Blake,

>Read the article by Jeff N again, he does not say that people do not get
>some benefits when they practice food combining, but the benefit is not
>from food combining per sei.

That's his claim. And what he wrote still doesn't address the issue of
protein and carbohydrate combinations.

>No I have not read sheltons writings on food combining.

I think it'd only be fair for the sake of this discussion if you would read
his book. Shelton does go into detail to give much evidence in favor of food
combining theory for optimum digestion and assimilation. One example given
is regarding experiments that were done to show that when protein-rich food
and carbohydrate-rich food is eaten in combination, the digestion of both is
impaired; whereas when they are eaten alone, or combined with other
compatible food, digestion is most efficient and optimum.

Here's a quote from his book:

***
Arthur Cason, M.D., D.P.H., F.R.S.A. (Lond.), writing in April 1945 Physical
Culture mentions two groups of experiments made by him and his aids which
showed that the eating of protein and carbohydrate at the same meal does
retard and even prevent digestion. He made control tests in which were
recorded digestive rates for each and a final analysis of the feces was
made. He says "such tests always reveal that the digestion of proteins when
mixed with starches is retarded in the stomach; the degree varying in
different individuals, and also in the particular protein or starch
ingested." He adds: "An examination of the fecal matter reveals both
undigested starch granules and protein shreds and fibers, whereas, when
ingested separately, each goes to a conclusion."
***

Taking into consideration the above, I think it's just common sense to say
that optimum digestion is best supported by eating food the least combined
as possible. Eating one food at a time in proper sequence is optimum in this
regard. By "proper sequence", that is explained in detail here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/bass/sequential.html -- Highly valuable
information, and it works well when put into practice..

>No I haven't read his work but I
>have read exerpts and reviews of it. I did not dismiss his work outright,
>in fact I initially agreed with it, then I researched it more and came to
>realise how false much of his claims are.

It helps to read both sides of the story.

>Have you read the boyondveg article I linked to in my past post??? In all
>three parts??

Yes I have.

>COMMENT: The fact that enzymes taken as tablets with protective coatings
>(to avoid destruction by stomach acid before they reach the small
>intestine)might be of therapeutic value for some individuals (particularly
>those with inherent or genetic problems with enzyme metabolism) doesn't
>mean they are helpful for everyone else or for human health in general. Nor
>does it mean that the food enzymes that accompany raw foodstuffs have an
>equivalent effect.

The food enzyme supplement that I referred to did not have a protective
(enteric) coating. This quote above is referring to pancreatic enzymes, not
food enzymes. Food enzymes are active in the cardiac portion of the stomach,
generally for at least 45 minutes. When they are later subjected to highly
acid conditions such as in the digestion of protein, most food enzymes are
temporarily inactivated (not destroyed), and many are reactivated in the
small intestine. I personally experimented with pancreatic enzyme
supplements before I experimented with food enzymes. The pancreatic enzymes
gave no noticable benefits, but the food enzymes had significant benefits
practically right away (with the first meal I used them).

>One cannot compare the large amounts we get with enzyme therapy (i.e.,
>enzymes taken in capsule or tablet form) with the enzymes in food itself.

There is still a significant enough amount of enzymes in quality fresh raw
foods. Enzyme content of food varies. Even a very tiny amount of enzymes can
digest a tremendous amount (relatively speaking) of substrate. It's
well-known that (for example) papain in papayas, and bromelain in
pineapples, can have a significant benefit for the digestion of food. So why
would that not also be the case for the various kinds of other enzymes found
in raw foods?

>Most enzymes in food are destroyed by the stomach acids.

That's incorrect according to what I've read in several sources (Howell &
others).

>Such enzyme therapy via tablets or capsules with protective coatings is no
>doubt useful for individuals whose bodies lack the capacity to produce
>certain enzymes at all.

Again, this seems to be referring to pancreatic enzymes (which are usually
derived from pig pancreas).

>Again, however, the (very) small amount of enzymes
>in food itself that might be able to make it through the stomach into the
>intestine will not have much significant therapeutic effect for these
>individuals.

Even if food enzymes were to be completely destroyed by stomach acid, that
still would not prevent them from performing some "predigestion" in the
cardiac portion of the stomach, for the 45+ minutes period of time before
moving into the pyloric, acid-secreting portion of the stomach. (And again,
not all food needs acid for digestion, right?)

>Some readers will note there are anecdotal claims that oral enzyme therapy
>using uncoated tablets (usually chewable) and/or uncoated capsules, is
>effective for some. Such tablets typically contain relatively large amounts
>of enzymes when compared to the amounts in food, and may have a limited
>effect--

It wasn't limited effect in my and various other people's experiences.

>I agree it's the results that matters, but success of something does not
>suggest accuracy of the theory as to why something works and as you agreed
>there are probably many things that lead to your smoother digestion.

The percentage of food that food enzymes can aid the digestion of varies. It
makes sense to me that if food enzymes aid digestion, that will take some of
the workload off of the pancreas, etc. (all the endocrine glands are part of
a system, and are intricately interconnected. Indeed, all the body's cells,
organs, and systems are interconnected, and what affects a part, affects the
whole).

It's known that digestion is a very energy-intensive activity. Perhaps the
production and secretion of digestive enzymes is the biggest aspect of that
energy-intensive activity. Anything that can "lighten the load" should
theoretically also aid general vitality and possibly longevity, by
subjecting the body to less "stress"; every bit can help, especially when
considering this on a long-term basis.

Also, when one fasts completely from food, that frees up the body's
resources/vitality (includes enzymes) to focus more on detoxification,
healing, etc.. I'm thinking that theoretically, this can be applied to the
food enzyme concept. As in, perhaps freeing up some of the body's digestive
"demand", as mentioned above, can allow the body to focus a bit more on
aiding more optimum detox, healing, etc.. Just a possibility.

I for one think that more objective scientific research on this overall
issue is needed before any of us can come to any conclusions. So far, my
experience has done nothing to show that the basic theory is invalid. I
don't agree with Howell on everything (various sub-claims/"side shows" to
his overall claims/theory), but his basic theory does make sense to me,
intellectually and experientially.

Wes