https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...00114104041.htm
Not low carb, just a little something to get our noses out of joint this morning. Yeesh.

Oh, yeah. Remember Olestra? A fat you didn't digest?

It was a case of what goes up must come down.

Olestra: A Leaky History

Sand-like stuff going through the human plumbing and then down the sewage plumbing? I wonder what that's going to do to the wastewater treatment plants or septic tanks? Yikes!
True of the pharmacological agents, but my low carb, moderate fat, high protein diet is treating it quite well for me.

The-Dangers-of-Olestra There are thousands of potentially dangerous man-made chemicals known as “food additives” in your food and many of these chemicals have been linked to cancer and other diseases. Near the top of that list is Olestra a fat-free additive found in foods such as fat-free potato chips, french fries, corn chips and more recently, popcorn. Olestra is marketed as Olean® or O-lean.

Miracle Food? – Olestra is a chemical combination of sugar and soy bean oils which when combined create a substance called “sucrose polyester”. Olestra is similar in texture to fat but contains no calories or cholesterol, and its molecules are too large to be digested and absorbed by your body.

While this seems a great new way to enjoy fatty foods without gaining weight, the actual result was urgent and often emergency trips to the toilet. Olestra is best known for adverse gastrointestinal problems including diarrhea, cramps, fecal incontinence and “oily” bowel movements.

Fake Fat Does Not Make You Lean – Introduced in the US in 1998, the FDA approved Olestra for use in “light” and “fat free” snack foods like potato chips, corn chips, popcorn, crackers and cookies. Olestra was once proclaimed as “the single most important development in the history of the food industry” and food manufacturers claim that since this “fake fat” is not absorbed, it is the ideal way to enjoy your favorite snack foods without gaining weight.

While Olestra versions of foods can reduce the amount of fat in your diet, the product will tempt those who consume it to eat more empty-calorie snack foods.

In a study conducted at Purdue University, researchers found that rats fed Olean-containing potato chips as part of a high-fat diet consumed more calories overall and gained more weight than rats fed a high fat diet and regular, full-fat potato chips. The result – “Fat substitutes interfere with the body’s ability to regulate what it eats and result in overeating.” The benefits of Olestra do not outweigh the risks.

Dangers of Olestra – Olestra is banned in Canada, the United Kingdom, and many other countries, because it depletes the body of fat soluble nutrients such as vitamins A, D, E and K and carotenoids. Carotenoids are natural pigments found in yellow, orange and red fruits and vegetables that are believed to protect against heart disease, cancer, stroke and blindness.

Olestra is dangerous because it attaches itself to these healthy and valuable nutrients (vitamins and carotenoids) and literally flushes them out of your body. These nutrients protect us from cancers, heart disease, and macular degeneration. Check your food labels and avoid Olean® and the resulting stomach upset and potential health hazards.
https://www.dietandnutritiongroup.c...-olestra-olean/

Well, THAT sounds like something Mother Nature herself might have figured out!

I think that other Swedish guy, Diet Doctor, has a much better idea.

Truth is stranger than fiction proving you can't make this stuff up. Perhaps if we chose to treat obesity by prescribing the right foods rather than medications or surgery, it might prove to be easier, but then, there's no new revenue stream. Oh, bother.

When you consider the company who invented Olestra spent thirty years getting approval for use in snack foods; only to see it go down shortly after; we get a glimpse of just how much money is at stake in the snack food industry.

People freak out when I say things like "sugar is a legal drug" but like wheat, it is heavily subsidized and in everything.

Snack foods are heavily carb-loaded; I remember the era of Snackwells, which took the fat out and replaced it with sugar. That's a way to gain a pound a day, let me tell ya.

Probably no problem for the wastewater treatment plants or septic tanks. Part of the way conventional septic systems work is to filter waste material through soil (the leach field). The sandier the soil, the more effective it is at filtering out waste.

A bigger worry is, what will it do "human plumbing?" I can just imagine those little silica particles wedging themselves down amongst the villi of the gut's mucosal folds and getting ground in ever harder every time another load of food passes thru.

An analogy might be what happens when you spill sand on a carpet. Consider how hard it is t completely vacuum sand out of a carpet. Some of it invariably worms its way down under the carpet fibers and lodges there. Then, those pieces of sand grind against the carpet's backing material every time the someone walks on the carpet, cutting into and wearing the backing materials out. Personally, I would predict a sharp increase in the numbers of people suffering from leaky gut syndrome if this stuff becomes a popular food additive!

Reminds me of the early days of statin testing. They gave placebos filled with sand to duplicate the gastrointestinal effects of the drug.

Never occurred to them it might be a bad idea, did it?

This reminds of cellulose in mouse studies. In a study from a few years back, called something like 'A ketogenic diet causes a unique metabolic state in mice' had to be restarted somewhere around the six month mark because the animals were dying suspiciously early. It turned out the animals weren't doing well with the cellulose fiber used in the diet, so they switched them to wheat middlings for the fiber source. Another study looked at 25 different macronutrient ratios and longevity--it also looked at calorie density. Across all macro ratios, the lowest calorie density resulted in the shortest lifespan--the seven shortest lifespans, all in a row, had the lowest calorie density. Calorie density was manipulated by adding what was thought to be harmless--cellulose fiber.

I don't for one moment think that adding cellulose in equal amounts as celery or kale would have been as damaging. I think natural cellulose, as long as you don't try to eat a tree or something, is probably usually pretty harmless. Once you dessicate it, grind it up into fine particles, cook it into chow, apparently something changes.

I did a search for 'feces' in the silicon particle study. Nothing about the calories contained in the feces. If food efficiency is being reduced, where is stuff going, instead of being used to make a bigger mouse? Unclear to what degree digestion of fat versus protein versus carb is being interfered with.

Their hypothesis is that the particles interfere with enzyme activity, no speculation about which enzymes. I'm sure the hope is that it's ones for dealing with fat.

I realize that this study isn't intended to be humorous, but I can't help but laughing at the lack of awareness of discreet metabolic mechanisms going into this. If the desired outcome is good, then full speed ahead, forget all the other stuff.

I am continually astounded, although I should be used to it by now, at the complete lack of intelligence that goes into these studies. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. People are sick and suffering and this is what passes for useful research into solutions. As Richard Feinman says, the term "nutritional science" is an oxymoron.

Very interesting studies. They do show me that there is nothing magical about fiber in the diet. Just having more fiber in one's diet doesn't generate health.

Unless the silica separates from solid waste and sinks, filling the bottom of the tank with sandy sludge requiring more frequent maintenance clean outs. Inside the body, yeah. Disaster!

My experience backs up the research from the Gutsense.org site.

https://www.gutsense.org/

I do low fiber and my digestive system thanks me!