Nutrition/Immunology 101. Sticky please. - Page 5

[JaneS]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

Interestingly yesterday on it, I discovered that mothers whose babies cord blood was low in selenium ... those babies were the ones to go on and get asthma. Babies whose cord blood had good levels of selenium, did not.

So I'm just thinking through all the lateral pathways and implications of that.

I also wonder whether it makes a difference if the babe actually GETS their cord blood... meaning "not cut too soon" like they just love to do in this country.

[jessicaSAR]

Originally Posted by chasmyn

Excedrin is aspirin and caffeine...Tylenol is acetominophen. I wonder if that would make a difference? Certainly can't be good in any case.

?

Excedrin is acetominophen, aspirin and caffeine, so I think it would have the same blocking effect?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Planta

I don't want to sound like I'm making suggestions, but you simply wouldn't have these problems on a raw diet. You could eat till burst point without the slightest worry about weight, plus you would get all the vitamins and minerals you needed (OK, you could still supplement if you wished). This is simply almost impossible on a cooked diet because over time the food instinct is slowly lost and you're bound to start limiting yourself from eating certain things or forcing yourself to eat others.

I don't believe that a raw diet would suit my body type whatsoever.

I realise you want to stay away from discussing a raw diet, but there are certain things that can't be skipped if you want to be thorough. For example, I'd like to bring up again the issue of grains being major mineral robbers for humans, especially if they are staples in the diet. I bring up the same link: http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...client=firefox because it is an interesting summary of less known effects that grains have on us. Even if many things are inaccurate, the overall message can't be ignored IMO. Quotes:
" Further, cereal grains have a Ca/P ratio which is quite low (mean from table 4>0.08) and which can negatively impact bone growth and metabolism. Consumption of a large excess of dietary phosphorus, when calcium intake is adequate or low, leads to secondary hyperparathyroidism and progressive bone loss"
"diets based upon whole grain maize [100], rice [101], wheat [102] and oats [103] have been consistently shown to reduce iron absorption"
" In addition to calcium and iron, the bioavailability of zinc, copper and magnesium in cereal grains is generally low"

You missed out the key part in this quote, which is the action by phytate content.

That is totally overcome by using sourdough ferments. Everything you have put up there in terms of minerals absorption is meaningless in the context of the old historically proven methods of eating grains.

He says in the text that adding yeast reduces phytate content when it doesn't. Only sourdough does.

The other thing that argues against his contention is Table 8, and that the country on his list that supposedly has the lowest grain intake i.e. America, actually has by far the highest percentage of problems and the consumes by far the vastest amount of health resources in the world. So you'd assume on the basis of grains being bad for you, that on the basis of that chart, USA would be the healthiest. Yet USA is not.

Even his suppositions on coeliac aren't correct. You don't see celiac disease in indigenous peoples whose parents chew all their solids prior to putting them into their babies mouths. Up until babies have all their molars, they don't have the saliva enzymes requires to digest any grains at all, and that is the primary reason for the development of coeliac disease. Of course the body in susceptible babies will treat some things as immunogens, especially if they are bottle fed as well, and don't have decent gut flora to even speak of.

When he talks about how amazing it was that coeliacs wasn't know about until 50 something years ago... well people only became "Euuuwwwww" about it when some company brainwashed them into thinking that baby food could only be pulped up by an expensive mouli, rather than mothers teeth and spit. Coeliacs became known at the height of mouli and formula feeding era.

I find it also interesting that susceptibility to coeliacs is about the same as the 1 per 1,000 epigenetic figure for susceptibility to disease, so I suspect there is considerable overlay in confoundings.

Furthermore, it would appear that even more valuable than taking grains out of diets, in recent times, is taking out all pigmented vegetables with lutein in them:

http://www.saras-autism-diet.freeser...as_Diet_I.html

I view this recent trend as yet another overlay of making a total hash of the basic issues surrounding gut flora and maintaining a healthy intestinal tract which is actually the foundation stone of our immunity and our nutrition.

If a mother and baby's gut flora are trashed in pregnancy through diet abuse, antibiotic abuse and environmental toxins, then the issues they will face will be formidable, and to me, the key to the issue is the systematic removal of gut flora with antibiotics and the neurotic removal from diet of useful probiotics like butter and cheese made from unpasteurised cheese, the demise of properly fermented beer and wine without crap additives, the demise of kefir until more recently, the virtual demise of naturally fermented krauts and pickles, and the total phobia surrounding bacteria like listeria, which in guts with appropriate gut flora, mean and do nothing.

Stick into that vaccines and agrichemicals and you have a recipe for disaster of far greater proportions than anything else, and with the new types of food allergies, many of these children aren't going to be able to eat raw very much, simply because of the nature of either lutein allergies or anything else.

The basic fundamentals have gone missing, and that fundamental isn't a raw diet, becuase without gut flora, people can't eat or digest a raw foods diet let alone an anything else diet.

In terms of meats and fats, I totally agree with Jane S on that one. Even hard-working physical Europeans in outback Alaska require 500 grams of saturated fat a day to survive, and their cholesterol levels are just fine.

Although there is one food they ate that I could not. It was seal which was allowed to "rot" to the point where it had become an animal equivalent of probiotics, which they ate in largish quantities, but it smelled and tasted terrible. I also found native ice cream hard to get down. It was basically fat loaded with frozen berries in it... but the coating on the top of the palate was awful.

Whale meat was very different to what I thought it would be, and its heat provoking abilities appear to come from something other than fat, because the meat itself isn't fatty. Baleen wasn't to my taste, but their version of moose salami was wonderful, as was the dried salmon. They had a lot of dried herbs, and dried mushrooms galore, which they put in with various cooked dishes...

anyway...

So, to me, embarking on the route of supplementation is similar to accepting medication for symptoms and not treating the causes.

I completely disagree with this viewpoint. If the only thing you have available to you is commercial fruit, you would be stupid not to eat it, but you'd be equally stupid not to supplement with vitamin C and additional vitamins on top of that.

If you came to this country, you would have a problem. Shelled brazils are rancid and not worth eating. Brazils in the shell you can get in december and that is it. The levels of selenium in this country are abysmal and unless you were prepared to eat a lot of seafood, which I'm not, you would be soon under the 1.0 millimol level, which means your enzyme pathways only work to one-third capacity. Not a good move.

The only way you would be able to live the way you say is to go and join the newfound world discovered in New Guinea a few days ago. There, you might find an environment that would support your vision of living... so long as you were prepared to be an omnivore.

IMO the major cause of mineral and vitamin deficiencies is the cooked diet, not only because it doesn't bring enough of these substances

Lost me here. You can cook food with no loss of minerals and minimal loss of vitamins, but I guess if you think cooking means boiling everything and throwing the water out, then you would have problems...

but also because their absorption and metabolism is disturbed.

Do you eat your beans, maize, potatoes, pumpkin and kumara raw?

Everything in nature is toxic to a certain extent because noone wants to be eaten by others, so the key is to find the foods that our body is adapted to detoxify best.

that is a strange thing to say. Everything is nature isn't toxic. Some things are, obviously. For instance parsley isn't toxic to humans its bad news to chickens.

Birds do great on grains because they have evolved mechanisms to neutralize their anti-nutrients.

Humans do just fine on grains too, when they are fermented and/or sprouted...

Carnivors do great on meat for the same reason. What about humans? What can we eat most easily and naturally? That is to me going to the basics.

Well your basics aren't going to be mine, because I disagree with much of what you have said. You just wouldn't survive in either a place like Kalahari, or the arctic circle.

But as I said, I'm not here to argue personal fads.

You can debate that till the cows come home.

We all have to deal with the situations we are dealt, and to me the priorities are:

1) Healthy gut flora, since that constitutes over 70% of the immune system, and

2) That is where minerals are absorbed and some B vitamins made.

Without that foundation everything else is a collander.

So, assuming we get the gut right, then we look at fruit, vegetables, nuts, meat fish and white meats, fats, oils and drinkables to see what they provide in the way of know nutrients, and LAST on my list is, and always has been grains. Becasue that's the way my system works, but how others do it is their choice.

My basics may not be their basics, but if people say that is the way it works for them, that is as right as my approach IMO

[pumpkinsmama]

[Planta]

MT, I appreciate you taking the time to read the article and answer - I know you must be busy.
Just a few objections to your interesting answer:

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

You missed out the key part in this quote, which is the action by phytate content.

That is totally overcome by using sourdough ferments. Everything you have put up there in terms of minerals absorption is meaningless in the context of the old historically proven methods of eating grains.

I didn't miss that. Two things here:
1- In the context of trying to find what is the optimal food for humans, I find that we should put first foods that require the minimum processing, ideally no processing at all - just pick and eat. If grains have to be processed, then they fall down a lot on the optimum list.
2- Even though sourdough greatly reduces the phytate content, there are important amounts left. Furthermore, not many people use this sort of processing. Quote: "Recent work has indicated that phytate must be almost totally removed to eliminate its inhibitory effect on nonheme iron absorption".

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

The other thing that argues against his contention is Table 8, and that the country on his list that supposedly has the lowest grain intake i.e. America, actually has by far the highest percentage of problems and the consumes by far the vastest amount of health resources in the world. So you'd assume on the basis of grains being bad for you, that on the basis of that chart, USA would be the healthiest. Yet USA is not.

Yes, but what grains are replaced with is not raw food as I suggest. If the replacement is even worse than the grains, then of course the results can't be good.

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

I view this recent trend as yet another overlay of making a total hash of the basic issues surrounding gut flora and maintaining a healthy intestinal tract which is actually the foundation stone of our immunity and our nutrition.
...
The basic fundamentals have gone missing, and that fundamental isn't a raw diet, becuase without gut flora, people can't eat or digest a raw foods diet let alone an anything else diet.

We agree on the antibiotics, vaxes, etc. So the point is to find the basics beyond those. Of course I wouldn't dream of saying all the medical interventions are OK if we eat raw! When we return to a natural approach to health we exclude the obviously harmful stuff, but then we still need to ponder what is best for health, and that's when my raw idea comes in.

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

In terms of meats and fats, I totally agree with Jane S on that one. Even hard-working physical Europeans in outback Alaska require 500 grams of saturated fat a day to survive, and their cholesterol levels are just fine.

This is an interesting field in itself. My opinions:
1- the issue of animal products is a separate one from the raw one. There are lots of raw foodists that eat raw animal products. I might become one of them one day.
2- living in cold regions is often brought up as a major impediment to eating raw, yet noone ever questions the necessity of living in these places. I don't know why humans colonised these environments, but we are certainly not physiologically adapted for them yet (maybe in some million years we will). People talk of these issues while cosily sitting in heated apartments and actually living in an artificially tropical climate all through winter. I know it isn't possible to go back and undo all the humans ever did, but we can still try to provide to our bodies living conditions as close as possible to what we are truly adapted for. If we accept heating (yes, try to imagine surviving winter without it), why don't we accept that we should eat mainly fruits? Because we deceive ourselves in thinking we've adapted to other foods when in fact we have not.

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

If you came to this country, you would have a problem. Shelled brazils are rancid and not worth eating. Brazils in the shell you can get in december and that is it. The levels of selenium in this country are abysmal and unless you were prepared to eat a lot of seafood, which I'm not, you would be soon under the 1.0 millimol level, which means your enzyme pathways only work to one-third capacity. Not a good move.

So people should then just take their selenium supplements and go on encouraging the devastating agriculture? It isn't just about selenium or any number of other minerals. How do you supplement the yet unknown compounds that could be as important as the ones you know?

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

Do you eat your beans, maize, potatoes, pumpkin and kumara raw?

That's the point! Why should I eat them when they are toxic to me? Why should I not concentrate on foods that are delicious raw and minimally toxic?

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

But as I said, I'm not here to argue personal fads.

I don't think the raw idea is a personal fad any more than the non-vaccinating is (even though many people would also call it that).

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

We all have to deal with the situations we are dealt, and to me the priorities are:
1) Healthy gut flora, since that constitutes over 70% of the immune system, and
2) That is where minerals are absorbed and some B vitamins made.

I agree with these, but how can we dissociate talking of gut flora from diet? It's like talking about the health of breathing without adressing the air quality.
So to me the priorities are:
1- eliminate all chemicals - medication, but also the endless food additives plus pesticides
2- eat foods raw to the extent that it is possible. Of course 100% is impossible right away for an infinity of reasons, but if raw is not a goal at all the cooked food takes over in no time at all (otherwise it wouldn't be so widespread as it is).

[Galatea]

Well, if anyone cares, after a few days of cod liver oil and kefir, my diarrhea has abated somewhat. Is this too soon to see a real effect? I am actually craving the kefir. Ds1 also will drink CLO mixed in orange juice.

[Sirte]

Originally Posted by JaneS

Regarding using store bought yogurt as starter:

I have found that it's perfectly acceptable, as did Goodpapa. The test is in the taste and the texture. If you have a very tart and gelled product at the end, it contains the live bacteria it should (especially if you make 24 hr. yogurt as I do, there is no doubt.)

However, it's not cost effective for me since you only use 1/4 cup yogurt per quart, and it should be freshly opened. I don't eat lactose right now, so I'd end up throwing the rest of the container away.

Goodpapa branched out using probiotic capsules as his starter, something like 6-8 capsules per 6 oz milk (check the "Power of Probiotics" thread to be sure) just to get specific strains. When that was turned into yogurt, he then used that small amount as starter for a larger batch.

Thanks for this additional info. I do end up with a nicely gelled yogurt although I don't typically ferment for 24 hours - more like 10-12. I also don't like wasting the store bought stuff when I don't use it all so it would be nice not to have to buy it at all.

I searched the Power of Probiotics thread and found this post by Goodpapa: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...6&postcount=57

It sounds like you're right - he makes a small, 2 cup batch of starter yogurt using 6 Jarrow caps per cup of yogurt. Then he uses that starter to make larger quantities of yogurt. I have a bottle of Jarrow in my fridge right now and I am due to make more yogurt. I'm wondering if I should try this method...

Thanks again!

[Gale Force]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

The third thing we need to know is that PPD and other depressive disorders can be, and most often are, nutritionally related.

In the context of the magnesium discussion coming down the pike in this thread, magnesium deficiencies are correlated with depression and, more specifically, to suicidal tendencies. Magnesium is a big issue in PPD. And it's important to correct. Some other fun things that come down the pike if you don't:

hypertension (preeclampsia)
asthma
thyroid problems :

Magnesium deficiencies are a bugger to detect. Most body magnesium is in the bones; serum levels or red blood cell levels are not indicative of the body's load of magnesium. The most common test used in research is a loading test where they give you a magnesium supplement and you collect your urine for the next 24 hours. You sample your urine, send it in, and they test for magnesium. If you have excreted a lot it suggests you are not deficient, but if your body sucks it up we can assume it jumped on it and is putting it to use.

Magnesium is most plentiful in grains, but the phytates reduce your body's ability to absorb the magnesium by about half. Some cooking techniques will reduce the phytates a bit, but MT's right in that fermentation is the most effective path. Sourdough is the ticket for bread, soaking whole grains for porridge or for salads is appropriate too (soak in warm water and 1-2 tbs whey for 12 hours).

Not to send everyone rushing out to eat sourdough, you can get magnesium from a lot of other sources too -- dark greens, legumes, and a host of other things. I am deficient and I don't eat grains. But I do supplement. I've had good luck with magnesium glycinate.

[Gale Force]

Originally Posted by Planta

1- In the context of trying to find what is the optimal food for humans, I find that we should put first foods that require the minimum processing, ideally no processing at all - just pick and eat. If grains have to be processed, then they fall down a lot on the optimum list.
2- Even though sourdough greatly reduces the phytate content, there are important amounts left. Furthermore, not many people use this sort of processing. Quote: "Recent work has indicated that phytate must be almost totally removed to eliminate its inhibitory effect on nonheme iron absorption".

I'm not a big grain fan myself, but "processing" is a loaded term here. Sure, there is a process one must follow to maximize nutrition in the grains, but that process is a fermentation process which is not at all in the league of milling white flour or some such.

You can "process" vegetables too to increase their vitamin content -- ferment them.

Whatever whole foods we all happen to have in our diets, we should be looking for such tricks to enhance their nutritional value.

And on supplements and soil, I agree with you that we shouldn't just give up on the soil and pop some pills. But there are specific areas of the world with soil deficiencies in key minerals and natives had to go to great lengths to avoid related disease. We can pop a pill instead, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be engaging in good soil practices.

I'm curious what you eat Planta. I'd have to be a raw meat eater if I went that way.

[rootzdawta]

Originally Posted by Galatea

Well, if anyone cares, after a few days of cod liver oil and kefir, my diarrhea has abated somewhat. Is this too soon to see a real effect? I am actually craving the kefir. Ds1 also will drink CLO mixed in orange juice.

Not at all . . . I have found that changing my diet to address a problem (once I've figured out your particular problem) yields change rather quickly. So . . .

[sunshinestarr]

I just wanted to add this onto the (old) selenium discussion - for any of us pregnant ladies out there - I have read NOT to go over 40mcgs!! So be careful! I just bought a bottle today and they are 200mcgs.. So I'm going to have to figure something out.

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by sunshinestarr

I just wanted to add this onto the (old) selenium discussion - for any of us pregnant ladies out there - I have read NOT to go over 40mcgs!! So be careful! I just bought a bottle today and they are 200mcgs.. So I'm going to have to figure something out.

Well, my prenatal (Rainbow Light) has 100 mcg in it, so I'm guessing the 40 mcg warning (which I've read in my Prescription for Nutritional Healing book) is a very low-dose warning. Basically everything seems to err on the side of extreme caution when pregnant.

[mama2j&t]

Originally Posted by sunshinestarr

I just wanted to add this onto the (old) selenium discussion - for any of us pregnant ladies out there - I have read NOT to go over 40mcgs!! So be careful! I just bought a bottle today and they are 200mcgs.. So I'm going to have to figure something out.

That is good info! But... my Rainbow Light Prenatal Vitamins have 100 mcg of Selenium. Do you have a source/link for the 40 mcg recommendation?

[mama2j&t]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

Well, my prenatal (Rainbow Light) has 100 mcg in it, so I'm guessing the 40 mcg warning (which I've read in my Prescription for Nutritional Healing book) is a very low-dose warning. Basically everything seems to err on the side of extreme caution when pregnant.

oooh, we posted at the exact same time

[sunshinestarr]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

Well, my prenatal (Rainbow Light) has 100 mcg in it, so I'm guessing the 40 mcg warning (which I've read in my Prescription for Nutritional Healing book) is a very low-dose warning. Basically everything seems to err on the side of extreme caution when pregnant.

:
WEIRD!!! That's exactly where I got my info...
Weird! I don't know what to say, lol! :
My (not so great) prenatals don't have any selenium at all... Hmm. That's good, so now maybe I can cut these 200mcgs-ers I have in half instead of in quarters..

Edit:
The last ingredient in my prenatals is "tablet brown" - I'm sure that's essential for baby!

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by sunshinestarr

:
WEIRD!!! That's exactly where I got my info...
Weird! I don't know what to say, lol! :
My (not so great) prenatals don't have any selenium at all... Hmm. That's good, so now maybe I can cut these 200mcgs-ers I have in half instead of in quarters..

Edit:
The last ingredient in my prenatals is "tablet brown" - I'm sure that's essential for baby!

Yea, my last (generic) prenatals had none; I think the money for the RL's are worth it when comparing the two lists.
I would think cutting the ones you have in half is a good idea ...

[chlobo]

I forget who gave the heads up on source naturals having GMOs, but thank you!!! I had no idea and I was using some of their products. No more! Oh, I just realized we use NOW stevia - do you think they use GMOs in their stevia too? AND do you know of a resource where I can find out more about who is using GMOs?

Not all Souce Nat products have gmo's. I'm sure the same is true for NOW. Best bet would be to contact the company for specific product information if the website doesn'thave the relevent information.

BTW, what is the book from Amazon.uk that someone mentioned?

Also, any good books on sprouting?

[JaneS]

Also nuts contain significant amounts of phytates as well and should be soaked just like grains. I know a number of people who think they are "allergic" to nuts b/c they cause gastrointestinal symptoms... but it's really the phytates.

Howell was a pioneer in enzyme research.

If you eat substantial quantities of raw pecans, walnuts, etc you have a choice of swallowing enzyme capsules with them to neutralize their enzyme inhibitors or first germinating the nuts and letting nature do the job through increased enzyme activity resulting from germination.....In the year 1918 or thereabouts, I was imbued with the idea of trying to avoid cooked food because of the potential destructiveness of heat...I thought that raw meat was unsuited for the human diet and that the protein and fat of palatable raw tree nuts would take its place...after a period of about 2 months, during which I consumed liberal quantities of raw tree nuts of several kinds, I began experiencing an unpleasant heavy sensation in the abdomen and a feeling of extreme fullness and some nausea. The symptoms were pronounced enough to force my giving up this tasty diet. Almost anyone can eat several nuts without feeling any effect. But it is common knowledge that nuts are "heavy on the stomach" if consumed in substantial quantity. The enzyme inhibitors in seeds explain the mystery, but they were not identified until 1944. -Edward Howell, MD Food Enzymes for Health and Longevity (quoted in Nourishing Traditions by Sally A. Fallon)

More on what phytates do, bind to minerals:
http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C212360.html

All about grains and why they should be soaked:
http://www.westonaprice.org/foodfeatures/be_kind.html

[JaneS]

I know we are doing minerals now, but just want to put this interesting info. up on Vitamin D before I forget. Deficiences are extremely common.

(I just love to talk fat soluble vitamins )

Optimal levels of vitamin D in the mother seem to regulate D binding proteins and D receptors in the newborn (contributing to stronger bones and better tooth enamel as well as extended life span). It will be in the chapter on fertility, pregnancy and childbirth in Dr. Krispin [Sullivan]'s book. The effects of D deficiency during pregnancy on the offspring cannot be made up later with D supplements.

Testing and values for Vitamin D:
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/v...deficiency.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vitamin_d.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/27/vitamin_d_quiz.htm

[Planta]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

I'm not a big grain fan myself, but "processing" is a loaded term here. Sure, there is a process one must follow to maximize nutrition in the grains, but that process is a fermentation process which is not at all in the league of milling white flour or some such.

I used this word especially to attract attention to what is going on with this food. When we hear the term we automatically think of all the terrible junk food that most of us has already rejected some time ago. However, processing means in fact "the methods and techniques used to transform raw ingredients into food for consumption by humans" (from wikipedia). Grains need processing before they can be eaten - why exactly? Because they simply can't be eaten in their original form, or at least not in significant amounts.

Originally Posted by Gale Force

Whatever whole foods we all happen to have in our diets, we should be looking for such tricks to enhance their nutritional value.

How about looking for foods that don't need any extra-effort other than popping them in the mouth? Why don't we look for them first and only then, if they are not available, etc, use "tricks" to be able to eat what otherwise would be of inferior quality?

Originally Posted by Gale Force

I'm curious what you eat Planta. I'd have to be a raw meat eater if I went that way.

At the moment I am 100% raw vegan (for 5 months now + more than 1 year transition), but I only insist on the raw part - which means I might consider animal products in their raw form if ever I am attracted by them and I can imagine obtaining them from nature myself.

I have to appologize for my passionate arguing for a raw diet. It is too much of a revelation for me to keep it to myself. I can compare it to the vax issue - that way you can understand how hard it is to get the message accross and to always be considered a loony. I just want people to consider the idea and have it somewhere in their mind, because one day it can come alive and then so many puzzle pieces fall into place!