Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency; Multigenerational health considerations

[Guest guest]

Hi Caron,

 

Yes, I see what you mean about perceiving the types of foods as trauma,

though that is not the typical use of the term. But in all likelihood, the

mother ate whatever quality of food the child was then fed, so the trauma

would have been in the breast milk, in the womb ... as I said, this began in

the womb, of this I have no doubt at all.

 

We are one species. To the extent that we are born healthy and in one piece,

then we all thrive on the same general diet, as does every other species.

But the multigenerational damage is becoming extensive, particularly in the

U.S. and with other " advanced " countries not far behind. Any adaptive

responses would not be in the direction of cooked foods, but rather in the

direction of shutting down nonessential functions. And this is exactly what

we may observe: the increasing rates of organismal degeneration, and

ultimately the loss of reproductive capacity, are at epidemic levels and

increasing with no end in sight.

 

Caron, the type of adaptive response you describe, were it ever to occur,

would require many, many generations. And over many generations of humans

eating cooked foods, there is absolutely no evidence that we have adapted in

the direction of constructively using cooked foods, in general. This makes

sense simply because the material is damaged by cooking, that is the whole

point.

 

Instead, we observe our species retreating at a biological level, retreating

in a manner that is becoming what military leaders would call a " route " .

People, including some here, reach for any " solution " without the slightest

regard for comprehending the problem. They experience discomfort, they have

little or no genuine faith in Nature's design, and so they run for whatever

priest or priestess is peddling something. And so it has been throughout the

recorded history of our species, there is nothing new in any of this.

 

I hate to say it, but in all honesty, the man you describe was born

sufficiently damaged that, in Nature, he would probably have died at a very

young age. Our technology may allow us to keep him alive, but he may simply

never eat, or function in certain other ways, as a fully functional human,

no matter what we may do. We have reached this point ... this is why I

sometimes use the word " devolution " to describe changes presently occurring

in our species. What is hard, I sense, is acceptance ... that this really is

happening, right before our eyes, to those close to us as well as to those

farther away.

 

Sorry ... but you know me, I speak straight, from the bottom of my soul.

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Caron

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:18 PM

rawfood

Re: [Raw Food] Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency;

Multigenerational health considerations

 

 

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?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Elchanan,

 

I get what you're saying about all of this, but after re-reading

Caron's original post, I have questions. Couldn't there be other

reasons for this boy's problem? Aren't we all much healthier on

breast milk, and " injured/traumatized " when we're forced to eat rice

cereal on whatever day we're fed it? I mean, maybe he WAS damaged by

the introduction of solids at too young an age, and then further

damaged by the high-protein diet, and whatever else was part of

his " treatment. " And maybe he has trouble digesting fruits now, but

could be helped and healed to at least some degree. Perhaps he is

not just a devolved, genetically-weak, permanently damaged person

(that's sort of what it sounds like you're saying to me)? Is it due

to the extent of his current problems that you're you saying he must

have been so damaged when he was born?

 

Thanks,

 

Laurie

 

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

>

> Hi Caron,

>

> Yes, I see what you mean about perceiving the types of foods as

trauma,

> though that is not the typical use of the term. But in all

likelihood, the

> mother ate whatever quality of food the child was then fed, so the

trauma

> would have been in the breast milk, in the womb ... as I said, this

began in

> the womb, of this I have no doubt at all.

>

> We are one species. To the extent that we are born healthy and in

one piece,

> then we all thrive on the same general diet, as does every other

species.

> But the multigenerational damage is becoming extensive,

particularly in the

> U.S. and with other " advanced " countries not far behind. Any

adaptive

> responses would not be in the direction of cooked foods, but rather

in the

> direction of shutting down nonessential functions. And this is

exactly what

> we may observe: the increasing rates of organismal degeneration, and

> ultimately the loss of reproductive capacity, are at epidemic

levels and

> increasing with no end in sight.

>

> Caron, the type of adaptive response you describe, were it ever to

occur,

> would require many, many generations. And over many generations of

humans

> eating cooked foods, there is absolutely no evidence that we have

adapted in

> the direction of constructively using cooked foods, in general.

This makes

> sense simply because the material is damaged by cooking, that is

the whole

> point.

>

> Instead, we observe our species retreating at a biological level,

retreating

> in a manner that is becoming what military leaders would call

a " route " .

> People, including some here, reach for any " solution " without the

slightest

> regard for comprehending the problem. They experience discomfort,

they have

> little or no genuine faith in Nature's design, and so they run for

whatever

> priest or priestess is peddling something. And so it has been

throughout the

> recorded history of our species, there is nothing new in any of

this.

>

> I hate to say it, but in all honesty, the man you describe was born

> sufficiently damaged that, in Nature, he would probably have died

at a very

> young age. Our technology may allow us to keep him alive, but he

may simply

> never eat, or function in certain other ways, as a fully functional

human,

> no matter what we may do. We have reached this point ... this is

why I

> sometimes use the word " devolution " to describe changes presently

occurring

> in our species. What is hard, I sense, is acceptance ... that this

really is

> happening, right before our eyes, to those close to us as well as

to those

> farther away.

>

> Sorry ... but you know me, I speak straight, from the bottom of my

soul.

>

> Best,

> Elchanan

> _____

>

> rawfood [rawfood ] On

Behalf Of

> Caron

> Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:18 PM

> rawfood

> Re: [Raw Food] Primary sucrase isomaltase deficiency;

> Multigenerational health considerations

>

>

> 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?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

>

 

[...]

 

> Caron, the type of adaptive response you describe, were it ever to

occur,

> would require many, many generations. And over many generations of

humans

> eating cooked foods, there is absolutely no evidence that we have

adapted in

> the direction of constructively using cooked foods, in general.

 

[...]

 

There is much scholarly debate these days in paleoneurology

around the idea that the advent of human use of fire for

cooking may have led to our rather large brains. Part

of the theory is that cooking enabled resources otherwise

devoted to digestion to be used instead for supplying the

brain with extra fuel. So, there is enough evidence to at

least make such hypotheses plausible. Unfortunately, most

of the papers seem to require journal memberships to access.

 

-Erin

http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

[Guest guest]

-

Elchanan

>Caron, the type of adaptive response you describe, were it ever to occur,

would require many, many generations. And over many generations of humans

eating cooked foods, there is absolutely no evidence that we have adapted in

the direction of constructively using cooked foods, in general. This makes

sense simply because the material is damaged by cooking, that is the whole

point.

 

>Instead, we observe our species retreating at a biological level,

>retreating

in a manner that is becoming what military leaders would call a " route " .

People, including some here, reach for any " solution " without the slightest

regard for comprehending the problem. They experience discomfort, they have

little or no genuine faith in Nature's design, and so they run for whatever

priest or priestess is peddling something. And so it has been throughout the

recorded history of our species, there is nothing new in any of this.

 

I understand the points you're making here, still thinking it through )

 

>I hate to say it, but in all honesty, the man you describe was born

sufficiently damaged that, in Nature, he would probably have died at a very

young age. Our technology may allow us to keep him alive, but he may simply

never eat, or function in certain other ways, as a fully functional human,

no matter what we may do. We have reached this point ... this is why I

sometimes use the word " devolution " to describe changes presently occurring

in our species. What is hard, I sense, is acceptance ... that this really is

happening, right before our eyes, to those close to us as well as to those

farther away.

 

You're right, it is hard to accept ) I guess I was thinking along the

lines that if diabeties, cancer, even autism, can be removed by a body

that's being fed healthful foods (as well as all else that goes along with

health), then perhaps this was another of those diagnoses that doctors pin

on when they don't know what else to do. Part of the reason I thought that

is that my aunt is adamant that my boy has it too, because he has the EXACT

same symptoms, or had them, when he started on cooked foods. The bowel

putrification, the rapid weighloss, the failure to thrive and grow, and the

constant eating and belly pain. She also mentioned bleeding bowels, but I've

never fed my boy rice cereal, or packaged baby foods. The most processed my

boy's food ever got was fried rice at the chinese shop, and plain homecooked

meals (which, at the time, I thought was healthy).

 

You also said in a reply to Laurie:

>In the discussion at hand, and coming from the perspective of

multigenerational effects, we can reasonably assume that the mother's diet

before, during, and following pregnancy, that is, during breast feeding, was

of poor quality, and in turn that the mother's mother's diet was probably

likewise. Are we guaranteed correctness in these assumptions? Of course not.

Are the odds heavily in our favor. Yes, of course they are.

 

The reality is that my aunt's diet was, and always has been (since she was

married, anyway) far better than my own mother's diet, which was hundreds of

times better than my own diet during pregnancy. My aunt lives on an acreage,

and has an orchard, and there are fruit stalls all along the road near her

house, which is in a lovely rainforested area, and at the time had only a

few houses nearby. There was no pesticide use near her home, unlike our own,

which was smack in the middle of a banana-growing town (a LOT of kids in my

class at school had asthma that cleared up when they moved away from that

town). She did have cooked dinners, but ate a lot of fruit and salads and

raw veges (not 80-10-10 style, but the furthest from SAD you can get on a

regular diet). There was very little fast food back then - a hamburger or

fish'n'chips, made from real fish, or real meat with salad on the burger,

not the prepackaged, manufactured junk you get these days, where the only

part of the fish in it is probably pureed bones. She was healthy, bordering

on hippy-ish. Google " Byron Bay " , she lives right near there, but inland.

 

Your assertations just worry me a little, because she did eat so

healthfully, and lived healthfully, yet her son is so damaged (if the

doctors are correct). I ate NO fruit during my pregnancy, because of the

instructions I was given by my doctors, I ate bread, meat, cooked meals 3

times a day, and all manner of junk in a vain attempt to lower my blood

glucose levels, so how can my own son NOT be as damaged? I KNOW that my milk

made him sick, because I saw the belly aches, and the throwing up (all of

which I was told is completely normal), and then he had the same problems as

my cousin when he started on solids. The only difference is the age they

started on solids, and as far as I know, what foods they ate initially.

 

I have a hard time understanding, when I've seen how my aunt lived, and how

I lived, during our respective pregnancies, and to see the similarities and

differences between our sons.

 

>Sorry ... but you know me, I speak straight, from the bottom of my soul.

 

Please, never apologise for speaking the truth, I appreciate it. I'm just

asking for a bit of clarification )

 

Caron

[Guest guest]

I was just reading, a few months ago, a recent excerpt,

from who knows what periodical (I do not recall), that there is

new research data suggesting a correlation between socializing

(language usage) and brain evolution. Just theory, but

interesting and compelling.

 

tev

 

Erin <truepatriot wrote:

There is much scholarly debate these days in paleoneurology

around the idea that the advent of human use of fire for

cooking may have led to our rather large brains. Part

of the theory is that cooking enabled resources otherwise

devoted to digestion to be used instead for supplying the

brain with extra fuel. So, there is enough evidence to at

least make such hypotheses plausible. Unfortunately, most

of the papers seem to require journal memberships to access.

 

-Erin

http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

 

 

 

 

____________________

The experience of dynamic religious living transforms the mediocre

individual into a personality of idealistic power. Religion ministers to

the progress of all through fostering the progress of each individual,

and the progress of each is augmented through the achievement of all.

[The Urantia Book: 1094:1][http://www.urantia.org/]

_____________________

 

http://www.vegconnect.com/

 

_____________________

 

 

 

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels

in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.