Treese wrote:So - the Question then is: Is the size of Or frequency of a bowel movement any indication of whether or not the body is making use of its food?
Well, obviously anyone having 20 BMs per day consisting primarily of brown water will not be absorbing many of the nutrients in their food. But at the other extreme, according to the prevailing medical consensus, anything between several BMs per day and about 3 BMs per week can be considered to be "normal". I have a problem with that definition of "normal", however. The current mindset of most medical professionals associates elevated cholesterol levels with an increased risk of certain adverse health effects. And yet researching the available medical literature, I can find no evidence where the relationship between frequency of BMs and cholesterol level has ever been explored using rigid medical research criteria.
It is my observation that many/most people who have what is considered to be an elevated cholesterol level, tend to have fewer than 1 BM per day. It's also claimed by most medical professionals that only water and electrolytes are absorbed in the colon. It's believed that lipids are absorbed in the small intestine, and especially in the terminal ileum, for recycling. IMO that is incorrect, and in fact, lipids are also absorbed in the colon. Since food (and food residue) tends to remain in the colon longer than in any other part of the digestive system, this can have a significant effect on cholesterol levels (IMO).
As evidence, I submit my own experience: In February of 2010, my colon was surgically removed, along with a few inches of my terminal ileum, in order to save me from bleeding to death. This issue was not associated with MC, but rather an inherited genetic defect that can cause massive colonic bleeding. At any rate, within 3 months, my total cholesterol level dropped from my long-term range of 225–230 ng/mL, down to 191 ng/mL, a drop of almost 40 points.
As additional evidence I note that fiber in the diet is promoted as a way to lower cholesterol levels. But no one actually knows why that works. It's theorized that fiber binds cholesterol while still in the small intestine, to prevent it from being absorbed there, so that it can be carried on out of the body and eliminated. But I say that's hogwash, fabricated to promote the use of fiber. I submit that fiber helps to reduce cholesterol levels simply because fiber irritates the mucosa of the intestines (which has been proven by research). The irritation promotes the release of mucus, which speeds up motility, so that stool exits the body much sooner than it would otherwise. IOW my claim is that the longer stool remains in the intestines, including the colon, the more lipids will be absorbed for recycling, and therefore the higher cholesterol levels will be in the long run. And of course, that's true for all nutrients — the longer they remain available for absorption in the small intestine, the more likely they are to actually be absorbed.
Treese wrote:Question - Is Milk of Magnesia an option here, if nothing else works soon, fruit or vegetable wise?? Or, is a Cup of Coffee with French Vanilla Creamer actually a safer option than Milk of Mag? Or, a Suppository? Guess I need Help again....
IMO it's probably never a good idea to ingest an inflammatory food in order to induce a BM, since that will obviously increase the inflammation level. Of course that might need to be disregarded in an emergency situation. Laxatives are certainly an option when constipation is a problem, however. And it's never a good idea to allow C to go on too long, because it can lead to impaction problems.
Remember that in C-predominant cases of MC, the C is a symptom of inflammation, just as D is a symptom of inflammation in D-predominant MC.
And when I mentioned reviewing your current medical treatment in my previous post, I forgot to point out that constipation is a listed side effect of Lialda.
I hope that some of this is helpful.
Tex
