Re: Guidance for minimising amines in foods

[Guest guest]

Suze's comment reminds me of the work by Pottenger where he found

organs of offspring of a generation or more of dietary deficiencies

failed to function ideally, even when those offspring were given

ideal nutrition themselves. With the interplay of brain, adrenals,

GI, hormones, enzymes, etc., it's easy to see how a small amount of

damage could throw the whole thing slightly off-balance.

Still, when I first read Hulda 's work I thought she was a nut,

but since then so many people I've come in contact with have been

helped by her theories that organ malfunction is from parasites and

if one rids themselves of the parasites healing can happen.

Not that these are exclusive - perhaps a weak offspring is unable to

fend off the parasites that a healthy one shrugs off easily. So the

parasites become entrenched and continue the state of unhealth by

causing subtle malfunctions of the organs. The aim of the parasite

is not to kill it's host, but to remain as long as possible,

undetected and procreating. Of course, they don't care if they give

us headaches or stomach aches.

>> I do understand that there could be genetic variance in tolerance

of amines

> (and everything else under the sun) and various other reasons that

> individuals have different thresholds of tolerance, and am in no

way arguing

> that they are not toxic in excess (since I know little about

them), but I

> think there have been some mischaracterizations of the amounts of

fermented

> foods consumed by healthy traditional societies. And please don't

interpret

> this to mean that I advocate that everyone can eat any amount of

fermented

> foods they want and that's just fine and dandy. We learned a while

back from

> one of the previous conference speakers and several testimonials

that

> several people cannot handle ferments, presumably because of the

MSG

> content. Perhaps others can't due to the amine content, or due to

something

> else as yet unidentified.

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

On 9/24/06, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote:

> She clearly hasn't done all the thinking she needs to do on the issue.

I think it requires a higher amount of reading someone's posts to

insult them than it takes thinking to state an opinion.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> Actually Price writes about how happy they were in general. And it was the

> Eskimo babies that he said never cried unless hungry or hurt.

Right, this certainly doesn't test up to his tooth decay statistics in

terms of reliability, but it's an important observation.

Nevertheless, food was cyclical for the Inuit. I don't think Price

stayed with them over long periods of time (1 year+ minimum) to

witness all the cycles, and not every group Price studied is going to

have the same vulnerability to dry seasons and so on.

The question, I think, that Emma keeps trying to ask, is, would the

Inuit have been better off during the season of plenty when they'd

(presumably) be eating a greater porportion of their meat fresh? And

did they get symptoms during the dry season when they ate a greater

proportion of aged meats? I don't think the fact that the babies

seemed " happy " (i.e. they didn't have colic) means that Papa didn't

get headaches during the winter.

And then there is the issue of ferments. Did they select for strains

that produced less amines based on their experiences reacting to

amines? If so, those of us who are out of touch with that type of

reaction, especially due to consuming so many food chemicals from

other sources, may not be selecting for strains in the same way today.

Or, for most of us, the person consuming the food and reacting is not

the person selecting the ferment.

> I do understand that there could be genetic variance in tolerance of amines

> (and everything else under the sun) and various other reasons that

> individuals have different thresholds of tolerance, and am in no way arguing

> that they are not toxic in excess (since I know little about them), but I

> think there have been some mischaracterizations of the amounts of fermented

> foods consumed by healthy traditional societies. And please don't interpret

> this to mean that I advocate that everyone can eat any amount of fermented

> foods they want and that's just fine and dandy. We learned a while back from

> one of the previous conference speakers and several testimonials that

> several people cannot handle ferments, presumably because of the MSG

> content. Perhaps others can't due to the amine content, or due to something

> else as yet unidentified.

I don't think anyone ate loads of sauerkraut though. I'm not sure

about quantities of fermented meats, but certainly fermented grains

were eaten in large quantities by those who ate grains. And it

shouldn't be otherwise -- the grains HAVE to be fermented to get rid

of all kinds of toxic/pharmacological peptides (e.g. properly soured

wheat is not immunogenic and is not zonulin-stimulating, whereas

unfermented wheat is both).

I'm pretty sure I read in NT that fermented vegetables are supposed to

be used as a *condiment.* I disregarded this when I read it because I

couldn't think of any reason why eating loads of them would be harmful

rather than beneficial. In the context of the current discussion, I

now can.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

I think in this day and age, where the Amish who grow their own food

and have plenty of raw milk available but use Crisco in their baking,

and homesteaders are drinking Coke for breakfast, and the rest of us

have even more unhealthy lifestyles and more temptations and bad food

choices, it's very safe to assume that all of us are broken like

Pottenger's cats. How many can fit in their wisdom teeth? And that's

just a symptom of greater deficiency effects.

The question for me is how to live with what's broken in me, how to

repair what I can, and how to help my children be a step ahead of me

instead of behind me, nutritionally speaking.

--- In , " Emma Davies " <emma@...>

wrote:

>> We've kind of been through this as well I'm afraid Renate. We just

> don't know whether it's genetic or congenital or what it is. I am

> personally unwilling to dismiss any theory currently since there is

> much evidence for all of them, and I'm also unwilling to draw

> conclusions or value judgements based on a theory that could well be

> false as this would be detrimental to our understanding of our

natural

> state, i.e. " we should ALL be able to tolerate LARGE quantities of

> amines, we MUST be BROKEN like Pottenger's cats " . We don't know that.

>

[Guest guest]

If they were burying the fish in the dirt, I doubt they selected for

any strains of ferments, they got the wild ones. Perhaps those that

cause amines don't like the climate there, tho.

From my reading on fermentation, it sounds like selecting strains of

ferments is relatively recent, when they had the means to seal out

competing wild ferments; before that they might save some starter

for the next batch (of bread or beer) but kept it open to the air so

the wild stuff could mix in, so the nature of their ferments could

change at any time. As far as I can tell, sauerkraut and fermented

vegetables almost always relied on the wild yeasts and bacteria

already present on the vegetables and in the air. They did add more

seasonings than we do now, though, like sauerkraut almost always had

at least juniper berries and often onions, garlic, and other

vegetables in it.

It also sounds like the fermented foods (veggies, meats) were often

used cooked, like soaked to remove some of the salt then added to

soups or other dishes. Does cooking affect amines?

>> And then there is the issue of ferments. Did they select for

strains

> that produced less amines based on their experiences reacting to

> amines? If so, those of us who are out of touch with that type of

> reaction, especially due to consuming so many food chemicals from

> other sources, may not be selecting for strains in the same way

today.

> Or, for most of us, the person consuming the food and reacting is

not

> the person selecting the ferment.

In Salt: A World History, Marc Kurlanky he talks about the

choucroute fad in France, where the wealthy and especially nobles

ate tons of choucroute (and would vomit to fit more in I think). It

was sauerkraut with other vegetables, seasonings and meats; all

fermented together and cooked together. Of course, the nobility did

a lot that was bad for their health (lead cups of absinthe comes to

mind!) But I do wonder if the fad would have lasted if it led to

headaches, rashes and fatigue.

> > I don't think anyone ate loads of sauerkraut though. I'm not

sure

> about quantities of fermented meats, but certainly fermented grains

> were eaten in large quantities by those who ate grains. And it

> shouldn't be otherwise -- the grains HAVE to be fermented to get

rid

> of all kinds of toxic/pharmacological peptides (e.g. properly

soured

> wheat is not immunogenic and is not zonulin-stimulating, whereas

> unfermented wheat is both).

>

[Guest guest]

> " Emma Davies " emma@... vitaminkgirl wrote:

> My partner has epilepsy

>

> Have you tried or considered inositol and/or glutamic acid? Dr.

Braverman suggests those over GABA.

Yikes! Recommending glutamic acid for epilepsy? That's a fairly

radical approach...

Glutamic acid is better absorbed than GABA. More likely to increase GABA. Two,

more agreeable options maybe. Inositol combines with glycerine from body's

glucose and converts to a natural valium. When patent ran out on valium,

manufacturer announced that niacinamide and valium both use the same pathway to

tranquilizing. If he's taking gabapentin (Neurontin) its made from GABA and

inositol.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Re: Guidance for minimising amines in foods

>

>

>

>So I still don't buy the argument that we ate fermented or dried meat

>all winter - or if we did, that we didn't see some unpleasant side

>effects from doing so.

I may be remembering wrong, but I thought I recalled that you'd earlier

posted that they didn't eat large quantities of fermented foods in general,

not just meats. Forgive me if I'm remembering wrong. I don't know about the

unpleasant side effects, but my point was that it appears that many of

Price's groups did, in fact, eat large quantities of fermented foods.

>

>

> I also offered the

>> example of the eskimos who ate large quantities of dried fish and

>unknown

>> quantities of fermented meat.

>

>I thought we had decided that these foods were a delicacy, especially

>since they are so strongly flavoured that it's impossible to eat much

>of them?

We didn't *decide* anything with finality. As we've been doing all along,

we've just speculated based on the information we have. So far, it seems

like some of the fermented meat was consumed as a delicacy. However, Price

writes of the Eskimo in regards to *dried* meat " During the salmon running

season they store large quantities of dried salmon. " (p. 70, 6th edition)

Whether or not this means that they also *ate* large quantities of dried

salmon can only be inferred.

AFAIK, no one really knows the exact quantity that many primitive cultures

consumed of the various dried and fermented meats though. I was just

scanning through Bill Mollison's " The Permaculture Book of Ferment and Human

Nutrition " and see that fermenting and drying fish is a very widespread

practice across the globe as is drying and hanging various land animals.

He's got information about the fermenting/drying practices of maybe 50 or so

different nations/cultures.

Again, this is not to say that they all ate large quantities, or that all of

these ferments were high in amines. It's only to point out that the drying

and fermenting of meat was traditionlly practiced worldwide and was

sometimes done in large quantities within a community. Did these folks

consume more than 50-100 mgs of amines in all these fermented foods? Who

knows?

>

>

>> IIRC, you said tubers don't contain many amines? Otherwise I'd also

>point

>> out the the Hawaiins Price studies ate a lot of fermented taro.

>

>Actually by that post I had got completely confused and had forgotten

>we were talking about the gardening of plants. I should have been

>pointing out - and it is valid for amines as well and was part of the

> bigger argument anyway that we can't just go willy-nilly drawing

>assumptions about what paleolithic people did or did not do - that we

>have no really old evidence that we were big carbohydrate/plant

>eaters. Chris's neolithic evidence is that in Price's groups only

>about 100 kcals per day came from vegetable sources. If we are to

>extrapolate *that* evidence back to paleo, why would a nomad bother

>spending hours tending a garden for 100 kcals a day when he can go

>hunt some of that abundant big game? Surely you'd rather spend your

>time making spears, tents, and clothes?

I have no idea, but I've not been arguing that Paleos ate a lot of veggies.

My info about the Aboriginal gardeners 40,000 ya was only in response to you

saying agriculture began 10,000 years ago, which only refers to the *large

scale* initiation of agriculture.

>

>

>> If we have examples of populations just in the last century thriving on

>> large quantities of fermented foods and/or dried meats, what is the

>point of

>> digging back into paleolithic history to see if any of them had similar

>> diets, in order to substatiante whether us moderns can tolerate certain

>> quantities of amines?

>

>How do you know they were thriving? Do you have their medical records?

Yeh, their medical records say they all had high cholesterol. Damn, they

were sick puppies ;-) But seriously, I don't think medical records are

required to determine if a population is healthy. But in respect to the

Eskimo, Price did discuss a local doc's medical records, and there

apparently was no record of degenerative disease. But aside from that. it

seems like Price should've gained an idea of the general health of the

peoples he studied over several months or years of contact in the ten years

that he travelled abroad to study them. The astonishing lack of dental

caries alone is a big clue as to the health of the people, especially when

taken in conjunction with their physical prowess, their mental health and

the other health parameters Price discussed.

>Do you know whether they got depressed or itchy? What quantities of

>amines are you defining as " large " ? I am defining as large anything

>over 50-100mg, which a majority of the " normal " population react to,

>which one can get from eating 100g of the wrong type of cheese. Do you

>know how many amines were in their foods? Do you have quantifiable

>statistics to say they were actually getting this many amines?

Of course not! Again, you are assuming I'm talking about amines when,

rather, I was talking about the quantities of fermented foods that primtive

populations consumed. I *know* the original point of the thread is about the

amine content of traditional and/or paleolithic diets, but it's spawned many

tangents including the amount of fermented foods consumed by traditional

cultures and *that's* what I was responding to.

>

>I think the problem is here that people don't know how many amines are

>in what food, and there's still some black/white good/bad thinking

>going on...

Actually I think the problem here is a misunderstanding due to the variety

of related topics spawned by the original.

BTW, I've been totally fascinated by most of the information you've posted

over the last week or so and I appreciate your patience in explaining your

position (repeatedly) and for fielding questions/comments from those of us

who are less informed about amines and the other plant toxins. This whole

discussion has been very thought-provoking, even though I wasn't a big

proponent of plant foods to begin with. But this discussion has taken it to

another level.

Suze

Suze

[Guest guest]

I know you know what you meant here, but I can't figure it out.

As far as enzymes, and since I missed that first sentence maybe this

isn't relevent to your point, external factors like the amounts of

various trace minerals or ascorbic acid greatly affect our abilities

to make enzymes. It's well-accepted that the majority of the

population is deficient in trace minerals because of the modern

agricultural practice of only replacing three or four minerals with

chemicals instead of replacing all the minerals the plants need.

It's also well-accepted in at least the circles looking at vitamin C

deficiency that most of the population is deficient in ascorbic

acid. Add to that the fact that people eat almost exclusively

cooked food and even the raw foods may have been treated to destroy

enzymes to keep them from rotting, and the anti-enzyme effects of

fluoride, and agricultural/food processing chemicals. Enzyme

deficiency is in a small part at least fixable. Have more minerals,

more live food, less processed food. Sure there are some genetic

variations as well, but enzymes are LIFE, and without them we'd be

dead. You can't live without the ability to make lots of enzymes,

constantly.

But you're right, the upper limit can probably be treated as a

control.

As far as Pottenger's cats, I just read the book, and I think his

cats only lived a few years (less than 5, more like 3) so what took

3 generations in them was really a very short time. We live so

long, that it's possible in the 20 - 30 years it takes us to mature

and find a mate and bear offspring (speaking cat), we will have had

more time to correct our deficiency results. Pottenger has a neat

picture in the book of a girl who had a very bad underbite at the

age of 4. By the age of 10, after 6 years living on his dietary

advice, her chin was almost normal and her face much better shaped.

Many would say the jutting chin was an expression of genes, but then

how did proper nutrition (and I mean plenty of enzymes and raw

foods) correct it, mid-course?

AND there are foods known to repair genetic damage; I can't think of

what just now but have come across references to it several times.

Off the top of my head I'm thinking seaweed and certain ferments

like umeboshi or miso.

--- In , " Emma Davies " <emma@...>

> So why is it so problematic to assume we have limits in the

production

> of a rate-limited, zero order (i.e. it is not produced in response

to

> stimulus, but is produced constantly at one level) enzyme? We

aren't

> designed to have infinite capacities for any enzyme - that would

> exhaust our bodies because they are produced constantly whether

> required or not and lie in wait for toxins to come along. If 90% of

> the population react to 100 mg of histmaine/tyramine, and there's a

> gaussian curve, and capacities for the production of most liver

detox

> enzymes vary 15 fold across populations, it seems more than

reasonable

> to treat the upper limit as a control. It would be great to go

find an

> eskimo and treat them as a control, but we don't have that option,

and

> endowing native people with superhuman abilities is not

constructive

> in our understanding of nutrition.

>

>

> > The question for me is how to live with what's broken in me, how

to

> > repair what I can, and how to help my children be a step ahead

of me

> > instead of behind me, nutritionally speaking.

>

> As says, a Pottenger's cats condition that has taken 3

> generations to develop, is going to take another 3 generations to

> resolve. So we have to look to more short-term solutions too.

>

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> I'm not going to wade back through all the messages to find out

> exactly what I said or how it's been taken out of context.

It was my impression and I think many others that you were essentially

saying that paleolithic people did not ferment their foods and ate

most of their meat very fresh. In looking back, what you said was a

little different:

=========

" In

paleolithic times we surely did not hang meat for six weeks before we

ate it (drying as opposed to hanging actually slows down amine

formation, and dried meat was not a staple but a standby store). "

===========

I think I probably read this as " they ate their meat right after they

killed it. " You were differentiating hanging from drying, but it

might have slipped my view because your differentiation was

parenthetical

And then:

============

" I didn't say dried/hung meat was a product of the neolithic. I said

paleo people probably didn't eat fermented foods, several different

green vegetables (which require cooking in pottery vessels) and well

hung meat every day. "

So here you're saying it wouldn't have been an every day food, and

again referring to hung meat as opposed to dried meat in this.

============

At the same time, I think many people lost clarity of what you were

saying because you were also making OTHER points, such as the

historical use of fermenting vessels and so on:

===============

" But where is the evidence for it?

Since pottery is neolithic, this limits possible paleo fermenting

vessels to gourds or animal stomachs. It's fairly hard to pound and

chop things in objects that themselves get shredded by pounding and

grinding, so this limits fermenting to soft objects like fruits, which

are limited, seasonal foods, and normally fermented to produce an

alcoholic concoction. "

===============

I think many people, including myself to a degree, blended your

argument here with your quantity-of-amine argument (which are related

but not interdependent) and I think this somehow effected the

perception that you were saying that we all ate fresh foods and did

not ferment them, basically.

Now as to the relative quantitiy of feremented versus fresh meat, I

have no particular knowledge, so I'm enjoying the discussion.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> I don't know. They kept up the lead face paint for quite a while.

LOL. The uses for lead and arsenic was my favorite part about the

n England class I took in college. They had over 30 common

uses for arsenic, including coloring everything green, including

pastries. And they put lead in the pastries to give them " body. "

> And

> we still drink a lot of alcohol these days, and take drugs, and smoke,

> and take statins for months, all in spite of getting side effects

> telling us to stop...

They only take statins for months in the UK???

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Renate,

> As far as Pottenger's cats, I just read the book, and I think his

> cats only lived a few years (less than 5, more like 3) so what took

> 3 generations in them was really a very short time. We live so

> long, that it's possible in the 20 - 30 years it takes us to mature

> and find a mate and bear offspring (speaking cat), we will have had

> more time to correct our deficiency results.

That depends on the mechanism. I suspect that a generational effect

indicates a genetic mechanism, in which case the number of

generations, and not the amount of time, is what is important.

> Pottenger has a neat

> picture in the book of a girl who had a very bad underbite at the

> age of 4. By the age of 10, after 6 years living on his dietary

> advice, her chin was almost normal and her face much better shaped.

Lucky for her she was caught when she was 4, and not when she was 25.

> Many would say the jutting chin was an expression of genes, but then

> how did proper nutrition (and I mean plenty of enzymes and raw

> foods) correct it, mid-course?

Well nutrients do affect gene expression; in fact the whole point of

several nutrients is to affect gene expression. If you mean that many

people would say " it's genetic, " by which they, due to ignorance,

imply the subtext that it is " irreversibly heritable, " obviously they

would be wrong, as proven by the reversal of the condition.

But molecular geneticists are not as ignorant of genetics as the

average person (unsurprisingly).

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

So then if that's true (not saying it's not) does that leave any room

for people with genetic problems like celiac to be healed with proper

nutriton? (i.e. they'd still have the MARKER possibly, but it would

not be expressed?)

>> Well nutrients do affect gene expression; in fact the whole point of

> several nutrients is to affect gene expression. If you mean that

many

> people would say " it's genetic, " by which they, due to ignorance,

> imply the subtext that it is " irreversibly heritable, " obviously they

> would be wrong, as proven by the reversal of the condition.

>

> But molecular geneticists are not as ignorant of genetics as the

> average person (unsurprisingly).

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> Actually Price writes about how happy they were in general. And it was the

> Eskimo babies that he said never cried unless hungry or hurt.

I happened to read Chapter 21 - Application of Primitive Wisdom - just

this morning and thought I would share this generalization of all native

babies that Dr. Price witnessed throughout his several years of travel:

" In my observations of the infant's care among the primitive races I

have been continually impressed with the great infrequency with which we

ever hear a primitive child cry or express any discomfort from the

treatment it receives. Of course, when hungry they make their wants

known. The primitive mother is very prompt, if possible, to feed her

child. " NAPD, p. 399

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/26/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> So then if that's true (not saying it's not) does that leave any room

> for people with genetic problems like celiac to be healed with proper

> nutriton? (i.e. they'd still have the MARKER possibly, but it would

> not be expressed?)

There are necessary genes for celiac, but celiac is not " genetic " in

the sense that if you have a certain combination of genes, you will

get celiac. There's no " celiac gene. "

If you're an identical twin and you have celiac, your identical twin

only has a 70% chance of also having celiac, even though she has 100%

of your genes. Since identical twins are going to share a LOT more

than genes, genes have a LOT less than 70% to do with celiac.

Moreover, there is preliminary evidence indicating that properly

fermented wheat is tolerated by celiacs -- that is, by people with

established celiac disease, not people with just the associated genes.

Long-term studies are underway.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

> Moreover, there is preliminary evidence indicating that properly

> fermented wheat is tolerated by celiacs -- that is, by people with

> established celiac disease, not people with just the associated genes.

> Long-term studies are underway.

Point the way, sexy Masterjohn. But truly, to what nutritional end

would a celiac sufferer risk eating a fluffy piece of sourdough? For

pleasure sure, if you still find pleasure in such tastes, but it's

just starchy calories mainly, gluten or not. And if your gut is

already damaged, then you ought to focus on the real nutrient dense

stuff, not the calorie dense " comfort " foods, imo.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> Point the way, sexy Masterjohn. But truly, to what nutritional end

> would a celiac sufferer risk eating a fluffy piece of sourdough? For

> pleasure sure, if you still find pleasure in such tastes, but it's

> just starchy calories mainly, gluten or not. And if your gut is

> already damaged, then you ought to focus on the real nutrient dense

> stuff, not the calorie dense " comfort " foods, imo.

But Renate was asking whether genetic diseases like celiac can be

fixed with nutrition, so I was answering her question. The answer is,

of course, that celiac is not a genetic disease and that if wheat was

properly fermented it might not even exist.

Soured whole wheat is not empty calories. And for people who don't

like red palm oil, which I consider to be superior based on my present

knowledge, it's probably an important source of vitamin E. Different

people have different abilities to concentrate on various superfoods

and to go without comfort foods. Properly soured whole wheat may turn

out to be much more health-promoting for a celiac than the gluten-free

junk food that most celiacs eat, which is filled with all kinds of

gut-damaging gums and completely nutritionless starch.

The only way to know is to study it, which is being done. In the mean

time, it should be considered a gamble and I wouldn't advice a celiac

to eat soured wheat bread unless they were willing to take that

gamble, but when the research is complete, celiacs may just get the

winning numbers.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

> > Point the way,

IOW what preliminary results? More later on the rest of your

reply.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> IOW what preliminary results? More later on the rest of your

> reply.

The ones where they fed celiacs unfermented wheat bread for two weeks

(going off memory for the length of time) and observed celiac-typical

alterations in intestinal permeability but fed celiacs the same amount

of fermented wheat bread for two weeks and did not observe any adverse

changes in intestinal permeability. This has been discussed on the

list in the past and is cited in Czapp's article in the

current Wise Traditions.

The fermenting almost completely eliminated the offending peptides as well.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> But in respect to the

>> Eskimo, Price did discuss a local doc's medical records, and there

>> apparently was no record of degenerative disease.

>

>I wouldn't dream of criticising Price's work,

I don't know if you meant that sarcastically (but not rudely, I'm sure) but

I can't imagine why you wouldn't dream of criticizing Price's work, wherever

criticism seems appropriate. From what you've posted to this list so far,

you don't seem dogmatically beholden to any particular researcher, which is

the best way to ascertain what information is accurate and what is not, of

course.

but the effects of

>amines are usually hidden, internal effects. When they are not eaten

>chronically, their effects are short term, like a hangover. Who is to

>say the average eskimo woman didn't feel a little off the next day

>after eating too much rotten fish, the same way one feels off the next

>day after drinking too much beer? It is only when you consume more

>amines than your body can handle every day that chronic illness is

>produced.

>

>The whole idea of failsafe is to find your level and eat up to it if

>you want, but not over it. Which is exactly how I see native people

>behaving with fermented foods - knowing their limits.

That seems like a reasonable assumption since they seemed to figure out so

many other things in regards to maintaining near optimal health.

>

>Also, to point out again - eskimos are not the best example to

>extrapolte from. The eskimos, who were in a constant state of ketosis,

>would have been protected from a lot of the mental effects of amines

>anyway due to the raised levels of GABA and other inhibitory

>neurotransmitters in the brain. Their diet was extremely high in

>anti-inflammatories, which would also have protected them from short

>term reactions.

That would be an interesting experiment - to test the level of tolerable

amines in a group of people who are in constant ketosis. Maybe some

Atkinsians?

Suze

[Guest guest]

Emma,

I had a period in my life where I was overreactive to salicylates. It is

quiet now. At that period, I had a feeling that sprouted grains or

vegetables (leek, etc) made me worse ( I was a raw vegetarian at that time).

I dropped them for meat and eggs etc. Got much better. Would you know

sprouts composition in salicylates or other plant poisons? I know molds are

not too good (when you do not rinse them properly) but I was still a

compulsive person at that time so rinsing was done OK.

Thanks

Cordialement

Taty Lauwers

taty@...

www.taty.be/nouveau.htm

Re: Guidance for minimising amines in foods

>

>>

>> I know you know what you meant here, but I can't figure it out.

>>

>> As far as enzymes, and since I missed that first sentence maybe this

>> isn't relevent to your point, external factors like the amounts of

>> various trace minerals or ascorbic acid greatly affect our abilities

>> to make enzymes.

>

> Most enzymes:

>

> 1. Are rate-limited: our ability to produce them is limited based on

> the materials we have at hand, whether amino acids, minerals, or

> vitamin cofactors.

>

> 2. Work on a zero-order basis. i.e. a low, constant amount of the

> enzyme is perpetually being made day and night in the body. They are

> not produced on-demand or in response to need (otherwise there would

> be no such thing as a hangover). When they are not needed, the enzymes

> build up and " lie in wait " for toxins to appear, and then they are

> rapidly used up. Once used up, the body slowly makes some more.

>

> Anti-enzyme effects of toxins are specific to the toxin and the

> enzymes affected.

>

> Enzymes are not interchangable. Eating raw/cooked food has little to

> do with manufacture of enzymes designed to remove toxins. The only

> impact this will have is that it may increase availability of unused

> cofactors and slow down the rate-limiting.

>

>

>> Sure there are some genetic

>> variations as well, but enzymes are LIFE, and without them we'd be

>> dead. You can't live without the ability to make lots of enzymes,

>> constantly.

>

> There is a good argument that this is in fact the specific purpose of

> the wide genetic variation seen in detox enzymes. The detox system is

> versitile but easily overloaded. In the detox system we have

> sacrificed speed and on-demand response for variation and wide

> capacity. We can't make an infinite amount of enzymes, so some of us

> make less of certain ones and more of certain others.

>

>

>> that it's possible in the 20 - 30 years it takes us to mature

>> and find a mate and bear offspring (speaking cat), we will have had

>> more time to correct our deficiency results. Pottenger has a neat

>> picture in the book of a girl who had a very bad underbite at the

>> age of 4. By the age of 10, after 6 years living on his dietary

>> advice, her chin was almost normal and her face much better shaped.

>

> This relates to bone structure, not enzyme capacity. We have no

> evidence one way or the other for the argument it will improve

> specific enzyme function, and to rely solely on a Pottenger's theory

> as " the cause " will only limit our understanding of what is going on,

> therefore, as I have already stated several times before, it is wise

> to refrain from making deterministic judgements about what is going on.

>

>

>> AND there are foods known to repair genetic damage;

>

> What KIND of genetic damage? Where is the actual evidence for this?

> What is it limited to or not limited to? What is the specific

> biochemistry involved? How are the genes affected? If the toxins in

> themselves cause genetic damage, treating nonspecifically with various

> plants and fermented foods is going to cause more damage than it fixes.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sadly, I don't think enough research is going on in this area,

although Craicker send in a post that had a lot of information and

resources about foods that repair genetic damage. Most of my

information about genetic damage comes from 's

explanation of what happens in making GM foods (in the book " Seeds of

DEception " ). He says that there are lots of parts of the genes that

are present but don't exert their influence until they are " turned on "

by something and parts that are present but almost always " turned

off " . One of the things they had to do with the GM foods was put in a

trigger to permanently " turn on " the desired traits, which is abnormal

because usually things are " turned on " only for awhile then turn

themselves off again to save resources.

That would seem to indicate that just because there is a genetic

marker for something doesn't mean it has to be expressed, and one way

to repair genetic damage is for the body to be able to turn off the

parts of the genes that are not needed or are performing to the

detriment of the whole. did say that one danger of eating GM

foods is that the " on switch " could break off from the portion of DNA

where it had been inserted and wind up in the DNA of those who ate it,

thereby turning on segments of DNA that shouldn't be active.

OY! Complicated, ain't it??

> >>

> > AND there are foods known to repair genetic damage;

>

> What KIND of genetic damage? Where is the actual evidence for this?

> What is it limited to or not limited to? What is the specific

> biochemistry involved? How are the genes affected? If the toxins in

> themselves cause genetic damage, treating nonspecifically with

various

> plants and fermented foods is going to cause more damage than it

fixes.

>

[Guest guest]

On 9/28/06, Emma Davies <emma@...> wrote:

> I don't know whether this is a food chemical intolerance or not. I

> have heard of people having short-term intolerances. If you tolerate

> vegetables now, it could be that you were deficient in a

> vitamin/mineral cofactor you needed. Or perhaps these were the

> symptoms of the vegetarian diet?

Serve some spermine and spermidine for dinner, turn on the red

phosphorus, put some Marvin Gaye on the stereo...

Talk about a good night.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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