Digestion and the SCD (was Coenzyme Q10...)

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Idol

>

>

>Suze-

>

>> >>Aren't you doing the SCD? Meaning, no bread included? Or are

>you referring

>> >>to before you started the SCD?

>> >

>> >Yes, but prior to starting it, bread never gave me any obvious digestive

>> >difficulty.

But according to your argument below that doesn't mean you weren't

experiencing damage that wasn't immediately noticeable.

Did other carbs give you obvious digestive difficulty? I'm genuinely

curious.

>The point is that different people have different troubles with

>different illegals and also progress in gaining the ability to digest

>the legals in somewhat different ways. Some people tolerate almond

>flour products before yoghurt, for example, though that's not all

>that common.

Yes, I understand this. So many folks on the GFCFNN and enzymes and autism

list (many of whom are on the SCD) all seem to have difficulty digesting

different things. One kid has difficulty digesting bananas, not due to the

inulin but the amines, and another, or many others actually, have difficulty

digesting phenolic compounds, while others have difficulty with beta

caseomorphin and so on and so on.

>

>So while I'm not going to test myself now, the fact that bread gave

>me no obvious digestive distress (i.e. diarrhea or flatulence) is

>neither mysterious nor confounding. I personally have more direct

>trouble digesting disaccharides, though even there I'm not sure how

>much immediate trouble sucrose would give me.

That's why I thought you'd have trouble with bread since the carbs are

broken down into disaccharides.

I went on the SCD

>partly because I have ongoing digestive issues due in large part to

>my reaction to the asthma drug I took several years ago and partly

>because the science convinced me it's the healthiest way to eat. Or

>rather that the intersection of NT, original Atkins and the SCD is

>the healthiest way to eat.

Interesting.

>

>>OK. But isn't that at odds with WAP's findings on healthy

>primitives' diets?

>>Wouldn't the Swiss bread, the Hawaiian poi, the various African

>grains, the

>>oats of the Gaelics and the root veggies of the Aborigines be SCD-illegal?

>

>Probably, but not necessarily.

I'm not clear on what you mean by " not necessarily " ? Are you implying that

ALL of the carbs in those various grains, tubers (and dairy for that matter)

all over the world could've been completely broken down to monosaccharides??

Nary a dissacharide to be seen?

I never got to discuss the issue with

>Elaine at length because there's simply no lab data on traditional

>starchy foods prepared traditionally available, but bear in mind that

>WAP's healthy primitives (a) started out healthy,

Absolutely agreed, but that has nothing to do with the point you made above

if I'm understanding it correctly, that their food was disaccharide-free.

( ate a

>nutrient-dense diet all their lives or suffered the consequences if

>they stopped,

True.

and © went to great pains to prepare those starchy

>foods properly.

Right. But this in no way suggests that their starchy fare was SCD-legal. I

can't imagine that all those cereal grains that the Dinka ate, for instance,

were totally broken down into monosaccharides. Far more likely, IMO, is that

their guts produced the proper enzymes to digest their ancestral diet, which

is in line with the argument you make below about folks having the proper

equipment to digest their evolutionary diets.

>

>How much starch is left in a very sour sourdough bread?

I don't know, but I've never had sweet sourdough bread. Not that I've had

bread cured for 2 weeks like the Swiss did, but they did that AFTER baking

it and I don't get the sense all the complex carbs were broken down into

sugars. Is this even possible after baking? Anyway, I don't have an answer

and it's an interesting question. But I do think it's reasonable to believe

that many of WAP's groups consumed disaccharides and more complex carbs,

like the Dinka mentioned above. Why would they have trouble digesting

disaccharides anyway if their mucosal lining was healthy? Is there any

evidence that a truly health gut cannot produce the disaccharidases required

for one's ancestral diet?

I don't

>know. What other factors are present in that bread which would help

>digest it? I don't know.

Phytase, interestingly.

And I could go on asking questions like

>that. But even if such a sourdough bread would pass muster (more on

>that in a moment) there's another factor which must be considered --

>and which must not be underestimated: we are all in wretched health

>even compared to Price's healthy primitives.

Yes, I think this is the real issue.

I don't have any

>citations handy at the moment, but I recall reading that elite

>athletes were no match for the average fit members of healthy tribes

>eating healthy diets. Obviously modern training techniques, when not

>misguided, might play a role in the outcome of a match between the

>fittest healthy natives and the elite athletes of today, but what

>little direct evidence there is suggests that even our most

>remarkable athletes are at best laboring under a severe handicap.

That's pretty depressing. But not hard to believe.

>

>And to return to the issue of passing muster, even among Price's

>healthy natives there was a continuum of tooth decay, with the least

>decay being found in those tribes which ate the least starch and

>sugar.

Not all tribes fit this pattern. To use the Dinkas as an example again, whom

Price himself considered to be THE healthiest African tribe he studied, they

had 0.2% tooth decay on a diet of *cereals* and fish, whereas the Masai had

0.4% tooth decay on blood, meat and milk. I think the mere fact that anyone

could fit Price's description as the healthiest of thirty (African) tribes

he studied, that only 1 out of nearly 600 teeth in this tribe had a carie,

and that cereal was a foundation of their diet suggests that, in an ideal

world of healthy guts, the SCD *might* only be useful for those whose

ancestral diet did not include SCD illegals.

Even the minimal-compared-to-today tooth decay found among

>Price's bread eaters might seem stunningly desirable to you due to

>the debased standards we grow up with, but it seems to me that ANY

>tooth decay is a sign that something's not right.

I agree with that, but there were few tribes he studied that didn't have any

tooth decay at all, and even when they had a negligible amount like the

Dinka (MOST of the Dinka in his sample didn't have ANY tooth decay, albeit

it was a small sample - 22 people), their health was quite exceptional. So

yeh, it IS stunningly desirable to me to be as healthy as the Dinka or any

of the other WAP groups for that matter.

Is it not stunningly desirable to you to be as healthy as the Dinka?

My suspicion is

>that tooth decay is analogous to overt vitamin deficiency

>disease. You might not develop rickets until your vitamin D levels

>are really, really low, for example, but that doesn't mean you should

>be satisfied with vitamin D levels that are only sufficient to

>prevent rickets.

Are you saying you wouldn't be satisfied with Dinka-level health? Or even

Swiss village-level health?

>

>>I do agree with you that *high* carb is generally not a good thing, but I

>>question the notion that SCD-illegal foods are bad for everyone since some

>>of them clearly weren't for WAP's primitives and some present-day

>folks also

>>seem to have no problem with them.

>

>I guess I answered that above, but I'll elaborate enough to say that

>I'm betting that the sourdough served at the conference was not

>anything like the sourdough eaten by Price's healthy natives.

Agreed.

I'd

>also add that Price's healthy tribes arrived at something like an

>equilibrium, in balance with their particular diets, whereas we're

>all a genetic mishmash, meaning it's impossible (at least presently)

>to know what specific foods are best for us individually.

I agree with that as well. But it doesn't refute the point that *some*

moderns have guts that can digest SCD illegals.

>

>>OK, but I could give you examples of folks who have no problem with rice

>>bran.

>

>And I'd argue that you'd only be giving me examples of folks who

>don't have overt problems with rice bran at the moment. As a

>subscriber to the gluten theory, you should understand what I mean.

What exactly do you mean by " the gluten theory " ? The fact that Celiac/Gluten

sensitivity is defined by an IgA reaction to gliadin? Or that it precedes

dysbiosis? Or something else?

>

>>I think anyone who's gut is

>>severley damaged, that is the mucosal lining which produces the

>>dissacharide-digesting enzymes is damaged, should either refrain from

>>consuming complex carbs and dissacharides OR take the proper enzymes to

>>digest these compounds.

>

>Taking the proper enzymes with the food is insufficient.

It seems to me that would be a difficult statement to make unless you've

tried all the different brands of disaccharide digesting enzymes. And even

then, you could only make that statement about your *own* situation with

certainty, but not make it for everyone else. I'm assuming you haven't tried

all the different formulations on the market in varying dosages, so what

evidence do you have that taking the proper enzymes with food is

insufficient *per se*? There are many, many cases that DeFelice

mentions in her enzyme book (perhaps hundreds or more, I don't recall the

numbers) of ASD children who have turned around or greatly improved on such

enzymes. Based on that, and on your contrary experience, I'd guess that for

*some* people, proper enzymes (in large enough doses) with food is

sufficient, while for others it is not. But these folks on the enzyme list

and in 's book experimented with different brands, formulations,

amounts and timing until they found what worked, which is what makes me

wonder if you've tried many different formulations and doses yourself?

>

>The problem is that an enzyme supplement is slow.

From what said in her book, there are several variables that effect

the efficacy of enzyme products including whether they are plant or

animal-derived, what the capsule is made from (VERY important), amount

taken, etc.

According to her, vegetarian capsules are indeed very slowly digested. I

think she reported that some parents even found them undigested in their

kids' stools. In contrast, *gelatin* capsules dissolve very quickly which

allows the *enzymes* to work more quickly. Further, she writes that they all

start working in the upper stomach chamber where food is held for 60-90

minutes. So using a gelatin capsule should result in quicker enzyme action

beginning even before food gets to the lower stomach chamber.

Having said that, she was wrong about pancreatic enzymes being destroyed by

HCl, so I'm not sure about the rest of this info. <Mental note to self: tell

what said about pancreatin not being destroyed by stomach

acid>. That aside, she wasn't wrong about the data she collected on the ASD

kids, at least in terms of their responses to the enzymes. IMO, she has some

pretty compelling empirical evidence of the efficacy of treating ASD with

digestive and proteolytic enzymes, although they may not work for everyone.

And I know you had troubles with proteolytic enzymes yourself.

Take the treatment

>of milk with lactase drops, something I do from time to time to drink

>raw milk. The standard recommendation is to add 5 drops per liter

>and leave the milk in the fridge for 24 hours. But this only breaks

>down about 70% of the lactose! You could leave it in the fridge for

>another 24 hours to bring that up to about 90%, but this still

>wouldn't be SCD-legal, because 10% of the original lactose remaining

>is too much. In order to achieve something like an SCD-legal milk,

>you actually have to add more like FIFTEEN drops and leave the milk

>alone for 24-48 hours, and even then, it might not be the greatest idea.

Right, and that bolsters my point above about amounts taken being an

important variable. BTW, is this raw milk? I'm wondering how the inherent

lactase in raw milk might effect how many lactase drops are necessary. I

also wonder if the amount of lactase is at all breed- or diet-dependent.

>

>Yes, the reaction occurs much faster in the gut due to the higher

>temperature of the human body (IIRC they used to recommend 3 hours on

>the counter as an alternative) but I've actually experimented with

>huge overdoses of LactAid pills and even Lacteeze drops themselves

>taken at the time of milk consumption, and no supplementation regimen

>I tried stopped me from having diarrhea. Why? Because the lactose

>is available to undesirable gut biota much faster than it's available

>to me via the action of supplementary enzymes.

Again wondering if this is raw milk? Can you do the SCD legal yogurt these

days? And how have you determined that it's the lactose rather than one or

more of the casein or whey proteins in the milk that is causing the

diarrhea?

>

>The different experiences people have with this reflect the different

>populations of biota they have in their guts and the different

>degrees to which they produce lactase themselves.

Absolutely.

The problem is

>that you can drink milk (perhaps with the aid of some LactAid pills)

>without experiencing any obvious proximate problems but still be

>feeding enough undesirable microbes to cause a cumulative problem

>down the line.

True, and this what I'd say about your lack of obvious symptoms from eating

bread too. But I'd expect that if you WERE having proximate problems and the

enzymes caused them to cease, that it's suggestive (although not definitive)

that enzymes can, in some cases, break down di- and polysaccharides

sufficiently. Has anyone done any kind of studies on this, in regards to the

disaccharide-digesting enzymes in particular? Or maybe it's not feasible...

>

>And the exact same thing is true of anything else that's

>SCD-legal. No enzyme that you take in a pill is going to be

>available fast enough to beat your gut biota to the punch if you're

>eating something which can cause a problem.

Are you merely extrapolating from your experience with lactase enzymes, or

is there some other evidence of this on a per se basis, not just for

individual cases?

It's certainly a case for *pre-digesting* one's food via fermentation, a la

WAP's primitives.

And while it's true that

>Price's healthy natives ate some SCD-illegal foods like sourdough,

>beside the fact that their sourdough was very heavily preprocessed,

>and even beside the fact that those tribes at their foods for a long

>time, allowing those who were ill-adapted to them to die off without

>spawning progeny, there's a major factor which makes it harder for

>modern-day people to deal with those SCD-illegals: pollution. We

>live in a sea of chemicals, including pesticides, which alter our gut

>flora and even our guts themselves and therefore affect our ability

>to deal with less-optimal foods.

How do modern day pollutants alter our gut flora?

I'm curious about the mechanism (if you have maybe a few examples?) since

pollution has always been around and some of Price's primitives, for

instance, may have had a very high pollution load. In light of Chris' dioxin

article I wonder if the Gaelics might've been sucking down high levels of

dioxins, for instance - more so than we are today due to their making fires

in their closed chimney-less thatch huts. Or if the Inuit were consuming

massive amounts of Hg or other metals typically found in large marine life.

>

>>Ok, I understand your point. But sometimes the SCD seems a bit

>cultish to me

>>which sometimes makes it seem more like a worldview than a

>science, but your

>>point is taken and my argument is with the science.

>

>The SCD community isn't nearly as cultish as some elements of the

>WAPF community, I think, but even if it is, so what? WAPF precepts

>should be evaluated on their own terms regardless of the excess of

>some members -- or even of some board members.

Yes, you have a point there. In any case, I shall refrain from referring to

it as a " world view " henceforth.

>

>>This is true, but it's debatable that the principle you put forth is a

>>physical law. And in fact, I would say that some of Price's

>primitives prove

>>that the principle of SCD-illegal carbs being harmful to everyone

>is false.

>

>The physical laws I'm speaking of here, as such, relate to the

>digestive resources we are genetically endowed with and the crosses

>we're bearing due to malnutrition and pollution.

That is fine. I probably should've just assumed that, but I do like to point

out where WAP's primitives sometimes show us what *can* be achieved, perhaps

in several generations, and that what we often consider to be universal

nutrition truths, are sometimes not, at least from an historical

perspective.

Inasmuch as the SCD

>was designed based on biological science and empirical experience, it

>must be objected to on those grounds. " Some healthy people in the

>past ate something which bears certain superficial resemblances to

>some foods you can find today and they were OK " would not be a valid

>argument, yet it seems to me that you're making exactly that argument.

Again, if we qualify our discussion to ONLY relate to modern day humans,

then I *might* be able to come to the conclusion, ***given more evidence***,

that SCD illegals are bad for the vast majority of folks. But I was *not*

qualifying my comments to only bear on moderns. In part, because I think the

damage is reversible, if not in one generation, then in several. But to get

on your page in viewing the SCD in terms of our current generation of

modern, damaged guts, no I won't make the argument above.

>

>> >When you're in bad shape, it's generally MORE important to be

>conservative

>> >in eating evolutionarily appropriate foods!

>>

>>That might seem logical in theory, but time and again it's

>disproven. There

>>are lots of herbs and other healing compounds that are not part of a

>>species-typical diet but can help in times of disease.

>

>There's a difference between food and medicine. I was speaking of

>food. If I understand you correctly, you're speaking of medicine.

Yes, but there's some overlap. I already said that I think the diet's

foundation should be the species-typical one (baring allergies to those

foods), but some of the medicinal compounds that I think are OK have

compounds that probably would *not* be found in the species-typical diet.

Such as the broccoli and wheat sprouts I give my dog, which seem to be

helping her inflammation.

>

>>Cats and dogs both

>>use grass medicinally for instance although it's not a part of

>their species

>>typical *diet*.

>

>Yeah, but don't they eat grass to induce purging? That strikes me as

>an argument in my favor, not yours.

No one knows for sure, but some think they do it to expel parasites. My Chi

eats a lot of grass in the summer, but not to induce vomiting. It just seems

to help his digestion in general, or if he has an upset stomach, he'll run

outside and eat a lot of grass. It wasn't a very good example of the point

I'm trying to make though, since I think they eat it for it's mechanical

benefits, not nutritional.

>

>>Many dogs are helped by compounds such as bovine transfer

>>factor, Ayurvedic herbs, homeopathic remedies, fish oil, plant

>extracts and

>>other things that were certainly not a part of their evolutionary diet. I

>>have learned from my own experience with my dogs and that of many

>other dog

>>owners that theories are great, but practical experience trumps it. What

>>works, works even if it doesn't fit into our most airtight theories of

>>health and nutrition.

>

>The SCD is based on digestive resources and gut flora. Of course

>medicines can be classified accordingly -- and they are -- but food

>and medicine are at the very least different sub-domains.

But some of the medicinal compounds contain things like disaccharides that

wouldn't be a part of the species' typical diet.

>> >There's a huge difference between a digestive aid which resembles as

>> >closely as possible what the body would ordinarily produce itself

>> >-- or any

>> >other supplement which as closely as possible resembles what the body is

>> >supposed to absorb or produce -- and something like rice bran, which is

>> >more analogous to feeding rabbits a diet of oxidized cholesterol.

>>

>>That's not analagous at all IMO. There's no way in a million years that

>>rabbits would ever consume oxidized cholesterol and they have no way of

>>detoxifying or eliminating such a compound. BUT for thousands of years a

>>large number of human beings have consumed rice AND human beings *per se*

>>produce amylase both in their mouth and from their pancreas AND their

>>intestinal lining produces disaccharides all of which digest rice

>bran. You

>>are indulging in extreme hyperbole when comparing the two situations, IMO.

>

>Unsurprisingly, I disagree. <g>

Someone pass me the defibrillator, please. <gg>

>

>First, are we really " supposed " to digest rice bran?

I don't know but we are " supposed " to digest carbs and somehow deal with the

bran attached to them, at least from what I understand of primitive diets.

It is, after

>all, the fiber portion of the rice, meant to provide " roughage " , and

>my understanding of the limited available literature is that our gut

>flora are only recently beginning to produce large amounts of

>cellulase,

HUH??? Where did you get that information? I'd never heard of humans being

capable of producing *cellulase*! Where is it produced - in the gut lining?

WHO is producing it? Modern Americans, or some isolated tribe somewhere?

and that even this isn't at all universal. The bran of

>the rice was *traditionally* considered waste and discarded. Brown

>rice is a recent " health food " addition to our diet

I thought that it was a regular part of *peasant* diets, that only the

wealthier folks could afford whatever equipment is required for refining it,

just like in other parts of the world. And that the refining process was

developed much after rice had become a staple in some areas.

But what the heck do I know about the history of rice consumption. I could

be totally wrong.

-- and something

>which I'm pretty sure I recall Sally recommending against, at least

>as a staple, either somewhere in NT or maybe in WT when discovering

>Asian diets or maybe a specific Asian diet.

Possibly, I don't remember. But then I don't dutifully follow everything

Sally says. <g>

So even in the last few

>thousand years, which isn't really an evolutionarily significant

>amount of time,

Normally I'd agree, but I'm beginning to wonder about this based on some

information in " Metabolic Man " and some info I've heard about dogs'

digestion. I'll have to put that together in another post sometime soon. And

now that you say some humans can produce cellulase, well, will wonders never

cease?!

rice bran was probably not a meaningful part of

>anyone's diet, and considered on an evolutionary time scale, I'd

>argue that humans eating rice bran is EXACTLY like rabbits eating

>oxidized cholesterol, because it's something that requires technology

>to acquire and that we never ever would have eaten in the wild.

You don' think primitive humans harvested wild rice? That seems unlikely

since in other parts of the world humans harvested wild grains prior to the

neolithic age.

>

>> >I'm not interested in venturing into the emotional territory of

>your dogs'

>> >health,

>>

>>I'm not sure what your point is here? What relevance does my emotions

>>towards my dogs have in this discussion?

>

>I don't remember the specific context, but people get emotional about

>their pets and loved ones.

Oh, well I certainly have strong emotions for my dogs, but I don't really

see how that affects my discussing some of the nutrients/medicinals I give

them. I hope I haven't gotten overly emotional about it before on this

list...I don't remember, but that would be somewhat out of character for me.

A friend of mine tried to treat his

>mother's cancer with fruit juice. When she survived a little longer

>than expected, he attributed it to the juice. He's wrong, obviously,

>but I'm not going to go there. Same principle.

Yeh, but canine nutrition is not your field, so it wouldn't be completely

analogous, although I understand that the dietary principles are

transferable. Anyway, I don't mind if you are as frank as ever when

discussing anything regarding my dogs' diet or supplement regimen. I know it

can be improved upon and welcome any helpful input.

>

>>But dogs' ancestors consume their prey's fur (as did some

>primitive humans)

>>which is fiber.

>

>It's not at all the same fiber as that contained in fiber -- or in

>rice bran.

Not the same, no. I don't know what kind of fiber is in fur so can't comment

on any possible overlaps, if any. I imagine fur is completely indigestible

(except that vit. D coating!), but rice bran is partially so.

>

>> It has been observed in wolf scat along with undigested bone

>>(also fiber in this case). Grey wolves (same species as dogs and from whom

>>dogs evolved) also eat berries and grass. They don't *juice* the berries

>>before consuming them. Fiber. Not much, but there.

>

>Again, different kinds of fiber have different effects on the gut

>both because of physical differences and because they're

>metabolically available to different kinds of potential gut

>biota.

Right, OK.

My understanding is that grass is used by wild animals as a

>purgative, though, and that wolves prefer innards, not fur, except

>when lack of large prey force them to rely on mice and the like,

>which isn't sustainable for very long anyway. Not so?

Yes they initially go for the guts, then the meat and I think the bone comes

next. I imagine they ingest some fur when munching on the leg bones of large

prey as well. Mech (wolf biologist) wrote that the bone is often wrapped in

the fur in their scat, as if protecting the gut from bone shards presumably.

>

>>Yes well, THAT I knew. They also get wheat sprout concentrate.

>And you know

>>what? I think these two supplements, which are actually antioxidant enzyme

>>blends, are largely responsible for my minpin's longevity and

>recovery from

>>multiple disk ruptures. Every disk in her neck and several in her lumbar

>>region were damaged. You'd never know it today. She went from severe pain

>>and disability to friskiness. She's been on these

>anti-inflammatorty sprout

>>concentrates for about 2 years or more and they seem to have an anti-aging

>>effect on her.

>

>Again, depending on the particulars of someone's gut and gut ecology,

>the benefits of a given substance (antioxidant components, for

>example) will either outweigh or be outweighed by the drawbacks of

>the substance. Some people will benefit from eating broccoli, for

>example, and others will just worsen their digestion.

Well, the interesting thing with Mokie is that she's had very serious

digestion problems in the past. She had hemorrhagic gastroenteritis once

(blood was spurting out of her mouth and anus), and idiopathic colitis for a

while. But now the vast majority of her stools are *excellent* with a few

exceptions. I would've expected her to have difficulty digesting the sprout

complexes, but it doesn't appear to be so. Granted I give her digestive

enzymes and HCl with every meal, but I wouldn't expect pancreatin to help

much with sprouts. Just recently I added " Digest Gold " with the

disaccharidases and that seems to have improved her stools even a bit more.

I agree, for the most part, with what you said above, but I really don't

know if my dogs are having any problems digesting the sprout complexes,

maybe due to the added digestive enzymes, I don't know. It seems like, if

the sprouts were going to cause any digestive upset, I would've seen *some*

sign of a problem after 3 years (which is a long time for a dog!)

>

>>It's so annoying when real cases cast doubt on really lovely theories :-)

>

>Your interpretation of these real cases, and your understanding of

>the SCD and the science behind it, both remain flawed. I guess

>that's a curmudgeonly statement, but what can I say -- it's what I

>dispassionately believe. <g>

Guilty as charged regarding the SCD. I read the book several years ago on

your recommendation, and really don't remember much of it, and so have only

a broad idea of the general principle. The book is pretty lean too,

obviously written for lay persons. I'm sure your knowledge of the SCD goes

far beyond what's contained in the book since you are on at least one SCD

list, AFAIK, and have continued to keep up with Elaine's work. So based on

your extensive knowledge of, and experience with the SCD I will accept that

you can probably recognize when someone else's understanding of it is

flawed.

However, I *don't* plead guilty to flawed interpretations of some real cases

of some species doing OK with foods and/or medicinal compounds that didn't

exist in their evolutionary diet. I think we don't know enough about

digestion to know what's actually going on in some of these cases. I mean,

if some human beings are now producing cellulase (of all things!) it seems

possible that there are several other mysterious things going on in our guts

that we haven't figured out yet. As for dogs, I wonder about the regional

diets too that I've heard about. Some contend that in a relatively short

period of time (a few thousand years or something) some breeds have adapted

to local diets. There is one specific one I'm thinking about in some Asian

country, and apparently this breed's diet had a lot of rice in it, so I read

somewhere that this breed tends to do poorly on a diet other than this

recent ancestral one (which includes rice!). I don't know if it's true, but

there is a camp that believes that dogs do best on their ancestral diets

post domestication. It's something I'd like to take a closer look at some

day.

In any case, I don't think I really did much *interpreting* (flawed or

otherwise) of these cases as much as just relating that they *seem* to

suggest that some food or medicinal compounds can be handled by the

digestive tracts of various peoples or animals even when they weren't part

of their evolutionary diet (*pre-domestication* diet that is, in regards to

dogs).

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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