Re: Enzymes in Food

[Guest guest]

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Irene has presented an interesting theory that oral enzymes are

> disassembled and their components reassembled after passing through

> the bowel lumen.

It's not *my* theory - it's how digestion works.

All you have to do to prove it, is get a glass beaker and add all the

stuff you would normally swallow including enzymes, plus the normal

digestive juices made and added by the body - shake gently at body temp

to simulate digestion and analyse the resulting contents.

It's experiment number one in any metabolism class at university.

You do not find any intact enzymes:-)

You can also run an experiment with gut wall from fresh cadaver to

see if you can make enzymes cross it, but they don't.

The molecular structure of the gut wall in any case does not allow for

the passage of a molecule the size of an enzyme one. It's a bit like

trying to pass a house through a catflap. Only bricks get through at

best. You can rebuild the house other side:-))

> I would be interested in seeing her theory proven one

> way or the other.

I described how you can do it - let us know what *your* analysis shows:-)

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

> and inflammation in the body.

It's an issue you like, not one I like. There are many ways to reduce

fibrin and inflammation and I don't see your proposed approach of

swallowing enzymes as a safe one. Swallowing enzymes is in general an

unsafe practice with unpredictable results.

Swallowing nutrients that can be *assembled* by the body into

beneficial molecules whether they be enzymes or something else needed,

is safe.

In my view, to restore health one needs ALL the nutrients in plentiful

amounts - for any illness. I also like to add a homeopathic remedy to

help the body know how much of what to assemble and use where, incase it

has a damaged system for doing that, as is possibly the case illness.

Your approach is to do that thinking for the body, but it presupposes yo

know what is needed, where and how much and you have not forgotten

anything or supplied enough to harm. I think that's a tall order in

every relevant way - quantity needed is unknown, which other things are

needed is unknown, it's pot-shots in the dark?

> The fact they do presents a new way of

> treating illnesses that are inflammation-and coagulation-based,

> particularly in the elderly.

I compared that with making sure all nutrients are provided in a way

that excess is safely excreted and not there as a powerful end-product

molecule in the gut to cause harm - and the winning approach is to me

the safe one that supplies complete nutrition as well as meeting the

" first do no harm " criterion.

I am *not* keen on the conventional approach that if you throw a

chemical into the system and something you want happens, that

automatically makes it a good thing to do without looking at what else

it does.

Not in my book.

" In my book " any action taken towards health needs to be known to be

positive in all aspects. Enzymes, by their nature, can not be that way.

They are risky in the same way drugs are risky - we have only looked for

ONE resulting effect.

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]

Duncan Crow wrote:

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

>

> anything

>

>>going through the gut wall intact:

>

>

> Nit-picking.

Oh?

I thought that was the point of the discussion:-))

....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]

Duncan Crow wrote: 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.

And what " intelligence " tells the fibrinolytic enzymes artificially

added, which fibrin to break down and which fibrin is necessary to leave

alone? What " switches off " the excess of a powerful enzyme you take?

If the body makes it from building blocks there's a much better chance

of it making the right amount to use in the right places.

> This is

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

> talking about here

Is it? How does the fibrinogen provided externally as opposed to in

response to body process, " know " when to quit - or even where to start?

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

> a need,

No. It's been proved that in people not taking other (possibly more

sensible) steps, this may help them lower fibrin by the end of the

study, a short term test that is without looking at long-term or other

effects.

That's a typical approach in the conventional world - very blinker-on to

look at ONE specific thing after one specific time.

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

> in multiple sclerosis particularly

MS is a TH-1 skewed disease, rather unusual but it required re-balancing

of the immune system in a different way from the skewing to TH-2 as in

diabetes and a dozen other illnesses. However if that is done -

rebalancing the immune system - the body will also regulate its enzymes

and coagulation better.

MEantime fibrinogenase is not the only way to try to help that, and

is not the way I would choose. It's healthier to use spinach (for the

Vit K1) and evo and rice bran (for the beta sitosterol), and Vit E and

of courseD that being a trigger for MS and the main reason it occurs at

high latitude.

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

Well that's debatable and can't be proved. There were rabbit deaths in

the lab. But I do not consider something safe unless it causes a death -

there are lesser evils just as undesirable and to my way of thinking

where there is a choice of methods, I prefer safe ones to ones that

" don't cause death " .

There

> isn't even an LD50 for oral enzymes.

With respect you should not be making such false claims when it is so

easy to look up! For example Bromelain has an LD 50 after parenteral

application of 85.2 mg/kg for rats. LD50 of aspirin is 558 mg/kg in

humans for comparison, and while the species is not the same, the

difference is only a factor of 6.

Fibrinogen is not proven safe either. for example quoting from one

study, ref below:

" The ability of heterologous fibrinogen in combination with interferon

(IFN)-gamma to induce endogenous production of cytotoxic factor was

examined. Heterologous but not homologous fibrinogen induced high

production of cytotoxic factor in IFN-gamma-primed mice. The cytotoxic

activity was maximal 1 h after this triggering. The LD50 value of

heterologous fibrinogen in mice was greater than 250 mg/kg i.v. But

heterologous fibrinogen induced antibody, causing anaphylaxis... "

Not my idea of a good report, it's from:

J Biol Response Mod. 1987 Apr;6(2):205-14. Endogenous production of

cytotoxic factor in mice induced by a combination of interferon-gamma

and heterologous fibrinogen. Kajikawa T, Inagawa H, Shimada Y, Satoh M,

Oshima H, Abe S, Yamazaki M, Mizuno D.

There are many reports in PubMed, I just grabbed the first that popped up.

As far as I can make out the usual source of fibrinogenase is snake

venom and the safety data sheets for this show ingredient/contaminant

(depending how you look at it) toxicity from some nasty components with

quite significant LD50's as well.

It's not my idea of " proved safe " .

> That in my view says it all.

We differ then:-))

> And

> unacceptable risk to you might be acceptable to others.

It's an unnecessary risk - there are better and safer ways:-)

> 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.

I did it a different way - I used spinach, Vit E, rice bran and extra

virgin olive oil, and a low carb eating plan.

All safe AND beneficial in *many* other ways.

My BP with a systolic over 200 plus heart attacks changed to BP 102/78

in just over a year.

That was a SAFE alternative approach.

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]

> Duncan Crow wrote:

> > Irene has presented an interesting theory that oral enzymes are

> > disassembled and their components reassembled after passing

> > through

> > the bowel lumen.

>

> Irene wrote:

> It's not *my* theory - it's how digestion works.

>

> It's experiment number one in any metabolism class at university.

> You do not find any intact enzymes:-)

Irene, here's some research that ahows when enzymes are not used up

by the food they penetrate the bowel lumen and enter the bloodstream:

Bioavailability of 125I bromelain after oral administration to rats.

http://tinyurl.com/73agh

[Absorption of a proteolytic enzyme originating from plants out of

the gastro-intestinal tract into blood and lymph of rats (author's

transl)]

http://tinyurl.com/b68ry

Proteolytic activity and immunogenicity of oral bromelain within the

gastrointestinal tract of mice.

http://tinyurl.com/9uame

> > I would be interested in seeing her theory proven one

> > way or the other.

>

> I described how you can do it - let us know what *your* analysis

shows:-)

I realise these are animal studies and one enzyme I'm not

particularly interested in, but the research has put your theory down

pretty firmly.

>

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

fibrin

> > and inflammation in the body.

>

> It's an issue you like, not one I like. There are many ways to

reduce

> fibrin and inflammation and I don't see your proposed approach of

> swallowing enzymes as a safe one. Swallowing enzymes is in general

an

> unsafe practice with unpredictable results.

Much research has been done, especially on nattokinase, and it simply

doesn't support your contention of unpredictability or danger.

> Swallowing nutrients that can be *assembled* by the body into

> beneficial molecules whether they be enzymes or something else

needed,

> is safe.

You proposed earlier today that enzymes are broken down and then

reassembled in this exact manner once the components enter the

bloodstream. Now you have conflicting stories :-))

> Your approach is to do that thinking for the body, but it

presupposes yo

> know what is needed, where and how much and you have not forgotten

> anything or supplied enough to harm. I think that's a tall order in

> every relevant way - quantity needed is unknown, which other things

are

> needed is unknown, it's pot-shots in the dark?

Not pot shots; here again are the facts that we're addressing:

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.

....and I've showed you how to address them with fibrinolytic enzymes.

> I am *not* keen on the conventional approach that if you throw a

> chemical into the system and something you want happens, that

> automatically makes it a good thing to do without looking at what

else

> it does.

> Not in my book.

I can see that and I hear you on the nutritional aspects, but you

can't discount correcting a natural plasmin deficiency and fibrinogen

increase as one ages, and an induced deficiency in some people due to

diet and lifestyle, based on it not being the full meal deal. But go

ahead and eat the natto instead; it is disgusting to most palates but

it is effective.

> " In my book " any action taken towards health needs to be known to

> be

> positive in all aspects. Enzymes, by their nature, can not be that

> way.

> They are risky in the same way drugs are risky - we have only

looked for

> ONE resulting effect.

Now you're speculating on points that have been fairly well studied

particularly with regard to the nattokinase. Natto safety speaks for

itself; they survived its reckless use for hundreds if not thousands

of years. Nattokinase is concentrated to provide about two scoops of

Natto in one capsule.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

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

> >

> > anything

> >

> >>going through the gut wall intact:

> >

> >

> > Nit-picking.

>

> Oh?

> I thought that was the point of the discussion:-))

>

> ...Irene

These references show bromelain passes the bowel lumen and can be

measured in the blood; our posts crossed so I'll just link it up:

Longevity/message/5110

Duncan

[Guest guest]

> There

> > isn't even an LD50 for oral enzymes.

>

> With respect you should not be making such false claims when it is

so

> easy to look up! For example Bromelain has an LD 50 ...

Sorry to cut in but Bromelain is a vey general proteolytic I'm not

interested in, and I'd meant my statement to be taken in context of

our discussion of fibrinolytic oral enzymes.

> Fibrinogen is not proven safe either. for example quoting from one

> study, ref below:

....not sure why that crept in Irene; I'm not interested in LD 50 of

fibrinogen, too much of that activated already. Fibrinogenase

maybe... but it's not nattokinase or serrapeptase, and as you know

they all have different properties.

> There are many reports in PubMed, I just grabbed the first that

popped up.

And neither one was pertinent.

> As far as I can make out the usual source of fibrinogenase is snake

> venom and the safety data sheets for this show

ingredient/contaminant

> (depending how you look at it) toxicity from some nasty components

with

> quite significant LD50's as well.

> It's not my idea of " proved safe " .

>

> > That in my view says it all.

>

> We differ then:-))

Snake venom I'm not interested in, and I wouldn't trust it either. Is

it really an oral enzyme?

Sure we differ; thanks for the dialogue.

Duncan

[Guest guest]

I think that the scientific evidence in favor the value of proteolytic enzymes

in oral

nutrition is overwhelming.

I was taught in Grad school that the M cells in the small intestine exist to

grab big

molecules with high molecular weight using little vesicules.

Here is a great little book on oral enzymes with lots of references:

http://tinyurl.com/aogxr

I'd be very interested in seeing information on damaging effects of oral

enzymes, I'm sure

its possible, nothing is totally benign.

Dr. Hans Conser, DC

[Guest guest]

I can't help but wonder how it is possible to determine which specific

proteolytic enzymes to supplement with. There are so many of them (see

http://tinyurl.com/bfh9p ). I favor the body's own wisdom in providing

the right ones at the right time.

Best regards,

Celeste

Hans Conser wrote:

> I think that the scientific evidence in favor the value of

proteolytic enzymes in oral

> nutrition is overwhelming.

[Guest guest]

Celeste, I think you just missed a fairly detailed discussion on

this last week.

The key term is " fibrinolytic " enzymes, which are much more

specific than proteolytic enzymes in that they reduce excess

fibrin, the cause of clot formation and blood coagulation. The

other more general proteolytics are pretty specific as well, but

they do not dissolve fibrin or do so only marginally.

The body releases less of the only fibrinolytic enzyme, plasmin, as

one ages; this is the main cause of thrombosis and organ fibrosis,

the leading cause of organ failure as one ages.

The blend I chose begs to be compared with any other commercial

blend -- Blockbuster All Clear.

Duncan Crow

On 12 Dec 2005 at 10:24, Longevity wrote:

> " a1thighmaster " <thighmaster@...>

> Subject: Re: Enzymes in Food

>

> I can't help but wonder how it is possible to determine which specific

> proteolytic enzymes to supplement with. There are so many of them (see

> http://tinyurl.com/bfh9p ). I favor the body's own wisdom in providing

> the right ones at the right time.

>

> Best regards,

> Celeste

[Guest guest]

I don't think that Hans Conser was referring to fibrinolytic enzymes,

but it was difficult to tell from what he wrote.

Best regards,

Celeste

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Celeste, I think you just missed a fairly detailed discussion on

> this last week.

>

> The key term is " fibrinolytic " enzymes, which are much more

> specific than proteolytic enzymes in that they reduce excess

> fibrin, the cause of clot formation and blood coagulation. The

> other more general proteolytics are pretty specific as well, but

> they do not dissolve fibrin or do so only marginally.

>

> Celeste wrote (in reply to Hans Conser's message):

> > I can't help but wonder how it is possible to determine which specific

> > proteolytic enzymes to supplement with. There are so many of them (see

> > http://tinyurl.com/bfh9p ). I favor the body's own wisdom in providing

> > the right ones at the right time.