Kasper's thoughts

[Kasper]

Wondering if omega-6 or AA consumption actually raise blood levels of AA.
Or that inflammatory stimilu are the main reasons AA is raised in the blood.

By the way, I'm reading a little bit more about fruits.
It seems that almost all of the fruits that we are eating now, are only existing nothing more than a couple of hundred years old.
An ancient banana for example was completely inedible.
Same for apples, avocado's, pears, etc.
Banana's we eat now are all labaratory banana's, because they don't have seeds.

Real ancient wild fruits, were much smaller, and much more berry like.
A exception are figs, these are really close to it's ancient form, they use to be smaller tough.

[dime]

I've read a bunch of that crap, it's all over the internet.
Just because we have cultivated some fruits, or cows, or whatever doesn't mean that in the wild you won't find any edible stuff.
We're breeding fruits and plants so that we can benefit from them the most.
I'd certainly prefer bananas without seeds :)

This is a nice post: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-a ... ent-fruit/

[Kasper]

What do you mean with the "crap" part ?
I didn't say that you won't find edible stuff in the wild.

It's intresting tough, what sort of wild fruits were actually existing and edible in the wild. Good article !
Another thing you could ask yourself: Is it smart to eat the things that our ancestors were eating?
Or is it safe/desirable to eat fruit 'created' by human intervention?

Pure out of scientific curiousity, I would like to make a list of fruits that were existing and edible for ancient hunter/gatherers.
To make a start:
- Wild figs
- Gingerbread plums
- Baobab
- Monkey orange
- Sour plum
- Marula fruit
- Amatungulu
- Red gherkin

Practical problem: is that is quite hard to really buy those fruits here in the netherlands...

[overkees]

I believe that oranges come from a mix of bitter oranges with tangerines that were an ancient variety of the citrus that was sweet. The original ancient oranges were more grapefruit like.
It is not as manipulated as the apple. The apple was originally a rock hard fruit that was not edible. It took alot of time since we could make it edible. Most fruits however were edible to begin with, so I don't think they are less good than the wild varieties.

[dime]

By crap I mean that a bunch of people make same strange connections that we shouldn't eat more than a piece of fruit per day because "modern" fruits are too sweet, too much sugar, i.e. nothing like wild fruits (because of course they know all the wild fruits out there :)).
As long as there's enough resources (water, sun, minerals) fruits will grow big; animals will always pick the largest and sweetest fruits and this is what drives their evolution.

Another thing you could ask yourself: Is it smart to eat the things that our ancestors were eating?
Or is it safe/desirable to eat fruit 'created' by human intervention?

I don't think there's much difference in terms of safer or better or worse, whether it's wild or cultivated.
Even if you wanted to eat what people were eating a million years ago it would be impossible, due to evolution.

[Kasper]

I don't think there's much difference in terms of safer or better or worse, whether it's wild or cultivated.
Even if you wanted to eat what people were eating a million years ago it would be impossible, due to evolution.

I must say I don't see directly why it would better or worse.
But the argument that (a version of) the wai diet is healthy because we evolved for it for thousand of years, is less strong.
They may cultivated all those banana's, apples, pears, avocados etc. in such a way, that there are just too many differences to really compare it with ancient wild fruits.

[RRM]

But the argument that (a version of) the wai diet is healthy because we evolved for it for thousand of years, is less strong.

Millions of years.
Fruits are designed to be consumed by humans; high levels of nutrients and relatively low levels of antinutrients.
The same is true for cultivated fruits, as people tend to dislike bitter (anti nutrients) tastes.
So, it may actually be that cultivated fruits are more healthy for us.
The reason why wild fruits have to contain some anti nutrients is for their protecting against various 'threats' (insects, worms etc),
which may be less necessary in cultivated fruits protected differently (by humans).

[Kasper]

I actually think that are many wild ripe fruits that don't have much anti nutrients.
As people claim it's absolutely delicious.

But I'm more thinking about that wild ancient fruits could be more high in certain nutrients which are very beneficial (maybe even nutrients we don't know much about).
To give a little more exact example, I saw that baobob fruit contains a quite high amount of GLA.
Cultivated fruits doesn't contain significant amounts of this n-6 fatty acids if I remember correctly.

I don't know if this is healthy or unhealthy, I just want to point out, that what we now consider as "fruit" is not what our ancestors considered as fruit.

[RRM]

there are just too many differences to really compare it with ancient wild fruits.
...
what we now consider as "fruit" is not what our ancestors considered as fruit.

Sure, but we may have a greater variety of fruits available at all times,
imported from all over the world,
and cultivated to taste sweet and contain little anti nutrients,
so that we may be better off.

[panacea]

I don't agree with using taste as a factor for healthy or unhealthy,
I watched several documentaries on chimpanzees and various apes and they all ate primarily bitter tasting fruits (as apparently most wild fruits in their habitat taste bitter, to humans at least, as the documentary people tried to eat them but spat them out).

"good" tasting imo is a totally trained and learned concept from culture not inherent instincts.

[Kasper]

Interesting panacea!

Dumping some random stuff here about chymase:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12464062
http://www.chinaphar.com/1671-4083/25/822.pdf
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.o ... 6.full.pdf
http://www.jimmunol.org/content/175/4/2635.long
http://www.cps.org.tw/docs/Vol54%20No1P ... le%204.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... ar_disease
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.o ... /1898.long

It seems that vitamin E plays important role with histamine/PGD2.

The 2 peptidases with chymotrypsin-like activity made by mast cells
are chymases and cathepsin G. Human mast cell subpopulations appear
to rather selectively express chymase. The variable expression of these
enzymes has led to the recognition of human mast cell subsets. Mast cell
subsets expressing tryptase and chymase (MCTC) tend to be abundant
in the dermis,
31
while mast cells expressing tryptase, but little or no
chymase (MCT), tend to be located in the mucosa of organ systems.
A third and minor population of mast cells expresses chymase and
cathepsin G (MCC).

In humans, tryptase is the most abundant mediator stored in mast cells. Chymase is present in more moderate amounts in a subpopulation of mast cells (MC(TC)). This subtype of mast cells predominates in connective tissue, whereas the other major subtype, the MC(T), predominates in mucosal tissue. Both proteases have been shown to act on specific extracellular proteins and peptides, as well as to alter the behavior of various cell types. Inhibitors of tryptase have been found to be efficacious in animal and human models of asthma, and both proteases are currently being investigated as potential targets for therapeutic intervention.

MCT cells were the predominant type seen in the alveoli of the lung (93%) and in the small intestinal mucosa (81%). MCTC cells predominanted in the skin (99%) and in the small intestinal submucosa (77%) and, to a lesser degree, in tonsils (60%). However, in newborn foreskin tissue which contains predominantly immature forms of mast cells, 75% of all mast cells were stained uniformly and intensely with B7, whereas only 43% were stained with the polyclonal anti-chymase antibody. Therefore, the use of MAb provides for better standardization of reagents and more accurate assessment of the distribution of human MCT and MCTC cells in tissues than previously available methods.

secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor? alpha(1)-antitrypsin?

[Kasper]

http://www.for926.uni-bonn.de/kunden/fo ... mmunol.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoi ... antagonist
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0025856
http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/22/3683.full

[Kasper]

Corticotropin-releasing hormone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corticotro ... ng_hormone

Is this the fear hormone ?
Could there be a cortisol response without this hormone ?
Anxiety-free stress.

Or maybe CRH hormone without cortisol response is causing shit.

[Kasper]

This is what my intuition is saying at the moment:

I was first blaming PGD2, but I actually think it is about mast cells.
Mast cells are laying in the lung/skin/digestive tract.
All the cells that are in contact with the environment.
There main role seems to be to protect against parasites.

My hypothesis is, is that those mast cells are not working well for 99% of the people.
The only reason they should be activated is when there are parasites.
Now they are responsible for almost any inflammatory disease.
Even when there should be some inflammation, those mast cells are making things worse, as there should be only a little inflammation.
There is reason we put ice etc. when we have an injury, that's because inflammation is not doing us good.
If those mast cells were functioning as they are designed to function, than there would only be a very localised/acute inflammation when necessary.

CO2 is preventing mast cell degranulation. And I think that's the main reason buteyko is so helpfull.
When CO2 is low, there is chronic mast cell degranulation all over the body.
This makes the humans in a chronic weak state.
PGD2 is the main reason people the immune system is not functioning.
PGD2 increases TH2 cells and decreases TH1 cells.
Th2 cells are only helpfull against parasites.
And only helpfull locally against parasites.
Now everywhere in the body Th2 cell proliferate, and Th1 cells are weakened.

PGD2 is also the main regulator of sleep, and feeling sleepy.
Therefore, when mast cells are stable and not degranulating, the body only needs a very short amount of sleep.
Maybe if the body is fighting parasites, sleep will increase a little bit.

Lipid peroxidation is also causing mast cells to degranulate.
I think that is the main reason why fat soluble anti-oxidants like astaxanthin, carotenes, tocophenols, tocotrienols, etc. are associated with less mast cell degranulation.
Therefore red palm oil is absolutely beneficial (carotenes,tocophenols,tocotrienols) for people with low CP.

I think poly-unsaturated fats should be limited a little bit. Just what the body needs, and in a good omega3/omega6 balance.

A good gut flora prevents mast cells there too degranulate. I think a good mix of probiotics are absolutely helpfull to stabilize those mast cells in the gut.
So that a good gut flora balance can be formed, as mast cells are not interferring this natural process.

[dime]

I think it's slowly starting to make sense :)
I still don't agree with things like "mast cells don't work properly in 99% of the people", there must be something wrong that made you come to this conclusion.