I hadn't remembered (till you mentioned it today) that you also have hypothyroid. My TSH was fine, and my doc didn't feel inclined to run the full panel - but at our next meeting, I'm going to lean in harder, because I would like to know whether I *narrowly averted* the possibility of additional AI conditions, or actually am *in the early stages* of any that we can possibly test for, so I can monitor how the diet is working - and this thread is a great example of why that info is important to me. I can see why, even though all these conditions may interrelate, that makes keeping track additionally confusing. How is your candida program going? (I think that may be in my mix as well?)
Tex,
Some years back, someone lent me Dr. Esselstyn's book, which advocates a vegan, no-added-oil diet to prevent and reverse heart disease. He gives the analogy of why "less" is not good enough - because, if you're a house afire, pouring "less" gasoline on the flames is not the solution. That sure makes sense to me in the inflammatory department, though at the time, I remember thinking - what if I'm not a house afire? Which, of course, I was not, in regard to heart issues (nor am I now, IMO). I wonder whether this gives some indication of why some folks can eat crucifers and achieve benefits, where others have drastic increased inflammation - on top of existing inflammation, potentially tipping over into a drastic increase of IBD symptoms. (Of course, this exact same analogy of 'house afire' works perfectly for those of us who cannot have "less" gluten, but can only reverse the inflammation with NONE.)
I have a book called Wild Health, which describes the myriad of documented ways in which wild animals address their health: they change their diet to include non-favorite foods when certain pests are prevalent, or go out of their way to line their nests with certain plants that have insect-deterring properties... the list goes on and on, it was a really interesting read. I'm mentioning it in this context because - maybe *for some people* and *at some times* eating crucifers adds some component of merit - even though it means incurring a risk - whereas for others, perhaps all the time, the risk outweighs the benefits.
This is the problem with the simple-minded thinking of "are they good or bad" - not your thinking, Tex, it's the very nature of the study - of these kinds of studies generally. A substance, method, or drug can only be good or bad - there can be no contingencies. (And this is why dwillions of women are threatening their health on statins, along with healthy men without heart disease.)
Esselstyn's diet is another perfect example - I know for sure that I cannot thrive on that diet. In fact, I was eating that diet - a personal GF adaptation, mind you - right before I got so sick with MC. I believe it's possible that, had I been eating a different, non-GF diet, I would have been in better shape to handle the horrific crash - and I believe it doesn't matter whether that was a "celiac" attack or something else, because in addition to the gut inflammation, I must have had enough other inflammation going on in the body as well. (Sorry, this might be part of my 'celiac disease is a misnomer' rant - which is still confused, but I take issue with both "celiac" and "disease" in that case, as you already know... which is just as well, because I probably missed out on my chance to score that Dx by being too sick with MC to drag myself anywhere for an endoscopy at that moment when I bet I could have actually impressed someone.)
Anyway - I know these n=1 examples are anecdotal, but I would be interested in whether you suspect taht fermentation makes sauerkraut a safer food, or whether you feel you were mostly lucky during your recovery, to be able to use that food without making things worse. (Or maybe it did, in fact, slow your healing down?) I realize there's no way to know for sure how that factor played in.
Forgive me if I'm misremembering your sauerkraut connection. We are hitting that time of year, when my husband is pining to make bigos (Polish hunter's stew), and cabbage (both fermented and not) are key ingredients.
And having said all that - Dr. Esselstyn may yet be right that eating his diet *preventively* rather than as a treatment can prevent a person from ever having the particular heart problems that he has used the diet to reverse in his seriously ill cardiac patients. But - that doesn't mean it confers optimal health on those who eat it, or is right for everybody. This applying of one answer to a thousand questions... doesn't seem right and yet seems really hard to avoid (even to detect, sometimes).
Love,
Sara
p.s. I can't stop thinking of one more thing, I'm sorry! It seems to me that we were probably meant to eat certain things "occasionally" - and that we are adapted even to eat some things that aren't ideal for us under starvation conditions (yea, even gluten grains - but not daily). So - let's suppose we'd have eaten crucifers in season, maybe preferring other veg if we could find 'em - I'm hunting/gathering here, in this thought experiment - so we could 'harvest' some benefits in a greatly varied diet, provided we didn't eat them long enough that the lectins (or other potential mechanisms of harm) could catch up with us. Now, we learn there are health benefits and we eat *everything good for us* *every chance we get* - assuming the benefits are always cumulative, and the risks are not. And of course we can find sources on the web to tell us we should cut eggs altogether, or quadruple our intake - but what if both lines of thought, as a general rule, should be suspect?
I gotta stop, but, um, YIKES.
