Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 > which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts > leads to sensitivity in many many people Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to excessive use. > if you go as unrefined as possible > you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... Can you explain this too? I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I also agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 > which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts > leads to sensitivity in many many people Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to excessive use. > if you go as unrefined as possible > you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... Can you explain this too? I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I also agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 > which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts > leads to sensitivity in many many people Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to excessive use. > if you go as unrefined as possible > you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... Can you explain this too? I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I also agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 Quite right Suzi, I'm a chemist. I had no idea that gluten intolerance could be caused by only trace amounts of gluten, as mentioned by others on this group. Possibly there's a difference here between gluten intolerance, caused by the body's inability to handle significant amounts of gluten, and gluten " allergy " , a reaction to even trace amounts of gluten. I certainly wasn't doubting the fact that people like yourself react to these compounds in food, just trying to understand the reason behind it. Barry Hunt RE: About wheat Barry, I think you've shared your opinion with me before, and I presume it's based on a background in chemistry. However, I defer to what physicians and nutritionists tell me (I currently see both). There is a pretty comprehensive list of food ingredients to avoid at celiac.com and it includes all of the things I've listed. I'm not presenting any far-fetched ideas, just ones commonly accepted by the medical establishment. Vinegars have been the subject of some controvery (as have oats). Some places (I believe the UK?), doctors say that distilled grain vinegars and alcohols are fine. In the US, they're still thought to not be. I only know myself, and I can have a reaction (flaring, skin rash, GI upset) to either. I've actually returned drinks when out, saying " this isn't what I ordered, " when I felt my skin heat up suddenly and my throat burn, and found out I was right. Suzi __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 Quite right Suzi, I'm a chemist. I had no idea that gluten intolerance could be caused by only trace amounts of gluten, as mentioned by others on this group. Possibly there's a difference here between gluten intolerance, caused by the body's inability to handle significant amounts of gluten, and gluten " allergy " , a reaction to even trace amounts of gluten. I certainly wasn't doubting the fact that people like yourself react to these compounds in food, just trying to understand the reason behind it. Barry Hunt RE: About wheat Barry, I think you've shared your opinion with me before, and I presume it's based on a background in chemistry. However, I defer to what physicians and nutritionists tell me (I currently see both). There is a pretty comprehensive list of food ingredients to avoid at celiac.com and it includes all of the things I've listed. I'm not presenting any far-fetched ideas, just ones commonly accepted by the medical establishment. Vinegars have been the subject of some controvery (as have oats). Some places (I believe the UK?), doctors say that distilled grain vinegars and alcohols are fine. In the US, they're still thought to not be. I only know myself, and I can have a reaction (flaring, skin rash, GI upset) to either. I've actually returned drinks when out, saying " this isn't what I ordered, " when I felt my skin heat up suddenly and my throat burn, and found out I was right. Suzi __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 Quite right Suzi, I'm a chemist. I had no idea that gluten intolerance could be caused by only trace amounts of gluten, as mentioned by others on this group. Possibly there's a difference here between gluten intolerance, caused by the body's inability to handle significant amounts of gluten, and gluten " allergy " , a reaction to even trace amounts of gluten. I certainly wasn't doubting the fact that people like yourself react to these compounds in food, just trying to understand the reason behind it. Barry Hunt RE: About wheat Barry, I think you've shared your opinion with me before, and I presume it's based on a background in chemistry. However, I defer to what physicians and nutritionists tell me (I currently see both). There is a pretty comprehensive list of food ingredients to avoid at celiac.com and it includes all of the things I've listed. I'm not presenting any far-fetched ideas, just ones commonly accepted by the medical establishment. Vinegars have been the subject of some controvery (as have oats). Some places (I believe the UK?), doctors say that distilled grain vinegars and alcohols are fine. In the US, they're still thought to not be. I only know myself, and I can have a reaction (flaring, skin rash, GI upset) to either. I've actually returned drinks when out, saying " this isn't what I ordered, " when I felt my skin heat up suddenly and my throat burn, and found out I was right. Suzi __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 << > > > I see what you mean Suzi, but I'd be very surprised if any of the gluten > " effects " are still detectable in vinegar, alcohol, dextrose, glycerides of > any sort, or citric acid. By the time these products have been made from the > original wheat I can't see that any gluten can possibly be present, other > than minute traces. > > Barry Hunt Apparently, sometimes that's all it takes for some people. It causes an immune reaction and damages the villi lining the small intestine causing nutrient malabsorbtion. >> bottom line is if something bothers you gives you an adverse reaction it doesn't really matter if a zillion million billion people tell you that your reaction is impossible you still have it! ergo: it's possible. we all know our own bodies best. bananas give me heartburn (even just one) a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee will make my head hurt. i don't care if there is no mechanism for these reactions i get em time and time and time again! stacey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 << > > > I see what you mean Suzi, but I'd be very surprised if any of the gluten > " effects " are still detectable in vinegar, alcohol, dextrose, glycerides of > any sort, or citric acid. By the time these products have been made from the > original wheat I can't see that any gluten can possibly be present, other > than minute traces. > > Barry Hunt Apparently, sometimes that's all it takes for some people. It causes an immune reaction and damages the villi lining the small intestine causing nutrient malabsorbtion. >> bottom line is if something bothers you gives you an adverse reaction it doesn't really matter if a zillion million billion people tell you that your reaction is impossible you still have it! ergo: it's possible. we all know our own bodies best. bananas give me heartburn (even just one) a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee will make my head hurt. i don't care if there is no mechanism for these reactions i get em time and time and time again! stacey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 << > > > I see what you mean Suzi, but I'd be very surprised if any of the gluten > " effects " are still detectable in vinegar, alcohol, dextrose, glycerides of > any sort, or citric acid. By the time these products have been made from the > original wheat I can't see that any gluten can possibly be present, other > than minute traces. > > Barry Hunt Apparently, sometimes that's all it takes for some people. It causes an immune reaction and damages the villi lining the small intestine causing nutrient malabsorbtion. >> bottom line is if something bothers you gives you an adverse reaction it doesn't really matter if a zillion million billion people tell you that your reaction is impossible you still have it! ergo: it's possible. we all know our own bodies best. bananas give me heartburn (even just one) a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee will make my head hurt. i don't care if there is no mechanism for these reactions i get em time and time and time again! stacey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 < leads to sensitivity in many many people Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to excessive use. there is an steady increase in the number of people with severe (anaphylactic shock reaction) peanut allergies (including as adults) seems directly related to the increase in use of peanuts/peanut by-products in processed food -- peanut oil or peanuts are in soooo many things i'll admit it's just a theory but it's a popular theory (and it's not my theory) that the increase in severe peanut allergy is due to a sensitization to peanuts due to excessive exposure to peanuts (not just as peanuts but in many processed foods) suzi mentioned a similar bombardment of wheat-without-knowing-it in processed food i wonder if there is a correlation between something like wheat peanuts (sugar) used in many many many processed forms that sensitize people to them the plantation slaves that worked in the sugar cane fields and ate the unrefined sugar cane (gaining the minerals and vitamins etc) didn't suffer any of the obesity and diabetes that the plantation owners with their diet high in refined sugar did the wheat peanut thing was kind of an analogy ... > if you go as unrefined as possible > you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... Can >> if you go unrefined -- eg the sugar cane instead of refined sugar -- you get the minerals and vitamins not just the sucrose if you go unrefined fresh fruit and veg full grains lentils whatever you won't be buying processed food with hidden 'flare triggers' e.g. wheat starch on your tamari almonds someone mentioned veggie burgers at the healthfood store that were surprisingly chock full of problematic ingredients so my idea with unrefined buy the ingredients and a good cook book and make your own that way you have more control over what you're eating all i meant by going unrefined was a diet as close to nature as possible has fewer things (preservatives colouring flavouring etc) that a) your body has to work hard to clean out of your system b)cause some rosaceans to flare ... i hope i've been a little clearer than mud ... if no please tell me i try to explain again! stacey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 Meant for the group? Re: About wheat > > In a message dated 5/7/02 9:13:46 PM, aaa@... writes: > > << > > > > > > I see what you mean Suzi, but I'd be very surprised if any > of the gluten > > " effects " are still detectable in vinegar, alcohol, > dextrose, glycerides of > > any sort, or citric acid. By the time these products have > been made from the > > original wheat I can't see that any gluten can possibly be > present, other > > than minute traces. > > > > Barry Hunt > > Apparently, sometimes that's all it takes for some people. It > causes an immune reaction and damages the villi lining the > small intestine causing nutrient malabsorbtion. > > > > > >> > > bottom line is > if something bothers you > gives you an adverse reaction > it doesn't really matter if > a zillion > million > billion > people tell you that your reaction is impossible > you still have it! > ergo: it's possible. > > we all know our own bodies best. > bananas give me heartburn > (even just one) > a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee will make my head hurt. > i don't care if there is no mechanism for these reactions > i get em > time and > time > and > time again! > > stacey. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 Meant for the group? Re: About wheat > > In a message dated 5/7/02 9:13:46 PM, aaa@... writes: > > << > > > > > > I see what you mean Suzi, but I'd be very surprised if any > of the gluten > > " effects " are still detectable in vinegar, alcohol, > dextrose, glycerides of > > any sort, or citric acid. By the time these products have > been made from the > > original wheat I can't see that any gluten can possibly be > present, other > > than minute traces. > > > > Barry Hunt > > Apparently, sometimes that's all it takes for some people. It > causes an immune reaction and damages the villi lining the > small intestine causing nutrient malabsorbtion. > > > > > >> > > bottom line is > if something bothers you > gives you an adverse reaction > it doesn't really matter if > a zillion > million > billion > people tell you that your reaction is impossible > you still have it! > ergo: it's possible. > > we all know our own bodies best. > bananas give me heartburn > (even just one) > a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee will make my head hurt. > i don't care if there is no mechanism for these reactions > i get em > time and > time > and > time again! > > stacey. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 Meant for the group? Re: About wheat > > In a message dated 5/7/02 9:13:46 PM, aaa@... writes: > > << > > > > > > I see what you mean Suzi, but I'd be very surprised if any > of the gluten > > " effects " are still detectable in vinegar, alcohol, > dextrose, glycerides of > > any sort, or citric acid. By the time these products have > been made from the > > original wheat I can't see that any gluten can possibly be > present, other > > than minute traces. > > > > Barry Hunt > > Apparently, sometimes that's all it takes for some people. It > causes an immune reaction and damages the villi lining the > small intestine causing nutrient malabsorbtion. > > > > > >> > > bottom line is > if something bothers you > gives you an adverse reaction > it doesn't really matter if > a zillion > million > billion > people tell you that your reaction is impossible > you still have it! > ergo: it's possible. > > we all know our own bodies best. > bananas give me heartburn > (even just one) > a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee will make my head hurt. > i don't care if there is no mechanism for these reactions > i get em > time and > time > and > time again! > > stacey. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Stacey. I think I understand what you're saying. Let me know where I'm going astray. > there is an steady increase in the number of people with severe > (anaphylactic shock reaction) > peanut allergies > (including as adults) > seems directly related to the increase in use of peanuts/peanut by- products > in processed food -- peanut oil or peanuts are in soooo many things > i'll admit it's just a theory > but it's a popular theory (and it's not my theory) > that the increase in severe peanut allergy is due to a sensitization to > peanuts > due to excessive exposure to peanuts (not just as peanuts but in many > processed foods) Given how cheap peanuts are, there probably is more peanut-related ingredients in our foods, and that's of great concern to those with a peanut allergy, but not those of us without such an allergy. If you're trying to explain an increase in peanut allergies, I believe the evidence shows that's a common overquoted misconception. For example, according to this reference, there's no epidemiologic evidence supporting it: http://www.allerg.qc.ca/peanutallergy.htm It's written by Weisnagel, M.D., whose credentials are at the end of the article. It's his labor of love, and he goes into great detail regarding peanut allergies, presenting lots of evidence from all sources. Here's a taste , from the introduction. " This review of the complex issue of peanut allergy was started in Oct. 1998 following a great deal of attention given to the subject in the media at that particular time. This followed many publications in the medical literature as cited in the references seen below in the opening paragraphs, conclusions of the authors considered as " alarming, frightening " , according to comments of some visitors scanning this article. There were articles in magazines, like Time, Newsweek, as well as in local papers on what seems an increase in peanut allergy, on banning peanuts in schools or on commercial flights, etc.22,25 (see also table of contents, above). Some of the articles, and reactions to them, were posted and appear in the article, and may still be accessible (at times, they're removed without any warning). The effect of all this attention to peanut allergy resulted in a panic situation, both in the minds of the public as well as the medical community, an attitude that seems to persist. Today, things have quieted somewhat particularly in the media, but most publications on the subject in the medical literature still often begin with, " most pediatric allergists agree the the prevelance of food allergies, and peanut allergy in particular, is increasing... " 107 " peanut and nut allergy is common and the most frequent cause of severe or fatal reactions to foods... " 108 or " ...despite the steady advancement in our understanding of atopic immune responses and the increasing number of deaths each year from peanut anaphylaxis...119 " or... " peanut is one of the most common foods causing allergic reactions and is the most common cause of fatal and near-fatal food-related anaphylaxis.. " 122 giving the impression that peanut allergy is indeed on the increase, but as Dr Hugh Sampson states in the opening paragraph of his article " What should we be doing for children with peanut allergy? " 107 [boldfaced] " appropriate epidemiological data to substantiate this belief are lacking! " [boldfaced] Also, the good news is that there are encouraging indications, contrary to previous publications, that allergy to peanuts can disappear.(see recently posted reports.) There are studies in progress in various centers evaluating the duration of this allergy. " > the plantation slaves that worked in the sugar cane fields and ate > the > unrefined sugar cane > (gaining the minerals and vitamins etc) > didn't suffer any of the obesity and diabetes that the plantation > owners > with their diet high in refined sugar > did Why can't any difference in the incidence in diabetes be wholly explained by differences in lifestyle (exercise and body weight)? I don't imagine there were many overweight, sedentary slaves (unfortunately). > all i meant by going unrefined was > a diet as close to nature as possible has fewer things > (preservatives > colouring > flavouring > etc) > that a) your body has to work hard to clean out of your system > b)cause some rosaceans to flare ... I agree that those with food intolerances/allergies need to be very careful nowadays, what with hidden ingredients in processed and restaurant foods, but that's whether they have rosacea or not. If I understand, a non-rosacean that flushes from an ingredient should avoid it because the flush represents one symptom of an underlying intolerance to the ingredient; if a rosacean doesn't flare from an ingredient, then why avoid it? I guess I'm not understanding what's wrong with the conventional healthy diet -- you know, the food pyramid stuff? It sounds like you feel everyone should " go unrefined " rather than use processed foods in moderation, as a conventional healthy diet recommends. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Dr. Lazoff: Stacey may have a point about peanuts. Some rosaceans may have a peanut allergy. You can check out this url: http://skincarecampaign.org/peanutall.htm While food allergies are really a separate issue as you mention, nevertheless, food and drink have some connection to rosacea triggers as the NRS and Dr. Nase clearly show. Brady Barrows >> which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts >> leads to sensitivity in many many people > > Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies > are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My > understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to > excessive use. > >> if you go as unrefined as possible >> you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... > > Can you explain this too? > > I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare > (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I also > agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from > food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is > pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may > involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. > > Marjorie > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > > -- > Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group > (http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you > don't give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must > change the subject when replying to a digest ! > > See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book. > > To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support- > unsubscribe > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 < there is an steady increase in the number of people with severe > (anaphylactic shock reaction) > peanut allergies > (including as adults) > seems directly related to the increase in use of peanuts/peanut by- products > in processed food -- peanut oil or peanuts are in soooo many things > i'll admit it's just a theory > but it's a popular theory (and it's not my theory) > that the increase in severe peanut allergy is due to a sensitization to > peanuts > due to excessive exposure to peanuts (not just as peanuts but in many > processed foods) Given how cheap peanuts are, there probably is more peanut-related ingredients in our foods, and that's of great concern to those with a peanut allergy, but not those of us without such an allergy. If you're trying to explain an increase in peanut allergies, I believe the evidence shows that's a common overquoted misconception. For example, according to this reference, there's no epidemiologic evidence supporting it: http://www.allerg.qc.ca/peanutallergy.htm It's written by Weisnagel, M.D., whose credentials are at the end of the article. It's his labor of love, and he goes into great detail regarding peanut allergies, presenting lots of evidence from all sources. Here's a taste , from the introduction. " This review of the complex issue of peanut allergy was started in Oct. 1998 following a great deal of attention given to the subject in the media at that particular time. This followed many publications in the medical literature as cited in the references seen below in the opening paragraphs, conclusions of the authors considered as " alarming, frightening " , according to comments of some visitors scanning this article. There were articles in magazines, like Time, Newsweek, as well as in local papers on what seems an increase in peanut allergy, on banning peanuts in schools or on commercial flights, etc.22,25 (see also table of contents, above). Some of the articles, and reactions to them, were posted and appear in the article, and may still be accessible (at times, they're removed without any warning). The effect of all this attention to peanut allergy resulted in a panic situation, both in the minds of the public as well as the medical community, an attitude that seems to persist. Today, things have quieted somewhat particularly in the media, but most publications on the subject in the medical literature still often begin with, " most pediatric allergists agree the the prevelance of food allergies, and peanut allergy in particular, is increasing... " 107 " peanut and nut allergy is common and the most frequent cause of severe or fatal reactions to foods... " 108 or " ...despite the steady advancement in our understanding of atopic immune responses and the increasing number of deaths each year from peanut anaphylaxis...119 " or... " peanut is one of the most common foods causing allergic reactions and is the most common cause of fatal and near-fatal food-related anaphylaxis.. " 122 giving the impression that peanut allergy is indeed on the increase, but as Dr Hugh Sampson states in the opening paragraph of his article " What should we be doing for children with peanut allergy? " 107 [boldfaced] " appropriate epidemiological data to substantiate this belief are lacking! " [boldfaced] Also, the good news is that there are encouraging indications, contrary to previous publications, that allergy to peanuts can disappear.(see recently posted reports.) There are studies in progress in various centers evaluating the duration of this allergy. " > the plantation slaves that worked in the sugar cane fields and ate > the > unrefined sugar cane > (gaining the minerals and vitamins etc) > didn't suffer any of the obesity and diabetes that the plantation > owners > with their diet high in refined sugar > did Why can't any difference in the incidence in diabetes be wholly explained by differences in lifestyle (exercise and body weight)? I don't imagine there were many overweight, sedentary slaves (unfortunately). > all i meant by going unrefined was > a diet as close to nature as possible has fewer things > (preservatives > colouring > flavouring > etc) > that a) your body has to work hard to clean out of your system > b)cause some rosaceans to flare ... I agree that those with food intolerances/allergies need to be very careful nowadays, what with hidden ingredients in processed and restaurant foods, but that's whether they have rosacea or not. If I understand, a non-rosacean that flushes from an ingredient should avoid it because the flush represents one symptom of an underlying intolerance to the ingredient; if a rosacean doesn't flare from an ingredient, then why avoid it? I guess I'm not understanding what's wrong with the conventional healthy diet -- you know, the food pyramid stuff? It sounds like you feel everyone should " go unrefined " rather than use processed foods in moderation, as a conventional healthy diet recommends. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD marjorie nicely rebutted! i found the info on peanut allergies interesting i do sometimes wonder if over exposure to things can sensitize individuals but i suppose it's more likely that sensitive individuals will react more and more strongly as they are exposed more ... about the refined food: actually i'm all for the food pyramid i don't think most people follow it but i think it's a good idea my suggestion to go an unrefined, unprocessed route was directly in response to a post saying that it seemed impossible to get away from 'triggers' even at healthfood stores when buying any processed food. my point was that if you've got the original sources the whole grains, veg etc. you have a better chance of making sure there's no flare trigger in there ... also when you have a diet that is less processed it is generally higher in nutrition per calorie eg brown rice vs white rice higher in vitamins and fiber freshly ground peanut butter vs store made peanut butter only peanuts vs peanust and sugar and hydrogenated oils ... if you're like me a medium sized woman of medium height and medium weight and a very slooooooooooow metabolism you want to maximize the nutrients that you get from your food i'll get a lot more nutritional benefit for the same number of calories from a diet with less processed and less refined food (i've found) anyway, enjoyed your counter to my ideas i'm glad you could follow what i said as well as you did sometimes i think i'm about as clear as mud ... stacey p.s. of course i am just crazy enough to think everyone would be better off with a less refined, whole food diet and fourty minutes of yoga everyday! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 < there is an steady increase in the number of people with severe > (anaphylactic shock reaction) > peanut allergies > (including as adults) > seems directly related to the increase in use of peanuts/peanut by- products > in processed food -- peanut oil or peanuts are in soooo many things > i'll admit it's just a theory > but it's a popular theory (and it's not my theory) > that the increase in severe peanut allergy is due to a sensitization to > peanuts > due to excessive exposure to peanuts (not just as peanuts but in many > processed foods) Given how cheap peanuts are, there probably is more peanut-related ingredients in our foods, and that's of great concern to those with a peanut allergy, but not those of us without such an allergy. If you're trying to explain an increase in peanut allergies, I believe the evidence shows that's a common overquoted misconception. For example, according to this reference, there's no epidemiologic evidence supporting it: http://www.allerg.qc.ca/peanutallergy.htm It's written by Weisnagel, M.D., whose credentials are at the end of the article. It's his labor of love, and he goes into great detail regarding peanut allergies, presenting lots of evidence from all sources. Here's a taste , from the introduction. " This review of the complex issue of peanut allergy was started in Oct. 1998 following a great deal of attention given to the subject in the media at that particular time. This followed many publications in the medical literature as cited in the references seen below in the opening paragraphs, conclusions of the authors considered as " alarming, frightening " , according to comments of some visitors scanning this article. There were articles in magazines, like Time, Newsweek, as well as in local papers on what seems an increase in peanut allergy, on banning peanuts in schools or on commercial flights, etc.22,25 (see also table of contents, above). Some of the articles, and reactions to them, were posted and appear in the article, and may still be accessible (at times, they're removed without any warning). The effect of all this attention to peanut allergy resulted in a panic situation, both in the minds of the public as well as the medical community, an attitude that seems to persist. Today, things have quieted somewhat particularly in the media, but most publications on the subject in the medical literature still often begin with, " most pediatric allergists agree the the prevelance of food allergies, and peanut allergy in particular, is increasing... " 107 " peanut and nut allergy is common and the most frequent cause of severe or fatal reactions to foods... " 108 or " ...despite the steady advancement in our understanding of atopic immune responses and the increasing number of deaths each year from peanut anaphylaxis...119 " or... " peanut is one of the most common foods causing allergic reactions and is the most common cause of fatal and near-fatal food-related anaphylaxis.. " 122 giving the impression that peanut allergy is indeed on the increase, but as Dr Hugh Sampson states in the opening paragraph of his article " What should we be doing for children with peanut allergy? " 107 [boldfaced] " appropriate epidemiological data to substantiate this belief are lacking! " [boldfaced] Also, the good news is that there are encouraging indications, contrary to previous publications, that allergy to peanuts can disappear.(see recently posted reports.) There are studies in progress in various centers evaluating the duration of this allergy. " > the plantation slaves that worked in the sugar cane fields and ate > the > unrefined sugar cane > (gaining the minerals and vitamins etc) > didn't suffer any of the obesity and diabetes that the plantation > owners > with their diet high in refined sugar > did Why can't any difference in the incidence in diabetes be wholly explained by differences in lifestyle (exercise and body weight)? I don't imagine there were many overweight, sedentary slaves (unfortunately). > all i meant by going unrefined was > a diet as close to nature as possible has fewer things > (preservatives > colouring > flavouring > etc) > that a) your body has to work hard to clean out of your system > b)cause some rosaceans to flare ... I agree that those with food intolerances/allergies need to be very careful nowadays, what with hidden ingredients in processed and restaurant foods, but that's whether they have rosacea or not. If I understand, a non-rosacean that flushes from an ingredient should avoid it because the flush represents one symptom of an underlying intolerance to the ingredient; if a rosacean doesn't flare from an ingredient, then why avoid it? I guess I'm not understanding what's wrong with the conventional healthy diet -- you know, the food pyramid stuff? It sounds like you feel everyone should " go unrefined " rather than use processed foods in moderation, as a conventional healthy diet recommends. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD marjorie nicely rebutted! i found the info on peanut allergies interesting i do sometimes wonder if over exposure to things can sensitize individuals but i suppose it's more likely that sensitive individuals will react more and more strongly as they are exposed more ... about the refined food: actually i'm all for the food pyramid i don't think most people follow it but i think it's a good idea my suggestion to go an unrefined, unprocessed route was directly in response to a post saying that it seemed impossible to get away from 'triggers' even at healthfood stores when buying any processed food. my point was that if you've got the original sources the whole grains, veg etc. you have a better chance of making sure there's no flare trigger in there ... also when you have a diet that is less processed it is generally higher in nutrition per calorie eg brown rice vs white rice higher in vitamins and fiber freshly ground peanut butter vs store made peanut butter only peanuts vs peanust and sugar and hydrogenated oils ... if you're like me a medium sized woman of medium height and medium weight and a very slooooooooooow metabolism you want to maximize the nutrients that you get from your food i'll get a lot more nutritional benefit for the same number of calories from a diet with less processed and less refined food (i've found) anyway, enjoyed your counter to my ideas i'm glad you could follow what i said as well as you did sometimes i think i'm about as clear as mud ... stacey p.s. of course i am just crazy enough to think everyone would be better off with a less refined, whole food diet and fourty minutes of yoga everyday! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 < there is an steady increase in the number of people with severe > (anaphylactic shock reaction) > peanut allergies > (including as adults) > seems directly related to the increase in use of peanuts/peanut by- products > in processed food -- peanut oil or peanuts are in soooo many things > i'll admit it's just a theory > but it's a popular theory (and it's not my theory) > that the increase in severe peanut allergy is due to a sensitization to > peanuts > due to excessive exposure to peanuts (not just as peanuts but in many > processed foods) Given how cheap peanuts are, there probably is more peanut-related ingredients in our foods, and that's of great concern to those with a peanut allergy, but not those of us without such an allergy. If you're trying to explain an increase in peanut allergies, I believe the evidence shows that's a common overquoted misconception. For example, according to this reference, there's no epidemiologic evidence supporting it: http://www.allerg.qc.ca/peanutallergy.htm It's written by Weisnagel, M.D., whose credentials are at the end of the article. It's his labor of love, and he goes into great detail regarding peanut allergies, presenting lots of evidence from all sources. Here's a taste , from the introduction. " This review of the complex issue of peanut allergy was started in Oct. 1998 following a great deal of attention given to the subject in the media at that particular time. This followed many publications in the medical literature as cited in the references seen below in the opening paragraphs, conclusions of the authors considered as " alarming, frightening " , according to comments of some visitors scanning this article. There were articles in magazines, like Time, Newsweek, as well as in local papers on what seems an increase in peanut allergy, on banning peanuts in schools or on commercial flights, etc.22,25 (see also table of contents, above). Some of the articles, and reactions to them, were posted and appear in the article, and may still be accessible (at times, they're removed without any warning). The effect of all this attention to peanut allergy resulted in a panic situation, both in the minds of the public as well as the medical community, an attitude that seems to persist. Today, things have quieted somewhat particularly in the media, but most publications on the subject in the medical literature still often begin with, " most pediatric allergists agree the the prevelance of food allergies, and peanut allergy in particular, is increasing... " 107 " peanut and nut allergy is common and the most frequent cause of severe or fatal reactions to foods... " 108 or " ...despite the steady advancement in our understanding of atopic immune responses and the increasing number of deaths each year from peanut anaphylaxis...119 " or... " peanut is one of the most common foods causing allergic reactions and is the most common cause of fatal and near-fatal food-related anaphylaxis.. " 122 giving the impression that peanut allergy is indeed on the increase, but as Dr Hugh Sampson states in the opening paragraph of his article " What should we be doing for children with peanut allergy? " 107 [boldfaced] " appropriate epidemiological data to substantiate this belief are lacking! " [boldfaced] Also, the good news is that there are encouraging indications, contrary to previous publications, that allergy to peanuts can disappear.(see recently posted reports.) There are studies in progress in various centers evaluating the duration of this allergy. " > the plantation slaves that worked in the sugar cane fields and ate > the > unrefined sugar cane > (gaining the minerals and vitamins etc) > didn't suffer any of the obesity and diabetes that the plantation > owners > with their diet high in refined sugar > did Why can't any difference in the incidence in diabetes be wholly explained by differences in lifestyle (exercise and body weight)? I don't imagine there were many overweight, sedentary slaves (unfortunately). > all i meant by going unrefined was > a diet as close to nature as possible has fewer things > (preservatives > colouring > flavouring > etc) > that a) your body has to work hard to clean out of your system > b)cause some rosaceans to flare ... I agree that those with food intolerances/allergies need to be very careful nowadays, what with hidden ingredients in processed and restaurant foods, but that's whether they have rosacea or not. If I understand, a non-rosacean that flushes from an ingredient should avoid it because the flush represents one symptom of an underlying intolerance to the ingredient; if a rosacean doesn't flare from an ingredient, then why avoid it? I guess I'm not understanding what's wrong with the conventional healthy diet -- you know, the food pyramid stuff? It sounds like you feel everyone should " go unrefined " rather than use processed foods in moderation, as a conventional healthy diet recommends. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD marjorie nicely rebutted! i found the info on peanut allergies interesting i do sometimes wonder if over exposure to things can sensitize individuals but i suppose it's more likely that sensitive individuals will react more and more strongly as they are exposed more ... about the refined food: actually i'm all for the food pyramid i don't think most people follow it but i think it's a good idea my suggestion to go an unrefined, unprocessed route was directly in response to a post saying that it seemed impossible to get away from 'triggers' even at healthfood stores when buying any processed food. my point was that if you've got the original sources the whole grains, veg etc. you have a better chance of making sure there's no flare trigger in there ... also when you have a diet that is less processed it is generally higher in nutrition per calorie eg brown rice vs white rice higher in vitamins and fiber freshly ground peanut butter vs store made peanut butter only peanuts vs peanust and sugar and hydrogenated oils ... if you're like me a medium sized woman of medium height and medium weight and a very slooooooooooow metabolism you want to maximize the nutrients that you get from your food i'll get a lot more nutritional benefit for the same number of calories from a diet with less processed and less refined food (i've found) anyway, enjoyed your counter to my ideas i'm glad you could follow what i said as well as you did sometimes i think i'm about as clear as mud ... stacey p.s. of course i am just crazy enough to think everyone would be better off with a less refined, whole food diet and fourty minutes of yoga everyday! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 > Stacey may have a point about peanuts. Brady, sounds like you missed my point about the common misconceptions regarding peanut allergies. Stacey's comments are among those common misconceptions; apparently you have them too, as do many people, many Web sites and popular media and health articles. The URL I gave in the last post explains it in greater detail. > While food allergies are really a separate issue as you mention, > nevertheless, food and drink have some connection to rosacea > triggers as > the NRS and Dr. Nase clearly show. The " connection " is that some foods/drinks increase blood flow to the face, right? The vast majority of people don't care that red wine or pipping hot coffee or spicy restaurant food brings a flush to their cheeks, but that's not the case with educated rosaceans, who understand the potential consequences of flushing for their faces. It's not unlike women who are pregnant who know they shouldn't indulge in even occasional alcohol because of potential consequences to their unborn; the " connection " is that alcohol interferes with the normal fetal development. Pregnant women are not allergic or intolerant to alcohol. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD > Brady Barrows > > > > > >> which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts > >> leads to sensitivity in many many people > > > > Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies > > are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My > > understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to > > excessive use. > > > >> if you go as unrefined as possible > >> you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... > > > > Can you explain this too? > > > > I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare > > (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see > > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I also > > agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from > > food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is > > pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may > > involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. > > > > Marjorie > > > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > > > > > > -- > > Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group > > (http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you > > don't give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must > > change the subject when replying to a digest ! > > > > See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book. > > > > To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support- > > unsubscribe@y... > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 > Stacey may have a point about peanuts. Brady, sounds like you missed my point about the common misconceptions regarding peanut allergies. Stacey's comments are among those common misconceptions; apparently you have them too, as do many people, many Web sites and popular media and health articles. The URL I gave in the last post explains it in greater detail. > While food allergies are really a separate issue as you mention, > nevertheless, food and drink have some connection to rosacea > triggers as > the NRS and Dr. Nase clearly show. The " connection " is that some foods/drinks increase blood flow to the face, right? The vast majority of people don't care that red wine or pipping hot coffee or spicy restaurant food brings a flush to their cheeks, but that's not the case with educated rosaceans, who understand the potential consequences of flushing for their faces. It's not unlike women who are pregnant who know they shouldn't indulge in even occasional alcohol because of potential consequences to their unborn; the " connection " is that alcohol interferes with the normal fetal development. Pregnant women are not allergic or intolerant to alcohol. Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD > Brady Barrows > > > > > >> which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts > >> leads to sensitivity in many many people > > > > Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies > > are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My > > understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated to > > excessive use. > > > >> if you go as unrefined as possible > >> you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic substances ... > > > > Can you explain this too? > > > > I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare > > (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see > > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I also > > agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from > > food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is > > pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may > > involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. > > > > Marjorie > > > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > > > > > > -- > > Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group > > (http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you > > don't give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must > > change the subject when replying to a digest ! > > > > See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book. > > > > To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support- > > unsubscribe@y... > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Dr. Lazoff: thanks for the clarification.... Brady > >> Stacey may have a point about peanuts. > > Brady, sounds like you missed my point about the common > misconceptions regarding peanut allergies. Stacey's comments are > among those common misconceptions; apparently you have them too, as > do many people, many Web sites and popular media and health articles. > The URL I gave in the last post explains it in greater detail. > >> While food allergies are really a separate issue as you mention, >> nevertheless, food and drink have some connection to rosacea >> triggers as >> the NRS and Dr. Nase clearly show. > > The " connection " is that some foods/drinks increase blood flow to the > face, right? The vast majority of people don't care that red wine or > pipping hot coffee or spicy restaurant food brings a flush to their > cheeks, but that's not the case with educated rosaceans, who > understand the potential consequences of flushing for their faces. > It's not unlike women who are pregnant who know they shouldn't > indulge in even occasional alcohol because of potential consequences > to their unborn; the " connection " is that alcohol interferes with the > normal fetal development. Pregnant women are not allergic or > intolerant to alcohol. > > Marjorie > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > > > >> Brady Barrows >> >> >> >> >>>> which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts >>>> leads to sensitivity in many many people >>> >>> Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies >>> are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My >>> understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated > to >>> excessive use. >>> >>>> if you go as unrefined as possible >>>> you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic > substances ... >>> >>> Can you explain this too? >>> >>> I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare >>> (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see >>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I > also >>> agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from >>> food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is >>> pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may >>> involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. >>> >>> Marjorie >>> >>> Marjorie Lazoff, MD >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group >>> (http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if > you >>> don't give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must >>> change the subject when replying to a digest ! >>> >>> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book. >>> >>> To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support- >>> unsubscribe@y... >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Dr. Lazoff: thanks for the clarification.... Brady > >> Stacey may have a point about peanuts. > > Brady, sounds like you missed my point about the common > misconceptions regarding peanut allergies. Stacey's comments are > among those common misconceptions; apparently you have them too, as > do many people, many Web sites and popular media and health articles. > The URL I gave in the last post explains it in greater detail. > >> While food allergies are really a separate issue as you mention, >> nevertheless, food and drink have some connection to rosacea >> triggers as >> the NRS and Dr. Nase clearly show. > > The " connection " is that some foods/drinks increase blood flow to the > face, right? The vast majority of people don't care that red wine or > pipping hot coffee or spicy restaurant food brings a flush to their > cheeks, but that's not the case with educated rosaceans, who > understand the potential consequences of flushing for their faces. > It's not unlike women who are pregnant who know they shouldn't > indulge in even occasional alcohol because of potential consequences > to their unborn; the " connection " is that alcohol interferes with the > normal fetal development. Pregnant women are not allergic or > intolerant to alcohol. > > Marjorie > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > > > >> Brady Barrows >> >> >> >> >>>> which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts >>>> leads to sensitivity in many many people >>> >>> Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies >>> are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My >>> understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated > to >>> excessive use. >>> >>>> if you go as unrefined as possible >>>> you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic > substances ... >>> >>> Can you explain this too? >>> >>> I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare >>> (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see >>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I > also >>> agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from >>> food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is >>> pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may >>> involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. >>> >>> Marjorie >>> >>> Marjorie Lazoff, MD >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group >>> (http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if > you >>> don't give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must >>> change the subject when replying to a digest ! >>> >>> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book. >>> >>> To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support- >>> unsubscribe@y... >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Dr. Lazoff: thanks for the clarification.... Brady > >> Stacey may have a point about peanuts. > > Brady, sounds like you missed my point about the common > misconceptions regarding peanut allergies. Stacey's comments are > among those common misconceptions; apparently you have them too, as > do many people, many Web sites and popular media and health articles. > The URL I gave in the last post explains it in greater detail. > >> While food allergies are really a separate issue as you mention, >> nevertheless, food and drink have some connection to rosacea >> triggers as >> the NRS and Dr. Nase clearly show. > > The " connection " is that some foods/drinks increase blood flow to the > face, right? The vast majority of people don't care that red wine or > pipping hot coffee or spicy restaurant food brings a flush to their > cheeks, but that's not the case with educated rosaceans, who > understand the potential consequences of flushing for their faces. > It's not unlike women who are pregnant who know they shouldn't > indulge in even occasional alcohol because of potential consequences > to their unborn; the " connection " is that alcohol interferes with the > normal fetal development. Pregnant women are not allergic or > intolerant to alcohol. > > Marjorie > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > > > >> Brady Barrows >> >> >> >> >>>> which, as you know, like excessive use of peanuts >>>> leads to sensitivity in many many people >>> >>> Stacey, can you explain? My understanding is that peanut allergies >>> are primarily among children, who usually outgrow allergies. My >>> understanding is that the development of allergies are unrelated > to >>> excessive use. >>> >>>> if you go as unrefined as possible >>>> you have a better chance of avoiding the problematic > substances ... >>> >>> Can you explain this too? >>> >>> I agree with the NIH, that notes that food allergies are very rare >>> (1%) compared to the more commonplace food intolerances. (see >>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm). I > also >>> agree with Suzi who wonders how many rosaceans really suffer from >>> food reactions. Skin allergy/intolerance to a food is >>> pathophysiologically different than rosacea, although both may >>> involve redness and swelling and itching of the face. >>> >>> Marjorie >>> >>> Marjorie Lazoff, MD >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group >>> (http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if > you >>> don't give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must >>> change the subject when replying to a digest ! >>> >>> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book. >>> >>> To leave the list send an email to rosacea-support- >>> unsubscribe@y... >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 > i'm glad you could follow what i said as well as you did > sometimes i think i'm about as clear as mud ... oh, stacey, i find you very clear but best of all i enjoy how you express yourself. to me you're the ee cummings of the group. (with punctuations, as appropriate). your point (made also by others) about nutrition and unrefined foods is well-taken, but must all food intake be solely about nutrition? most of it should be, of course, but can't the rest be for fun/convenience? marjorie marjorie lazoff md Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2002 Report Share Posted May 9, 2002 > i'm glad you could follow what i said as well as you did > sometimes i think i'm about as clear as mud ... oh, stacey, i find you very clear but best of all i enjoy how you express yourself. to me you're the ee cummings of the group. (with punctuations, as appropriate). your point (made also by others) about nutrition and unrefined foods is well-taken, but must all food intake be solely about nutrition? most of it should be, of course, but can't the rest be for fun/convenience? marjorie marjorie lazoff md 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.