Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 08:32 AM, Darrell wrote: > http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.html > > Darrell > Thanks Darrell this helped me understand the FOS problem. Thanks, Sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Sandy- > > http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.html > > > > Darrell > > >Thanks Darrell this helped me understand the FOS problem. In addition to that fairly good article, FOS is even better at feeding clostridium. Here's something Elaine Gottschall, author of _Breaking the Vicious Cycle_, said on the subject. >>In September of 1998, I was invited to participate in the SUSTAINABLE >>medicine conference at Christ Church, Oxford University sponsored by the >>Birtish Society of Allergy, Environmental and Nutritional Medicine. Dr. >>Hugh of the University of Newcastle of New South Wales, Australia >>presented work he had done which showed that in a medium containing FOS, >>the growth of Clostridium was huge, far outgrowing other bacteria in an >>FOS medium. No one questioned him except me. He scratched his head when I >>asked " why are the Clostridium growing at this exponential rate? " and he >>laughed and said " we wondered about it too. " >> >>This is the problem: other than the Cornell study on grain-fed cows there >>is probably little scientific literature that supports anything but a >>money-generating product. It's a very sound rule of thumb that people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest, because if you can't digest it, something else will, and there's no such thing as a magic fertilizer which will only feed organisms you like while discouraging organisms you don't. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 01:48 PM, Idol wrote: > Sandy- > > > > http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.html > > > > > > Darrell > > > > >Thanks Darrell this helped me understand the FOS problem. > > In addition to that fairly good article, FOS is even better at feeding > clostridium. > > > > - > Thanks, I am leaving to go out of town and won't be able to respond after this post. But I have been noticing that they are putting inulin and other stuff in stevia....I suppose this is also a problem? Sandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 >Here's something Elaine Gottschall, author of _Breaking the Vicious Cycle_, >said on the subject. > , Her website contains even more on FOS and inulin. Also, I have seen inulin in Stoneyfield Farms organic yogurt, fyi. Those concerned about it may want to read labels carefully. Deanna http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/knowledge_base/kb/inulin.htm (rest of message is excerpt) Have you heard about Fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) or Inulin yet? If not, you will. These are the latest and greatest refined chemicals that probiotic and yoghurt manufacturers are adding to their products for " your health " . It seems that only a few probiotic manufacturers are against using them, with Natren leading the charge. But we like to ask, why is this? Why would Natren be against using FOS in yoghurt and probiotic supplements? What kind of financial gain is involved in not using the latest and greatest chemicals in your products? None that we could think of. So we decided to investigate this matter further. 1. What is FOS and Inulin? Fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) and inulin are types of fructo-polysaccharides, comprised of -(glucose-fructose)- subunits. The only difference between FOS and inulin is polymer chain length. Inulin/FOS also goes by the name of Neosugar, Alant Starch, Atlanta Starch, Alantin, Dahlin, Helenin, and Diabetic Sugar. Inulin tastes sweet, cannot be digested by humans, and is soluble (unlike cellulose). 2. What does Inulin/FOS do? Since Inulin/FOS is indigestible by our bodies, it gets transported to the large intestine where it feeds microbes and promotes fermentation. Inulin/FOS has been dubbed a " prebiotic " , essentially serving as fertilizer for the bacteria in your colon. Certain lactobacillus species of bacteria have been shown to preferentially ferment Inulin/FOS. For this reason, it is being promoted as a supplement to feed the good bacteria in our guts. 3. Inulin/FOS feeds only good bacteria, right? Wrong. Manufacturers claim that Inulin/FOS specifically feeds only good bacteria. The reality of the situation is much different. If you examine the scientific literature about Inulin/FOS, you will find that this is untrue. The best example is concerning Klebsiella. Recent studies have shown that Inulin/FOS encourages the growth of Klebsiella, a bacterium implicated in Ankylosing Spondylitis and increased intestinal permeability. Inulin/FOS may indeed promote the growth of lactobacillus bacteria, but what other potentially harmful bacteria are we feeding as well? Furthermore, we have not even addressed the issue of yeast. Many different species of yeast are able to utilize Inulin/FOS for energy. Historically, microbes have demonstrated the innate ability to adapt to almost any condition and fuel source. If bacteria can adapt to break down industrial solvents in our soil and use them for energy, it would be irresponible to think that they will not adapt to utilize Inulin/FOS, a high energy carbohydrate. There are hundreds of different species of bacteria and several yeast strains living in our GI tracts. Studies have only looked at the effects of Inulin/FOS on a handful of these microbes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Sandy- >I am leaving to go out of town and won't be able to respond after this >post. But I have been noticing that they are putting inulin and other >stuff in stevia....I suppose this is also a problem? Yup, sadly so. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Huh? Is it in all stevia? I don't use stevia because it makes me nauseous. A chiropractor told be I am allergic. I wonder now if the stuff had inulin in it and that is what disagreed with me. I don't think I have the bottle anymore. Irene At 11:45 AM 2/8/2005, you wrote: >On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 01:48 PM, Idol wrote: > > > Sandy- > > > > > > http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.html > > > > > > > > Darrell > > > > > > >Thanks Darrell this helped me understand the FOS problem. > > > > In addition to that fairly good article, FOS is even better at feeding > > clostridium. > > > > > > > > - > > > > >Thanks, > >I am leaving to go out of town and won't be able to respond after this >post. But I have been noticing that they are putting inulin and other >stuff in stevia....I suppose this is also a problem? >Sandy > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 _____ From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: Re: probiotics FOS Sandy- > > http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.html > > > > Darrell > > >Thanks Darrell this helped me understand the FOS problem. In addition to that fairly good article, FOS is even better at feeding clostridium. Here's something Elaine Gottschall, author of _Breaking the Vicious Cycle_, said on the subject. >>In September of 1998, I was invited to participate in the SUSTAINABLE >>medicine conference at Christ Church, Oxford University sponsored by the >>Birtish Society of Allergy, Environmental and Nutritional Medicine. Dr. >>Hugh of the University of Newcastle of New South Wales, Australia >>presented work he had done which showed that in a medium containing FOS, >>the growth of Clostridium was huge, far outgrowing other bacteria in an >>FOS medium. No one questioned him except me. He scratched his head when I >>asked " why are the Clostridium growing at this exponential rate? " and he >>laughed and said " we wondered about it too. " >> >>This is the problem: other than the Cornell study on grain-fed cows there >>is probably little scientific literature that supports anything but a >>money-generating product. It's a very sound rule of thumb that people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest, because if you can't digest it, something else will, and there's no such thing as a magic fertilizer which will only feed organisms you like while discouraging organisms you don't. - -------------- , You wrote: " people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest " But that discounts all dietary fiber. " there's no such thing as a magic fertilizer which will only feed organisms you like while discouraging organisms you don't. " Research long-chain inulin. -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 --- In , Irene Musiol <Irene.M@a...> wrote: > Huh? Is it in all stevia? I don't use stevia because it makes me nauseous. > A chiropractor told be I am allergic. I wonder now if the stuff had inulin > in it and that is what disagreed with me. I don't think I have the bottle > anymore. Irene, AFAIK inulin is just added to stevia to bulk it up (Steviaplus, for example) so it can be used more like sugar, since one has to use such tiny amounts of stevia to sweeten things. Is what I remember from _The Body Ecology Diet_by Donna Gates, Inulin Pimp. (OMG I couldn't stop laughing...) Anyway, if it was liquid stevia in the above-referenced bottle, it is unlikely to have contained inulin. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 In " The Colon Health Handbook " Gray discusses the three foods that are most potent in building up colonies of Lactobacteria in the intestines. These are onions, cabbage (which also suppresses putrefactive bacteria), and sun chokes, also called Jerusalem artichokes, which contain inulin. He then goes on to say that " one drawback to sun chokes is that they also feed candida yeast and can aggravate the condition of anyone having a candida yeast infection, which many people chronically have. " He goes on to say that cabbage and sun chokes are also problematic in creating smelly gas (my phrasing. <g>). The dosage recommend for onion is one large, every day, cooked or raw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Irene- >Huh? Is it in all stevia? I don't use stevia because it makes me nauseous. >A chiropractor told be I am allergic. I wonder now if the stuff had inulin >in it and that is what disagreed with me. I don't think I have the bottle >anymore. No, definitely not in all stevia products, but it is used in an increasing number in order to achieve volume equivalency (or something close to it) with table sugar (IOW to allow you to replace sugar with the same volume of stevia-based sweetener). This is rather like the version of Splenda you can buy in stores -- it has a little sucralose (probably bad) and a lot of maltodextrin (definitely bad, in much the same way FOS and inulin are bad). - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Mark- > " people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest " > >But that discounts all dietary fiber. Yes, fiber is overrated (its apotheosis is largely, though not entirely, a product of today's grain-intensive agribusiness) but I should've said " as a general rule of thumb, people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest but other organisms in their gut will eagerly overgrow on " . Modest amounts of fiber general pass through the gut relatively undigested, though a recent study of college students did discover that almost half of the test subjects had bacteria in their guts which digest cellulose, so this may be changing. > " there's no such thing as a magic fertilizer which will only feed >organisms you like >while discouraging organisms you don't. " > >Research long-chain inulin. I have. Tell me, do you sell the stuff? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 _____ From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:34 PM Subject: RE: probiotics FOS Mark- > " people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest " > >But that discounts all dietary fiber. Yes, fiber is overrated (its apotheosis is largely, though not entirely, a product of today's grain-intensive agribusiness) but I should've said " as a general rule of thumb, people shouldn't eat what they cannot digest but other organisms in their gut will eagerly overgrow on " . Modest amounts of fiber general pass through the gut relatively undigested, though a recent study of college students did discover that almost half of the test subjects had bacteria in their guts which digest cellulose, so this may be changing. > " there's no such thing as a magic fertilizer which will only feed >organisms you like >while discouraging organisms you don't. " > >Research long-chain inulin. I have. Tell me, do you sell the stuff? - --------------------- , I don't sell it. I just eat it - for around two years now - with great success. -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Mark- >I don't sell it. I just eat it - for around two years now - with >great success. Sooner or later you'll pay the price, but that's your funeral. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 West wrote: > In " The Colon Health Handbook " Gray discusses the three foods that > are most potent in building up colonies of Lactobacteria in the intestines. > These are onions, cabbage (which also suppresses putrefactive bacteria), > and > sun chokes, also called Jerusalem artichokes, which contain inulin. He > then > goes on to say that " one drawback to sun chokes is that they also feed > candida yeast and can aggravate the condition of anyone having a candida > yeast infection, which many people chronically have. " He goes on to say > that cabbage and sun chokes are also problematic in creating smelly gas (my > phrasing. <g>). The dosage recommend for onion is one large, every day, > cooked or raw. > The whole " bacteria in the intestine " thing is controversial. Personally I can say that what I've read is very different than what Gottschall seems to say. It IS true that SOME undigested foods do cause bacterial overgrowth, because those foods are presumably either rarely eaten or are generally absorbed earlier during digestion. Fructose is one of those: normally it is absorbed quickly, but if you eat a LOT of it or you can't digest fructose well, it can wreck havoc. However, there are other sugars that are not, never have been, digested and absorbed by people. In a healthy digestive tract, these are digested by bacteria, and the bacteria produce butyrate, which is one of the main fuels and healing substances of the gut. Butyrate STINKS, though in my experience, since my gut has healed, I've had almost no gas and the solid output is not stinky at all, so I don't know where it goes: maybe all the butyrate is being used now by my gut as fuel. Now I don't know why some folks get nastier bacteria in their gut, like klebsella. For myself, changing the digestion in my upper intestine (by avoiding the IgA allergens, taking Pepto Bismol for awhile, etc.) and drinking kefir beer (which has bacteria that may outcompete the bad ones?) seems to have solved whatever problems I DID have. " Resistant starch " ... that is, starch that does not digest quickly .. is also associated with *better* health statistically, though by Gottshcall's model it should " feed bad bacteria " . Pectin (apples) and some fats also may help butyrate and proprionate production, and FOS is thought to help also. ............................... http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/02legume.html Resistant starch does not digest easily. It goes past the stomach and small intestine before settling in the colon. There, bacteria attack it just as they do a dietary fiber, producing butyrate -- a short-chained fatty acid desirable for its cancer-preventing qualities. The study provides the first database of the percentages of starch and fiber in common food and feed ingredients. The researchers also determined how and where in vitro digestion occurred by studying digestion in the lower part of the small intestine in a dog model representative of the human digestive tract. ............................... However, SOME fermentations in the gut are bad for the gut, which is I think what Gottschall is talking about. In my view the best bet is to eat the foods that work for you, and to eat the whole food (one that has been associated with healthy people. Taking one sugar out of context, like FOS, could well set up a " bad " fermentation: ............................. http://agnews.tamu.edu/stories/ANSC/fiber.htm For now, she recommended, " if consumers just follow the recommendation to increase the proportion of naturally fiber- bearing foods in the diet, that's a good general approach. But all bets are off when you change the natural proportions. As a consumer, you are then getting fiber not from foods, but from food supplements. " ............................. Statistically, folks who eat onions and other such foods have healthier guts than folks who don't, and part of that seems to track back to the production of butyrate. I don't know about artificially produced FOS, and I tend to stay away from manufactured foods like that anyway for the reasons above. I also disagree with Gottschall because she doesn't address the IgA allergy problem, which is likely at the root of many bacterial imbalances. Avoiding wheat (as she recommends) would help a lot of people, but a lot of people are also IgA intolerant to casein and even eggs, which you wouldn't be able to diagnose by following SCD. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 , What's my prognosis and how long do you figure I got to live? -Mark _____ From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 1:14 PM Subject: RE: probiotics FOS Mark- >I don't sell it. I just eat it - for around two years now - with >great success. Sooner or later you'll pay the price, but that's your funeral. - <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY>< FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> <UL> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NAT IVE NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive with Onibasu</LI> </UL></FONT> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer Wanita Sears </FONT></PRE> </BODY> </HTML> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Heidi- I haven't had time to address your earlier pro-fermentative-digestion post and I don't know when I will, but I can't let this pass entirely unremarked. >Personally >I can say that what I've read is very different than what Gottschall >seems to say. This is an empty statement. It's not even arguing on authority, because you're not citing an authority. >It IS true that SOME undigested foods do cause bacterial >overgrowth, because those foods are presumably either rarely eaten or >are generally absorbed earlier during digestion. Fructose is one of >those: normally it is absorbed quickly, but if you eat a LOT of it or >you can't digest fructose well, it can wreck havoc. It is true that, technically speaking, I overreached, though I did say I was talking about a rule of thumb, not an absolute law. Obviously, some indigestible substances do not cause overgrowth or harm. >However, there are other sugars that are not, never have been, digested >and absorbed by people. In a healthy digestive tract, these are digested >by bacteria, and the bacteria produce butyrate, which is one of the main >fuels and healing substances of the gut. No, no, no, no, no. It's fascinating (though also extremely depressing) to see how bass-ackward so much of modern science has gotten. Just as the conviction that saturated fat is bad, *must* be bad, leads scientists and journalists and thereby the lay public down all manner of garden paths, so the belief that humans should eat more like grazing animals has blinded people to reality and persuaded them of all sorts of contradictory and incorrect notions. First, SUGARS are digested and absorbed in the SMALL INTESTINE. BUTYRATE (or rather, butyrate formed by fermentation of certain types of oligosaccharides -- more on this distinction momentarily) is formed in the COLON. By the way, it may be of interest to all of you worried about osteoporosis or cavities specifically or mineral absorption generally that both dietary fiber AND these oligosaccharides tend to bind to and inhibit the absorption of minerals like calcium and magnesium in the small intestine. This is BAD NEWS. It is NOT A GOOD THING. It is UNDESIRABLE. Second, just as the worship of low-fat and even vegetarian-type diets has blinded researchers and journalists and, by extension, the lay public, to animal foods as important sources of many nutrients (a subject I'm sure many of you are familiar with) the worship of said diets and fermentative digestion that results from following them have caused people to overlook non-fermentative sources of butyrate, like, oh, say, one of the WAPF's most prized foods, BUTTER. >Now I don't know why some folks get nastier bacteria in their gut, like >klebsella. Actually, klebsiella probably exists in tiny concentrations in most people's digestive tracts, but in healthy people, the immune system and a healthy gut ecology keep it in check. When you go and fertilize it with something like FOS or inulin, though, that healthy ecology can go out of whack, sometimes alarmingly quickly. > " Resistant starch " ... that is, starch that does not digest quickly .. >is also associated with *better* health statistically, though by >Gottshcall's model it should " feed bad bacteria " . I'm not sure Gottschall has ever commented on " resistant " starch specifically, though I imagine it's likely she has on some list or other, but I'm sure you're aware of the many bogus statistical associations making the rounds of medical and health circles. Without looking VERY closely at the specific statistics being cited, I'm disinclined to accept any of them. It is true that a healthy population adapted to a particular starchy diet can do pretty well, but this requires a number of conditions. First, the individuals have to be healthy to start with. Second, the rest of their diet has to be sufficiently nutrient-dense to make up for the low nutrient density of starchy foods. And third, though this is in a sense just a corollary of the first, their gut ecology has to be well-adapted to what they're eating. This can be observed well enough in Price's data and in Gottschall's observation that SOME people are able to add SOME " illegals " (foods illegal on the SCD diet) back into their diets AFTER fully healing. >Pectin (apples) and >some fats also may help butyrate and proprionate production, and FOS is >thought to help also. FOS " is thought to help " by people trying to turn a cheap industrial product into a huge new profit center, and by their dupes. In this respect it's highly analogous to seed oils. >Resistant starch does not digest easily. It goes past the stomach and >small intestine before settling in the colon. There, bacteria attack it >just as they do a dietary fiber, producing butyrate -- a short-chained >fatty acid desirable for its cancer-preventing qualities. It can also lead to overgrowth in the small intestine, though often enough it does cause problems in the large intestine. The myth that inulin feeds only desirable bacteria is much like the myth that resistant starch feeds only desirable bacteria. >I also disagree with Gottschall because she doesn't address the IgA >allergy problem, which is likely at the root of many bacterial >imbalances. I'm tired of you saying this, Heidi, because she does address the issue. Admittedly the first couple editions of the book didn't, but starting with the edition with the sub-heading " The Celiac Story " on the cover, she discusses exactly that. She just doesn't agree with your take on it, which seems to be (with only minimal exaggeration) that every conceivable problem is caused by gluten and/or casein intolerance. Do you have diarrhea? Must be an IgA problem. Are you thirsty? Have you considered eliminating gluten and casein from your diet? Osteoporosis? I have two words for you: " gluten " and " casein " . Cavities? See above. Stub your toe? You know, gluten and casein reactions can impair your reflexes. Struck by lightening? Research suggests that IgA problems alter the ground state of the body, leading to enhanced susceptibility to electrical discharges. And you pursue this obsession with a monomania that's admirable for its focus and endurance (and sometimes even correctness) if not for its overall accuracy. The SCD position on this matter is that overgrowth damages the intestines and increases permeability, leading to various sequelae including allergies. This doesn't at all diminish the seriousness of those allergies or the importance of dealing with them. However, many people come to the SCD diet after first trying a GFCF diet and finding that after some initial improvement, they either stall without ever attaining full health or even backslide dramatically. This is because they've addressed only one problem out of the constellation of ills they're suffering from. >Avoiding wheat (as she recommends) would help a lot of >people, but a lot of people are also IgA intolerant to casein and even >eggs, which you wouldn't be able to diagnose by following SCD. Diagnose? The SCD is a treatment, not a diagnosis. That said, you're wrong about Gottschall, as usual. First, one of the key tenets of the SCD is that you the individual following the diet have to find out what foods you can tolerate. Every now and then, someone can't tolerate eggs or even dairy -- though it's important to note that fresh dairy is not allowed on the SCD, only yoghurt which has been fermented enough to be very acidic (which likely has some denaturing effect on casein) and to have virtually no residual lactose, cheese which has been fermented for at least 60 days, etc. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Heidi- >However, there are other sugars that are not, never have been, digested >and absorbed by people. In a healthy digestive tract, these are digested >by bacteria, and the bacteria produce butyrate, which is one of the main >fuels and healing substances of the gut. Butyrate STINKS, though in my >experience, since my gut has healed, I've had almost no gas and the >solid output is not stinky at all, so I don't know where it goes: maybe >all the butyrate is being used now by my gut as fuel. I forgot a very important point. Butyrate production in the large intestine via bifidus fermentation of oligosaccharides is thought to be a good thing because of the value of butyrate to intestinal cells. Inulin and FOS are also promoted on the basis of feeding bifida bacteria in the colon. Aside from the fact that this ignores important dietary sources of butyric acid like butter, there's the inconvenient fact that high bifidus populations are associated with an increased risk of colon cancer. It's also widely assumed that because infants have lots of bifida, it must be a good thing for adults too, but even aside from the epidemiological association with colon cancer, there's the important fact that INFANT bifida bacteria are fed not by inulin or FOS or any oligosaccharides at all, but certain peptides and other factors in mothers' milk, a food which doesn't even remotely resemble the starchy and fibrous diet advocated by low-fat high-fiber types. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Mark- >What's my prognosis and how long do you figure I got to live? I can't answer that specifically, but I can provide some general information. First, most (or perhaps all; I'm not sure) in vivo studies on inulin have involved healthy people. Something which is tolerable or even somewhat beneficial for healthy people can have very different effects on sick people. So your starting and present state of intestinal health are important factors. Second, as I noted in another post, you appear to be running an increased risk for colon cancer. Third, it's possible that your intestinal ecology is either maintaining equilibrium or only slowly decaying, but at any time, the introduction of a pathogenic species which flourishes on inulin or its direct digestion products to your gut (via contaminated food, for example) could result in a bloom of undesirable organisms and a resulting crisis of health from which you'll find it extremely difficult or impossible to recover without serious dietary modification, including the total abandonment of refined inulin and FOS. As I've noted before, though this is entirely anecdotal, in my experience and that of others, all people with bowel disease who've tried inulin have worsened their health considerably. Fourth, depending on the makeup of the rest of your diet, you may not be absorbing adequate minerals, which can have a wide variety of effects. But like I said, it's your funeral. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Idol wrote: > >Personally > >I can say that what I've read is very different than what Gottschall > >seems to say. > > This is an empty statement. It's not even arguing on authority, because > you're not citing an authority. It's my preface to say " this is my opinion: I'm not an authority " , just like you pointed out. > > It's fascinating (though also extremely depressing) to see how bass-ackward > so much of modern science has gotten. Just as the conviction that > saturated fat is bad, *must* be bad, leads scientists and journalists and > thereby the lay public down all manner of garden paths, so the belief that > humans should eat more like grazing animals has blinded people to reality > and persuaded them of all sorts of contradictory and incorrect notions. > > First, SUGARS are digested and absorbed in the SMALL INTESTINE. > > BUTYRATE (or rather, butyrate formed by fermentation of certain types of > oligosaccharides -- more on this distinction momentarily) is formed in the > COLON. " oligosaccharides " have that " saccharide " ending ... they are sugars. Albeit long-chain sugars. > > Actually, klebsiella probably exists in tiny concentrations in most > people's digestive tracts, but in healthy people, the immune system and a > healthy gut ecology keep it in check. When you go and fertilize it with > something like FOS or inulin, though, that healthy ecology can go out of > whack, sometimes alarmingly quickly. Except that they DON'T get out of whack in native populations that eat high-inulin foods. Or high slow-digesting starch foods. I agree with you about adding something like " canned FOS " to a person's diet. But humans have eating " slow carbs " for eons, and in countries where they still do, they are healthy. That is why I disagree with the idea that " you shouldn't feed the bacteria " in the lower gut ... it's oversimplifying. > It is true that a healthy population adapted to a particular starchy diet > can do pretty well, but this requires a number of conditions. First, the > individuals have to be healthy to start with. Second, the rest of their > diet has to be sufficiently nutrient-dense to make up for the low nutrient > density of starchy foods. And third, though this is in a sense just a > corollary of the first, their gut ecology has to be well-adapted to what > they're eating. > > This can be observed well enough in Price's data and in Gottschall's > observation that SOME people are able to add SOME " illegals " (foods illegal > on the SCD diet) back into their diets AFTER fully healing. Price's data includes a LOT of starch though. While some populations, like the Inuit, have lived off mostly animal foods, they are a rare occurance. MOST humans ate a lot of greens, roots, as well as meat, and even Cordain's analysis of Paleo eating included a lot of carbs. The greens and roots have a lot of resistant starch, fiber, and other stuff that feeds bacteria. But virtually no population, except the SAD eaters, had a high rate of colon cancer. > It can also lead to overgrowth in the small intestine, though often enough > it does cause problems in the large intestine. The myth that inulin feeds > only desirable bacteria is much like the myth that resistant starch feeds > only desirable bacteria. I agree there is no food that will feed " only good " bacteria. How the bacteria get into what mix is not something I understand. I WAS however, able to solve virtually all my gut problems without resorting to a really low carb diet. The only food that seems to consistently be problematic is large quantities of baked goods ... something about ground up flour, baked, seems to be problematic bacteria wise. > I'm tired of you saying this, Heidi, because she does address the > issue. Admittedly the first couple editions of the book didn't, but > starting with the edition with the sub-heading " The Celiac Story " on the > cover, she discusses exactly that. Cool. What I read was from the previous books and interviews is that she regarded celiac as an outgrowth of bacterial overgrowth problems, rather than an innate genetic issue, and one that could " go away " with proper treatment. Is she still believing that? > > She just doesn't agree with your take on it, which seems to be (with only > minimal exaggeration) that every conceivable problem is caused by gluten > and/or casein intolerance. > > Do you have diarrhea? Must be an IgA problem. > > Are you thirsty? Have you considered eliminating gluten and casein from > your diet? > > Osteoporosis? I have two words for you: " gluten " and " casein " . > > Cavities? See above. > > Stub your toe? You know, gluten and casein reactions can impair your > reflexes. > > Struck by lightening? Research suggests that IgA problems alter the ground > state of the body, leading to enhanced susceptibility to electrical > discharges. > > And you pursue this obsession with a monomania that's admirable for its > focus and endurance (and sometimes even correctness) if not for its overall > accuracy. What can I say? That's my schtick, and I'm schticking to it ;-) Actually gluten IgA is only a problem for maybe 10%-30% of the population. But it's the sickest 10%, and shoot, if you can figure it out with one blood test, why not? > The SCD position on this matter is that overgrowth damages the intestines > and increases permeability, leading to various sequelae including > allergies. This doesn't at all diminish the seriousness of those allergies > or the importance of dealing with them. And I totally agree with her about the IgG allergies. Actually there was a naturopath talking to the GF group last night, that talked about exactly what you are mentioning above, and how she uses food rotation diets. I asked her about IgA allergies, and she said they don't deal with those, because there are no good tests for them and they don't have enough research, and she has enough of a hard time keeping up with the new research as it is. She also hadn't heard of the role of zonulin in intestinal permeability. > > However, many people come to the SCD diet after first trying a GFCF diet > and finding that after some initial improvement, they either stall without > ever attaining full health or even backslide dramatically. This is because > they've addressed only one problem out of the constellation of ills they're > suffering from. And I'd tend to agree, it helps a lot of people ... gets the junk out of their diet, gets the probiotics in, for one thing. > > >Avoiding wheat (as she recommends) would help a lot of > >people, but a lot of people are also IgA intolerant to casein and even > >eggs, which you wouldn't be able to diagnose by following SCD. > > Diagnose? The SCD is a treatment, not a diagnosis. > That said, you're wrong about Gottschall, as usual. First, one of the key > tenets of the SCD is that you the individual following the diet have to > find out what foods you can tolerate. Every now and then, someone can't > tolerate eggs or even dairy -- though it's important to note that fresh > dairy is not allowed on the SCD, only yoghurt which has been fermented > enough to be very acidic (which likely has some denaturing effect on > casein) and to have virtually no residual lactose, cheese which has been > fermented for at least 60 days, etc. Well, that's what I was getting at by " diagnose " . The IgA allergies are VERY difficult to track down by using elimination techniques. Elimination works for IgG or IgE, but IgA is a different animal. Shoot, it took a big world war and major famine before the doctors even tied celiac to wheat ingestion, after studying it for over 50 years. There are commonly no symptoms at all, nothing to track, so eliminating the food and not feeling different doesn't prove anything -- improvement might take a year or more, and a lot of people get WORSE before they get better. Which is why I bug naturopaths at Gluten Intolerance meetings, get them to learn about this testing stuff. That's my schtick, and I'm schticking to it. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Heidi- I really don't have time today, but I'll see what I can do. > " oligosaccharides " have that " saccharide " ending ... they are sugars. >Albeit long-chain sugars. No again. By that logical all starches and fibers could be called sugars because they're all made of saccharide units, but while I'd agree that starches can have physiological effects similar to sugars (since starches are digested into sugars) I don't think anyone would agree to not distinguish between the two. FOS and inulin are both commonly referred to as fiber, basically because they are long chains which aren't directly digestible by humans. >Except that they DON'T get out of whack in native populations that eat >high-inulin foods. Which Price-level native populations ate a lot of high-inulin foods, and what were those foods? >Or high slow-digesting starch foods. Aside from the fact that most native populations weren't the paragons of health that Price's selected groups were, what I do think we'd agree on is that once agriculture began and grains and starchy roots began making up very large portions of people's diets, a lot of people died off. The species had to adapt. As you've said it yourself before, I think you'll also agree that different populations adapted to different starch foods, and nowadays you're more likely to have trouble with a given starch food if your ancestors never touched it. In today's world of heavy migration and mixed ancestry, this causes many people problems. > I agree with you >about adding something like " canned FOS " to a person's diet. Which is exactly the subject under discussion. > But humans >have eating " slow carbs " for eons, and in countries where they still do, >they are healthy. " Eons " is a meaningless term, and in this sort of discussion, I think a reasonable degree of precision is necessary. People have been eating *some* carbs for a very long time, and I've certainly never advocated a no-carb diet for anyone. However, agriculture is a very, very recent development -- it began perhaps only 10,000 years ago or less, and many modern agricultural staples (like corn) weren't added until much more recently. And equally importantly, modern agricultural carbs (even " heirloom varieties that date back a hundred years or more) do not resemble paleolithic carbs in either their starch content or makeup or their calorie content. We've bred plants to store enormous numbers of calories, largely in starch, sometimes in sugar. In the wild, these plants wouldn't survive, because by the standards of nature, they're impossibly profligate. >That is why I disagree with the idea that " you >shouldn't feed the bacteria " in the lower gut ... it's oversimplifying. It would be impossible (or near to it) not to feed them. However, this fad of eating indigestible supplements designed to feed desirable species in the bowel while magically choking out undesirable species is both harmful and absurd. >Price's data includes a LOT of starch though. While some populations, >like the Inuit, have lived off mostly animal foods, they are a rare >occurance. MOST humans ate a lot of greens, roots, as well as meat, and >even Cordain's analysis of Paleo eating included a lot of carbs. The >greens and roots have a lot of resistant starch, fiber, and other stuff >that feeds bacteria. But virtually no population, except the SAD eaters, >had a high rate of colon cancer. A lot compared to what? Compared to people who eat lots of pasta and potatoes every day? I think not. And you're showing your biases: you're selectively ignoring the other conditions I specified. I repeat: people who do well on starchy diets have to start out healthy, they have to be adapted to the particular starch source they're eating (and this almost certainly includes some evolutionary adaptations), they therefore have to have bowel ecologies that are APPROPRIATE for the particular starchy foods they're eating, and the rest of their diet has to contain nutrient-dense foods with plenty of good protein and good fats. People who meet those criteria can definitely get alone on starchy diets. Price proved it. But those criteria are very difficult to meet nowadays. >I WAS however, >able to solve virtually all my gut problems without resorting to a >really low carb diet. Not everyone has to, and I've never said otherwise. That doesn't mean anyone should eat lots of bread and pasta. >Cool. What I read was from the previous books and interviews is that she >regarded celiac as an outgrowth of bacterial overgrowth problems, rather >than an innate genetic issue, and one that could " go away " with proper >treatment. Is she still believing that? I haven't talked with her recently or read the most recent edition of her book, but she advises everyone to permanently abstain from grains. As a compromise with human nature, she tells people that if they must, they can add back small quantities of illegals well after they've healed and see how they do, but it's not something she prefers. Some people even find they can eat a little bread on occasion, though I believe it's most often sourdough, but in general, it's not considered a good idea. The SCD is not meant as a cure which enables people to go back to the SAD. Far from it. It's a lifelong regimen. >Actually gluten IgA is only a problem for maybe 10%-30% of the >population. But it's the sickest 10%, and shoot, if you can figure it >out with one blood test, why not? Let's just go with the highest number, then, for the sake of argument: let's say 30% of the country is very sick due to gluten IgA problems. Your general stance, which suggests that gluten is the root of all evil, completely fails to account for the fact that a lot more than 30% of the country is very sick. (Granted, maybe not everyone would agree with the " very sick " description, but I'm using Price's healthy natives as a baseline, and by comparison to them, just about all of us are feeble, flabby, out of shape, debilitated, and generally ill. Remember that today's elite athletes often are just achieving performance levels similar to those common among healthy and athletic tribe members -- and lack of exercise can't account for the entire difference or even close to it, because those elite athletes are exercising far more than Price's healthy natives did.) > > However, many people come to the SCD diet after first trying a GFCF diet > > and finding that after some initial improvement, they either stall without > > ever attaining full health or even backslide dramatically. This is because > > they've addressed only one problem out of the constellation of ills they're > > suffering from. > >And I'd tend to agree, it helps a lot of people ... gets the junk out of >their diet, gets the probiotics in, for one thing. If you'd tend to agree, then how do you account for the fact that many people first go GFCF, then find that they need to adopt the SCD? >Well, that's what I was getting at by " diagnose " . The IgA allergies are >VERY difficult to track down by using elimination techniques. >Elimination works for IgG or IgE, but IgA is a different animal. Shoot, >it took a big world war and major famine before the doctors even tied >celiac to wheat ingestion, after studying it for over 50 years. There >are commonly no symptoms at all, nothing to track, so eliminating the >food and not feeling different doesn't prove anything -- improvement >might take a year or more, and a lot of people get WORSE before they get >better. Which is why I bug naturopaths at Gluten Intolerance meetings, >get them to learn about this testing stuff. And yet people commonly improve much faster on the SCD. (BTW, I don't mean to say that the SCD as written is perfect. In the interest of simplicity, Gottschall largely avoided issues of nutrient density and macroscopic dietary composition. It was an understandable and perhaps even necessary choice, but it still causes some problems. The small number of people who find that they have problems on the SCD almost universally turn out to be those who are eating very carb-heavy (albeit SCD-legal) diets. My conclusion is that they're swamping their digestive systems' ability to digest and utilize those carbs and therefore providing for overgrowth despite exclusively eating legals like honey and almond flour.) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Idol wrote: > Heidi- > > I really don't have time today, but I'll see what I can do. > > > " oligosaccharides " have that " saccharide " ending ... they are sugars. > >Albeit long-chain sugars. > > No again. By that logical all starches and fibers could be called sugars > because they're all made of saccharide units, but while I'd agree that > starches can have physiological effects similar to sugars (since starches > are digested into sugars) I don't think anyone would agree to not > distinguish between the two. You can and should distinguish, esp. as to the digestive time, so if it will be clearer I'll call them all " saccharides " . > FOS and inulin are both commonly referred to as fiber, basically because > they are long chains which aren't directly digestible by humans. > > >Except that they DON'T get out of whack in native populations that eat > >high-inulin foods. > > Which Price-level native populations ate a lot of high-inulin foods, and > what were those foods? The original post I was responding to was about onions ... I suspect I don't even know the name of the roots tribal folks ate, but foods like wild onions and Jerusalem artichokes and other tubers are generally mentioned. > > >Or high slow-digesting starch foods. > > Aside from the fact that most native populations weren't the paragons of > health that Price's selected groups were, what I do think we'd agree on is > that once agriculture began and grains and starchy roots began making up > very large portions of people's diets, a lot of people died off. The > species had to adapt. As you've said it yourself before, I think you'll > also agree that different populations adapted to different starch foods, > and nowadays you're more likely to have trouble with a given starch food if > your ancestors never touched it. In today's world of heavy migration and > mixed ancestry, this causes many people problems. I agree with the grains, which are decidedly new. Roots aren't new though, to any culture except maybe a few like the Inuit. Even wild hogs dig roots. The indians around here used rather large quantities of arrowroot, which was easily harvested from bogs. Cordain has done the most work in the area, and I'm sure you've read him, but a good analysis of the range of tribal diets is in the link below. Folks ate LESS carbs than we tend to, but they did eat a fair amount of fruit, roots, tubers. He is talking 22-40% energy from carbs (mostly starches). http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/AJCN%20PDF.pdf Our macronutrient projections for worldwide hunter-gatherer diets indicate that these diets would be extremely high in protein (19–35% of energy) and low in carbohydrate (22–40% of energy) by normal Western standards, whereas the fat intake would be comparable or higher (28–58% of energy) than values currently consumed in modern, industrialized societies. However, the types and balance of fats in hunter-gatherer diets would likely have been considerably different from those found in typical Western diets (47, 48). It should be pointed out that the types of plant and animal foods that together comprise the macronutrient composition of hunter-gatherer diets are substantially different from those commonly consumed by Westernized societies. In the United States, the 1987–1988 National Food Consumption Survey indicated that cereal grains contributed 31%, dairy products 14%, beverages 8%, oils and dressings 4%, and discretionary sugar and candy 4% of the total energy intake for all individuals (49). Virtually none of these foods would have been available to hunter-gatherers (14–16, 47). Cereal grains represent the highest single food item consumed on the basis of energy content in both the United States (49) and the rest of the world (50); however, they were rarely consumed by most hunter-gatherers (37, 47), except as starvation foods or by hunter-gatherers living in arid and marginal environments (37, 51). Although cereal grains, dairy products, beverages, oils and dressings, and sugar and candy comprise > 60% of the total daily energy consumed by all people in the United States (49), these types of foods would have contributed virtually none of the energy in the typical hunter-gatherer diet. > > I agree with you > >about adding something like " canned FOS " to a person's diet. > > Which is exactly the subject under discussion. Maybe ... it was unclear from the context, since the poster was talking about eating an onion a day for FOS. > " Eons " is a meaningless term, and in this sort of discussion, I think a > reasonable degree of precision is necessary. People have been eating > *some* carbs for a very long time, and I've certainly never advocated a > no-carb diet for anyone. However, agriculture is a very, very recent > development -- it began perhaps only 10,000 years ago or less, and many > modern agricultural staples (like corn) weren't added until much more > recently. And equally importantly, modern agricultural carbs (even > " heirloom varieties that date back a hundred years or more) do not resemble > paleolithic carbs in either their starch content or makeup or their calorie > content. We've bred plants to store enormous numbers of calories, largely > in starch, sometimes in sugar. In the wild, these plants wouldn't survive, > because by the standards of nature, they're impossibly profligate. This is what confuses me about the " slow digesting carb " argument. First, I totally agree about grains: they are problematic for a lot of reasons. But the potatoes and tubers that were eaten long ago were LESS digestible, had more resistant starch, so by Gottschall's argument should be WORSE for a person. Tubers were eaten long before farming was invented, there are even wild animals that subsist on them (and monkeys that eat primarily plant foods, for that matter). Everything I've read indicates that these " slow digesting " starches were and are better for humans in practice. > It would be impossible (or near to it) not to feed them. However, this fad > of eating indigestible supplements designed to feed desirable species in > the bowel while magically choking out undesirable species is both harmful > and absurd. Sure, but is it harmful and absurd to eat onions and potatoes? Or Jerusalem artichokes and arrowroot, for that matter? > A lot compared to what? Compared to people who eat lots of pasta and > potatoes every day? I think not. See Cordains data for exact numbers. > > And you're showing your biases: you're selectively ignoring the other > conditions I specified. I repeat: people who do well on starchy diets have > to start out healthy, they have to be adapted to the particular starch > source they're eating (and this almost certainly includes some evolutionary > adaptations), they therefore have to have bowel ecologies that are > APPROPRIATE for the particular starchy foods they're eating, and the rest > of their diet has to contain nutrient-dense foods with plenty of good > protein and good fats. OK, but I think that is your bias. Where is the data showing that " people who do well on starchy diets have to start out healthy, they have to be adapted to the particular starch ... " etc? Cordain's data is the most exact, and his main thing is the *source* of the starch/carb, not esp. the exact amount of it, which jibes with the research data I've seen. A lot of people with gut issues are NOT reacting to " starch " ... some of them can't digest fats, or proteins, for various reasons. The people who have problems with high-starch diets WILL do well on a low starch diet, but what are the percentages of THOSE folks vs. the folks who can't digest fat? Or who are allergic to one or another of the proteins (like egg or casein, which are low starch foods?). I've seen folks get better on high-starch diets, so I'm not going to buy any blanket statement that " folks need low starch diets " without good research data. > People who meet those criteria can definitely get alone on starchy > diets. Price proved it. But those criteria are very difficult to meet > nowadays. Again, I'd like to see any data to show that this applies in general. > I haven't talked with her recently or read the most recent edition of her > book, but she advises everyone to permanently abstain from grains. As a > compromise with human nature, she tells people that if they must, they can > add back small quantities of illegals well after they've healed and see how > they do, but it's not something she prefers. Some people even find they > can eat a little bread on occasion, though I believe it's most often > sourdough, but in general, it's not considered a good idea. The SCD is not > meant as a cure which enables people to go back to the SAD. Far from > it. It's a lifelong regimen. OK, but the " adding back a little " means that she either has not read, or has read and rejected, the vast bulk of the latest 10 years of research. Or she is talking about IgG reactions, which are not the same as IgA reactions. This is really important in the GF groups, because they are getting mixed messages: the research community is severely at odds with Gottshall's ideas, and it confuses people. > Let's just go with the highest number, then, for the sake of argument: > let's say 30% of the country is very sick due to gluten IgA problems. > > Your general stance, which suggests that gluten is the root of all evil, > completely fails to account for the fact that a lot more than 30% of the > country is very sick. (Granted, maybe not everyone would agree with the > " very sick " description, but I'm using Price's healthy natives as a > baseline, and by comparison to them, just about all of us are feeble, > flabby, out of shape, debilitated, and generally ill. Remember that > today's elite athletes often are just achieving performance levels similar > to those common among healthy and athletic tribe members -- and lack of > exercise can't account for the entire difference or even close to it, > because those elite athletes are exercising far more than Price's healthy > natives did.) Actually, on the GF groups they think I think lack of probiotics is the root of all evil :-) My stance is not that everyone who has gluten problems ... just that anyone with depression, joint pain, diarrhea, gall bladder problems, etc. that are listed as known gluten problems SHOULD get tested for IgA allergies (which are NOT just to gluten, they are to casein, eggs, and soy also). Thing is, there are like 196 diseases known to be linked to gluten, so I have to suggest that a lot. Now in a few years, I'm trusting that the average doc will routinely prescribe said tests and I can give my typing fingers a rest. But for right now I have to suggest it because the docs won't, and even the naturopaths won't, and most of the folks on even this list won't. For those who DO react, losing the gluten is like this miracle cure and their whole life gets better. The rest of you can be bored and irritated with me, or hit the DELETE key. My actual beliefs for " all of humanity " , however, are getting more and more in line with Cordain, that we should be eating closer to Paleo style. Which would also mean, say, eating LESS OFTEN and more rawish. Which is right in line with your football player analogy. > If you'd tend to agree, then how do you account for the fact that many > people first go GFCF, then find that they need to adopt the SCD? Because most people who go GF are eating horrid foods, and substitute horrid GF foods. Also they have major gut damage by the time they get diagnosed. Kefir is really really helping a lot of those GF people ... like I said, on the gluten lists, I'm the Kefir Kween, I keep nattering on and on about probiotics. I don't need to tell any of them about gluten, but they don't know about bacteria. Here it's vice versa. There doesn't seem to be any consistent thread with those folks about *carbs* in general though. Baked goods seem to be pretty bad for everyone, from a bacterial health point of view, but potatoes and carrots and whole rice and whole fruits do not seem to be very problematic. Jury is still out. > And yet people commonly improve much faster on the SCD. Some people do. Some discover then that they really react badly to casein. Or eggs. Or guar gum, for that matter. > > (BTW, I don't mean to say that the SCD as written is perfect. In the > interest of simplicity, Gottschall largely avoided issues of nutrient > density and macroscopic dietary composition. It was an understandable and > perhaps even necessary choice, but it still causes some problems. The > small number of people who find that they have problems on the SCD almost > universally turn out to be those who are eating very carb-heavy (albeit > SCD-legal) diets. My conclusion is that they're swamping their digestive > systems' ability to digest and utilize those carbs and therefore providing > for overgrowth despite exclusively eating legals like honey and almond > flour.) Could be. Sometimes I think sticking to ANY regulated diet helps people focus, which is a good thing. Some folks seem to do well on the " Fat flush " diet too, and I did well on Cliff Sheats. Just keeping track might help you discover, for instance, that you don't do well with lots of honey. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 In a message dated 2/13/05 1:05:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Again, so what if there are wild animals that subsist on them? There are > bacteria which subsist entirely on fruit. ____ Not to mention rocks. Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Heidi- >You can and should distinguish, esp. as to the digestive time, so if it >will be clearer I'll call them all " saccharides " . Why not just call them collectively " carbs " ? That's the standard term. That said, in most of this discussion it's important to distinguish between types of carbs. >The original post I was responding to was about onions ... I suspect I >don't even know the name of the roots tribal folks ate, but foods like >wild onions and Jerusalem artichokes and other tubers are generally >mentioned. Wild onions contain less inulin (and indeed, like all wild, ancestor species, less stored energy period) than modern onions. Also, onions, though they contain inulin, are not " high inulin " by any stretch of the imagination -- not compared to Jerusalem artichokes, for example, let alone compared to a diet with supplemental inulin in the form of a manufactured isolate. That said, there is one group I can think of off the top of my head which ate tons of onions -- for which onions, in fact, were not only a staple but provided a substantial portion of their calories. Any guesses? Peasants of ancient Egypt. Most definitely not the sort of people who'd have qualified as some of Price's healthy natives. >I agree with the grains, which are decidedly new. OK, this is progress, though IIRC you consume grains and recommend them, no? (Gluten-free grains, of course.) >Roots aren't new >though, to any culture except maybe a few like the Inuit. Even wild hogs >dig roots. What do wild hogs have to do with anything? And while I agree that roots aren't new -- and thus recommend roots over grains for people who can metabolize starch in quantity well -- modern roots are nonetheless almost as different from their wild ancestors as modern grains are from theirs. Since the advent of agriculture, roots and tubers have been bred for dramatically increased size and starch content. This has also had the almost-inevitable side effect of significantly reducing their nutrition-per-calorie levels. >The indians around here used rather large quantities of >arrowroot, which was easily harvested from bogs. Many native American tribes were anything but the paragons of health that Price sought out, and from my understanding, the carbier the tribes' diets, the more agricultural their lifestyle, the less healthy they were. >Cordain has done the >most work in the area, and I'm sure you've read him, but a good analysis >of the range of tribal diets is in the link below. Folks ate LESS carbs >than we tend to, but they did eat a fair amount of fruit, roots, tubers. >He is talking 22-40% energy from carbs (mostly starches). > >http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/AJCN%20PDF.pdf I'm familiar with this work, and if you compensate for his prejudices, it's very useful. But I doubt Cordain has the whole story, since he's so vigorously opposed to saturated fat that he tends to overlook a lot of data. Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, the healthiest native American tribes were those which ate the most animal foods and relied on carbs and agriculture (and proto-agriculture) the least. This is very important. You can't just say " well, [some] Indians did/ate this, so it's gotta be great! " . >Our macronutrient projections for worldwide >hunter-gatherer diets indicate that these diets would be extremely >high in protein (19Â35% of energy) and low in carbohydrate >(22Â40% of energy) by normal Western standards, whereas the >fat intake would be comparable or higher (28Â58% of energy) >than values currently consumed in modern, industrialized societies. >However, the types and balance of fats in hunter-gatherer >diets would likely have been considerably different from those >found in typical Western diets (47, 48). These numbers are again somewhat distorted by Cordain's opposition to saturated fat and support of unsaturated fat. He bases them in part on incorrect assumptions about which parts of animals native peoples would have preferred to eat -- in his view, lean cuts and parts with more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat relative to saturated fat would have been chosen over fatty parts, and as we know, he's dead wrong on that. >This is what confuses me about the " slow digesting carb " argument. >First, I totally agree about grains: they are problematic for a lot of >reasons. But the potatoes and tubers that were eaten long ago were LESS >digestible, had more resistant starch, so by Gottschall's argument >should be WORSE for a person. They had a lot less starch period, but I'll get to the real issue shortly. >Tubers were eaten long before farming was >invented, there are even wild animals that subsist on them (and monkeys >that eat primarily plant foods, for that matter). Again, so what if there are wild animals that subsist on them? There are bacteria which subsist entirely on fruit. What happened to the idea of a species-appropriate diet? I'm not arguing that starch is some sort of universal metabolic poison, toxic to all life on Earth. I mean, duh! >Everything I've read >indicates that these " slow digesting " starches were and are better for >humans in practice. Again, you're missing the larger point. The issue isn't exactly slow-digesting vs. fast-digesting, but of human access vs. microbial access. People have certain digestive resources -- certain enzyme production capacities, certain rates at which digested nutrients can be absorbed through the intestinal walls, etc. These resources vary from person to person, to some degree genetically, to some degree due to formative environment, and to some degree due to state of health. Microbes also have certain digestive resources. Now, take the example of cellulose. Historically, humans could not digest cellulose, and our guts did not, to our knowledge, include microbes capable of digesting cellulose. Thus, cellulose passed through the digestive tract largely unchanged on a microscopic level. (IIRC, pretty much all insoluble fibers, such as hemicellulose and lignin, were the same.) More on this shortly, but the relevant point at the moment is that cellulose didn't serve as a carbon source for intestinal microbes and thus had little direct effect on the microbial balance of the gut. In contrast, consider something that humans have some ability to digest, and that human gut microbes also have some ability to digest. Microbial overgrowth occurs when you eat too much of that substance at once so that microbes have the opportunity to digest that part of the substance which the human machinery hasn't managed to get to before them. This can occur with starches as well as with disaccharides for which people have only limited digestive enzyme production capacity. That's why sucrose, for example, is SCD-illegal for people with bowel disease. In this context, fast-digesting starch has its own disadvantage: since its calories becomes available so very quickly, in quantity it can pretty easily swamp our digestive capacity. Slow-digesting starch, therefore, has a certain advantage, in that its carbon is only gradually made available. But here's where cellulose becomes relevant as an example. Historically, as I said, cellulose was undigested by both humans and human gut microbes. Recently, however, a study of university students found that something like HALF of the tested students had gut bacteria which digest cellulose! (And please remember that when a microbe digests a molecule of cellulose (or anything else, for that matter) that molecule doesn't magically vanish, it just gets slightly broken down, and the metabolic products are then available for digestion by other microbes and sometimes even by humans. (This is also relevant to inulin.) The local point is that the modern diet has changed the human gut ecology pretty dramatically. The larger point is that historically, healthy people adapted to particular slow-digesting starches (and remember all my conditions required for people to do well on starches!) would've been OK because they wouldn't have had gut microbes which rapidly bloomed on slow-digesting starches while their host humans slowly teased the calories out of the starch. Nowadays, though, people with what we might call unnatural gut ecologies (e.g. those that digest cellulose) find themselves in a very different position. >Sure, but is it harmful and absurd to eat onions and potatoes? Or >Jerusalem artichokes and arrowroot, for that matter? Some people do well on onions, others don't. Same with potatoes. Probably the same with arrowroot. Though in all three cases, quantity is a very important variable. Jerusalem artichokes, though, I think we'd all be better off without. >I've seen >folks get better on high-starch diets, so I'm not going to buy any >blanket statement that " folks need low starch diets " without good >research data. Starchy diets are, amazingly enough, recommended by the medical establishment for people with bowel disease. After my mom almost diet from ulcerative colitis, she was told to eat a white-flour and rice diet. She was given a recipe for scones, in fact, and made many of them. For a little while, she did in fact improve a lot. Then after awhile she had a relapse. And this, in fact, is what the doctors told her would happen: that people like her were inevitably doomed to an ongoing cycle of relapse. A former friend of mine has Crohn's. He too was told by the medical establishment that he'll cyclically improve and then relapse, each time losing some of his intestine until finally it's all gone. And I could go on with further examples. The SCD, in contrast, achieves long-term remission for a very high percentage of people, and in my experience, the people who have problems are those who consume too much of the " legal " carbs -- thus swamping their own digestive capacity and opening the door for microbial overgrowth, as I described above. I don't have any statistical data at hand, and I assume that's what you're asking for, but Gottschall's book, and related supporting research, conveys and is based on research about the actual mechanisms of digestion and especially the issue of digestive resources. This isn't guesswork or assumption. >This is really important in the GF groups, because >they are getting mixed messages: the research community is severely at >odds with Gottshall's ideas, and it confuses people. You know, I really couldn't care less about " the research community " per se. " The research community " has given us all sorts of wonders, like the low-fat diet. Everything " the research community " says has to be scrutinized very, very carefully. And again, Gottschall is not advising anyone to ever consume grains. Nor is her book or her program perfect. >My actual beliefs for " all of humanity " , however, are getting more and >more in line with Cordain, that we should be eating closer to Paleo >style. Which would also mean, say, eating LESS OFTEN and more rawish. >Which is right in line with your football player analogy. More rawish, up to a point. Certainly we need some raw and/or rare animal protein. But stock is most likely a good thing, and plant foods generally benefit from cooking. Less often, also maybe. Certainly we shouldn't be snacking constantly. But his ideas on fat are abominable. > > And yet people commonly improve much faster on the SCD. > >Some people do. Some discover then that they really react badly to >casein. Or eggs. Or guar gum, for that matter. The people who try the SCD who discover they can't handle dairy at all are very, very few in number. Same goes for people with egg problems. (And furthermore, many people discover that once they heal their guts, they tolerate dairy, eggs and other former " problem " foods just fine.) As to guar gum, it's SCD illegal. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Heidi- >You can and should distinguish, esp. as to the digestive time, so if it >will be clearer I'll call them all " saccharides " . I forgot one important point, which is that our current taxonomy of carbs is somewhat lacking. First, there's " fiber " which is metabolically available to gut microbes, and also " fiber " which isn't, but the distinction is important. Second, there's " fiber " which is metabolically available to gut microbes in some people but not in others (such as cellulose nowadays), and that distinction is also important. Third, there's stuff like inulin, FOS and polydextrose which isn't exactly starch OR fiber in the traditional sense, and which certainly isn't sugar by any rational standard, but which generally gets called " fiber " because " fiber " is widely believed to be good and the people marketing the stuff like inulin, FOS and polydextrose want to associate their products with " good " in the minds of the public. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Chris- >Not to mention rocks. Good point. And oil. And sulfur-rich underwater volcanic emissions. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.