Re: Smoking & Health

[Guest guest]

I think that smoking in moderation probably has a mixed bag of

blessings and harms much like wine or many other things that may be

good for some people and bad for others, and I think in a healthy

person eating a good diet is probably harmless.

I do want to say that, regarding the discussion of asthma, while I am

not asthmatic, I occasionally suffer from moderate breathing problems

from allergies, certain foods (especially pasteurized milk products),

overeating etc, and I find that smoking seems to clear my lungs,

oddly, for nearly any lung problem *except* lung problems associated

with being sick, which it unambiguously makes worse.

That said, I think people are right that given my health problems I

need to take more of a purist approach to my health. There are many

things that a healthy person can enjoy that I can't. Smoking, beer,

grains, beans, potatoes, dairy, many raw fruits and veggies, and,

*sigh*, I'm sure the list could go on.

Anyway, despite the positive effect on breathing (really, I'm not

kidding!), it seems that when I smoke, I'm more likely to bite my

tongue or the insides of my cheeks and inhale foods or drinks down the

wrong pipe. I've never heard this to be a symptom of smoking, but

nevertheless I seem to have verified it through my on-and-off smoking

over the past year. I'm guessing it must have something to do with

the nicotine's effect on my sensory nerves in my mouth and throat.

Additionally, sometimes, although only occasionally, it gives me a

lump in my throat, and it seems to make my hands much more likely to

fall asleep.

Smoking seems to be helpful after eating a large meal, but I probably

shouldn't be eating large meals.

Anyway, my lungs probably need a lot of rest and recovery. As soon as

I got out of the concrete plant, I got a teaching job that I expected

to be clean but was placed in a room that had peeling ceilings with

asbestos behind them, and which was notorious for eliciting allergic

responses from people upon entry, which probably indicated a mold

problem. So my lungs at this point are probably primed to react with

less tolerance to any kind of insult or burden.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I challenge you to drop the coffee. Since you have a harder time

> dropping it, why not switch to tea for a time? Some people don't like

> tea, do you? Maybe others can offer good choices. I like Celestial

> Seasonings Roastaroma, but it contains gluten, so that's out for me.

Right now I'm drinking a small mug in the morning and that's it. The

mug I'm using is probably half or two thirds the size of normal ones.

And before I was drinking 2 or 3 mugs worth a day (4-6 servings). I

did try quitting for several weeks just recently, but found that I

don't function well. I'm going to drop it during my upcoming fast. I

might have to find a good caffeine-free energy supplement to get me

through it though. If it were a week's withdrawals I can handle. But

I'm not prepared to go 1, 3, 6 months, or an indefinite amount of time

without the ability to function well!

I have some guarana chai I could replace it with, which has caffeine,

but less, and is more calming than jittery.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Deanna wrote:

> >That's exactly what difference I find between any tea and coffee.

> >Coffee has a heavy feel on my body as well for me, if that makes sense.

> >I think I'll just ditch coffee for good.

My understanding is that black tea is high in l-threonine, which is an

amino acid that promotes calmness, so the combination results in a

calm alertness rather than a " buzz. " Guarana and other caffeinated

herbs might have other substances, too, that promote a calming or

soothing effect.

wrote:

> In my experience, coffee is the most glorious substance known to man... for

> anywhere from a week to a month. Then the drawbacks begin to outweigh the

> benefits and it stops working for me. It's sad, because it really changes

> my life for the better for that little while, but I just can't use it.

Sounds like it's helping to boost your adrenal output and then you

quickly become depleted, right?

I generally find the same exact thing, only what has happened in the

past is I very quickly need to go up to my last peak coffee

consumption just to feel normal, and I get rather intense cravings for

it mid-day. Yet, the effects of it are so week than I can drink a

" medium " coffee from Dunkin Donuts (which is pretty big) a couple

hours before bed and fall right asleep, whereas coffee used to always

keep me up at night.

I'm avoiding that this time by strictly keeping my intake very small,

but if I stayed with it it would probably quickly become ineffectual.

I'm going to quit though beginning next week and get some kind of

adrenal/energy support.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/05, Deb Gully <deb.kiwi@...> wrote:

> Have you looked at taking l-tyrosine, as per Ross, instead?

> (Though according to katja, if I remember rightly, even that wouldn't

> sevre you well in the long term, if you don't sort out the adrenals.)

I tried it, and it helped a little, but I didn't find it to be

particularly effective.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Robin Ann <grainwreck@...> wrote:

> , You are showing your lack of education about gluten autoimmune

> illness by combining gluten intolerance with milk allergies in your pitch.

I don't know how educated is about gluten intolerance, but I

don't see why his having an alternative opinion from the mainstream

indicates a lack of education. Also, gluten and casein can both cause

autoimmune problems, so in that much they're similar.

> Gluten, if you are genetically predisposed, is not an allergy. It is an

> autoimmune illness that is responsible for causing a lot of damage to one's

> gut which in turn causes the various food allergies.

Gluten can't be an autoimmune illness itself-- it's a protein. If it

triggers an autoimmune illness, it would have to do so through a

system that I think we could at least loosely refer to as an " allergy "

or an " allergic response. " I was under the impression that gluten

would first elicit an immune reaction against itself, which would not

be an autoimmune disease, before it could result in an immune reaction

against endogenous tissues, which would.

> Once it's identified as being a kind of poison to certain people with the HLA

DQ2 >or HLA DQ8 markers, it can never be grown out of.

It's much closer to an " allergy " type phenomenon, I think, than it is

analogous to a " poison " phenomenon. If an immune reaction to gluten

makes gluten a " poison, " then that would mean that an autoimmune

reaction to your thyroid or pancreas tissue would make your thyroid a

" poison " and your pancreas a " poison. "

The fact there are genes associated with gluten-intolerance and celiac

does not in any way whatsoever indicate that it cannot be grown out of

or that it must be induced. I'm not saying it CAN be grown out of.

I'm just saying that it is jumping the gun to hop on the bandwagon of

the " genes-are-the-ultimate-cause-of-_______(fill in the blank) "

hysteria and assume that an associated gene means " there's nothing you

can do. "

Come to think of it, I've followed along with the gluten posts pretty

well, and I don't recall Heidi or anyone else telling us what the HLA

genes actually do.

Here's a test or one's presence or lack of education about gluten intolerance:

Can anyone on the list tell me what proteins the HLA genes code for

and what the functions of those proteins are before I can find out for

myself?

Just a pop quiz that I would consider a basic indicator of whether or

not someone is educated about gluten intolerance. " We don't know yet "

would be an acceptable answer.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I rest my case. ~Robin

>-- In , Masterjohn

<chrismasterjohn@g...> wrote:

> On 7/29/05, Robin Ann <grainwreck@g...> wrote:

>

> > , You are showing your lack of education about gluten

autoimmune

> > illness by combining gluten intolerance with milk allergies in

your pitch.

>

> I don't know how educated is about gluten intolerance, but

I

> don't see why his having an alternative opinion from the mainstream

> indicates a lack of education. Also, gluten and casein can both

cause

> autoimmune problems, so in that much they're similar.

>

> > Gluten, if you are genetically predisposed, is not an allergy.

It is an

> > autoimmune illness that is responsible for causing a lot of

damage to one's

> > gut which in turn causes the various food allergies.

>

> Gluten can't be an autoimmune illness itself-- it's a protein. If

it

> triggers an autoimmune illness, it would have to do so through a

> system that I think we could at least loosely refer to as

an " allergy "

> or an " allergic response. " I was under the impression that gluten

> would first elicit an immune reaction against itself, which would

not

> be an autoimmune disease, before it could result in an immune

reaction

> against endogenous tissues, which would.

>

> > Once it's identified as being a kind of poison to certain people

with the HLA DQ2 >or HLA DQ8 markers, it can never be grown out of.

>

> It's much closer to an " allergy " type phenomenon, I think, than it

is

> analogous to a " poison " phenomenon. If an immune reaction to

gluten

> makes gluten a " poison, " then that would mean that an autoimmune

> reaction to your thyroid or pancreas tissue would make your

thyroid a

> " poison " and your pancreas a " poison. "

>

> The fact there are genes associated with gluten-intolerance and

celiac

> does not in any way whatsoever indicate that it cannot be grown

out of

> or that it must be induced. I'm not saying it CAN be grown out

of.

> I'm just saying that it is jumping the gun to hop on the bandwagon

of

> the " genes-are-the-ultimate-cause-of-_______(fill in the blank) "

> hysteria and assume that an associated gene means " there's nothing

you

> can do. "

>

> Come to think of it, I've followed along with the gluten posts

pretty

> well, and I don't recall Heidi or anyone else telling us what the

HLA

> genes actually do.

>

> Here's a test or one's presence or lack of education about gluten

intolerance:

>

> Can anyone on the list tell me what proteins the HLA genes code for

> and what the functions of those proteins are before I can find out

for

> myself?

>

> Just a pop quiz that I would consider a basic indicator of whether

or

> not someone is educated about gluten intolerance. " We don't know

yet "

> would be an acceptable answer.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Robin Ann <grainwreck@...> wrote:

> I rest my case. ~Robin

I don't know what your case is, or how you can rest it in that one

sentence, but I did ask a question: what do the HLA genes *do*?

Obviously, not knowing myself, I revealed myself to not meet the

criteria I put forth for having a basic education of the mechanisms of

celiac/GS, so I'm kind of lost.

Next time you want to know something that *I* know... hmph!

:-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Steph <flybabysteph@...> wrote:

> Sure, throw out a pop quiz while the professor is away! :-)

Hi Steph,

Well I figured it out and I'm truly gluten-ignorant. I think Robin

got offended by the question, or my comments prior to it-- maybe I

appeared to be presenting myself as a know-it-all on the issue but I

think it is self-apparent that Robin certainly knows much more than

me.

In any case, *I*, the gluten-ignoramus, was able to find out in about

5 minutes that the HLA-DQ8 and HLA-DQ2 proteins, (apparently the genes

and the proteins bear the same name), are the binding site of an

antibody that binds to the glutamate residues of a particular peptide

strand that is derived from gluten and presents it to T cells,

although gluten naturally carries those residues as glutamine, and in

that form it has very little affinity for the HLA-DQ8 and HLA-DQ2

proteins, which means that in order for gluten to be promote an immune

response it needs to be brought inside the cells with the rather long

(that is, for a digested peptide, short for a protein) peptide in

tact, where the glutamines are converted to glutamate.

I explained that in a paragraph, and I'm sure anyone who knew could

have explained it in a sentence or two. I would consider this

imperative knowledge to have for one to make a decision about what it

meant for gluten intolerance to be " genetic. "

That said, now that I know this, I still know very little about gluten

intolerance.

> I'm sure I'm not the best person to answer, but basically Dr. Fine (at

> least he's the one who mostly tests for them, if not the one who figured

> it out) figured out the people who tested positive for IgA allergies to

> gluten (gliadin?) tended to have certain genes. You should be able to

> read more about it at his sites: enterolab.com or finerhealth.com

Right, but the tendency to have certain genes is almost meaningless

and sheds no light on whether gluten intolerance is a temporary or

permanent condition.

> Here's one excerpt:

> " What role does genetic testing play in the diagnosis of gluten

> sensitivity?

> Currently, tests are available to detect the genes that control the

> immune system's reaction to gluten. These genes are called human

> leukocyte antigens or HLA.

This right here would have answered my question. I didn't know what

" HLA " stood for, so I didn't realize they were antigens.

In any case, there is much more that has to go on than to simply have

the HLA-DQ2 or DQ8 alleles. Different enzymes will cleave the same

protein and completely different ways. So gliadin (the problematic

gluten) has to get cleaved to a certain peptide, and then it has to

*fail* to get cleaved further, and then that peptide might have to be

brought into the cell to be recognized.

So, in addition to having the right HLA alleles, a person must

additionally 1) have the enzymes that are cleaving the gliadin in the

particularly problematic fashion, and 2) either a) not have enzymes

breaking it down further OR have those enzymes, but damage in the

gut, is obstructing them from binding to the gliadin peptide, OR c)

have the genes for those enzymes, but for some reason is not

expressing them, either because c1) another gene or a transcriptional

factor is downregulating its expression, c2) some metal such as zinc,

or another cofactor, for the enzyme is not available, OR d) the

presence of an inhibitor of that enzyme, OR any combination of any or

all of these factors.

So the mere presence of the GS-associated HLA alleles is NOT

sufficient in and of itself to cause gluten sensitivity/celiac, which

is born out by the fact that research, as Heidi has certified,

indicates that a substantial portion of people with the DQ2/8 alleles

are NOT gluten intolerant.

Additionally, as has pointed out, pre-digestion of

gluten-bearing grains is another dimension to the discussion.

Anyway, thanks for the info on HLA-DQ.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> And here's what Dr. Ken says to *you*, Mr. M.

Thanks, Deanna. I don't have health insurance right now. I figure

I'll try the ginseng etc, and see from there. Should I wait till

after the fast to use ginseng, or is it ok to use during a fast?

?

Chris

[Guest guest]

First, thanks for articulating this so well.

Second, the scientists at Stanford presented their work last October

on finding a way to break down the gliadin peptide.

They said that NO human actually breaks this peptide and that they

had to do some recombinant biotech work to get something that would

indeed break it down - at first only in a test tube but they did

some clinical studies that showed that it does work in the gut as

well. However, they are probably about 15 years and many dollars

away from a " BeanO " type product that still would not fix the

problem except for the " occasional accidential ingestion " i.e. you

could take it just before eating out.

The notes from the talk used to be at:

http://celiacsupport.stanford.edu/

But I think they have redone the website. Email me if you want them

and I can send the ones I kept

Connie H.

> So, in addition to having the right HLA alleles, a person must

> additionally 1) have the enzymes that are cleaving the gliadin in

the

> particularly problematic fashion, and 2) either a) not have enzymes

> breaking it down further OR have those enzymes, but damage in

the

> gut, is obstructing them from binding to the gliadin peptide, OR c)

> have the genes for those enzymes, but for some reason is not

> expressing them, either because c1) another gene or a

transcriptional

> factor is downregulating its expression, c2) some metal such as

zinc,

> or another cofactor, for the enzyme is not available, OR d) the

> presence of an inhibitor of that enzyme, OR any combination of any

or

> all of these factors.

>

> So the mere presence of the GS-associated HLA alleles is NOT

> sufficient in and of itself to cause gluten sensitivity/celiac,

which

> is born out by the fact that research, as Heidi has certified,

> indicates that a substantial portion of people with the DQ2/8

alleles

> are NOT gluten intolerant.

>

> Additionally, as has pointed out, pre-digestion of

> gluten-bearing grains is another dimension to the discussion.

>

> Anyway, thanks for the info on HLA-DQ.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> It's also much more common in the circles we move in in real life

> > to have to deal with uninformed people and we are constantly

> having to explain that even a little gluten is NOT okay. It gets

> > very frustrating, to be honest. > Steph

I must admit that today I *am* feeling a little bit tired

of " defending " my illness -- not just to you guys. You're a piece of

cake: Since I just want to eat my food in peace for a little while

(it's still so new!,) I phoned my family this morning to cancel my

trip to Oregon this September.. First, my stupid brother tells me

that God is punishing me for my past actions. Then my alcoholic

father tells me " Nuthin'll make me give up my beer! " And then my

mother says, " Well... just a little bit will be okay.. "

It's weird. I don't even mind cutting out the foods it's just all

the people I have to work through to get something to eat if I'm not

in my own kitchen.

In fact, my new eating program leaves all my favorite foods intact.

I'm eating quite well. There's also the wonderful fact that since I

began eating in this way (gluten & casein-free) I've been feeling

better and better every day. After two long years of no life, just

one problem after another (bad candida fungus overgrowth from the

zillions of antibiotics, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, h.

pylori ulcer) and gas and bloating and pain after every meal to

where I wanted to break down and cry, it is absolute HEAVEN to feel

none of these reactions after eating. This alone is worth the price

of admission! I'm feeling so good that I've been doing yoga every

morning and an hour walk and the gym at night. I've been over-doing

it actually and need to back off a little bit as my adrenals aren't

quite up to snuff.

So I'm not upset or anything. It's just that enough has been said on

this list about this gluten-thing already. Please, one of you guys,

or , read Dangerous Grains so we're all on the

same page with the basic information at least. It's short and quite

well-written. It'll give you the basic deal so even if you think

it's a bunch of junk you'll have your facts right.. I'll send you my

copy.

Earlier I was feeling like I was typing words that were just blowing

into the air. I said I rest my case because I've said all I need to

say about it and didn't want anyone reading this thread to think

that because I wasn't responding to questions and erroneous

statements that meant somehow that I agreed with what was said. I

don't want the job of Glutenator and I have a lot more respect for

Heidi now for doing it. It isn't that fun. I started out by wanting

to try to help as he sounded just like me -- even the denial

part..

More generally, for every other subject here it seems that there's

at least some attempt at backing up " facts " with scientific

reference. Just do a quick google search and the questions (or

statements) you were asking about gluten could be answered or shot

down. If you say gluten is no big deal, fine but back it up. When it

comes to gluten there seems to be a personal bias on this list

against celiac.. I've only had it a couple months and already I'm

pretty sick of it. Instead of every post being 500 words about what

someone thinks and feels, how about some succinct pithy stuff

occasionally, with cites.

I know there's a GFCFNN group but the reason Celiac keeps coming up

on this list is because most of the people here seem to have

digestive ailments. Although there are (of course!) many causes of

these digestive problems, gluten has been found time and again to be

hiding behind many of them.

The other reason that people with digestive problems should at least

entertain the notion that gluten *might* be behind their problems is

that it is so easy to find out about and to fix: You just don't eat

the stuff. The villi grow back every three days and so it doesn't

take long to get the idea... It's just grains anyway so what's the

big deal? This is a big meat & veggie group so I don't understand

the reasoning behind all the defense of wheat and so on. All you

have to do (if you want) is to try excluding grains and either it

works or doesn't. It worked big-time for me so I read a bunch of

stuff on it and am now somewhat educated on it. Last month I wasn't.

Now the bigger problem for me is milk. I didn't want to give up milk

because it has so many nutritious aspects to it, not to mention it's

easy to eat and I love cheese... But since the tips of the villi

that get sloughed off by the gluten are where milk gets absorbed and

assimilated, milk proteins get between the cells instead of through

the cells and the body mounts a defense against the " invaders " . So

the milk allergy usually goes along with gluten-intolerance because

of the damaged gut. So if you're troubleshooting, it's harder to

figure out about the gluten problem (I think) if you're still

consuming casein. Eventually though, the guts heal up, the villi

grows back and chances are pretty decent that the allergies to milk

(and many other foods) will just go away. Delayed gratification.

This is my goal.

So again, I'm not mad. THIS IS MAD! :-) I just get as tired as all

of you do about discussing this gluten stuff. It's a LOT more

frustrating than the rather simple diet.

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

My understanding of the HLA-DQ genes is that when we were " wild " -

i.e. before living in cities and necessarily eating alot of one kind

of grain, the HLA-DQ genes were pretty randomly distributed. The

group of humans who lived in the " Fertile Crescent " from Egypt to

Pakistan, started eating wheat and barley - two grasses from the

same family. It grew well there, was easily planted in

monocultures, yielded enough to feed not only the people who planted

and harvested it, but also warrior and priestly classes who did NOT

plant and harvest. In the process the babies with the " celiac "

genes either died off in childhood or were not able to produce

babies of their own (because malnourishment from gluten intolerance

does that). This meant that the gene pool of the wheat and barley

eaters was " cleansed " of those genes.

Now, had wheat and barley remained in just that location like

sorghum in Africa until recently, it might have been that the spread

of wheat/barley/rye would have been within historical time and we

could have more clearly seen it's effects. But one of the very

early things done with wheat/barley was to make half-baked loaves

and then from that mix of yeast and grain, make beer. And then both

the drug and the makings spread fast. But not universally - wheat

was for the upper classes in most of Europe for many centuries,

barley was for the poor, but does not have the amount of gluten that

wheat does (nor does rye). But the statistical likelihood of a

person having the genes can be mapped to the areas of the world

where gluten grains are NOT eaten. Just because there is not much

celiac in SouthEast Asia may have more to do with the amount of rice

eaten and not with the number of people with the HLADQ genes.

So we are still in the process of " cleansing the gene pool " , but of

course, now that we have the means to lighten the effects (by means

of antibiotics for the kids whose weakened immune systems can't

fight off various diseases for example), we are slowing this down.

And as one of the carriers of the HLA-DQ genes I am certainly glad.

Or you could look at it from another perspective and just say that

just because it seems edible, it doesn't mean that it is healthy for

humans. (Aspertame, high frutose corn syrup, etc.) The fact that

this particular item has a long history and has even (is even?)

worshipped ( " staff of life " , the Host, etc.) does not necessarily

mean that it is good for humans.

Connie H.

>

>

> > Gluten can't be an autoimmune illness itself-- it's a protein.

If it

> > triggers an autoimmune illness, it would have to do so through a

> > system that I think we could at least loosely refer to as

an " allergy "

> > or an " allergic response. " I was under the impression that

gluten

> > would first elicit an immune reaction against itself, which

would not

> > be an autoimmune disease, before it could result in an immune

reaction

> > against endogenous tissues, which would.

>

> Here's NIDDK on celiac

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/

> >

> >

> > It's much closer to an " allergy " type phenomenon, I think, than

it is

> > analogous to a " poison " phenomenon. If an immune reaction to

gluten

> > makes gluten a " poison, " then that would mean that an autoimmune

> > reaction to your thyroid or pancreas tissue would make your

thyroid a

> > " poison " and your pancreas a " poison. "

>

> More like whatever organ is the enemy to be attacked as foreign.

>

> > Can anyone on the list tell me what proteins the HLA genes code

for

> > and what the functions of those proteins are before I can find

out for

> > myself?

>

> I'm not big on the genetics as the research puts HLA common to

> Northern European ancestry. Does that mean originating from, most

> prevalent or just that the research looks in Europe and the U.S.?

The

> world statistcs of celiac are more info

> http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/celiac_disease/intro.htm

> Those genes go to all continents " if " it is purely genetic.

>

> Wanita

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/05, Robin Ann <grainwreck@...> wrote:

> So I'm not upset or anything. It's just that enough has been said on

> this list about this gluten-thing already. Please, one of you guys,

> or , read Dangerous Grains so we're all on the

> same page with the basic information at least. It's short and quite

> well-written. It'll give you the basic deal so even if you think

> it's a bunch of junk you'll have your facts right.. I'll send you my

> copy.

I own it and have read it. What did I say that indicated otherwise?

> More generally, for every other subject here it seems that there's

> at least some attempt at backing up " facts " with scientific

> reference. Just do a quick google search and the questions (or

> statements) you were asking about gluten could be answered or shot

> down. If you say gluten is no big deal, fine but back it up.

I know I didn't say that, and I haven't seen anyone else say that.

> When it

> comes to gluten there seems to be a personal bias on this list

> against celiac..

I just think there's a healthy variance of opinion on this and most

other issues because this is a list dominated by thinkers rather than

followers. I don't think there are any more people that argue against

the " gluten hypothesis, " as would call it, than there are who

argue in favor of it. I don't think there's any particular bias " in

favor of smoking " either, even though there are more vocal opponents

of the present scientific orthodoxy on smoking on this list than you'd

typically find. Again, it's just symptomatic of the fact that there

are a lot of general skeptics on the list. Skepticism and challenge,

of course, is the vital backbone of scientific progress, and our

knowledge of gluten and celiac or anything else would not have gotten

here without it.

> I know there's a GFCFNN group but the reason Celiac keeps coming up

> on this list is because most of the people here seem to have

> digestive ailments. Although there are (of course!) many causes of

> these digestive problems, gluten has been found time and again to be

> hiding behind many of them.

Which no one is disputing...

> The other reason that people with digestive problems should at least

> entertain the notion that gluten *might* be behind their problems is

> that it is so easy to find out about and to fix: You just don't eat

> the stuff.

Not everyone gets better with just giving up the stuff. Sometimes the

gut damage is bad enough that other starches need to be restricted for

healing to take place, and I'm betting healing generally take place

better anyway if starches are restricted. All the other damage that

goes along with that needs to be treated as well, hypochloridia,

enzyme deficiencies, endocrine problems. I know you know that,

because you're doing more for yourself than giving up gluten too. I

think that was 's point when he said that simply giving up gluten

wouldn't be a " magic bullet. " For some reason you seem to have

interpreted that as " gluten is not an issue. "

> The villi grow back every three days and so it doesn't

> take long to get the idea... It's just grains anyway so what's the

> big deal? This is a big meat & veggie group so I don't understand

> the reasoning behind all the defense of wheat and so on.

I've been on this list for years and believe me I can only recall one

instance of someone truly being a proponent of wheat, and that was a

long time and the list hasn't heard from the person in a while. I

have no idea what you are interpreting as a " defense of wheat. "

Heh... ask what he thinks about wheat.

> All you

> have to do (if you want) is to try excluding grains and either it

> works or doesn't. It worked big-time for me so I read a bunch of

> stuff on it and am now somewhat educated on it. Last month I wasn't.

And is there a single person who is arguing in defense of wheat who

has health problems possibly related to gluten intolerance and is NOT

giving up grains? I gave up wheat a long time ago and as I've said

repeatedly I've given up rye and beer in the last couple weeks, and

doesn't eat any grains at all. I'm not sure if eats

grains, but he apparently has good health after a lot of work with

fasting and isolating high-soil fertility foods.

> So again, I'm not mad. THIS IS MAD! :-) I just get as tired as all

> of you do about discussing this gluten stuff. It's a LOT more

> frustrating than the rather simple diet.

I think that, if you're getting frustrated, you misinterpreted and

overreacted to a simple and harmless statement that made.

There has been no one hounding on you for suggesting me or anyone else

might be gluten intolerant.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Hello GI (Gluten Ignoramous), LOL.

Hi :-)

> Do you have a link to this info? I'd really like whatever article you got

> this from.

I got it from an abstract on medline. If you go to medline and type

in " HLA-DQ " and search, it's at the bottom of the first page-- unless,

of course, there were a few dozen more abstracts indexed today!

Although, I don't think it will help you understand it any better,

unless you want to pay for the full text (and that might not help

either, we both could probably use some background info on the stuff.)

> I'm trying to understand it, but with a bit of difficulty. Do I

> understand correctly that an antibody binds to the HLA proteins on one end

> and to the gluten glutamate residue on the other?

No. The HLA by definition is an antigen of an anti-body. Since I

sold my A & P book last year (stupidly), and it's been a while, I don't

remember what the structure of an antibody really is. So I don't know

if the whole thing is one protein, or whatever, but in any case it has

a binding site, which is made of protein, and the HLA protein IS that

binding site.

The antibody is not the actual immune respone. It is a marker that

calls the attention of T cells to the offending protein. So, the T

cell does the attacking, but the T cell wouldn't really notice the

gluten was there unless the antibody bound to it, and said, " Hey look!

I found a gluten! "

> Then brings it into the

> cell and presents it to T cells IN the cell?

No. The abstract suggested that the gluten peptide would not be able

to bind to the HLA-DQ antibody unless it had first entered the

intestinal cell in tact where it's glutamine residues could be

converted to glutamate, and thus enact its ability to bind to HLA-DQ

antibody. Now, this study doesn't necessarily have the LAST WORD on

that, but if they are correct that the glutamine would not likely be

converted to glutamate outside the cell, that very likely it would

have to come into the cell first.

> Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

> Why would gluten have those residues as both glutamine and glutamate, as

> you seem to be saying? And what is the difference between these two?

" Residues " refer to the portions of amino acids that are in a protein,

which, while in a protein, are not technically " amino acids, " so we

call them residues. Glutamine and glutamic acid, as the roots of the

names imply, are the same thing, but for the replacement of an amine

group (NH2) with an acid group, in this case a hydroxyl (OH), which

makes the gluta___(blank) into a carboxylic acid. Glutamic acid, and

glutamate, as the names imply, are the same thing but glutamate's

hydrogen ion has ionized.

So, in sum, what happens is that the NH2 group that hangs off the side

chains of the glutamine residues in the gluten peptide, once in the

cell (apparently), gets replaced with a hydroxyl (OH) group.

> Maybe you

> could give a step by step of what happens?

Oh. Was that good enough?

> >Right, but the tendency to have certain genes is almost meaningless

> >and sheds no light on whether gluten intolerance is a temporary or

> >permanent condition.

>

> True in regards to the latter part of your sentence, but in regards to the

> former, it should be mentioned that Dr. Fine has found that approx. 75% of

> those with the genes have an IgA immune response to gluten.

Fair enough, and that obviously isn't meaningless. But consider this:

If I, as a researcher, did not understand the effects of gluten on

celiac, and I did a study with mice, where I took a strain of mice

with HLA-DQ2 genes, and then I knocked out those genes in an

experimental group, and then I had a wild-type strain with no HLA-DQ2

genes, and then I simply observed the ones with the DQ2 genes all get

symptoms of celiac and die. And I concluded that the HLA-DQ2 gene was

a birth defect that led to massive digestive dysfunction, chronic

wasting, and death at a young age. And there was nothing we could do

about it except make test tube babies and screen for the genes. In

the smaller print at the end of the study in the " methods " section, I

included that all mice were fed standard cereal-based lab chow.

Since I'm not " in the know " about gluten, it doesn't occur to me that

there is a variable not being accounted for-- the lab chow.

But you, being " in the know, " would read the study and say, well duh!

They're all being fed gluten! You would be able to see an extra

variable that I'm taking for granted.

Likewise, there are many things in the SAD that human research

basically takes for granted, in large part because there isn't enough

variation to experiment with it. While we aren't " in the know " about

how these variables would play out, we are essentially lost in some

respects, in the same way a genetic researcher who didn't know about

the interaction of those genes with gluten.

> That is NOT to

> say however, having the genes translates into becoming GS. I would guess

> that approx. 99.99% of people he's tested are SADers so that throws in an

> important untested variable. I'm not sure that having the genes is

> " meaningless " though, at least in terms of whether one CAN become GS. From

> what I understand, effectively NO ONE becomes GS without having at least

> one

> of the genes. So the genes seem to be ONE requirement for becoming GS.

I don't really remember, but I'm sure you can become GS without the

genes. But, I think Heidi may have said in the past that you'd get a

different category of reaction, the Igwhatevers. Surely if you have a

leaky gut for other reasons and you have gluten leaking into your

bloodstream you'd develop a reaction.

But you are right, " meaningless " was not really what I meant to

convey. I meant that, by itself, the association is not enough to

make conclusions about anything. That does NOT by any stretch of the

imagination make it " meaningless " like I inappropriately said.

> Having said that, this could probably be proven wrong in the

> not-too-distant

> future, since so many populations which were thought NOT to have the genes

> are being diagnosed with celiac. Dr. Fine states that the genes are

> basically a Western European (and their descendents) phenomenon, but

> clearly

> that is not the case with all the celiac sprouting up in African countries

> receiving wheat as food aid. So, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps most or

> all ethnic groups have some gene that will eventually be ID'ed as a GS

> gene,

> at which point the term GS gene may become meaningless.

I would like to point out something briefly: I think it is *normal* to

have HLA-DQ things, and I think it might be possible that everyone has

them, but am not sure. In any case, it is only two particular

mutations of this gene that are problematic with gluten, HLA-DQ2 and

HLA-DQ8. As far as I know, the other HLA-DQ alleles, whose products

do NOT bind to gluten are basically the same with a few changes here

and there.

That seems to indicate to me that those antibodies are meant for something else.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > <[robin] (In fact I keep meaning to ask if his stools

> >float :-) )

> [claire] I'm curious as to how you view the significance of

> this. One source I read said there was no significance, there

> simply being a certain (small) part of the population that

> produces the gas that makes for floating. But within

> alternate health community, some see it as a sign of health

> (vegetarians or fuitarians, I think) while others see it as a sign

> of disease. If your own ideas are based on a study you think is

> good, I'd be interested in the reference.

>

I read that steatorrheatorhhea (floating stools) is a common symptom

of celiac/GS (but probably is of many other things too...

My stools often floated when I was sick with all those bloating, gas

type symptoms. But now since those symptoms have gone away and I

started feeling really good, they don't float. (By the way, I went

to yoga again this morning and did a handstand. I couldn't stay up

as long as I could a couple years ago but I feel that'll come back

with time. This is a red letter day for me.. Huh, Deanna?!! :-)

But the stools thing reminded me of another symptom I wanted ask

about because I think he said something about " eczema " . I had

a bout of what I thought was eczema or shingles but it turns out it

was dermatitis herpetiformis...

Here's a bunch of the symptoms. It's the first site I grabbed on a

search...

http://www.shands.org/health/information/article/000233.html

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

> Robin,

>

> <(In fact I keep meaning to ask if his stools float :-) )

>

> I'm curious as to how you view the significance of this. One source

I read

> said there was no significance, there simply being a certain (small)

part of

> the population that produces the gas that makes for floating.

,

Gas making the stools float? Who says?

AFAIK floating stools means high fat content in the stool = poor fat

digestion. Optimal stools don't float.

B.

[Guest guest]

....Can gluten be handled? The prima facie evidence is yes. When Price's

primitives ferment their grains/breads for two weeks, and we already

know long ferments DISABLE the problematic aspects of gluten, that

tells us something.

I met Miss at the Hollywood farmers market last week

and there was this MAD baker there who bakes whole grain breads with a

two-week fermentation. The guy is nuts-o obsessed and passionate

about what he's doing--how could I resist a loaf of rye after reading

's posts? I had to experiment, so I had a couple small slices

and immediately wanted some more--which does say something--but social

constraints prevented me from acting on impulse. No bloating; no

indigestion; no depression; no otherwise telling (personal-to-me)

symptoms. Curious.

Also, I saw the remainder of this loaf last night at my friend's

house, and it was still soft and fresh-seeming, though I didn't have any.

B.

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/05, West <clairewest@...> wrote:

> I now have to figure out why vegetarians/fruitarians think a floating stool

> is a good stool.

That seems obvious to me. If they think vegetarianism is healthy,

naturally they are going to think various symptoms of nutritional

deficiencies and health disorders are healthy.

Among them,

-poor digestion evidenced by floating stools

-lack of dreaming caused by B vitamin deficiency in macrobiotic diets

- " enlightened consciousness " caused by zinc deficiency

-containment of sexual passions which really means loss of virility,

fertility, libido, and hormone deficiency

and so on.

Next they will come up with the idea that vegetarians fart more

because they are detoxing their stored gas, and the fact that

meat-eaters fart less indicates that they are " storing " their gas and

are unable to clean their systems out.

And so on.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Robin,

> Is that the skin disorder you thought was caused by parasites?

(I'm > not

> sure I have the right Robin here.) If so, I can see why it >

distressed you

> so! Are you over it now or will you need to be off the grains for

a >longer

> time?>

>

Hi , Same Robin, different problem. I got the parasite(s) in

Hawaii last Febraury and they left scabie-like red pin prick marks

on my arms up from a wound. I'm thinking they also got into my

system somehow (but it seems weird!) maybe because I have such low

(or no) stomach acid? The parasite guy gets back in August and I'm

going to still maybe send him some samples. I'm not so concerned

anymore because I feel so good.. And I'm off grains for good (except

rice) due to a celiac disease diagnosis.

The rash was something I got at my worst ebb, back a year and a half

ago when I was in the midst of the battle of the gut and thought

that nothing else could be worse than the pain and gas and bloating -

- well, that's when I got these itchy bumpy welt-like things first

on my upper chest and then all over my torso and behind my knees.

My (former) doctor thought it was psoriasis or something (which of

course it wasn't...)

~Robin

[Guest guest]

> [michael] I'm thinking you are misreading/misinterpreting posts.

>There are lots of independent thinkers here who question and

>challenge

[robin]And sometimes it feels like team tag around here. :-)

> > [earlier by robin] The other reason that people with digestive

> >problems should at

> >least entertain the notion that gluten *might* be behind their

> >problems is that it is so easy to find out about and to fix: You

> >just don't eat the stuff. The villi grow back every three days

> >and so it doesn't take long to get the idea... It's just grains

> >anyway so what's the big deal?

> [michael]You know I'm tempted to write 500 words about what I

> think this statement reveals :-)

[robin] Yeh, and and I'm tempted to write 1000 words about what I

think you're thinking this statement reveals... hah!

> Personally I think your frustration is misguided.

It probably is and it wouldn't be the first time..

~Robin the Arrow Catcher

[Guest guest]

>[Deanna] I am glad you are on the mend. And thanks for holding

> Helga's sorghum breadstick while she's been away.

[robin] I'm going to send her a dozen rice noodles when she gets

back.

> >[robin wrote]I'm happy to know what the cause was for me because

> >I'm looking

> >forawrd to getting back to a life that isn't centered around food

> >discussions on message boards.

> >

> [deanna] They are still helpful though, even when well.

[robin] And I'd miss the bantering with and Mike... :-)

>[deanna] Oooo yeah! And don't forget, she's a martial artist!

[robin] oh yeah.. we can kick their butts. By the way, Deanna, did

you see I wrote that I did a hand stand this morning in yoga. It was

unassisted for a little while but I was supporting my entire weight

and it felt GREAT!

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

> [michael] But I will admit this list can potentially be

> bothersome if you have thin skin, and I'm beginning to think on

> this subject at least you do. Feel free to correct me if I am

> wrong.

[robin] You are wrong.

>[michael quoting me] " , You are showing your lack of

>education about gluten autoimmune illness by combining gluten

>intolerance with milk allergies in your pitch. "

[robin]Your original post seemed to equate the gluten thing to

casein allergy. I didn't know that you knew so much about gluten.

Now I do. I stand corrected..

> [michael] Nonetheless, it only makes sense that if the problematic

> aspects of gliadin are destroyed/removed/disabled/broken down into

> its constituent parts or however you want to describe the process,

> then anyone, including celiacs, can consume it, _since it is no

> longer the same thing_. Perhaps this point has somehow been

> obfuscated throughout this thread by me. But you don't have to

> take my word for it: http://snipurl.com/g7sv

> I suggest you start preparing to pay a visit to your humidor :-)

[robin] And now you're REALLY going to make me suffer...

> [michael] I'm done on this aspect of the thread. The discussion

> seems to have come to an impasse, so the last word is yours if you

> like.

{robin] Me too. Let's light up. :-)

~Robin

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> You're not so far off as you might think. I've read numerous assertions

> from what I'd consider the looney-bin quarter that farting is a sign of

> health.

Yes, but I think its benefits are significnatly decreased for one of

medium stature and almost demolished for someone tall. The fact is

that childhood growth is likely to wind up as adulthood cancer, so the

issue really needs to be tackled in early childhood, where feeding a

vegetarian, or preferably vegan, diet, can be more efficacious in

preventing excessive growth. Once medium-short to short stature is

achieved, the health-conscious parent will optimize the

bean-consumption in their teenager's diet to equal 1L of released

flatulence per Kg bodyweight per day. The treamtment appears to be

most efficacious when olfactory analysis of flatulence samples runs

about 70% roses and only 30% sh!@.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Also, Price's Swiss didn't ferment their *dough* for 2 weeks, oddly, rather

> they hung the finished_loaf for 2 weeks. I have no idea what this does to

> it, but since the bacteria/enzymes would be dead by then from baking, I

> wonder how this could help make the bread more digestible?

Cooking would more or less sterilize the bread, but it wouldn't remain

sterile for long. After all, leave bread out, and it goes moldy. So

in that two-weeks, there would definitely be fermenting action going

on, and although it might be somewhat left to chance, apecific

microorganisms are attracted to specific substrates, and I'm pretty

sure that what will come in to invade a piece of a particular bread is

pretty predictable.

One of the primary bread invaders, by the way, is b. subtilis, which

is in Primal Defense.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Dr. Fine states that the genes are

> basically a Western European (and their descendents) phenomenon, but

clearly

> that is not the case with all the celiac sprouting up in African

countries

> receiving wheat as food aid.

Could that point to something else in the wheat that is either causing

the disease, or a catalyst? How about pesticides? And is there

mercury in pesticides?

Bob