Gluten Sensitivity

I'd like to point out an interesting post from Peter at Hyperlipid. He discusses a paper that uses a novel technique to look for immune activation in the gut in response to wheat gluten. For the nerds: they challenged patient gut biopsies with gliadin fragments (gliadin is one of the proteins that make up gluten) and looked for expression of interleukin-15 (IL-15), a marker of activation of the innate immune system. The innate immune system is an old system (evolutionarily speaking) that predates the antibody-producing "adaptive immune system" and nonspecifically defends against pathogens.

Biopsies from 5 out of 6 patients showed an IL-15 response to at least one gliadin fragment. The implication is that the majority of people have an immune response to wheat, even if they don't have Celiac disease. The reason they aren't diagnosed as Celiac patients is they don't have circulating anti-gliadin antibodies (and they presumably don't yet have severe structural damage to their intestinal tract as judged by biopsy or endoscopy), but as the paper shows, people can react to gluten without producing antibodies via the innate immune system.

As someone who regularly does Western blots, I can say I'm not impressed by the quality of their data, but if this is confirmed more solidly and on a larger scale it would be HUGE. As you know if you've been following the blog, the small intestine has a lot of important functions: besides absorbing nutrients and secreting enzymes, it also plays an important role in regulating satiety and insulin secretion by the pancreas and overall insulin sensitivity. It's not an organ you want to damage.

California "Raw" Almonds

I bought about a pound of almonds yesterday for a backpacking trip I'll be doing this weekend. I like to soak raw almonds, then lightly toast them. It sweetens them and breaks down some of their anti-nutrients.

When I arrived at the grocery store, the only raw almonds they had were from California. I prefer to buy domestic products when I can, but in case you haven't heard, "raw" almonds from California are no longer raw. They are required to be sterilized using steam or antiseptic gases, despite their relative safety as a raw food.

The worst part is that they are not required to label them as pasteurized; they can still be labeled as raw. The Almond Board's argument is that there's no difference in quality and pasteurized almonds are safer. I find this highly offensive and deceptive. It flies in the face of common sense. If you walked up to someone in the street and asked them what the phrase "raw milk" means, would they say "oh yeah, that means pasteurized"? A raw seed can sprout. A pasteurized seed can't. Remember all those enzymes that break down anti-nutrients when you soak beans, grains and nuts? Denatured by heat.

I tried soaking them like I would regular raw almonds. I covered them in water overnight. In the morning, I noticed that the soaking water was milky and had an unpleasant smell. The outer layer of the almonds (the most cooked part) was falling apart into the water. They also didn't have the crisp texture of soaked raw almonds.

Tonight, I toasted them lightly. They definitely taste "off", and the texture isn't as good. There's no doubt about it, pasteurized California almonds are inferior. Despite my preference for domestic products, I'll be buying Spanish almonds the next time around. If enough of us do the same, we'll hit the Almond Board in the only place that counts: its wallet.

One of the most irritating things is that the new rule is designed to edge out small producers. I can't see any other reason for it. Raw almonds are a safe food. Far safer than lettuce. Should we pasteurize lettuce? Pasteurization requires specialized, expensive equipment that will be prohibitive for the little guys. I'm sure the bigger producers will generously offer to fill the production gap.

Real Food VII: Lentils

Lentils are a healthy food that comes with a few caveats. They have more protein and less carbohydrate than any other legume besides soybeans and peanuts. In fact, the ratio of protein to digestible carbohydrate is almost 1:1. The carbohydrate in lentils is slow-digesting, giving them a relatively low glycemic load. They also contain a remarkable array of vitamins and minerals, particularly B vitamins. One cup delivers 90% of your RDA of folate, so between lentils and liver there's no need for those sketchy prenatal vitamins.

Lentils must be properly prepared to be digestible and nutritious! I can't emphasize this enough. We did not evolve eating legumes, so we have to take certain steps to be able to digest them adequately. As with all beans and grains, proper soaking is essential to neutralize their naturally occurring toxins. They are also called "anti-nutrients" because they interfere with the absorption of nutrients. Soaking activates enzymes in the seeds themselves that degrade these substances. It also cuts down substantially on cooking time and reduces flatulence.

Phytic acid is a toxin that's abundant in beans, grains and nuts. It can dramatically reduce the absorption of important minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium and zinc, leading to deficiencies over time. It's thought to be one of the main reasons human stature decreased after the adoption of agriculture, and it probably continues to contribute to short stature and health problems around the world.

Lentils and other seeds also contain trypsin inhibitors. Trypsin is one of the digestive system's main protein-digesting enzymes, and seeds probably inhibit it as a defense against predators. Another class of toxins are the lectins. Certain lectins are able to bind to and damage the digestive tract, and even pass into the circulation and possibly wreak havoc. This is a short list of a few of the toxins found in beans and grains. Fortunately, all of these toxins can be reduced or eliminated by proper soaking. I like to soak all legumes for a full 24 hours, adding warm water halfway through. This increases the activity of the toxin-degrading enzymes.

A final caveat is that lentils are starchy, so they should be eaten in small quantities by people trying to lose weight, or with known insulin or blood sugar problems. Here's a method for preparing lentils that I've found to be effective. You will actually save time by doing it this way rather than cooking them without soaking, because they cook so much more quickly:

1. 24 hours before cooking, place dry lentils in a large bowl and cover with 2" of water or more.
2. After 12 hours or so, drain and cover the lentils with very warm water (not hot tap water).
3. Drain and rinse before cooking.
4. To cook, simply cover the soaked lentils with fresh water and boil until tender. I like to add a 2-inch piece of the seaweed kombu to increase mineral content and digestibility.

many thanks to *clarity* for the CC photo

US Fructose Consumption Trends

As you may have noticed, I suspect fructose is involved in overweight and other health problems. It seems to have adverse effects on fat deposition in the liver and insulin sensitivity that could be related to its association with weight gain. I looked through USDA estimated per capita consumption of different sweeteners to get an idea of how fructose consumption has changed in the US in the time since adult obesity rates have doubled.

In 1970, we ate an estimated 72.5 lb/year of cane and beet sugar (sucrose) per person, which is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. We also ate 0.4 lb/year of corn syrup, which is most commonly 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Consumption of other unspecified sweeteners was 12.0 lb/year, for a total intake of 84.9 lb/year of added sweeteners.

In 2007, we ate an estimated 44.2 lb/year of sucrose, 40.1 lb/year of corn syrup, and 12.9 lb/year of other unspecified sweeteners, for a total added sweetener intake of 97.2 lb/year. Doing the math, and generously assuming that the "other" sweeteners are 100% honey (~50% fructose), here are the results:

• 1970: 42.5 lb/year of added fructose.

• 2007: 50.6 lb/year of added fructose.

At 19%, it's not a staggering increase, but it's definitely significant. I also think it's an underestimate, because it doesn't include fruit juice or total fruit consumption, both of which have increased. Other notable findings: grain intake has increased 41% between 1970 and 2005, due chiefly to rising consumption of processed wheat products. Added fats and oils have increased 63% in the same time period, with the increase coming exclusively from vegetable fats. The use of hydrogenated shortening has more than doubled.

What has caused the dramatic expansion of American waistlines in the last 30 years? No one knows for sure, but I think it's probably related to diet since the percentage of people who exercise has actually increased in the same time period. My money is on the wheat and sugar, with possible contributions from hydrogenated oil, polyunsaturated vegetable oils and chemical pollutants. The reason is that wheat and sugar seem to have devastating metabolic effects on populations throughout the world, such as the Pima.

Lessons From the Pima Indians

At 38% and climbing in 2006, the Pima indians (Akimel O'odham) of Arizona have the highest rate of diabetes of any population in the world. They also have staggering rates of obesity (~70%) and hypertension.

Things were very different for them before 1539, when the Spanish first made contact. They lived on an agricultural diet of beans, corn and squash, with wild fish, game meat and plants. As with most native people, they were thin and healthy while on their traditional diet.

In 1859, the Pima were restricted to a small fraction of their original land along the Gila river, the Pima Reservation. In 1866, settlers began arriving in the region and diverting the Gila river upstream of the reservation for their own agriculture. In 1869, the river went dry for the first time. 1886 was the last year any water flowed to the Pima Reservation in the Gila river.

The Pima had no way to obtain water, and no way to grow crops. Their once productive subsistence economy ground to a halt. Famine ensued for 40 desperate years. The Pima cut down their extensive mesquite forests to sell for food and water. Eventually, after public outcry, uncle Sam stepped in.

The government provided the Pima with subsidized "food": white flour, sugar, partially hydrogenated lard, and canned goods. They promptly became diabetic and overweight, and have remained that way ever since.

The Pima are poster children for mainstream nutrition researchers in the US for several reasons. First of all, their pre-contact diet was probably fairly low in fat, and researchers love to point out that they now eat more fat (comparable to the average American diet). Another reason is that there's another group of Pima in Mexico who still live on a relatively traditional diet and are much healthier. They are genetically very similar, supporting the idea that it's the lifestyle of the American Pima that's causing their problems (no kidding, Sherlock? Can you picture a 5'5", 250 lb man running down a rabbit?). The third reason is that the Mexican Pima exercise more than the Arizona Pima and eat a bit less, supposedly supporting the "calories in, calories out" nonsense.

I definitely agree with the conclusion that their lifestyle is behind their problems; that's pretty obvious. I think most Pima know it too. If they got their water back, maybe things would be different for them. But there are huge holes in the other conclusions researchers draw from these studies.

The focus on macronutrients has them blinded to the fact that the modern Pima diet is pure crap. It's mostly processed food with a low nutrient density. It also contains the two biggest destroyers of indigenous health: white flour and sugar. There are numerous examples of cultures going from a high-fat diet to a lower-fat "reservation food" diet and suffering the same fate: the Inuit of Alaska, the Maasai and Samburu of Kenya, tribes in the Pacific Northwestern US and Canada, certain Aboriginal groups, and more. What do they all have in common? White flour, sugar and other processed food.

The exercise thing makes me laugh too. True, Mexican Pima exercise 2.5 times more than Arizona Pima, but the Arizona Pima still exercise way more than the average American! Women clock in at 3.1 hours a week, while men come in at a whopping 12.1 hours a week! I am a bike commuter and weight lifter, and even I don't exercise that much. So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the idea that they aren't exercising enough to keep the weight off.

The history of the Pima is a heart-wrenching story that has been repeated hundreds, perhaps thousands of times all over the world. Europeans bring in white flour, sugar and other processed food, it destroys a native populations' health, and then researchers act like they don't understand why it happened.

The Pima are canaries in the coal mine, and we can learn a lot from them. Their health problems resemble those of other poor Americans (and wealthier ones also, to a lesser extent). This is because they are both eating similar types of things. The problem is creeping into society at large, however, as we rely more and more on processed wheat, corn, soy and sugar, and less on wholesome food. Obesity in the US has doubled in the past 30 years, and childhood obesity has tripled. Diabetes is following suit. Life expectancy has begun to diminish in some (poor) parts of the country. Meanwhile, our diet is looking increasingly like Pima reservation food. It's time to learn a lesson from their tragedy.

Your Gut Talks to Your Brain

I've been reading through some papers on a gut-brain connection that regulates food intake and blood nutrient balance. I've learned some interesting things.

First of all, when fat hits your small intestine (especially long-chain fatty acids), it sends a message to the brainstem via the vagus nerve. This rapidly inhibits eating behavior.

The hypothalamus can also inhibit glucose production by the liver in response to fat in the bloodstream, by sending it signals via the vagus nerve.

A recent paper that got me interested in all this showed that when you put fatty acids on the upper small intestine, it sends a signal to the brain, which then sends a signal to the liver, increasing insulin sensitivity and decreasing glucose production.

There are two conclusions I can draw from this. First, fat is filling. But we already knew that. The second is that fat may also be able to improve post-meal insulin sensitivity, and not just because it replaces carbohydrate and slows digestion.

One caveat is that the fat receptor cells become desensitized after a few days on a high-fat diet (at least in rats), responding less well to fat over time. Maybe they need to be reset periodically. Intermittent fasting, anyone? Actually, I won't really believe this result until it's replicated in humans. After all, we're better adapted to a high-fat diet than rodents.

The upper small intestine is not just a passive nutrient sponge. It's a very active player in the body's response to food, coordinating changes in food intake and nutrient disposal.

Diabetes and Your Small Intestine

In the last post, I introduced you to the remarkable antidiabetic effect of gastric bypass surgery. It rapidly reverses diabetes in 83% of patients, and it seems to be due to bypassing the upper small intestine specifically, rather than caloric restriction. This points to a special role of the upper small intestine in regulating food metabolism. I told you I was going to look into the mechanism of why this effect happens, and here's the short answer:

It's complicated and no one understands it completely.

Now for the long answer. Nutrient homeostasis is very important and we have sophisticated ways of coordinating it among different tissues. Part of the small intestine's job is telling the body that nutrients are on their way into the bloodstream. Two ways it conveys this signal are by secreting hormones into the bloodstream, and by sending signals to the brain and liver via parasympathetic nerves.

The small intestine secretes dozens of hormones, one category of which is called the incretins. Incretins by definition increase the secretion of insulin by the pancreas, among other things. They were discovered when researchers realized that oral glucose elicits more of an insulin response than intravenous glucose. The reason is that cells in the upper small intestine secrete incretins when they detect glucose.

There are two known major incretin hormones that are secreted by the small intestine, GIP and GLP-1. There was a recent study by the lab of Blanca Olivan which looked into the levels of incretins in patients who had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, a common type in which 95% of the stomach and part of the upper small intestine is bypassed.

Their results are very interesting! Compared to controls losing an equivalent amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the bypass patients saw a HUGE increase in their oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) GLP-1 secretion (9.8 vs 112.5 pmol/L), a large increase in GIP secretion, and a corresponding increase in insulin secretion (575 vs 769 pmol/L). Two-hour OGTT blood glucose levels went from borderline diabetic to "normal", by American Diabetes Association standards. Fasting glucose and insulin dropped substantially. The bypass group gained considerable glucose control, better than the matched controls on a low-calorie diet.

It looks like part of the mechanism involves whipping the pancreas to produce more insulin in response to glucose. It also affected fasting insulin, although that could simply be due to calorie restriction because it went down in both groups. Interestingly, non-diabetic patients who get a Roux-en-Y bypass often get reactive hypoglycemia, where their pancreas overproduces insulin after a meal and they get dangerously low blood sugar. Dr Mary-Elizabeth Patti calls it "diabetes reversal in people who don't have diabetes". So the effect doesn't seem to be specific to people with diabetes.

There is some suggestion that the effect on incretins is due to bypassing the duodenum, which is part of the upper small intestine. Here's how the (very sophisticated) reasoning goes: when the duodenum doesn't get glucose dumped on it, that somehow increases release of incretins by the small intestine further along the line.

There's actually an antidiabetic drug that mimics GLP-1; it's called Byetta. There's another that inhibits the breakdown of GLP-1 called Januvia. A second effect of GLP-1 is to delay stomach emptying, which both drugs do. They have been effective for some diabetics.

Well this turned into a long post, so I'll follow up on the parasympathetic (nerve) signaling of the small intestine next time.