Re: raw fat binding toxins, was Got organs and glands!!!

May 17, 2002

At 08:35 PM 5/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>*****did he say that? i must've missed it. mark, can you describe this

>mechanism in a biochemical sense? how does raw fat bind to toxins? it's not

>exactly 'raw' anymore after it's been digested and absorbed in it's

>constituent components, is it? i i mean it's just a bunch of fatty acid

>molecules and the glycerol backbone being taken apart and put back together

>in various new forms by the time they get *in* to the body (beyond the

>intestinal wall). so, how does it bind to toxins and what does it do with

>them once bound?

Sorry - I do not know the mechanism of this. I have experienced the

" truth " of it in my own body and I have read and heard that this does

happen. For me joint pains, which I've always felt were due to toxins,

disappear when I concentrate on eating good, raw fats and reappear when I

stop the fats. Mobility and flexibility are highest in the joints when I

eat the fats and worst when I don't eat them. Having eaten a raw diet for

over 2 years I feel that the binding to toxins does occur - and there are

others on the same diet that report the same effect and beliefs. So

empirically it works.

But I do not know if it has been proven scientifically. Of course the fats

cannot be eaten cooked hence the " raw " requirement. One source of this

information is the Nutritionist named Aajonus Vonderplanitz who wrote " We

Want To Live " . I suspect that Aajonus has studied this more in a

biochemical sense, as you say. The simplistic explanation is that the

toxins are bound to the fats and some of these fats are deposited in the

tissues - usually away from organs and joints. During a weight loss phase

of his generally recommend diet of raw foods these fats and toxins are

burned up and detoxified by the liver and excreted. In my opinion the

liver eventually bears the brunt of the toxins in some fashion so the diet

is geared toward " feeding " the liver and making sure it can function

well. Maybe someone else might know more details about this? There may be

some " buried " explanations in the archives of the " live-food " or

" primaldiet " lists - also on .

Regards,

-=mark=-

May 17, 2002

>>>>But I do not know if it has been proven scientifically. Of course the

fats

cannot be eaten cooked hence the " raw " requirement. One source of this

information is the Nutritionist named Aajonus Vonderplanitz who wrote " We

Want To Live " .

*******yes, i know he wrote this. i just wish he would've explained how this

works.

>>>>uspect that Aajonus has studied this more in a

biochemical sense, as you say. The simplistic explanation is that the

toxins are bound to the fats and some of these fats are deposited in the

tissues - usually away from organs and joints.

****maybe. but there are so many variables that it seems like a bit of a

guessing game to me unless someone can explain exactly how it works. toxins

and xenobiotics (foreign compounds) can often act like free radicals

damaging tissue, so for example the fat soluble vit e acts as an antixidant

and can prevent damage to joints as well. i also wonder, since fat is part

of a whole food unless we separate it out (such as butter) and eat it plain,

if there aren't some other elements of the fatty foods folks are eating that

reduce joint pain. i'm specifically thinking of selenium, which is a

catalyst for superoxide dismutase which quenches the superoxide radical. i

think the superoxide radical is particularly associated with joint pain. i

don't know...this is all speculation, but illustrates that there are a

number of variables that could account for reduced joint pain when (raw?)

fat intake is increased. which is why i'd like an explanation of that fat

binding to toxins theory to see if it accounts for all other variables.

>>>>>During a weight loss phase

of his generally recommend diet of raw foods these fats and toxins are

burned up and detoxified by the liver and excreted. In my opinion the

liver eventually bears the brunt of the toxins in some fashion

*****i'm pretty sure it doesn't bear the brunt of stored fat-soluble toxins

when you sweat. for example when you do a suana, i think the fat-soluble

toxins are actually excreted through the skin. i tend to think lots of

toxins stored in fat may be a recent result of sedentary lifestyles.

>>>>>so the diet

is geared toward " feeding " the liver and making sure it can function

well.

****I believe that's a good thing to do periodically no matter your health

status since a proper funtioning liver is key to good health. thanks for

explaining as much as you know about the fat binding toxins theory

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

May 17, 2002

--snip--

> *****did he say that? i must've missed it. mark, can you describe

this

> mechanism in a biochemical sense? how does raw fat bind to toxins?

it's not

> exactly 'raw' anymore after it's been digested and absorbed in it's

> constituent components, is it? i i mean it's just a bunch of fatty

acid

> molecules and the glycerol backbone being taken apart and put back

together

> in various new forms by the time they get *in* to the body (beyond

the

> intestinal wall). so, how does it bind to toxins and what does it do

with

> them once bound?

I might try to shed some light on this. In ayurvedic medicine, ghee

is used in " oleation therapy " to scavenge toxins " ama " for removal

from the body during purgation. The idea is that many toxins are

indeed fat soluble. If they are freely circulating and causing

symptoms, raising the lipid percentage in blood, lymph and tissues

will provide a substrate for binding. Then through massage and

purging the lipid/toxin complexes are removed. If purging is not

done, they can safely be stored away from tissues in fat cells.

A reason Aajonus prefers raw fats is his contention that heated fats

become " radicalized, " meaning they lose their natural surface charge

properties. This may make them more difficult to break down into free

fatty acids. It may also alter the properties of the free fatty acids

such that they make up lipids (when recombined) that are stiffer and

require more water to make flexible. Hence, water retention and

" jiggly " fat stores. None if this is referenced, but I feel a

significant difference between cooked fat (when I did NT a year ago

for 6 months after having been a vegetarian for 17 years) and the raw

fat which I've been eating for nine months. Incidentally, dairy fat

and coconut fat (raw) are highly recommended since they are largely

made up of short and medium chain fatty acids for easier metabolism.

Portland, OR

May 17, 2002

Mark wrote:

> >>>>uspect that Aajonus has studied this more in a

> > biochemical sense, as you say. The simplistic explanation is

> > that the toxins are bound to the fats and some of these fats are

> > deposited in the tissues - usually away from organs and joints.

Suze responded:

> ****maybe. but there are so many variables that it seems like a bit

> of a guessing game to me unless someone can explain exactly how it

> works. toxins and xenobiotics (foreign compounds) can often act

> like free radicals damaging tissue, so for example the fat soluble

> vit e acts as an antixidant and can prevent damage to joints as

> well. i also wonder, since fat is part of a whole food unless we

> separate it out (such as butter) and eat it plain, if there aren't

> some other elements of the fatty foods folks are eating that

> reduce joint pain. i'm specifically thinking of selenium, which is a

> catalyst for superoxide dismutase which quenches the superoxide

> radical. i think the superoxide radical is particularly associated

> with joint pain. i don't know...this is all speculation, but

> illustrates that there are a number of variables that could account

> for reduced joint pain when (raw?) fat intake is increased. which

> is why i'd like an explanation of that fat binding to toxins theory

> to see if it accounts for all other variables.

Suze,

Depending on the type of fat being consumed raw, another theoretical

mechanism for the reduced joint pain might be the presence of the

undamaged n-3 and n-6 EFAs...especially the n-3 EFAs since they're

even more heat labile than the n-6 tend to be. Since both n-3 and n-

6 are responsible for the prostagladins that initiate and mediate

inflammation, it's entirely possible that much of the *cooked* fat is

resulting in damaged EFAs. That might consequently result in being

unable to produce necessary prostaglandins...or the prostaglandins

may possibly perform incorrectly due to the damage to the EFA that it

was created from.

That is admittedly as highly speculative as the binding theory, but

it makes sense to me...at least as far as I can go with it based on

the information I have. :-)

May 18, 2002

>>>>>>>>>Suze,