Today's Menu

[harma]

yes it is Polly, never thought about it in that way.

Another thing I wanted to add to this thread were comments of Polly and Tex about the diet not being 100% paleo. Mine is also not (yet) 100% paleo, simple because a lot of paleo food I can't tolerate (yet) and also if I can't eat rice, apple sauce (not paleo sugar added to it) and rice cakes, I could not do this diet. It would to strict for me. Also I try to eat is healthy as possible, but a to rigid diet regime, it feels like prison.

that is another thing I like about Loren Cordain and his paleo diet books, he never advices or suggests to do the diet 100%. He offers two options the 80/20 regime (of course 80% paleo and 20% others) or 95/5 regime. I have heard that before the 80/20 rule. I like that principle.

Also, I once read an article in magazine of area's in the world where people in general got very old. What they discovered most of the time these people had an healthy life style when it comes to food, veggies, fruit, fish lean meat, nuts etc. But never for the fully 100%. It were never "health freaks". A nice glass of bear or a bottle of wine now and than, piece of chocolate or other food/drinks that are "forbidden" now by the "health maffia". But the unhealthy things always in small quantities or only at special occassions and also with a very important goal ENJOYING it. It seems even when it comes to smoking, oh so bad for our health I am sure this is true), but when you stick to a cigar after dinner so now and than and really enjoy it. You could argue if this really is a problem.

I sometimes can be a little over the top, when I am going to eat Paleo, I have to do it 100%. Otherwise, it is not okay. What I learned the last year, that is simple does not work for me. The better I want to do it, the worse it gets. Once I lowered my goals, the better is reached my goals. Also life is than so much nicer and easier. And the more we enjoy life, the bettern it is for our health (just personal conviction).

Does this mean, smoke, drink and eat unhealthy as much as you want to enjoy life. This seems to be the credo for some people to get as much fun out of life as possible.I don't think so, because somebody smoking a package a day is not really enjoying his cigaret, he/she is addicted, same for drinking a lot of over eating. There is huge difference between (over)eating/drinking and tasting. Tasting=enjoying!!! And than you never need a lot of it.

[tex]

I think the real purpose of the rotation diet is to reduce the chance of developing sensitivities to those foods that we tolerate well. We are not supposed to be eating any foods at all that give us difficulty, let alone try to rotate them. Mary Beth can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the theory is that sensitivities are most likely to develop to foods that we eat frequently (I think it's called oral tolerance???).

Yes, I realize that, but if you read my last post, you know that I don't believe that to be true. Genetics determine our food sensitivities, and eating them will not change our genes. My guess is that someone made the assumption that we become sensitive to the foods that we eat frequently, because so many people become sensitive to gluten, casein, etc., after eating them all of their lives. But the fact is, there's no real evidence to support that "theory", is there? Most of us are still eating foods that we've eaten all our lives - we just aren't eating all of them any more. The "fact" that the immune system seems to only address one primary issue at a time, also leads many people to mistakenly believe that they are developing additional sensitivities, as time goes by, but that's simply not true - the sensitivity was there all along, but the immune system ignored it, as it concentrated it's activities on what it perceived as the most serious threat.

I realize that the "fact" that I cited in my last sentence is not actually a scientifically proven "fact", but so far, it has certainly proven to be true according to our accumulated experience, among the members of this board. If that were not true, (that the immune system concentrates on only one item at a time), then using helminths to distract the immue system from Crohn's disease, for example, could not be possible.

Sure, if someone does not resolve all their food sensitivity issues, (and their inflammation is allowed to continue), then as time goes on, they are going to develop additional sensitivities, as the gut becomes more and more inflamed, and some of the damage becomes permanent. After the gut heals, though, that's not going to happen, unless something happens to change their genes, and eating those foods daily, is not going to change genes.

I know it happened to me. When I think about it, my major sensitivities are to the foods that I ate the most of over my lifetime - gluten, dairy, yeast, soy, corn, chocolate, and then tomatoes, white potatoes, carrots, etc. I ate these foods daily for most of my life - it is impossible to eat processed foods and NOT eat wheat, soy, corn, etc. daily.

That's exactly my point. You're aren't sensitive to any of those now, because you have eaten them for most of your life - you're sensitive to them because of your genes, and, (one more time), eating foods is not going to change your genes. At least that's the way I see it.

Tex

[Gloria]

Interesting discussion. I'm not sure which side I'm on, but I have found it interesting that I'm able to eat corn (flour). Corn was one product that I consistently avoided until I had the MRT test results which indicated it was non-reactive. I was sure I'd have to continue to avoid it, but not so. I can't help but wonder if it's because I didn't eat it during the first two years I had MC.

Gloria

[MBombardier]

This doesn't have anything to do with food, but it relates to the subject, and is a question I have been spending too much time wondering about. I was not allergic to animals when I was in my teens and 20's, but I had a indoors Siamese cat for 14 years and by the time the cat died in my early 30's I was allergic to cats. At around the same time I became allergic to dogs and horses, both of which I had when I was a teenager. I am most allergic to cats, knowing just by being in the house for a short time that someone owns a cat.

Why, when allergic people are desensitized with allergy shots, would I have become allergic after 14 years of living intimately with a cat? Would this be similar to becoming intolerant of a food that is eaten regularly?

On the other hand, I have had birds in the house consistently for the last 10 years and I am not allergic to them. Related to foods, would this be like having the genes to be intolerant of corn, say, and not eggs?

And to add another factor to the mix, a few days ago I spent some time up-close-and-personal with a German Shepherd who had taken quite a liking to me. I believe I confirmed my hypothesis that now that I have been gluten-free for four months that I am no longer allergic to dogs. Could going gluten-free really have this effect? Might I look forward to other allergies going away?

Any insight would be appreciated.

[tex]

Why, when allergic people are desensitized with allergy shots, would I have become allergic after 14 years of living intimately with a cat? Would this be similar to becoming intolerant of a food that is eaten regularly?

IMO, that probably isn't really comparable to food sensitivities, because classic allergies are primarily IgE-based reactions, which cause the release of histamines, whereas food sensitivities are IgA-based reactions. Of course, classic allergies may be somewhat related to GI system reactions which involve mast cell degranulation.

When I was a kid, I had major problems with asthma, up until about the time that I was in my mid-teens. Somewhere during that time frame, (the 1950s), I had the Asian flu, (which was a pretty serious virus), and soon thereafter, my asthma disappeared, and was replaced by hay fever. As we know, viruses have the ability to alter our genes. I have no idea whether that is the reason why my asthma disappeared, and hay fever began to be a serious problem, but the time frame fits.

A little less than 15 years ago, when my MC symptoms began, my hay fever problem became much less noticeable. In fact, I thought for a while that it was gone for good. About 2 or 3 years after I went into remission, though, my hay fever began to reappear, and after a while, it became more of a problem than ever. I used to be sensitive mostly to ragweed and other weeds with similar yellow pollen. Now, however, I am also sensitive to tree pollen in the spring, and mold. Looking at the time frame, this was sort of correlated with the time when my gut healed. I could be wrong, but I believe that my hay fever subsided several years before I started the GF diet, and then it returned, several years after I started the diet. Obviously, that doesn't correlate very well with other members experiences.

Tex

[ant]

Very interesting discussion.

I am wondering if leaky gut, by allowing 'foriegn' particles into the bloodstream, stimulates the immune system to more and more foods that require to be "attacked". If so, until leaky gut is healed, we are open to new intolerances being established by our bodies.

Could this be a valid line of thinking?

Best, Ant

[Polly]

Hi All,

Tex,
I know we have always said that the immune system can only handle one primary issue at a time, but it never felt quite right to me. If this were true, humanity might never have survived! (Of course, I do agree that there is a genetic component to MC/ food sensitivities). The immune system is so complex - it has so many different specialized cells/chemicals/connections that have been designed to attack perceived invaders, whether it be bugs, the body's own tissue, foreign food particles, cancer cells, etc. My bet is that all sensitivites are not equal, with gluten being perhaps the most damaging. The other sensitivities may have been there all along (i.e. most probably arose at one time when the gene switch was turned on), I believe, but pale by comparison to gluten. So until the gluten is eliminated (and the gut heals some) the other sensitivities are just not apparent. I know in my case, the sensitivities to potato and tomato, for example, are far less of a problem than the gluten.

Marliss, good question.
As Tex said, a true allergic reaction is mediated through a different mechanism than a food sensitivity reaction. With a true allergic reaction, you can desensitize a person by injecting the offending item (pollen, for example) into the body over time, starting with a miniscule concentration and gradually increasing the dose. In your case, you were exposed to the "full" dose every day for 14 years. Hard to say if your allergy developed because of that or if your immune system was changing in some way. It is not uncommon for children to outgrow allergies and for adults to develop them at any time in life. I'm not sure we really know why? And re your question about whether going GF could affect allergies, I would say it is possible. I put NOTHING past gluten - it can alter so much of our body chemistry in so many systems. I recall one member (Jean) who found that her hearing improved significantly after being GF for several mos.

Ant,
Absolutely a valid line of thinking. Thanks for bringing us back to basics here!

Love,

Polly

[tex]

I am wondering if leaky gut, by allowing 'foriegn' particles into the bloodstream, stimulates the immune system to more and more foods that require to be "attacked". If so, until leaky gut is healed, we are open to new intolerances being established by our bodies.

Ant,

Excellent point. In fact, I suspect that this is the event that triggers the genes that cause us to become sensitive to certain foods, in the first place, (concurrent with the development of MC). And yes, I would venture a guess that this mechanism would allow the development of sensitivity to virtually any inappropriate peptide which breaches the tight junctions in sufficient quantities, on a somewhat regular basis.

Tex

[TooManyHats]

I'm wondering how long it takes to heal the gut? I've tried researching it, but only seem to come up with every crack-pot on the internet trying to sell you something. And, how do you know its healed?

[tex]

I know we have always said that the immune system can only handle one primary issue at a time, but it never felt quite right to me. If this were true, humanity might never have survived!

Well, it's tough to argue with that logic, because one would suspect that our early ancestors had regular exposure to all sorts of pathogens in their food, since it's unlikely that they had a well developed awareness of the degree of risk involved, and they certainly didn't have any sophisticated food preservation techniques in the earliest years. Hunger is a very strong motivator, so surely they sometimes scavenged partially-putrified meat, and presumably survived.

The other sensitivities may have been there all along (i.e. most probably arose at one time when the gene switch was turned on), I believe, but pale by comparison to gluten. So until the gluten is eliminated (and the gut heals some) the other sensitivities are just not apparent.

The big question is, early on, are antibodies to those other, (secondary, and tertiary, etc.), sensitivities being produced, or not? If they are, then we should react to them. Thinking back, virtually everyone who has gone through the cycle of removing gluten from their diet, achieving remission, and then relapsing, after a month or so, has not been tested for the additional sensitivities until after they relapsed. Therefore, we don't actually know if they were producing antibodies to those foods before they relapsed. Has anyone here done Enterolab testing, been found sensitive to the "big three" food sensitivities, but only eliminated gluten from their diet, achieved remission, and then relapsed after a month or so, at which point they removed the other food sensitivities from their diet, and again achieved remission?

Until that sequence of events has been demonstrated to be true, we can't actually rule out the development of additional sensitivities at a later time, because we have no proof that they actually existed early on.

I know in my case, the sensitivities to potato and tomato, for example, are far less of a problem than the gluten.

But that's because they're sources of carbohydrates, not protein - only proteins can cause so-called "autoimmune-type" reactions.

IMO, a key element in proving the theory that the immune system can only concentrate on a single major issue at a time, is found in the use of helminths to treat IBDs. There is absolutely no question that the distraction caused by the introduction of helminths, induces the immune system to disregard the IBD, and abandon it's pro-inflammatory response to it, (I say "pro-inflammatory, but we recognize, of course, that it isn't the production of the NK T-cells that is the problem - it's the absence of adequate levels of regulator T-calls). Furthermore, the efficacy of this treatment seems to be extremely high, (much better than the success rate of most drug treatments). Even more interesting, is the fact that the immune system doesn't actually seem to do much to attempt to control the helminth invasion. Does it? It seems to simply stand by and monitor the situation. Anyway, the point is, if the immune system is capable of the concurrent processing and controlling of multiple issues, then the "helminth treatment" is obviously an exception at best, and proof that multiple issues cannot be addressed at the same time, at worst. How can one rationalize that such a glaring example could be possible, unless the immune system has the capability to address only one issue at a time?

Love,
Tex

[tex]

Arlene,

We reach remission long before the gut completes the healing process, of course. Healing is almost surely a very individualized issue, and depends on the amount of existing damage, diet, general health of the patient, etc. For most of us it seems to be a minimum of at least a year or two, and in many cases, it takes much longer. I had a fecal fat test done at Enterolab, approximately 3 years after beginning the GF diet, and it showed that I still had a significant amount of residual damage at that point, (not a huge amount of damage, but still detectable).

Most doctors don't realize that it takes so long for the intestines to heal, but research shows it to be true. Celiacs are in a similar situation, and most GI docs just assume that once a patient adopts the GF diet, in a matter of weeks or months, the gut will return to normal. Not so. Research shows that most patients take more than 2 years to heal, and in fact, some never heal completely:

Out of 165 patients with first follow-up biopsies within 2 years of diagnosis, only 58 (35%) had mucosal recovery. Thirty-eight additional patients (23%) eventually did have mucosal healing, as confirmed by later biopsies.

For the entire cohort, the actuarial rate of intestinal healing at 2 years was 34%. At 5 years, 66% of patients had mucosal recovery. The median time to confirmed recovery was approximately 3.8 years.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717949

Note that at 5 years, only 66% of patients in the study had completely healed, and it took an average of 3.8 years to accomplish that. Since it takes biopsies to confirm that healing has been completed, most of us are not curious enough to be willing to go that far, so we just stick to our treatment plan, and hope for the best.

Tex

[TooManyHats]

This stood out for me:

For 236 patients, the researchers had reports from dietitians regarding gluten-free compliance. Rates of good, moderate, and poor compliance were 75%, 20% and 4%, respectively, in patients with intestinal recovery, compared to 61%, 21% and 18%, respectively, in those with persistent damage.

Good compliance? I wonder if there was a category for Excellent compliance. It suggests that 25% to to 39% were not serious about staying g/f. And, I wonder about additional food sensitivities. Could these factors play a part in the time to healing?

[tex]

Could these factors play a part in the time to healing?

Definitely - less than perfect compliance will prevent healing, and it's a very common problem. As a group, celiacs claim to be very conscientious about their diet. In reality, though, compliance is rather lax in many cases. Some slip ups are accidental, of course, but many celiacs seem to think that it doesn't hurt to cheat a little, now and then, and those who have a fairly high reaction threshold can tend to get rather casual about their compliance, simply because they can sustain a lot of intestinal damage before they react with clinical symptoms.

As difficult as it seems to be for so many celiacs to comply with a simple GF diet, imagine how much more difficult it is for those of us with multiple intolerances to avoid all those "landmines" in our food. Sadly, many people simply don't have the will power to stick with the diet, (or at least, they think that they don't have the necessary will power). As a result, many of them try to convince themselves that they are not really sensitive to those foods, in order to rationalize their reasons for not restricting their diet.

Tex

[mbeezie]

Yes, Polly, I agree. The intent is to avoid new sensitivities. In some cases dos-response is an issue and by eating something only occasionally levels do not have a chance to rise and become problematic.

Mary Beth

[tex]

and by eating something only occasionally levels do not have a chance to rise and become problematic.

But that substantiates my position, that anyone in that situation is already sensitive to a food that "requires" rotation.

Tex