Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh I might just cry.. *sigh*

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
    ChocoTaco has said the same thing when hijacking support threads.

    Someone is wrong on the internet!!!
    I don't have a single idea what you're talking about.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
      Yes, I understand that. I have only jumped in when someone has said something nonsensical. Who said this is an issue? I certainly am not making it an issue and neither is the person I was conversing with. So I'm just supposed to stop expressing my opinion because I've already "had my say in two other threads"? That's ridiculous.
      Meh, hadn't had my coffee yet. Just disregard the first two paragraphs and I'll stand by the third in that post

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MEversbergII View Post
        Chaco, I'd brought up the idea that maybe some grain related issues stem from buggered up gut flora, but it didn't seem to hold traction here. Celiac is a disease long known.

        Also, TIL Celiac kills.

        M.
        Yeah I also had my head in a blog that puts down autoimmune diseases as a function of poor/incorrect gut flora.
        The idea is that our immune response system is "trained" by our good gut flora that have been with us for many thousands of years. When these are replaced by the bad gut flora that rise in number from consistently eating refined sugars, carbs and fats, the immune system responds negatively, leading to alot of the immune problems we see today.

        Very basic description because I'm on my iPhone and aren't a very good tapper


        Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
        A little primal gem - My Success Story
        Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
          Meh, hadn't had my coffee yet. Just disregard the first two paragraphs and I'll stand by the third in that post
          Me either. I guess I need to refrain from the internet until then.

          Anyways, yeah, I understand what you're saying in the last paragraph, but with the gluten issue, I just don't think the research supports some of the claims. I'm not denying that it imposes severe problems for some as you know.

          It's never my intention to be offensive or confrontational, so if I come off that way, let me know. Just voicing my opinion, that's all .
          My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
            Me either. I guess I need to refrain from the internet until then.

            Anyways, yeah, I understand what you're saying in the last paragraph, but with the gluten issue, I just don't think the research supports some of the claims. I'm not denying that it imposes severe problems for some as you know.

            It's never my intention to be offensive or confrontational, so if I come off that way, let me know. Just voicing my opinion, that's all .
            There is quality of opinion and what someone might use their opinion for, that worries me.
            There are some on this forum that use their opinion to prescribe dangerous practices (like supplementing hormones) or to instil fear (like your heart rate is under 85, your probably hypothyroid). So opinions can be dangerous.

            Your opinion to me is based a little too much on research/science, but other wise pretty decent and a welcome antagonist to the standard primal view.


            Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
            A little primal gem - My Success Story
            Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

            Comment


            • #36
              Those of you who think celiac can be cured should be putting together a business plan and looking for investors so you can make your millions.

              Let us know how that works out, eh?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                Your opinion to me is based a little too much on research/science, but other wise pretty decent and a welcome antagonist to the standard primal view.
                I tend to lean towards the research because of the fact that there is such a variance in personal experience. Yes, a large part of this forum has an intolerance towards gluten/diary/whatever, but this is a very selective community. Looking past this forum, I don't think you can discount personal experience, for example, from someone saying they've been consuming gluten their entire life with no problem at all.

                Just an observation: some on the forum are quick to support their claims using their personal experience or the experience of others on the forum, but they are just as quick to shoot down the personal experience of people who have differing views.

                This is why I lean towards the research.
                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                  I tend to lean towards the research because of the fact that there is such a variance in personal experience. Yes, a large part of this forum has an intolerance towards gluten/diary/whatever, but this is a very selective community. Looking past this forum, I don't think you can discount personal experience, for example, from someone saying they've been consuming gluten their entire life with no problem at all.

                  Just an observation: some on the forum are quick to support their claims using their personal experience or the experience of others on the forum, but they are just as quick to shoot down the personal experience of people who have differing views.

                  This is why I lean towards the research.
                  Yeah I'm pretty much in agreeance here, although I would like to point one thing out;

                  Science/research is based on a repeatable observation given a standardised set of variables. It generally lags behind hypothesis. Meaning you have to "have" a hypothesis before you can test that hypothesis. Science is in the testing of hypothesis's not in their formulation. Any science/research you quote has been through this process.

                  Alot of non scientist formulate hypothesis for things, MDA visitors very much do this. Alot of these hypothesis are bogus, but there are some that would stick.

                  When one goes and quotes science on a person quoting a hypothesis, your not really doing much, that hypothesis exist outside of science.

                  An even more pertinent fact is that you can't disprove a hypothesis with science, you can only confirm it. You can only say a hypothesis is correct by doing an experiment and confirming the results. If the experiment fails it may not be because the hypothesis was wrong, you mightn't of had all the confirming variables in your experiment.

                  That's why the science quoters fight with the hypothesisers on this board.


                  Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
                  A little primal gem - My Success Story
                  Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    While I usually disagree with Choco, on this issue he's on the right track.

                    We MUST realize that the article was written from a CW point of view. A CW which sees whole wheat as heart-healthy. In the CW community, gluten is fast becoming the new scapegoat. The reasoning is that if you avoid gluten, you can have all the baked goods you want... as long as its in moderation and you exercise, etc. The writer of the article is warning against that. She says that there's so much good stuff in wheat, like fiber, that you shouldn't avoid wheat unless you're really celiac.

                    Of course all of it's hogwash. We shouldn't be eating wheat at all,* and gluten-free usually means empty carb grains. Hence the frustration of the OP.

                    ---------------
                    *for jakejoh10: I know you're not as anti-wheat as the rest of the board. I am against wheat because it gives me acid reflux, because it's addictive and makes me hungry, and because I eat enough veggies (80-90 g) that I don't have any carb grams left over at the end of the day to eat grains anyway. Now, if *you* don't suffer any effects, are active enough to need the extra carbs, and can do it in moderation without being addicted, well then I guess wheat is okay for *you.* Just be aware that wheat may have insidious side effects that you wouldn't feel.
                    5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                      Yeah I'm pretty much in agreeance here, although I would like to point one thing out;

                      Science/research is based on a repeatable observation given a standardised set of variables. It generally lags behind hypothesis. Meaning you have to "have" a hypothesis before you can test that hypothesis. Science is in the testing of hypothesis's not in their formulation. Any science/research you quote has been through this process.

                      Alot of non scientist formulate hypothesis for things, MDA visitors very much do this. Alot of these hypothesis are bogus, but there are some that would stick.

                      When one goes and quotes science on a person quoting a hypothesis, your not really doing much, that hypothesis exist outside of science.

                      An even more pertinent fact is that you can't disprove a hypothesis with science, you can only confirm it. You can only say a hypothesis is correct by doing an experiment and confirming the results. If the experiment fails it may not be because the hypothesis was wrong, you mightn't of had all the confirming variables in your experiment.

                      That's why the science quoters fight with the hypothesisers on this board.
                      Agreed on all points.
                      My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                        Yeah I also had my head in a blog that puts down autoimmune diseases as a function of poor/incorrect gut flora.
                        The idea is that our immune response system is "trained" by our good gut flora that have been with us for many thousands of years. When these are replaced by the bad gut flora that rise in number from consistently eating refined sugars, carbs and fats, the immune system responds negatively, leading to alot of the immune problems we see today.

                        Very basic description because I'm on my iPhone and aren't a very good tapper


                        Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
                        Ya may be interested in taking a look at secretory IgA. It targets anything that is potentially harmful...bacteria, microscopic parasites, and even large food particles that could cause inflammation. Yet it knows to leave our gut biome alone. Its offers non-specific immunity (making it unique in this regard when compared to other antibody types). I find that really interesting, but we really don't know how or what markers are present on our "helpful" gut bacteria to stop it. Imbalances in the production of IgA have been implicated in many issues. Is it the chicken or the egg when it comes to virulent gut bacteria. Why is someones gut out of balance (probably that all those things that are anti-primal both stress the immune response and favor virulent bacteria IMO)? Too low a production of IgA or not enough health bacerium or both. Probably a different answer for different individuals, but I tend to think if you have the proper nutrition in place then you have a healthy production and immune response which will lead to a balanced gut biome with or without extra fiber intake to "crowd out" bad bacteria. This idea that you can crowd out virulent strains never really sat well with me. Strengthen and normalize the immune response and you shoudn't need more "good" bacteria in the gut than what is necessary based on your current consumption. More meat... less bacteria needed.... more starch.... more bacteria....but neither should lead to dysbiosis with a functional immune response IMO.
                        Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-28-2013, 10:34 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          Ya may be interested in taking a look at secretory IgA. It targets anything that is potentially harmful...bacteria, microscopic parasites, and even large food particles that could cause inflammation. Yet it knows to leave our gut biome alone. Its offers non-specific immunity (making it unique in this regard when compared to other antibody types). I find that really interesting, but we really don't know how or what markers are present on our "helpful" gut bacteria to stop it. Imbalances in the production of IgA have been implicated in many issues. Is it the chicken or the egg when it comes to virulent gut bacteria. Why is someones gut out of balance? Too low a production of IgA or not enough health bacerium or both. Probably a different answer for different individuals, but I tend to think if you have the proper nutrition in place then you have a healthy production and immune response which will lead to a balanced gut biome with or without extra fiber intake to "crowd out" bad bacteria. This idea that you can crowd out virulent strains never really sat well with me. Strengthen and normalize the immune response and you shoudn't need more "good" bacteria in the gut than what is necessary based on your current consumption. More meat... less bacteria needed.... more starch.... more bacteria....but neither should lead to dysbiosis with a functional immune response IMO.
                          The blog was making mention of a "peacekeeping" anti body called a "T-reg" this guys job is to police the police (IgA). These t-regs turn off the indiscriminate IgA's in the presence of "old friends" (our gut biomes that have been with us thru millennia). These guys are basically anti inflamitories.

                          When these good bacteria get down regulated from poor diet choices or other factors (antibiotics etc) the peacekeeping t-regs can't really stop the IgA from going on a rampage. Then you get all the inflammatory diseases.


                          Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
                          A little primal gem - My Success Story
                          Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Ah intersting, so like here Treg cell-IgA axis in maintenance of hos... [Int Immunopharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

                            Another avenue to explore a bit it seems.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              Gluten, in my opinion and experience, is not so much a cause of disease but rather a trigger once your body is very unhealthy. Chronic gluten consumption I could see as becoming problematic as it is an inflammatory protein, but make no mistake about it, if all of our guts weren't so screwed up from the PUFA and antibiotics (they're in everything from meats to eggs to dish soaps to the water we drink since people flush their pills down their toilets!) we ingest, we would not be nearly as sensitive and much more resistant to these diseases. It's the fats and chemicals breaking down our bodies that make us weak to the more inflammatory proteins.
                              I think Robb Wolf would back you up on this. He ate gluten without issues when he was younger. It wasn't until he had lots of stress and messed up sleep from school that he started having serious digestion problems that required him to eliminate gluten.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by yodiewan View Post
                                I think Robb Wolf would back you up on this. He ate gluten without issues when he was younger. It wasn't until he had lots of stress and messed up sleep from school that he started having serious digestion problems that required him to eliminate gluten.
                                Lots of people can point to an incident that triggered their celiac or gluten-intolerance. The worst case I ever read was of a woman who decided to do a "liver cleanse" and ended up on a severely restricted diet, unable to eat grains, nightshades, and other common foods.

                                Others only realize after giving it up that some of their symptoms went back as far as childhood. So were they doing "fine" up to that point or not?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X