invent SCD. SCD is like 50 years

old... it's a modification of the original diet used to treat celiacs from I

think the 1920s before the gluten-theory became dominant.

----->yeh, i believe it's the drs. haas that started it. but that makes no

difference, gottschall's the one that's put it into a book and popularized

it AND she's certainly studied the issue herself quite closely it seems. she

should understand what she's saying i'd think, regardless of who started the

diet about a century ago.

i think i'm in " contrary mode " right now, so don't mind me if i harp on a

few issues relentlessly ;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>Because as far as I understand she didn't invent SCD. SCD is like 50 years

>old... it's a modification of the original diet used to treat celiacs from I

>think the 1920s before the gluten-theory became dominant. It seems to me her

>role in the book is mostly to explain the science and add lots of recipes! She

>may have modified the diet by further research, I'm not sure.

>

>I also think she should correct that part of the book.

That's my understanding too. My Mom used " The Banana Diet " pre-WW2,

and she told me the babies " outgrew " their celiac problems

after a diet of nothing but bananas for a year or so. It was only during

WW2 bread shortages that anyone made the connection with bread.

Prior to WW2 most celiac babies just died, so the Banana Diet was

really a lifesaver. However, many of those babies had relapses in

their 20's, then again in their 40's, which prompted the newer research.

No one thought there was such a thing as " adult celiac " until

recently.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/23/03 1:38:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> That's my understanding too. My Mom used " The Banana Diet " pre-WW2,

> and she told me the babies " outgrew " their celiac problems

> after a diet of nothing but bananas for a year or so. It was only during

> WW2 bread shortages that anyone made the connection with bread.

> Prior to WW2 most celiac babies just died, so the Banana Diet was

> really a lifesaver. However, many of those babies had relapses in

> their 20's, then again in their 40's, which prompted the newer research.

> No one thought there was such a thing as " adult celiac " until

> recently.

Hmm... the banana diet was no *carbs* except bananas, according to Gottschal.

They could still eat proteins and fats. Was this a different variation?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Hmm... the banana diet was no *carbs* except bananas, according to Gottschal.

>They could still eat proteins and fats. Was this a different variation?

>

>Chris

I don't know -- my source was my mom and it was a long time ago. Her

description was " nothing but bananas " but I'd imagine the babies

got some kind of milk?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/24/03 4:02:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I don't know -- my source was my mom and it was a long time ago. Her

> description was " nothing but bananas " but I'd imagine the babies

> got some kind of milk?

Gottschal doesn't go into it in too much detail, so I don't know if it was

different for infants, but the general diet disallowed milk, as it was found the

carbs in milk were the worst of any.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Oh I have no idea. Heidi said " some sort of milk " and I took that to mean

some sort of milk substitute.

Chris

In a message dated 7/24/03 10:57:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I suppose I'd have to double-check to be sure, but I don't think Haas or

> Gottschall tell a mother not to nurse her baby unless there's absolutely no

> alternative.

>

> >Gottschal doesn't go into it in too much detail, so I don't know if it was

> >different for infants, but the general diet disallowed milk, as it was

> >found the

> >carbs in milk were the worst of any.

>

" 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]

In a message dated 7/24/03 12:17:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ChrisMasterjohn@... writes:

> Oh I have no idea. Heidi said " some sort of milk " and I took that to mean

> some sort of milk substitute.

Excuse me. I meant to say a substitute for breast milk, i.e. I didn't

believe they'd be adding some sort of dairy-based formula in the diet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

It was no carbs except bananas, definitely not nothing but bananas. (And,

unsurprisingly, most of the small percentage of people who aren't helped by

the SCD are those who don't eat enough fat and eat way too many of the

legal carbs, overdosing on honey and bananas and the like. Unfortunately,

Elaine doesn't really make any dietary composition recommendations except

for warning people not to be afraid of (good) fats. Most of the rest who

have problems jump into advanced carbs like almond flour too early and

don't give their gut time to get ready for them.)

>Her

>description was " nothing but bananas " but I'd imagine the babies

>got some kind of milk?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I suppose I'd have to double-check to be sure, but I don't think Haas or

Gottschall tell a mother not to nurse her baby unless there's absolutely no

alternative.

>Gottschal doesn't go into it in too much detail, so I don't know if it was

>different for infants, but the general diet disallowed milk, as it was

>found the

>carbs in milk were the worst of any.

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>It was no carbs except bananas, definitely not nothing but bananas. (And,

>unsurprisingly, most of the small percentage of people who aren't helped by

>the SCD are those who don't eat enough fat and eat way too many of the

>legal carbs, overdosing on honey and bananas and the like. Unfortunately,

>Elaine doesn't really make any dietary composition recommendations except

>for warning people not to be afraid of (good) fats. Most of the rest who

>have problems jump into advanced carbs like almond flour too early and

>don't give their gut time to get ready for them.)

:

Well, that makes sense. I could never see how a baby could live off bananas.

-- Heidi