Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Well, George Washington Carver promoted the peanut so maybe we should just blame him.
Gluten Intollerance
- Thread starter JeffDG
- Start date
Well, George Washington Carver promoted the peanut so maybe we should just blame him.
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
Shawn
En-Route
Had to be a black man at fault, trying to destroy the white race all the time and all...
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've never known myself to be allergic to anything and have eaten a lot of peanut butter and peanuts over the years. I've also struggled with having basically non-stop canker sores, sometimes many at once, for most of my life. I kind of got used to it but the pain from them isn't something you ever really get used to. Peanut butter and canker sores were basically a daily thing for most of my life and I never drew the connection.
A few months ago I ran out of peanut butter and was too busy to get some more. Meanwhile, the canker sores I had healed up. That's typically how it works...they heal up.. I go a few weeks without them..then they come back for another round. Well this time a few weeks went by and they didn't come back.
I eventually bought some more peanut butter and ate some one night and went to sleep. In the morning I awoke to a canker sore in it's early stages. For some reason I decided to think about it..and tried to think about what I ate the day before that was different and peanut butter came to mind.
I googled it and it seems peanuts cause canker cores for some people. I immediately quit eating peanut butter as a test and the canker sore healed in about a day (versus the normal few weeks).
A month has went by now canker sore free. I think I finally nailed down where these damn things were coming from for so long. I will miss peanuts but a canker sore free life is well worth it. We'll see over the next few months if that was truly the cause. I sure hope so, because I avoid even talking for days at a time when they're at the worst.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
Jesse....I'm told that if you have a sensitivity to peanuts...you are most likely affected by the whole family of legumes. That's all kinds of beans....to include peas. It does not include "tree" nuts.
Those are some interesting symptoms.....I'm not going into the details of mine, but, I woulda never believed it if I didn't see it first hand.
Those are some interesting symptoms.....I'm not going into the details of mine, but, I woulda never believed it if I didn't see it first hand.
Last edited:
Dart
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 5,102
- Location
- You wanna retire here.
- Display Name
Display name:
iM a grandpa
A family friend of mine who is in her 50's has eaten gluten all her life but somehow became intolerant of it in the recent past years. She now has changed her recipes to gluten free and is total anti- gluten. It is surprising how someone can just become gluten intolerant especially in their 50's
Are they actually intolerant or is it something between the ears?
An immune response (allergies) can occur to anything at anytime. It can also reverse at anytime. Allergies are a ***** and often difficult to pin down.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
What has me baffled is.... I love peanuts....and I tested positive to a peanut in a prick test. Something like 2mm outta 3mm wheal comparison.
I can eat them everyday by the handful....and I have no symptoms.
So....what's up with that? Same deal for soy, barley, and basically the legumes.
What I'm learning is that exposure to something can trigger a bunch of other reactions. In my case it was probably mold at the office in the HVAC.....
Could be a false positive. Every test has some.
James_Dean
Pattern Altitude
Of course you're correct, but none of those would require labeling under any current proposed rules.
Part of the whole problem with the GMO arguments is floating definitions used. GMO refers to the specific process of using a virus or other mechanism in the direct manipulation of a gene sequence within a strand of DNA, and then producing a new strain of living organism from that DNA. It does not refer to hybridization techniques.
The objection in the argument is not one manipulating a species through genetic manipulation, but rather the method of the manipulation employed. When one side addresses the argument by deferring to the wrong argument, they do nothing to serve their cause. It appears that one is either ignorant to the argument, or dismissive of it. Either way it does nothing to further your point.
The primary fear stems from the viruses in use (I know this because I hear about it from a bat **** crazy person on a daily basis), and a compete lack of understanding of how the process actually happens and the results that you end up with.
Then there is the whole "playing God" aspect and all that junk as well since in their minds there is no difference between this, cloning zombies, or creating Frankenstein's monster. This is because they fail to recognize we are God. Once you understand God is part of you, then "playing God" becomes your understood duty instead of something to avoid. That is the fault of religion for the most part trying to manipulate society for monetary gain.
Then there is the food industry aspect of it. As more and more of our agricultural product is dependent on patented seed, we concentrate control of the food into the hands of a few corporate giants who are not looking out for the best interests of man or best results, they are looking only at best profit. This is the model the energy industry operates under, and it is not serving us well, in fact it's kept us at war killing our kids for a century now. This is my personal objection to GMO, and it is why many countries are banning the seed. I don't fear the biological aspects of it, I fear the financial and social aspects of it. Humans do technology pretty well, but we suck donkey balls at society.
Either way, we'll have a problem with this issue globally until we change our view of our place and purpose in existence.
gkainz
Final Approach
Hopefully this isn't too much of a sidetrack/hijack ... we're friends with an inordinate number of folks who claim gluten intolerance ... I'm somewhat tolerant of their intolerance 
Along a similar line, my wife suffered miserably for nearly all her life with severe gastro-intestinal distress - spasms and intestinal convulsions - ER trip severe ... and spent nearly 2 decades on immodium (when it was prescription) and Levsin.
Years of GP visits finally resulted in a diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) which I believe just means "we have no idea what's wrong - sucks to be you."
She found a company about 10-15 years ago called ImunoPrint (or similar), which did a blood analysis - iirc - against IgA and IgG (perhaps others) for reaction to a large panel of food elements. She was given a rather extensive list of foods, scaled 1 (highly intolerant) to 3 (slightly intolerant), with a number of foods she never would have found thru food elimination. Eggs (which she knew hurt her), clams and other bivalve shellfish, black pepper, white pepper, citrus ... after eliminating all the foods on this list, she's asymptomatic, unless she gets something on her list while eating out. Did you know clam juice is a base for many seafood dishes? We do now.
One interesting aside - in the course of trying to diagnose the cause, one doc said "lack of fiber" and directed large doses of Citrucel ... which led us to another ER visit on the second or third day ... as citrus is a 1 on her list of foods to avoid.
So, all that said, one would think I would be a bit more tolerant of gluten intolerant folks, except I know too many that have decided "oh, gluten-free - that's the next diet for me" and then insist on gluten free foods when they eat. No biggie at their house, but a pain the butt for hosts when they're invited for dinner.
Along a similar line, my wife suffered miserably for nearly all her life with severe gastro-intestinal distress - spasms and intestinal convulsions - ER trip severe ... and spent nearly 2 decades on immodium (when it was prescription) and Levsin.
Years of GP visits finally resulted in a diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) which I believe just means "we have no idea what's wrong - sucks to be you."
She found a company about 10-15 years ago called ImunoPrint (or similar), which did a blood analysis - iirc - against IgA and IgG (perhaps others) for reaction to a large panel of food elements. She was given a rather extensive list of foods, scaled 1 (highly intolerant) to 3 (slightly intolerant), with a number of foods she never would have found thru food elimination. Eggs (which she knew hurt her), clams and other bivalve shellfish, black pepper, white pepper, citrus ... after eliminating all the foods on this list, she's asymptomatic, unless she gets something on her list while eating out. Did you know clam juice is a base for many seafood dishes? We do now.
One interesting aside - in the course of trying to diagnose the cause, one doc said "lack of fiber" and directed large doses of Citrucel ... which led us to another ER visit on the second or third day ... as citrus is a 1 on her list of foods to avoid.
So, all that said, one would think I would be a bit more tolerant of gluten intolerant folks, except I know too many that have decided "oh, gluten-free - that's the next diet for me" and then insist on gluten free foods when they eat. No biggie at their house, but a pain the butt for hosts when they're invited for dinner.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Actually, in plants the most common means of introducing foreign genetic material is the T-plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
I can only think of a couple manipulations that actually change what's in your food. I can only think of one that could be at all harmful, and that's if you have particular food allergies.
There are no viruses in use in non-laboratory settings. Transgenes are almost always introduced into animal species by direct DNA transfer. Viruses are a bit more unpredictable.
Humans have been manipulating plants and animals since the dawn of time, changing them far more than any transgene induced modification ever has.
ITs been going on since the green revolution, GMO is just another aspect.
We'll have a problem with this issue globally until people stop being abysmally stupid, which is pretty much never.
By the way, the vast majority of GMOs are about things like pest resistance. A couple change the crop so it is more easily brought to market.
CJones
Final Approach
She found a company about 10-15 years ago called ImunoPrint (or similar), which did a blood analysis - iirc - against IgA and IgG (perhaps others) for reaction to a large panel of food elements. She was given a rather extensive list of foods, scaled 1 (highly intolerant) to 3 (slightly intolerant), with a number of foods she never would have found thru food elimination. Eggs (which she knew hurt her), clams and other bivalve shellfish, black pepper, white pepper, citrus ... after eliminating all the foods on this list, she's asymptomatic, unless she gets something on her list while eating out. Did you know clam juice is a base for many seafood dishes? We do now.
We did something similar with my oldest son. When he was <1 y/o he had massive issues with rashes all over his body. One Dr. told us that it was probably a food allergy so they ran a full panel of blood tests. She came back with a list of 30-something foods that he was either 'highly' or 'moderately' intolerant of. For the next year or so that poor kid was eating all sorts of random concoctions that my wife could come up with that addressed the bands of nutrients he needed, but weren't on "The List". He had a fun-filled diet of kale chips, cucumber and kiwi puree, beets, etc. - stuff 'normal' people never eat. (Kudos to my wife for taking the time to make all that stuff at home!!
) Despite the changes to diet, he still struggled with the constant rashes.When we finally got to a dermatologist, it took them about 30 seconds to say "Oh.. That's eczema, not allergies."
They gave us some cream and said "If that doesn't fix it, let me know and we'll give you the next strongest stuff." After a couple of tries, we found a cream that would keep the eczema under control. Along the way, we ended up doing an actual allergy blood test which popped positive for eggs, dairy, and tree nuts.Now he's 3 1/2 (going on 15), and is eczema free (except for some dry patches of skin in deep winter), but we're still trying to figure out the allergy stuff.
I don't mind all the special food we have to keep around for him at home - what I really don't enjoy is when he's out at music class or some other group of people and they say "Hey! Let's get pizza!" and my kid can't have what everyone else is eating because of his allergies. He's just now getting to the age that he realizes that he can't eat what all the other kids eat. He's a smart little guy and will tell anyone that asks "Yeah, I can't have that. I'm allergic." and he seems to shrug it off, but I know it's starting to bug him.
gkainz
Final Approach
Interesting. Our oldest son has extreme eczema. Topical steroids only partially succeeded in keeping it at bay.
He's gone extreme paleo a year or two ago - lost 60 lbs (his mom cries "you're too skinny - you need to eat!" and he says "Mom! I had 4 eggs and a half pound of bacon for breakfast!" )
Positive side effect is the eczema is pretty much gone. If he eats ice cream (both our kryptonite) the eczema flairs up immediately.
He's gone extreme paleo a year or two ago - lost 60 lbs (his mom cries "you're too skinny - you need to eat!" and he says "Mom! I had 4 eggs and a half pound of bacon for breakfast!" )
Positive side effect is the eczema is pretty much gone. If he eats ice cream (both our kryptonite) the eczema flairs up immediately.
CJones
Final Approach
We were referred to a dermatologist at Emory in Atlanta. The way they explained it was that the creams/ointments have different levels of potency. We started with '1' and worked our way up to a '3' and it knocked most everything out. IIRC, they said they can go up to a '7'. Don't think there's a 'official' scale, but that's how they explained it to us, and it seemed to make sense.
Hopefully this isn't too much of a sidetrack/hijack ... we're friends with an inordinate number of folks who claim gluten intolerance ... I'm somewhat tolerant of their intolerance
Along a similar line, my wife suffered miserably for nearly all her life with severe gastro-intestinal distress - spasms and intestinal convulsions - ER trip severe ... and spent nearly 2 decades on immodium (when it was prescription) and Levsin.
Years of GP visits finally resulted in a diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) which I believe just means "we have no idea what's wrong - sucks to be you."
She found a company about 10-15 years ago called ImunoPrint (or similar), which did a blood analysis - iirc - against IgA and IgG (perhaps others) for reaction to a large panel of food elements. She was given a rather extensive list of foods, scaled 1 (highly intolerant) to 3 (slightly intolerant), with a number of foods she never would have found thru food elimination. Eggs (which she knew hurt her), clams and other bivalve shellfish, black pepper, white pepper, citrus ... after eliminating all the foods on this list, she's asymptomatic, unless she gets something on her list while eating out. Did you know clam juice is a base for many seafood dishes? We do now.
One interesting aside - in the course of trying to diagnose the cause, one doc said "lack of fiber" and directed large doses of Citrucel ... which led us to another ER visit on the second or third day ... as citrus is a 1 on her list of foods to avoid.
So, all that said, one would think I would be a bit more tolerant of gluten intolerant folks, except I know too many that have decided "oh, gluten-free - that's the next diet for me" and then insist on gluten free foods when they eat. No biggie at their house, but a pain the butt for hosts when they're invited for dinner.
Has she tried avoiding dairy?
Your answers are the exact reason there is a "problem" with the subject in society. They don't address people's fear. Your answers are dismissive, therefore you have presented yourself as an elitist who values yourself above those you are speaking to. When you make people feel dismissed, guess what, they dismiss everything you say and discredit your entire point of view regardless the correctness of your position.
Problems don't grow from facts, problems grow from perceptions. Our perceptions of corporate responsibility in our society can get no worse, and for good cause. When you have an issue that breeds concern and fear for the health of people and their children, being dismissive is no way to deal with it. That is how tobacco proceeded for years, as well as the pharmaceutical industry all the way back to the snake oil quakes. Corporate America lies institutionally and has been caught at it so often that when any issue comes up, it is by default regarded by suspicion.
Most people have no concept of how any of this actually works, and there has been no proper effort from industry to provide impartial education to the people, just sound bites and commercials. Well, when combined with having their concerns addressed in a dismissive manner you compound the mistrust, and when people fear for the health of their children and grandchildren, they fight back tooth and nail.
The same basic problem that is at the core in this problem is the same as all our problem such as race relations and Islamic terrorism.
Last edited:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
True, but fear based on ignorance can only be cured with information. Impossible to do with those who will not be informed.
My answers are blatantly factual. If you feel they're above your head try google, honestly most of the things I discuss are described in detail. The only subjective thing I said was that people who worry about this sort of thing are abysmally stupid. I suppose I should correct that to ignorant, but honestly the information is out there. If someone refuses to examine it what other adjective fits?
Again, if simply stating the facts is considered dismissive, then our nation is in far worse shape than I could have ever imagined.
No, these people used misinformation and outright lies to hook wind the public into thinking their products weren't harmful or were efficacious.
And scientists believe in truth to the point of religious fervor.
Find me someone who responds to anything more. Put another way, I have no dog in this hunt. I am not invested in Monsanto or any of their buddies. I don't really care about your food. But I do care about the truth, though why I really can't say.
Yeah, like vaccines. "Nuff said.
Hate to bust your bubble, but GMOs are a very different phenomenon. Antipathy against them is part of a more general antipathy in this nation against scientists and others in STEM fields. It goes part and parcel with the Creationists and climate deniers. It is not remedied by education, at least not in this country.
Race relations and Islamofacism both stem from historical imperialism and its aftermath, at least that's how I see it.
If you want to prevail against stupidity, it requires much more effort. If the industry will not deign to put forth the effort, the industry will fail. Sociology beats science in society.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I'm not sure where you're finding all this "antipathy." I personally don't know anyone who hates scientists. I do, however, know plenty of people who aren't willing to blindly and mindlessly accept as fact everything a scientist happens to say.
If that's what you mean by "antipathy," then you might want to consider that that sort of worshipful devotion and unqualified faith in someone's words is something that most deistic religions require believers to have toward their god and his or her priests. They are not allowed to doubt or debate what the deity and their anointed say. They are required to either accept it as gospel or be declared heretics.
So if what you mean by "antipathy" is that non-scientists don't bow down before scientists and blindly worship them as they would deity, then I agree. There are plenty of people like that. But I also suggest that the expectation of that sort of blind, unthinking faith on the part of others might say more about scientists than it does about those who decline to worship them.
Rich
gkainz
Final Approach
She had eliminated dairy and it didn't make any difference. Since eliminating all the Severity 1 and 2 foods and being careful with Sev 3, she's mostly fine now.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I have seen diatribes on this very site against scientists and how they publish lies so that they can whore after government grants. That is to what I refer. Anyone can look up the relevant data underlying scientific discoveries. The vast majority is public and in English. No one has to take anything by faith in science.
Versus scientists, who only ask you to prove them wrong.
I expect those who question scientific advancement (like the GMO and anti-vaccine folks) to look up the relevant studies, have them explained by someone with technical expertise, like I often try and do here. I don't know any scientists who feel themselves worthy of worship. I do know quite a few who feel themselves worthy of being listened to when discussing their fields of expertise, because odds are they know more about it than you.
If you had that level of technical expertise, and found someone with almost none screaming at the top of their lungs how wrong you are and how all your work is lies, you'd be a bit put out I think. I've certainly seen experts here get that way when their expertise was questioned by folks clearly not in the know.
cowman
Final Approach
I grew up in corn country, learned all about how GMOs are used and why. Grew up with the stuff all around me. I rent out land today that a farmer is growing GMO corn on.
I also have toured some of the labs where they develop this stuff, my wife actually did an internship in one where she helped with some of the research.
When I was a kid we also raised beef cattle. Our operation was darn close to what you'd call "grass fed organic" except that wasn't a thing back then.. and we supplemented their hay with grain during the winter months, and my father(who was also a veterinarian on top of being a farmer) would give them a shot of antibiotics if they got sick but we didn't dispense medicine to healthy animals.
I've had direct and indirect connections to agriculture my whole life and I have not seen one thing in all that time in regards to GMOs, non-organics, etc that I thought was the least bit scary. The only thing I object at all to is putting animals on antibiotics full time because of the issue of developing disease resistant bacteria(which we have a problem with in humans these days too). I also have some issues with Monsanto's patenting and going after farmers who's crop was incidentally pollinated by their GMOs but that's an economic problem not a health one.
Most of these people I see throwing a fit about food that isn't "natural" as they put it are folks from the city who's only farming experience is probably going to a petting zoo. Their arguments generally boil down to something along the lines of "cause it's not natural" or "you can't know for sure it's safe".
Here's my simple BS filter. If you cannot name the specific chemical or protein that is causing a problem and explain what harm it is doing to the body then you're spouting bull****. Toxins, natural, wholistic, organic, unprocessed... etc are BS words, they are so poorly defined and so indiscriminately used that they mean nothing these days. When you hear people using that terminology, you should be really skeptical. Scientists and people who know what they're talking about can actually name a chemical or family of chemicals and explain how they work. Bull**** artists just talk about how things have toxins in them... which is bad and somehow because of corporations or processing or something.
So what if they want to go around talking BS? Well the problem is it's harmful. In the US we are mostly well off and have food- even the trendy organic kind that most of us can easily afford. The problem is now you're producing less efficiently(that's why this stuff is more costly). This makes it harder for poor people to afford to eat. This drives up worldwide food prices... high food prices mean kids in third world countries starve to death. Greenpeace and their complete BS managed to convince a whole bunch of countries to ban golden rice- something that would have solved a huge nutritional problem for many of those places and we were going to basically give away. This BS literally kills people around the world. If someone has some evidence... real good solid research that has been verified I'm open. Science is a good thing, mankind has profited greatly from it over the centuries. We should listen to it.
I also have toured some of the labs where they develop this stuff, my wife actually did an internship in one where she helped with some of the research.
When I was a kid we also raised beef cattle. Our operation was darn close to what you'd call "grass fed organic" except that wasn't a thing back then.. and we supplemented their hay with grain during the winter months, and my father(who was also a veterinarian on top of being a farmer) would give them a shot of antibiotics if they got sick but we didn't dispense medicine to healthy animals.
I've had direct and indirect connections to agriculture my whole life and I have not seen one thing in all that time in regards to GMOs, non-organics, etc that I thought was the least bit scary. The only thing I object at all to is putting animals on antibiotics full time because of the issue of developing disease resistant bacteria(which we have a problem with in humans these days too). I also have some issues with Monsanto's patenting and going after farmers who's crop was incidentally pollinated by their GMOs but that's an economic problem not a health one.
Most of these people I see throwing a fit about food that isn't "natural" as they put it are folks from the city who's only farming experience is probably going to a petting zoo. Their arguments generally boil down to something along the lines of "cause it's not natural" or "you can't know for sure it's safe".
Here's my simple BS filter. If you cannot name the specific chemical or protein that is causing a problem and explain what harm it is doing to the body then you're spouting bull****. Toxins, natural, wholistic, organic, unprocessed... etc are BS words, they are so poorly defined and so indiscriminately used that they mean nothing these days. When you hear people using that terminology, you should be really skeptical. Scientists and people who know what they're talking about can actually name a chemical or family of chemicals and explain how they work. Bull**** artists just talk about how things have toxins in them... which is bad and somehow because of corporations or processing or something.
So what if they want to go around talking BS? Well the problem is it's harmful. In the US we are mostly well off and have food- even the trendy organic kind that most of us can easily afford. The problem is now you're producing less efficiently(that's why this stuff is more costly). This makes it harder for poor people to afford to eat. This drives up worldwide food prices... high food prices mean kids in third world countries starve to death. Greenpeace and their complete BS managed to convince a whole bunch of countries to ban golden rice- something that would have solved a huge nutritional problem for many of those places and we were going to basically give away. This BS literally kills people around the world. If someone has some evidence... real good solid research that has been verified I'm open. Science is a good thing, mankind has profited greatly from it over the centuries. We should listen to it.
Well, just like in the rest of social issues, those who produce the diatribes do not represent the majority opinion, you just see that as the majority opinion because it is the only one you look at because most people who agree with you aren't in your face arguing with you.
The general consensus really does favor scientific findings. One of the main detriments to that which casts a shadow of doubt is the results attaind from the process of science and how they are put to use in society that pays for the science and scientists. Where correct or incorrectly, that relationship will always tarnish scientists.
The other factor is that science is not doing what it was intended for, to repair the corruption to the concept of God that religion created. It is the constant denial of God from the mainstream media coverage of scientists that is really what causes the mistrust. People mistrust Religion for the same reason. They can sense the reality of God, and they can sense that both have it wrong.
If you take all the data produced by the billions of dollars and countless effort of the last century's experiments and assume a preexisting intelligence, you can model a perfectly balanced, symmetrical, multiverse.
The general consensus really does favor scientific findings. One of the main detriments to that which casts a shadow of doubt is the results attaind from the process of science and how they are put to use in society that pays for the science and scientists. Where correct or incorrectly, that relationship will always tarnish scientists.
The other factor is that science is not doing what it was intended for, to repair the corruption to the concept of God that religion created. It is the constant denial of God from the mainstream media coverage of scientists that is really what causes the mistrust. People mistrust Religion for the same reason. They can sense the reality of God, and they can sense that both have it wrong.
If you take all the data produced by the billions of dollars and countless effort of the last century's experiments and assume a preexisting intelligence, you can model a perfectly balanced, symmetrical, multiverse.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
For the record, I, for one, value your explanations.
Apropos to this thread, I also admit that I have some nagging questions about GMO foods (including old-school hybridizing and the like). I wouldn't go as far as to call it opposition, but I do have doubts.
You may be surprised to find that my doubts are based on something near and dear to your heart: evolution. It seems self-evident to me that the human body, as a result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, has become very good at sorting out, digesting, and metabolizing compounds in foods that it recognizes; but I wonder if it does as well with "new" foods that it hasn't encountered before.
Take wheat, for example. There's little doubt that "modern" wheat has far more gluten than primitive wheat. There's also little doubt that even for people who are not gluten-intolerant, gluten's not the easiest stuff in the world to digest. The glutenin is easy enough to deal with, but the proline and glutamine in the gliadan are more of a challenge.
It is my understanding that for those who are gluten-intolerant, insufficiency or absence of the enzymes necessary to break down glutamine and proline in gliadin result in an inflammatory immune response. But it seems to me that this is more of a matter of degree: The human body in general has a hard time with glutamine and proline, but some have a harder time of it than others.
There are some folks (including my doctor) who speculate that one of the main reasons why people lose weight on low-carb diets has to do with their taking in little or no gluten. These people believe that although most people aren't "intolerant" of gluten, it still makes them fat. So my doctor urges me to minimize my gluten intake -- a difficult thing for someone who loves to bake and eat bread -- because he believes it to be the primary reason why it's so hard for me to lose weight.
Which gets me back to my premise, for lack of a better word: Perhaps the human mind may be capable of genetically modifying food, whether by gene-splicing or more primitive methods, much more quickly than our bodies are capable of adapting to the changes in some cases. Not all nor even most, but some. Maybe the odd protein missing here or being present there actually makes a difference to the body biochemically.
Or maybe not. Or maybe it does, but it actually results in a product that's better and easier for the body to utilize.
Whatever the case, I don't lose sleep about it. There's probably almost nothing that we eat that's in the same form as it was a thousand years ago, and little that's in the same form as it was a hundred years ago; so if you define GMO as being different than Mother Nature's version, then almost everything we eat has been genetically modified. Somehow we managed to survive and to even extend our life spans.
The problem is that with gene-splicing, we're able to bring about changes much more rapidly, so the possibility of creating something that's really, really bad for us and putting it out to market before we realize it is much higher. So for that reason, I favor caution. Not outlawing, just caution.
So if you want me to believe a blanket statement that GMO foods are perfectly safe, then I respect your opinion and superior knowledge and believe that you're most likely right 99 percent of the time: but I also reserve the right to have my doubts about the 1 percent of the time when maybe we're exceeding the body's evolutionarily-driven ability to recognize and metabolize something.
I don't think that makes me antipathetic toward scientists, and I hope that you don't, either. After all, I'm giving you the 99 percent.
Rich
Last edited:
overdrive148
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,903
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
overdrive148
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,732
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
Rich & Steinegar,
May I humbly suggest a book to read: Antifragile by Nicholas Talib.
http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-T...ds=antifragile+things+that+gain+from+disorder
He has a few chapters that deal with this subject and an interesting take on it. While he is not a bio scientist, he does understand the math and has an quite credible take on the topic. You both have the wit and background to appreciate it.
John
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,732
- Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
wrbix
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 2,398
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilot Lite
Huh?
Citrucel does not equal Citrus. Contains methylcellulose, not citrus derived. A bit of orange flavoring in the powder (thus the name confusion to some, I guess), none in the tablets.
Fiber will set you free.
gkainz
Final Approach
Huh?
Citrucel does not equal Citrus. Contains methylcellulose, not citrus derived. A bit of orange flavoring in the powder (thus the name confusion to some, I guess), none in the tablets.
Fiber will set you free.
I may have mis-remembered the helo I was on taking direct fire ... maybe it was the one behind me, but I was there and there was ground fire ...
Perhaps it wasn't Citrucel, as this was maybe 10 years ago, but the fiber supplement was packed with a citrus of some kind and she was in as extreme pain as I've ever seen her in. So, details fuzzy, end result the same.
But thanks for the info anyway ...
wrbix
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 2,398
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilot Lite
I may have mis-remembered the helo I was on taking direct fire ... maybe it was the one behind me, but I was there and there was ground fire ...
Perhaps it wasn't Citrucel, as this was maybe 10 years ago, but the fiber supplement was packed with a citrus of some kind and she was in as extreme pain as I've ever seen her in. So, details fuzzy, end result the same.
But thanks for the info anyway ...
Uh huh, any time.
Science works. The plural of anecdote is not data.
gkainz
Final Approach
No argument that science works - when it's worked. The doc that said "more fiber" also said "maybe you need to see a psychiatrist". The blood tests identifying the foods to avoid and strictly avoiding them gave her back a normal life again.
Last edited: