Re: Guidance for minimising amines in foods

[Guest guest]

>>>The issue I have with this is that we know paleo people used

flat stones to crack open bones and nuts on, but a flat stone isn't

really a good tool to use when you have some wet vegetable

matter...<<<

This is going to be tough to convince me about. It's just, I'd bet

with some experimentation, I could figure out how to lacto-ferment

wild foods, and, with hundreds of thousands of years to experiment,

and nutritional gain to be had, I bet ancient humans did too. They

figured out a way. This is strictly speculative, of course! But

there's a logic to it.

>>People have been taking from this discussion the idea

that " fermented foods contain amines so they're bad " , which isn't how

it works...<<

I admit I had been thinking that.

>>I don't know whether we have any experts in kefir drinking here,

but Iwonder if any of them have noticed what I have noticed - I've

read plenty of anecdotes suggesting " normal " people do experience

this - that some strains/batches of kefir make you relaxed and calm

(GABA), others give you a rush and make you feel overstimulated

(glutamate), others send your thyroid into overdrive and keep you up

all night (tyramine). This is because it depends exactly what bugs in

what proportions produce what results. Would paleolithic and neolithic

people not have noticed this and tried to select their ferments for

the most favourable effects?<<

Well ~I~ do make and drink kefir. I most definitely ~have~ noticed

the relaxed/calm rush -- it's pretty noticeable and happens within 2

or 3 minutes of drinking the kefir. I find it pleasant. I assumed

it was a kind of alcohol unfamiliar to me that the kefir mother

created. So is GABA one of the -amines- you're saying can be toxic?

I haven't felt at all stimulated or wired by kefir -- stimulation

tends to turn me off to a food or other substance.

I don't feel that ancients or primitives would have stuck with the

ferments that intoxicated them or not. Like anyone else, they could

see the effects these things on their ability to gather food, protect

themselves, and have a satisfying dream life, and would have

responded in kind. If anything they were probably more aware -- and

more responsive -- to chemical sensitivities than us moderns have

learned to become.....

Tim

[Guest guest]

:

> The link that Deanna sent is

> a perfect example of how " objective " the ancient evidence is...

> ultimately every author cited or involved in that article followed

> some form of intuition in drawing his fundamental conclusions.

Emma:

Again, it's a case of innocent until proven guilty. It's the

" intuition " of most medical researchers that fat and cholesterol are

bad for your heart. Should we draw conclusions and eat things based on

this intuition, because they " ought " to be good or bad for us?

Me:

Yeah but theoretically, I can't very well taste cholesterol, OR feel

it's presence inside my body (~theoretically~). But I ~can~ feel

effects of eating fermented foods. Theoretically. I'd agree that

controlled experiments are compelling evidence -- but not the only

evidence; I have to balance it against what my own body is telling me

too. But that's me. I believe in respecting my body's wisdom (not

that it can never lead me astray, mind you). Controlled

experimentation is also important! and I may allow it to trump my

own bodily inclinations, but that ultimate decision I will ~always~

leave up to me (knock on wood!). Not only does it feel " right " , but

it means I don't have to wait for the right study or consensus to

emerge before taking steps, health-wise, to make myself healthier,

wherever the urge may have come from.

Again, I am open to amines (as little as I know about them) possibly

being a factor in my health... I know I can't tolerate much MSG at

all (less than your average person), for what it's worth.

Tim

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> Yeah, but you can get a whole lot of some vegetables for 100 calories

> (over 5 servings in some cases). From the Joy of Cooking list per 100

> calories:

Well that's a good point that some vegetables are very low-calorie,

and unfortunately I don't have more detailed information about which

plant foods were used. Once you start introducing roots as part of

that 100 calories, you can use them up pretty quickly, and no veggies

were listed for the Hebrides.

So some of them may have eaten a substantial amount of low-calorie

veggies I guess, but still the vast bulk of their calories are coming

from fat or starch depending on the group.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

>>Again, I am open to amines (as little as I know about them) possibly

being a factor in my health... I know I can't tolerate much MSG at

all (less than your average person), for what it's worth.<<

I see now that GABA is a byproduct of glutamate. I am sensitive,

Emma, to what you are saying makes me calm in kefir -- GABA -- as well

to MSG (I assume related to glutamate) itself. Is there a link here,

possibly?

Tim

[Guest guest]

This is very interesting to me, I have noticed the rush and never

before heard this explanation of it; does anyone have a source where I

can read more about the GABA/Glutamate/tyramine content of ferments?

>

> > >>I don't know whether we have any experts in kefir drinking here,

> but Iwonder if any of them have noticed what I have noticed - I've

> read plenty of anecdotes suggesting " normal " people do experience

> this - that some strains/batches of kefir make you relaxed and calm

> (GABA), others give you a rush and make you feel overstimulated

> (glutamate), others send your thyroid into overdrive and keep you up

> all night (tyramine). This is because it depends exactly what bugs

in

> what proportions produce what results.

[Guest guest]

It's tricky figuring out what the cravings are actually for. I've

found that chocolate cravings (unless emotionally-driven) are

usually an indicator of magensium deficiency in me; and donut

cravings mean I need more fat. Learning to listen to the craving

then decode it is tricky but sometimes fun.

Lately I've been craving roasted eggplant. Can't figure that one

out, but about once a week I can eat 1 - 2 of them in a day.

Of course, the listening to cravings has its own drawback - what to

eat when you're not really craving anything?

--- In , " Tim " <friarslantern@...>

wrote:

>

>

> > **and yet for people like me this addition of more

> > *rules* makes eating that

> > much more stressful! As if trying to incorporate

> > NT principles into my life

> > wasn't difficult enough! I really find that the

> > more people talk about what

> > we *should* or *should not* be eating the more I

> > worry and the more I fall

> > into a sort of eating disorder where my brain just

> > cannot think anymore

> > about what to eat, and then I don't eat enough to

> > keep me functioning!

>

> I agree! I am maybe 1/3 or so of the way towards eating NT most

or

> all of the time -- I have adopted it as a basic master principal.

> EXCEPT I have one rule that comes before it: eat what I feel like

> eating. Sometimes that will lead to bad reactions, compulsion to

eat

> more of it, etc., but that's just something I let play out. I can

> have a theory about what to eat and let that theory help guide me,

> but ultimately, if I want a donut badly enough, I'm gonna eat it!

> (And I am gluten intolerant). Otherwise, that desire's just going

to

> exhibit itself in some other way.

>

> Tim Reeves

> Berkeley, CA

>

[Guest guest]

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

>>I don't know whether we have any experts in kefir drinking here,

but Iwonder if any of them have noticed what I have noticed - I've

read plenty of anecdotes suggesting " normal " people do experience

this - that some strains/batches of kefir make you relaxed and calm

(GABA), others give you a rush and make you feel overstimulated

(glutamate), others send your thyroid into overdrive and keep you up

all night (tyramine). This is because it depends exactly what bugs in

what proportions produce what results. Would paleolithic and neolithic

people not have noticed this and tried to select their ferments for

the most favourable effects?<<

With brain neurotransmitter dominance GABA is most predominant with 50% of U.S.

population. Would that be " normal " to the approx. 17% dopamine, 17%

acetylcholine and 17% serotonin? Thinking and intuiting cyclically minus the

local limits of availability of paleo/neolithic peoples, it seems the types and

proportions of bugs is equally dependant to the quality of the milk, the cycles

of environmental factors, weather, food, stress, cow's biochemistry, the

variations in reactions between to various effects and to individual

consumings gut/brain biochemistry. Personally, homemade kefir gave me scary

brain, vision focus and body coordination reactions. Was it the bug type, ratio,

milk, cow, time of year, casein increased, altered, me to it all? More

importantly is what does work rather than the whys everything else doesn't.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> If Vilhjalmur Stefansson was able to live until the age of 83 on a

> diet of nothing but meat, then I'm going to spend some time waiting to

> fall down dead, aren't I?

>

> Meat is the number 1 superfood! Not sauerkraut! Not kimchi!

Does it matter that he ate a lot of rotten fish??? He sure didn't

follow those guidelines for minimizing amines, did he?

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

" These thoughts led to a summarizing query; If it is almost a mark of

social distinction to be able to eat strong cheeses with a straight face

and smelly birds with relish, why is it necessarily a low taste to be

fond of decaying fish? On that basis of philosophy, though with several

qualms, I tried the rotten fish one day, and if memory servers, like it

better than my first taste of Camembert. During the next weeks I became

fond of rotten fish.

" About the fourth month of my first Eskimo winter I was looking forward

to every meal (rotten or fresh), enjoying them, and feeling comfortable

when they were over. " - from Adventures in Diet, by Vilhjalmur Stefansson

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Buhner speaks of people living well past 120 on a diet of

mostly (fermented) milk and honey. I think I'd prefer that diet.

Meade and honey-sweetened yogurt, anyone? UMMM!

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

wrote:

>> If Vilhjalmur Stefansson was able to live until the age of 83 on a

> diet of nothing but meat, then I'm going to spend some time waiting

to

> fall down dead, aren't I?

[Guest guest]

> " About the fourth month of my first Eskimo winter I was looking forward

> to every meal (rotten or fresh), enjoying them, and feeling comfortable

> when they were over. " - from Adventures in Diet, by Vilhjalmur

Stefansson

Deanna,

Does he mention what amount of rotten fish was a typical serving? Was

it comparable to a serving of camembert?

B.

[Guest guest]

> Does he mention what amount of rotten fish was a typical serving? Was

> it comparable to a serving of camembert?

> B.

Well, the skankiest fish was the rarest and eaten as a snack. I am

sure that these 3 months were pretty much the prime fishing time for

these people, and Price writes about this fishing time as well (as the

procurement of animal foods is as seasonal as plant foods depending on

the region). So they ate a snack-sized piece everyday maybe of the

nasty stuff? Then September fish was more mildly fermented/decayed,

October fish it was cold enough in the Arctic to be frozen. In any

case, the fish was stored for some time of the year.

http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

" There were several grades of decayed fish. The August catch had been

protected by longs from animals but not from heat and was outright

rotten. The September catch was mildly decayed. The October and later

catches had been frozen immediately and were fresh. There was less of

the August fish than of any other and, for that reason among the rest,

it was a delicacy - eaten sometimes as a snack between meals,

sometimes as a kind of dessert and always frozen, raw. "

Now, perhaps Sally would have a better idea about this practice as it

is written about in the " Guts and Grease " article. It has a ton of

information about how meat was dried and smoked for later use, the

practice of eating the fermented contents of the stomach, the

preferrence for fermented gamey meat, and the like. It is worth

reading the entire piece. And I know Wanita brought up her people not

consuming fermented meat recently (but perhaps I am mistaken?), but

maybe she will comment on this material if so inclined.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html

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

Use of sour-tasting fermented foods was widespread. The Cherokee

" bread " consisted of nixtamal wrapped in corn leaves and allowed to

ferment for two weeks.23 Manzanita berries and other plant foods were

also fermented.

The Indians also enjoyed fermented, gamey animal foods. The

Coahuiltecans, living in the inland brush country of south Texas set

fish aside for eight days " until larvae and other insects had

developed in the rotting flesh.24 They were then consumed as an

epicure's delight, along with the rotten fish. " Hearne

describes a fermented dish consumed by the Chippewaya and Cree: " The

most remarkable dish among them. . . is blood mixed with the

half-digested food which is found in the caribou's stomach, and boiled

up with a sufficient quantity of water to make it of the consistence

of pease-pottage. Some fat and scraps of tender flesh are also shred

small and boiled with it. To render this dish more palatable, they

have a method of mixing the blood with the contents of the stomach in

the paunch itself, and hanging it up in the heat and smoke of the fire

for several days; which puts the whole mass into a state of

fermentation, which gives it such an agreeable acid taste, that were

it not for prejudice, it might be eaten by those who have the nicest

palates. " 25

A number of reports indicate that broth and herbed beverages were

preferred to water. The Chippewa boiled water and added leaves or

twigs before drinking it.26 Sassafras was a favorite ingredient in

teas and medicinal drinks.27 Broth was flavored and thickened with

corn silk and dried pumpkin blossom. California Indians added lemonade

berries to water to make a pleasantly sour drink.28 Another sour drink

was produced from fermented corn porridge.29 In the Southwest, a drink

called chichi is made with little balls of corn dough which the women

impregnate with saliva by chewing. They are added to water to produce

a delicious, sour, fizzy fermented drink.

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

Oh, and fyi, Dartmouth College Library has a collection of

Stefansson's works.

http://tinyurl.com/ls2t7

Here endeth the sermon.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/24/06, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

>

> > Does he mention what amount of rotten fish was a typical serving? Was

> > it comparable to a serving of camembert?

> > B.

....

> " There were several grades of decayed fish. The August catch had been

> protected by longs from animals but not from heat and was outright

> rotten. The September catch was mildly decayed. The October and later

> catches had been frozen immediately and were fresh. There was less of

> the August fish than of any other and, for that reason among the rest,

> it was a delicacy - eaten sometimes as a snack between meals,

> sometimes as a kind of dessert and always frozen, raw. "

That seems to be exactly what Emma is saying-- it was eaten in

moderation. Though there weren't quantities given on the

stomach/blood concoction, in general those examples characterize

fermented animal products as " delicacies. " Most of the rest are

examples of grain fermentation, which we all know to be beneficial, or

fermentation of various berries or plants. The latter it's hard to

say much about without knowing more about those plants.

But: she's not arguing that fermentation never happened or that it's

uniformly bad in every quantity... just that in general people have a

certain tolerance depending on the amounts of these substances, which

are themselves produced in varying amounts depending on medium and

bacterial/etc culture. All of that is balanced against the various

positive effects like neutralization other

poisons/inhibitors/whatever, creation of various otherwise missing

nutrients, etc. It seems to me it's a simple caution against the

common position among various WAPFers that all fermented food is

always good in quantities as large as you can eat. (apologies me if I

mischaracterized what you've written, Emma)

How is that so unreasonable? It's apparently touched a nerve and I'm

not sure why.

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> As someone who has

> dedicatedly and desperately tried to fix her problems by following

> WAPF for years, eating superfoods, done repeated experiments with

> carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and every single vitamin or nutrient on

> the market, I can honestly say that none of those things fixed my

> symptoms, but this diet fixed my symptoms in a few weeks.

I always thought the use of the word " superfood " was an attempt at

clever irony or something, because basically anything claiming that

status on the label gives me itchiness or trouble breathing.

Of course, there are lots of things that should be considered really

super foods that don't use the term on the label.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

> But: she's not arguing that fermentation never happened or that it's

> uniformly bad in every quantity... just that in general people have a

> certain tolerance depending on the amounts of these substances, which

> are themselves produced in varying amounts depending on medium and

> bacterial/etc culture. All of that is balanced against the various

> positive effects like neutralization other

> poisons/inhibitors/

> whatever, creation of various otherwise missing

> nutrients, etc. It seems to me it's a simple caution against the

> common position among various WAPFers that all fermented food is

> always good in quantities as large as you can eat. (apologies me if I

> mischaracterized what you've written, Emma)

>

> How is that so unreasonable? It's apparently touched a nerve and I'm

> not sure why.

No nerves have touched at all in me. The only thing I have found

unreasonable was the insistence of evidence from 500 kya with regards to

Suze's offering of gardening in the 40 kya Aborigines and the general

dismissal of modern traditional groups as any sort of indicator of past

eating practices. But frankly, I am enjoying the conversation and all

of the information being shared. And Emma has some great information to

share, as I said before. As a gluten intolerant gal, I can certainly

understand and respect the various issues individuals may have with this

or that food or chemical. My original inquiry concerned how optimum the

diet recommendations from the link she offered might be in the context

of a native nutrition eating and lifestyle plan (which is the whole

point of this list), and it has developed a life of its own since then

(as usual). Here again is that link:

http://www.eklhad.net/manage-amines.html#intro

<http://www.eklhad.net/manage-amines.html#intro> - Emma did state from

the git go it was " extremely STRICT "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> > > If Vilhjalmur Stefansson was able to live until the age of 83 on a

> > > diet of nothing but meat, then I'm going to spend some time waiting to

> > > fall down dead, aren't I?

I would say it is a hasty generalization to claim that Stephansson's

diet of meat is why he lived so long, just as it would be for me to

claim that BKS Iyengar will turn 88 later this year because he consumes

a lacto vegetarian diet. And that seems to be the connection you are

making (forgive me if I am incorrect here). Really, we can only look at

groups of peoples for longevity for any meaningful correlations, like

the Okinawans, for example.

> And Stefansson was also not known for his good temper! Presumably he

> kept on fermenting fish in his fridge when he got back home from the

> arctic!

Are you saying his temperament is based on consumption of fermented

fish? If so, were the natives he learned this from also feisty

ill-tempered people?

> Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, since dietary amines

> are not required by the body any more than dietary carbohydrate is

> required by the body, yet Stefansson managed to live this long IN

> SPITE of eating amines, not BECAUSE of them!

Or there is some other factor or combination thereof that helped in his

relative long life. How many really healthy people die in accidents or

other environmental catastrophes? Ya never know when your time is up,

so it's best to live it well.

>

> As my ability to cope with amines increases when I am in ketosis and

> avoiding carbohydrates completely, perhaps Stefansson's experience is

> a good reason to eat an all-meat diet then! Rather more restrictive

> than mere failsafe, but perhaps I will live even longer than

> Stefansson as I am ALSO avoiding amines! All on this terrible diet

> that takes away all my aches, pains, fibromyalgia and eczema...

It's great you have found something to improve your health, especially

considering it can be difficult to find relief from various conditions.

I too enjoy a pretty low carbohydrate diet. And with the intense

martial arts practice I partake in regularly, I am in ketosis most of

the time as well. And truly, isn't the quality of life the most

important factor to consider? If you are suffering and have found

something to help you recover, then it is well worth it for you for

quality's sake at the very least. I feel extremely fortunate to not

have any major health problems whatsoever, and I wish ALL of you well on

your journeys to good health!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Kudos to you for pulling that all together, but it's precisely my

frustration with things like PubMed - they study things so

microscopically that it's almost impossible to apply in the real

world at times. While it is interesting that specific cultures

produce GABA or tyramine, if you're really doing sourdough and using

wild yeasts, there's no guarantee that the cultures you start with

are the ones you keep. They are constantly shifting as wild ones

come live there and the ones you've kept die off. Changing things

like your schedule, or the temperatures in the house from summer to

winter result in population shifts so desired traits shift as well.

Then add in the " fuzzy logic " factor, like some evidence

from " Secret Life of Plants " that plants can communicate with us and

our " pet plants " have good wishes for us; well, my starter is like a

well-tended pet, can I ask it for more GABA and tyrosine? (Not as

crazy as it sounds, my amazing cheese making friend says starters

respond to the Karma of the people in the cheese making room!)

Maybe that's why important things like brewing or fermenting were

supposed to have a certain atmosphere (reverent/festive!) Of course

even if we did a study that proved sauerkraut made at a party with

happy people had lots of GABA and tyrosine and no tyramine, nobody

would ever believe us!

Whoops! rambling!

> >

> > This is very interesting to me, I have noticed the rush and

never

> > before heard this explanation of it; does anyone have a source

where I

> > can read more about the GABA/Glutamate/tyramine content of

ferments?

>

> I've written about it once or twice on my blog, e.g.

> http://wisewitch.blogspot.com/2006/05/gaba-fermentation.html

>

> But I had to get all my information direct from medline. It's

> something we just don't know enough about.

>

[Guest guest]

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

The simple fact that basically every group Dr. Price studied prized 1.

shellfish 2. fish eggs, and 3. organ meats/fatty body parts, no

matter where they lived or what their other foods were, tells you

everything you need to know. It doesn't make sense that the humans of

the stone age ate nothing like the modern traditional groups of today,

if every traditional group of today prizes the same foods. There are

no commonalities between the Africans and the Inuit, except that they

prize the same body parts and foods. That says something.

It's not always a great idea to think that, because something helped

your health, that it will help everyone's.

mike

The only thing I have found

> unreasonable was the insistence of evidence from 500 kya with regards

to

> Suze's offering of gardening in the 40 kya Aborigines and the general

> dismissal of modern traditional groups as any sort of indicator of

past

> eating practices.

[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.

> The simple fact that basically every group Dr. Price studied prized 1.

> shellfish 2. fish eggs, and 3. organ meats/fatty body parts, no

> matter where they lived or what their other foods were, tells you

> everything you need to know.

Except that not everyone who eats those foods gets magically healthy.

So evidently it's not black and white and that's not all we need to

know.

> It's not always a great idea to think that, because something helped

> your health, that it will help everyone's.

That's an ironic statement given the above.

[Guest guest]

There are

> no commonalities between the Africans and the Inuit, except that they

> prize the same body parts...

mike,

hehe.

B.

/boobies

[Guest guest]

> B.

> /boobies

Butts. And I was brave enough just now to add a kick and a butt shot

up in the photos, but alas, I believe that is Listgod's domain only

now, eh?

Deanna

/fully clothed

[Guest guest]

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

My partner has epilepsy, his

medication is designed to raise deficient GABA levels, but from

research we know all about how GABA levels in excess can send you as

crazy as any other neurotransmitter.

Incidentally, we've both experimented with GABA supplementation in an

effort to control his epilepsy - it can give you some pretty wild,

vivid dreams.

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

suggests those over GABA.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Emma, thanks once again for all the great info. I remember reading a

piece on Mercola's blog a few months ago about how e-mails are

commonly mis-interpreted and flat-out mis-read. I guess repetition is

the key.

:

> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I were to say:

> > " amines are bad, therefore they should be avoided in diet and

> > minimized in the body " ....

> >

> > Isn't that a gross over-simplification, rather like saying:

> > " cholesterol is bad, therefore it should be avoided in diet and

> > minimized in the body " .

Emma:

> I didn't say that. I said: " As biogenic amines are neurotransmitters

> the body normally tightly regulates the amount it creates, and

> destroys any that are eaten as fast as it is able to. People's

> ability to do this varies widely, and that's when we get problems. "

:

I didn't say you said that. The only reason I made this postulation

is because I perceive that a lot of readers here have also gotten this

mistaken impression and I wanted to see your response. Some of us are

just thick-headed numbskulls <like me> who have to have new ideas

pounded into their heads to sink in <as my wife will attest>.

> If your body finds it has more neurotransmitters than it needs, it

> will destroy them because quantities in excess of need result in

> toxicity, for example, serotonin syndrome, or scromboid poisoning.

> Fact. Some people are able to do this better than others. The enzyme

> capacity varies 15 fold across the population, with a nice gaussian

> distribution.

As I have been reading more about FAILSAFE, I've noticed that my wife

is already eating a diet very close to that recommended - even though

she has never heard of it before. Her favorite fruit is pears. She's

bothered by tomatoes, strawberries, and peaches and won't eat them.

She has never liked anything with aspartame in it and has always

refused to eat it. She gets bad headaches from MSG and some perfumes

(most likely those with musk oil). She has always been very good

about figuring out which foods bothered her and avoiding them.

She never liked margarine and stuck with butter (one of my gripes

about Sue Denegate's recommendations). I never liked margarine

either, but I fell for the low-fat anti-saturated fat retoric that my

doctor fed me about 11 years ago (I guess Sue is still stuck on that

as well). So I ate margarine, skim milk (yuk), and aspartame (mainly

diet soda) - thinking these things would help me loose weight and be

healthier. Instead, I gained about 30 pounds and started getting

metabolic syndrome symptoms. After going low-carb and walking 2 miles

every day for the last year and a half, I have lost 30 pounds and by

most measures I think I'm healthier.

We started going organic and minimizing processed foods back in

January and I think this change has helped me, my wife, and 8 yo

daughter. Our daughter has had mild " selective mutism " symptoms that

seem to be improving now. She is in the US generation that had huge

amounts of thimerosal-laced immunizations. Hopefully improved diet

will help us all to overcome our various problems and learning to spot

intolerance symptoms coupled with avoidance should help as well.

[Guest guest]

>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.

>

>If we ate dried meat all winter, we would have been scratching our

>rashes, complaining about headaches, and sneezing when we played with

>our semi-domesticated dogs.

>

>Until someone gives me some hard evidence to the contrary, the

>evidence of our genes says something different.

already did. We don't even need to go back to paleolithic times to

find " hard evidence " that, at least some human beings have lived with an

exceptional level of health eating a diet primarily of fermented foods

(bread and milk) - namely the Swiss that Price studied. I also offered the

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

quantities of fermented meat. Price also mentions that the Dinka, whom he

thought were the strongest and best-proportioned of all the African tribes

he studied, subsisted primarily on cereal grains and fish. He didn't mention

how they prepared their cereal grains, but virtually every group that he

offers details in regards to their grain preparation, fermented their

grains, so it's a reasonable assumption that the Dinka did as well.

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.

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?

Suze

[Guest guest]

>> And Stefansson was also not known for his good temper! Presumably he

>> kept on fermenting fish in his fridge when he got back home from the

>> arctic!

>

>

>Are you saying his temperament is based on consumption of fermented

>fish? If so, were the natives he learned this from also feisty

>ill-tempered people?

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 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]

Suze-

Not paleolithic, not relevant. So there! ;-)

>already did. We don't even need to go back to paleolithic times to

>find " hard evidence " that, at least some human beings have lived with an

>exceptional level of health eating a diet primarily of fermented foods

>(bread and milk) - namely the Swiss that Price studied. I also offered the

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

>quantities of fermented meat. Price also mentions that the Dinka, whom he

>thought were the strongest and best-proportioned of all the African tribes

>he studied, subsisted primarily on cereal grains and fish. He didn't mention

>how they prepared their cereal grains, but virtually every group that he

>offers details in regards to their grain preparation, fermented their

>grains, so it's a reasonable assumption that the Dinka did as well.

-