Gastroenterologist disses the value of chewing
Posted on 24 November 2009
Perusing on-line newspapers yesterday I came across this. According to the national newspaper the Observer (UK), Professor Chris Hawkey, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), is set to debunk more than a dozen
Published November 24, 2009 . Filed under: Food and Medical Politics, Healthy Eating
I became friends with a nice fellow here in town who is a gastroenterologist.
Like me he’s in his 40′s, but he eats like a child. soda and sugary drinks all day, eats candy like crazy, and has the most atrocious diet you’ve ever seen. His sugar intake was so high that he messed up his teeth and recently had a lot of mouthwork done to fix it.
He doesn’t want to hear about diet at all.
He’s a nice guy…….but it baffles me to no end.
Marc
November 23, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
I’ll bet he’d really roll his eyes at the suggestion that aroma and anticipation of a good meal jump starts digestion.
Think about it. In modern life, we rarely have appetizing aromas wafting and permeating our senses before meals, whetting our appetites, and signaling to our body that food is on the way. You know, mouth-watering aromas. Now we microwave foods and only get a whiff during the last minutes of heating up and opening the door or we order our food and it is transported to our table or counter away from the kitchen (or worse, to our car).
In the past, our bodies had more ample preparation for meals, as our hands might have been immersed in the food during preparation, our taste buds may have sampled already, and even those arriving or waiting for others to prepare meals, had noses awakened by roasting, simmering, or pungent aromas.
November 24, 2009 @ 1:54 am
Although I understand the logic of chewing and try myself to chew more, I can’t imagine our paleolithic ancestors chewing as a “natural” way of eating.
Steffanson, wrote in “My life with the eskimo” that his companions wolfed there food down like their dogs, when they were very hungry. Gulping it down with very little chewing.
I do believe that what you eat is more important than how you chew it.
Probably hunger and lack of food, which would mean enforced periods of fasting, pre-agriculture, are more important.
Maybe fasting between meals and perhaps the occasional 36-48 hour fast would be more beneficial to the digestive and metabolic system.
November 24, 2009 @ 3:49 am
I do hope that author challenged the gastro to eat a boot and laces. In the name of science, of course.
November 24, 2009 @ 3:58 am
Would our digestive tract still function if it were stripped of the 500 species of bacteria that populates it and whose number exceeds the total number of our individual cells by a factor of 10 : 1 ?
There exists a far too mechanistic appreciation of the workings of the human body which lingers from earlier times. For example, our organs are not a collection of parts such as engine, gearbox, or exhaust.
Instead our bodies are a collection of cells that evolve diversity following the moment of conception and the distinguished cells manage to coordinate themselves into collaborative groups that divide tasks between them. They are coded to do so consequentially of positive evolutionary outcome. We exist because it works. Higher order life seems to be ‘variations on a theme of tube’. Might we deduce that the contents of the tube are important?
Are not the patterns of collaboration and division of function repeated hierarchically in nature and within our own bodies? Do we not recognise division of function within a cell and apply the term ‘organelles’ (small organ?)? And are the patterns visible in the behaviour of colonies of species of insects?
Personally, I think we should look after the little fellows that populate our gut like our lives depended upon them for it has the hallmarks of a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps we should put their gastronomic preference before our own. That we fail to feed them sufficient prebiotic material may be reflected in the sales of probiotics?
The argument that we should look after the little fellows that populate healthy and fertile soil would appear to be valid for much the same reason and largely neglected for much the same reason. Colin Tudge recently blogged about the need to enter ‘The Age of Biology’. His point largely featured upon agriculture and economics. As a species we can never leave the age of biology, but human behavior and application of science has been a departure .. .. and isn’t your gastroenterologist a case in point?
I had a pint or two of beer last night, John, was I guilty of biocide?
November 24, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Hawkey comments “Atkins Nutritional Approach, the famous diet that is low in carbohydrates and high in protein,”
While it’s true reducing carbohydrate intake and eating until satisfied, inevitably leads to an increase in protein intakes, in practice it is fairer to describe Atkins as a low carb high fat diet.
In the You Tube Video The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) Christopher Gardner explains what happens in practice when people are properly educated over 8 weeks in the principles underlying the diet they were assigned to but then left to get on with that diet for the rest of the year.
In practice those on Atkins ended up with the greatest health improvements, so the fact quoted by Hawkey that only 2% of women think Atkins is healthy, reflects only the power health professionals and the press, have in misleading people.
Rather then spending his time making a fool of himself discussing matter he clearly doesn’t fully understand, Professor Chris Hawkey would do better spending his time explaining those aspects of modern diet and lifestyle that are directly associated with weight gain and that also increase inflammation.
Perhaps we could persuade Hawkey to watch Sugar the Bitter Truth Robert Lustig and maybe follow that up with Taubes Dartmouth Lecture
I wonder if Hawkey has any idea how many gastroenterological conditions are also associated with low vitamin D status and/or low omega 3 high omega 6 ratios?
November 24, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
There was an excellent article in the August edition of Scientific American called “Celiac Disease Insights: Clues to Solving Autoimmunity,” which discussed how people who are unable to digest a certain protein in wheat develop leaky gut, which in turn, can lead to celiac disease or to a number of autoimmune diseases such as diabetes and arthritis. So, it’s becoming clear that what we eat not only affects our gastrointestinal health directly, there is a longer-term impact on our overall health.
Unfortunately, physicians are more likely to suggest stress reduction or prescribe Nexus to patients complaining of stomach pain than suggest dietary modification (and even then are more likely to point as dairy as the culprit than wheat).
November 24, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
Scientific American requires a subscription but the text of “Celiac Disease Insights: Clues to Solving Autoimmunity” can be found here
For those new to the topic of how diet may cause autoimmune illness
Loren Cordain has an excellent video on how MS may develop
Celiac and MS are related and in both an increase in inflammatory signaling molecules leads to vitamin D deficiency, as well as accelerated bone loss.
While 1000iu/daily vitamin D raises 25(0H)D 10ng 25nmol/l in healthy people 2000iu/daily D3 is required to achieve the same result in those with inflammatory conditions.
Your body only has significant reserves of D3 when 25(OH)D is ABOVE 50ng/ml 125nmol/l.
So while healthy people will find 5000iu/daily D3 sufficient in the UK those with autoimmune conditions may require 10,000iu/daily to keep above 55ng/ml.
November 25, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Without needing to go into the “science” or medicine” behind digestion… why on earth have we evolved to possess teeth, if not to chew with, in order to help/assist/begin digestion?
November 28, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
My thanks to Ted for the celiac article from ‘Scientific American’. It’s really interesting stuff – and very recent.
November 29, 2009 @ 1:05 am