Re: Enzymes in Food

[Guest guest]

> The only reason to eat raw

> foods is because they are enjoyable to eat.

>

> Best regards,

> Celeste

I do enjoy a percentage of my diet being raw foods,

which I vary depending on warm weather vs. cool weather,

a higher proportion of raw in warm weather.

I feel the raw foods are very alive and zingy in vibration, and

especially notice this when juicing fresh raw vegetables.

I suspect it may be due to whatever gives the vegetables

their bright colors. The enzymes may have something to do

with it beyond digestion.

But there's something special about many raw foods that very

much agrees with me. In warm weather I

target for about 50-60% of my diet as raw, in cool weather

about 10-20% raw, that's just what seems to work well for me.

Here in Northern California, raw foods cuisine is very big in

the last few years, and I seem stodgy and backward by comparison.

:-)

Carol

[Guest guest]

I just read a clinical study that said that caroteins are better absorbed when

cooked. Absorbtion of raw was very low. I'm sorry but I don't remember the

percentage.

Re: Enzymes in Food

> The only reason to eat raw

> foods is because they are enjoyable to eat.

>

> Best regards,

> Celeste

I do enjoy a percentage of my diet being raw foods,

which I vary depending on warm weather vs. cool weather,

a higher proportion of raw in warm weather.

I feel the raw foods are very alive and zingy in vibration, and

especially notice this when juicing fresh raw vegetables.

I suspect it may be due to whatever gives the vegetables

their bright colors. The enzymes may have something to do

with it beyond digestion.

But there's something special about many raw foods that very

much agrees with me. In warm weather I

target for about 50-60% of my diet as raw, in cool weather

about 10-20% raw, that's just what seems to work well for me.

Here in Northern California, raw foods cuisine is very big in

the last few years, and I seem stodgy and backward by comparison.

:-)

Carol

Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no

circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute

for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner

[Guest guest]

's wrote:

<< I just read a clinical study that said that caroteins are better

absorbed when cooked. Absorption of raw was very low. I'm sorry but I

don't remember the percentage.>>

Doesn't make sense to me.

The body does not know one carotene molecule from another - a cooked one

is chemically no different from an uncooked one.

What *does* make sense is that in cooking the cell walls of plants are

broken thus *releasing* the carotene, and in contrast - when we chew raw

plants, not many cell walls are broken to release carotenes.

So raw or cooked is not to do with absorption - but it is to do with

release of carotene from the plant cells so that it is *available* for

absorption. Subtle difference - same result. We can get more carotene

out of cooked veg than raw.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Sorry Irene, But the study clearly stated cooked versus raw. I will try to

track down the journal today and give the infromation.

And from I read in another journal, the act of chewing doesn't break down all

cell walls for proper absorption. And that many vegetables should be cooked to

increase the body's abililty to absorb.

Re: Re: Enzymes in Food

's wrote:

<< I just read a clinical study that said that caroteins are better

absorbed when cooked. Absorption of raw was very low. I'm sorry but I

don't remember the percentage.>>

Doesn't make sense to me.

The body does not know one carotene molecule from another - a cooked one

is chemically no different from an uncooked one.

What *does* make sense is that in cooking the cell walls of plants are

broken thus *releasing* the carotene, and in contrast - when we chew raw

plants, not many cell walls are broken to release carotenes.

So raw or cooked is not to do with absorption - but it is to do with

release of carotene from the plant cells so that it is *available* for

absorption. Subtle difference - same result. We can get more carotene

out of cooked veg than raw.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no

circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute

for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner

[Guest guest]

's wrote:

> Sorry Irene,

Sorry about what?

It's just a discussion :-)

<< But the study clearly stated cooked versus raw.

I had no quarrel with that.

We will get more carotene from cooked - I agree that part.

They had the mechanism wrong is all.

It's not to do with better *absorption* when cooked - it's to do with

better *availability* to get absorbed when cooked, due to cellulose wall

breakdown in the cooking that does not happen when raw. In raw food the

carotene is locked inside cell walls made of

hard-to-digest-but-easy-to-cook-open *cellulose*. The carotene is not

released from the cells in raw food - it's all wrapped in cellulose

still - and thus is not *available* to absorb.

If it was *available* it would absorb as easily as cooked carotene.

The carotene itself does not change in cooking - it's a defined molecule

with a specific molecular structure. If you changed that structure it

would not be carotene any more, by definition:-)

<< I will try to track down the journal today and give the infromation.

> And from I read in another journal, the act of chewing doesn't break

down all cell walls for proper absorption.>

Exactly. That was my point.

Cooking does a better job of it than chewing.

That makes the carotene *available*.

It doesn't change the " ability to absorb " - just the availability for

absorption.

< And that many vegetables should be cooked to increase the body's

abililty to absorb.>

For carotene yes. Carotene is quite heat-stable - but cooking decreases

availablity of heat-labile nutrients, and cooking water will leach out

anything water-soluble. So if carotene is what you want, then yes cooked

is better. But for straight Vit A, heat damages it and for some

vitiamins like Vit B1, cooking destroys them quite quickly.

By the way - the subject says " enzymes in food " but there are no enzymes

involved here. Carotene is a pigment, not an enzyme.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

>

> An excerpt from an article by L. Katz, M.D., professor of public

> health at Yale University:

>

> " Most enzymes are proteins, and they're manufactured by every living

> orgainism--from bacteria to plant to animal--each one playing a very

> specific role (such as copying DNA or helping your digest your food).

> But we make all the enzymes we need. We can't get them from food,

> cooked or uncooked, because our bodies digest all proteins, enzymes

> included. "

This is of course very general and idealized. Obviously a young,

healthy person with genetics best suited towards eating cooked foods,

will do fine, as long as they stay in good health, get exercise, etc.

But if you want to see what works for some cancers that use raw juice,

look at the Gerson therapy for example. Dr. Gerson gave large amounts

of fresh juice, pressed, not centrifuged because it puts a charge on

the molecules that has negative effects. And the " oxidizing enzymes "

in the juice has a half life of about 15 min. so it must be eaten

soon. We don't know much about the electrical effects of foods and

nutrients, but our organs carry a charge and this can be reduced with

illness. The large amount of juice and low protein means it is not

digested with acid, sparing the enzymes, and they apparently pass into

the liver. His whole approach was to strengthen the liver, because it

becomes weakened and cannot supply the necessary enzymes. The

externally supplied enzymes somehow get into the system and help in the

detoxification and immune system process. Also, a very good source of

digestive enzymes is papaya, which people seem to benefit from.

Too bad it is not so simple as he makes it sound. We'd all be in great

health if that were the case. Everyone is different, although they like

to treat us as identical, and as long as you fall on the mean,

everything they say applies to you.

Cannon

[Guest guest]

>

> I just read a clinical study that said that caroteins are better

absorbed when cooked. Absorbtion of raw was very low. I'm sorry but I

don't remember the percentage.

One thing that greatly increases absorption of carotenoids is fats, by

about 8x. There was a series on this in Science News months ago. Of

course you still need to release it by chewing, cooking or juicing.

Bob

[Guest guest]

On 27 Nov 2005 at 8:52, Longevity wrote:

> Cannon wrote:

> But we make all the

> enzymes we need. We can't get them from food, > cooked or uncooked,

> because our bodies digest all proteins, enzymes > included. "

I know this wasn't your cut and paste, , but L. Katz,

M.D., professor of public health at Yale University has made a huge

blunder in his comment above that I think everyone on this list can

identify.

We do NOT digest all enzymes. Taken orally, they are used to

promote digestion, and they are also used to dissolve thombi or

clots (fibrin), reduce blood coagulation, improve microcirculation,

reduce inflammation, and to dissolve excess fibrosis and scarring.

This is documented in peer-reviewed literature and in practice.

> This is of course very general and idealized. Obviously a young,

> healthy person with genetics best suited towards eating cooked foods,

> will do fine, as long as they stay in good health, get exercise, etc.

Wait a minute. There's no such thing as a genetic predisposition

best suited to eating cooked food. Some of the enzymes needed to

properly digest these foods occurs in the food itself, the body

doesn't produce them.

> large amount of juice and low protein means it is not digested with

> acid, sparing the enzymes, and they apparently pass into the liver.

The enzymes are spared in this case by volume of dilution of he

stomach acids, which if more acidic would break the enzymes. This

process has little to do with the low protein of the juice, except

that high protein foods are held in the stomach longer, which would

allow stomach acidity to build again.

> His

> whole approach was to strengthen the liver, because it becomes weakened

> and cannot supply the necessary enzymes. The externally supplied

> enzymes somehow get into the system and help in the detoxification and

> immune system process. Also, a very good source of digestive enzymes is

> papaya, which people seem to benefit from. Too bad it is not so simple

> as he makes it sound.

I'm glad you caught that; in essence, he shouldn't have commented.

The liver doesn't produce some of he digestive enzymes OR the

metabolic enzymes. Supporting digestion when one eats cooked food

will involve supplementing, like you say with papain or bromelain,

and supporting other enzymatic action particularly in the elderly

and in people with compromised liver function such as fibrosis

might involve supplementing with fibrinolytics to reduce fibrosis

and blood coagulation.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

>

> > But we make all the

> > enzymes we need. We can't get them from food, > cooked or uncooked,

> > because our bodies digest all proteins, enzymes > included. "

>

> I know this wasn't your cut and paste, , but L. Katz,

> M.D., professor of public health at Yale University has made a huge

> blunder in his comment above that I think everyone on this list can

> identify

Thanks for adding to what I wrote. Guys like Katz used to say 15 years

ago that diet has nothing to do with cancer. And it is obvious that

they get little training in nutrition. Maybe he was addressing a group

of 4th graders?

As far as genetics go, my comment on a disposition towards cooked foods

was due more to a stronger pancreas possibly. I've heard some do

better on cooked foods, and others better on raw, and some a mix of

both. Maybe this is due to their metabolic rate. I've also heard that

some can still manufacture small amounts of vit. C since they can

produce some of the enzyme needed for the conversion from glucose.

Bob

[Guest guest]

For what foods do you believe this to be true?

Best regards,

Celeste

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Some of the enzymes needed to

> properly digest these foods occurs in the food itself, the body

> doesn't produce them.

[Guest guest]

I've tried taking bromelain and the only effect that I noticed from it

was intestinal irritation. I also avoid papaya (and papain) since it

seems to be constipating for me.

I would agree that a normal, healthy person does not need to

supplement with enzymes, but that they can perhaps be helpful in

treating malabsorptive conditions.

Best regards,

Celeste

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Supporting digestion when one eats cooked food

> will involve supplementing, like you say with papain or bromelain,

[Guest guest]

Celeste, a lot of information is available in a Goooogle search;

for example, entering " not produced by the body " enzymes in the

Google search box produced this link:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en & q=%22not+produced+by+the+body%22+d

igestive+enzymes & meta=

Maybe the search wording could have been better but even so, the

search reveals that cellulase for example is contained in

vegetables; the body doesn't produce this cellulose-digesting

enzyme at all. Point made.

I think it's well known that foods in their natural uncooked state

contain all the enzymes necessary for their digestion. This exposes

an issue of whether ENOUGH enzymes are produced by the body to

effect proper digestion of " dead " , meaning cooked, food. Of course,

eating cooked food imposes an additional burden to create more

enzymes on the system that we have not evolved to deal with

effectively, so eating a steady diet of " dead " food deteriorates

peoples' health.

Here's a quote from Pat Flanagan, M.D. " When we eat cooked food,

vital enzymes that can be used for healing our bodies are diverted

and sent into the digestive system to digest our food. When we eat

raw foods, they already contain enzymes that aid in their own

digestion. Cooked food does not have these vital enzymes so the

body takes enzymes from its vital storehouse. After digestion,

these enzymes are eliminated from the body with the body's waste.

When we take enzymes away from the body for use in digestion, our

organ systems begin to compete for the enzymes that are left over.

If we do not replenish our supply of enzymes, we will become enzyme

deficient and our healing and restorative capacity may be severely

diminished If we are enzyme deficient, just going on a raw diet

will not restore all of our enzymes. Most fruits and vegetables

only have enough enzymes to digest themselves and do not contain

extra enzymes for helping to replenish the body's supplies that

were depleted by eating cooked food. " I'm sure there we can find

other doctors to quote.

Duncan Crow

> Duncan Crow wrote:

>> Some of the enzymes needed to

>> properly digest these foods occurs in the food itself, the body

>> doesn't produce them.

>> For what foods do you believe this to be true?

>

> Best regards,

> Celeste

>

[Guest guest]

I've not been able to find any conclusive proof that the enzymes

contained in any food are actually used by our digestive systems to

aid in the digestion of that food. The enzymes get digested first.

If we are normal, healthy people then the liver and the pancreas

produce our digestive enzymes as needed.

I believe that Pat Flanagan's remarks are based on outdated science.

Please see http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2b.shtml

Best regards,

Celeste

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Celeste, a lot of information is available in a Goooogle search;

> for example, entering " not produced by the body " enzymes in the

> Google search box produced this link:

>

> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en & q=%22not+produced+by+the+body%22+d

> igestive+enzymes & meta=

>

> Maybe the search wording could have been better but even so, the

> search reveals that cellulase for example is contained in

> vegetables; the body doesn't produce this cellulose-digesting

> enzyme at all. Point made.

>

> I think it's well known that foods in their natural uncooked state

> contain all the enzymes necessary for their digestion. This exposes

> an issue of whether ENOUGH enzymes are produced by the body to

> effect proper digestion of " dead " , meaning cooked, food. Of course,

> eating cooked food imposes an additional burden to create more

> enzymes on the system that we have not evolved to deal with

> effectively, so eating a steady diet of " dead " food deteriorates

> peoples' health.

>

> Here's a quote from Pat Flanagan, M.D. " When we eat cooked food,

> vital enzymes that can be used for healing our bodies are diverted

> and sent into the digestive system to digest our food. When we eat

> raw foods, they already contain enzymes that aid in their own

> digestion. Cooked food does not have these vital enzymes so the

> body takes enzymes from its vital storehouse. After digestion,

> these enzymes are eliminated from the body with the body's waste.

> When we take enzymes away from the body for use in digestion, our

> organ systems begin to compete for the enzymes that are left over.

> If we do not replenish our supply of enzymes, we will become enzyme

> deficient and our healing and restorative capacity may be severely

> diminished If we are enzyme deficient, just going on a raw diet

> will not restore all of our enzymes. Most fruits and vegetables

> only have enough enzymes to digest themselves and do not contain

> extra enzymes for helping to replenish the body's supplies that

> were depleted by eating cooked food. " I'm sure there we can find

> other doctors to quote.

>

> Celeste wrote:

> > For what foods do you believe this to be true?

> >

> > Duncan Crow wrote:

> >> Some of the enzymes needed to

> >> properly digest these foods occurs in the food itself, the body

> >> doesn't produce them.

[Guest guest]

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Maybe the search wording could have been better but even so, the

> search reveals that cellulase for example is contained in

> vegetables; the body doesn't produce this cellulose-digesting

> enzyme at all. Point made.

Which point?

I missed some context perhaps.

We do not need to make cellulase as we either eat raw food which

provides it, or we eat cooked food where the cooking breaks down the

cellulose for us. That's why cooked veg is limp:-))

You refer to cooked food as " dead " . I find that very objectionable

personally. Cooked food is full of life giving nutrition, and death is

associated with deterioration. As to whether the food is truly " alive "

neither raw nor cooked is alive any more.

Let's call it what it is instead of being derogatory.Cooked food has

many major benefits over raw food and while I respect the choices some

people make to eat only raw food, that's not how our systems are designed.

We need cooked food because in cooking we release a lot of nutrients

we can't readily get from raw food - specifically because cellulose cell

walls need to be broken down. And you can eat raw carrots till you turn

orange if you juice them well enough to help break down the cellulose

but you will get more carotene per carrot from cooked ones any day.

So you will get

" more life " in your own body from cooked food that raw food plenty often

enough not to be derogatory about it. It's cooked, not dead. And raw

food is raw, not live. Raw food will not grow and reproduce - a

prerequisite for calling it live. And cooked food is not rotting, a

prerequisite for something that is dead.

Food is a most enjoyable part of life, I do not see a reason to be

derogatory about it:-)

Let's rather learn what's good for us and when it is easier to get a

nutrients from cooked food and when it is better from raw food.

Enzymes are not the issue. Cellulase is only good to break down

cellulose cell walls. We do not make it, but cooking does the job instead.

> I think it's well known that foods in their natural uncooked state

> contain all the enzymes necessary for their digestion.

Not true.

Meat for example needs pepsin, and we make it internally, it does not

come with the meat. starch needs amylase, an d it does not come with the

potato, we make it in saliva for example. And so on.

Enzymes are not something we need to consider as nutrients at all. We

make all the ones we need. What we need to see as essential, is the

building blocks - the proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals that we use

to build our enzymes.

Nor do we need a *lot* of enzymes. Enzymes are catalysts - that means

they are only " borrowed " for a digestion reaction. They lend their

protons to the reaction but they are NOT destroyed or used up in the

process. They then get recycled to restore their protons to original

position and can be re-used over and over again.

That is the nature of any catalyst - it does not get used up but it

speeds up the chemical reaction in question, whether it is a digestive

one or otherwise.

Digestive juices like hydrochloric acid and bile etc, DO get used up and

we need to keep making more. Those need real nutrient supplies so as to

refuel and remake more as needed. Enzymes are not in that league.

> This exposes

> an issue of whether ENOUGH enzymes are produced by the body to

> effect proper digestion of " dead " , meaning cooked, food.

There is no dead food - only cooked food and the cooking breaks down the

cells INSTEAD of cellulase enzyme that does it in raw food and does it

better than any cellulase can do it in raw food!

Quit knocking cooked food please.

Many of us are healthy thanks to cooked food. I know I am. Raw food does

not agree with me with very few exceptions nor with many other people

and I get as little a possible of it to stay healthy. Other people

(especially type A blood) will be healthier with a lot more raw food.

Different strokes for different folks:-)

What's important is to know what nutrients to get where - and cooked

food is an excellent source for most nutrients. A very few like Vit B1

are destroyed by heat and those need to come from another source.

I see it as relevant to know what to get from cooked and how - and what

to get from raw and how. and after that it is a personal choice what

works for a specific person to get them their personal healthiest.

> Of course,

> eating cooked food imposes an additional burden to create more

> enzymes on the system

I see this as wild assumption and totally invalid.

Cooking more than makes up for the enzymes needed to break cell walls,

and we manufacture EVERY other enzyme we need. There is definitely no

burden. It's the other way round for my system. I need cooking to break

down those cells for me so my system can get the maximum nutrients out.

If I eat raw food I can not handle it well.

> Here's a quote from Pat Flanagan, M.D. " When we eat cooked food,

> vital enzymes that can be used for healing our bodies

Enzymes are not used for healing. They are used to *catalyse* (speed up)

reactions for digestion. The enzymes do not get into the blood stream,

as they are proteins and too big and we only absorb broken bits and

pieces into the blood - they do their job in the digestive world in the

gut. It's an important world but it is not where we get healed. It's

where we *abosrb* the building blocks needed for healing and those do

NOT include enzymes.

> are diverted

> and sent into the digestive system to digest our food.

Nothing we eat is " diverted " because of how the food was prepared. What

we eat is in the digestive system of the gut however we prepared it,

whether it is sun tea or microwaved beef.

> When we eat

> raw foods, they already contain enzymes that aid in their own

> digestion.

These enzymes can also be irritant in many people's systems and if they

are cooked instead, they will still be available as healing building

blocks in component parts. All cooking does is to start the breakdown

process by heat instead of by enzymes, to turn everything into tiny

units that are absorbed into the blood where the body can re-assemble

them like Lego blocks into WHATEVER is needed - whether that is an

enzyme that arrived in the food or something totally different.

> Cooked food does not have these vital enzymes

They are not vital.

Only cellulase is not made by humans as and when needed, and recycled as

often as needed.

> so the

> body takes enzymes from its vital storehouse.

No way! It can't take cellulase from a store as it doesn't make it.

And most of the digestive enzymes needed are NOT in the food, but we

make them. If you tried to digest a plant or meat without any enzymes

from your own system you'd not be able to eat at all!!!

As for cooking - the cooking has already done the job of the enzymes in

raw food :-))

Heat is an alternative way to cause the resulting breakdown into

component parts - and hopefully the person does not overcook and lead to

a different problem from nutrient damage.

> After digestion,

> these enzymes are eliminated from the body with the body's waste.

Not necessarily. Many are recycled through a proton repositioning

reaction and are re-used.

> When we take enzymes away from the body for use in digestion, our

> organ systems begin to compete for the enzymes that are left over.

There are no digestive enzymes outside of the digestive system.

Thank goodness for that too!!! Or we would start to digest our own bodies.,

This is why our gut is really " external " to the body. We are essentially

made like a donut where the soft inside is the body and the " skin "

includes the skin lining the donut hole - which is the gut from mouth to

anus. The dangerous digestive enzymes - dangerous as they break things

down - are *confined* to the gut, so that they only break things down

that are *outside* of the body (in the donut hole but not inside the

cake part of the donut). That is all intentional in our clever design.

> If we do not replenish our supply of enzymes, we will become enzyme

> deficient and our healing and restorative capacity may be severely

> diminished

Not true.

It's true that we need *nutrients* with which to make whatever supplies

are needed by the body - and that a small part of those supplies

includes enzymes for digestion - but it is a fallacy to think that these

should be provided " as is " when the body is designed like a

Lego-assembly plant, able to put together whatever it needs when it

needs it. We DO need to supply the *basic* building blocks (protein,

fats, vitamins, minerals) but enzymes are anything but basic building

blocks - they are sophisticated final products. If we supply building

blocks the body knows better what to do to get all the right enzymes in

the right ratios than any banana we might eat:-)

> If we are enzyme deficient, just going on a raw diet

> will not restore all of our enzymes.

Which proves the fallacy that raw food is the way to go.

We need ALL the nutrients that are essential to us as our basic " Lego

blocks " . Then our marvellously designed bodies WILL make whatever is

needed. So I believe in " providing the factory with materials " rather

than trying to ship in finished product so as to try and second-guess

what's needed.

> Most fruits and vegetables

> only have enough enzymes to digest themselves and do not contain

> extra enzymes for helping to replenish the body's supplies

So the answer is to eat more cooked food where you do not waste enzymes

as the heat does the job instead, saving your enzymes to be available

where needed. And also you will get a better set of basic building

blocks from cooked food as there is accessibility of right nutrients in

the cells far more than in raw food. But by all means use the best of

both worlds.

So don't get hung up on enzymes. Your system knows well how to make them

- rather get hung up on getting enough of every *essential* nutrient -

the stuff your body can *not* make for itself:-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

WoooHooo,

Thanks Irene!

Gonna enjoy thie one too...

Chuck

This tagspace for rent...

On 11/30/2005 10:17:14 PM, Irene de Villiers (furryboots@...) wrote:

> Duncan Crow wrote:

> > Maybe the search wording could have been better but even so, the

> > search reveals that cellulase for example is contained in

> > vegetables; the body

> doesn't produce this cellulose-digesting

> > enzyme at all. Point made.

>

> Which point?

> I missed some context perhaps.

> We do not need to make cellulase as we either eat raw food which

> provides it, or we eat cooked food where the cooking breaks down the

> cellulose for us. That's

> why cooked veg is limp:-))

>

> You refer to cooked

[Guest guest]

> I've not been able to find any conclusive proof that the enzymes

> contained in any food are actually used by our digestive systems to aid

> in the digestion of that food. The enzymes get digested first.

We do not have proof that digestive enymes are digested without

food being present, although some are known to be broken down by

stomach acidity.

We do however have proof that metabolic enzymes, which includes

some of the digestive enzymes, are NOT digested but are absorbed to

work in a metabolic rather than a digestive role, when no food is

present in the duodenum. This information is all scientifically

aquired.

The document you referenced on the agenda site beyondveg.com

contains only speculation that food enzymes are maybe not used in

the digestion of those foods. I think we can find better sources of

information.

Duncan

[Guest guest]

I think people have to be careful not to take too many blood-thinning

supplements. Yesterday I took some bromelain just to see if I would

have the same reactions to it that I've had before. By mid to late

afternoon I found that I was experiencing positional hypotension when

I stood up from my chair. To me this indicates that bromelain is

contraindicated for me. I tend toward the low end of normal when it

comes to blood pressure anyway, so I don't need a blood thinner. Not

everyone has the same physiology. I'll continue to test this

periodically as I get older, but I doubt that it will change much (if

any). My mother's blood pressure stayed low until she died.

Best regards,

Celeste

Duncan Crow wrote:

> As one ages, even in healthy people, fibrinogen (clotting enzyme)

> levels rise by 25 mg/dl per decade, as shown in this study,

> Fibrinogen and Aging, which goes on to draw a parallel between

> excessive clotting and the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease. PMID:

> 7918730 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

>

> Also as one ages, levels of the only anti-clotting enzyme plasmin

> are similarly reduced, as pointed out in the study " Age-dependent

> decreases in fibrinolytic enzyme activities in serum of healthy

> subjects " . PMID: 8205137

>

> Also, it has been known for some time that blood coagulation is

> high in multiple sclerosis particularly, PMID: 3984606 and PMID:

> 6972439, and the journal Brain in 2003 PMID: 12805124 showed a

> potential role of fibrinolytic medication.

>

> Ignoring this natural fibrinolytic enzyme deficiency as one ages is

> the same as ignoring age-related (and diet-related) excessive

> clotting, heart disease, stroke and Alzheimer's risk, and many

> etc... relevant to blood coagulation.

[Guest guest]

> Can you show ANY evidence that proves a whole enzyme gets into the

blood

> stream?

> I have seen none.

The fact oral enzymes absorb is well presented in this recent

review: " Microbial fibrinolytic enzymes: an overview of source,

production, properties, and thrombolytic activity in vivo " . The the

abstract is here; I have the full study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=16211381 & query_hl=5

It also references earlier articles like this 1990

study, " Enhancement of the fibrinolytic activity in plasma by oral

administration of nattokinase " . Here's the abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=2123064 & query_hl=9

And this study, published in 2003, " Prevention of venous thrombosis

in long-haul flights with Flite Tabs: the LONFLIT-FLITE randomized,

controlled trial. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=14565628 & query_hl=9

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

> I think people have to be careful not to take too many blood-

> thinning supplements.

Fibrinolytic enzymes are not blood thinning supplements; they break

excess fibrin down after the fact of excessive coagulation or fibrin

(clot-forming) deposits. Big difference. If you wish to leave the

coagulation cascades alone, its up to you, but you should realize

they cause fibrosis, which is the biggest cause of organ failure, in

addition to heart, stroke, Alzheimer's risk etc.... I'm sure you

don't want too much of anything, but balance is nice and we are

restoring balance (as well as removing existing blockages). No deaths

have ever been reported from any oral enzymes.

> To me this indicates that bromelain is contraindicated for me.

There are better options. Bromelain is not in the enzyme blend I do

recommend, probably because it's not a very good fibrinolytic anyway

compared to the newer ones.

Duncan

> > Duncan Crow wrote:

> > As one ages, even in healthy people, fibrinogen (clotting enzyme)

> > levels rise by 25 mg/dl per decade, as shown in this study,

> > Fibrinogen and Aging, which goes on to draw a parallel between

> > excessive clotting and the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease.

PMID:

> > 7918730 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

> >

> > Also as one ages, levels of the only anti-clotting enzyme plasmin

> > are similarly reduced, as pointed out in the study " Age-dependent

> > decreases in fibrinolytic enzyme activities in serum of healthy

> > subjects " . PMID: 8205137

> >

> > Also, it has been known for some time that blood coagulation is

> > high in multiple sclerosis particularly, PMID: 3984606 and PMID:

> > 6972439, and the journal Brain in 2003 PMID: 12805124 showed a

> > potential role of fibrinolytic medication.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Irene de Villiers <furryboots@i...> wrote:

> Can you show ANY evidence that proves a whole enzyme gets into the

blood

> stream?

> I have seen none.

> The fact that the body assembles enzymes does not mean they are

passed

> through the gut wall intact - and in fact the molecules are so big

that

> you'd have to have a compromised gut to allow such a thing to happen.

I have experienced digestive enzymes taken on empty stomach going

whole or ?? into the bloodstream and giving dramatic improvement

in systemic bacterial infection within an hour. Also possibly on

live blood analysis in 35 mins (however I'm not sure of the viability

of the process, whether the monitor reflected my own cells or whether

the tape was prepackaged).

Carol

[Guest guest]

Irene de Villiers <furryboots@i...> wrote:

> BAck when I did research in rabbits with proteolytic enzymes, it was

> found that they did a lot of harm to the body in unexpected ways

>when

> " supplemented " ...

Could you say more about that?

Carol

[Guest guest]

> I have experienced digestive enzymes taken on empty stomach going

> whole or ?? into the bloodstream and giving dramatic improvement

> in systemic bacterial infection within an hour. Also possibly on

> live blood analysis in 35 mins (however I'm not sure of the viability

> of the process, whether the monitor reflected my own cells or whether

> the tape was prepackaged).

>

> Carol

Thanks Carol.

Irene has presented an interesting theory that oral enzymes are

disassembled and their components reassembled after passing through

the bowel lumen. I would be interested in seeing her theory proven one

way or the other.

But, the real issue is whether oral fibrinolyic enzymes reduce fibrin

and inflammation in the body. The fact they do presents a new way of

treating illnesses that are inflammation-and coagulation-based,

particularly in the elderly.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

Duncan Crow wrote:

>>I think people have to be careful not to take too many blood-

>>thinning supplements.

>

I think people should never take proteolytic enzymes without a proven

need for them. They are dangerous by their very nature as they break

down protein and have no brains to decide what protein to break down.

In the research I mentioned earlier at Creighton University under Dr

Brody, all 12 proteolytic enzymes tested showed unacceptable damage to

the body.

Namaste,

Irene

>

> Fibrinolytic enzymes are not blood thinning supplements; they break

> excess fibrin down after the fact of excessive coagulation or fibrin

> (clot-forming) deposits. Big difference. If you wish to leave the

> coagulation cascades alone, its up to you, but you should realize

> they cause fibrosis, which is the biggest cause of organ failure, in

> addition to heart, stroke, Alzheimer's risk etc.... I'm sure you

> don't want too much of anything, but balance is nice and we are

> restoring balance (as well as removing existing blockages). No deaths

> have ever been reported from any oral enzymes.

>

>

>>To me this indicates that bromelain is contraindicated for me.

>

>

> There are better options. Bromelain is not in the enzyme blend I do

> recommend, probably because it's not a very good fibrinolytic anyway

> compared to the newer ones.

>

> Duncan

>

>

>>>Duncan Crow wrote:

>>>As one ages, even in healthy people, fibrinogen (clotting enzyme)

>>>levels rise by 25 mg/dl per decade, as shown in this study,

>>>Fibrinogen and Aging, which goes on to draw a parallel between

>>>excessive clotting and the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease.

>>

> PMID:

>

>>>7918730 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

>>>

>>>Also as one ages, levels of the only anti-clotting enzyme plasmin

>>>are similarly reduced, as pointed out in the study " Age-dependent

>>>decreases in fibrinolytic enzyme activities in serum of healthy

>>>subjects " . PMID: 8205137

>>>

>>>Also, it has been known for some time that blood coagulation is

>>>high in multiple sclerosis particularly, PMID: 3984606 and PMID:

>>>6972439, and the journal Brain in 2003 PMID: 12805124 showed a

>>>potential role of fibrinolytic medication.

>>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no

circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute

for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner

>

[Guest guest]

> Duncan the abstract says this and nowhere does it even hint at

anything

> going through the gut wall intact:

Nit-picking. The outcome is positive for oral enzyme use; meanwhile,

you haven't supplied any data to back your theory that enzymes are

broken then reassembled.

The full study says more and supplies some references, but you'd have

to pay the $30 to read it.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

> I think people should never take proteolytic enzymes without a

proven

> need for them. They are dangerous by their very nature as they

break

> down protein and have no brains to decide what protein to break

down.

First, digestive aids petinent to the threat title aside, I'm

personally more interested in fibrinolytic enzymes as opposed to the

more general proteolytics because fibrinolyics break down excess

fibrin that results in blood coagulation and clotting. This is

improving naural recycling of already-formed excess fibrin we're

talking about here, as opposed to indiscriminately breaking down

protein in the body with general proteolytics.

Second, It's been proven in disease and in the elderly that there is

a need, and it's verified by a fibrin reading in blood tests. Here is

a text excerpt from my degenerative illness protocol; the version

with the links is on my website:

This study, Fibrinogen and Aging, shows that even in healthy people,

fibrinogen (clotting enzyme) levels rise by 25 mg/dl per decade, and

draws a parallel between excessive clotting and the occurrence of

Alzheimer's disease. PMID: 7918730 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] As

one ages levels of the only anti-clotting enzyme plasmin are

similarly reduced, as pointed out in the study Age-dependent

decreases in fibrinolytic enzyme activities in serum of healthy

subjects. PMID: 8205137 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Also, it has been known for some time that blood coagulation is high

in multiple sclerosis particularly, PMID: 3984606 and PMID: 6972439

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE], and the journal Brain in 2003 PMID:

12805124 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] showed a potential role of

fibrinolytic medication.

> In the research I mentioned earlier at Creighton University under

Dr

> Brody, all 12 proteolytic enzymes tested showed unacceptable damage

to

> the body.

Let me reiterate there have been no deaths from enzyme use. There

isn't even an LD50 for oral enzymes. That in my view says it all. And

unacceptable risk to you might be acceptable to others. I for one

will tolerate a little damage (if indeed any exists for the

fibrinolytics) in order to clear clots, improve microcirculation and

inflammation, and reduce blood coagulation, as it would eliminate

warfarin as a contender.

Duncan Crow