Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Oh I might just cry.. *sigh* page 5

  1. #41
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,148
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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 at 10:34 AM.

  2. #42
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    538
    Quote 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)

  3. #43
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,148
    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.

  4. #44
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,129
    Quote 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.

  5. #45
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote 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?

  6. #46
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote 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.
    Its never just one thing, but I believe its silly to not recognize repeated gluten exposure as a stresser in and of itself. It would be just as easy for me to say

    "Hey make no mistake the real killer is the gluten and sugar overexposure. If it were not for that you could likely eat more vegetable oil without reprocussions!"

    Surely its true but it leaves much to be desired.... just like the converse argument does.

    I can't claim to follow Robb's posts and such to know his history, but I did find a relevant pod cast.


    From the podcast....

    "Are they still going to benefit from that relative to just eating whatever
    they and then again, relative to being 100 percent gluten free, 100 percent of the time. Like is it still better to have less gluten, less
    frequently or you still just kind of screwing yourself over if you're got any at all. I think decreasing the exposure is definitely for -- some people
    they notice that they actually get a little more vigorous of a GI response when they do have gluten and part of that is the gut liking has actually
    sealed and so what happening with a gluten exposure for reactive people
    is that obviously not everybody is reactive it's just a surprising amount of people are reactive.8
    [0:15:00] And so this why a lot of the skeptic community, they get all up and arms about this stuff. But my only story with all this is that I think more problems than we've ever thought might be traced back to gluten and
    gluten like proteins and that doing some sort of an elimination diet will allow us to figure that stuff out in pretty quick order. And that's the whole crazy controversial used car assessment pitch that I have on this thing. It's like there may be some really big problems. We might figure them out by doing an elimination diet. And if it's not a
    concern for you then go for it, do whatever you want. But it's interesting
    for me. I was not gluten sensitive in the way that I am in my youth but I am now. There's good data to indicate that people can become gluten sensitive as
    they age. More people tend to become gluten sensitive as they age. There may be some breakdown in the immune response, maybe chemo
    distress, who knows what. But in general minimizing that exposure is going to definitely in my opinion be better than not unless you're just one of this people who states pain and then you can eat anything and it just really doesn't matter."

    The rest here http://robbwolf.com/wp/wp-content/up...lution-169.pdf
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-28-2013 at 07:12 PM.

  7. #47
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,129
    Good points, eKatherine and Neckhammer. I should have said Robb ate gluten with no obvious problems. It's likely that he was having subclinical issues with it before he had obvious glaring problems. I agree that everyone should try to eliminate gluten from their diet.

  8. #48
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote Originally Posted by yodiewan View Post
    Good points, eKatherine and Neckhammer. I should have said Robb ate gluten with no obvious problems. It's likely that he was having subclinical issues with it before he had obvious glaring problems. I agree that everyone should try to eliminate gluten from their diet.
    Oh well I was really remarking on the causation model that Choco keeps presenting. Like the only reason anyone may have intolerance is because of PUFA (I hate to use that instead of VEGETABLE OILS.... it's just so wrong) and antibiotics.

    Repeated gluten exposure and age of initial exposure are looking like big factors in developing future intolerance.

  9. #49
    summerbreeze's Avatar
    summerbreeze is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    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.
    I'm not trying to be antagonistic here or anything (I largely agree with your viewpoint), but as a working research scientist I have to say that this isn't quite right. Scientists can only disprove hypotheses, or add support with evidence. The way science works (in an ideal world, not practically) is by trying to prove something wrong repeatedly. Imagine that you came up with a controlled experiment that had some people randomly assigned to a CW diet and some people randomly assigned to Primal. Your hypothesis is that Primal will lead to better overall health. Let's say you measured a battery of health markers at the beginning of the experiment, and then measured them again three months later. You can get one of three outcomes:

    -The participants in the Primal condition have a bigger positive (statistically significant) difference in health markers than the CW diet people. This supports your hypothesis, but doesn't prove it (because it seems that the primal people are better, but other unknown factors could be driving your results).

    -The participants in the Primal condition have a smaller positive (statistically significant) difference in health markers than the CW diet people. This disproves your hypothesis (because in a controlled experiment, your results completely contradicted your hypothesis).

    -There is no different between Primal and CW. This is null evidence, and provides no information about your hypothesis. You now have to abandon the line of research or design a better experiment.

    I think the media really has a problem with reporting science because most scientists hedge their bets and say things like "this may possibly lead support for hypothesis X, but we still need to look at factors X, Y, and Z."

  10. #50
    PHaselow's Avatar
    PHaselow is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    725
    PrimalCon New York
    Why does going gluten free assume you need to have to eat breads, cereals, bars, cakes at all?

    It sure is true that there is a trap of substituting crappy gluten free goods for our traditional fare (especially when you buy it and don't make it yourself). I see it with Paleo, too. A rush to find Paleo friendly desserts to the point of it becoming the focus. I sure fell into that trap with Paleo, and had to opt for a radical Whole30 experiment to reboot my habits and tastebuds.

    Age 48
    Start date: 7-5-12
    5'3"
    121lbs
    GOAL: to live to be a healthy and active 100


    "In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties."
    Henri Frederic Amiel

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •