What ? is this true ?
 

http://www.freedomyou.com/nutrition_book/Let's%20Eat.htm

The digestion of a banana requires very few stomach secretions. What about a piece of fried chicken? Chicken contains no enzymes to help digestion. If the chicken has been eaten quickly, there will be little enzyme activity from the saliva. It will sit in the stomach like a lead brick. The body is forced to produce strong acid secretions to build up to do some of the digestion. A coffee or two splashed down, dilutes the digestive juices. The barely-digested chicken then moves on to the small intestine where bile from the gallbladder emulsifies the chicken fat. The chicken is still in need of more digestion so the remainder of the work will require the help of the pancreas. To accomplish such a difficult task, the pancreas must produce large quantities of enzymes which place a heavy burden on it.
Studies show that eating a high percentage of cooked food causes the pancreas to enlarge. A pancreas that is enlarged as a result of over-stimulation, eventually breaks down. From years of abuse, the pancreas secretes fewer enzymes and causes digestive problems such as bloating, gas, diarrhea, gastritis or diabetes.
Let’s return to our piece of fried chicken. It has now been sitting in the intestinal track for 24 hours. Because of its partially-digested state, it has become rancid. The body must respond by producing a sticky mucus which envelopes the putrefying chicken in a protective sack. As the fiberless meat moves slowly through 30 feet of intestine, the mucus sack begins to dehydrate and impact on the colon wall. This creates a hard, black, crust-like substance that builds up, layer upon layer, inside the folds of the intestine further hindering the absorption of nutrients. Mercifully after 30 hours, this mucus sack of putrefying chicken is deposited with great effort into the toilet. Our fried chicken has taken more than it has given, depleting the enzyme bank, depositing very little in nutritional value, leaving impacted, dried mucus in its wake.

Consider the source. Do the authors have any credentials that make you think they are knowledgeable? I looked at the link you posted. They seem to be into purification and weight loss through fasting, cleansing, and religion.

Fasting for weight loss can be unhealthy and counterproductive; see this article for a discussion of how fasting affects the body. It is certainly not a part of Atkins (or South Beach, I think), where the whole idea is to lose weight by shifting your eating habits permanently to a healthier diet.

Personally, I'd say the main author has a few problems with food in general.

In general, I believe it's true that all protein foods require a great more effort in digestion than carby foods. Protein without a good deal of water intake can allegedly tip the pH balance of the body eventually.

However, your post makes several worst-case assumptions -- I realize this is you quoting something else by the way so I'm always referring to it in that context -- only adding all those together do you get the equation, like:

* - that something is eaten so incredibly fast that there's hardly any saliva involved
* - that the stomach acids are incapable of dealing with it
* - that someone's going to drink 16 oz of coffee at the same time specifically that dilutes the stomach acids (note that drinking water about 15 minutes before eating is the ideal)
* - that even after saliva, stomach acid, and bile, the chicken is still not digested, making unusual demands on the pancreas

It is true about the pancreas enlarging when you use it more. So do your bicep muscles. What line draws the difference between "enough over-stimulation to cause pancreatic breakdown" vs. "the pancreas is used more in carnivores than vegetarians" is a question I have not seen adequately answered by the research I've seen, although most vegetarians will trot that out to example why eating meat is terrible.

You might notice that it's actually usually carby food that brings most gas; protein seldom does in anybody I know, and when I shifted my diet to protein those issues vanished for me (if anything, more meat tends to have the opposite effect of diarrhea).

A protein-based diet generally improves blood readings and has often enabled some diabetics to reduce or even cease their external insulin requirements, all of which speak to a protein-based diet being more helpful than harmful, yet the article you mention would suggest the opposite.

Now theory is all very well, even when there are various pieces of research which could theoretically support it as long as there are 7 other 'assumptions' in place, but when it starts actually contradicting what you can see in your own family, friends, and body, then it's time to question it.

Also: a good deal of the process you describe becomes more realistic the more dehydrated the individual is. It is not really enough to just eat low carb; increasing water intake to a finally healthy level for the first time ever is a good part of an overall healthy eating plan.

Anybody who has ever done colon cleansing can attest to the interesting results suggesting far more storage along the walls of the intestine than most of us care to think about. On the other hand I've also read articles suggesting that the effect of fiber is to create an abrasion which causes a slimy substance to coat the intestine as it passes which gradually layers itself in deposits as protection of the intestine (mixing with the junk traveling through it of course) -- just depends on what you read!

Every eating plan is usually able to find stuff to support their opinions -- even when much of this is totally contradictory. In the end, it's what works for you I suppose.

When I began low carb I was in far more danger of keeling over from 350 extra lbs and the impact on my heart than anything -- this is a far bigger concern for me than whether I'm going to need to do a colon cleansing regime a couple times a year. As my protein requirements gradually lessen, I'll have more veggies and less meat than I do now.

Next: the idea that the chicken "deposited very little in nutritional value" is something I would argue. That is something that'd be posited by someone who thinks protein is relatively unimportant and only needed in small amounts, and who is far more concerned with the fiber in whole grains and the vitamins in a banana than they are with getting the body sufficient protein to maintain its lean body mass. That chicken contributed pure protein and amino acids to the body-- which it critically needs, and as far as 'real food' goes, could not be gotten from anything BUT meat, which is being villified in this example -- that is hardly 'contributing nothing'.

If they only want to measure by vitamins or minerals, then sure -- eating avocados and broccoli are way better! But we eat protein for a reason just like we eat veggies for a reason. The body handles them differently, and if you look for every worst-case "combination" of eating habits to explain why meat is bad, that's just going to result in someone who had better hope they can afford protein and amino acid supplements (stuff that is not 'real food' but modern contrivances), or their health problems will eventually be a helluva lot worse than a need for a colon cleansing.

There is no way to eat and not have it affect you and require work and input on your body in some fashion. It is a given that if you eat without hardly chewing and superfast, are dehydrated, drink stuff that isn't water along with your food, you are not going to digest things as well or completely than if your eating habits were better. That is not nearly so much a problem with the food as it is with the style of eating. Anything can be misused.

I remember seeing a study decades ago about how carrots could give you cancer. (My theory is that "being a laboratory rat force fed insane amounts of carrots" was what could really give you cancer!) When a person has an opinion they can usually find something to support it.

You understand I assume, that agriculture is a relatively NEW thing to the human race. For many millennia, mostly meat, with some roots/tubers and now and then a few berries or fruit (which was vastly tinier and less sweet than what we have now) was the primary food of humanity.

You see the diabetes epidemic growing literally exponentially the last 1.5 centuries. What has changed? Not meat! We eat less meat than our species ever has. What has changed? Sugar and grains that require processing or cooking to be edible have been added in massive and constantly growing amounts. If there is anything that can be tracked to the diabetes epidemic for example, it is certainly not meat. Yet that article would have you believe that if you eat meat it will so over-enlarge your pancreas that you'll get diabetes. That would merit actually hilarity if it wasn't sad that it might convince readers who don't have the testimony of tons of people who used to eat low-protein, even vegetarian, and switched to eating far more protein meats and saw their health improve, weight drop, blood readings improve, etc.

Best,
PJ

Thanks so much ( already ) for the thoughts on this article already posted. ..
I have read SO SO much on whole food eating , and on bloodsugar, hypoglycemia , carbs and sugars and problems with them ... I felt horrible before switching to a low carb whole foods diet . I had a lot of symptoms and ailments , way too many for my age... and since switching I feel SO much better. Better enough that no one could convince me that the WOE is wrong for me .
But I come across articles like this and they just seem non common sense, and ridiculous , and I just wondered what people here would have to say about it .
I am so with everyones feelings on the epidemic of the modern American diet .. the FDA pyramid , and the food industry . Its such a bunch of crap , people are brainwashed and are killing themselves and yet they are afraid to eat meat , or eggs , things that God created for us .
And you are right about just looking around at friends and family around you for the answer . It is right there in front of us everyday .
Looking at my fathers side of the family who ate margarine and ramen noodles and lots of pasta as a staple and died of heart attacks in their 40's and 50's and a grandfather who died of complications of diabetes ... then looking at my mothers side who ate butter, olive oil, and lard and hunted and ate lots of fish and game ( never trimming the fat ) and raised their own garden and are well into their 70's and do not have health problems .
And this is just one scenario of many when I look around me at peoples ways of eating and their condition of health.
Because its so clear to me , and so many around me don't get it , they get scared when they seem me eat the fat on my steak , or put a generous amount of butter on my eggs .. I have to be careful because I don't want to seem to be pushing my ways on them .. people get awfully offended by lowcarb sometimes. The government and society has brainwashed them terribly .

That whole article would work well as compost. ;) :lol:
As another poster advised, consider the source; this is selling a diet based on raw foods and enzymes. They have to at least try to give you a reason why you should try their plan.

Yes, bananas and protein foods are digested differently. What the author attempts (badly) to do is convince the reader that these differences are somehow bad for the body.
Wait a minute. If something takes more effort by the body to accomplish, that automatically makes it bad? So....explain to me how exercise is good for me, again? ;)

This particular quote cracked me up:



Psst...I'm not a species that grazes primarily on grasses. I don't have the enzymes to be able to digest cellulose (wait...aren't they trying to sell me enzymes? ;) ). Let's at least compare apples to apples. ;)

I agree with almost everything how raw and cooked food impacts digestion. Fruit indeed is digested very quickly, while cooked (especially deep fried and well done) animal protein indeed takes very long time to digest and taxes entire digestive system. raw animal protein in form of milk, cheese, and fish is digested faster, and lives less toxic residues. The best on the raw food eating, is that the diet can be built around very healthy and nutritious food:
raw veggies and fruit, raw nuts and seeds, extra virgin olive oil, raw egg yolk (skip the white), raw milk, cream, cheese, and butter (all made with raw milk), raw fish (herring, lox, sashimi:yum: ). Add steak and tuna tartar, with avocado, and you have a perfect raw food diet: gluten and starches free, easy on digestion, chockfull of digestive enzymes and easily adaptable to a low carb WOE. IMO, it is certainly healthier than diet based on fried chicken, pork rinds, fried bacon, and ultra pasturized heavy cream. ;)

Or how about this. The human body metabolizes alcohol (for energy) in preference to either carbs or fat.

Does that mean alcohol is a better energy source?

No, alcohol is procesed first because it is a toxic substance, and liver will try to get rid of it ASAP. BTW, alcohol consumed with a fat containing meal (cheese and wine), slows down and somewhat inhibits alcohol impact.

You wouldn't happen to have any links to studies (not commercial sites trying to sell something) that demonstrate that cooked protein 'taxes' (and explains exactly how it taxes) the digestive system more than any other type of food?
Bottom line, if our bodies were not meant to consume and digest protein, cooked or otherwise, we would not have the enzymes and digestive configuration that we do.
Comparing a human pancreas (an omnivore) to that of an herbivore as 'proof' that eating protein is bad is just plain ridiculous. Sort of like the study put rabbits on a high protein diet as a way to prove that it's bad for humans. ;) :lol:

Wow. Who lives mostly on that??

.

Lisa,
This is my personal obeservation to begin with, this is how I feel when I eat smoked, fried, and well done meat, it feels sits like a brick in my stomach for hours (given my digestion is not as good as someone 25 yo younger). This is different when I eat sashimi (raw fish), herring, lox, salads (raw fish) or rare medium cooked meat, and even dry cured pork fat (raw too).
I am short in time to search pubmed, but this is what I found
http://www.nourished.com.au/article...n-cooked-or-raw
You can also look at Weston Price, many studies conducted on ethnic groups that eat mostly raw animal protein: Inuit, Massai, etc.
I recall we agreed that any medical studies are biased anyway.;)
The common sense that raw animal protein contains enzymes that aid digestion, and cooking method destroys it. Same with vegetables and fruit.
Many speculate that not completely digested protein is cause for heart desease and many modern other illnesses. I will dig any further tomorrow, and sure, will find something. ;)


This is a bit flawed, since human evolved and adapted to eat grains and beans too, while everyone on this forum screams that it is poison for human being:lol: We also have amylase to break down starches, so we are highly adaptable biological machines, but wrong fuel in long term can cause it to break down faster.

I agree that we can't be compared to neither one, we are omnivores. But the point is that eating food in its whole (raw) state is better than high heat treated food.
Happy New Year!:)

Okay...so it's overcooked meat and it's based on personal feeling rather than science.
The article you linked to seems to be a bit on the fence on the issue pointing out that cooking is beneficial in some instances, making certain nutrients more bioavailable and less beneficial in others. This seems to demonstrate that it's not an either/or but a both/and situation; some cooked and some raw, not that raw is better all the time.
Enzymes present in meat are deactivated by stomach acid and are pretty much inconsequential to the whole discussion.




Not everyone, Dina, and for a few, they are poison, especially those with Celiac's disease. Let's also not forget that there are no nutrients in grains that cannot be gotten, often if greater abundance, from vegetables. They're cheap to produce and they can feed a lot of people in a starvation situation, but other than that they really don't have a lot going for them. Even archaeology confirms that cultures based on a grain-heavy diet suffered for it with poorer health than that of their hunter-gatherer counterparts. It's interesting to note, when speaking of digestive enzymes, that the body produces 4 to deal with starches and sugars, but 9 to deal with fats and proteins and that those enzymes that deal with starches and sugars are needed to digest vegetables and fruits just as much as grains. ;)



Who was talking about high heat treated food? The discussion was raw vs. cooked, not how high the heat used or the length of time the food is cooked. Your statment was that, across the board, raw is better than cooked and that protein 'taxes' the digestive system more than raw food. I simply asked for something scientific that showed your assertion to be so and also for an explanation of what 'taxed' means in relation to the digestive system.

Might want to check out 'The Protein Power Lifeplan'. The vast majority of people in that field of study would say that we have not evolved to eat grains or beans (or dairy, for that matter) - we have only evolved by about 0.0001% since the onset of agriculture 10,000yrs ago (and the consumption of grains, beans and dairy).

I second looking up Weston A. Price Weston A. Price Foundation . It is truly fascinating to find out how more primitive people ate before white flour etc, and just how healthy they were, with no cavities and easy childbirth.

:agree: Yes...and you may also like to read "Going Against the Grain" by Melissa Diane Smith....which speaks to this too. :idea: