opioids, sugar, etc.

[Guest guest]

> Anyway, I mention this because a lot of folks who

> " feel great " when they fast have food intolerances,

> which cause food cravings and binging big time. Gluten and casein

> form opioids in the brain and it IS a drug addiction, for some

number

> of people.

Heidi,

sex probably forms opioids in the brain, too, LOL!! perhaps ANYTHING

that is addictive forms opioids in the brain.

is this a BAD thing? i mean, sugar is addictive because it has a

similar effect on the brain that heroin does...takes the same

biochemical pathways, too, and stopping sugar for a sugar junkie cold

turkey causes real withdrawal.

i mean, is it possible natural opioids are NOT a bad thing? that we

just connect them in our minds with illegal drugs like opium, heroin

and cocaine? that these drugs produce an EXTREME reaction while ones

in foods induce a mild reaction, or addiction?

i mean, what if the Creator put them in the food deliberately so we

would continue to eat and therefore reproduce? i mean, He made sex

pleasurable so we would keep doing it; maybe the same with food.

have you ever been faced with food you don't want to eat and would

rather starve? this happened to me in costa rica when i spent a

month with some locals...after 2 weeks of rice and beans the thought

of another rice or bean made me ill and i lost wt. cuz i got to the

point where i'd rather not eat rice and beans and there was no other

choice! (i was at their mercy and couldn't be rude and tell them...)

in the Bible the foods mentioned over and over are bread, milk,

grain, meat, fish and honey. i'm sure i missed some. why would the

creator have given these as food if they were so bad for them?

have they somehow become worse over the years? overbred, genetically

or something so that the ancient forms were healthy but the modern

forms are not? (and so people eat spelt instead).

and weren't cows overbred to produce grotesquely enormous udders to

produce more milk? maybe the casein in this milk is somehow worse

for us?

in the book Lick the Sugar Habit, the author explains how food

allergies are set up. she explains how sugar is the cause of all

food allergies, and why and how, and that any foods you ate as a kid

with sugar such as flour (cookies) or dairy (ice cream) or peanuts

(p.b. with added sugar e.g. Skippy; also eaten with jelly=sugar) or

eggs (cakes, puddings), that these foods, flour, eggs, dairy,

peanuts, you will forever be allergic to because you ate them all the

time as a child with sugar. HELLO!!! this is 99.999999% of us if

not 100%!!

could this be the root of all obesity in this country? if sugar and

high fructose corn syrup and all the others magically disappeared,

never to reappear, in 50 years would all the people be at a normal wt?

WHY are these supposed wholesome foods (eg raw dairy and sprouted,

fermented, soaked grains) causing so many problems in us, who were so

taken by sally and wapf, and just want to eat healthier and be

healthier, like our ancestors? (who never had perfect health i might

add.)

has the 20th century sugar epidemic changed that forever because it

has now made us intolerant of these foods that God once so blessed?

laura

> Sugar and alcohol don't seem to cause me a lot of problems,

> if they are not coupled with the other two, tho this is

> obviously not true for a lot of folks. But if I get a bit of gluten,

> or eat a bit of cheese, the next day I am STARVING all day (also

> very thirsty) and there's not much I can do about it except live

> through it and drink broth. Food allergies cause hunger ... partly

> because of the opioids and partly because of the cortisol.

>

>

> >so if i don't try to lose wt, i gain wt. if i try to lose wt, i

gain

> >wt. it doesn't matter what i do. i know to a lot of you this

must

> >sound like nonsense. and it's a mystery to me.

>

> It's not nonsense, a lot of us have been through it! I'm only

> now getting to where I feel like buying clothes again, like

> it's under control.

>

>

> >i exercise. yesterday i biked for an hour, i do that every other

> >day. i'm working up to my usual 2 hour biking route. the off

days i

> >usually rollerblade tho i've been painting the house lately

instead.

> >i love to hike, and i walk and cross country ski in the winter. i

> >want to hike the appalachian trail one day and maybe bike cross

> >country or start cross-state.

>

> Great for you! If you CAN do stuff, your body will be in better

> shape than if you were " ideal " weight and sedentary. Actually

> very skinny people have the worst life expectancy.

>

> >THANK GOD my husband is accepting of me and loves me and still

> >desires me; he seemingly is my only saving grace. (both he and

son.)

> >he HATES it when i call myself fat (and i use the word not

> >derogatorily but as a FACT. i'm a woman. i'm 50. i'm fat. i

have

> >a pretty face. sort of.) and people seem to like me and my

> >personality and accept me for who i am...only my mom and sis seem

to

> >be bothered by my wt.

>

> I think it is important to be happy with who you are. In yoga, part

> of the meditation is to just sit there and feel your body, to enjoy

> it. That tends to give me the impetus to make it better too ... but

I

> wasn't able to do that until I started LISTENING to it. For me, that

> at first meant finding a meal I could eat for breakfast and not be

> hungry til lunch. Which led to me tweaking what I ate. And to

figuring

> out that some meals made me feel really odd after (I kept a diary).

> And eventually to changing my entire diet (and my family's).

>

> What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another.

> Our " modern diet " is obviously the culprit in all this, but no one

is

> sure exactly which parts of said diet are the worst. The Paleo diet

> cuts out MOST of the modern evil stuff in one swoop, but I'm not

> that extreme at this point. Anyway, it's an adventure. An

experiment.

> Like Miss Frizzle would say: Get messy! Make mistakes!

>

> >

>

> Heidi

[Guest guest]

:

>

>sex probably forms opioids in the brain, too, LOL!! perhaps ANYTHING

>that is addictive forms opioids in the brain.

>

>is this a BAD thing? i mean, sugar is addictive because it has a

>similar effect on the brain that heroin does...takes the same

>biochemical pathways, too, and stopping sugar for a sugar junkie cold

>turkey causes real withdrawal.

>

>i mean, is it possible natural opioids are NOT a bad thing? that we

>just connect them in our minds with illegal drugs like opium, heroin

>and cocaine? that these drugs produce an EXTREME reaction while ones

>in foods induce a mild reaction, or addiction?

Internal opioids are there for a reason, and they don't

stay there forever. So yeah, if you run a lot, you get opioids,

and that dulls the pain. But as a result, some folks DO get

addicted to running, and like any addiction, they pay the

price for it. Ditto if you get addicted to sex.

Now if you get addicted to gluten/casein opioids, you

get fat. If you don't mind getting fat, that's fine! And they

also dull your brain down, so you can't think well. Again,

if that's ok with the person, they can eat them. They

also make autistic/asperger's symptoms worse, which

for some people might be enjoyable. The one thing that

I don't think anyone wants though, is that they dull your

immune system so you get a higher rate of cancer.

>i mean, what if the Creator put them in the food deliberately so we

>would continue to eat and therefore reproduce? i mean, He made sex

>pleasurable so we would keep doing it; maybe the same with food.

>have you ever been faced with food you don't want to eat and would

>rather starve? this happened to me in costa rica when i spent a

>month with some locals...after 2 weeks of rice and beans the thought

>of another rice or bean made me ill and i lost wt. cuz i got to the

>point where i'd rather not eat rice and beans and there was no other

>choice! (i was at their mercy and couldn't be rude and tell them...)

Well, until about 200 years ago, gluten and casein were rare

for most of the world. So I guess the Creator might have

changed his mind about what people should eat in the last 100 years?

During said 200 years we have also gotten a whole lot sicker, esp.

with stuff like diabetes which is very much linked to these two

foods. So if you are saying it was done by the Creator, then I say

it was a sick cosmic joke! Millions of babies died in the 1800's of

celiac, which is basically caused by wheat. They were dying in

Roman times too.

Actually though, most folks believe it

was done by humans, who have been breeding higher gluten

wheat and milk with different casein, likely because humans

get addicted to opioids. Not all grains nor all milk is high in opioids,

and it is our choice to eat those foods, esp. nowadays when

there is lots of other stuff to eat.

But yeah, the " feel good " part of food is what makes you

want to eat it. And the feel good part of sex makes you do it

too. But humans get in trouble with both of those (how else

do you explain how folks STILL get AIDS even knowing the

risks?). Said feel good part is killing loads of people that are

addicted to meth, alcohol, and cigarettes too. Opioids are

natural AND we get addicted to them real easy.

>in the Bible the foods mentioned over and over are bread, milk,

>grain, meat, fish and honey. i'm sure i missed some. why would the

>creator have given these as food if they were so bad for them?

>

>have they somehow become worse over the years? overbred, genetically

>or something so that the ancient forms were healthy but the modern

>forms are not? (and so people eat spelt instead).

I'll let the theologians tackle that one! Wheat was bad for

the Egyptians (we have mummified evidence!) ... maybe the

Hebrews were immune. Or one lady said in the OT, the Hebrews

were mainly nomads with lots of cattle, and were healthier

than the Egyptians. Someone else thinks that grain was

a part of the Adamic curse.

But the Middle East was the birthplace of wheat, and the genes

that make it really bad for a person died off there a long

time ago. My ancestry is from Germany, and my ancestors

didn't get it much (even my grandparents). My genes are the ones

that don't like wheat (yeah, I got them tested).

And yes, modern wheat is far worse than what the Egyptians

ate. But the old wheat still made them sick.

>in the book Lick the Sugar Habit, the author explains how food

>allergies are set up. she explains how sugar is the cause of all

>food allergies, and why and how, and that any foods you ate as a kid

>with sugar such as flour (cookies) or dairy (ice cream) or peanuts

>(p.b. with added sugar e.g. Skippy; also eaten with jelly=sugar) or

>eggs (cakes, puddings), that these foods, flour, eggs, dairy,

>peanuts, you will forever be allergic to because you ate them all the

>time as a child with sugar. HELLO!!! this is 99.999999% of us if

>not 100%!!

This is IgE allergies, not IgA. IgA is a different animal ... there are lots

of studies on it, and it's basically genetic. If you don't have the gene,

you won't get IgA allergic no matter how much sugar you eat.

>could this be the root of all obesity in this country? if sugar and

>high fructose corn syrup and all the others magically disappeared,

>never to reappear, in 50 years would all the people be at a normal wt?

Someone will have to do a study and figure it out ... my take though

is that obesity isn't a great problem in, say, Japan. The Japanese do

eat sugar, and they eat lots of rice, which is broken down into

sugar very very quickly. And they like high-fructose corn syrup.

If it was just a sugar issue, I'd expect them to be huge.

>WHY are these supposed wholesome foods (eg raw dairy and sprouted,

>fermented, soaked grains) causing so many problems in us, who were so

>taken by sally and wapf, and just want to eat healthier and be

>healthier, like our ancestors? (who never had perfect health i might

>add.)

Probably because my ancestors never ate said wholesome foods.

And sprouted fermented grain IS better than white flour

by a long shot. If you eat enough nutrients your body can

overcome the anti-nutrient aspects of grain, just like Sally

wrote. But even with just phytates, soaking and fermenting

don't get rid of all the phytates. They don't neutralize all the

gluten either.

>has the 20th century sugar epidemic changed that forever because it

>has now made us intolerant of these foods that God once so blessed?

Well, mixing theology and nutrition has always been an iffy thing,

but there are some books now that use a Biblical basis for

a low-grain diet, so maybe it's like Catholicism and Protestantism ...

we'll have vegan Christians and no-grain Christians and high-grain Christians.

Personally I don't think it's a question you can answer Biblically, but

it is a question you can answer pretty well in the laboratory, and

much of the science has already been done.

For folks who don't believe in science, then you'll have

to find some other route to figure out what to eat. I know

this is really a problem for folks esp. in the Catholic church,

who have to struggle with whether or not to let their kids

get ill by taking communion.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Internal opioids are there for a reason, and they don't

> stay there forever. So yeah, if you run a lot, you get opioids,

> and that dulls the pain. But as a result, some folks DO get

> addicted to running, and like any addiction, they pay the

> price for it. Ditto if you get addicted to sex.

so heidi, it sounds like addiction is part of life; but to a lesser

or greater extent.

>

> Now if you get addicted to gluten/casein opioids, you

> get fat. If you don't mind getting fat, that's fine! And they

> also dull your brain down, so you can't think well. Again,

> if that's ok with the person, they can eat them. They

> also make autistic/asperger's symptoms worse, which

> for some people might be enjoyable. The one thing that

> I don't think anyone wants though, is that they dull your

> immune system so you get a higher rate of cancer.

>

Heidi, my brain is EXTREMELY dull; maybe some of you can tell by some

of my posts. i can't think like i used to; i'm only 50. how did i

make it thru college; let alone graduation at the top of my class. i

can hardly follow more than one sentence when people talk to me. my

son and husband are always having to repeat things so i can

understand them. but then...when i was a kid my mom called me the

absent minded professor cuz i was so smart at school but she had to

say things to me twice. so maybe i haven't changed, i've just gotten

worse. i've always thought i've always been ADD.

> Well, until about 200 years ago, gluten and casein were rare

> for most of the world.

Heidi, what do you mean by this?

So I guess the Creator might have

> changed his mind about what people should eat in the last 100 years?

> During said 200 years we have also gotten a whole lot sicker, esp.

> with stuff like diabetes which is very much linked to these two

> foods. So if you are saying it was done by the Creator, then I say

> it was a sick cosmic joke! Millions of babies died in the 1800's of

> celiac, which is basically caused by wheat. They were dying in

> Roman times too.

okay. what's wrong with this picture? sally gives a talk.

basically, i get from her talk that dairy is good as long as it's

raw, and grain is fine as long as it's soaked, fermented or

sprouted. she didn't say anything about lots of people still having

problems with these foods. she and dr. ron schmid both say they have

seen people who were milk intolerant be able to tolerate it raw. and

they both say that it's the MAJORITY, not the minority who can handle

these foods.

and what of all of dr. price's 'tribes'? all these healthy people?

those Swiss people i wish i could emulate by living on raw cheese and

sourdough rye?

it seems the healthier people were the isolated tribes...once you get

into broader civilization, that's where are the problems are. why???

look, maybe you don't believe in God and that He put us here. that's

fine.

but if He did, maybe He intended for us to live locally, near where

we were born, and spread out gradually, and for civilizations NOT to

fight and kill and try to take over others. like the persians, then

alexander, then the romans. and there were also the vikings and many

others. look, i'm ignorant, i don't know, i'm speculating, but i

find it very curious that all throughout time (including the bible)

people have been wracked with disease, and then dr. price finds all

these healthy, isolated tribes who live off the land in a local sense.

i just can't seem to make this connection.

is NT just a bunch of hooey? have i been hoodwinked into believing

in just another way of eating? have i been taken in AGAIN??

do you understand my conundrum? when i joined wapf, it was, eat

these foods; they'll heal you. now i hear, here, don't eat these

foods; they'll continue to harm you.

i just don't understand.

I'll let the theologians tackle that one! Wheat was bad for

> the Egyptians (we have mummified evidence!) ... maybe the

> Hebrews were immune. Or one lady said in the OT, the Hebrews

> were mainly nomads with lots of cattle, and were healthier

> than the Egyptians. Someone else thinks that grain was

> a part of the Adamic curse.

maybe the hebrews lived mostly on meat and milk and cheese...and we

know that jacob had sheep and goats and i don't think any cattle, i

might be wrong. and maybe grain was 'incidental'. i don't know!

>

Heidi, two more questions. how do you know so much? and, are you a

rarity with your intolerance of gluten and casein? geez, i hope so.

laura

[Guest guest]

laura:

>so heidi, it sounds like addiction is part of life; but to a lesser

>or greater extent.

Right. Opioids are part of how your brain works, which is

why they are so dangerous. Sugar is part of how your

system works too (your brain lives off sugar).

>

>Heidi, my brain is EXTREMELY dull; maybe some of you can tell by some

>of my posts. i can't think like i used to; i'm only 50. how did i

>make it thru college; let alone graduation at the top of my class. i

>can hardly follow more than one sentence when people talk to me. my

>son and husband are always having to repeat things so i can

>understand them. but then...when i was a kid my mom called me the

>absent minded professor cuz i was so smart at school but she had to

>say things to me twice. so maybe i haven't changed, i've just gotten

>worse. i've always thought i've always been ADD.

I have Asperger's, which isn't usually diagnosed but it

really messes with your brain. It's a LOT better now, though

I think it never really goes away. It's awful when I eat some

of the foods I shouldn't though. There is a ton of stuff about

how GFCF diets (and/or enzymes and other therapies) have helped

ADD kids.

>> Well, until about 200 years ago, gluten and casein were rare

>> for most of the world.

>

>Heidi, what do you mean by this?

High gluten wheat ( " hard " wheat) was only invented when folks

settled the New World. In Europe, most of the North didn't

eat wheat much at all (they ate oats/barley/rye for longer). But

it was the invention of the combine that really made wheat

popular and cheap: it used to be a rich person's food. And wheat

doesn't grow in most of the world: we've been shipping it to

everyone else. China was growing low-gluten wheat: Africans

lived off millet and maize and sorghum. India had some wheat

and a lot of sorghum, most of Asia eats rice. See:

http://www.dogtorj.com/pages/556863/index.htm

>okay. what's wrong with this picture? sally gives a talk.

>basically, i get from her talk that dairy is good as long as it's

>raw, and grain is fine as long as it's soaked, fermented or

>sprouted. she didn't say anything about lots of people still having

>problems with these foods. she and dr. ron schmid both say they have

>seen people who were milk intolerant be able to tolerate it raw. and

>they both say that it's the MAJORITY, not the minority who can handle

>these foods.

I think Sally and some of the other WAPF leaders might be

rethinking some of this in light of some of the newer science.

Milk is a lot different issue than wheat, first off. For wheat, there

are tests that can tell for certain the folks who really react to

it, and the numbers are somewhere between 10 and 30 percent

of the population (which IS the minority, FWIW). Many of those

people also react to casein. The other 70 percent are likely ok

with wheat, or at least it isn't so toxic for them (though a lot

of folks would still argue it is " starvation " food).

However, for those 10-30 percent, wheat, even in small amounts,

will cause major issues, and that is likely the sickest part of

the population. I'm not saying that there aren't OTHER issues:

to be sure there are. But for that portion of the population,

going GF is like this magic bullet that suddenly gives them

hope and health where they couldn't get it before.

>and what of all of dr. price's 'tribes'? all these healthy people?

>those Swiss people i wish i could emulate by living on raw cheese and

>sourdough rye?

They had been living off the same diet for a long time. They

didn't have the genes for reacting to " new " foods, because they

had no new foods.

>it seems the healthier people were the isolated tribes...once you get

>into broader civilization, that's where are the problems are. why???

None of the tribes Price talked about ate wheat. Most of them

didn't eat milk either. Those ARE newfangled foods.

>look, maybe you don't believe in God and that He put us here. that's

>fine.

>

>but if He did, maybe He intended for us to live locally, near where

>we were born, and spread out gradually, and for civilizations NOT to

>fight and kill and try to take over others. like the persians, then

>alexander, then the romans. and there were also the vikings and many

>others. look, i'm ignorant, i don't know, i'm speculating, but i

>find it very curious that all throughout time (including the bible)

>people have been wracked with disease, and then dr. price finds all

>these healthy, isolated tribes who live off the land in a local sense.

Right. And I agree there. If you lived locally off your land, you would

be eating something like beef and potatoes, esp. if you had to harvest

your crops without machines and didn't have slaves. Unless you lived

in Egypt and had a river that flooded and hot weather that made growing

wheat easy (and they used a lot of slaves for harvest too). In moister

climates, grains don't store all that well and people who grow their

food tend to grow more vegies and meat animals. Tribes that did

grow grains tended to value meat, esp. organ meats, over grains.

Grains were what you ate when you couldn't afford meat.

And it's not a matter of believing or not believing in God. I just don't

see that there is hard " evidence " of what people should eat in

the Bible. Some folks quote the Old Testament, which also espouses

polygamy and not wearing mixed fiber clothing and not mixing meat

and milk etc. But if you want to look into the OT, look at Cain and Abel:

God didn't like the grain offering. And grain offerings were always

considered inferior to meat offerings.

>i just can't seem to make this connection.

>

>is NT just a bunch of hooey? have i been hoodwinked into believing

>in just another way of eating? have i been taken in AGAIN??

>

>do you understand my conundrum? when i joined wapf, it was, eat

>these foods; they'll heal you. now i hear, here, don't eat these

>foods; they'll continue to harm you.

Not at all! I love NT. And much of the book is about how good meat

and organs and fats are for you, and how to make grains " safer " .

And how great fermenting is. I think people get stuck on the

wheat/milk thing because it is part of our culture. 60% of the

American diet is wheat and dairy. But that is a newer thing: look

into older cuisines and you see a lot of meat, fruits, and vegies.

>maybe the hebrews lived mostly on meat and milk and cheese...and we

>know that jacob had sheep and goats and i don't think any cattle, i

>might be wrong. and maybe grain was 'incidental'. i don't know!

That is the argument I've heard. Nomads eat a lot of meat and milk ...

the Mongolians for instance do too ... and nomads tend to be

healthier than " settled " folk. How do you harvest grains if you

are moving? And how much can you schlep on your horses?

>

>Heidi, two more questions. how do you know so much? and, are you a

>rarity with your intolerance of gluten and casein? geez, i hope so.

I researched it for a couple of years, trying to fix my own health.

As for rarity ... it looks like at least 10% of the US is in my boat,

though hopefully they get cured before they get as sick as I did.

The NIH held a symposium on celiac, which is the worst form of

gluten intolerance, and they figure at least 1% of the US has that

bad form. That's millions and millions of people who don't know

why they are sick.

It's getting to be big news, you'll hear more about it. For instance:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/11/FDGC2C\

KG861.DTL

For the gluten-intolerant, every bit hurts. One drop of soy sauce or strand of

spaghetti sets off an auto-immune reaction, and antibodies start destroying the

nutrient-absorbing capability of the gut. Eventually, this can stunt kids'

growth and hamper their ability to learn, cause severe anemia, early

osteoporosis and auto-immune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, and

lead to lymphoma and digestive cancers, according to Dr. Aron, a

gastroenterologist at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco.

It's genetic

The condition is genetic, and can show up at any age.

" We call this the iceberg disease, " he says. At the tip, visible, are only the

most serious cases, where the body is so damaged that symptoms send you to the

doctor. Often that means abdominal pain, bloating and diarrhea -- but it could

just as easily be restless legs or anemia.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

<But if you want to look into the OT, look at Cain and Abel:

God didn't like the grain offering. And grain offerings were always

considered inferior to meat offerings.>

There is another story in the OT that I believe speaks to the Hebrews'

understanding that meat was, if not superior to all other foods, at the very

least considered indispensable. I'm sorry I can't recall the specifics or

quote you chapter and verse, but here's what I recall: certain Jews who

were captured and taken from Israel to a conquered nation, refused all the

meat delicacies prepared in the king's court. Although they were expected

to grow sickly, they actually maintained glowing good health. I have heard

people argue that the point of this story is that a vegetable diet is best

for good health. I think the point of the story is that God had worked a

miracle, keeping His people well in spite of their lack of meat. <g>

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

Heidi

> For the gluten-intolerant ... but it could just as easily be

> restless legs or anemia.

I have had unexplained anemia since I was a young teenager (maybe

before even), and am now 41. If this was a sign of gluten intolerance

wouldn't I be really sick by now? Even eating lots of red meat I never

get 'better' than borderline normal, without iron supplements. I've

tried to donate blood enough in the last few years to know.

Both my mom and sister have major gluten intolerances, though no tests

have confirmed celiac disease. (My mom even had a biopsy done. The

negative result made it really hard to convince her to cut out

gluten.)

> In Europe, most of the North didn't

> eat wheat much at all (they ate oats/barley/rye for longer).

My mom's parents were Finnish...

BTW I've never been one to get sick much, had 3 big, healthy babies,

and the few problems I had (migraines and low energy) got better with

a low carb (but not gluten free) diet.

What do you think, is my anemia caused by gluten? It's bothered me for

a long time that it is " unexplained " .

Thanks for your help!

Jan

[Guest guest]

>BTW I've never been one to get sick much, had 3 big, healthy babies,

>and the few problems I had (migraines and low energy) got better with

>a low carb (but not gluten free) diet.

>

>What do you think, is my anemia caused by gluten? It's bothered me for

>a long time that it is " unexplained " .

>

>Thanks for your help!

> Jan

Have you read Dangerous Grains? It gets into some of the issues

of " mild " gluten intolerance. Yeah, it can cause anemia with no

other symptoms. The writup on www.dogtorj.com has some

of the reasons, though I expect we'll find out more details

as more research is done. Osteopenia and other calcium regulation

problems are also often gluten (or casein) related ... migraines

are often caused by mismanaged calcium also (taking loads

of calcium can stop migraines in a lot of people).

I don't know of a way to tell if any one particular issue is

caused by gluten though. When I stopped eating it, a whole slew

of problems I didn't even think were problems went away,

over a period of two years or so, and that is a common

scenario. OTOH, some folks go GF and their problems don't

go away even after biopsies show their gut has healed.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

thanks very much! Until now I wasn't ready to face my potential

gluten problems. (And while I'm at it, 'casein' should come along for

the ride!)

> Have you read Dangerous Grains?

No, but I will. I saw the Table of Contents and read some pages on

Amazon and it looks perfect. There wouldn't happen to be a similar

book about casein, would there?

> It gets into some of the issues

> of " mild " gluten intolerance. Yeah, it can cause anemia with no

> other symptoms.

Yep, head pulling up out of sand just about now...

> The writup on www.dogtorj.com has some

> of the reasons, though I expect we'll find out more details

> as more research is done.

good site.

> I don't know of a way to tell if any one particular issue is

> caused by gluten though. When I stopped eating it, a whole slew

> of problems I didn't even think were problems went away,

> over a period of two years or so, and that is a common

> scenario. OTOH, some folks go GF and their problems don't

> go away even after biopsies show their gut has healed.

I think that's one reason the conventional medical community doesn't

get the food intolerance thing. Diseases that can manifest differently

in different people, and can't be tested for accurately or easily are

dismissed.

Thanks again,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Jan:

>thanks very much! Until now I wasn't ready to face my potential

>gluten problems. (And while I'm at it, 'casein' should come along for

>the ride!)

It's really hard to tackle both at once. Probably worth it though.

>> Have you read Dangerous Grains?

>No, but I will. I saw the Table of Contents and read some pages on

>Amazon and it looks perfect. There wouldn't happen to be a similar

>book about casein, would there?

There is nowhere near as much research done on casein.

Or if there is, I haven't read it. DG states that the IgA research

done on gluten is probably applicable to the other IgA allergies

(like casein) but so far most of it is speculative.

>

>I think that's one reason the conventional medical community doesn't

>get the food intolerance thing. Diseases that can manifest differently

>in different people, and can't be tested for accurately or easily are

>dismissed.

Actually most of the research so far HAS been done by the " conventional "

medical community. It just hasn't seeped down yet to the family docs.

That is the really weird thing about this particular epidemic ... it happens

to be very well studied and a lot is known about it but there is this

serious disconnect with the public. Unlike, say, AIDS when it was first

discovered: there were maybe 3 dozen cases and it was all over the

headlines, and the docs hadn't a clue what was causing it. With GI

they KNOW that millions of folks are affected, they know how it's

caused, what the symptoms are, how to treat it, how to test for it,

and even the expected mortality rate. Even though it shows up weirdly,

it's not hard to test for at all, esp. not for the worst cases.

I think part of the problem is denial. With HIV it's easy to say " oh,

it won't affect me: I'm not at risk " . But with gluten intolerance, no one wants

to think they might have to give up their pizza. Too scary. Even some of the

docs that do the research feel it's unfair to tell a person without

symptoms that they are GI, because it would affect their social

life too much.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi Jean

> >thanks very much! Until now I wasn't ready to face my potential

> >gluten problems. (And while I'm at it, 'casein' should come along

> >for the ride!)

>

> It's really hard to tackle both at once. Probably worth it though.

I think I'm ready to eliminate both. I eat gluten and casein foods as

treats more than staple foods, except butter. Gee, I do love butter,

and cream and... hmm. Delusion bubble beginning to burst! :-)

> >I think that's one reason the conventional medical community

> >doesn't

> >get the food intolerance thing. Diseases that can manifest

> >differently

> >in different people, and can't be tested for accurately or easily

> >are dismissed.

>

> Actually most of the research so far HAS been done by the

> " conventional "

> medical community. It just hasn't seeped down yet to the family

> docs.

I was wrong about that one. It is curious. Is it because there's no

money to be made in the treatment? The cure is a matter of eliminating

gluten, not adding medication or surgery. There are no Drug Reps

coming around to 'educate' doctors about the new treatment. Or to help

the docs remember the wonderful new cure with free stuff and an

application to an up-coming, virtually free holiday masquerading as a

conference in an exotic location?

That would put food intolerance cures in the same class with herbal

medication and (truly) healthy diets. A few doctors will lead the way,

but most patients will have to investigate their illnesses and

treatment options on their own if they want good health.

> With HIV it's easy to say

> " oh,

> it won't affect me: I'm not at risk " . But with gluten intolerance,

> no one wants

> to think they might have to give up their pizza. Too scary. Even

> some of the

> docs that do the research feel it's unfair to tell a person without

> symptoms that they are GI, because it would affect their social

> life too much.

If I didn't understand that on a personal level, I would say " No way,

you're kidding, right " ? Good health, or pizza... hmmm, which do I want

in my life? And many 'experts' say that you can't get addicted to

food.

BTW I read somewhere of a very simple test to determine if you were an

alcoholic. You could use the same test for food (and other)

addictions. Simply eliminate alcohol (or a particular kind of food,

etc) for 6-12 weeks. If it's easy to do, you're not addicted. This is

not a 'thought experiment'. You've actually gotta do the elmination to

learn anything useful...

Light bulb moment here... that's why I know I need to eliminate gluten

and casein from my diet. If I had to eliminate fruit, I might ask

'why?', but it wouldn't be a big deal. To me, dairy and grains are a

big deal...

Signing off, my brain is starting to hurt!

Jan

[Guest guest]

Jan:

>I think I'm ready to eliminate both. I eat gluten and casein foods as

>treats more than staple foods, except butter. Gee, I do love butter,

>and cream and... hmm. Delusion bubble beginning to burst! :-)

Remember coconut milk! I feel far less deprived now that I can

make ice cream, clam chowder, etc. And garlic butter ... just

add your crushed garlic to coconut oil with a little salt (or make

garlic olive oil). You have to figure out what your favorite things

are and make sure you have plenty of those. I find though, that

I like coconut milk better than I did cream, tastes cleaner to me.

One thing I never have gotten over is pretzels, so I get some

GF ones now and then. They are still junk, commercial, etc.

but that way I don't feel I'm left out of anything.

>

>

>I was wrong about that one. It is curious. Is it because there's no

>money to be made in the treatment? The cure is a matter of eliminating

>gluten, not adding medication or surgery. There are no Drug Reps

>coming around to 'educate' doctors about the new treatment. Or to help

>the docs remember the wonderful new cure with free stuff and an

>application to an up-coming, virtually free holiday masquerading as a

>conference in an exotic location?

I think that in our culture, most of the information that gets

disseminated, is by people paying for ads. Ads cost a lot.

So no one pays for an ad to say " you should eat healthy " unless

it's the government or there is a law that says kid's channels should

say something like that (the kid's channels now talk a lot about

exercise and good food, because they are so much under fire for

kids getting fat watching TF). But now that there are companies

selling GF food, you will see more ads, which will wake people up

more. And they WILL come up with drugs for it too, and you'll see

those advertised.

But the other problem is: among diagnosed celiacs (and in this

country no one gets diagnosed unless they are pretty darn sick!) the

compliance rate with the diet is very low. Something like 30% are

REALLY GF. In spite of this, most do get better on their " lower " gluten

diet, but it is frustrating for the " good " docs who try to get

people to have a better diet. I don't think the compliance rate

is going to get better until being GF becomes part of the culture ...

going vegan and doing Atkins have become part of our culture

more or less already, and it's fairly easy to be in those categories.

However, it's not like anything isn't happening! It was only a few

years ago that the first inexpensive tests came out (before that

you had to get a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis, and getting

blood tested involved guinea pig or monkey gut tissue). After

the cheaper tests came out, the University of land did the

first large scale study of US blood, from the blood bank, and about

a year after that the NIH held a special session to discuss what to

do (last April). I'd guess the NIH will be getting the info out to

doctors, and new testing protocols will be developed, etc ...

and all this will suddenly hit the mainstream.

What it reminds me of is the Internet. I was using the Internet for

years, at school, and all the engineers and many scientists

used it. It wasn't exactly secret, it was free, and anyone could use it.

But hardly anyone knew about it! Then, overnight

it seems, someone developed a " browser " and suddenly the

whole world was on the net and everyone was talking about

" Oh wow, Internet is so cool! " . This will be the same way.

Suddenly EVERYONE will be talking about gluten! There will

be congressional investigations and new laws and it will

be in all the magazines as this big thing.

And you and me will be saying " Oh sheesh, I knew that for a long time! " .

> BTW I read somewhere of a very simple test to determine if you were an

>alcoholic. You could use the same test for food (and other)

>addictions. Simply eliminate alcohol (or a particular kind of food,

>etc) for 6-12 weeks. If it's easy to do, you're not addicted. This is

>not a 'thought experiment'. You've actually gotta do the elmination to

>learn anything useful...

Hee hee. Yeah, that's a good experiment. An even quicker one is:

talk to someone about eliminating the food. If they get mad at

you, they are addicted.

>Light bulb moment here... that's why I know I need to eliminate gluten

>and casein from my diet. If I had to eliminate fruit, I might ask

>'why?', but it wouldn't be a big deal. To me, dairy and grains are a

>big deal...

Good point. They aren't a big deal to me NOW, but I got really,

really depressed when I gave up gluten, like a loved one had

died or I'd got " kicked out of the tribe " ... this huge sense of

loss. And mind you, I never was a big bread person and hated

milk most of my life. I can't imagine how it would be for someone

who really lives off a lot of wheat stuff.

Interestingly though, my family never gave it much thought.

Maybe they *weren't* addicted, even though they ate (and eat)

a lot more baked goods than I ever did. They just figured that since

I didn't want it around it must be bad stuff (and they still

get their pizza and noodles etc.: they really don't care

what ingredients go into them). Unlike almost anyone

else I mention it to, they didn't get defensive and try

to tell me why wheat is ok, or that it was unfair of me

to not buy them pop-tarts etc. THAT still floors me.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

[] do you understand my conundrum? when i joined wapf, it was, eat

these foods; they'll heal you. now i hear, here, don't eat these

foods; they'll continue to harm you.

[Mike] , the part you're missing is simply individual variation.

Some of the foods in NT, like grains and milk, can be absolutely

fabulous for some people, but disastrous for other people, depending

on their genes and physiological history as an individual. It seems

like you're thinking in terms of universals and absolutes, and a lot

of this stuff doesn't work that way. NT is a very practical and

open-ended approach to eating, not a theory of optimal nutrition or a

specific diet that will work for everyone. Grains are a low-quality

food any way you look at it, but properly prepared grains are

advocated in NT because for the majority of people they are apparently

safe, while having the virtues of being economical, enjoyable, and

nutritionally passable. However, the minority of people who have

problems with grains (well, specifically wheat/spelt/rye/barley) is a

huge minority and those people are severely disadvantaged in our

society due to a lack of information, understanding, etc, so it's very

vital for this issue to be addressed and widely known, even among

people who are fine with grains.

Humans have been around for about two million years. Grains and milk

have been part of the human diet for about 10,000 years. That's less

than 1% of human history. These are new foods that aren't normal for

humans and cause a lot of problems, but humans are very flexible and

adaptive, so we've figured out how to make the most of them, erring on

the side of overutilization.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

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

[Guest guest]

Heidi Jean:

> Remember coconut milk!

Good idea.

> I think that in our culture, most of the information that gets

> disseminated, is by people paying for ads. Ads cost a lot.

> So no one pays for an ad to say " you should eat healthy " unless

> it's the government... <snip>... But now that there are companies

> selling GF food, you will see more ads, which will wake people up

> more. And they WILL come up with drugs for it too, and you'll see

> those advertised.

.... money makes that world go around... (or at least the US)

>

> But the other problem is: among diagnosed celiacs (and in this

> country no one gets diagnosed unless they are pretty darn sick!) the

> compliance rate with the diet is very low. Something like 30% are

> REALLY GF. ...<snip>...I don't think the compliance rate

> is going to get better until being GF becomes part of the culture >

> ...

> going vegan and doing Atkins have become part of our culture

> more or less already, and it's fairly easy to be in those

> categories.

Can't say that I'm surprised. Eating away from home GF is going to be

a challenge!

> > BTW I read somewhere of a very simple test to determine if you

> > were an

> >alcoholic. You could use the same test for food (and other)

> >addictions. Simply eliminate alcohol (or a particular kind of food,

> >etc) for 6-12 weeks. If it's easy to do, you're not addicted. This

is

> >not a 'thought experiment'. You've actually gotta do the

elmination to

> >learn anything useful...

>

> Hee hee. Yeah, that's a good experiment. An even quicker one is:

> talk to someone about eliminating the food. If they get mad at

> you, they are addicted.

I agree. It's easier to 'diagnosis' someone else than yourself (that

is, if you want to destroy a relationship...)

> I can't imagine how it would be for someone

> who really lives off a lot of wheat stuff.

That was me. I don't eat much now, but 2-3 years ago was another

story. I couldn't have faced life without bread at that stage.

> Interestingly though, my family never gave it much thought.

> Maybe they *weren't* addicted, even though they ate (and eat)

> a lot more baked goods than I ever did. They just figured that since

> I didn't want it around it must be bad stuff (and they still

> get their pizza and noodles etc.: they really don't care

> what ingredients go into them). Unlike almost anyone

> else I mention it to, they didn't get defensive and try

> to tell me why wheat is ok, or that it was unfair of me

> to not buy them pop-tarts etc. THAT still floors me.

Even before I started really learning about nutrition I got that kind

of thing from people because I limited the junk my kids ate. 'Monster

Mommy' didn't buy donuts or pop tarts or soda...

Thanks for all your help Heidi!

Jan