Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency; Multigenerational health considerations

[Guest guest]

Hi Caron,

 

Just a brief response:

 

1. For clarity, in the medical world, this is not classified as an allergy,

so making that connection is a distraction.

 

2. In a nutshell, this means that the child's small intestine has trouble

breaking down (digesting) disaccharides (sugars consisting of two

monosaccharides) into their respective monosaccharides. RIPE fruits contain

primarily glucose and fructose ... ALREADY MONOSACCHARIDES ... and therefore

largely bypass the problem caused by this deficiency. Starches, OTOH, MUST

be broken down in various stages, eventually into disaccharides and then the

useful form, monosaccharides. So consumption of starches will ALWAYS run

headlong into the deficiency.

 

Therefore, feed starches, withhold fruits. & (($ & #%^( & *#%^*# & Go figure!!!

 

3. Regarding your last comment: " I just find it hard to get my head around

someone being totally unable to eat the foods we were apparently designed to

eat, specially a person who is otherwise whole and healthy, or was, at

birth, " we must keep in mind that the damage we see in children today is the

result of 3 going on 4 generations of consumption of increasingly destroyed

foods. There is a substantive cumulative effect that is NOT caused by

genetic defects, but rather that CAUSES genetic defects, as the system is

unable to sustain itself. Many, many of those born today would not survive

in Nature--at least not for long. I have written before about the idea of

devolution in our species. (See post #24645, " Nature's Design - Thoughts on

Cleanses " .) It will take multiple generations of healthful eating to fully

restore our species to a genuinely healthy place...in the future, I believe

that many people's health will eclipse that of the healthiest people alive

today.

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Caron

Monday, July 09, 2007 8:06 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency

 

 

Anyway, time enough to try to help him when I've helped myself and have

energy for both. I'm just wondering, firstly, exactly what this condition is

- I'm assuming from its description that it means he lacks sucrase (sucrose

enzyme) and isomaltase (another enzyme); and exactly what that means in

terms of raw food or 80-10-10, or a diet comprised mostly of fruits. Are

there really people out there who just CANNOT eat fruit at all? I know

people who have allergies to particular fruits (my brother and bananas for

example, though I'm curious as to what would happen if he did go raw,

whether he could eat bananas then), but they can at least eat -some- fruits.

I just find it hard to get my head around someone being totally unable to

eat the foods we were apparently designed to eat, specially a person who is

otherwise whole and healthy, or was, at birth.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

Elchanan

>1. For clarity, in the medical world, this is not classified as an allergy,

so making that connection is a distraction.

 

Yes, my point was that I know of people unable to eat one particular fruit,

or several fruits, but my aunt's understanding of this is that he can't eat

ANY fruits.

 

>2. In a nutshell, this means that the child's small intestine has trouble

breaking down (digesting) disaccharides (sugars consisting of two

monosaccharides) into their respective monosaccharides. RIPE fruits contain

primarily glucose and fructose ... ALREADY MONOSACCHARIDES ... and therefore

largely bypass the problem caused by this deficiency. Starches, OTOH, MUST

be broken down in various stages, eventually into disaccharides and then the

useful form, monosaccharides. So consumption of starches will ALWAYS run

headlong into the deficiency.

>Therefore, feed starches, withhold fruits. & (($ & #%^( & *#%^*# & Go figure!!!

 

hehe, no one ever accused the medical profession of being a logical one.

Thank you for clearing that up for me - no doubt something I should have

been able to figure out on my own.

 

>3. Regarding your last comment: " I just find it hard to get my head around

someone being totally unable to eat the foods we were apparently designed to

eat, specially a person who is otherwise whole and healthy, or was, at

birth, " we must keep in mind that the damage we see in children today is the

result of 3 going on 4 generations of consumption of increasingly destroyed

foods. There is a substantive cumulative effect that is NOT caused by

genetic defects, but rather that CAUSES genetic defects, as the system is

unable to sustain itself. Many, many of those born today would not survive

in Nature--at least not for long. I have written before about the idea of

devolution in our species. (See post #24645, " Nature's Design - Thoughts on

Cleanses " .) It will take multiple generations of healthful eating to fully

restore our species to a genuinely healthy place...in the future, I believe

that many people's health will eclipse that of the healthiest people alive

today.

 

Yes, there seem to be some very sick, or diminished people around these

days. Babies being born without skin (or very fragile skin), without

digestive systems, or other organs. These I would not expect to survive

without medical intervention and machines - most of them do die within the

first 2 years of life. But in my cousin's case, he was healthy until he was

started on solids. I don't know the specifics, but I'm guessing my aunt

followed the general information available 26 years ago, and probably

started him on rice cereal or similar, or pureed cooked veges and fruits,

somewhere between 4 and 8 months of age. [on a side note, I saw a photo the

other day of an albino dolphin, that appeared blind, and possibly sunburned,

and it was swimming on the fin of another dolphin, probably its mother -

even in the wild, mothers do all they can to support a child that wouldn't

survive on its own. That would be my instinct, too.]

 

Interestingly, my aunt also expressed concern about me " restricting " my

boy's diet - she says she did that with her son, and he ended up " more

allergic " to the things he didn't eat, like cakes, chocolate, cows milk, and

so on. My understanding of that is that his body simply became more adept at

ridding itself of things that were toxic to it, no? If so, I'd prefer my boy

keeps all his " allergies " ! I see no point in feeding him something that

makes him violently ill, to numb his response to it so he can eat more of it

and become more unhealthy.

 

Thankyou for your reply.

 

Caron

[Guest guest]

HI Caron,

 

I beg to differ. He was not healthy at all until they started him on solids.

To say that he was healthy for 700 days and then on the 701st day all of a

sudden he was unhealthy is preposterous, unless a severe and relevant trauma

occurred on or near the 700th day. You have reported no such trauma.

 

This problem began in the womb. Also, RE what is happening in the wild ...

we have so polluted the world at this point with our garbage that almost all

species are being adversely affected. An entire species goes extinct every

few minutes or hours. (I don't keep up with such details, but it is in that

range.) So it is not at all surprising that we see all sorts of deformities

showing up in animals in the wild. But without human trash, these would not,

as a general rule, occur. If you read the writings of hunters, fishermen,

and the like over the generations, you simply do not find many accounts of

such things ... they occur with great rarity indeed.

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Caron

Monday, July 09, 2007 6:22 PM

rawfood

Re: [Raw Food] Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency;

Multigenerational health considerations

 

 

Yes, there seem to be some very sick, or diminished people around these

days. Babies being born without skin (or very fragile skin), without

digestive systems, or other organs. These I would not expect to survive

without medical intervention and machines - most of them do die within the

first 2 years of life. But in my cousin's case, he was healthy until he was

started on solids. I don't know the specifics, but I'm guessing my aunt

followed the general information available 26 years ago, and probably

started him on rice cereal or similar, or pureed cooked veges and fruits,

somewhere between 4 and 8 months of age. [on a side note, I saw a photo the

other day of an albino dolphin, that appeared blind, and possibly sunburned,

 

and it was swimming on the fin of another dolphin, probably its mother -

even in the wild, mothers do all they can to support a child that wouldn't

survive on its own. That would be my instinct, too.]

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

Elchanan

>I beg to differ. He was not healthy at all until they started him on

>solids.

To say that he was healthy for 700 days and then on the 701st day all of a

sudden he was unhealthy is preposterous, unless a severe and relevant trauma

occurred on or near the 700th day. You have reported no such trauma.

 

I would consider the types of foods a form of trauma.

 

That aside, If eating raw is the way to health for humans, then shouldn't we

all be able to do it? Or is it just the lucky few who haven't been so

poisoned by their heritage? Perhaps this is a form of evolution, where

cooked food is more healthy than not?

 

>Also, RE what is happening in the wild ...

we have so polluted the world at this point with our garbage that almost all

species are being adversely affected. An entire species goes extinct every

few minutes or hours. (I don't keep up with such details, but it is in that

range.) So it is not at all surprising that we see all sorts of deformities

showing up in animals in the wild. But without human trash, these would not,

as a general rule, occur. If you read the writings of hunters, fishermen,

and the like over the generations, you simply do not find many accounts of

such things ... they occur with great rarity indeed.

 

I completely understand WHY abnormalities happen in the wild. My point was

that even in the wild, mothers will often do all they can to help a

" disabled " child to survive. The more intelligent species anyway, like the

dolphins - I guess mammals in general, who tend to have one offspring at a

time. Less intelligent species eat their own young, so clearly I'm not

refering to them.

 

As always, I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

 

Caron