Karl-W. Geitz wrote:
>> What is eosinophil?
White blood cells are classified in three categories :
the basophils, the neutrophils, and the eosinophils.
Eosinophils are the WBC which are attracted and coloured by a colorant
called "eosine". It is therefore easy to separate them from the other
types of WBC when making WBC counts in medical labs.
Their exact function is not well-known except that they seem to play an
important role in the identification and destruction of what is known
as antigen/antibody complexes. In clearer terms for rawists,
eosinophils play an important role in the detoxification process.
The normal % of eosinophils is < 1%. In many infectious diseases as
well as in some other diseases such as asthma or Hodgkin's disease and
some cancers, MD's will tell you that this % can rise to 10-15%
typically during several months. In instinctive nutrition, the
eosinophil count can sometimes go as high as 50% (in some extreme
cases, but usually not more than 5-20%) with the detox
process, also for a few months or years. This may lead the physician to
say an instincto is "very sick" although this gives absolutely no
external clinical symptom (the subject is apparently healthy with 50%
eosinophils - only the WBC count seems abnormal). We can interpret this
by saying that "the intensity of the detox process on an instinctive
diet is even better than with an infectious disease". In my personal
case, the eosinophil count has never risen above 1% (the rise in
eosinophils doesn't always happen and the exact medical mechanisms
aren't well known). Much research is still to be done on the subject.
MD's and fundamental researchers will understand this subject
correctly, I feel, only after they admit that one of the main function
of the immune system is to keep the body clean and that the biggest
source of molecular pollution in the body is the transformed molecules
ingested by most of the population as a result of inadequate diets.
This basophil/neutrophil/eosinophil classification is done based on the
instruments available to distinguish different types of WBC. The
basophils are those who react in a high-pH environment ("basique" in
French), neutrophils are those who react in a pH-neutral environment
(pH>= ±7).
That's what immediately comes to my mind on the subject.
BE HAPPY AND HEALTHY.
Sincerely yours. With best regards.
Bruno.
Ellie Rotunno wrote:
>> I usually experienced leg cramps (detox symptoms) about two hours
>>after I ate a lot of honey when my glucose levels were high. In 1995
>>my triglycerides were 134, and this year were as low as 25, clearly
>>no diabetes with me. Recently I had a glycosylated hemoglobin test, a
>>measure of control of glucose metabolism--a test that is usually high
>>in diabetes--and my level was normal. So it looks like my pancreas is
>>healing and this is more evidence that honey works and the
>>hyperglycemia is not an indication of diabetes or other pancreatic
>>disfunction, but is part of the healing process.
>> Would appreciate any feedback.
See my other mail concerning leg cramps (normal detox reaction and
should disappear after a few months or years at the most). Honey is one
of the foods that trigger elimination of formerly eaten
bread/carbohydrates.
Instinctive foodism can strongly contribute to improve diabetes
conditions. However one should be cautious in such cases ith the
quality of the food. Beware of commercially heated honey. If well
managed (that's all the question and the answer doesn't hold in a few
messages)an instinctive diet will help regulate the glycemia. Sometimes
there may even be surprises like diabetic subjects forbidden to eat
honey for years who suddenly feel great and lower their insulin doses
while eating a jar or two of honey per meal for a few days, but this
should be done only with expert (instinctive+medical) supervision and
top-quality foods only.
Sincerely yours. With best regards.
Bruno COMBY.
Meredith Westfall wrote:
> Dear Ellie,
> You mentioned that leg cramps are part of detox symptoms.
IMHO, this is true, and seems to be particularly the case with fromer
whole-grain-bread or whole-flour eaters, as the effect of cooked grain
protein is particularly active on the nervous system. The detox of
bread and cooked-grains in general therefore manifests itself by a
variety of nervous symptoms such as excessive fatigue or nervousness,
cramps, strange or crazy dreams, abnormal nocturnal sex erections (for
men).
This is often associated to shivering and high-sensitivity to cold,
probably due to the elimination of the carbohydrates from bread or
cereals.
These reactions normally calm down after a few weeks or months or years
depending on the individual and how intoxicated he was. These reactions
are also quite often trigered or exagerated by specific foods that
contribute to eliminating the cooked-grain/bread abnormal molecules
especially : all citruses (oranges, lemon, pamplemousse...), figs,
passionfruits and a few others
Rawest regards.
Bruno.
Thomas E. Billings wrote:
>> COMMON SENSE ON DIET AND HEALTH - OPINIONS
>> 1) No diet can guarantee perfect health because diet is only one
>>factor;
YES of course for the second part of the phrase (diet is only one
factor). However the first part of the phrase is erronated the way it
is written (no diet can guarantee perfect health). IMO, a few words
should be added such as after "No diet" add: "isolated from other
health factors". The fact that diet isn't the ONLY factor doesn't mean
it isn't an ESSENTIAL factor or even (?) the MAIN factor.
>> health involves many other factors such as exercise, stress
>>reduction, the mind, and so on.
That's correct. Fanatical attitudes or affirmations tending to lead
people to think that a single diet will solve all their problems
usually lead to deceptions some time later. Such diets have no choice
after some time but to become more open, or more dogmatic, or disappear
because results haven't met the miraculous expectations.
>> 2) There is no such thing as a perfect diet. There is no single diet
>>that is "best" for all
That may be true. We're not designed to all eat exactly the same
bananas that aren't available everywhere on the planet in the same
conditions anyway. But there may be diets that are "unbest" for all.
The question is whether a cooked diet is part of that category or not,
with what type of cooking, etc. My (humble) opinion is that there is
some "souplesse" possible and a large number of variations possible
inside a raw diet or (maybe?) including just a little low-temp drying
or cooking, but that high-temp cooked (below 45°C or so being the usual
natural limit), artificial and industrial diets, are in the "unbest"
category just as artificial drug-taking habits (smoking tobacco or
shit, coffea drinking)...
>> health is more important than dogma!
No one I know would dare challenge that !
>> 3) There are no guarantees in life. Wild animals often die of
>>disease
I would humbly replace "often" by "sometimes" because modern man today
is probably more afflicted by a wide variety of diseases than most wild
animals have ever been. If humans were transferred to a wild
environment, and weren't "saved" when necessary by the pharmacological
marvels of medical chemistry, how many would even survive more than a
few months ?
>> So too, even the most
>> conscientious raw fooder can get sick. A raw foods diet does not
>>guarantee good health (whether physical or mental)!
A raw diet can contribute even if it does not always suffice.
Onceagain, the fact that in a few cases it doesn't suffice doesn't mean
it doesn't help a lot. A raw fooder can sometimes or in some cases get
sick, but experience shows that the frequency of sickness in raw
foodists in general is much lower than in cooked-foodists, and that in
most (but not all) cases such raw-sickness doesn't require taking
medical drugs. It can also be questioned whether the (quite occasional)
remaining sickness is due to the raw diet itself or to the elimination
of remaining toxins ingested years before, or to the fact that the
foods we think to be raw or instinctive sometimes aren't (difficulty
for many people to follow a raw-diet correctly, use of selected foods,
organic foods grown with heated compost, etc.).
Sincerely yours. With best regards.
Bruno.
Stefan Joest <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Chemistry knows the problem of denaturation already and has
>>developed des- criptions that deal with the threedimensional
>>structure of molecules. My dictionary has no entry for the word I was
>>looking for: secondary (?)
Here is what I recall from the primary, secondary and tertiary chemical
structures.
The primary structure is given by the succession of atoms linked to
each other to make a molecule. Defining what atoms are linked to each
other defines its primary structure. But these atoms can be disposed
differently in space with the same primary structure. For example, two
molecules symetrical in a mirror (optical isomers) can have the same
primary structure, but be different in space, and produce a different
effect on polarised light.
The L or "Levogyr" isomers (from the greek "levo" = "left" and "gyr"
"to turn" or "rotation") produces a deviation of light leftwise while
the D or Dextrogyr isomer (from the greek "dextro" = "right" and "gyr"
"to turn" or "rotation") is the one that deviates light rightwise.
To define more precisely the geometry of a molecule it is therefore
necessary to define not only the succession of links but also the
relative 3-D position of the atoms constituting the molecule. This I
remember to be called the secundary chemical structure, giving some
(but not all) 3-D information about the position of the atoms. This
distinguishes the optical isomers and characterizes for example the L
and D isomers.
Then there is also a tertiary structure that gives the exact
description of a molecule in space and determines the exact position of
each atom and all links between the atoms. For example, very big and
fragile molecules such as enzymes can have several stable positions
varying for example with slight temperature variations, for the same
primary and secundary structures, because low energy links can
establish between different "legs" of the molecules. These "low energy"
links are very fragile with temperature or electrical variations and
therefore highly prone to denaturation, even with low temperature
heating (or cooking).
When a molecule is heated, the tertiary chemical structure is much more
fragile than the secundary structures and is therefore affected first,
especially at low temperatures. High energy events in the history of
the molecule, such as higher temperature cooking or interaction with
high-energy cosmic rays can break up the primary, secundary and, a
fortiori, the tertiary structure.
Note that primary, secundary and tertiary structure of molecules should
not be mistaken with the simple, double or triple links between atoms
in "organic chemistry (?)" ("chimie organique" in french). The concept
is totally different though the vocabulary seems similar and it is also
true that triple carbon-carbon links for example are more fragile than
double links themselves more fragile than simple links.
Primary, secundary and tertiary structures is used to define the 3-D
shape of a whole molecule, which can be constituted of just a few atoms
or of thousands of atoms, while simple, double or triple links applies
to define just ONE link between TWO atoms.
Hope these few words aren't too technical for non-chemists...
>> Anyway, chemistry can describe whith its language what happens if a
>>protein is denatured.
Yes, and this applies not only to proteins but also lipids, glucids and
all molecules in general.
Best instinctive feelings.
Bruno.
Unknown:
>> > and B. Comby would add:
>> > 18. My hands are not swift enough to catch any more grasshoopers.
Karl:
>> Yes. :-)
>> I once met him in Montrame and tasted
>> a beetle and a grasshoper from his
>> breeding. But -- they don't smell,
>> so is that food 'instinctive' or not?
>> Where is the instinctive attraction?
You're right they don't smell when fresh - though delicious.
On many species of insects, the "instinctive appeal" is visual (seeing
the shape of the insect is what triggers the instinctive appeal, makes
your mouth water and your hand grab out for it). The taste confirms the
choice and the instinctive stop is by the taste and/or lack of interest
(or of hand-swiftness) to catch them (normally both at the same time).
It is logical to think that the concept of instinct is global and
develops throughout human history in possibly different ways depending
on the type of contact with each foods. Any unpleasant sign whatever it
may be should be interpreted as a sign to stop. And any form of
pleasure can be interpreted as an encouragement to keep going. But to
reach and eat the food, you must first pass all the lights "GREEN"
(i.e. with positive pleasure at all steps).
The rule - if there is any - could respond to a boolean
mathematical logic : it requires "all green lights" to proceed, and
"one red light only" to stop. Not all foods are attractive or stop you
in the same way. Oranges will stop by the contact of the skin on your
lips. Bananas start tasting like paper. Nuts feel sticky (mouth dries
up) and more difficult to chew, etc. (these reactions can also to some
extent vary from one person to the other). For example fresh figs or
raisins often have no or little smell (depending on the species. I
remember once being attracted in Montpellier by a delicious smell I
couldn't identify at first, found out 200 yards at a distance it was a
fig-tree I couldn't see initially that smelled so good. It was bearing
hundreds of delicious figs but, even the figs themselves smelt nothing
: the leaves were the source of the smell and exhaled that delicious
fig-perfume. The logic in this case is : we are attracted at a distance
by the view or smell of the tree. Once in front of the fig-tree we see
and grab the nicely coloured fruits and the taste confirms the choice
plus gives the stop after a certain amount. It isn't necessary that the
food itself tastes good but there is a logical "attraction" chain that
brings you to eat the fruit if necessary. Nature is marvellously both
simple and complex...
For the insects it seems that in most cases the "schéma déclencheur"
(triggering factor) is the visual element, especially the shape.
Some insects do have a delicious smell to attract you however,
especially when bred in cages (concentrates the smell, making it easier
to distinguish), then the smell of the whole cage including the
crickets, cricket-shit, cricket-food, is what attracts you globally.
Sincerely yours. With best regards.
Bruno COMBY__________________________
INSTITUT BRUNO COMBY (information & scientific research)
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
IBC web site: http://www.lookup.com/homepages/70485/comby.html
|
