Re: Re: Smoking &amp; Health

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

“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

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

July 30, 2005

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of

>I'm thinking you are misreading/misinterpreting posts. There are lots

>of independent thinkers here who question and challenge and don't

>automatically by off on something, but just emoting without cause? I

>don't think so.

>

>For one cite, Suze posted a study about the disabling of the

>*allergenic* properties of gliadin on the GFCFNN list. She got that

>study from me. And that wasn't dealing with low gluten rye but rather

>high gluten modern wheat.

This is true, but I should point out that the bread contained only 30%

wheat, and the other 70% was " non toxic " (non gluten) grains, IIRC.

Perhaps if they'd used 100% wheat but fermented it for more than 24 hours it

would've still broken down the problematic peptides?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

“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

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

July 30, 2005

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Robin Ann

Unless, you and and others take the time to actually read some of

>the scientific literature on gluten-intolerance, common courtesy

>(and common

>sense!)dictates that maybe you should keep your uninformed views to

>yourselves. Put views out there that are based on some sort of science and

>maybe I or others will take the time to respond but this sort of crackpot

>put-down comment toward an illness that affects a lot of people is

>irresponsible and doesn't reflect well on the group.

Hi Robin,

I'm a fellow gluten-intolerant individual, as you know. I'm

casein-intolerant, as well. And I speak from that position, knowing I *may*

never be able to consume either of these things again.

I just want to tell you that I think you are misunderstanding 's,

Chris' and 's posts on this subject. They are all completely correct in

their arguments that intimate that gluten sensitivity is far more complex

than it's often made out to be by the gluten intolerant folks on various

lists and even the " experts " . I don't know if you saw my debate with Heidi

about this here on this list a few weeks ago, but I was pretty much arguing

many of the same things these guy are saying. It's just not as simple as

gluten=GS/celiac in sucseptible individuals. I know Heidi's away now for a

week or two, but I hope to resume that conversation when she returns.

Nothing any of these guys have said was even remotely " crackpot " . Keep in

mind that the celiac/GS info we get is from a somewhat conventional quarter,

as is much of the other nutritional research/info out there. Sometimes we

have to look at these issues with a different filter in order to see what

*they* are missing. We have info that they don't have, such as knowledge of

traditional nutrition that includes some of these problematic proteins,

which were clearly not problematic for the populations that consumed them.

The sourdough article I posted to the GFCFNN list that discussed fermenting

being a novel way to break down glutenous grains, is not really novel at

all. WE already knew about it! This is just ONE variable among many that

needs to be examined when discussing the etiology of gluten sensitivity.

Again, there are many others as I mentioned in my posts to Heidi.

So, I'm really GLAD these guys are presenting the many other angles of GS

that we need to look at in trying to determine its etiology and possible

treatment. This is exactly the type of thinking/exploration that reflects so

WELL on this group. It's just another reminder that it's so important to

keep an open mind, and a critical eye on the information we take in.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

" 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

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

July 30, 2005

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>Gluten can't be an autoimmune illness itself-- it's a protein. If it

>triggers an autoimmune illness, it would have to do so through a

>system that I think we could at least loosely refer to as an " allergy "

>or an " allergic response. " I was under the impression that gluten

>would first elicit an immune reaction against itself, which would not

>be an autoimmune disease, before it could result in an immune reaction

>against endogenous tissues, which would.

I believe this is correct. This is something that I want to understand

better. But as I understand it now, there is some cross-linking going on by

a transglutaminase enzyme, I think. So first you have an IgA reaction to

gliadin, then somehow, you start having an immune reaction to your own

tissue transglutaminase. The enzyme links some of the gliadin peptides to

your own tissue, I think? Thus your anti-tissue transglutaminse antibody

levels rise above " normal " . I need to re-read this section of my autism book

cuz it's explained in there.

It's also an interesting concept that apparently it's normal for everyone to

have SOME immune reaction to gluten (and supposedly other proteins) but

above a certain level, it's considered pathological. I still can't figure

out why my antigliadin antibody level was in the normal range, but

antitissue transglutaminase was elevated, although not much. I suspect I may

have been cross-linking with a candida protein that's nearly identical to

gliadin.

>The fact there are genes associated with gluten-intolerance and celiac

>does not in any way whatsoever indicate that it cannot be grown out of

>or that it must be induced. I'm not saying it CAN be grown out of.

>I'm just saying that it is jumping the gun to hop on the bandwagon of

>the " genes-are-the-ultimate-cause-of-_______(fill in the blank) "

>hysteria and assume that an associated gene means " there's nothing you

>can do. "

I agree. AFAIK, there are many genes people have that are never expressed.

For instance, everyone who has the sickle cell genes doesn't come down with

sickle cell anemia. It really comes down to what *causes* the gene to

express, it seems.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

“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

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

July 30, 2005

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

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Connie Hampton

But the statistical likelihood of a

>person having the genes can be mapped to the areas of the world

>where gluten grains are NOT eaten.

Hi Connie,

I read an article on Celiac disease, which I think I got from celiac.com,

which refutes this. It seems like the gluten researchers are not all on the

same page about things. I know Dr. Fine says it's basically a western

European issue, but apparently celiac and/or GS is quite prevalent in the

Fertile Crescent too!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

“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

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

July 30, 2005

Deanna-

>I've been thinking about this, but haven't a clue about the idea that

>drinking causes the winding. Oh, it's true people get dependent on

>things like this. I drink wine with extravagant food, but keep it to

>half the week tops. So I can see people will " need " that habitual after

>work drink (or nightcap, etc.), but I don't get the wind-up part.

>Please 'splain.

The simplest element is that dependency creates cravings and cravings and

dependency destabilize all sorts of systems in the body.

-

July 30, 2005

>

> [suze]I'm a fellow gluten-intolerant individual, as you know. I'm

> casein-intolerant, as well. And I speak from that position, knowing I *may*

> never be able to consume either of these things again. I just want to tell

> you that I think you are misunderstanding 's, Chris' and 's posts

> on this subject. They are all completely correct in their arguments that

> intimate that gluten sensitivity is far more complex than it's often made

> out to be by the gluten intolerant folks on various lists and even the

> " experts " .

[robin] I wasn't speaking for the gluten-intolerant population I was

speaking for myself and my celiac disease condition. I have Marsh stage III

villous atrophy as seen on a biopsy. I definitely can't eat gluten again but

I may be able to eat dairy again.

I don't know if you saw my debate with Heidi about this here on this list a

> few weeks ago, but I was pretty much arguing many of the same things these

> guy are saying. It's just not as simple as gluten=GS/celiac in sucseptible

> individuals.

That's fine and I respect that discussion. As you know I've never declared

myself even *close* to being expert in this area. I am also not a reformer

by nature. My comments are almost always anecdotal and I try to make that as

clear as I possibly can. For example, whenever I state something that isn't

based on my own experience I usually make sure to either put a question mark

near by or to cite a source for verification. Again, my goal in this thread

was not to enlighten the list about gluten-sensitivity (or even get to the

bottom of it) but to share with my example of recovery: Since he had

precisely the same symptoms as I did, I thought maybe something in my recent

discovery of celiac disease might be worth looking into. (In fact I keep

meaning to ask if his stools float :-) )

[suze] Nothing any of these guys have said was even remotely " crackpot " .

Keep in mind that the celiac/GS info we get is from a somewhat conventional

quarter, as is much of the other nutritional research/info out there.

[robin] Great. All I ask is if somebody says something that is

" unconventional " please enlighten us with a source for it.

Also, I misspoke. I meant to say " pot shot " instead of crackpot as I

thought I was having a simple conversation about

what-might-be-making-Chris-sick when suddenly I had shots fired on me from

all quarters -- first and later joined in. Even that was okay

it's just that nobody cited any source that would enlighten me.

[suze] Sometimes we have to look at these issues with a different filter in

order to see what *they* [the experts] are missing. We have info that they

don't have, such as knowledge of traditional nutrition that includes some of

these problematic proteins, which were clearly not problematic for the

populations that consumed them.

The sourdough article I posted to the GFCFNN list that discussed fermenting

being a novel way to break down glutenous grains, is not really novel at

all. WE already knew about it! This is just ONE variable among many that

needs to be examined when discussing the etiology of gluten sensitivity.

Again, there are many others as I mentioned in my posts to Heidi.

[robin] That's fine if you have a healthy small intestine but are still

gluten-intolerant. Experiment away!

I and others who are celiac, have damaged scarred guts, just want to

eliminate grains altogether, repair the gut and move on to other aspects of

our lives. As I said before, the diet is no big deal for me --in fact I'm

specially inspired to eliminate gluten to get the gut health back so I can

do milk.

[suze] So, I'm really GLAD these guys are presenting the many other angles

of GS that we need to look at in trying to determine its etiology and

possible treatment.

[robin] Great, but here's an example, Suze, of how it's a bit of a problem

always trying to link gluten-sensitive types together with celiac disease;

Sure, it gives the GS problem more clout and more members but show me ONE

example of a true celiac being able to tolerate gluten in ANY form and I

will smoke a cigar.

:-) (Actually should know that my favorite cigars are Bolivar

Robusto and Avo #2's. We have a humidor-full downstairs...)

[suze] This is exactly the type of thinking/exploration that reflects so

WELL on this group. It's just another reminder that it's so important to

keep an open mind, and a critical eye on the information we take in.

[robin] I agree. Just back up your facts or sources.

~Robin Ann

July 30, 2005

Robin,

<(In fact I keep meaning to ask if his stools float :-) )

I'm curious as to how you view the significance of this. One source I read

said there was no significance, there simply being a certain (small) part of

the population that produces the gas that makes for floating. But within

alternate health community, some see it as a sign of health (vegetarians or

fuitarians, I think) while others see it as a sign of disease. If your own

ideas are based on a study you think is good, I'd be interested in the

reference.

Thanks,

<http://www.shands.org/health/information/article/000233.html

July 30, 2005

Robin,

Thanks for your response. A personal experience may sometimes be difficult

to analyze in terms of cause and effect, but I often find it as telling and

helpful as the scientific studies.

<Well(By the way, I went

to yoga again this morning and did a handstand. I couldn't stay up

as long as I could a couple years ago but I feel that'll come back

with time.>

Everything can. <g> Congratulations.

This didn't open for me.

http://www.shands.org/health/information/article/000233.htm

July 30, 2005

.......................................Sorry, I left off an L at the end...

~R

July 30, 2005

Robin,

Is that the skin disorder you thought was caused by parasites? (I'm not

sure I have the right Robin here.) If so, I can see why it distressed you

so! Are you over it now or will you need to be off the grains for a longer

time?

July 30, 2005

,

<,

Gas making the stools float? Who says?

AFAIK floating stools means high fat content in the stool = poor fat

digestion. Optimal stools don't float.

Ahh. Fat content. A brand new theory for me. <g> If this one is accurate,

I now have to figure out why vegetarians/fruitarians think a floating stool

is a good stool. Sorry I can't remember any sources. It wasn't ever a

research project, I just kept coming across these ideas as I looked for

other material. I'm not even sure I'm right about the

vegetarians/fruitarians.

July 30, 2005

At 08:46 PM 7/30/05 -0000, you wrote:

>Also, I saw the remainder of this loaf last night at my friend's

>house, and it was still soft and fresh-seeming, though I didn't have any.

> B.

You should have had some.

/eek

MFJ

Everything connects. The universe is not THAT chaotic. Beauty can

still be found in the most amazing places.

July 30, 2005

Thanks, Chris. Between Robin's site -- which says it is gas formed from a

variety of digestive disturbances (incl. fat, as mentioned) -- and

your take of the vegetarian perspective, I can now let this matter sink.

(Sorry. <g>)

July 30, 2005

Robin,

You've really been through the mill! But now you're doing handstands -- and

I'll be expecting cartwheels next.

http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/72/5/560

July 30, 2005

On 7/30/05, Robin Ann <grainwreck@...> wrote:

> Also, I misspoke. I meant to say " pot shot " instead of crackpot as I

> thought I was having a simple conversation about

> what-might-be-making-Chris-sick when suddenly I had shots fired on me from

> all quarters -- first and later joined in. Even that was okay

> it's just that nobody cited any source that would enlighten me.

I think you are misreading this. I didn't fire any shots at you nor am

I in the habit of firing " pot shots " at anyone else (same goes for

and Chris). But I will admit this list can potentially be

bothersome if you have thin skin, and I'm beginning to think on this

subject at least you do. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The initial " pot shot " was fired when I was relating *my* experience

to as a way of encouraging him that a " purist " approach doesn't

necessarily have to last forever. And here is what you said in

response:

" , You are showing your lack of education about gluten autoimmune

illness by combining gluten intolerance with milk allergies in your pitch. "

One, you don't know anything about my education concerning gluten.

Two, you proffer some ideas in the rest of your post that aren't

written in stone even in conventional circles. Three, you show your

own lack of understanding about some aspects of casein intolerance.

Four, I wasn't offering a " pitch " anymore than you were offering a

" pitch " when you were sharing your experience with Chris.

In short, you misread my post on the face of it and then read some

things into my post that I wasn't saying which led to your " pot shot "

about lack of education.

> [suze] The sourdough article I posted to the GFCFNN list that discussed

fermenting

> being a novel way to break down glutenous grains, is not really novel at

> all. WE already knew about it! This is just ONE variable among many that

> needs to be examined when discussing the etiology of gluten sensitivity.

> Again, there are many others as I mentioned in my posts to Heidi.

> [robin] That's fine if you have a healthy small intestine but are still

> gluten-intolerant. Experiment away!

> I and others who are celiac, have damaged scarred guts, just want to

> eliminate grains altogether, repair the gut and move on to other aspects of

> our lives. As I said before, the diet is no big deal for me --in fact I'm

> specially inspired to eliminate gluten to get the gut health back so I can

> do milk.

That is not what I have read. Apparently not a few celiacs would like

to have gluten grains back in their diet. IIRC the non-compliance

issues among diagnosed celiacs would clearly suggest that.

<snip>

> [robin] Great, but here's an example, Suze, of how it's a bit of a problem

> always trying to link gluten-sensitive types together with celiac disease;

> Sure, it gives the GS problem more clout and more members but show me ONE

> example of a true celiac being able to tolerate gluten in ANY form and I

> will smoke a cigar.

And this appears to be an example of you misreading what I said and

now what Suze has said. The sourdough study that Suze posted was

dealing with CELIACS. Okay, well maybe you didn't know that. I'm

assuming you read the study when it was posted. I could be wrong.

Nonetheless, it only makes sense that if the problematic aspects of

gliadin are destroyed/removed/disabled/broken down into its

constituent parts or however you want to describe the process, then

anyone, including celiacs, can consume it, _since it is no longer the

same thing_. Perhaps this point has somehow been obfuscated throughout

this thread by me. But you don't have to take my word for it:

http://snipurl.com/g7sv

I suggest you start preparing to pay a visit to your humidor :-)

I'm done on this aspect of the thread. The discussion seems to have

come to an impasse, so the last word is yours if you like.

July 30, 2005

> > That is NOT to

> > say however, having the genes translates into becoming GS. I would guess

> > that approx. 99.99% of people he's tested are SADers so that throws in an

> > important untested variable. I'm not sure that having the genes is

> > " meaningless " though, at least in terms of whether one CAN become GS. From

> > what I understand, effectively NO ONE becomes GS without having at least

> > one

> > of the genes. So the genes seem to be ONE requirement for becoming GS.

> Chris

30% of general population has HLA DQ2 here.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES

" But antigliadin antibodies lack specificity "

IgG anti-gliadin antibodies have been the best diagnostic marker in

the neurological population we have studied. IgG anti-gliadin

antibodies have a very high sensitivity for CD but they are said to

lack specificity. In the context of a range of mucosal abnormalities

and the concept of potential CD, they may be the only available

immunological marker for the whole range of gluten sensitivity of

which CD is only a part. Further support for our contention comes from

our HLA studies. Within the group of patients with neurological

disease and gluten sensitivity (defined by the presence of

anti-gliadin antibodies) we have found a similar HLA association to

that seen in patients with CD: 70% of patients have the HLA DQ2 (30%

in the general population), 9% have the HLA DQ8, and the remainder

have HLA DQ1. The finding of an additional HLA marker (DQ1) seen in

the remaining 20% of our patients may represent an important

difference between the genetic susceptibility of patients with

neurological presentation to those with gastrointestinal presentation

within the range of gluten sensitivity.

Wanita

July 30, 2005

-

>AFAIK floating stools means high fat content in the stool = poor fat

>digestion. Optimal stools don't float.

Far as I know you're exactly correct.

-

July 30, 2005

Chris-

>Next they will come up with the idea that vegetarians fart more

>because they are detoxing their stored gas, and the fact that

>meat-eaters fart less indicates that they are " storing " their gas and

>are unable to clean their systems out.

You're not so far off as you might think. I've read numerous assertions

from what I'd consider the looney-bin quarter that farting is a sign of health.

-

July 30, 2005

>

>...Can gluten be handled? The prima facie evidence is yes. When Price's

>primitives ferment their grains/breads for two weeks, and we already

>know long ferments DISABLE the problematic aspects of gluten, that

>tells us something.

Actually, all we know is that specific selected sourdough strains can

eliminate the problematic gluten peptides in a 24 hr. ferment, under certain

conditions, when the dough is 30% wheat, according to that one study. The

authors *selected* the strains specifically because they were good for

breaking down gluten peptides.

This doesn't mean that the Swiss rye that Price studied didn't also contain

strains of bacteria that broke down the problematic peptides, but I'm not

sure we can make broad generalizations based on it.

Also, Price's Swiss didn't ferment their *dough* for 2 weeks, oddly, rather

they hung the finished_loaf for 2 weeks. I have no idea what this does to

it, but since the bacteria/enzymes would be dead by then from baking, I

wonder how this could help make the bread more digestible?

But you're right, all this does tell us something...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

“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

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

July 30, 2005

On 7/30/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >For one cite, Suze posted a study about the disabling of the

> >*allergenic* properties of gliadin on the GFCFNN list. She got that

> >study from me. And that wasn't dealing with low gluten rye but rather

> >high gluten modern wheat.

>

> This is true, but I should point out that the bread contained only 30%

> wheat, and the other 70% was " non toxic " (non gluten) grains, IIRC.

>

> Perhaps if they'd used 100% wheat but fermented it for more than 24 hours it

> would've still broken down the problematic peptides?

If we were to extrapolate, all things being equal, then it would

probably take about 4 days to " prepare " 100% wheat.

The problem is you really can't subject dough to that long of a

sourdough fermentation if you expect to have anything that most folks

would recognize as bread. The researchers refer to it as novel but not

really since just about anyone who does any baking knows that acid

weakens gluten anyway, so it wasn't a big jump to try what they did.

No, what was happening with Price's primitives occurred *after* the

baking was done. In rye bread at least, many of the enzymes are very

heat resistant, such that even after the dough gelatinizes, there is

still enzyme activity. Even so, hang bread out and it will still

ferment, even if all the initial enzymes are dead cause other little

creatures will do their thing.

For the life of me though I don't know why anyone would want to use

modern wheat anyway because of many other problems of which breeding

for high gluten is only one. Even if someone came out with a fool

proof process that disabled the gluten in 24 hours, I would still want

to ferment my bread for two weeks. I thinks perhaps Price's primitives

knew something we have yet to scientifically discover (or recover)

about dealing with grains.

July 30, 2005

On 7/30/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >

> >...Can gluten be handled? The prima facie evidence is yes. When Price's

> >primitives ferment their grains/breads for two weeks, and we already

> >know long ferments DISABLE the problematic aspects of gluten, that

> >tells us something.

>

> Actually, all we know is that specific selected sourdough strains can

> eliminate the problematic gluten peptides in a 24 hr. ferment, under certain

> conditions, when the dough is 30% wheat, according to that one study. The

> authors *selected* the strains specifically because they were good for

> breaking down gluten peptides.

But sourdough fermentation breaks down gliadin anyway. IIRC, that was

the gist of the study Heidi referenced a long time ago. I would gather

they did what they did to speed up the process. I will read the study

more closely to see if they reference this although they seem to think

their idea is novel.

> This doesn't mean that the Swiss rye that Price studied didn't also contain

> strains of bacteria that broke down the problematic peptides, but I'm not

> sure we can make broad generalizations based on it.

>

> Also, Price's Swiss didn't ferment their *dough* for 2 weeks, oddly, rather

> they hung the finished_loaf for 2 weeks. I have no idea what this does to

> it, but since the bacteria/enzymes would be dead by then from baking, I

> wonder how this could help make the bread more digestible?

That is because fermentation continues during this process, not unlike

the molding of bread.

> But you're right, all this does tell us something.

Yup, sure does.

July 30, 2005

> Re: Re: Smoking & Health

>

>On 7/30/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>> >

>> >...Can gluten be handled? The prima facie evidence is yes. When Price's

>> >primitives ferment their grains/breads for two weeks, and we already

>> >know long ferments DISABLE the problematic aspects of gluten, that

>> >tells us something.

>>

>> Actually, all we know is that specific selected sourdough strains can

>> eliminate the problematic gluten peptides in a 24 hr. ferment,

>under certain

>> conditions, when the dough is 30% wheat, according to that one study. The

>> authors *selected* the strains specifically because they were good for

>> breaking down gluten peptides.

>

>But sourdough fermentation breaks down gliadin anyway. IIRC, that was

>the gist of the study Heidi referenced a long time ago.

I thought she referenced the same study we're talking about now. IOW, I

think this is the only study on the subject and we're all referrencing it. I

could be wrong, we should ask Heidi when she comes back.

I would gather

>they did what they did to speed up the process.

No, they selected those specific bacteria because they are the ones that

actually break down the gliadin peptides.

I will read the study

>more closely to see if they reference this although they seem to think

>their idea is novel.

I said that, and I might've not used correct verbiage. I do think they think

their study is novel in modern times, which it is, but I do believe they

mentioned that this was a traditional way of break making.

>

>> This doesn't mean that the Swiss rye that Price studied didn't

>also contain

>> strains of bacteria that broke down the problematic peptides, but I'm not

>> sure we can make broad generalizations based on it.

>>

>> Also, Price's Swiss didn't ferment their *dough* for 2 weeks,

>oddly, rather

>> they hung the finished_loaf for 2 weeks. I have no idea what this does to

>> it, but since the bacteria/enzymes would be dead by then from baking, I

>> wonder how this could help make the bread more digestible?

>

>That is because fermentation continues during this process, not unlike

>the molding of bread.

But isn't molding different than bacteria breaking down peptides? And surely

the original bacteria were killed in the cooking. Maybe new bacteria could

get onto the surface of the bread, but what about the interior? How could

that continue to ferment?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

“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