Re: enzymes on an empty stomach?

[Guest guest]

-

>Rather than speculating about whether it is " certainly bogus " or not,

>this is one of those things that are easily discovered. I remember

>seeing pictures long ago by Bernard Jensen showing what came out of

>people's colon that he had treated. Maybe he was lying but it

>certainly looked pretty bad to me. I also recall him mentioning

>attending autopsies and seeing all manner of crud in the colon.

>Whether I agree with some of his methods or not, Jensen always struck

>me as serious and credible. He was one of those healers who attracted

>large audiences whereever he went not because of grandiose claims, but

>because LOTS of people got well as a result of his treatments and/or

>teachings.

>

>Schulze has said the same thing regarding colons. Maybe he is just

>parroting Jensen (one of the people he studied under) but I do

>remember him specifically saying he watched/attended autopsies and

>hung out at operations.

Honestly, I think this just embodies sloppy thinking handed down throughout

the ages. Since people are in the habit of eating several times a day,

there's ALWAYS a lot of food moving through their intestines turning into

fecal matter. It's an inevitable consequence of the system. So of course

people are going to find " crud " in the colons of corpses during

autopsies. It would be strange if they didn't! You could shoot a

perfectly healthy man in the back of the head and immediately cut him open

right there on the scene and find feces in his colon. Some people would

then use this as " proof " that the average adult of such-and-such an age is

carrying around X pounds of impacted putrefying meat which is releasing all

kinds of toxins and dragging down his health and causing cancer and

premature aging and unhealthy aggression and blah blah blah blah.

The leap in logic is in assuming that this naturally-present material must

be " impacted " or otherwise stuck there round the clock when there's really

no evidence whatsoever in favor of such a proposition.

>The Merck Manual also seems to think its a problem, saying

>unequivocally that 100% of Americans will develop either

>diverticulosis or have many diverticula, which is just a fancy way of

>saying distended encased fecal matter in their colons.

100%? That sounds highly suspect to me for several concrete reasons I

don't have time to get into at the moment, but diverticula are a special

case in which yes, stuff actually does hang around for a good long time. I

don't believe, though, that they're all that common.

>Hmmm...in fact I am looking at a picture now in Schulze's book of a 5

>foot long fecal impaction. He said the man's lower abdomen distention

>went away as a result. So this is either a clever con job that even

>Merck has got caught up in, or some people perhaps many do have this

>problem among the others you listed.

Why are you so sure it was an impaction and not just ordinary feces or even

garden-variety constipation?

>I know in the midst of a longish fast I have eliminated some large

>stuff wondering " where the heck did that come from? " LOL!

I think the nature of the fast is clearly very important. Was it a long

water fast, or a juice fast or a fast with some other kind of caloric

input? Bacteria make up a large part of the bulk of feces, and since juice

and the like can feed bacteria very, very nicely, it's hardly surprising

that a non-water fast would allow the generation of stools.

>And I mean

>helped in such a way that the herbs restored their bowel movement

>regularity and they simply didn't need them anymore.

So they were constipated? It's not surprising that a laxative can help

with constipation, though aloe certainly isn't the laxative I'd

recommend. But Chris's problem is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and

for whatever reason, he seems to believe that #1 " helped " him by further

loosening his stools and making them more diarrhea-like, which is not, in

my book, a good thing.

>Anthraquinone glycosoids are present in not a few plants and must be

>properly processed. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with

>the bathwater.

OK, so how does he process the aloe, and why does he make no mention of the

processing anywhere that I can see?

>This is why I detest most of the " science " regarding herbs, they

>extract some principle, use that in their studies void of its

>synergistic components, often in some godforsaken amount, notice some

>ill effect, and then declare it problematic or off limits. Better the

>old time pharmacopeias and dispensatories which wedded herbal

>tradition with the clinical experience of medical doctors before that

>profession thought they were gods. Aryurveda has a long tradition of

>using aloe as well.

I agree with you entirely, but it's also important to keep in mind that not

all traditions were good.

>Also to make the statement that it irritates the gut and has a

>laxative effect doesn't really tell us anything other than sound

>nasty. Of course it has a laxative effect, that is what it is designed

>to do. A better question that doesn't play to prejuidice or emotion is

>does the stimulation of perostalic action (i.e. the movement of our

>bowels) damage the gut or create dependence (like drug laxatives) or

>is it helping the bowels to move and heal (like properly prepared

>herbal preparations). One man's irritation is another man's treasure.

> From my experience I vote for the latter.

Aloe inflames the tissues of the intestines when it's not processed to

eliminate the anthraquinone. I don't see where Schulze claims to do the

necessary processing. I've seen many, many people describe the horrible

effects they experienced from taking aloe internally (IBD flares that

lasted for weeks after discontinuing usage, bloody diarrhea, excruciating

pain, etc.) so I'm not inclined to recommend aloe for internal consumption

to anyone. Internal use appears to have originated from a logical fallacy

-- since it's soothing topically, people assumed it would be soothing

internally too.

>I'm not aware that whole flax seeds cause any type of problem in a

>formula of this nature, are you? Or are you just speculating?

I'm not speculating, but if they're whole it's a slightly different matter,

as they at least have a much better chance of not being rancid, though they

could also physically irritate the gut. Also, there's no nutritional

benefit from flax seeds that can't be gotten in much better forms elsewhere

and without the undesirable characteristics of flax (short-chain omega 3s,

phytoestrogens, etc.).

>Suze

>wonders why they are even in the formula since they really just go

>right through the system intact.

Well, then, see above note about physical irritation. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

Robin-

> > , Speaking from experience I'm not sure what else explains how I

>could lose (during a bacterial infection) almost 20% of my weight (through

>diarhhea mostly) and then, upon finally gaining it all back, end up with a

>waist that is 3 to 4 inches smaller (14% smaller) than it was before I was

>sick.

That's very easy to explain, though I'm not sure we could pick the exact

right explanation without unavailable data.

The most likely scenario, though, is pretty simple. You had extreme

hypochlorhydria, meaning you were suffering from an extreme deficit of

protein absorption. Also, you were eating a higher-carb more SAD-type diet

before getting the H. Pylori infection. Therefore, it seems highly likely

to me that you were fatter before at the same weight. Weight by itself is

not an especially useful metric. You can be " fat " or " muscular " at the

same exact weight.

Another likely factor is bloating. Indigestion and dysbiosis can cause an

essentially permanent case of bloat due to undesirable fermentation and

overgrowth. Remedying this can take inches off without any change in

weight or even body composition.

Furthermore, someone's digestion can be sluggish (meaning that there's more

stuff in the guts at any one time than there would be otherwise) or it can

generate all sorts of excess material and gas from fermentation without

that extra stuff being " stuck " or " impacted " .

The vast majority of people, even with bowel disease, have sparklingly

clean intestines when given a laxative and then scoped. People with

diverticula are the rare exceptions. And this scoping data simply doesn't

fit with the idea of impactions, of intestines lined with stubborn layers

of glop effectively glued to the lining and preventing proper nutrient

absorption, etc. etc.

-

[Guest guest]

<I've always wanted to see photos of the people from whom that stuff

came out. It's my understanding that only the very sick have that

kind of impaction/barrier crud coating. Of course, both Jensen and

Schulze dealt/deal with the very ill.>

But, , you have seen my photos, and you didn't seem to think I looked

sick at all. <g> Those were taken only last year -- a couple of years

after I began the kind of protocol that has led to repeated detoxes

including the one I am presently going through. These detoxes occur every

couple of months or so and are " spontaneous " is the sense that they come in

the course of eating my usual raw meat/veggie juice menu and taking a daily

coffee enema, and not in response to any particular activation on my part .

I can't claim (I'm happy to say <g>) anything in the neighborhood of five

feet, but I can say most of the detoxes in the last three years have

included extremely odd looking eliminations, some of them scary looking,

things that do not seem anything like normal feces.

I should add, too, that about four years ago, before I started the detoxes,

I had a colonoscopy (never again!) and was awake for the first part of it --

and saw a squeaky clean colon. Perhaps it wasn't like that all the way

along, but it would seem odd to have so great a difference from one area to

another. In any case, I have no idea where all the " crud " is coming from,

but it occurs to me that it could be the small intestine. Increasingly, the

only portion of my once-very-extended abdomen is a small area that continues

to pouf out just a bit in the very center--an area I think is well inside

the path of my colon.

Just some personal info to add to the mix . . . <g>

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Your fasting didn't really fix anything, it was/is only a beginning.

> That is another reason why how you break a fast is so important. It is

> only the start and not the end. It is also a good reason to take one

> of the days during the week of the Orthodox fast and use that as an

> opportunity to fast for 24 hours on liquids. You will find that over

> time to be a great benefit.

Right. I'm going to try fasting on my kefired mollasses water on

Wednesday and Friday.

> You once made the comment that you hadn't figured out how to follow

> the Orthodox fasts without destroying your health. Well a 24 hour

> liquid fast once a week will be helpful to you. The other day of the

> week, if it is truly a problem health problem to be vegan, you can be

> excused from. But yours sounds like the case where it is a perfect

> opportunity to eat shellfish - potatoes fried in palm/coconut oil -

> lots of avocados - the fatty parts of the coconut (like shrimp rolled

> in coconut flour) - etc.

I think the main problem is not a temporary lack of animal foods

(although that has been a problem in the longer fasts) but the

substitution of animal foods for proteinaceous plant foods which have

a remarkably ill effect on my digestive health, and the general

increase in starches for energy. I simply can't tolerate things like

lentil soup, for example. I will stay away from potatoes for a long

time.

I think liquid fasting is a good reconciling of this problem, which is

why I chose the timing of my 2-week fast the way I did.

> Anyway, just some thoughts.

I agree with them.

> > So I'm guessing that the huge burst of energy meant that some slimy

> > creature in my gut was digesting the fiber and making it metabolically

> > available. Because obviously my body reacted as if I'd consumed a

> > concentrated source of energy.

>

> The pectin? The psyllium? Maybe but I doubt it. Any slimy things will

> be bound and carted out given the entirety of the formula. There is

> nothing else in the formula that would give you a boost *except* one

> of the added herbs. If there is fennel that could definitely give you

> an energy boost. Also peppermint in the newer mixtures. Or he may even

> have changed from those two herbs.

Hmm. Well it seemed like my retained gas increased on it. I haven't

taken any today, and I took only 2 servings yesterday instead of 4-5.

My gas is definitely better now (not that my stomach distension has

gone away), but I can try adding it back in and see what happens.

> Peppermint tea, even when I am not fasting always gives me an energy

> boost (although I do make it super strong).

Interesting. But I didn't continue to receive the boost-- only the

first couple times. It just seems to mirror my exact reaction to

TOAST after fasting.

> As regards the #2, it is taken on a fast so as to facilitate the

> binding and removal of toxins (including metals) that end up in your

> colon. If you were willing to do a high enema then this would not be

> necessary. But you must avoid what is known as auto-intoxification,

> i.e. the reabsorbing of the very crap you are trying to get rid of in

> the first place.

Ok, good point. My detox has mostly stopped, I think, since my tongue

has returned to a pristine pink now that I am eating food. Cleaner

than I recall it being in at least a very long time if not ever.

I've read that the squatting position induses peristalsis. I found

that sets of bodyweight squats were the number one inducer of gas

relief or a bowel movement out of everything... is it possible that

systematic squatting could replace the use of fibers?

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> I've read that the squatting position induses peristalsis. I found

> that sets of bodyweight squats were the number one inducer of gas

> relief or a bowel movement out of everything... is it possible that

> systematic squatting could replace the use of fibers?

Squatting encourages (and body-or-other-weight squats strengthen)the

apana vayu or " downward moving 'wind' " in the body which is

responsible for all evacuations below the waist as well as childbirth.

It is indeed a lack of awareness, tone and " flow " which contributes to

and compounds constipation and other congestive problems in the area.

B.

[Guest guest]

> But, , you have seen my photos, and you didn't seem to think I

looked

> sick at all. <g> Those were taken only last year -- a couple of years

> after I began the kind of protocol that has led to repeated detoxes

> including the one I am presently going through. These detoxes occur

every

> couple of months or so and are " spontaneous " is the sense that they

come in

> the course of eating my usual raw meat/veggie juice menu and taking

a daily

> coffee enema, and not in response to any particular activation on my

part .

> I can't claim (I'm happy to say <g>) anything in the neighborhood of

five

> feet, but I can say most of the detoxes in the last three years have

> included extremely odd looking eliminations, some of them scary

looking,

> things that do not seem anything like normal feces.

>

> I should add, too, that about four years ago, before I started the

detoxes,

> I had a colonoscopy (never again!) and was awake for the first part

of it --

> and saw a squeaky clean colon. Perhaps it wasn't like that all the way

> along, but it would seem odd to have so great a difference from one

area to

> another. In any case, I have no idea where all the " crud " is coming

from,

> but it occurs to me that it could be the small intestine.

Increasingly, the

> only portion of my once-very-extended abdomen is a small area that

continues

> to pouf out just a bit in the very center--an area I think is well

inside

> the path of my colon.

,

What I'd like to see are the pics of the people immediately prior to

passing a five-foot fecal sasquatch that necessitates photographing on

a tarp on the sidewalk.

I'd like to see the dimensions of their abdomen and the condition of

their skin. I remember the photos of the patient's ulcerated feet and

how the condition improved over the course of several colonics and I

wonder if the others were in such obvious states of poor health as

well or if it could happen to anyone.

As you say, your abdomen was once very extended and you also have

mentioned before having been quite ill--which initiated all this

cleansing you do, I think--and that your health has since vastly

improved. A photo a couple years after commencing vigorous detoxes

doesn't serve my purpose, still, I maintain your appearance is indeed

lovely.

B.

[Guest guest]

,

Ah. I see your point about when the photo is taken. In truth, though, I

don't think prior photos show much, although I was so very ill. Mostly it

was fatigue (CFS) -- I was as weak as a kitten and some days couldn't find

the energy to brush my teeth (unless I managed to do it sitting, resting my

arm between each tooth.) But I also had many digestive problems.

After I posted my last, I went for a walk and on the way " met " a new dog

from the neighborhood who came to me with tale-wagging friendliness. I

realized that was a sign of new-found health I had been experiencing for a

long while now but never thought to add to my list. It used to be, before I

started on the detoxes, that when I went for a walk, little dogs would pull

back away from me, yapping like crazy, and big dogs would strain forward on

their leashes, barking furiously, as though they wanted to attack.

Inevitably the owner would seem embarassed and would be quick to assure me

this wasn't the way Flossie or Rex usually acted with people -- which of

course made me embarassed, not to say very worried. I don't know why these

dogs reacted so badly toward me, but I guess there was a pretty serious kind

of deterioration going on internally, and the dogs could smell that.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

> The vast majority of people, even with bowel disease, have

sparklingly

> clean intestines when given a laxative and then scoped. People

with

> diverticula are the rare exceptions. And this scoping data simply

doesn't

> fit with the idea of impactions, of intestines lined with stubborn

layers

> of glop effectively glued to the lining and preventing proper

nutrient

> absorption, etc. etc.

>

>

>

> -

Why do you read so often that *EVERYONE'S* intestines are coated

with " plastic-like " glop, etc.?

I raise red flags when I read " everyone " in a statement like that.

[Guest guest]

-

>Why do you read so often that *EVERYONE'S* intestines are coated

>with " plastic-like " glop, etc.?

Well, people promoting cleansings are often prone to hyperbole.

For example:

>>You want to clean out any old fecal material that has become deposited

>>along the walls of your colon.

>>

>>I know it sounds nasty, but the cells that line your intestines secrete a

>>mucosal lining. This mucosal lining can mix with fecal material and turn

>>into a rubbery substance that " coats " the walls. If this occurs the

>>fecal material that does move through the digestive tract moves through

>>the middle. This creates a hollow " tube " made of rubbery old

>>stuff. Unfortunately, this makes fecal movement more sluggish, and the

>>person loses " muscle " tone.

From

http://www.regaininghealthnaturally.com/Sickness_and_Disease/Colon_Cleansing.sht\

ml

Who knows, maybe it's theoretically possible for this to happen, but I've

never heard of it showing up on a colonoscopy.

-

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 8/16/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

>

> > Your fasting didn't really fix anything, it was/is only a beginning.

> > That is another reason why how you break a fast is so important. It is

> > only the start and not the end. It is also a good reason to take one

> > of the days during the week of the Orthodox fast and use that as an

> > opportunity to fast for 24 hours on liquids. You will find that over

> > time to be a great benefit.

>

> Right. I'm going to try fasting on my kefired mollasses water on

> Wednesday and Friday.

Twice a week on liquids? Hmmm...I would start with once a week and

then work up from there.

> > You once made the comment that you hadn't figured out how to follow

> > the Orthodox fasts without destroying your health. Well a 24 hour

> > liquid fast once a week will be helpful to you. The other day of the

> > week, if it is truly a problem health problem to be vegan, you can be

> > excused from. But yours sounds like the case where it is a perfect

> > opportunity to eat shellfish - potatoes fried in palm/coconut oil -

> > lots of avocados - the fatty parts of the coconut (like shrimp rolled

> > in coconut flour) - etc.

>

> I think the main problem is not a temporary lack of animal foods

> (although that has been a problem in the longer fasts) but the

> substitution of animal foods for proteinaceous plant foods which have

> a remarkably ill effect on my digestive health, and the general

> increase in starches for energy. I simply can't tolerate things like

> lentil soup, for example. I will stay away from potatoes for a long

> time.

Right, that is why I was suggesting the menu above. It is built around

shellfish and fatty plant foods. I only used the potato as an example.

It could be yams or shrimp or whatever can act as a carrier for the

oils. Starches are easy obviously but it can be done without much

starch.

> I think liquid fasting is a good reconciling of this problem, which is

> why I chose the timing of my 2-week fast the way I did.

Yes it is a great help in reconciling that problem. Of course there is

the problem of the longer fasts.

> Hmm. Well it seemed like my retained gas increased on it. I haven't

> taken any today, and I took only 2 servings yesterday instead of 4-5.

> My gas is definitely better now (not that my stomach distension has

> gone away), but I can try adding it back in and see what happens.

You shouldn't be taking the #2 now that you are eating, and if you do

you will need to increase the #1. But the #2 is just for occasional

(like a fast/cleanse) or emergency use (like food poisoning).

> > Peppermint tea, even when I am not fasting always gives me an energy

> > boost (although I do make it super strong).

>

> Interesting. But I didn't continue to receive the boost-- only the

> first couple times. It just seems to mirror my exact reaction to

> TOAST after fasting.

okay

> > As regards the #2, it is taken on a fast so as to facilitate the

> > binding and removal of toxins (including metals) that end up in your

> > colon. If you were willing to do a high enema then this would not be

> > necessary. But you must avoid what is known as auto-intoxification,

> > i.e. the reabsorbing of the very crap you are trying to get rid of in

> > the first place.

>

> Ok, good point. My detox has mostly stopped, I think, since my tongue

> has returned to a pristine pink now that I am eating food. Cleaner

> than I recall it being in at least a very long time if not ever.

>

> I've read that the squatting position induses peristalsis. I found

> that sets of bodyweight squats were the number one inducer of gas

> relief or a bowel movement out of everything... is it possible that

> systematic squatting could replace the use of fibers?

Well if squatting is the best position to have a baby.......... <G>

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> > Right. I'm going to try fasting on my kefired mollasses water on

> > Wednesday and Friday.

>

> Twice a week on liquids? Hmmm...I would start with once a week and

> then work up from there.

Well that works well for this week, since I just went out and forgot

to get mollases.

> Right, that is why I was suggesting the menu above. It is built around

> shellfish and fatty plant foods. I only used the potato as an example.

> It could be yams or shrimp or whatever can act as a carrier for the

> oils. Starches are easy obviously but it can be done without much

> starch.

When I was on an anti-candida diet *and* fasting, I ate a real lot of

celery dipped in palm butter. That works very well-- and with a 95%

palm butter diet, my skin cleared up real well! That diet must have

been pretty high in vitamin E.

> You shouldn't be taking the #2 now that you are eating, and if you do

> you will need to increase the #1. But the #2 is just for occasional

> (like a fast/cleanse) or emergency use (like food poisoning).

Oh. Should I add it back in for one-day fasts?

> Well if squatting is the best position to have a baby.......... <G>

I don't want my stools to come out breach!

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> I've always wanted to see photos of the people from whom that stuff

> came out. It's my understanding that only the very sick have that

> kind of impaction/barrier crud coating. Of course, both Jensen and

> Schulze dealt/deal with the very ill.

This is true. The very sick, the very fat, etc. but I have also seen

some nasty stuff come from people who didn't appear on the surface to

be very sick.

> What is Schulze's recomm. re: fresh aloe? Does it have to be

> processed in some way when using it at home?

Outside of an implant or use on the skin, he doesn't recommend fresh

aloe. But for those uses he recommends a plant that is at least 7

years old. And for those uses no you do not have to process it.

In general, with the exception of his intestinal formulas, he doesn't

use dry herbs at all. Tinctures by far are the best way to get the

benefits of herbs.

It does raise an interesting question however since fresh aloe used as

an implant is very soothing to the gut and does not cause peristalic

action.

> The Ayurvedic books I read recommend fresh aloe, or, if processed,

> without citric acid. It is considered a rejuvenative and tonic and

> advised to be in every home. But the powder is considered to be

> highly irritating and taken only--if at all--in tiny amounts. It is a

> very harsh laxative that needs to be tempered with a carminative.

Exactly.

[Guest guest]

> It does raise an interesting question however since fresh aloe used as

> an implant is very soothing to the gut and does not cause peristalic

> action.

,

I don't know much about aloe, though I take a fair amount. What is

the controversy, please? Why wouldn't it be just as soothing to the

epithelium inside and out? Is it something in the digestive process

that changes it as opposed to implants?

B.

[Guest guest]

<illneverbecool@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> > It does raise an interesting question however since fresh aloe used as

> > an implant is very soothing to the gut and does not cause peristalic

> > action.

Someone (I think it was Ron,) asked me about " implants " , . I was

hoping you could explain these -- especially how fresh aloe vera is used in

the gut in that way.. Thanks!

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

> > > [robin] , Speaking from experience I'm not sure what else explains how

I

> >could lose (during a bacterial infection) almost 20% of my weight (through

> >diarhhea mostly) and then, upon finally gaining it all back, end up with a

> >waist that is 3 to 4 inches smaller (14% smaller) than it was before I was

> >sick.

>

> [paul] That's very easy to explain, though I'm not sure we could pick the

exact

> right explanation without unavailable data.

>

> The most likely scenario, though, is pretty simple. You had extreme

> hypochlorhydria, meaning you were suffering from an extreme deficit of

> protein absorption. Also, you were eating a higher-carb more SAD-type diet

> before getting the H. Pylori infection. Therefore, it seems highly likely

> to me that you were fatter before at the same weight. Weight by itself is

> not an especially useful metric. You can be " fat " or " muscular " at the

> same exact weight.

>

> Another likely factor is bloating. Indigestion and dysbiosis can cause an

> essentially permanent case of bloat due to undesirable fermentation and

> overgrowth. Remedying this can take inches off without any change in

> weight or even body composition.

>

> Furthermore, someone's digestion can be sluggish (meaning that there's more

> stuff in the guts at any one time than there would be otherwise) or it can

> generate all sorts of excess material and gas from fermentation without

> that extra stuff being " stuck " or " impacted " .

>

> The vast majority of people, even with bowel disease, have sparklingly

> clean intestines when given a laxative and then scoped. People with

> diverticula are the rare exceptions. And this scoping data simply doesn't

> fit with the idea of impactions, of intestines lined with stubborn layers

> of glop effectively glued to the lining and preventing proper nutrient

> absorption, etc. etc.

> -

Very good explanation, . I buy it.

The only thing that I can't help but wonder a little bit about is what

the heck all those long plastic-y things were that were coming outta

me in the early days of this mess.. I mean they looked like partial

tubes cut lengthwise. Some were almost 8 inches long and the material

was a fraction of an inch thick -- very thin. The outer surface looked

like something pretty organic -- like the inside of the small

intestine. I looked at it with a hand lens and it just looked like

thin hard plastic.

I never get anything like that anymore. Pretty boring stuff...

~Robin Ann

[Guest guest]

This is absolutely true and I don't know why some of

the older theories of impaction are still voiced.

When new information becomes known and is true, it

should replace the old. Yes, there is malabsorption,

but not from stuck feces. Just talk to those who do

colonoscopies. Even in very constipated sluggish

bowel people, after an enema, there colons are slick

and shiney, no stuck feces!

I really wish the old untrue theories would be put to

rest!

jafa

>

> The vast majority of people, even with bowel

> disease, have sparklingly

> clean intestines when given a laxative and then

> scoped. People with

> diverticula are the rare exceptions. And this

> scoping data simply doesn't

> fit with the idea of impactions, of intestines lined

> with stubborn layers

> of glop effectively glued to the lining and

> preventing proper nutrient

> absorption, etc. etc.

>

>

>

> -

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hmm,

So I'm wondering, can taking too many enzymes on a *full* stomach be

as harmful as taking any on an empty stomach? According to the label,

one capsule digests 50 g protein, 50 g carb, 67 g fat. But how do

they test this? Do they account for degradation in the stomach? What

actually reaches the intestines?

Would the mere presence of food in the intestines buffer the lining

from the enzymes?

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>So I'm wondering, can taking too many enzymes on a *full* stomach be

>as harmful as taking any on an empty stomach? According to the label,

>one capsule digests 50 g protein, 50 g carb, 67 g fat. But how do

>they test this? Do they account for degradation in the stomach? What

>actually reaches the intestines?

They test for the activity level and standardize the amount, so it's

probably pretty reliable. My enzyme supplement gives no indication of how

many grams of anything it'll digest. How many USP units of lipase,

protease and amylase does your supp say you're getting per tablet? If

yours lists pharmaceutical glaze in the ingredients, it's enteric-coated

for safe passage through the stomach. How effective that is I don't really

know.

>Would the mere presence of food in the intestines buffer the lining

>from the enzymes?

I'd think so.

-

[Guest guest]

On 8/17/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> They test for the activity level and standardize the amount, so it's

> probably pretty reliable. My enzyme supplement gives no indication of how

> many grams of anything it'll digest. How many USP units of lipase,

> protease and amylase does your supp say you're getting per tablet? If

> yours lists pharmaceutical glaze in the ingredients, it's enteric-coated

> for safe passage through the stomach. How effective that is I don't really

> know.

50,000 USP of amylase and protease each, and 8500 USP of lipase.

Other ingredients: gelatin, cellulose, purified water, MCT, magnesium stearate.

I think I saw one with " pharmaceutical glaze " but it sounded like

something nasty. If it said " enteric coated " I would have known

enough to get it. I don't think I saw one without magnesium stearate.

This one is Twin Lab.

How much do you take with a meal?

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> > You shouldn't be taking the #2 now that you are eating, and if you do

> > you will need to increase the #1. But the #2 is just for occasional

> > (like a fast/cleanse) or emergency use (like food poisoning).

>

> Oh. Should I add it back in for one-day fasts?

Nope

> > Well if squatting is the best position to have a baby.......... <G>

>

> I don't want my stools to come out breach!

LOL! You can always ditch the fiber by the way and just take clay,

charcoal, and #1.

Here is an interesting item that allows you to squat while pooping for

better evacuations.

http://www.optimalhealthnetwork.com/product.asp?specific=jnnngoi8

[Guest guest]

On 8/16/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

>

>

> > It does raise an interesting question however since fresh aloe used as

> > an implant is very soothing to the gut and does not cause peristalic

> > action.

>

> ,

> I don't know much about aloe, though I take a fair amount. What is

> the controversy, please? Why wouldn't it be just as soothing to the

> epithelium inside and out? Is it something in the digestive process

> that changes it as opposed to implants?

> B.

Well I don't find fresh aloe controversial at all though may

disagree. The problem comes when you dry and thereby intensify the

source. The reason I said it is an interesting question is because in

fact fresh aloe is used to soothe and heal the GI tract, despite the

presence of anthraquione. And people are often able to retain an aloe

implant for long periods of time despite the presence of

anthraquinone.

The problem is the dried glycosoids which are present in a number of

plants not just aloe. So you either age the material (like some barks)

or buffer it and use it in small amounts (like dried aloe).

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>The only thing that I can't help but wonder a little bit about is what

>the heck all those long plastic-y things were that were coming outta

>me in the early days of this mess..

Shed layers of your intestinal lining?

-

[Guest guest]

Jafa-

> This is absolutely true and I don't know why some of

>the older theories of impaction are still voiced.

>When new information becomes known and is true, it

>should replace the old. Yes, there is malabsorption,

>but not from stuck feces. Just talk to those who do

>colonoscopies. Even in very constipated sluggish

>bowel people, after an enema, there colons are slick

>and shiney, no stuck feces!

>

>I really wish the old untrue theories would be put to

>rest!

When you think about it, if someone really had a thick layer of feces glued

to his intestinal lining, he wouldn't be able to absorb ANYTHING! He'd be

dead in no time flat! Obviously, some bits of food can hang around longer

than others (and this stuff is almost always very difficult to digest, e.g.

seeds) but that's a long way from " impactions " .

-