Re: Hi-jacking :) was: POLITICS In Support of Organic and Social Justice Values

[Guest guest]

I recently read Fiber Menace, Gut and

> Psychology

> Syndrome, Schwarzbein, and thye have left me thinking 1)

> veggies are

> not the best way to get vitamins 2) Not as bio available,

> and 3) if

> eaten they should be well cooked.

>

> Anyone care to discuss this?

You should join the AV Skeptics group. There you will find some people,

especially the notorious Bruce K. quite knowledgeable on this issue of

low-fiber, etc:

AV-Skeptics/?yguid=5985103

[Guest guest]

I recently read Fiber Menace, Gut and

> Psychology

> Syndrome, Schwarzbein, and thye have left me thinking 1)

> veggies are

> not the best way to get vitamins 2) Not as bio available,

> and 3) if

> eaten they should be well cooked.

>

> Anyone care to discuss this?

You should join the AV Skeptics group. There you will find some people,

especially the notorious Bruce K. quite knowledgeable on this issue of

low-fiber, etc:

AV-Skeptics/?yguid=5985103

[Guest guest]

--- <beauty4ashesisaiah61@...> wrote:

> I am glad you brought this up! I was hoping tp find some old

> threads or start one regarding raw vs. cooked. I am getting

> confused by the info out there. I recently read Fiber Menace, Gut

> and Psychology Syndrome, Schwarzbein, and they have left me

> thinking 1) veggies are not the best way to get vitamins 2) Not as

> bio available, and 3) if eaten they should be well cooked.

, I definitely believe that veggies are not the best way to get

your nutrients, as you have to eat huge amounts to make up for often

poor nutrient availability. I prefer pastured and wild animal foods,

and this is also what Weston Price found in his studies. He

identified animal seafoods, organ meats, and dairy as the most

nutritious foods for maintaining optimal health.

I was re-reading some of " Eat Fat Lose Fat " today while waiting for an

oil change and state inspection on my car. I like what Sally and

have to say about uncooked versus cooked:

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

How much of your food should be cooked? Proponents of the newly

popular raw food diets claim that cooking ruins vitamins and enzymes,

making food difficulut to digest and therefore contributing to

disease. But all traditional peoples cooked some or most of their

food. Even in the tropices, where people did not have to build fires

to keep warm, they built fires every day to cook. In addition to

cooking grains and legumes, they usually cooked their vegetables, the

very foods some recommend that people eat raw.

Why cook? Cooking helps neutralize many naturally occurring

anti-nutrients and irritants in food, also breaking down indigestible

fiber. Many foods, such as beans and potatoes are indigestible until

cooked.

While cooking - especially at very high temperatures - does destroy

some nutrients, it makes minerals more available, and a surprising

benefit of cooking is the fact that it makes proteins more digestible

by gently unfolding these large molecules so that the digestive

enzymes can latch on and do their work.

Though cooking does destroy enzymes, many foods we cook do not have

many enzymes to start with. Consuming lacto-fermented condiments and

beverages will more than compensate for enzymes lost in cooking.

Interestingly, all traditional cultures consumed at least some of

their animal food raw. Cooking destroys vitamin B6, derived from

animal foods, and greatly reduces milk's nutrients. That is why we've

included several raw meat and fish dishes in this book. Note: It's

important to freeze meat that will be eaten raw for 14 days before

using, to ensure that parasites are destroyed. Fish to be eaten raw

is marinated in an acidic medium, equally effective for getting rid of

parasites.

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

I'm not sure the acid is enough to kill some parasites, but that's

another story (that was discussed here a while back).

I find that most raw vegetables don't settle well in my stomach,

whereas cooked is not a problem. I've switched to eating steaks rare,

but I still cook ground meat well, since it is more easily

contaminated. I drink raw milk, cream, and kefir, and eat raw eggs,

usually just the yolks, but sometimes the whites too.

Here's what I had for dinner a couple of nights ago:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oz4caster/3142310981/

It was all cooked, but tasted great and went down well.

Here's what I usually have for breakfast, it's all raw:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oz4caster/sets/72157606791029734/

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

This is my first post here, but I've been a long time traditional

foods eater.

I've found that in my family we feel our best when eating about 65%

raw or fermented. To reach that goal, we rely heavily on raw milk, raw

eggs, fermented beverages and condiments, some raw meats, and

fermented breads and cheeses. I try to make sure all our snacks are

raw fruits, veggies, or nuts. And I try to make sure we have at least

one raw fruit or vegetable with every meal.

That said, I still feel like we cook WAY more than your average Raw

Foodist would advocated cooking. The main course for both lunch and

dinner in our home is usually cooked.

I honestly believe, however, that there's no one-size-fits-all

proportion of raw/fermented foods vs. cooked foods for the average

person. I think it may really depend on your genetic makeup. We're

mostly descended from pastoral European stock, so we rely heavily on

raw dairy. Anyhow, it's just a theory of mine, and as of now I don't

have any science to back it up.

Cheers,

M

www.foodrenegade.com

[Guest guest]

Thanks for sharing your opinion on it. I have not read EFLF

yet. Another still on my list. Thanks for posting that. My NT

quest is one of the first to start to change my mind about raw being

best once i started reading about all the anti nutrients that need to

be neutralized by either cooking or fermenting. As for nutrients and

being mroe bioavailable in animal foods that is one thing Gut and

Psychology drove home for me. I did find my digestion seemed ot get

worse on her restoring diet though. Seemed it was harder for foods

to digest and it got me thinking again about cooked vs. raw. I

wonder about body types too and ancestors, if perhaps that would make

a difference in what we should be eating, if our bodies handle things

differently because of genetics etc.

Checking out your links - brkfst and dinner.

Thanks

--- In , " " <oz4caster@...>

wrote:

>

> , I definitely believe that veggies are not the best way to get

> your nutrients, as you have to eat huge amounts to make up for often

> poor nutrient availability. I prefer pastured and wild animal

foods,

> and this is also what Weston Price found in his studies. He

> identified animal seafoods, organ meats, and dairy as the most

> nutritious foods for maintaining optimal health.

>

> I was re-reading some of " Eat Fat Lose Fat " today while waiting for

an

[Guest guest]

eeek. another group thanks i will check it out!

julia

--- In , Seay <entheogens@...>

wrote:

>

> You should join the AV Skeptics group. There you will find some

people, especially the notorious Bruce K. quite knowledgeable on this

issue of low-fiber, etc:

> AV-Skeptics/?yguid=5985103

>

[Guest guest]

I haven't read those specific books, but from what I've studied of TCM food

reccomendations, I have come to the same conclusion (veggies should be

cooked) - at least for most people in the US, as they tend to be cold and

damp and that combo does not digest any raw food well. Certain people will

do okay on them though - they just aren't the majority.

To me, the focus shouldn't be on raw vs cooked though. Some nutrients, like

B1 and B6 for example, are most available in raw foods. All diets should

contain them therefore all diets should contain some portion of raw foods.

HOWEVER, to say one needs 50% or 75% or even 100% raw foods without regard

for which foods provide adequate amounts of the raw nutrients can be a

disaster... For the most part, if you endulge in raw milk and raw cheese

and a bit of raw seafood, the requirements you have for raw nutrients are

met. Enzymes can be obtained with fruits like pineapple and papaya, which

make an excellent chutney. So from a nutritional standpoint, no raw

vegetables are needed (just dairy, seafood and a dash of fruit).

As for fiber... the ideal microflora in the human intestine thrives on the

galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) found most commonly in milk. Veggies tend to

have fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) instead of GOS (even though some do have

GOS). Same goes for non-OS fibers, some support ideal microbe growth

whereas others don't. So the problem is not necessarily high fiber or low

fiber vegetables, it is getting the right fiber. Unfortunately there isn't

as much data about there about what kind of fiber is present in which

vegetables, so the easier approach is to go low fiber.

Personally, I'm beginning to delve into herbs. They're very nutrient dense,

contain little to no calories, and several of them have very positive

amounts of oligosaccharides. Right now I'm experimenting with a tea blended

from Red Raspberry Leaves, Nettle Leaves and Marshmallow Root - it is

amazingly tasty, very similar to plain black tea, and even DH will drink it!

-Lana

" There is nothing more useful than sun and salt. " - Latin proverb

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:41 PM, <beauty4ashesisaiah61@...>wrote:

>

> Anyone care to discuss this? I thought raw was best from things i have

> read over the yrs, but these books left me wondering. Also i can't

> site which one left me scratching where. It was the over all

> impression and feelings they left me with. That we should be more

> protein and fat heavy (traditional), low fiber veggies that are well

> cooked.

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- <beauty4ashesisaiah61@...> wrote:

> As for nutrients and being mroe bioavailable in animal foods that

> is one thing Gut and Psychology drove home for me. I did find my

> digestion seemed to get worse on her restoring diet though. Seemed

> it was harder for foods to digest and it got me thinking again

> about cooked vs. raw. I wonder about body types too and ancestors,

> if perhaps that would make a difference in what we should be

> eating, if our bodies handle things differently because of genetics

> etc.

,

I definitely believe that genetics, genetic expression, and general

health status do have very important bearings on which foods are best

for an individual. For instance, it appears that many people have

issues from gluten, ranging from mild to severe. I doubt that it's

all genetics, though genetics may play a role, especially in the

severe cases. Here's an interesting blog about gluten by Stephan:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/gluten-sensitivity-celiac-disease-\

is.html

My suspicion is that digestive health is often a critical issue behind

many health problems. However, there are many kinds of digestive

problems, so it's not always easy to determine what they are. For

instance, simple lack of proper stomach acidity could potentially

drive a host of problems related to improper protein digestion. Also,

damage to the mucosal lining of the gut can be caused by a variety of

sources, including OTC drugs and improper diet, and will certainly

lead to problems.

That said, there are some who are adamantly against the GAPS

treatment. Emma Davies, who used to post here a while back, quit

WAPF over the issue and you can read what she has to say about it here:

http://blog.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.info/2008/04/20/gaps-a-pile-of/

The GAPS diet apparently does miracles for some people, as reported by

Dr Cowan in his recent newsletter (scroll down to " One Patient's

Experience With Ulcerative Colitis and the Gaps " ):

http://fourfoldhealing.com/category/fourfold-newsletter/

On the other hand, I think Emma is right that people who are sensitive

to salicylates and amines will fail miserably on GAPS.

There is no one diet that fits all for optimal health

[Guest guest]

,

> That said, there are some who are adamantly against the GAPS

> treatment. Emma Davies, who used to post here a while back, quit

> WAPF over the issue and you can read what she has to say about it here:

> http://blog.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.info/2008/04/20/gaps-a-pile-of/

Adamant might be an understatement:

" Dr. Natasha -McBride, quacktitioner extraordinaire and author

of Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS) believes that salicylates and

SLAs are 'high in antioxidants' and 'help the body to detox'.

Apparently ADHD and other behavioural symptoms are the result of the

'detox' which is of course 'good for you'. She recommends a

gluten-free, casein-free, high salicylate/amine/glutamate diet to

'cure' autism and ADHD.

" I came across a few blog posts from some poor soul who has been duped

into doing GAPS by the bloody idiots at the Weston A. Price Foundation

for various symptoms of ill health that rightly ought to be treated

with a hospital monitored failsafe elimination diet. "

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

I'd have to say that Emma, more than many, seems to be blissfully

unaware of your point that " no one diet fits all for optimal health. "

Man, was she ever under my skin for a while. Talk about preachy, she

just wouldn't understand that, just because failsafe worked so well

for her, that everyone is not automatically supposed to join the

church of failsafe. It was just annoying.

Mike

>

> On the other hand, I think Emma is right that people who are sensitive

> to salicylates and amines will fail miserably on GAPS.

>

> There is no one diet that fits all for optimal health

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Adamant might be an understatement

, OK, how about " furiously rants " instead of " adamant " ?

I was just trying to be polite, but I do somewhat agree with Emma that

GAPS is over-rated and that " detox reactions " may not necessarily be

detox, but rather toxic reactions caused by food chemicals in some

cases. I suspect that it's primarily the GFCF part of GAPS that

benefits some who try it. But some will also likely have problems

with the food chemicals you get in GAPS too. I think it's important

to recognize that likelihood and make adaptations to address it when

it happens.

Seems like there's never any easy answers once damage has already been

done, by whatever the cause. And there's so many kinds of damage that

can occur from a variety of causes, like vaccines, prescription

medications, OTC medications, amalgams, food additives, poor diet,

illness, and even natural food chemicals (salicylates, amines, grain

lectins etc). Or even all of the above and lots more!

It's also unfortunate that most people don't bother to really learn

about health until they already have serious health problems. They

seem to expect modern medicine to rescue them with magic pills.

Modern medicine is more than happy to oblige

[Guest guest]

Mike,

SO true.

Not to mention that anyone who doesn't respond to failsafe the way she

expects them to is an " addict " and too high to know what is good for them.

Although, I have to agree with her about GAPS. I'm not fond of what I've

read about the GAPS diet and haven't been since it came out. Certainly not

for the same reasons though. I agree with the principle that microflora are

important, even vital, I just feel GAPS goes about it completely the wrong

way (my biggest beef is that probiotic supplementation is a patch, not a

cure - gut balance existed before microbes were put into bottles and

marketed as a panacea).

-Lana

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:29 AM, michael g <tropical@...> wrote:

> I'd have to say that Emma, more than many, seems to be blissfully

> unaware of your point that " no one diet fits all for optimal health. "

> Man, was she ever under my skin for a while. Talk about preachy, she

> just wouldn't understand that, just because failsafe worked so well

> for her, that everyone is not automatically supposed to join the

> church of failsafe. It was just annoying.

>

> Mike

[Guest guest]

--- Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> I'm not fond of what I've read about the GAPS diet and haven't been

> since it came out. Certainly not for the same reasons though. I

> agree with the principle that microflora are important, even vital,

> I just feel GAPS goes about it completely the wrong way (my biggest

> beef is that probiotic supplementation is a patch, not a cure - gut

> balance existed before microbes were put into bottles and marketed

> as a panacea).

Lana, I agree that microflora are important to our overall health and

that we shouldn't have to take probiotic pills for optimal microflora.

To me it's analogous to taking refined vitamins. We should be able

to get everything we need for optimal health from our food.

And yes, I realize it's easy to criticize, but much more difficult to

propose a better solution - as to which foods for which problems

[Guest guest]

Mike,

> I'd have to say that Emma, more than many, seems to be blissfully

> unaware of your point that " no one diet fits all for optimal health. "

> Man, was she ever under my skin for a while. Talk about preachy, she

> just wouldn't understand that, just because failsafe worked so well

> for her, that everyone is not automatically supposed to join the

> church of failsafe. It was just annoying.

I only had a very limited interaction with her when she was on NN,

before she ditched the list because of the homosexuality thread, so I

know very little about her except what has been reported here and what

I have read at her website and blog. I must say I had a good chuckle

when described her as being " adamant. " I had read that post

awhile ago and I would say she was bloody well riled up, LOL!.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

,

> , OK, how about " furiously rants " instead of " adamant " ?

LOL! Works for me <bwg>

> I was just trying to be polite, but I do somewhat agree with Emma that

> GAPS is over-rated and that " detox reactions " may not necessarily be

> detox, but rather toxic reactions caused by food chemicals in some

> cases. I suspect that it's primarily the GFCF part of GAPS that

> benefits some who try it. But some will also likely have problems

> with the food chemicals you get in GAPS too. I think it's important

> to recognize that likelihood and make adaptations to address it when

> it happens.

Alright, I have heard from a few people that GAPS isn't all it is

cracked up to be, and yet the WAPF seems to be strongly behind it.

Perhaps you or someone on the list could summarize why there seems to

be a divide occurring as I have remained blissfully unaware of

McBride's approach despite her seemingly prominent presence in WAPF

circles.

> Seems like there's never any easy answers once damage has already been

> done, by whatever the cause. And there's so many kinds of damage that

> can occur from a variety of causes, like vaccines, prescription

> medications, OTC medications, amalgams, food additives, poor diet,

> illness, and even natural food chemicals (salicylates, amines, grain

> lectins etc). Or even all of the above and lots more!

Well this is why I am a big fan of " elimination diets " and have been

since I was first introduced to WAP style eating back in my 20's. For

some that might mean traditional fasting, for others it may include

the milk cure, or the meat cure (that is my therapeutic name for the

zero carb approach) or some form of Failsafe. I personally think the

first three are easier and that you can heal damage more completely

and faster than Failsafe but whatever works (and obviously not

everyone can do dairy) for each individual, and admittedly I have

little personal experience with Failsafe other than what I have read

and heard from others.

At any rate elimination (at least with the first three mentioned

above) gives you the luxury of healing and also usually makes the

reaction to problematic foods quite obvious when re-introduced. For

example when I recently ended the nativity fast my body was humming

along just fine on raw dairy (and ghee) and cooked and raw meat. One

night I decided to get some Fage yogurt. Tasty stuff that I had been

eating for awhile months before based on some recommendations from

this list with no apparent problems. Not long thereafter I had a

really bad stomach ache. Now I have generally always had a problem

with cooked dairy, but over the years I kind of ignored it and really

had no overt symptoms. After that little episode I said " no more "

unless its ghee, which I handle just fine.

> It's also unfortunate that most people don't bother to really learn

> about health until they already have serious health problems. They

> seem to expect modern medicine to rescue them with magic pills.

How many of us really jump into something or finally face up to

something that is outside of our natural interests unless we are

confronted with a problem? I think that is only human nature. Even

then, some people still refuse to deal with it, regardless of the

subject or discipline, even if its their own life at stake.

> Modern medicine is more than happy to oblige

Indeed.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I'm still working on that. Although, I've been pretty busy with

the little one - she's just figured out how to pull herself up to standing

and is starting to cruise. She's far more mobile than I ever expected her

to be at 6 months and it makes it difficult to sit down and think, much less

write.

-Lana

> And yes, I realize it's easy to criticize, but much more difficult to

> propose a better solution - as to which foods for which problems

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly! The basic concepts behind the reasoning for it are right

but the method to restore the balance seems a little off. I've been

excited about the diet but at the same time not telling many people

because I think the way she tells people to fix the problem is overly

difficult and unnecessary. Make some kimchi and eat it, stop eating

processed foods, etc. and a few more things and I believe it should

fall into place. We were built to be healthy - it's not like we're

forcing an unnatural systemic change. Of course, vaccines, mercury,

etc. make it harder.

>

> > I'd have to say that Emma, more than many, seems to be blissfully

> > unaware of your point that " no one diet fits all for optimal

health. "

> > Man, was she ever under my skin for a while. Talk about

preachy, she

> > just wouldn't understand that, just because failsafe worked so

well

> > for her, that everyone is not automatically supposed to join the

> > church of failsafe. It was just annoying.

> >

> > Mike

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Lana-

> I just feel GAPS goes about it completely the wrong

> way (my biggest beef is that probiotic supplementation is a patch,

> not a

> cure - gut balance existed before microbes were put into bottles and

> marketed as a panacea).

Sure, but gut balance developed and existed under conditions that just

don't really obtain any more. People hadn't been exposed to hordes of

new pollutants, many of which exert all sorts of effects on our bodies

and the microbes within. People hadn't deranged their gut ecologies

in the first place and as a result didn't need any kind of

interventional measures. People hadn't all destroyed their food

supplies. And so on.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> Lana, I agree that microflora are important to our overall health and

> that we shouldn't have to take probiotic pills for optimal microflora.

> To me it's analogous to taking refined vitamins. We should be able

> to get everything we need for optimal health from our food.

" Should " and " can " are very different things, unfortunately, and while

I'm dubious of most probiotic supplements, including -

McBride's, I think supplementation is probably very useful for people

who can't tolerate even highly-fermented kefir or yoghurt.

-

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Alright, I have heard from a few people that GAPS isn't all it is

> cracked up to be, and yet the WAPF seems to be strongly behind it.

> Perhaps you or someone on the list could summarize why there seems

> to be a divide occurring as I have remained blissfully unaware of

> McBride's approach despite her seemingly prominent presence in WAPF

> circles.

,

Ann Marie described the GAPS diet in this NN post last summer:

/message/102914

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

Eliminate all grains and starches (all potatoes, sugars -- except

honey -- honey is legal) from your diet, stay off of dairy for a while

too. Consume as much bone broth as you can -- at least a cup with

every meal. And eat plenty of eggs, fish, meats, and non-starchy

veggies (cooked or fermented), and take your cod liver oil.

The idea is to eliminate all complex sugars and to only eat things

that are easy to digest, like eggs and meats and cooked and fermented

vegetables (you can slowly introduce raw veggies as you heal). Bone

broth is also crucial to help heal the gut.

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

I haven't read the book, so this is about as much as I know about it,

along with the PDF that Ann Marie referenced in the above message:

http://mindd.org/serendipity/uploads/pdf/GAPSArticle-McBride.pdf

I do believe disbiosys is at the root of many health problems, but I'm

not convinced that foods potentially high in amines (fermented foods

and non-fresh meats) and natural pesticides (most raw vegetables) are

ideal for treating disbiosys.

Stephan just made a great post on digestive problems, postulating that

hydrogen gas produced by fermentation in the small intestine from

consumption of fructose, resistant starches, and/or wheat, feeds H

pylori in the stomach, which in turn lowers stomach acidity, which in

turn feeds the disbiosys.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/02/sugar-hydrogen-bacteria-and.html

> Well this is why I am a big fan of " elimination diets " and have been

> since I was first introduced to WAP style eating back in my 20's.

> For some that might mean traditional fasting, for others it may

> include the milk cure, or the meat cure (that is my therapeutic

> name for the zero carb approach) or some form of Failsafe.

Yes, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of the milk cure as an

elimination diet, but done properly with raw milk from pastured

heritage cows, it should be a very good one for most people, except

for those with weak stomach acid in conjunction with casein allergy.

I can see how fasting would work for most people with food allergies,

but might be problematic for people who are in a weakened condition.

I also suspect most people would rather try the other options as

opposed to fasting. I'm not familiar with the meat cure, but to work

as an elimination diet, I would expect you would have to eat fresh

uncooked meat or meat that was quickly frozen when first processed, in

order to minimize glycated proteins and amines (HCA) from cooking and

amines from bacterial fermentation that might affect some people.

> I personally think the

> first three are easier and that you can heal damage more completely

> and faster than Failsafe but whatever works (and obviously not

> everyone can do dairy) for each individual, and admittedly I have

> little personal experience with Failsafe other than what I have read

> and heard from others.

I haven't tried any of them.

> At any rate elimination (at least with the first three mentioned

> above) gives you the luxury of healing and also usually makes the

> reaction to problematic foods quite obvious when re-introduced.

I don't think fasting would be appropriate for someone in a weakened

condition. The body would have to feed on itself. Otherwise, that

makes sense.

> For

> example when I recently ended the nativity fast my body was humming

> along just fine on raw dairy (and ghee) and cooked and raw meat. One

> night I decided to get some Fage yogurt. Tasty stuff that I had been

> eating for awhile months before based on some recommendations from

> this list with no apparent problems. Not long thereafter I had a

> really bad stomach ache. Now I have generally always had a problem

> with cooked dairy, but over the years I kind of ignored it and

> really had no overt symptoms. After that little episode I said " no

> more " unless its ghee, which I handle just fine.

Maybe the stomach ache after the yogurt was caused by diluting your

stomach acid with too many spirits after the meal

> How many of us really jump into something or finally face up to

> something that is outside of our natural interests unless we are

> confronted with a problem? I think that is only human nature.

I definitely agree. I tend to be that way myself.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

> Even then, some people still refuse to deal with it, regardless of

> the subject or discipline, even if its their own life at stake.

Yes, sad, but true.

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> " Should " and " can " are very different things, unfortunately, and

> while I'm dubious of most probiotic supplements, including

> -McBride's, I think supplementation is probably very useful

> for people who can't tolerate even highly-fermented kefir or

> yoghurt.

, yes I agree that some probiotic supplements are likely to

benefit some people with disbiosys, but may not be optimal, and may

not work properly without other dietary measures. Though I'm not sure

we know enough about the potentially very complicated gut flora to

know yet what is optimal in many cases. It is interesting nonetheless.

I was just reading Barry Groves post about breast cancer screening

that may benefit one person out of 2000 screened over ten years, but

may also send 10 people to cancer treatment that don't need it and

yield false positives that scare another 200.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/jan27_2/b86

Of course, for that one person to benefit, we have to assume the

treatment was successful - which may be a big if.

Taking probiotic and/or nutritional supplements may follow a similar

pattern. Some people will benefit, some will waste their money, and

some will suffer from making the wrong choices.

[Guest guest]

--- Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> Although, I've been pretty busy with the little one - she's just

> figured out how to pull herself up to standing and is starting to

> cruise. She's far more mobile than I ever expected her to be at 6

> months and it makes it difficult to sit down and think, much less

> write.

Lana, that's a good and hopefully fun distraction! Sounds like she'll

be walking early. Then you'll really be distracted

[Guest guest]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:08 PM, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> Lana, that's a good and hopefully fun distraction! Sounds like she'll

> be walking early. Then you'll really be distracted

>

>

>

It really is fun, albeit exhausting. I'm really impressed with her

intelligence (hmm, gestational and pre-pregnancy fish egg obsession anyone?)

and VERY proud, but I almost wish she's stop advancing so fast so I can

spend more time enjoying each stage of development. I mean, we had only

just gotten to sitting up (on her own/without being sat up) just a few days

prior to the standing, and now standing is all she wants to do.

Well, that and eat, which I do so enjoy. I actually had some lady go on a

rant to me today about how I'm " misinformed " that I can exclusively

breastfeed, she made many implications that I was malnourishing Sam because

" babies can't live on milk alone, they need food " . It is the first time

I've ever had someone so pro-early-intro-of-solids seem to think that their

opinion would actually change my mind. Gee, and all that after her

compliments on how " healthy " Sam looked. In some ways, I hope she never

weans... I love the time we have together.

That, and when she sleeps on my lap/arms, as she is right now.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:20 AM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Exactly! The basic concepts behind the reasoning for it are right

> but the method to restore the balance seems a little off. I've been

> excited about the diet but at the same time not telling many people

> because I think the way she tells people to fix the problem is overly

> difficult and unnecessary. Make some kimchi and eat it, stop eating

> processed foods, etc. and a few more things and I believe it should

> fall into place. We were built to be healthy - it's not like we're

> forcing an unnatural systemic change. Of course, vaccines, mercury,

> etc. make it harder.

I do believe some of what she suggests is excessively complex, but on the

other hand, it really isn't as simple as just eating ferments and detoxing.

Everyone seems so focused on the probiotics that we seem to forget that they

need to eat too! One of the conclusions I've come to is that prebiotics are

more important than probiotics. It is a lot like Bechamp vs. Pasteur in

terms of germ theory - prebiotics (and organic acids) provide the

environment for probiotics, and if you offer them the right food they will

come (think wild fermentation). You can eat as many probiotic pills as you

like but if you don't feed them they'll never stay. The hardest part is

determining which microbes are lacking and what they want to eat - something

I'm trying to get down, but there just isn't as much research out there as

I'd like.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:04 AM, carolyn_graff <zgraff@...> wrote:

> Lana,

> what else don't you like about GAPS? what do you feel is the right way to

> improve the

> microflora?

I don't like that GAPS is just one diet. Due to the nature of microbial

succession and resultantly, the organic acids present in the colon, no one

diet is going to rebalance everyone.

There are 3 organic acids often talked about in gut balance - but only one

tends to be focused on here (and that is lactic acid). The other two,

butyric acid and acetic acid, also play important roles. There are several

others that play a role in microbial succession, but right now my focus has

been on these 3 since there seems to be the most data available about them.

It seems to me that most people can be subdivided into the 3 groups, but the

catch is that some do well producing more of that organic acid, whereas

others do best consuming large amounts of that organic acid in order to

rate-limit its production in the gut itself (effectively making 6 groups).

Someone who would benefit from producing more butyric acid would do well on

a diet high in buttermilk, butter, whole wheat and brown rice (I'm not sure

if rye is butyrate producing). So someone in need of butyrate would not

likely do well on GAPS. OTOH, one in need of enough butyrate to stop gut

production of it would do better to skip the grains and eat lots of butter,

older buttermilk, cheeses with similar fragrance to buttermilk (often

described as " old shoe " if you know what I mean), old kefir and nuku bran

pickles.

Whereas someone who would benefit from rate-limiting lactic acid would

benefit from the long fermented yogurt known to SCD, but do terribly on the

acetic acid (vinegar) ferments like kombucha since acetic acid helps lactic

acid producing bacteria grow... But then there's yet someone else who would

benefit from producing more lactic acid would do fantastically on Kombucha,

fresh milk and young milk ferments.

And thus is where I am, trying to get a comprehensive list of the foods that

support production of, or contain significant amounts of these 3 organic

acids. And of course, this is all independent of correcting poor digestion

(and acknowledging that absorbtion has its limits, especially with things

like fructose, whose absorbtion is highly limited so it is pretty easy to

overeat and resultantly accidentally allow your microbes to eat). But that

is another issue entirely, and must be seen to before trying to rebalance

the gut.

So, going back to haecklers: it is more important to eat ferments

appropriate to your diet than it is to eat just any ferments. If you diet

is rich in grains, sourdough is far more appropriate than kimchee - likewise

if your diet is rich in milk, a dairy based ferment is likely to be best for

you. This is pairing the appropriate microbes (infitinely more diverse and

in balance than the ones that come in a bottle) with their natural food

sources, allowing them to actually colonize the gut (instead of briefly

vacationing, sometimes long enough to offset the pre-existing balance but

not long enough to actually do any real good). And not just that, but the

age of the ferment is important as to which organic acids it will help

rate-limit. Some people will do best with all of their food fermented,

while others will do better with the condiment-style approach (where you eat

a little bit of ferment with larger amounts of non-fermented foods).

Everything you eat influences your balance, or lack thereof.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

> Lana-

>

> Sure, but gut balance developed and existed under conditions that just

> don't really obtain any more. People hadn't been exposed to hordes of

> new pollutants, many of which exert all sorts of effects on our bodies

> and the microbes within. People hadn't deranged their gut ecologies

> in the first place and as a result didn't need any kind of

> interventional measures. People hadn't all destroyed their food

> supplies. And so on.

>

> -

>

I think part of the problem is that people have destroyed their food

supplies... but also that they have widened their variety excessively,

providing a highly irregular food source for their microbes, and resultantly

keeping their guts in a constant state of flux. Sure, toxins do play a

part, but with avoiding processed foods and partaking in a diet with

adequate glycine (and here is where I like GAPS - the broth emphasis, both

from a digestive and detox standpoint) and taurine will help combat that.

You can reach balance in spite of toxins - but not while eating

inconsistently.

And with that I will stop for now. Just so everyone knows I've been having

computer problems and may not be back to respond to this thread as soon as

I'd like. So please don't think I'm ignoring any of you, just that the

liklihood of me getting the chance to fix my computer during my already busy

days isn't very high.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

,

> Yes, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of the milk cure as an

> elimination diet, but done properly with raw milk from pastured

> heritage cows, it should be a very good one for most people, except

> for those with weak stomach acid in conjunction with casein allergy.

While definitely a fast of sorts, it is much more psychologically

comfortable for people who can tolerate milk. You still can get all

the symptoms of a traditional fast on liquids, but in the early

stages, despite detox, it is usually easier to maintain.

> I can see how fasting would work for most people with food allergies,

> but might be problematic for people who are in a weakened condition.

Depends on what you mean by " weakened condition. " While there are

certainly some conditions that are contraindicated for fasting, the

primary use of liquid fasting historically has not been for allergies,

but for people who have various " weakened conditions. "

> I also suspect most people would rather try the other options as

> opposed to fasting.

Yeah, but that is a highly individual thing. You still can have a

tough first few days, but once beyond that, its all about the same,

unless you are fasting only on water. The psychological adjustment can

take longer and the detoxing can be much more aggressive with water

alone.

> I'm not familiar with the meat cure, but to work

> as an elimination diet, I would expect you would have to eat fresh

> uncooked meat or meat that was quickly frozen when first processed, in

> order to minimize glycated proteins and amines (HCA) from cooking and

> amines from bacterial fermentation that might affect some people.

If you were sensitive to those things, yes, otherwise meat, raw or

cooked, older or fresh would be fine. We have Stefansson's Bellevue

Study as an excellent reference.

> I don't think fasting would be appropriate for someone in a weakened

> condition. The body would have to feed on itself. Otherwise, that

> makes sense.

Well as I mentioned earlier that is precisely how fasting (liquid) has

normally been used. When sick (weakened), animals fast. When the body

begins to feed on itself, that is starvation, not fasting.

>> For

>> example when I recently ended the nativity fast my body was humming

>> along just fine on raw dairy (and ghee) and cooked and raw meat. One

>> night I decided to get some Fage yogurt. Tasty stuff that I had been

>> eating for awhile months before based on some recommendations from

>> this list with no apparent problems. Not long thereafter I had a

>> really bad stomach ache. Now I have generally always had a problem

>> with cooked dairy, but over the years I kind of ignored it and

>> really had no overt symptoms. After that little episode I said " no

>> more " unless its ghee, which I handle just fine.

>

> Maybe the stomach ache after the yogurt was caused by diluting your

> stomach acid with too many spirits after the meal

Nope, must be very judicious with alcohol after a fast. The

upregulation cycle is highly sensitive. Trust me, I know :-)

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > I also suspect most people would rather try the other options as

> > opposed to fasting.

>

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Yeah, but that is a highly individual thing. You still can have a

> tough first few days, but once beyond that, its all about the same,

> unless you are fasting only on water. The psychological adjustment

> can take longer and the detoxing can be much more aggressive with

> water alone.

, I would guess that the body should do a better job of

detoxing when it had a good supply of vital nutrients as with the milk

cure, than when it is forced to feed on itself as with the water fast.

> If you were sensitive to those things, yes, otherwise meat, raw or

> cooked, older or fresh would be fine. We have Stefansson's Bellevue

> Study as an excellent reference.

I'm not familiar with the Bellevue Study. Did they include organ

meats and how long did the meat fast run?