Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Question: What's your take on the low carb diet? http://www.healingcrow.com/ELF/ELF64.html Elaine writes:The low carb thing is receiving all kinds of attention although I do not believe anyone except Dr. Lutz in Austria directs its value toward illness. The books, The Zone, The Heller"s Carbohydrate Addicts' Diet , and, of course, Atkins, have been proponents of the low carb for weight loss and general well-being. They do not, I believe, get into SPECIFIC carbohydrates the way we do because they are looking for a mass audience and I don't think the average person who is not very ill would have the patience, time, and desperation to go into particulars. Of course, we do not have nor would we want a monopoly on advising that carbs can cause problems. What I thought was a bit pestier was the e-mail from about the HeathFood site which purports to cure crohns (testimony provided) by one supplement after another. As I told the list, it is a free country and if someone tries this pile-up of Heaven's-knows-what and gets better, fine! But it did annoy me because it appeared to be sponsored by the people who publish health books and Alive Magazine. They distributed my book out of Vancouver for years, l00's of them and then decided to only sell books that they published themselves. The owner, Mr. Gursch was always fairly pleasant to me and I have spoken in Vancouver for their annual conference many times. __________________________________ Question: Heck, isn't that exactly what ketosis is? The Atkins low-carb crowd often talks about deliberately putting themselves into ketosis. When I hear "ketogenic" I hear "low carb," too. Elaine writes:You are so right about the ketosis part. And that is why SCD is so great; we have plenty of carbs and we do not go into ketosis unless people revert to a caveman's diet in their effort to find out why their yeast connections (and I'll be darned how so many people are latched onto cadidiasis when these bugs all live piggy back on each other) are still hanging on. People on the Ketogenic diet have to be monitored for ketosis and when it starts appearing, they can choose arbitralily any carb and I think that is why the Ketogenic diet does not work for as many as it might. For example, if the child is burning too much fat and is showing high ketone bodies, then the child is given canned applesauce, etc. I have spoken to some who certainly improve on the Ketogenic diet and of course they will not listen to me when I say be careful about which carbs you give, a banana would be better. Question: Has anybody on this list benefited from the removal of processed, refined grains from their diet? By "processed" or "refined" I mean any processing which produces rapid blood sugar rise (high glycemic index)? http://www.healingcrow.com/ELF/ELF45.html Elaine writes:I would agree that processing would make the starch more available if I knew for certain if the starch granules with their protein "fence" (gluten) around them was (the gluten) also removed during the processing. But I doubt that from reading and reading. The processing removes the 3 outer coats which contain the vitamins and minerals but I think the gluten surrounding the starch granule is left intact. So, based on our hypothesis, that it is the starch, processed grains would not be better. In fact if the grain coat is intact (as in unprocessed) I think it would more likely not be broken down by the trip through 23 ft. of small intestine (including some digestion in mouth) and would more likely reach the lower part (cecum and rest of colon, next to ileum) and foster growth of who knows which microbe! The reason. I believe, that the gluten-free bread (and it is not a gluten-free diet as corn is usually permitted) removes the fence (gluten ) so that salivary amylase and pancreatic amylase can now get to the starch granules and break them into glucose or maltose which then can be handled by the microvillie of the intestinal cell. With the gluten intact, some (but very limited) research says that it is not gluten per se but the inability of the enzymes to get to the starch. So they get down to the fermentation tank (lower part of small intestine and cecum) and provide a banquet for the little buggers. We have all been through the refined vs. unrefined grains argument and for people without IBD, there is certainly an advantage to using unrefined. That is where all those wonderful minerals and vitamins are that help the cells change calories to celluar energy (ATP). When I hear a doctor say "I don't believe in vitamin supplements" - in this day and age, I say "there goes an ignoramus! The glycemic index is another nonsense. I wrote to the original husband and wife research team and asked questions like: do you attribute the small rises in blood sugar to the fact that the carb is slowly absorbed or does some of it not get digested and appear as bacterial growth in the colon. "Well, they answered,"we don't look at the colon and whether or not it is being absorbed or not" It is the starch in either whole or refined. Of course the whole contains more minerals (vitamins are destroyed when cooked) and both contain almost 98% starch! __________________________________ Elaine writes:Don't worry about oils getting rancid in refined grain; all the oil is taken out in the form of wheat germ. I notice the Archer s Midland (ADM) on Public Boradcasting advertising that "we already have a cure for heart disease; it is vitamin E" And where do they get it: from the wheat germ removed from refining grains. The milling may also make the conversion to glucose faster but from what I understand, certain parts of that glucose chain (which starchis) have beta l-6 chemical links which cause branching and we really do not have a lot of microvilli enzyme activity to break isomaltose which it is called. So I think that there is more left over residue to feed the buggies than worrying about glucose getting to the blood too fast and therefore cause and insulin reaction which many people think in some way can contributes to IBD. Dr. Lutz and I do love him from a distance, attributes many diseases to elevated levels of glucose from starch digestion. I don't think we are digesting it much at all - we are sending it down as a banquet for the bugs! Elaine adds:I did make a biochemistry mistake. The digestion of grain starch requires an enzyme to break the alpha l-6 branch of what is called a limit dextrin. The enzyme is hard to come by even for healthy people so most of these sugar chains (2-3-4-5-6- glucose molecules) go down to feed microbial populations. That is one reason I had to take beer off the allowed foods. I called our biggest brewery and it was so funny. The CEO talked to me but he would not volunteer any information. I had to ask the precise question which was." Does the beer contain any limit dextrins (the branching chains of starch) and he said "yes". So during the fermentation of the grain, even the yeast can't seem to break this link and make alcohol out of the branched glucose chain. I know most of you think I'm nutty for getting into these technicalities but I know there are some biochemists out there and if I am incorrect, I expect you to tell me. ___________________________________________________Loving Care Gay Surgery '75, CD '94,SCD '97, No meds. '98 SCDâ„¢Stores: http://www.SCDiet.net/ Moderator Indy, IN Breaking The Vicious Cycle by Elaine GottschallTell me where you live to find SCD Pals, Drs. how long on the SCDiet. Put in Subject: SCD or I may not see your post to me. To: BTVC-SCD Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:05:45 PMSubject: Lutz discussionJust wanted to say thanks for all of the thoughtful feedback re Lutz"restricted" carbs. I had no idea I'd be prompting such a lively andinformative exchange. It was not my intention to suggest an alternativeapproach to scd; rather, I had assumed Lutz and Elaine were molto simpatico,with perhaps some differences in research experience / methods only, and so wasconfused by the apparent contradiction on matter of carbs. Nonetheless, Ifound the variety of forthright views stimulating food for thought (ugh,unintended bad pun).tomibs------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Elaine was a genius IMHO. I sometimes wonder who will rise to be the spokesperson in her absence. I think she has addressed most issues at this time, but as more products appear, and science progresses, I hope someone with her vision and industriousness to investigate all these questions carries the torch. The low carb discussion puzzled me, as what I got from her book was a sense of moderation. Too much of anything is not good. Then I looked at all the yummy recipes for SCD goodies and though they wouldn't be there if it was not OK......in moderation of course. PJ > > Question: What's your take on the low carb diet? > http://www.healingcrow.com/ELF/ELF64.html > Elaine writes: > The low carb thing is receiving all kinds of attention although I do not believe anyone except Dr. Lutz in Austria directs its value toward illness. The books, The Zone, The Heller " s Carbohydrate Addicts' Diet , and, of course, Atkins, have been proponents of the low carb for weight loss and general well-being. They do not, I believe, get into SPECIFIC carbohydrates the way we do because they are looking for a mass audience and I don't think the average person who is not very ill would have the patience, time, and desperation to go into particulars. Of course, we do not have nor would we want a monopoly on advising that carbs can cause problems. What I thought was a bit pestier was the e-mail from about the HeathFood site which purports to cure crohns (testimony provided) by one supplement after another. As I told the list, it is a free country and if someone tries this pile-up of Heaven's-knows-what and gets better, fine! But it did > annoy me because it appeared to be sponsored by the people who publish health books and Alive Magazine. They distributed my book out of Vancouver for years, l00's of them and then decided to only sell books that they published themselves. The owner, Mr. Gursch was always fairly pleasant to me and I have spoken in Vancouver for their annual conference many times. __________________________________ > > Question: Heck, isn't that exactly what ketosis is? The Atkins low-carb crowd often talks about deliberately putting themselves into ketosis. When I hear " ketogenic " I hear " low carb, " too. > > Elaine writes: > You are so right about the ketosis part. And that is why SCD is so great; we have plenty of carbs and we do not go into ketosis unless people revert to a caveman's diet in their effort to find out why their yeast connections (and I'll be darned how so many people are latched onto cadidiasis when these bugs all live piggy back on each other) are still hanging on. People on the Ketogenic diet have to be monitored for ketosis and when it starts appearing, they can choose arbitralily any carb and I think that is why the Ketogenic diet does not work for as many as it might. For example, if the child is burning too much fat and is showing high ketone bodies, then the child is given canned applesauce, etc. I have spoken to some who certainly improve on the Ketogenic diet and of course they will not listen to me when I say be careful about which carbs you give, a banana would be better. > > > Question: Has anybody on this list benefited from the removal of processed, refined grains from their diet? By " processed " or " refined " I mean any processing which produces rapid blood sugar rise (high glycemic index)? > http://www.healingcrow.com/ELF/ELF45.html > Elaine writes: > I would agree that processing would make the starch more available if I knew for certain if the starch granules with their protein " fence " (gluten) around them was (the gluten) also removed during the processing. But I doubt that from reading and reading. The processing removes the 3 outer coats which contain the vitamins and minerals but I think the gluten surrounding the starch granule is left intact. So, based on our hypothesis, that it is the starch, processed grains would not be better. In fact if the grain coat is intact (as in unprocessed) I think it would more likely not be broken down by the trip through 23 ft. of small intestine (including some digestion in mouth) and would more likely reach the lower part (cecum and rest of colon, next to ileum) and foster growth of who knows which microbe! The reason. I believe, that the gluten-free bread (and it is not a gluten-free diet as corn is usually permitted) removes the fence (gluten ) so that > salivary amylase and pancreatic amylase can now get to the starch granules and break them into glucose or maltose which then can be handled by the microvillie of the intestinal cell. With the gluten intact, some (but very limited) research says that it is not gluten per se but the inability of the enzymes to get to the starch. So they get down to the fermentation tank (lower part of small intestine and cecum) and provide a banquet for the little buggers. > We have all been through the refined vs. unrefined grains argument and for people without IBD, there is certainly an advantage to using unrefined. That is where all those wonderful minerals and vitamins are that help the cells change calories to celluar energy (ATP). When I hear a doctor say " I don't believe in vitamin supplements " - in this day and age, I say " there goes an ignoramus! > The glycemic index is another nonsense. I wrote to the original husband and wife research team and asked questions like: do you attribute the small rises in blood sugar to the fact that the carb is slowly absorbed or does some of it not get digested and appear as bacterial growth in the colon. " Well, they answered, " we don't look at the colon and whether or not it is being absorbed or not " It is the starch in either whole or refined. Of course the whole contains more minerals (vitamins are destroyed when cooked) and both contain almost 98% starch! __________________________________ > > Elaine writes: > Don't worry about oils getting rancid in refined grain; all the oil is taken out in the form of wheat germ. I notice the Archer s Midland (ADM) on Public Boradcasting advertising that " we already have a cure for heart disease; it is vitamin E " And where do they get it: from the wheat germ removed from refining grains. The milling may also make the conversion to glucose faster but from what I understand, certain parts of that glucose chain (which starchis) have beta l-6 chemical links which cause branching and we really do not have a lot of microvilli enzyme activity to break isomaltose which it is called. So I think that there is more left over residue to feed the buggies than worrying about glucose getting to the blood too fast and therefore cause and insulin reaction which many people think in some way can contributes to IBD. Dr. Lutz and I do love him from a distance, attributes many diseases to elevated levels of glucose from starch digestion. > I don't think we are digesting it much at all - we are sending it down as a banquet for the bugs! > Elaine adds: > I did make a biochemistry mistake. The digestion of grain starch requires an enzyme to break the alpha l-6 branch of what is called a limit dextrin. The enzyme is hard to come by even for healthy people so most of these sugar chains (2-3-4-5-6- glucose molecules) go down to feed microbial populations. That is one reason I had to take beer off the allowed foods. I called our biggest brewery and it was so funny. The CEO talked to me but he would not volunteer any information. I had to ask the precise question which was. " Does the beer contain any limit dextrins (the branching chains of starch) and he said " yes " . So during the fermentation of the grain, even the yeast can't seem to break this link and make alcohol out of the branched glucose chain. I know most of you think I'm nutty for getting into these technicalities but I know there are some biochemists out there and if I am incorrect, I expect you to tell me. > ___________________________________________________ > Loving Care Gay Surgery '75, CD '94,SCD '97, No meds. '98 > SCD™Stores: http://www.SCDiet.net/  Moderator Indy, IN >     Breaking The Vicious Cycle by Elaine Gottschall > Tell me where you live to find SCD Pals, Drs. how > long on the SCDiet. > Put in Subject: SCD or I may not see your post to me. > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: McGohey > To: BTVC-SCD > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:05:45 PM > Subject: Lutz discussion > > Just wanted to say thanks for all of the thoughtful feedback re Lutz > " restricted " carbs. I had no idea I'd be prompting such a lively and > informative exchange. It was not my intention to suggest an alternative > approach to scd; rather, I had assumed Lutz and Elaine were molto simpatico, > with perhaps some differences in research experience / methods only, and so was > confused by the apparent contradiction on matter of carbs. Nonetheless, I > found the variety of forthright views stimulating food for thought (ugh, > unintended bad pun). > tom > ibs > > > ------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.