Jay Banks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bruce Kleisner:
> > Several books refute the idea that starches
> > or disaccharide sugars are digestible at all.
>
> Of course, your books are right, right?

Have you read the books I referred to which argue
that MOST PEOPLE don't digest raw/cooked starches,
unripe fruit, or processed disaccharides (lactose,
sucrose, maltose) properly. Instead, those sugars
feed harmful microbes and allow them to overwhelm
the gastro-intestinal tract (or worse). They also
produce toxic byproducts through fermentation and
microbial activity, creating volatile fatty acids,
organic acids, and other caustic substances which
can directly damage the GI tract.

Result: Candida albicans & other yeast infections,
chronic diarrhea, chronic constipation, irritable
bowel disease/syndrome (IBS/IBD), Crohn's Disease,
celiac, cystic fibrosis, ulcerative colitis, mal-
absorption, and many other serious afflictions. A
diet created by Drs. Sidney V. Haas and Merril P.
Haas, popularized by Elaine Gottschall, has shown
to reverse those conditions. This helps explain a
lot of the benefit for paleo, low-carb, etc.

http://www.scdiet.org/
http://www.scdiet.com/

> > Animal fat and protein are
> > very unlikely to make you fat. They provide the nutrients
> > we need with nothing superfluous (fiber & carbohydrate).
>
> Well, I could agree with that and still point out
> a vast body of actual research that contradicts
> it. Huge bodies of research point to anti-cancer
> properties found in fruits and vegetables, both
> of which come with that darn superfluous stuff.

To which statement do you direct your response? Do
you argue that whole animal foods (meat, eggs, sea
food, poultry) are fattening? Do you argue that an
animal-based diet would cause cancer? (See Eskimos
and Stefansson.) Do you argue that a diet lacking
fruits and vegetables causes cancer? (Repeat.)

> > There's still
> > no proof that we need enzymes to digest our food or that producing
> > enzymes puts a burden on the body. Let us not jump to conclusions

> 89 lactose intolerant children are given tablets ...
> Those subjects given the lactase-containing tablets ...
> showed a reduction in both hydrogen excretion and abdominal
> symptoms. -- American Journal of Diseases of Children 1261 (Nov. 1990).

How does this prove we need enzymes to digest foods we
evolved to eat like meat, eggs, fish, vegetables, nuts,
seeds, fruits, and honey? The following study suggests
that raw egg protein is half as digestible as cooked.

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/10/1716

> Most nutritionist will say that enzymes do not aid in digestion,
> but above was a demonstration that one certainly does aid in
> digestion. How could that be when they claim that all enzymes
> are killed by stomach acid?

Given that unhealthy people often don't produce as much
stomach acid, perhaps they benefit more from raw foods?
I don't know if enzymes are destroyed in the stomach or
not. Neither does Howell. He THEORIZES that they are...

> > Why would we want to decrease the amount of food
> > we absorb? That just leaves more for microbes and other
> > organisms inside us, more for the toilet.
>
> And less wear and tear on the body trying to metabolize
> it, which is why calorie restriction has been one of the
> few scientifically proven means of extending life.

The calorie-restriction theory has been refuted by new
studies showing that intermittent fasting has the same
benefits even eating just as much. Periodic fasts are
a lot more paleo than starvation. Primitive people did
not have groceries, convenience stores, and fast food
joints on every corner.

> > Howell makes
> > the same mistake as every other diet guru - he assumes
> > that we fatten on calories. He believes that the human
> > body is merely a bomb calorimeter or blast furnace.
>
> Howell certainly did not think that, which makes me wonder
> if you have ever even read his work. He repeatedly points
> out supposedly high-caloric foods that do not make
> people fat, and had a much better understanding of
> fats in the diet than either Audette or Cordain do.

I've read both of Howell's books. Where has he proven
that people can't get fat on avocados, honey, coconut
and other high-calorie raw foods? He can "point out"
all he wants, but his ideas have been refuted in the
Real World by people getting fat on a 100% raw diets
based on olive oil, honey, coconut cream, vegetable
juices, and non-paleo beverages.

> > The references are old, and who knows what slopply
> > methodology was used by Rosenthal and Ziegler...
>
> Well, shouldn't be that hard to duplicate. Grab a
> glucose meter and find a diabetic, which shouldn't
> be that hard, either.

For most people, raw unheated honey causes the same
massive surge of blood sugar and insulin as heated
honey. Honey is probably equally digestible whether
raw or not, due to its high content of simple mono-
saccharide sugars.

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9812&L=raw-food&P=R254

Raw potatoes and corn are hardly digestible at all.
More waste. More undigested food particles causing
food allergies and addictions. The glycemic index
is a very flawed tool for evaluating carbohydrates.
Foods with a lower glycemic index (whole wheat vs.
white bread) are often not digested as well. That
is cause for alarm, not celebration.

http://www.scdiet.org/
http://www.scdiet.com/