*Starch, or the Decline and Fall of the AS Organism!*

Page 4 of 12 [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

19 Feb 2009, 5:45 am

Interestingly the gut/Enteric Nervous System corresponds with one of the 7 Chakra in oriental teachings. It is the third from the bottom and is called "manipura".

It is the chakra concerned with "personal power, fear, anxiety, opinion-formation, introversion, and transition from simple/basic emotions to complex ones. Physically it governs digestion, emotionally it governs "expansiveness", and spiritually it governs all matters of growth.

What if many of the problems which we experience, the things which disable us, were because our chakra for dealing with anxiety, opinion-formation, and introversion were out of whack as a result of gut overload? What if our tendency to contraction and retreat were because our chakra for expansiveness is exhausted by continual gut-overload? And isn't one of the signs of AS a delay in growth, in development?

If we paid as much attention to limiting overload to the ( 300 square meters of ) gut as many currently do to limiting exposure to noise, crowds, chemical smells, touch, etc, I believe that we might gain strength in all the above areas which restrict so many of us now. We would still be AS, but strong and able to use our often extraordinary capacities to the full.

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

19 Feb 2009, 12:42 pm

It's as if people on WP didn't have any guts/Enteric Nervous System at all, ( not even a few square meters, let alone the normal 300 ). 8O :?

No interest in reducing overload whatsoever ... "Not if it means that I have to give up my toast/pizza/hi-fibre lunch-sandwich".

I suppose most people's ENS is half asleep like Old Man Willow, which would have a soporific effect on anyone.

.



Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

19 Feb 2009, 1:41 pm

My gut is currently bloated from starch. Sugar in high quantities can also do it. And, interestingly, I find fibre even harder to digest. Also, I have problems with anything more than small amounts of vitamin C (it's an acid and can be very hard on the gut if the gut is in bad shape).

Obviously everyone is different. But many people do have problems with an agricultural diet, especially when taken to extremes, and it is frequently blamed for the diseases of civilization (arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, obesity . . . ).

Reference: Neanderthin, by Ray Audette with Troy Gilchrist.
I wish there were more information out there on the Stone Age diet, but this book is a good start.

I have eaten low/no starch in the past, but there is a limit to how many years you can eat eggs 3 meals/day before you never want to see them again. My gut doesn't have problems with them, but my tastebuds sure do. And because I'm on welfare, I can't afford to eat a wider variety of animal proteins. So now I eat starch and my gut pays the price. :P It won't be forever. Then I go back to stone age. Yes!

I don't believe that going starch-free cures autism, based on my own experience. I do think it is possible, though, that an agricultural diet on the part of the mother can trigger the development of an autistic brain in utero for those with the right set of genes. Who knows?

Btw: protein + starch works, for those who are fine with starch.
Protein + fat works, for those who are carb free (but this diet doesn't work for everyone either).
Protein all by itself can lead to protein deprivation. You need to eat it with either fat or carbohydrate (or both) in order to metabolize it properly.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

19 Feb 2009, 1:56 pm

Anemone wrote:
I don't believe that going starch-free cures autism.

Nor do I .

But I think that gut overload may be responsible for a great many of the difficulties that we think of as AS as "discovered" in 1941/3.

I think that at previous times in history AS was not such a disability, not only because society was quieter, slower, etc etc, but because AS guts were not so weakened/comatose/numbed. I think that it may explain why AS has become seen as a disorder rather than a difference, because our sensitive systems are seriously disturbed by modern diets, and a great many of us are actually "unwell aspies/auties".

.



Mysty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,762

19 Feb 2009, 2:21 pm

Anemone, fiber is undigestiblle. That's what defines dietary fiber as fiber.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

19 Feb 2009, 5:16 pm

ouinion wrote:
Interestingly, monkeys will not eat unripe fruit. They will spit it out if they eat any by accident. And unripened fruit does contain polysaccharides/starch. The ripening process gets rid of them.

That's because fruits are produced for reproductive purposes, if they are eaten before the seed matures, then the plant's reproductive success will be limited accordingly. Plants that defend their fruits (for instance by producing toxins that are destroyed/broken down as the fruit ripens) will have greater reproductive success and come to outnumber plants that do not defend their fruits. The result is that most plants defend their fruits from being eaten before the seed has matured, by preventing the fruit from being palatable until the seeds have matured.

Wurzel wrote:
I think your theory is on the right track. In addition to being poor in nutrients, grains, beans, and potatoes contain families of toxins called enzyme blockers and lectins. Potatoes also contain glycoalkaloids.

Good grief, potatoes poor in nutrients?
Er, no potatoes are an exceptionally rich source of nutrients.

ouinon wrote:
:idea: Am wondering whether this might be one, ( very important ), reason why there are so many instructions in the older parts of the Bible about what foods you can and can't eat; including how to prepare them, which ones you are allowed to eat with which, and when you can eat them.
.

I find this a much less compelling explanation than Mary Douglas's "matter out of place" paradigm.
Quote:
The first reason is probably and simply that during two million years of human evolution we did not eat starches/complex carbohydrates/polysaccharides. We probably ate much like chimpanzees for a long time, a mixture of fruit, nuts and seeds, green plants, some meat, ( and later fish, eggs, and perhaps dairy ), and some raw root vegetables.

Where does this information come from? Why would the root vegetables have exclusively been those without starch?

Quote:
Second, starch is a large complex molecule, the "biggest" carbohydrate as gluten is the "biggest" protein that we eat. It is possible that the reason monkeys spit out unripened ( starchy ) fruit , ( unless very hungry Wink ), is because it is fairly indigestible by sheer virtue of its size.

I doubt it. The reason is because the plants produce toxins in their fruit. Not starch, but things recognized widely as toxins. Evidently some primates (particularly among Old World cercopithecines) can break down these toxins and include unripened fruit in their diets accordingly.

We can digest starch more readily than we can dietary fiber. That is why we (humans) cannot extract nutrients from plant materials that other animals can extract nutrients from.



Silvervarg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 787
Location: Sweden

20 Feb 2009, 4:03 am

ouinon wrote:
Silvervarg wrote:
Quote:
So our digestion adapted to simple sugars, and proteins and fats. The neolithic revolution, with the spread of agriculture, changed our diet dramatically, but the 12,000 years that have passed since are not enough to have "eradicated"/selected against everyone whose body can not handle complex carbohydrates/starch.
It can, all of us can digest starches, if we couldn't our bodies would react in the same way as when we eat grass, it would go straight though us.

Which must be why Klebsiella bacteria living in our intestines use starch for cell walls, so that they will be digested.

I did not say that we absolutely cannot digest starch, but that many of us, ( with the hypersensitive guts of AS ), can not handle it. That the work involved in digesting it is the source of constant unremitting overload.

No, this is what you think, without any proof what so ever.

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Quote:
Monkeys spit out unripened ( starchy ) fruit , ( unless very hungry :wink: ).
Unriped fruit tastes bad and/or contains chemicals that are harmful to us;

One of the "chemicals that are harmful" being the polysaccharide called starch, which is bad for many animals unless they are ruminants. As soon as the polysaccharides/starch disappear as part of the ripening process the fruit becomes sweet and appealing to all animals that eat fruit.

Silvervarg wrote:
ouinon wrote:
Unless we learn to "love" our Enteric Nervous System/guts and exclude the item(s) which cause it/us to overload.

You seem stuck in a conception.

And you're not? :roll: :lol:

No, if you would present some hard evidence or even some refernce that these "overloads" happens, I would be considering your theory.

Quote:
Interestingly the gut/Enteric Nervous System corresponds with one of the 7 Chakra in oriental teachings. It is the third from the bottom and is called "manipura".

You just lost all hope of ever convinceing me. But it does explain your argumentation techniquc.

pandd wrote:
*Text*

A voice of reason, finaly! :)

Quote:
Where does this information come from? Why would the root vegetables have exclusively been those without starch?

Besides, our "human evolution" took place in the savannah (?), our diet most likley where more similar to the baboons than chimps.


_________________
Sing songs. Songs sung. Samsung.


jawbrodt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,766
Location: Eastern USA

20 Feb 2009, 4:28 am

I didn't catch the reason why these starches and such, of the modern era, are negatively effecting us with AS, while NT's are perfectly fine. :chin:


_________________
Those who speak, don't know.

Those who know, don't speak.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 Feb 2009, 7:42 am

Anemone wrote:
I have eaten low/no starch in the past, but there is a limit to how many years you can eat eggs 3 meals/day before you never want to see them again. My gut doesn't have problems with them, but my tastebuds sure do. And because I'm on welfare, I can't afford to eat a wider variety of animal proteins. So now I eat starch and my gut pays the price. :P It won't be forever. Then I go back to stone age. Yes!

I am curious; how long did you eat a no starch diet for? What differences did you notice in general functioning, not just digestive? How long have you been eating starch for again, and what differences have you noticed since then?

Tinned fish is a fairly cheap and good source of protein too. And I find that without starch in my diet I don't have to eat as much, so it actually works out cheaper, especially as I don't get cravings for things, ( which can work out pretty expensive if can't control them).
.



Last edited by ouinon on 20 Feb 2009, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 Feb 2009, 7:52 am

pandd wrote:
ouinion wrote:
Interestingly, monkeys will not eat unripe fruit. They will spit it out if they eat any by accident. And unripened fruit does contain polysaccharides/starch. The ripening process gets rid of them.
Fruits are produced for reproductive purposes, if they are eaten before the seed matures, then the plant's reproductive success will be limited accordingly. Plants that defend their fruits (for instance by producing toxins that are destroyed/broken down as the fruit ripens) will have greater reproductive success and come to outnumber plants that do not defend their fruits. The result is that most plants defend their fruits from being eaten before the seed has matured, by preventing the fruit from being palatable until the seeds have matured.

How do we know that starch is not one of these "defences/deterrents", especially as certain bacteria use starch for their protective/defensive cell walls?

pandd wrote:
ouinon wrote:
During two million years of human evolution we did not eat starches/complex carbohydrates/polysaccharides. We probably ate much like chimpanzees for a long time, a mixture of fruit, nuts and seeds, green plants, some meat, ( and later fish, eggs, and perhaps dairy ), and some raw root vegetables.
Where does this information come from? Why would the root vegetables have exclusively been those without starch?

The information about chimpanzee diet is widely available, and it is generally accepted that humans probably ate similarly to other primates for a very long time. We would probably have stuck to the non-starchy roots for the same reason that monkeys do. It is unpalatable when uncooked, and harder to digest.

Quote:
We can digest starch more readily than we can dietary fiber.

That is not saying much. Dietary fibre is completely undigestible. That means that starch could be pretty undigestible, a lot of work for our digestive systems, to be eaten only when absolutely necessary.

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 Feb 2009, 7:58 am

jawbrodt wrote:
I didn't catch the reason why these starches and such, of the modern era, are negatively effecting us with AS, while NT's are perfectly fine. :chin:

Why do flourescent lights, bleach cleaners, noise, big groups, and certain kinds of touch, ( among many other things ), bother AS, and not NTs? :roll:

Our guts have a surface area of 300 square meters. If it is anything like as sensitive as the rest of us then there is every reason to think that it will be overloaded by things which NT guts are perfectly able to handle.

And am just wondering; our central nervous system, the brain, is wired differently to that of NTs. What evidence do we have that the almost independent nervous system of the gut, ( the Enteric Nervous System ), is not also?

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 Feb 2009, 9:51 am

I just found an article on connections between the Enteric Nervous System and epilepsy, migraine, and autism, at:

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/ceu/ceu12abd.html

The title of the article is "The Abdominal Brain and the Enteric Nervous System", by McMillin, Richards, Mein, and Nelson.

The Autism Centre ( uk ) has a page on Eating Disorders, at:

http://www.theautismcentre.co.uk/2007/0 ... rders.html ... which says;

"Within the ENS lies a complex collection of microcircuitry driven by more neurotransmitters and neuromodulators than found anywhere in the peripheral nervous system. Inside the ENS is nearly every chemical needed for brain function." 95% of the body's serotonin is produced there.

Many, if not most, AS suffer from some kind of bowel disorder/disturbance/dysfunction.

For anyone interested in the subject Judy Salmon presented a paper at the ARMS conference on autism in 2008 about "Autism and the ENS". And Michael Gershon wrote a book called "The Second Brain" about the ENS.

.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

20 Feb 2009, 10:32 am

ouinon wrote:
How do we know that starch is not one of these "defences/deterrents", especially as certain bacteria use starch for their protective/defensive cell walls?

By identifying and measuring the compositions of various rejected and accepted foods and correlating the results to make useful deductions.
Quote:
The information about chimpanzee diet is widely available, and it is generally accepted that humans probably ate similarly to other primates for a very long time.

Which primates, marmosets? Or perhaps chimpanzees (since you mention them, although you also mention monkeys too...)?

Quote:
We would probably have stuck to the non-starchy roots for the same reason that monkeys do. It is unpalatable when uncooked, and harder to digest.

Probably? So this is just speculation on your part?

I expect many foods seem unpalatable in their uncooked state to us, it's not necessarily the case that our ancestors found them much less palatable than the alternatives contemporaneously available to them. After all, I find raw meat unpalatable, but I understand there are primates other than myself who are quite happy to consume raw meat.

Evidently, non-human primates do eat fruit containing starch. Non-human primates do usually eat fruits lower in starch than those we human primates often include in our diets.

However, in considering digestion, it is sensible to start with the mouth (not the intestine).

Primates produce an enzyme (salivary amylase) in their saliva that breaks down and (so) begins digestion of starches. Human primates produce this enzyme in a greater amount than non-human primates. Humans have more copies of the gene coding for it than other primates.

Considering we produce more of a particular enzyme (than other primates) that makes starches more readily digestible, does it make good sense to extrapolate from non-human primate diets to our own (in regards to starch)? We are differently equipped to better digest starch, so their diets are not necessarily good predictors of our own in this specific area.


Quote:
That is not saying much. Dietary fibre is completely undigestible. That means that starch could be pretty undigestible, a lot of work for our digestive systems, to be eaten only when absolutely necessary.
.

Dietary fiber is very healthy for us. You wish to claim that starch is bad for us because it is difficult to digest while conceding something that is good for us is impossible to digest. Do you not consider this to be hopelessly muddled thinking?



Last edited by pandd on 20 Feb 2009, 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 Feb 2009, 11:42 am

pandd wrote:
Primates produce an enzyme (salivary amylase) in their saliva that breaks down and (so) begins digestion of starches. Human primates produce this enzyme in a greater amount than non-human primates. Humans have more copies of the gene coding for it than other primates.

Thank you for pointing that out. :)

:!: :idea: I have found out something very interesting about amylase production in Autists/AS. Sulphation processes are different/disturbed/dysfunctional in Autists, and this impacts on our ability to produce pancreatic amylase. Wow! :D

"Sulphation and Autism", by Rosemary Waring, ( School of Biosciences. Birmingham University ), in "The Autism File", at:

http://www.autismfile.com/papers/Rosema ... hation.asp

Rosemary_Waring wrote:
... [ preambule about discovering differences in the Sulphation processes in Autists ] ...

Andrew Wakefield's [study] showed lower levels of sulphation of the ileal mucus in children with autism, which probably explains why gut permeability is increased in autistic children. ...

The reduced sulphation of gut proteins may make Candida infections [ in the gut ] more likely in autistic children [ an explanation why this is the case ] ...

Sulphation ... is necessary to trigger the pancreatic secretion of amylase. ...

Reduced levels of pancreatic amylase alter the digestibility of starch-based foods and allow increased fermentation of pathogenic bacteria. ...

Defects in Sulphation may not be a cause of Autism, but they are responsible for much of the dysregulation of biochemical and physiological processes.
:D


Imagine having a mouth that says you can eat something that your gut can't handle. ... Oh yes, I don't need to imagine it; I'm AS and I've suffering from and/or been struggling with this problem for most of my life! :? :( :wink:
.



Last edited by ouinon on 20 Feb 2009, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

20 Feb 2009, 12:22 pm

MR wrote:
Anemone, fiber is undigestiblle. That's what defines dietary fiber as fiber.


Well, there's indigestible and there's indigestible. Most people seem to require some amount of dietery fibre as bulk, otherwise they get constipated. For me, fibre is the opposite. It leaves me cramped, bloated, and in pain.

We may not break it down into nutrients, but we can still eat it if it doesn't make us sick. That's what I meant by digestible/indigestible.



Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

20 Feb 2009, 12:29 pm

ouinon wrote:
Anemone wrote:
I have eaten low/no starch in the past, but there is a limit to how many years you can eat eggs 3 meals/day before you never want to see them again. My gut doesn't have problems with them, but my tastebuds sure do. And because I'm on welfare, I can't afford to eat a wider variety of animal proteins. So now I eat starch and my gut pays the price. :P It won't be forever. Then I go back to stone age. Yes!

I am curious; how long did you eat a no starch diet for? What differences did you notice in general functioning, not just digestive? How long have you been eating starch for again, and what differences have you noticed since then?

Tinned fish is a fairly cheap and good source of protein too. And I find that without starch in my diet I don't have to eat as much, so it actually works out cheaper, especially as I don't get cravings for things, ( which can work out pretty expensive if can't control them).
.


I ate mostly low/no starch for many years (probably close to ten years low to moderate starch, wobbling back and forth), then went completely stone age for 9 months, until my savings ran out (couldn't get it to work on welfare budget), now eating whatever I can bring myself to swallow. When completely stone age my indigestion cleared up completely, so did my skin (I wasn't expecting that, but bad skin is a sign of poor diet), and I lost weight I didn't know I could lose. I'm now much heavier than I was when I started, because my diet is that much worse. But I know it comes off quickly when the food is right, so it's mostly my dignity that's a problem right now. And the bloating and pain.

Fish, eggs, hamburger, lamb - I'm sick of them all. What I really want is steak. Thick, juicy steak. In general, food needs to be high fat to taste edible for me, which is adaptive if I'm going carb-free, since I'll need the fat to metabolize the protein.

Most fish isn't high fat enough, and pink salmon is also vetoed by my taste buds these days. Another thing I overdid at one point. (I'm also dreaming of prawns.)