The way I see it, the link between enzyme-deficiency among older people and the fact that they all eat cooked-diets is the most likely explanation available(after all SAD diets and palaeo diets involve so many differences to each other that the only common thread is the cooked-aspect - an example would be comparing a cooked-vegan diet to an atkins diet, both being reasonably popular and who also are featured in various food-science studies).
It may not be cast-iron proof right now(few things in food-science are), but so far, there is little to suggest that non-palaeo foods cause this enzyme-deficiency. I guess I'm just using Occam's Razor here.
. The only way to disprove it would be to show proof that non-SAD-eating palaeodieters suffered far less from such enzyme-related issues than SAD-eaters. Ideally, for the purposes of the experiment, the tested group would have to be 100% zero-carb-eating cooked-palaeos. After all, a standard cooked-palaeodiet generally involves eating 35% carbs(most eaten raw - I think Cordain et al suggest eating the carbs either raw or only very lightly steamed etc.), so that raw element might be said to alleviate some of the negative issues from the cooked-element of the diet.
Re comment:- :"Except for meats. Are we in agreement that there are no digestive enzymes
> in meats?"
What about the edogenous proteases in raw muscle-meats etc.? Seems a rather wrong assumption.
Re studies on enzymes:- I'll post some studies on enzymes in the other post.
Geoff
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:31:16 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: enzyme loss in boiling meat?
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Re enzymes/bacteria comments:- You're missing the point. Just eating a
> > SAD diet(or any diet whether it includes grains or dairy or whatever)
> > cannot , in and of itself, satisfactorily explain why people so often need
> > to take bacteria supplements or enzyme supplements.
>
> No, I'm not missing the point. I get the point, but I'm skeptical of its
> truth. The effects of SAD are numerous, and I don't think they've all
> been fully documented.
>
>
> > The fact that so many
> > of these cooked-dieters benefit from those bacteria or enzyme supplements
> > and need them indicates very strongly that their bodies can no longer
> > supply them properly with sufficient bacteria or enzymes.
>
> No, it doesn't "indicate very strongly" anything of the kind. It makes it
> a legitimate hypothesis for testing however. What percentage of elderly
> people require digestive enzyme supplementation? Do you have any data on
> that? I've seen more about HCl supplementation, but that's beside the
> point. If the need for enzyme supplementation in the elderly is an
> important piece of evidence for the importance of enzymes in raw foods,
> then by all means lets get at the evidence.
>
> > Now, raw foods
> > do contain enzymes
>
> Except for meats. Are we in agreement that there are no digestive enzymes
> in meats?
>
> > However, all those enzyme-pill/bacteria-pill-popping people you
> > mention(whether they are grain-eaters/SAD-dieters/atkins-diet-eaters
> > etc.) all have 1 thing in common with each other - they all eat diets
> > very high in bacteria-deficient/enzyme-deficient cooked/processed foods,
> > which makes it far more likely that it is the cooked aspect of those
> > diets which is the problem, not grains or dairy or whatever.
>
> Do you have data comparing the Atkins dieters, and so on, with respect to
> their need for digestive enzymes in old age? If not, you have no business
> making this claim, because you're in no position to know any such thing.
> The fact is that any large-scale study will include large numbers of SAD
> dieters, who have much more in common than not eating raw. Your claim,
> then, that they have exactly one thing in common is false.
>
> Todd Moody
_________________________________________________________________
View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/
|
