Mary:

> Are you more or less
> discounting the need for more dietary enzymes?  What is the gist of your
> opinion?  That enzyme therapy is overrated?  Where do you think the
> truth lies as to the total picture with enzymes?  Would enzyme therapy
> benefit a person with a disease?

I don't have a definite opinion about the subject, given the lack of interest of
scientists in food enzymes (and thus the lack of scientific data).

First of all, I am not saying that dietary enzymes are completely useless.
Perhaps the few that are undestroyed by the stomach acids are then absorbed and
used by the body.

However, I disagree with the idea that the digestive enzymes in raw food are so
important. The main argument of Howell, i.e. that eating foods whose enzymes are
intact, you spare your own body's enzymes, and thus your "life force" and will
increase your life span, is in my opinion seriously flawed. As a consequence, I
consider that digestive enzymes in food are just... what they are, i.e. a
possible help for digestion; but some cooked foods are well-digested too. There
are many other enzymes than the digestives ones, and Howell focuses excessively
on amylase which I think is of minor importance. The body synthetizes the
enzymes it needs in sufficient quantity, provided it is healthy enough.

Concerning enzyme therapy, I understand that people swallow tablets that are
soluble only in the small intestine (so that the enzymes are not destroyed by
the stomach acids), taken outside meals (to improve absorption), and probably in
larger quantities and concentrations that what occurs naturally. Enzyme therapy
is no doubt useful, but I don't think that the small amount of food enzymes that
are actually absorbed in the intestine can have a therapeutic effect.

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]