Can diet affect your mental health?

theresejesu wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

No @theresejesu

If I were you I'd stop reading every quack on the internet.

So a Dr who is a:

- cardiologist,
- heart surgeon,
- heart transplant surgeon - both adult and pediatric (who, with his partner, has done more pediatric heart transplants than anyone else in the world),
- a researcher with almost 400 published articles spanning from the 1980's to present,
- inventor of medical devices for heart surgery,
- expert in immunology,
- pioneer in Xenotransplantation,

and has held the prestigious position of Professor and Chair of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Dept at Loma Linda University for many years ..... is a quack....because you say so?

And you're qualified to say so how?

Ummmm.... I would say such a professional's qualifications to speak on such subjects vastly outweigh your own.

I wonder who is more logical to listen to.....hmmmm...

I don't know who you are referring to here, but the leaky gut guy, Peter Smith, is a Naturopath. Yeah. Totally credible - did you even read that article you linked? So much woo.

The other link, from the Cardio site begins with this first sentence (from 2009, BTW) - Abstract (of a Hypothesis):

The mechanisms underlying the development and progression of psychiatric illnesses are only partially known. Clinical data suggest blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown and inflammation are involved in some patients groups.

It goes on to say there are some [animal] indications and that further [animal] research is needed. Lol at trying to diagnose animal mental illnesses.

I assume they have had eight years and no new insights?

Do you even understand what a hypothesis is?

Panda8ach wrote: »

theresejesu wrote: »

Panda8ach wrote: »

Mental health is a bit broad...maybe depression. Does a bad diet contribute to Schizophrenia? BPD? Othello Syndrome? No it doesn't

Actually, there are reports of the reversal of schizophrenia with low-carb, ketogenic diet.

"We report the unexpected resolution of longstanding schizophrenic symptoms after starting a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet. After review of the literature, possible reasons for this include the metabolic consequences from the elimination of gluten from the diet, and the modulation of the disease of schizophrenia at the cellular level."

Schizophrenia, gluten, and low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diets: a case report and review of the literature
Nutr Metab 2009, 6:10
PMCID: PMC2652467

The original post stated that people can get mentally unwell from a bad diet, this is not true. If you honestly also believe that someone with schizophrenia can be cured with a low carb diet then go tell it to the masses! I work for a mental health trust. We provide healthy alternatives and encourage clients to follow this lifestyle but diet is NOT the cause of their horrendous illnesses nor can it cure them

I have to disagree. And I've provided you with a case study and review of the literature. Just because you may be unaware of how diet or nutrients, or antinutrients can affect and even cause mental health issues, doesn't mean they don't or can't.

For instance, from my own experience, my daughter has serious anxiety/depression issues for which we found, by supporting mitochondrial function with nicotinamide riboside, we could completely reverse the symptoms. The result was so remarkable the first time she used it, she was so startled that at first she thought something was wrong, then she realized that, for the first time she could ever remember, she was completely free of anxiety.

She has to continue taking nicotinamide riboside or her anxiety comes flooding back, which points to her anxiety being caused by mitochondrial dysfunction, same as my responses to nicotinamide riboside point to mitochondrial dysfunction.

Fo me, taking nicotinamide riboside made an immediate difference in energy, which prior to that first dose, was so lacking, my muscles could hardly propel me across the living room floor (And that's not even getting into the pain and death-like fatigue, cognitive issues, neuromuscular and neurological issues), and at times was so bad, I couldn't even get out of bed. This had been this way for 9 years.

But with the first dose, I felt like someone had plugged me into a nuclear power plant, and I was up walking with little difficulty, and started getting my life back though only to a point, which seemed to be dependent on how much Niagen I could afford to take. At 1000mg/day minimum, that's at least a bottle a week which is quite expensive.

I've been very dependent on it for the last 2 years, with my symptoms rushing back if I waited too long between doses. What is exciting to me is, in learning how a diet high in carbs can exhaust our mitochondria, and that perhaps switching to a low carb, high fat ketogenic diet could have a positive effect on this situation, is seeing results so quickly.

After a week on the ketogenic diet my reliance on Niagen began to significantly decrease. It's now been 2 weeks, I'm primarily taking it for its other benefits and I no longer have my symptoms rushing back on me if I miss a dose. I don't even take it on a regular schedule anymore, as I no longer wake up feeling my symptoms coming back at me if I dont take it on waking.

2 days ago, for the 1st time in 10 years, I walked almost 3 miles on hilly terrain, where, at the most, I was able to walk part of a mall with the help of Niagen before this diet change to a ketogenic diet.

Research in this area of mitochondrial dysfunction and aging has led researchers around the world to start concluding that all disease and even aging itself is, at the most fundamental level, the result of mitochondrial dysfunction.

I will be talking to my daughter about trying a ketogenic diet to see if it helps her anxiety without being dependent on Niagen as much as it's helped me already with my issues. My guess is, it will.

I have bipolar disorder and in my experience my diet does not make one bit of difference to my mental health. Medication is the number one determinate of my sanity. I do see improvement of depressive symptoms when I exercise though.

Panda8ach wrote: »

Mental health is a bit broad...maybe depression. Does a bad diet contribute to Schizophrenia? BPD? Othello Syndrome? No it doesn't

@Panda8ach do you have any links to support there being any medical validity to your quoted personal opinion about diet relationship to mental health concerns that you mentioned?

excercise helps me with my depression , pizza also helps me with my depression

Panda8ach wrote: »

SiegfriedXXL wrote: »

My data is purely anecdotal but here we go:

- When I restrict calories, I feel much better. Clearer mind, less anxiety, better sleep
- When I exercise, my depression symptoms improve markedly, even from just getting my 10k steps in. On the days that I don't, I have less energy and spend more time in my own head
- I've also been eating low carb and noticed an even greater shift in mental clarity and general lessening of anxiety. This could be attributed to the first two factors and I'm not sure it contributes but I've noticed steady improvement in all areas of mental health.

Full disclaimer: I've been diagnosed with depression only, not an anxiety disorder or any more serious mental illnesses. Again this is anecdotal but it's what I've noticed.

Hey.. Every mental illness is as serious as the next. Yours is a bad to you as anyone's. I'm super happy you've found some relief Exercise produces the happy hormone that us peeps with depression struggle to produce so yes, it will help. I have depression and general anxiety disorder as well as BPD... The original claim was that poor diet CAUSES mental health problems which I believe it does not. There was a claim that schizophrenia can be cured by a low carb diet.... I just find that a ridiculous thing to say. I'm not belittling depression or any mental health problems.. I just think claiming I got poorly because of my diet and extreme thing to say.

Again, super happy you've found something to ease your suffering

I think, from a careful reading of that paper, that it really pointed to the fact that in some cases of schizophrenia, gluten or celiac disease might be a factor. This isn't to say that schizophrenia is cured, I think the real issue here is a case where these people don't have true schizophrenia and just have a very atypical reaction to gluten.

People have symptoms that are like one disease in response to something else and it often leads to misdiagnosis all the time. I recently went through this myself where a very strange side effect of one of my autoimmune conditions mimicked another much more serious disease and it was hell going through the diagnostic process because we thought I had a new disease.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Panda8ach wrote: »

SiegfriedXXL wrote: »

My data is purely anecdotal but here we go:

- When I restrict calories, I feel much better. Clearer mind, less anxiety, better sleep
- When I exercise, my depression symptoms improve markedly, even from just getting my 10k steps in. On the days that I don't, I have less energy and spend more time in my own head
- I've also been eating low carb and noticed an even greater shift in mental clarity and general lessening of anxiety. This could be attributed to the first two factors and I'm not sure it contributes but I've noticed steady improvement in all areas of mental health.

Full disclaimer: I've been diagnosed with depression only, not an anxiety disorder or any more serious mental illnesses. Again this is anecdotal but it's what I've noticed.

Hey.. Every mental illness is as serious as the next. Yours is a bad to you as anyone's. I'm super happy you've found some relief Exercise produces the happy hormone that us peeps with depression struggle to produce so yes, it will help. I have depression and general anxiety disorder as well as BPD... The original claim was that poor diet CAUSES mental health problems which I believe it does not. There was a claim that schizophrenia can be cured by a low carb diet.... I just find that a ridiculous thing to say. I'm not belittling depression or any mental health problems.. I just think claiming I got poorly because of my diet and extreme thing to say.

Again, super happy you've found something to ease your suffering

I think, from a careful reading of that paper, that it really pointed to the fact that in some cases of schizophrenia, gluten or celiac disease might be a factor. This isn't to say that schizophrenia is cured, I think the real issue here is a case where these people don't have true schizophrenia and just have a very atypical reaction to gluten.

People have symptoms that are like one disease in response to something else and it often leads to misdiagnosis all the time. I recently went through this myself where a very strange side effect of one of my autoimmune conditions mimicked another much more serious disease and it was hell going through the diagnostic process because we thought I had a new disease.

That's an interesting point; I would ask though, if one were able to stop the signs and symptoms through diet, wouldn't you want to?

And if someone with Type II Diabetes could bring an end to their signs and symptoms through diet, wouldn't they no longer be referred to as diabetic?

And regarding misdiagnosis, I very much agree with you. You might be interested in a book:

Could It Be B12? An Epidemic in Misdiagnoses

theresejesu wrote: »

sporangia wrote: »

StarBrightStarBright wrote: »

French_Peasant wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what did she think the connection was between gut issues and ear infections? Just that a healthy gut might cure one problem so it might cure them all? Or was it to help re-establish his gut flora after the antibiotics did their damage to it?

I think it was more about re-establishing gut flora because it might be so inter-related to our whole body. She'd say things like "Make sure he eats lots of fruits and vegetables and yogurt for the next month, you don't want to mess with bad microbes, we're going to be talking about guts a lot in the next 10 years."

Depauperating the gut of bacteria can predispose it to colonization by non-beneficial microbes. The recommendation to consume yogurt and other foods with microbes is simply to aid recovery of a balanced, healthy community within the gut. Recent studies show the gut microflora responds very quickly to what we eat.

I am extremely skeptical of diet being a primary cause of a mental illness, although in this case the OP did not define what was meant by "mentally unwell".

It is not logical to think that humans have evolved to be so sensitive to diet that eating poorly results in erratic and "mentally unwell" behavior. However, the opposite seems logical... people who are suffering from a mental disorder may have diminished capacity to care for themselves and resort to eating foods that are easy to obtain, which typically means low quality (high fat, low nutrient) foods.

It isn't a matter of humans evolving to be so sensitive, but rather we haven't developed the capacity to not be sensitive to anti-nutrients that negatively affect us, including negatively impacting our neurotransmitters.

Garbage in, garbage out, in more ways than one.

Ironic statement is ironic.

theresejesu wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

theresejesu wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

No @theresejesu

If I were you I'd stop reading every quack on the internet.

So a Dr who is a:

- cardiologist,
- heart surgeon,
- heart transplant surgeon - both adult and pediatric (who, with his partner, has done more pediatric heart transplants than anyone else in the world),
- a researcher with almost 400 published articles spanning from the 1980's to present,
- inventor of medical devices for heart surgery,
- expert in immunology,
- pioneer in Xenotransplantation,

and has held the prestigious position of Professor and Chair of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Dept at Loma Linda University for many years ..... is a quack....because you say so?

And you're qualified to say so how?

Ummmm.... I would say such a professional's qualifications to speak on such subjects vastly outweigh your own.

I wonder who is more logical to listen to.....hmmmm...

I don't know who you are referring to here, but the leaky gut guy, Peter Smith, is a Naturopath. Yeah. Totally credible - did you even read that article you linked? So much woo.

The other link, from the Cardio site begins with this first sentence (from 2009, BTW) - Abstract (of a Hypothesis):

The mechanisms underlying the development and progression of psychiatric illnesses are only partially known. Clinical data suggest blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown and inflammation are involved in some patients groups.

It goes on to say there are some [animal] indications and that further [animal] research is needed. Lol at trying to diagnose animal mental illnesses.

I assume they have had eight years and no new insights?

Do you even understand what a hypothesis is?

So because someone is a naturopath, that automatically makes them not credible? You know that's the ad hominem fallacy, right?

I having a hard time taking your comments seriously. Sorry, but you'll have to do better than simply throwing logical fallacies and personal opinions around.

If you have something legitimate to say of substance I am more than willing to listen and consider it, but this isn't making the cut.

I like the way you didn't even address the actual statements I made.

Could not care less about Peter Smith's profession. The article you linked of his was about taking multiple supplements and unregulated pills. No thanks. I don't have a problem with Naturopaths in general for more benign complaints, but not for mental illness. I would maybe see a Naturopath if conventional medicine had no answers but there are lots of effective mainstream medical treatments for psychiatric disorders.

All the cardiologist touting (to compare to lowly me) you did in your first post on this - seems you're pretty good at the ad hominem yourself.

Your arguments reflect your inability to read context and content. There have been many posters before you who have tried these tactics on this forum and I think you'll find this a remarkably well-read and educated community. This stuff isn't going to stand.

Find some real studies - not hypotheses. Anyone can forward a hypotheses on any subject whatsoever.

As far as blood-brain barrier/inflammation causing psychiatric disorders - it was a proposed theory. That's what hypothesis means. There could be a thousand other variables as well. I can also hypothesize that blue flowers on tablecloths cause headaches. Maybe you could tell me where to find funding for that study? Then if my study proves anything you can use it as your argument. See how that works? Oh, but wait. Dr. Heart Transplant never did that study, huh?

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I'm curious why lectins (one type of anti-nutrient) are problematic, but oxalic acid, phytic acid, and glucosinolates aren't a problem in the Gundry approved list of foods.

gundrymd.com/plant-paradox-shopping-list/

He's rather inconsistent and it would seem to me that a careful read on anti-nutrients shows just about ALL foods except fruits (and even at that, enough fiber in quantity is an anti-nutrient) and meats contain anti-nutrients.

Given that these foods also contain numerous other healthy compounds like vitamins and minerals that have benefits which far outnumber these anti-nutrient effects and that cooking and other known methods deal with the anti-nutrients, I can't see any benefit to being alarmist about foods that people have been eating for years.

I especially can't see the point of putting aside critical thinking and acting like the whole of the body of medical and nutritional science is so backward minded that someone whose own message on the "dangers" inherent in foods isn't even consistent with its own narrative should be adhered to, especially to the point where it's implied that those of us who refuse to see the wisdom in this message are failing to see the truth of it.

The problem is though, cooking, looked at just in a general way doesn't quite cut it. First, you can't destroy or get rid of all the offending lectins by cooking, some resist all methods. For those that can be significantly reduced by cooking, you would need to know which method to use and apply it correctly. Some need pressure cooking, some need a certain temp to be reached and maintained for a minimum time, others need fermentation or long periods of soaking, and for some none of this works.

For myself, my approach to this information is to try to avoid all the foods on the "no" list to start with (which is to allow the gut to heal, stop the leaky-gut problems), and if I can't, then use Lectin Lock or similar supplement to keep them in the gut as much as possible, then add foods back in that I can properly prepare to avoid the offending lectins they conrain.

In fact, I put both Lectin Lock and what i learned from Gundry's book to the test to see if an idea I had might pan out (I know, 2 variables, but I figured that if it didn't work, then that might mean both were negated or only the Lectin Lock didnt really work.) After reading what Gundry had to say about WGA - Wheat Germ Agglutinin, and other research I read about it, one of the questions I had was in regards to insulin resistance. WGA mimics insulin in the body. It can bind with insulin receptor sites, thus preventing insulin from binding to those sites for the interim, and sending its 'bad' messages to the cell. Unlike insulin, which delivers its message the releases the receptor site to allow it to be open to more insulin, WGA does not release its hold and continues to occupy the insulin receptor site until it's exhausted. During this time, insulin is out there waiting and accumulating along with the glucose it's trying to get into the cell for energy production.

That accumulation of insulin and glucose would look just like what we see in insulin resistence. So the question I had was could WGA and other lectins that mimic insulin be a significant cause of the increase in insulin and glucose levels we see with insulin resistance? If our increased levels of glucose and insulin are the result of our cells gradually becoming less responsive to insulin, then that's not going to change with the drop of a hat. It would gradually change over time in response to healthier eating, etc. One would not see an immediate reversion to normal values.

But what if taking Lectin Lock before a meal known to spike blood sugar in someone who is borderline diabetic (A1C had finally reached 6.4, so had been developing insulin resistance for a long time) actually resulted in an immediate normal, healthy response to a sugar load as demonstrated by normal blood sugars at 1 and 2 hours post meal: less than 140 at 1 hour, and less than 120 at 2 hours? That would suggest that 1) Lectin Lock was working to keep WGA and other insulin mimicking lectins from entering the body and binding to insulin receptor sites and disrupting insulin's ability to get glucose into cells, 2)these lectins are causing rises in glucose and insulin just as Gundry and others are telling us, and 3) now insulin would be able to bind to the receptor sites without hinderance and lower glucose normally without an increased insulin response..

So, I went to McDonalds with my daughter, bought a quarter pounder cheese burger with everything on it and a large half-cut sweet tea. I took the Lectin Lock.

At 1 hour post meal, my BS was 135. I've never seen my blood sugar at 135 at 1 hour after eating something like that, it would be in the 180s or higher unless I took cinnamon. I was very surprised. 20 min later it was 125 and dropping.

The next day I was fasting for labs, so didn't eat until later in the afternoon. Decided to do something similar with foid from another fast food restaurant - took Lectin Lock, then had a bacon cheeseburger with everything on it, fried asparagus and a large raspberry ice tea. My 1 hour BS was 128! My 2 hour was 113!!.

Now two tests don't prove anything, but I was getting excited.

Later that night my pre-meal BS was 86!!! That I cannot remember ever seeing without being symptomatic and only if I had gone way too long without eating. In the past, if my blood sugar was that low, I would be symptomatic and my brain woul be screaming 'eat something!' I felt fine, a bit hungry, but fine.

1 hour post meal, 126! 2.5 hours post meal 114! I see a trend developing.

Later I decided to have a snack - raisin cinnamon bread lightly toasted with coconut oil (instead of butter) - no Lectin Lock. 1 hour BS 142.

Decided to have the same thing the next day,
this time with Lectin Lock, 1 hour BS 105!

This same pattern continued over the next week as I continued monitoring my BS in response to the use of Lectin Lock. The only time I went out of the accepted ranges was when I had a meal with tofu - my pre meal BS wss 90, 1 hour BS was 161, yet my 2 hour was 114.

Needless to say, I knew I was on to something, which meant Gundry and others have definitely been on to something important.

I have been doing so much better healthwise in general since cutting out grains and beans especially, using Lectin Lock when I can't be sure I am avoiding them, even before I began the keto diet. I dont crave them, I dont miss them. When we go out to dinner, like at a Mexican restaurant and everyone is having chips and beans and salsa while waiting for our food, I have absolutely no desire for any of it, even if I'm quite hungry; and I used to chow down on this stuff just as much as the next person and enjoyed it.

I am seeing in my own life the evidence of what Gundry is trying to tell people. The problem is, we filter everything through our paradigms, and unless we are open to new ideas and having our paradigms challenged, even demolished, along with their underlying assumptions, we can too easily dismiss something like thus, which I was also tempted to do regarding his book.

I am very glad I didn't.

theresejesu wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I'm curious why lectins (one type of anti-nutrient) are problematic, but oxalic acid, phytic acid, and glucosinolates aren't a problem in the Gundry approved list of foods.

gundrymd.com/plant-paradox-shopping-list/

He's rather inconsistent and it would seem to me that a careful read on anti-nutrients shows just about ALL foods except fruits (and even at that, enough fiber in quantity is an anti-nutrient) and meats contain anti-nutrients.

Given that these foods also contain numerous other healthy compounds like vitamins and minerals that have benefits which far outnumber these anti-nutrient effects and that cooking and other known methods deal with the anti-nutrients, I can't see any benefit to being alarmist about foods that people have been eating for years.

I especially can't see the point of putting aside critical thinking and acting like the whole of the body of medical and nutritional science is so backward minded that someone whose own message on the "dangers" inherent in foods isn't even consistent with its own narrative should be adhered to, especially to the point where it's implied that those of us who refuse to see the wisdom in this message are failing to see the truth of it.

The problem is though, cooking, looked at just in a general way doesn't quite cut it. First, you can't destroy or get rid of all the offending lectins by cooking, some resist all methods. For those that can be significantly reduced by cooking, you would need to know which method to use and apply it correctly. Some need pressure cooking, some need a certain temp to be reached and maintained for a minimum time, others need fermentation or long periods of soaking, and for some none of this works.

For myself, my approach to this information is to try to avoid all the foods on the "no" list to start with (which is to allow the gut to heal, stop the leaky-gut problems), and if I can't, then use Lectin Lock or similar supplement to keep them in the gut as much as possible, then add foods back in that I can properly prepare to avoid the offending lectins they conrain.

In fact, I put both Lectin Lock and what i learned from Gundry's book to the test to see if an idea I had might pan out (I know, 2 variables, but I figured that if it didn't work, then that might mean both were negated or only the Lectin Lock didnt really work.) After reading what Gundry had to say about WGA - Wheat Germ Agglutinin, and other research I read about it, one of the questions I had was in regards to insulin resistance. WGA mimics insulin in the body. It can bind with insulin receptor sites, thus preventing insulin from binding to those sites for the interim, and sending its 'bad' messages to the cell. Unlike insulin, which delivers its message the releases the receptor site to allow it to be open to more insulin, WGA does not release its hold and continues to occupy the insulin receptor site until it's exhausted. During this time, insulin is out there waiting and accumulating along with the glucose it's trying to get into the cell for energy production.

That accumulation of insulin and glucose would look just like what we see in insulin resistence. So the question I had was could WGA and other lectins that mimic insulin be a significant cause of the increase in insulin and glucose levels we see with insulin resistance? If our increased levels of glucose and insulin are the result of our cells gradually becoming less responsive to insulin, then that's not going to change with the drop of a hat. It would gradually change over time in response to healthier eating, etc. One would not see an immediate reversion to normal values.

But what if taking Lectin Lock before a meal known to spike blood sugar in someone who is borderline diabetic (A1C had finally reached 6.4, so had been developing insulin resistance for a long time) actually resulted in an immediate normal, healthy response to a sugar load as demonstrated by normal blood sugars at 1 and 2 hours post meal: less than 140 at 1 hour, and less than 120 at 2 hours? That would suggest that 1) Lectin Lock was working to keep WGA and other insulin mimicking lectins from entering the body and binding to insulin receptor sites and disrupting insulin's ability to get glucose into cells, 2)these lectins are causing rises in glucose and insulin just as Gundry and others are telling us, and 3) now insulin would be able to bind to the receptor sites without hinderance and lower glucose normally without an increased insulin response..

So, I went to McDonalds with my daughter, bought a quarter pounder cheese burger with everything on it and a large half-cut sweet tea. I took the Lectin Lock.

At 1 hour post meal, my BS was 135. I've never seen my blood sugar at 135 at 1 hour after eating something like that, it would be in the 180s or higher unless I took cinnamon. I was very surprised. 20 min later it was 125 and dropping.

The next day I was fasting for labs, so didn't eat until later in the afternoon. Decided to do something similar with foid from another fast food restaurant - took Lectin Lock, then had a bacon cheeseburger with everything on it, fried asparagus and a large raspberry ice tea. My 1 hour BS was 128! My 2 hour was 113!!.

Now two tests don't prove anything, but I was getting excited.

Later that night my pre-meal BS was 86!!! That I cannot remember ever seeing without being symptomatic and only if I had gone way too long without eating. In the past, if my blood sugar was that low, I would be symptomatic and my brain woul be screaming 'eat something!' I felt fine, a bit hungry, but fine.

1 hour post meal, 126! 2.5 hours post meal 114! I see a trend developing.

Later I decided to have a snack - raisin cinnamon bread lightly toasted with coconut oil (instead of butter) - no Lectin Lock. 1 hour BS 142.

Decided to have the same thing the next day,
this time with Lectin Lock, 1 hour BS 105!

This same pattern continued over the next week as I continued monitoring my BS in response to the use of Lectin Lock. The only time I went out of the accepted ranges was when I had a meal with tofu - my pre meal BS wss 90, 1 hour BS was 161, yet my 2 hour was 114.

Needless to say, I knew I was on to something, which meant Gundry and others have definitely been on to something important.

I have been doing so much better healthwise in general since cutting out grains and beans especially, using Lectin Lock when I can't be sure I am avoiding them, even before I began the keto diet. I dont crave them, I dont miss them. When we go out to dinner, like at a Mexican restaurant and everyone is having chips and beans and salsa while waiting for our food, I have absolutely no desire for any of it, even if I'm quite hungry; and I used to chow down on this stuff just as much as the next person and enjoyed it.

I am seeing in my own life the evidence of what Gundry is trying to tell people. The problem is, we filter everything through our paradigms, and unless we are open to new ideas and having our paradigms challenged, even demolished, along with their underlying assumptions, we can too easily dismiss something like thus, which I was also tempted to do regarding his book.

I am very glad I didn't.

You really just sound to me like you are shill for the book and the products. All the fear mongering and hype around it. I really question your motives here. Just show up one day going on about this stuff. It's how your posts are coming across, to me anyway.

theresejesu wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I'm curious why lectins (one type of anti-nutrient) are problematic, but oxalic acid, phytic acid, and glucosinolates aren't a problem in the Gundry approved list of foods.

gundrymd.com/plant-paradox-shopping-list/

He's rather inconsistent and it would seem to me that a careful read on anti-nutrients shows just about ALL foods except fruits (and even at that, enough fiber in quantity is an anti-nutrient) and meats contain anti-nutrients.

Given that these foods also contain numerous other healthy compounds like vitamins and minerals that have benefits which far outnumber these anti-nutrient effects and that cooking and other known methods deal with the anti-nutrients, I can't see any benefit to being alarmist about foods that people have been eating for years.

I especially can't see the point of putting aside critical thinking and acting like the whole of the body of medical and nutritional science is so backward minded that someone whose own message on the "dangers" inherent in foods isn't even consistent with its own narrative should be adhered to, especially to the point where it's implied that those of us who refuse to see the wisdom in this message are failing to see the truth of it.

The problem is though, cooking, looked at just in a general way doesn't quite cut it. First, you can't destroy or get rid of all the offending lectins by cooking, some resist all methods. For those that can be significantly reduced by cooking, you would need to know which method to use and apply it correctly. Some need pressure cooking, some need a certain temp to be reached and maintained for a minimum time, others need fermentation or long periods of soaking, and for some none of this works.

For myself, my approach to this information is to try to avoid all the foods on the "no" list to start with (which is to allow the gut to heal, stop the leaky-gut problems), and if I can't, then use Lectin Lock or similar supplement to keep them in the gut as much as possible, then add foods back in that I can properly prepare to avoid the offending lectins they conrain.

In fact, I put both Lectin Lock and what i learned from Gundry's book to the test to see if an idea I had might pan out (I know, 2 variables, but I figured that if it didn't work, then that might mean both were negated or only the Lectin Lock didnt really work.) After reading what Gundry had to say about WGA - Wheat Germ Agglutinin, and other research I read about it, one of the questions I had was in regards to insulin resistance. WGA mimics insulin in the body. It can bind with insulin receptor sites, thus preventing insulin from binding to those sites for the interim, and sending its 'bad' messages to the cell. Unlike insulin, which delivers its message the releases the receptor site to allow it to be open to more insulin, WGA does not release its hold and continues to occupy the insulin receptor site until it's exhausted. During this time, insulin is out there waiting and accumulating along with the glucose it's trying to get into the cell for energy production.

That accumulation of insulin and glucose would look just like what we see in insulin resistence. So the question I had was could WGA and other lectins that mimic insulin be a significant cause of the increase in insulin and glucose levels we see with insulin resistance? If our increased levels of glucose and insulin are the result of our cells gradually becoming less responsive to insulin, then that's not going to change with the drop of a hat. It would gradually change over time in response to healthier eating, etc. One would not see an immediate reversion to normal values.

But what if taking Lectin Lock before a meal known to spike blood sugar in someone who is borderline diabetic (A1C had finally reached 6.4, so had been developing insulin resistance for a long time) actually resulted in an immediate normal, healthy response to a sugar load as demonstrated by normal blood sugars at 1 and 2 hours post meal: less than 140 at 1 hour, and less than 120 at 2 hours? That would suggest that 1) Lectin Lock was working to keep WGA and other insulin mimicking lectins from entering the body and binding to insulin receptor sites and disrupting insulin's ability to get glucose into cells, 2)these lectins are causing rises in glucose and insulin just as Gundry and others are telling us, and 3) now insulin would be able to bind to the receptor sites without hinderance and lower glucose normally without an increased insulin response..

So, I went to McDonalds with my daughter, bought a quarter pounder cheese burger with everything on it and a large half-cut sweet tea. I took the Lectin Lock.

At 1 hour post meal, my BS was 135. I've never seen my blood sugar at 135 at 1 hour after eating something like that, it would be in the 180s or higher unless I took cinnamon. I was very surprised. 20 min later it was 125 and dropping.

The next day I was fasting for labs, so didn't eat until later in the afternoon. Decided to do something similar with foid from another fast food restaurant - took Lectin Lock, then had a bacon cheeseburger with everything on it, fried asparagus and a large raspberry ice tea. My 1 hour BS was 128! My 2 hour was 113!!.

Now two tests don't prove anything, but I was getting excited.

Later that night my pre-meal BS was 86!!! That I cannot remember ever seeing without being symptomatic and only if I had gone way too long without eating. In the past, if my blood sugar was that low, I would be symptomatic and my brain woul be screaming 'eat something!' I felt fine, a bit hungry, but fine.

1 hour post meal, 126! 2.5 hours post meal 114! I see a trend developing.

Later I decided to have a snack - raisin cinnamon bread lightly toasted with coconut oil (instead of butter) - no Lectin Lock. 1 hour BS 142.

Decided to have the same thing the next day,
this time with Lectin Lock, 1 hour BS 105!

This same pattern continued over the next week as I continued monitoring my BS in response to the use of Lectin Lock. The only time I went out of the accepted ranges was when I had a meal with tofu - my pre meal BS wss 90, 1 hour BS was 161, yet my 2 hour was 114.

Needless to say, I knew I was on to something, which meant Gundry and others have definitely been on to something important.

I have been doing so much better healthwise in general since cutting out grains and beans especially, using Lectin Lock when I can't be sure I am avoiding them, even before I began the keto diet. I dont crave them, I dont miss them. When we go out to dinner, like at a Mexican restaurant and everyone is having chips and beans and salsa while waiting for our food, I have absolutely no desire for any of it, even if I'm quite hungry; and I used to chow down on this stuff just as much as the next person and enjoyed it.

I am seeing in my own life the evidence of what Gundry is trying to tell people. The problem is, we filter everything through our paradigms, and unless we are open to new ideas and having our paradigms challenged, even demolished, along with their underlying assumptions, we can too easily dismiss something like thus, which I was also tempted to do regarding his book.

I am very glad I didn't.

How does any of this address Gundry's inconsistency in finding an issue with lectins but not other anti-nutrients like oxylates, phytic acid, tanins, and glucosinolates?

That was the thrust of my post, but I don't really intend to engage with you further on this point.

You have a tendency to appeal to authority that I find rather off putting.