Re: FOS *was probiotics

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:54 PM

Subject: RE: FOS was probiotics

Mark-

>They can be a good source of

>fiber and a good pre-biotic (food for beneficial intestinal

>flora).

If you call something which klebsiella and clostridium flourish

on a " good

prebiotic " , then yes. Otherwise, no.

>Long chain inulin is better than FOS (FOS still has some

>short-chain sugars present).

This is both false and misleading. First, inulin is highly

undesirable,

for much the same reasons that FOS is undesirable. Second,

though

manufactured FOS isn't the most stable substance in the world, it

is being

manufactured to 98% purity, so the amount of regular sugar you're

getting

in it is minimal. The sugar is almost entirely irrelevant to its

power to

harm.

For some anecdotal evidence, here's a rather alarming inulin

story for

you. Awhile ago, an inulin pimp joined another list I'm a member

of (one

devoted to digestive health) and started advocating his inulin

product both

publicly and privately, ignoring and discounting all the evidence

against

it. He managed to convince perhaps a dozen or two list members

to try his

product. Every single one who described his or her experiences

reported

bloody stools. The inulin pimp tried to pass this off as a

normal part of

the " healing process " , but nobody got better (and in fact people

got worse,

passing more and more blood and feeling more and more pain) until

they

ceased consuming inulin.

-

-----------------------

,

I see three issues left unaddressed in assessing the harm of

inulin:

1) No clear distinction is being made between long-chain and

short-chain.

2) No distinction at all is being made amongst pathogenic

and non-pathogenic/beneficial species of Clostridium and

Klebsiella.

3) No comparison at all is being made to simpler sugars

(sucrose, glucose, dextrose, fructose, etc).

So if you would be so kind:

1) Was the " inulin pimp " promoting inulin, or long-chain

inulin?

2) Which species and strains of those microbes did the petre

dishes grow well?

3) And, if they were pathogenic ones, did they grow any

better than they would have on table sugar broths*?

*Or maybe you don't mean to claim that inulin, especially

long-chain, is any worse than table sugar.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

Mark-

>1) No clear distinction is being made between long-chain and

>short-chain.

That's because it's a distinction without much difference.

>2) No distinction at all is being made amongst pathogenic

>and non-pathogenic/beneficial species of Clostridium and

>Klebsiella.

Are you kidding me? Are you an inulin troll?

>3) No comparison at all is being made to simpler sugars

>(sucrose, glucose, dextrose, fructose, etc).

Why bother? Are you suggesting measuring the harmfulness of FOS and inulin

on a scale with a baseline established by one or more simple or compound

sugars?

>1) Was the " inulin pimp " promoting inulin, or long-chain

>inulin?

Long-chain inulin.

>2) Which species and strains of those microbes did the petre

>dishes grow well?

I'm not sure of which strains, but to my knowledge there are no

" beneficial " forms of klebsiella and clostridium, both of which do very,

very well on inulin, even on long-chain inulin.

>3) And, if they were pathogenic ones, did they grow any

>better than they would have on table sugar broths*?

This is irrelevant, because the real issue is the *relative* growth of

various organisms in a particular medium (and also because nobody is saying

" don't eat inulin, eat lots of sugar " ).

>*Or maybe you don't mean to claim that inulin, especially

>long-chain, is any worse than table sugar.

Actually, in many cases it is worse than table sugar, because many people

are better able to digest table sugar, meaning it will have less of an

opportunity to feed undesirable weed species.

But you've just moved the goalposts, and not in any way that benefits your

argument, either.

-

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 12:41 PM

Subject: RE: FOS *was probiotics

Mark-

>1) No clear distinction is being made between long-chain

and

>short-chain.

That's because it's a distinction without much difference.

,

[Flase. Short-chain sugars are MUCH more easily available to

pathogens. That IS the issue, correct?]

>2) No distinction at all is being made amongst pathogenic

>and non-pathogenic/beneficial species of Clostridium and

>Klebsiella.

Are you kidding me? Are you an inulin troll?

[Not kidding; see below. Not a troll; just wanting more

information. (Are you an anti-inulin troll?)]

>3) No comparison at all is being made to simpler sugars

>(sucrose, glucose, dextrose, fructose, etc).

Why bother? Are you suggesting measuring the harmfulness of FOS

and inulin

on a scale with a baseline established by one or more simple or

compound

sugars?

[Yes, that would be nice. How about sucrose?]

>1) Was the " inulin pimp " promoting inulin, or long-chain

>inulin?

Long-chain inulin.

[Very good. We have now refined the debate down to this

particular substance, " long-chain inulin " . Agreed?]

>2) Which species and strains of those microbes did the

petre

>dishes grow well?

I'm not sure of which strains, but to my knowledge there are no

" beneficial " forms of klebsiella and clostridium, both of which

do very,

very well on inulin, even on long-chain inulin.

[incorrect. There ARE non-pathogenic and beneficial " forms " . See

here:

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

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

bMed & list_uids=13716571 & dopt=Abstract>

& db=PubMed & list_uids=13716571 & dopt=Abstract

<http://www.nature.com/ncpgasthep/journal/v1/n1/pdf/ncpgasthep001

8.pdf>

http://www.nature.com/ncpgasthep/journal/v1/n1/pdf/ncpgasthep0018

..pdf.

Or just do what I did and search Google for " Clostridium

non-pathogenic " .

Also see here:

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

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

bMed & list_uids=11785258 & dopt=Abstract>

& db=PubMed & list_uids=11785258 & dopt=Abstract

Or just do what I did and type in " Klebsiella non-pathogenic " .

You will find many, many references to many non-pathogenic

strains and species. You will also find references to BENFICIAL

ones.

Now where are your studies that show specifically-identified

pathogens doing well on long-chain inulin?]

>3) And, if they were pathogenic ones, did they grow any

>better than they would have on table sugar broths*?

This is irrelevant, because the real issue is the *relative*

growth of

various organisms in a particular medium (and also because nobody

is saying

" don't eat inulin, eat lots of sugar " ).

>*Or maybe you don't mean to claim that inulin, especially

>long-chain, is any worse than table sugar.

Actually, in many cases it is worse than table sugar, because

many people

are better able to digest table sugar, meaning it will have less

of an

opportunity to feed undesirable weed species.

[so now you ARE saying long-chain inulin was compared to table

sugar, and that it often fared worse. Where is that reference?]

But you've just moved the goalposts, and not in any way that

benefits your

argument, either.

[That has not yet been established. Let's keep going and we'll

see.]

-Mark

-

[Guest guest]

Mark-

>[Flase. Short-chain sugars are MUCH more easily available to

>pathogens. That IS the issue, correct?]

No, that's only one of many issues, and your assertion that short-chain

oligosaccharides are much more easily available to pathogens is dubious and

unsupported. It's merely an allegation made by inulin pimps.

>[Yes, that would be nice. How about sucrose?]

What's the point?

>[Very good. We have now refined the debate down to this

>particular substance, " long-chain inulin " . Agreed?]

No, I'm discussing FOS and inulin of various types, both separately and

together. They're all bad, and for much the same reasons.

>[incorrect. There ARE non-pathogenic and beneficial " forms " . See

>here:

>

><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

>bMed & list_uids=13716571 & dopt=Abstract>

This doesn't include an abstract, perhaps because the original article is

in French. The title, however, is suggestive.

>Non-pathogenic Clostridium sordellii, easily identified and frequently

>encountered variety.

Many pathogens reside in the gut in small, controlled populations without

exerting any pathogenic effect -- until something disturbs the gut ecology,

disrupts the ecological equilibrium and leads to overgrowth and dysbiosis.

Clostridium sordellii can most assuredly overgrow and cause problems,

though. It's not a " benign " form of clostridium. Here's on example of many:

A Fatal Case of Clostridium sordellii Septic Shock Syndrome

http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/5/1142

><http://www.nature.com/ncpgasthep/journal/v1/n1/pdf/ncpgasthep001

>8.pdf>

Did you actually read this, or is your assumption that I and others on the

list won't bother reading it?

For people without PDF readers, it's called " Treatment of recurrent

Clostridium Difficile-associated disease " , and here's the beginning of the

summary:

>>Recurrent Clostridium Difficile-associated disease (RCDAD) is a difficult

>>treatment problem -- once a patient has one recurrence of the disease the

>>likelihood of further recurrences is markedly increased.

Since it's common practice for big industry to infiltrate consumer and

grass-roots groups for both information-gathering and marketing purposes,

and since the quality of your argumentation is so very poor, I'm starting

to think it's quite possible you're a troll.

By the way, your method of backquoting and posting makes it extremely

unpleasant to wade through your posts to determine what you're writing and

what you're just backquoting.

-

[Guest guest]

[] Since it's common practice for big industry to infiltrate consumer and

grass-roots groups for both information-gathering and marketing purposes,

and since the quality of your argumentation is so very poor, I'm starting

to think it's quite possible you're a troll.

[MAP] , Mark's been on NN and other lists for quite some time and

contributed a good many interesting posts; I think it's really rude to

even consider a term of derision like " troll " , especially when his

input in the thread was perfectly reasonable and thoughtful . I find

this topic interesting, but I don't know why it needs to be an

acrimonious debate. Surely this is a current scientific matter that

hasn't been fully resolved. After all, inulin occurs naturally in a

great many healthful foods and demonizing it without careful

clarification strikes me as an imbalanced, non-credible position.

That's my impression as someone with hardly any specific knowledge

about inulin who has only seen references to its positive role. Just

from this thread alone I'm not seeing anything resembling compelling

argumentation to support a demonization of inulin unless you're just

talking about some kind of high-dose non-food supplement form, but the

risk of harm from consuming such unnatural substances seems like

common sense to me.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:06 PM

Subject: RE: FOS *was probiotics

Mark-

>[Flase. Short-chain sugars are MUCH more easily available to

>pathogens. That IS the issue, correct?]

No, that's only one of many issues, and your assertion that

short-chain

oligosaccharides are much more easily available to pathogens is

dubious and

unsupported. It's merely an allegation made by inulin pimps.

>[Yes, that would be nice. How about sucrose?]

What's the point?

>[Very good. We have now refined the debate down to this

>particular substance, " long-chain inulin " . Agreed?]

No, I'm discussing FOS and inulin of various types, both

separately and

together. They're all bad, and for much the same reasons.

>[incorrect. There ARE non-pathogenic and beneficial " forms " . See

>here:

>

><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

> & db=Pu

>bMed & list_uids=13716571 & dopt=Abstract>

This doesn't include an abstract, perhaps because the original

article is

in French. The title, however, is suggestive.

>Non-pathogenic Clostridium sordellii, easily identified and

frequently

>encountered variety.

Many pathogens reside in the gut in small, controlled populations

without

exerting any pathogenic effect -- until something disturbs the

gut ecology,

disrupts the ecological equilibrium and leads to overgrowth and

dysbiosis.

Clostridium sordellii can most assuredly overgrow and cause

problems,

though. It's not a " benign " form of clostridium. Here's on

example of many:

A Fatal Case of Clostridium sordellii Septic Shock Syndrome

http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/5/1142

><http://www.nature.com/ncpgasthep/journal/v1/n1/pdf/ncpgasthep00

1

>8.pdf>

Did you actually read this, or is your assumption that I and

others on the

list won't bother reading it?

For people without PDF readers, it's called " Treatment of

recurrent

Clostridium Difficile-associated disease " , and here's the

beginning of the

summary:

>>Recurrent Clostridium Difficile-associated disease (RCDAD) is a

difficult

>>treatment problem -- once a patient has one recurrence of the

disease the

>>likelihood of further recurrences is markedly increased.

Since it's common practice for big industry to infiltrate

consumer and

grass-roots groups for both information-gathering and marketing

purposes,

and since the quality of your argumentation is so very poor, I'm

starting

to think it's quite possible you're a troll.

By the way, your method of backquoting and posting makes it

extremely

unpleasant to wade through your posts to determine what you're

writing and

what you're just backquoting.

-

-----------------

,

Cool your fears about who I am. I only want to exchange

information; I believe it's called " debating " . I am not a troll

(although I've never been clear on the precise definition, as its

usage varies widely). I would also claim I was not " backquoting "

if I knew what that was. Anyway I will proceed. (I hope this will

be easier for you to read instead of interleaved replies.)

Your main " beef " at this point would seem to be my claim that

non-pathogenic forms of Clostridium and Klebsiella exist. The few

articles I cited are not all about that topic, but only contain a

MENTION. I had hoped you would have done the Google search I

suggested, but oh well. I will do it for you. Here are some

pasted excerpts:

---------a short list for mentions (at least) of non-pathogenic

Klebsiella-----------

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

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

bMed & list_uids=11785258 & dopt=Abstract>

& db=PubMed & list_uids=11785258 & dopt=Abstract

Cellular and lipopolysaccharide fatty acid composition of the

type strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, and

Klebsiella nonpathogenic species.

http://www.genome.wustl.edu/projects/bacterial/koxytoca_M5al/

As a genetically-amenable, nonpathogenic enterobacterium,

Klebsiella oxytoca M5al provides useful comparisons to the

closely-related species Klebseilla pneumonia, and to Escherichia

and Salmonella.

http://www.uib.es/depart/dba/microbiologia/JCM992.pdf.

Klebsiella pneumoniae and K. oxytoca frequently cause infections,

whereas K. planticola, K. terrigena, and K. ornithinolytica are

usually nonpathogenic

http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/241/2/602

The capsular polysaccharide (CPS) produced by the non-pathogenic

Klebsiella strain I-714

http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/acgm/acgm27/acgm27c.htm

ii) Disabled or non-colonising hosts.

10. This category of host is been defined as having biological

limitations which mean that it is unlikely to survive in the gut,

lung or elsewhere. This description is generally considered to

cover laboratory adapted strains (particularly multiply

auxotrophic or recombination deficient mutants) as well as other

non-pathogenic hosts with negligible demonstrated or suggested

capacity to persist in humans and a history of safe use (such as

a plant pathogen). >> Klebsiella oxytoca M5a1 or

KP1.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5vXVt_hLut4J:www.phac-aspc.g

c.ca/ols-bsl/pathogen/pdf/pathogensfinal-092001.pdf+clostridium+n

on-pathogenic

<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5vXVt_hLut4J:www.phac-aspc.

gc.ca/ols-bsl/pathogen/pdf/pathogensfinal-092001.pdf+clostridium+

non-pathogenic & hl=en> & hl=en

NON-PATHOGENIC* ORGANISMS

BACTERIA

Klebsiella terrigena

Regarding non-pathogenic Klebsiella, I'll stop here for now on

result number 21. If you are still not convinced, there appears

to be around 5,900 more hits. Feel free.

------------------Now for non-pathogenic

Clostridium------------------

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

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

bMed & list_uids=13716571 & dopt=Abstract>

& db=PubMed & list_uids=13716571 & dopt=Abstract

Non-pathogenic Clostridium sordellii, easily identified and

frequently encountered variety

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

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=Pu

bMed & list_uids=696441 & dopt=Abstract>

& db=PubMed & list_uids=696441 & dopt=Abstract

The liquefaction (oncolysis) of malignant gliomas by a non

pathogenic Clostridium

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5vXVt_hLut4J:www.phac-aspc.g

c.ca/ols-bsl/pathogen/pdf/pathogensfinal-092001.pdf+clostridium+n

on-pathogenic

<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5vXVt_hLut4J:www.phac-aspc.

gc.ca/ols-bsl/pathogen/pdf/pathogensfinal-092001.pdf+clostridium+

non-pathogenic & hl=en> & hl=en

NON-PATHOGENIC* ORGANISMS

BACTERIA

Clostridium butyricum

Clostridium tertium

Clostridium tetanomorphum

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/01_02/Clostridium_seq.s

html

By comparing the C. perfringens sequence to the genome of

Clostridium acetobutylicum, a nonpathogenic relative whose genome

was sequenced last September,

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/biotech/fra/fra003.htm

Clostridium acetobutylicum is an anaerobic, saccharolytic and

proteolytic bacterium that has been isolated from a number of

environments. The bacterium produces endospores which allows for

long-term survival in the environment even in the presence of

oxygen. It exists in the biologically inactive spore stage in

soils except when vegetative growth is stimulated by anaerobiosis

and other favorable growth conditions. Although other members of

the genus produce some of the most lethal neurotoxins known, C.

acetobutylicum is considered a benign microorganism. Throughout

its long history of use for production of acetone and butanol,

there have been no reports of adverse effects to human health or

the environment. It is not pathogenic or toxigenic to humans,

animals, or plants.

http://jaxmice.jax.org/health/2002_alerts/alert0325.html

Although designed to detect extremely low levels of C. piliforme,

this assay also detects a very closely related, non-pathogenic

bacterial species, ASF 356 (see details below).

The ASF 356 bacterium is a non-pathogenic Clostridium species

commonly incorporated in the Schaedler flora matric used to

colonize germ-free rodents with standard microbiota.

There's another 1600 or so hits on this one. , do you believe

me yet, that non-pathogenic strains/forms/species of Klebsiella

and Clostridium DO EXIST? If not, continue the Google search

yourself. If so, can we now move beyond this point?

-Mark

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>[MAP] , Mark's been on NN and other lists for quite some time and

>contributed a good many interesting posts; I think it's really rude to

>even consider a term of derision like " troll " , especially when his

>input in the thread was perfectly reasonable and thoughtful .

Actually, an Onibasu search reveals that his first post was evidently in

mid-December. That's not quite some time. However, since you vouch for

him, he has my apologies for suspecting him.

That said, my suspicion was not random and irrational. On another list,

one devoted specifically to bowel disease, digestion, and diet as it

applies to both, I witnessed someone join, engage in conversation for some

weeks (maybe a couple months) to build trust and a perception of himself as

a reasonable, intelligent and informed individual, and then start working

hard, both onlist and off, to sell his manufactured long-chain inulin

product. He treated the list quite explicitly as a potential client list,

and did his utmost to achieve as high a conversion rate as he could.

The result of this was horrible. Everyone who tried his product and

reported back spoke of excruciating pain, passing blood, sometimes in large

quantities, of flares of their various bowel diseases (UC, Crohn's, etc.)

that sometimes lasted for weeks after the inulin was discontinued, in some

cases of the necessity of temporarily restarting drug regimens to manage

the pain, inflammation and diarrhea, etc.

The inulin vendor did his best to pass these sequelae off as natural and

desirable steps in the healing process (!), but eventually people got fed

up, he realized he couldn't attract any more clients, and he left.

Nor was my mention of agribusiness infiltrating grass-roots groups

fantastical or paranoid. It happens all the time, and the phenomenon was

discovered and documented by other people -- it had nothing to do with

me. (You can read about it, if you're curious, in _Trust Us, We're

Experts_, which I highly recommend.)

So I hope you and Mark understand why I was suspicious of someone promoting

pharmaceutical inulin. I do not want a bunch of sick people on this list

to get a lot sicker, as happened on that other list.

>Surely this is a current scientific matter that

>hasn't been fully resolved. After all, inulin occurs naturally in a

>great many healthful foods and demonizing it without careful

>clarification strikes me as an imbalanced, non-credible position.

>That's my impression as someone with hardly any specific knowledge

>about inulin who has only seen references to its positive role. Just

>from this thread alone I'm not seeing anything resembling compelling

>argumentation to support a demonization of inulin unless you're just

>talking about some kind of high-dose non-food supplement form, but the

>risk of harm from consuming such unnatural substances seems like

>common sense to me.

First, I guess you didn't follow the threat that closely, because that's

exactly what we were talking about: a high-dose, non-food supplement

form. The industrial inulin product is manufactured from sugar to a 98%

purity, and it's sold both to manufacturers and end-users as a pure white

powder. End-users like Mark add the powder to their diet as a supplement,

often but not always mixed into other food or drink. Manufacturers add it

(and other variants, like FOS) to all sorts of products, from kefir (Helios

brand) to Stevia (several brands use inulin and/or FOS as a bulking agent

to achieve spoon-for-spoon equivalency with table sugar) in order to

improve their bottom line by adding bulk with a dirt-cheap ingredient and

promoting their products as " beneficial " for digestion and the

intestines. It's a new fad, and its promotion and value to the bottom line

bear a lot of resemblance to those of soy.

Second, inulin (and FOS) found in food is a somewhat but not entirely

separate issue. Many people do in fact do well on some

inulin/FOS-containing foods. However, the higher the content of the food,

the more likely it is to be associated with problems. Jerusalem

artichokes, for example, cause many people problems, and though it's often

said in their defense that Native Americans ate them so they must be good,

it's very important to note that not all Native American tribes were

equally healthy (far from it) and not all foods they sometimes ate were

considered equally healthy and desirable by those tribes which did in fact

eat them. My understanding is that Jerusalem artichokes were at least to

some degree considered famine food. And when you survey people with active

bowel disease, you find that a lot of them have problems even with onions,

which have much less.

-

[Guest guest]

>Actually, an Onibasu search reveals that his first post was evidently in

>mid-December. That's not quite some time. However, since you vouch for

>him, he has my apologies for suspecting him.

>

>That said, my suspicion was not random and irrational.

>

, as a guilty contributor of mudslinging on nt_politics recently, I

have to say that your comment was quite benign. And I quote you:

" Since it's common practice for big industry to infiltrate consumer and

grass-roots groups for both information-gathering and marketing purposes,

and since the quality of your argumentation is so very poor, I'm starting

to think it's quite possible you're a troll. "

You backed up your statements and even included the self-report " starting to

think. " I have never seen you behave randomly, irrationally or maliciously at

any time on this list (while the same can't be said of me). And while I think

your apology is gracious, I have to wonder if it is necessary or even a good

idea. Freedom of speech and thought might be whittled away if opinions about

someone's activities can not be expressed openly and respectfully. A rebuttal

is all it takes to get the dialogue going about this issue. Obviously you

weren't saying he is a fairytale troll, but maybe had you made the term a verb

it would be more clear (...you are trolling). The sentence makes your thoughts

abundantly clear.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I'm pretty new here so maybe this has been covered; Since you're all

talking about sugars and fibers I wonder if you could tell me what

you think of products like Ambrotose and MPS-Gold 100 (which is

about 1/3 aloe vera powder and 1/3 dried larch tree.) These were

given me by someone who said they would improve my energy. I've not

tried them because I was concerned about just the sort of issues

you've been discussing on this thread. Thank you. ~Robin

[Guest guest]

More on starches: here is an interesting article that talks about diet.

So here is a group that actually eats a HIGH starch diet, but also has

low insulin levels. Again, it's not that it is starch, but it is the

KIND of starch. Low fat diets are not normally associated with low

insulin levels, but the roots and fruits diet has slowly digesting

carbs. Hi carb diets CAN be low-glycemic. Hi carb diets can also be good

for the gut and biotic mix, IF they are the right carbs.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/health/0302/21/h05-88521.htm

Kitava islanders are physically active and eat a low-fat (20 percent),

high-carbohydrate (70 percent) diet of mostly roots, fruits and

vegetables, which keeps their insulin levels low. The researchers found

no acne in a group of 115 Ache people in Paraguay either. They also eat

a low-glycemic diet, but they do eat animal protein.

Studies have shown that when insulin levels in the blood peak, hormonal

events increases production of testosterone and several potent growth

factors. Testosterone stimulates sebum, or oil, production in the pores.

The growth factors cause an overgrowth of cells lining the pores, which

creates a plug, keeping the oil in.

About that chocolate and french fries? Loren Cordain, a co-author of the

study and a specialist in evolutionary medicine at Colorado State

University, says it's not the fat that's the problem, it's the sugar.

......................................

Also, about the SCD and how it helps gluten intolerant folks:

One thing I neglected to mention is that MOST folks who go GF never

really fully avoid gluten. The latest estimated figures are that only

30% of the folks who say they are gluten free, really are. Some cheat,

and anyone who eats processed " gluten free " food is likely getting

gluten, because 20% of such foods test as having some gluten in them.

Many of the grain foods are in fact contaminated with wheat. Many people

who don't heal, it turns out that there is a problem such as their

medication or vitamins contain wheat starch.

This " trace amount " problem is one reason I keep harping on people. A

trace amount of gluten will set up an antibody response that takes about

two WEEKS to resolve. So a person who has an IgA response to gluten

doesn't have the luxury of " trying it out " or " having a little " . They

have to be obnoxiously obsessive.

So going on a diet like SCD, which is low in processed foods, is likely

to be healing, even without the probiotic part. I'd LOVE to see this

analyzed more fully, as to what healing happens because of the

macronutrient content and which part is because of the allergen issues

and which part is the type of starch or types of oils.

But I'd also like to counter with: many of the folks who have been long

term on SCD ALSO don't get better. They may get to a level of health

that is better than before SCD, but not really to robust health. Those

folks may well have undiagnosed IgA issues, which you can't figure out

by just being on the diet. So being tested is a good idea, in my book.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>I'm pretty new here so maybe this has been covered; Since you're all

>talking about sugars and fibers I wonder if you could tell me what

>you think of products like Ambrotose and MPS-Gold 100 (which is

>about 1/3 aloe vera powder and 1/3 dried larch tree.) These were

>given me by someone who said they would improve my energy. I've not

>tried them because I was concerned about just the sort of issues

>you've been discussing on this thread. Thank you. ~Robin

I've talked with many people who've tried aloe products, and the universal

consensus is as follows: aloe products with the anthraquinone removed is

useless at best but not necessarily harmful, and other aloe products with

the anthraquinone left in are tremendously harmful. Anthraquinone is a

powerful cathartic, which means it's irritating to the gut and can cause

serious problems, including diarrhea. Since there's no real guarantee that

anthraquinone-free brands are truly 100% anthraquinone-free, it's probably

the better part of wisdom to just avoid aloe entirely. Stick to topical

applications, for which it's eminently well suited.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Again, it's not that it is starch, but it is the

>KIND of starch.

What part of the actual physical phenomenon is incompatible with my recent

post to you on the subject of digestion? The kind of starch is only one

variable.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>But I'd also like to counter with: many of the folks who have been long

>term on SCD ALSO don't get better.

And what's your basis for this? The assumption that since gluten and

casein aren't explicitly banned on the SCD people must therefore be unhealthy?

-

[Guest guest]

I thought gluten was banned on SCD. Or is it that gluten containing

substances are banned but the gluten itself is not?

Irene

At 10:10 AM 2/13/2005, you wrote:

>Heidi-

>

> >But I'd also like to counter with: many of the folks who have been long

> >term on SCD ALSO don't get better.

>

>And what's your basis for this? The assumption that since gluten and

>casein aren't explicitly banned on the SCD people must therefore be unhealthy?

>

>

>

>

>-

>

>

>

>

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> * < />NATIVE

> NUTRITION online

> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>

><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

Irene-

>I thought gluten was banned on SCD. Or is it that gluten containing

>substances are banned but the gluten itself is not?

Gluten is considered a cruddy, undesirable protein, and gluten-containing

substances are banned. I'm not sure that pure gluten would technically be

SCD-illegal, but no foods containing would be considered desirable or, most

likely, acceptable.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

>[Heidi] >But I'd also like to counter with: many of the folks who have been

long

>>term on SCD ALSO don't get better.

>

>[] And what's your basis for this? The assumption that since gluten and

>casein aren't explicitly banned on the SCD people must therefore be unhealthy?

[Heidi] No, my basis is just that I've talked to a lot of people that do the SCD

diet when the usual gluten-free diet doesn't completely cure them. Most get

better on a GF diet, but have lingering problems, then they try a lot of other

stuff ... as you mentioned and I responded to, above. For some of them, SCD

helps wonderfully. For some, it doesn't help them, or they reach a new plateau

of health and want to get get beyond that. For some of the folks who don't get

better on SCD, there could be a whole host of other issues, and the same goes

for ANY other diet or plan. One lady just had a miraculous improvement of health

by adding kefir to her diet, which she can tolerate as long as it is made with

goat's milk (though she previously figured she was casein-sensitive). She had

been on SCD for some time previously, which helped some ... but the kefir helped

more.

I'm not against the SCD at all, it's just that, like Atkins, it's not a

cure-all, and some of the theory about *why* it works doesn't fit with the bulk

of the research. So since you give one side of the argument so well, I think

it's good to present the other side too.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 10:16 AM 2/13/2005, you wrote:

>I thought gluten was banned on SCD. Or is it that gluten containing

>substances are banned but the gluten itself is not?

>Irene

Well, that's where and I get into these discussions! According to SCD, the

base problem is mainly dysbiosis, in which case minute traces of gluten aren't

really an issue. According to the gluten-intolerance researchers, the base

problem is an IgA immune reaction, in which case trace quantities of gluten are

REALLY problematic and a lot of work has to be done to get the stuff out of the

kitchen (and towels, bakeware, ovens, check your medications for wheat starch,

check your shampoo and lipstick for wheat germ oil, etc). They are two different

paradigms, but MOSTLY the SCD is gluten free.

Anyway, the folks who KNOW they are gluten-sensitive that do SCD are used to

watching for minute traces of gluten, so the two diets are totally compatible.

What gets discussed on the GF lists is her claim that small amounts of gluten

might be able to be added back in LATER: the researchers have shown that the IgA

reactions take about 2 weeks to resolve after one small ingestion of gluten, but

may not have any overt symptoms, so they advise NO gluten EVER (harsh as that

is).

But, without an IgA gluten test, no one really knows that they do or do not have

that kind of sensitivity. So I'm hoping someday such testing becomes routine, so

the folks that really have problems will know it, and not just guess.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Well, that's where and I get into these discussions! According to

>SCD, the base problem is mainly dysbiosis, in which case minute traces of

>gluten aren't really an issue.

Yes, kind of, but that's not the whole picture. Among people with

dysbiosis, allergies are legion. Not just to gluten and casein, not even

just to eggs, but to all sorts of things. As the dysbiosis is corrected

and the bowel heals (which admittedly can be a time-consuming process) the

allergies dissipate.

The big difference between gluten and many other allergens, though, is that

gluten comes wrapped in a package which tends to promote dysbiosis. Once

someone who's allergic to beef is on the SCD for awhile, he can eat beef

with no problems -- and in fact to his great benefit. Beef isn't feeding

undesirable microbes to any meaningful degree. But for someone prone to

dysbiosis, wheat foods are almost always going to be problematic, because

the starch is a ready carbon source for microbial overgrowth.

>According to the gluten-intolerance researchers, the base problem is an

>IgA immune reaction, in which case trace quantities of gluten are REALLY

>problematic and a lot of work has to be done to get the stuff out of the

>kitchen (and towels, bakeware, ovens, check your medications for wheat

>starch, check your shampoo and lipstick for wheat germ oil, etc). They are

>two different paradigms, but MOSTLY the SCD is gluten free.

No, the SCD is entirely gluten-free, but Elaine does say people can try

adding illegals back to their diets in very small quantities well after

they're healed, if they insist. There are compromises and mistakes in NT;

in my book, this is a mistaken compromise in BTVC. But make no mistake,

those illegals are not part of the SCD. They are, after all, called " illegal " .

That said, not everyone with dysbiosis has a gluten allergy. There were

native populations reasonably well-adapted to wheat. So if one assumes

that through healthy diet and whatnot one can return to a Price's

natives-style state of health, then if one has the correct bowel ecology

and the correct genes, why not eat traditionally-prepared traditional

strains of wheat?

-

[Guest guest]

At 09:22 AM 2/14/2005, you wrote:

>Heidi-

>

>>Well, that's where and I get into these discussions! According to

>>SCD, the base problem is mainly dysbiosis, in which case minute traces of

>>gluten aren't really an issue.

>

>Yes, kind of, but that's not the whole picture. Among people with

>dysbiosis, allergies are legion. Not just to gluten and casein, not even

>just to eggs, but to all sorts of things. As the dysbiosis is corrected

>and the bowel heals (which admittedly can be a time-consuming process) the

>allergies dissipate.

But ... what KIND of allergies? IgE, IgG, or IgA? I totally agree on the IgG

allergies, which are related to leaky gut, and do tend to go away. The research

on IgA is different, they seem to be related to the HLA genes.

>The big difference between gluten and many other allergens, though, is that

>gluten comes wrapped in a package which tends to promote dysbiosis. Once

>someone who's allergic to beef is on the SCD for awhile, he can eat beef

>with no problems -- and in fact to his great benefit. Beef isn't feeding

>undesirable microbes to any meaningful degree. But for someone prone to

>dysbiosis, wheat foods are almost always going to be problematic, because

>the starch is a ready carbon source for microbial overgrowth.

This should get resolved soon because the low-carb folks are eating purified

wheat gluten ...

As for cure rates, with folks who have celiac, 85% get better by JUST avoiding

wheat. Those folks eat a lot of starch, more than I do! And most don't really

avoid all the gluten either. Of the 15% who don't get better, a lot are

" cheating " and eating gluten, or they need probioitics, or they have other IgA

allergies, or they have permanent damage.

But if a person is allergic to beef (which doesn't seem to have an IgA reaciton,

maybe because it's been in the food chain too long), I agree that reaction WILL

go away once the gut is healed. Purified wheat gluten will still be a problem,

even without the dysbiosis. This has been shown in lab tests, most notably the

" rectal challenge " where small amounts of purified wheat gluten are introduced

to the rectum to see if inflammation results. Small amounts of wheat gluten also

cause the villi to lie down and " die " on camera, in time spans too short to be

bacterial.

>No, the SCD is entirely gluten-free, but Elaine does say people can try

>adding illegals back to their diets in very small quantities well after

>they're healed, if they insist. There are compromises and mistakes in NT;

>in my book, this is a mistaken compromise in BTVC. But make no mistake,

>those illegals are not part of the SCD. They are, after all, called " illegal " .

They may be illegal, but how would the person KNOW? I mean, folks who are GF

spend great amounts of energy finding out what foods contain gluten. I just

found out that my favorite rice vinegar contains wheat. So do many lipsticks,

shampoos, hand creams. Does she outlaw gluten containing lipsticks? Or outlaw

baking your steak in an oven that has had wheat bread in it recently? Gluten

allergic folks *must* be obsessive to get healed, that is the problem.

>That said, not everyone with dysbiosis has a gluten allergy. There were

>native populations reasonably well-adapted to wheat. So if one assumes

>that through healthy diet and whatnot one can return to a Price's

>natives-style state of health, then if one has the correct bowel ecology

>and the correct genes, why not eat traditionally-prepared traditional

>strains of wheat?

There are 3 genes involved in gluten intolerance ... if you don't have one of

those 3 genes, you'll probably be ok. Those genes die out quickly in populations

that eat wheat. So ... if you don't have the gene, and eat wheat, you'll likely

be fine (albeit you'll still have to deal with high carbs, preparation, etc.).

If you have the genes though, you are likely in trouble. There is no way I know

of to be SURE which camp you are in, without testing. But folks like the Cretes

who eat wheat and do fine ... they don't have those genes. Also, if you have the

gene AND had the right protocol of breast feeding, you are likely ok too. But

again, I don't know any way to tell which camp a person is in without testing.

Chances are, if you get sick when you eat wheat, you ARE reacting, have the

wrong genes, and wheat will cause you to lose years off your life. Some folks

who feel fine when they eat wheat ALSO have the wrong genes, but don't know it.

I can say for certain that in my ancestry, my great-grandparents had little

wheat. AND I have the HLA-DQ8 gene. Folks from the Middle East, France, Italy,

might have better luck.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>>Again, it's not that it is starch, but it is the

>>KIND of starch.

>

>What part of the actual physical phenomenon is incompatible with my recent

>post to you on the subject of digestion? The kind of starch is only one

>variable.

>

>

>-

I dunno, this is way too out of context. But most of what I've read is that

fast-digesting starch tends to cause insulin problems, slow-digesting starch

doesn't. Dysbiosis happens in animals mainly with fast-digesting starch (i.e.

baked goods) but not with slow-digesting (noodles). Good research has been done

in this regard with the Piima indians: in Mexico they live off corn and beans,

same in the US, but in Mexico the corn and beans are from " slow carbs " and they

fare much better than in the US. (of course I also wonder about other variables,

like wheat content, Coca Cola ...). Another interesting study was in Africa,

where the native population eats more " slow carb " corn and gets far less gut

cancer than the white folks who eat " fast carbs " . Again, the white folks would

also be getting more " modern foods " like wheat bread and Coke though, and I'm

not sure the researchers took that into account.

What confuses me about this is that from what you've said, Gottschall would

approve more of " fast carbs " because they wouldn't feed bacteria so much. But

that interpretation doesn't jibe with statistical data.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>What confuses me about this is that from what you've said, Gottschall

>would approve more of " fast carbs " because they wouldn't feed bacteria so

>much. But that interpretation doesn't jibe with statistical data.

For people with dysbiosis, starches are generally not allowed period. But

I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm saying. The fundamental

principle underlying the SCD is that you don't want to exceed the body's

carb digestive capacity, because microbes will take up the slack and

overgrow. So " fast " carbs are therefore by definition undesirable, because

they come online, so to speak, much faster than the body can handle them,

and microbes take up the slack. In the absence of microbes which will

digest " slow " carbs faster than the body can (and historically, those

populations which consumed slow carbs settled into an equilibrium without

such microbes) slow carbs are therefore superior. This seems like a very

straightforward principle to me.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Pretty straightforward and agreeable to me. It also seems to

address overeating of carbs. I don't read everything here by far,

but does overeating go somewhat underaddressed? It seems, for me,

that I can go on strict proteins for a week or so, then introduce

some carbs with no problem. But the thing about carbs seems to be

their abuse potential. After a couple weeks, I invariably start

to over-eat them, experience difficulty, and then have to go back

on protein.

-Mark

_____

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:19 PM

Subject: Re: FOS *was probiotics

Heidi-

>What confuses me about this is that from what you've said,

Gottschall

>would approve more of " fast carbs " because they wouldn't feed

bacteria so

>much. But that interpretation doesn't jibe with statistical

data.

For people with dysbiosis, starches are generally not allowed

period. But

I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm saying. The

fundamental

principle underlying the SCD is that you don't want to exceed the

body's

carb digestive capacity, because microbes will take up the slack

and

overgrow. So " fast " carbs are therefore by definition

undesirable, because

they come online, so to speak, much faster than the body can

handle them,

and microbes take up the slack. In the absence of microbes which

will

digest " slow " carbs faster than the body can (and historically,

those

populations which consumed slow carbs settled into an equilibrium

without

such microbes) slow carbs are therefore superior. This seems

like a very

straightforward principle to me.

-

[Guest guest]

Mark-

>I don't read everything here by far,

>but does overeating go somewhat underaddressed?

Not really. Fat loss is a frequent topic of conversation. Some people

advocate the Warrior Diet style of eating, which can include abundant

carbs, while others (more, I think) espouse carb restriction. I don't

think many list members subscribe the moralistic notion that overweight is

simply the result of some abstract sort of gluttony that involves character

weakness but no metabolic defect or other physical problem.

>It seems, for me,

>that I can go on strict proteins for a week or so, then introduce

>some carbs with no problem. But the thing about carbs seems to be

>their abuse potential. After a couple weeks, I invariably start

>to over-eat them, experience difficulty, and then have to go back

>on protein.

This strongly suggests to me that you'd do best to permanently restrict

carbs, with special attention to the types of carbs you do eat.

-

[Guest guest]

:

>For people with dysbiosis, starches are generally not allowed period. But

>I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm saying. The fundamental

>principle underlying the SCD is that you don't want to exceed the body's

>carb digestive capacity, because microbes will take up the slack and

>overgrow. So " fast " carbs are therefore by definition undesirable, because

>they come online, so to speak, much faster than the body can handle them,

>and microbes take up the slack. In the absence of microbes which will

>digest " slow " carbs faster than the body can (and historically, those

>populations which consumed slow carbs settled into an equilibrium without

>such microbes) slow carbs are therefore superior. This seems like a very

>straightforward principle to me.

OK, I understand what she is saying. It doesn't jibe with the research, but what

the heck ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>This should get resolved soon because the low-carb folks are eating

>purified wheat gluten ...

Are you kidding? Have you looked at these so-called " low-carb " foods --

the protein bars, the pseudo-breads and whatnot? They're full of stuff

like maltitol, not to mention more plain old starch in the breads and

pastas and whatnot than you'd expect in a supposedly " low-carb " product.

>As for cure rates, with folks who have celiac, 85% get better by JUST

>avoiding wheat.

I don't have time now, but maybe I'll get back to this later with some

statistics and citations.

In the mean time, I've seen no indication that this is true, and if there's

an 85% figure out there, I expect it's bogus in much the same way that the

figures stating that virtually all thyroid patients are wholly satisfied

with their low-dose T4 supplements are bogus.

>Purified wheat gluten will still be a problem, even without the dysbiosis.

>This has been shown in lab tests, most notably the " rectal challenge "

>where small amounts of purified wheat gluten are introduced to the rectum

>to see if inflammation results. Small amounts of wheat gluten also cause

>the villi to lie down and " die " on camera, in time spans too short to be

>bacterial.

This is a perfect example of garbage science. I mean, seriously, this

sounds like the South Park episode in which Cartman told his friends that

if you " eat " by putting food up your, err, rectum, you'll poop out our

mouth -- and he turned out to be right, and before you know it everyone was

" eating " in reverse. It was a health fad. Unless there's some group of

people I don't know about which actually prefers to slam food instead of

consuming it in the normal way, this has absolutely no relevance to

reality. There's this phenomenon called digestion (and I've written this

sentence about six times, and each time it comes out sarcastic; my

apologies, but that's just how strongly I feel) which -- in healthy people

-- radically alters food before it (or rather, what's left after digestion

has mostly finished) reaches the rectum.

I can't think of a better illustration of the problems caused by med school

curricula omitting logic.

If there's some evidence of an adverse immunological reaction caused when

gluten reaches the mouth or the stomach (if, for example, it were to turn

out that gluten suppresses stomach acid secretion) then you'd have something.

>They may be illegal, but how would the person KNOW? I mean, folks who are

>GF spend great amounts of energy finding out what foods contain gluten. I

>just found out that my favorite rice vinegar contains wheat. So do many

>lipsticks, shampoos, hand creams. Does she outlaw gluten containing

>lipsticks? Or outlaw baking your steak in an oven that has had wheat bread

>in it recently? Gluten allergic folks *must* be obsessive to get healed,

>that is the problem.

Lipsticks? I don't actually know, as I pay virtually no attention to

cosmetics. But you could try asking her yourself. Or reading her book and

her various online statements.

That said, inasmuch as virtually all allergies (with only a few specific

non-food exceptions that I can think of at the moment) seem to either

appear with digestive problems and disappear with the resumption of perfect

digestive health or are at least radically worsened by poor digestive

health, I doubt someone with a completely healed digestive tract and proper

flora would react to a steak baked in an oven that years ago had some bread

in it. Nor have I noticed people on SCD lists who have to fanatically and

obsessively avoid gluten. They get better by following the SCD, and then

if a loaf of bread looks at them crosseyed they don't keel over dead.

-