Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:55 AM
About the safety issue. Naturapaths Murray and Pizzorno (Encyc. of Nat. Med.) are quoted as saying that comsuming a lot of any oil will result in contraction of the gallbladder and will increase the likelihood of a stone blocking the duct. "This may result," they say, "in cholecystitis, requiring immediate surgery to prevent death." This objection is generally dismissed as "scare tactics." Only if your did your Flush on a deserted island would this be a concern was one response to this possible outcome. No one denies that complications are possible and have occurred, leading to hospitalization and, occasionally, the removal of the gallbladder. But most insist that it is only a remote possiblity. One practitioner with 10 years experience with the procedure, Dr. Walt Stoll claims that only one of his patients had to have surgery, and that was because instructions were not correctly followed. My web search has led me to believe that complications occur more often than the enthusiasts would like to admit. For a first hand account of a botched
Flush, click here. For a positive first hand account, click
here. ((How credible any of these accounts are, we, of course, cannot know. Especially suspect are the negative ones: Were the instructions correctly followed? If the gallbladder was removed, was this because of a severely diseased organ and not, directly, because of the Flush.
About the gallstones. Are they "real" or not? This is a more difficult question to answer. On one website, they are called soap stones by one doctor, who neverthe less recommends the procedure to some of his patients, believing it has beneficial results, yet believing they are not true gallstones. Another site calls them "saponified artifacts." The question of whether or not they are real gallstones or soap stones (the "unreal" kind, according to some) seems to revolve around what you are willing to accept as an accurate definition of a gallstone. Going over several of them, it became clear to me--if what I was reading was accurate--that one could accept both explanations: there are "real" stones (formed when bile concentrates and thickens with cholesterol and mineral salts to such a degree that it produces crystals) and there are "soap" stones (the so-called unreal stones). It may be simplistic, and even wrong, but I see no reason, based on what I've read, not to consider soap stones as immature gallstones, that is, stones that are not yet crystallized or calcified enough to be considered, by many, as true gallstones. Though some who ridicule the procedure, thinking the stones not "real," can point to lab results that confirm that they are "only soap stones," one Doctor (Claude Lewis--"Are You Stoned?") claims he sent in a sample of stones--the product of a Flush he supervised--and the analysis was "91% cholesterol and the rest bile salts, water and inert ingredients." Lewis goes on to say that the report "...clearly states it was gallstones." But we still don't know, it seems to me, if these stones should be considered fully developed "real" stones or what might be called immature stones, the soap stones. According to one definition of a real stone: It must be composed of cholesterol, bile, pigment, bilirubin, biliverdin, protein, and calcium. If this is so, then the soap stones seem not to qualify as the real thing.
I believe the most important question concerning the Flush is how are you feeling after passing the "stones"? Are troubling symptoms fewer, or lessened, or completely gone? These claims are routinely made by many who have done the Flush. To read a seemingly endless postings of testmonials, click the link in the first paragraph above. Granted they are not scientifically verifiable, but taken together these first hand accounts tend to be convincing. If it's "just" the placebo response that is working these minor miracles, as some may claim, then so be it. I want that kind of a response regardless of what's causing it.
Finally, the details of the Flush. The link in the first paragraph will take you to nine of them. Many use the Hulda Clark protocols, or a variation of them. Most are two or more pages long. The shortest and simplest, and probably not among the best to use, is two paragraphs, six lines long. The variations are probably helpful not so much in getting the "job done," but in making it a more comfortable and stress free experience, since it's not uncommon for many to have nausea and, occasionally, vomiting after drinking the oil mixture. Probably the best way to decide on what protocols to use is to read them all, or as many as necessary to give you a feel of what you would be comfortable with. Check out this Board's Forum: "Coping With"--the Topic "Fasting." Look for the Posts by Seeking Wellness (Sarah) for her positive experience with the Flush. Sarah also has a link in one of her posts to a very good website and their variation on the Flush.
A must read article, I think, for all of us, not just those who are thinking of doing the Flush, is here on the Board. It's titled Gall Bladder Disease and celiac disease. You can read it here. What jumped out at me from the article was the following: "If you've got celiac disease, yuo have gall bladder malfunction, of the sort that may develop into atresis [partial or complete blockage of the bile duct] and gallstones." This possible connection, which according to the article is a "definite connection," has been mentioned in a number of posts already, further convinces me that a gallbladder flush may be what I need to do to speed up the healing process. (I still need to do more surfing around before deciding.) Any help (Sarah, or anyone else who has done the Flush) will be appreciated. Would you do anything different, if and when you do it again? And please add to, or correct, what I've written here to help us answer the most important question: should we with celiac disease do the Flush? --Aldo
Posted 05 March 2004 - 03:25 PM
I have to say, you're a very good researcher! I know how to research, but I'm more of a "big picture" person and tend to rely heavily on "gut" feelings. To their credit, they rarely let me down, but of course they're only valid for ME. I pondered the wisdom of doing a gallbladder flush for a few months before I actually went through with it, and I feel like I made an appropriate decision for me.
The site whose protocol I followed claimed that stuck stones during a flush, while potentially serious, are less likely to cause complications than "regular gallstones" because their exit path is actively lubricated with bile and they usually slip out after a while (which is what happened for me). If they are stubborn, one can take a second portion of the oil mixture, which induces the body to produce more bile and should push the blockage out. "Regular gallstones" get stuck in a dry bile duct, which causes intense pain and makes it difficult or impossible to pass them.
I agree with you about feeling better afterward being a better measure of effectiveness than the chemical composition of the passed material. It will probably take more than one flush to achieve long-lasting improvement, however. Certainly my body has reverted to feeling troubled, but I expected this and am not upset by it. I hope the next flush I do (in late April) will produce more permanent results!
I think I will read up on some other variations of the flush procedure to see if there is one that would minimize the problem I had with hypoglycemia AFTER the flush, but otherwise I would do the flush again in a heartbeat. I actually found myself under pretty intense (and unexpected) stress on the day after my first flush, and that may have been responsible for the hypoglycemia I experienced.
I can't say whether you or any other celiac should do a gallbladder flush, and I don't know if this input is really helpful, but I wish you a feeling of calm certainty as you approach a decision. Take care!
gluten-free since November 1, 2003
Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:16 PM
First my apologies for not getting your posting name right. There's not much difference, I suppose, between Seeking Wholeness and Seeking Wellness except, maybe, that wholeness is a more fundamental and necessary state of being than wellness. But, in any case, a name is a name and I should have gotten it right.
I also noticed, this time around, that the last link (to the Hoggan article on the connection between GB disease and CE did not take. The link took me to a blank screen. In checking the web page ID I noticed that it no longer had the same identifying address that I used to create the link. The change was not just a letter or two, or a symbol here and there, but it was a substantial change. It's a minor matter, but if you know why this occurs I would be interested in hearing about it.
Rather than try to get the address right this time, and I'm not sure that is possible--it's bound to change between now and the next click, for some strange reason--the article can be read by going to the Celiac.com Home page, clicking on "Site Index" listed in the side bar to the left of the screen, and selecting "Research on Diseases and Disorders Associated with celiac disease." You can then find the article by scrolling down the alphabetical list of articles. The article kind of shook me up. Especially because of the history of GB problems in the family.
Sarah, why did you decide against the Epsom salts when doing your Flush? After reading a number of protocols, I came away with the belief that it would make the passage of stones less difficult because of its tendency to dilate and relax the bile ducts. Wouldn't you want to insure that this occurs, if you could, since a blockage in the bile duct seems to be the main safety concern? --Aldo
Posted 06 March 2004 - 01:20 PM
Don't beat yourself up over misremembering my username! It happens, and I'm not upset. I had actually considered both options (among others) before I settled on seeking_wholeness, and my reasoning was pretty much identical to yours!
Thank you for your instructions on how to reach the article you mentioned; I may have read it once before, but I can't remember, and I haven't had time yet to check it out again.
I decided against Epsom salts with my flush because I was concerned that using them would make the experience less than pleasant and discourage me from repeating the flush in the future. I am a Highly Sensitive Person (a technical term; are you familiar with Dr. Elaine Aron's books on the subject? You might find them interesting reading, whether you fit the description yourself or not), and I could easily be turned off completely by the very strong (bitter?--definitely NOT salty!) taste of the Epsom salts. Taste seems to be my most acute sense, actually; I CAN'T force myself to consume something vile-tasting more than once without significant distress. (Yes, I was a very picky eater as a child!) I also recalled my experience with a bowel prep for a barium enema back when I was in college, which raised the concern that I might be TOO tied to the toilet to take adequate care of my kids on the day of the flush! I decided that if I experienced a "stuck stone crisis," I would take Epsom salts THEN, followed by another round of the oil mixture. I believe this approach was recommended or at least discussed on the website whose protocol I used.
These concerns are of course specific to me, and I have little doubt that Epsom salts would be of benefit to most individuals performing a gallbladder flush. Does this help? I hope you are doing well!
gluten-free since November 1, 2003
Posted 06 March 2004 - 05:12 PM
"About the safety issue. Naturapaths Murray and Pizzorno (Encyc. of Nat. Med.) are quoted as saying that comsuming a lot of any oil will result in contraction of the gallbladder and will increase the likelihood of a stone blocking the duct. "This may result," they say, "in cholecystitis, requiring immediate surgery to prevent death." This objection is generally dismissed as "scare tactics." Only if your did your Flush on a deserted island would this be a concern was one response to this possible outcome. No one denies that complications are possible and have occurred, leading to hospitalization and, occasionally, the removal of the gallbladder. But most insist that it is only a remote possiblity"
I can't speak to how a flush would contribute to cholecystitis, but I can attest to how dangerous stones in the common bile duct are.
My son , when he was 4 yrs old, and before he was diagnosed with celiac disease, had a very large stone stuck in his common bile duct. He had an emergency proceedure to try and remove the stone, thay didn't work. He was very ill with pancreatitis and had a laproscopic cholecystectomy the next day. He was quite ill for a while and removal of his galbladder just added to his very challenging medical condition. he already had 70% of his small intestines, his ileocecal valve and part of his colon removed as a newborn. The diagnosis of celiac disease did not come for several more years after the stones in his common bile duct. He was on TPN (IV nutrition) for the first 6 months of his life, and the short bowel syndrome were always blamed for his GI symptoms.
Maybe a stupid question, but what are the benefits to a gallbladder flush ? Like I said earlier, I haven't heard of it until I read this thread.
Posted 06 March 2004 - 08:57 PM
Sorry about your son. What a way to start the journey!
About the reasons to have a gallbladder flush: I'm not qualified to answer. Still learning about it, with many questions still not fully answered. But I did find a short summary in the curezone.com web site that gives, I think, the main reasons for doing it.
90% of adults have intrahepatic stones (at least 3 small stones) - but 99% of them do not know that they have them. [Intrahepatic stones are defined as "calculi, or concretions, located proximal to the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts." My understanding of this medicalese is that the stones are located at the juncture of the two ducts within the liver. I've read that stones originate in the liver and from there move to the gallbladder. So if there are stones in the gallbladder there has to be stones in the liver. But not necessarily stones in the gallbladder if there are stones in the liver.]
People can have up to 3000 stones inside gallbladder and up to 3000 stones inside liver (very small stones - sand, or just a few big stones).
15 - 30% of children age 14 - 18 have intrahepatic stones (depend on country)(at least 3 small stones).
95% of people older then 35 have intrahepatic stones & gallstones, but very few of them have symptoms.
99.95% of people diagnosed with cancer have intrahepatic stones.
Of course, that last bit of information is the punch line--well below the belt you might say. But cancer is only one of the possible outcomes, they say, when there is a problem with the liver and gallbladder. Being the central player, they tell us, in so many vital functions necessary for health, when the liver ceases to function properly then the whole system begins to suffer.
You will find more details, Lorraine, if you go to the link in the first paragraph of the first post in this Topic. You will also get plenty of pros and cons, which have helped me get a better grasp of what the Flush is supposed to accomplish, what the risks are, and how to do it. --Aldo
Posted 07 March 2004 - 07:55 AM
In rereading my response this morning to your question to see if in fact I did answer it, and to see, as always, how many unintended words replaced those intended--there usually are a few--I was reminded of what they often say about Internet info (and you may know this better than I do): take it with a liberal sprinkling of salt. That would be my attitude concerning the summary I copied from one of the websites that cover this topic. That is why I like to take in as many views/websites as possible, hoping that, even though lacking first hand experience, I will be able to sort out the good from the bad, when enough has been put into the info pipeline.
What I think I should have mentioned instead of, or in addition to, the summary was a recent family experience with gallbladder problems. My sister died this past summer after surgery for gallbladder cancer. She was considered to be the healthiest member of our fairly large family. She was rarely sick. In twenty three years of teaching, she had missed three--three --days of work. She had a complete physical two weeks before the cancer diagnosis. The results of the exam: Cholesterol and blood pressure on the high side, but other than that she was, they confidently proclaimed, in "excellent health." Three weeks later we were gathered in the surgery waiting room of Beth Israel Hospital, listening to the operating surgeon tell us that the gallbladder cancer had spread to the bile ducts, and the lymph system and that Sylvia had only a few months left, maybe six if she were lucky. It was to be four months. What is still baffling to many of us is how is it possible that she could appear to be so healthy, and be so sick. And not have this picked up after all those physicals and all those blood tests she had over the years. And even more baffling, how could she function so well over so many years having this problem, which must have taken years to develop. From the time she became jaundiced--she was still teaching and feeling okay, she said, except for some slight pain on the back right side--to the time when they determined that her gallbladder had to come out because of the stones, because of the cancer, and because they believed that was the only hope for recovery was a grand total of ONE week. From health--apparent health--to cancer surgery in one week, and end of story in four very short months.
This personal story, I think, does answer your question, Lorraine, at least more directly, if not entirely, this time. The hope is, as I understand it, that by flushing the liver/gallbladder we can eliminate the stones that are gumming up the works
and making it difficult for these organs to function as they should, the end result being for most of us cancer. Whether it does this, or only appears to, is obviously up to each of us to decide. I think it's worth investigating, and there are plenty of websites that can help us do that. --Aldo
s well as being cancerous, with possibly a blockage of the common bile duct. and was not functioning well, and that the right lobe of her liver was also diseased, but not cancerous--three cheers, right?--and then in a few days was examined, and in another few days was on the operating table.
Posted 07 March 2004 - 08:03 AM
The postscript that is there in the above post was not intended to go through, along with more graphic material that I thought unnecessary and successfully deleted, but on rereading the material, I noticed I missed these lines because they somehow got pushed to the bottom of the screen out of sight. (I had to keep restraining myself, and deleting material, to keep it within the bounds of civility.)
Posted 07 March 2004 - 09:24 AM
My naturapath has been reccomending that in a coupe of months when my body is stronger and more stable, that I undertake a "liver flush." He said it involves oil, and epsom salts and is sort of a "trial by fire."
Is this the SAME thing as a "gall bladder flush," or just a similar process? In one of the posts, it was mentioned that the gall stones come from the liver.
I guess my second question is, is this of specific concern to the person with celiac disease, or just anybody concerned about their health in this semi-toxic society?
How does celiac disease relate to the liver?
Posted 07 March 2004 - 03:02 PM
From what I remember, the reason those deposits in the liver are such a big problem is that liver filtration is obstructed, each section of the liver is responsible for a different section of the body, so if a portion is blocked, you will get specific sensativities associated with that area. Plus just the common sense approach, if it is clogged, it is clogged, no filter can be good for much in that state.
After doing my cleanses, I felt so much better but the thing is that I always reverted back to having the same problems after a time, so I knew that there is something causing the formation of those "stones" (really more like dense sponge like material in small rock like form) to occur in my system at a very fast rate. Much like tumors that keep coming back in my opinion. So, why? For about 7 years I have had this in the back of my mind waiting to come across an answer, now I think I know. I knew then that those things coming out of me by the hundreds were made up mostly of cholesterol (fat) so this whole problem had something to do with that. I have spoken about pantothenic acid (B5) lately on a couple of threads relating to acne and dry skin....well, turns out that there are three components needed to metabolise fat in the body, two of them the body can manufactor, the other is B5 which must be obtained from a food source. Now B5 was long thought an unnecessary supplement since it is in many foods, especially grains (go figure!) and we should get enough in our diet. But of course, food quality is getting lower and lower AND we have the slight problem of not absorbing our food. The first I heard of it was in looking for a solution to acne, which I have and has been getting worse and worse for years now, here is something I found: http://www.b5clearsk...udshowb5wo.html
Then I started looking for more info on B5, turns out a lack of it causes hormonal problems (we have long known acne flares up with hormone changes, well that is because B5 is also need for hormone production, so when that demand presents itself, then fat metabolism slows way down or stops and the fat has to go somewhere), which would include many problems by extention. Fat is needed in the brain especially, so if it is not being metabolized your going to have problems there
to state it simply, depression being one of them. In one place it mentioned that alchohol reduces B5 concentrations in the liver, which would cause an alchoholic to develope "fatty liver" (made me think of the fact that those of us who have developed Candida which continually produces alchohol of its own would make us double at risk for low B5). And on and on, the information I read all made me think that this must be why there were those fatty deposits building up in our livers, we weren't getting that nutrient from our food and eventually fat could not be metabolized any longer and had to be stored somewhere. I also believe that is one reason many of us, although we are not absorbing our food, have gained weight that we cannot shed.
Anyway, I am taking good size doses of B5 now and what do you know, my acne is clearing up and my skin is no longer dry. I would still like to do another liver flush to help the process along, but I am hoping that the build up in the liver won't be a problem in the future! We'll see.
You'll have to do your own research Aldo (since your so good at it!) and see if you agree on this.
Posted 07 March 2004 - 03:13 PM
Welcome. About your first Q: It's my understanding that they are referring to the same process, which may be why it's sometimes called the Liver/Gallbladder Flush. (Pl correct me if someone knows otherwise.) I suppose it's more accurate to call it the Liver Flush since--again it's only what I've read--stones in the gallbladder only get there from the liver. So it does seem that if you are flushing out stones from the gallbladder and this has been done successfully, you will (if you continue to do the flushing periodically) begin to flush out the stones in the liver, if they have not already been flushed out.
Your second Q: Is this Gallbladder Flush of specific concern to those of us who have celiac disease? And the related question: How does celiac disease relate to the liver? can both be answered best, I think, by reading a few articles that can be accessed at this Board's home page, and clicking on the "Site Index" at the left of the page.
Though no substitute for reading the complete articles, the following exerpts will give you an idea of how your questions would probably be answered by those who wrote these articles.
(From Gastroenterology April 2002)
"There just isn't much ambiguity there. If you've got celiac disease, you have gall bladder malfunction, of the sort that may well develop into atresia and gallstones."
(From Lancet Aug. 6, 1977)
"Upon receiving a diagnosis of gall bladder disease, whether gall stones or atresia, one might be wise to request a blood test for celiac disease. The anti-endomysial antibody test is currently the most reliable and available test."
(From Gall Bladder Disease and Celiac Disease by Ronald Hoggan)
"Now, given the low level of clinical suspicion for celiac disease, I anticipate the suggestion that absent gall bladder emptying, atresia, and gall stones might occur in the absence of celiac disease. I did another Medline search, and I can't find a single study that has tested atresia patients or gallstone patients for celiac disease. My answer to the suggestion that gall bladder disease may occur in the absence of celiac disease is that there is no evidence to support such a contention. Considerable evidence exists, however, which points to celiac disease as a likely cause of gall bladder malfunction, atresia, or stones. As for childhood gallstones, there appears to be only one answer.... it is associated with celiac disease."
Hope this helps. And please keep us informed as you make your way toward the Flush. I'm especially interested because you will be having--am I correct?--medical supervision? Or at least someone with a medical background advising you, when you're ready for it. I've almost decided to do it, but will wait on the final decision until I gather a bit more information--Aldo
Posted 07 March 2004 - 03:39 PM
thank you for your thoughtful reply. I intend to do the flush (later) with supervision. I have to say, it sounds *mighty* unpleasant. But, perhaps worth it. The idea of adressing the root problem as well (B5 ?) is very interesting. Worth doing more research.
Posted 13 March 2004 - 09:37 PM
Your post on B5 was an eye opener for me. I thought that the really important Bs were the 1-2-3 and 6, and folic acid and, for vegetarians, 12. But my reading thus far is convincing me that B5--this supposedly in-everything vitamin with so little chance of a deficiency that there is no RDA for it--is more important than many think, and that most of us are probably not getting enough of it in our diet. I've not finished with the material on B5 but what I have read supports what you had to say about its importance in lipid metabolism, and why some are having difficulties with cholesterol. It's not much of a stretch, I think, to make the connection, as you did, that a deficiency of the vitamin can lead to the formation of gallstones.
Though I've read, repeatedly, that there is no danger of toxity even when using megadoses--some taking as much as 10 gms a day, usually for acne problems--one source cites the "standard therapeutic dose" to be from 50-200mgs a day. Another source claims that between 600--1200mgs daily will significantly lower cholesterol after several weeks. This brings up the question of how much is enough, and also is it really safe to increase one B without increasing the amount of all the others. Lieberman and Bruning ("The Real Vitamin and Mineral Book") answer in this way: "If there is a need for additional amounts, it is suggested that not more than one or two individual B vitamins be added at any one time, and that only two or three times the amount of the other Bs be taken." They claim that increasing the amounts more than this will lead to deficiencies in the other Bs.
You mention, LisaB, taking "good size doses of B5." May I ask if you are taking megadoses? In the range of several grams? And if so, do you feel this is safe? Over the long term?
I counted over 50 benefits of getting adequate B5. The ones that are particularly important to us, I think, are (and I will quote just as I found them): "important in maintaining a healthy digestive tract." "a cholesterol lowering agent." "immune stimulant." "helps release, along with cysteine and ATP, energy for carbs, fats, and protein." "essential element of coenzyme A, important for good metabolism." "important in preventing and alleviating arthritis." probably the greatest defense against stress, fatique, and depression." "helps build antibodies for fighting infection." And this one, especially important if you will be visiting a dentist soon: "adequate intake reduces the toxity effects of many antibiotics and protects against cellular damage caused by excessive radiation." "relieves intestinal gas and distention when there is no physical cause [wonder what might be causing this?] "in clinical trials it has significantly reduced serum triglyceride and cholesterol levels, while increasing HDL cholesterol levels." and "aids in bowel motility and efficient digestion. Without Pantothenic acid, acetylcholine cannot be produced. This chemical transmits messages to nerves that control the motor and secretory activities of the intestines."
I thought the following might be of interest: "For years, the richest known natural source of it [B5] was royal jelly, [which] when fed to bee larvae transforms them into queen bees..." This may be why it is said that taking B5 along with royal jelly makes it more effective. Maybe, maybe not. Not much evidence here to back this up. But I must confess that I bought a jar of "Really Raw Honey" soon after reading about this.
Personally, I was convinced enough by what I've read so far to up my intake of Bs from 50 to 100mgs, and to take an additional 200mgs of B5. (I'm not suggesting that anyone else should do the same, but it is what seems right to me at this time.) Maybe LisaB, who has looked into this matter for some time, can offer us some guidelines and suggestions on what would be a reasonable amount to take. From the run down of benefits, it would seem that many of us might be suffering
from a deficiency without knowing it. And since Doctors are not looking for this kind of thing, they will not see it even if it's there to be seen. --Aldo
Posted 14 March 2004 - 11:55 AM
Thanks for looking into that, it is nice to hear your thoughts. I agree with you 100% that it is always preferable to get your nutrition in whole food form, I don't care how much someone knows, how much someone reads, we will never understand the complexity of the chemistry that goes into what God created. Natural foods work because they are in perfect balance, nutrients work together, not alone. I was unaware that royal jelly has highest amount of B5 and when I can afford to, I will get some. I think in the short term, for immediate relief, supplements can be o.k. to take depending on where they are derived from, but you have to watch your health closely and be careful. I hate to see people take supplements that are in the wrong form for our bodies to assimilate, it is hard on the body, if not toxic to it and your spending money for it!
I was taking pretty large doses of B5 (about 5 grams or 5000 mgs) a day for 10 days, I was also taking high amounts of other Bs (in an electrolyte formula that also include ionic minerals and are a multi ionic vitamin) to cover my bases. When I ran out of the other B supplement to take along with it, I no longer felt comfortable taking that much B5 and I was already seeing pretty good improvement in my skin so I cut back to about 1000 mgs a day. I decided to continue to take that still pretty high amount because my hormones are in such a bad state that it is critical to get that turned around if I want to have a normal life any time soon and I don't want to lose ground on the improvement in my skin.
After lowering the dose, I did break out, not as badly as before, but still pretty bad. So, I don't know if it is better to stay on a higher dose or go on a longer term medium dose and be patient (hard to do with acne). And if I am getting acne, what is happening in my liver and glands? 1000 mgs doesn't seem to be enough to go around. And if that amount doesn't even take care of daily oil metabolism, how can it do the clean up work that would need to be done to get rid of storages in the liver and other places. Ultimately I don't think there is a set answer as to how much to take, I think that depends on your needs and how you respond in a good or bad way to any given dose and how many of the problems a person has that is on the list of things B5 helps. I think, as you suggest, royal jelly along with B5 and your other Bs would go a long way to making the B5 you do decide to take more effective. And of course there are many herbs that help break up, dissolve and prevent gallstones and by my way of thinking would help all the other symptoms we are talking about, such as Gravel Root, Madder, Hydrangea Root, Dandelion Root, Artichoke Leaf and there are others, of course taking only non-irradiated and non-fumigated herbs is important, if they don't say they are not, they are because it is standard practice to do so.
As a related side point, I have been trying to figure out what to do about my thyroid which seems to be hardly functioning, well low and behold, it all ties in. Malabsorbion of fats effect the thyroid, but from what I have read, there is a fat that is so easily metabolised that it strengthens the thyroid (and by extention your other glands) and raises your metabolism as well as giving you a fat that your body can burn as energy instead of always using carbs for that energy (which is hard on your body and of course causes problems with insulin levels often), I have to try it when I get the money. It is Virgin Coconut Oil (only the unprocesses type, virtually raw or completely raw form) here is what one site had to say:
The medium chain fatty acids in coconut oil are easily absorbed and put to use nourishing the body. Unlike other fats, they put little strain on the digestive system and provide a quick source of energy. On the other hand, long chain fatty acids are usually digested with digestive enzymes from the liver and take a long time to breakdown. Less enzymes and less energy are required for coconut oil digestion. You see, the medium chain fatty acids in coconut oil are digested and absorbed quickly and with minimal effort. Because of this there is less strain on the pancreas, liver and the digestive system. This is important for persons who suffer from metabolic problems.
Once digested long chain fatty acids go on to be stored in adipose tissue to be used later. However, coconut oil, because it contains shorter fatty acid chains, is absorbed into the blood stream and used by the body for energy. Many people describe the "burning" of coconut oil as being similar to the "burning" of carbohydrates for fuel. The long chain fatty acids, which are digested by the body, must be linked up with carrier proteins (they are called lipoproteins) and carried throughout the body. They can be used by the cells or organs for energy or stored in adipose tissue or dropped off on the sides of arteries, etc. The fats which do this are cholesterol, long chain saturated fats, monounsaturated fat, and polyunsaturated fat. The medium chain fatty acids, however, are not packaged into lipoproteins, but travel to the liver where they are converted into energy. Ordinarily they are not stored to any significant degree as body fat. Medium chain fatty acids produce energy. Other dietary fats produce fat.
Medium chain fatty acids are unique in that they can easily permeate both membranes of the mitochondria without the need of enzymes and thus provide the cell with a quick and efficient source of energy. This is great news if you are feeling fatigued.
Additionally here is info on other benefits coconut oil may have:
Anecdotal reports suggest that coconut may offer relief from symptoms and prevent digestive distress. Teresa Graedon, Ph.D. co-author of The People's Pharmacy Guide to Herbal and Home Remedies says during the research for her book she heard enough testimonials about the benefit of using coconut for Crohn's disease that she was convinced that this is one home remedy that may have important medical significance and believes strongly that more research should be pursued in this area. I have also heard similar stories. For example, one occurred in Hawaii and involved a small child that suffered from an intestinal problem so severe that most any food, including milk, aggravated symptoms. The child was wasting away because he couldn't tolerate most of the foods he was given. A native Hawaiian told the mother to feed the child the "jelly" inside an immature coconut. She took the woman's advice and the child thrived eating a diet consisting primarily of coconut jelly. Knowing what we do scientifically about the digestibility of coconut oil, it makes sense that it would be of benefit to those with digestive problems.
Interestingly enough researchers have demonstrated the benefits of coconut oil on patients with digestive problems, including, Crohn's disease, at least since the 1980s. The anti-inflammatory and healing effects of coconut oil apparently play a role in soothing inflammation and healing injury in the digestive tract which are characteristic of Crohn's disease. Its antimicrobial properties also affects intestinal health by killing troublesome microorganisms that may cause chronic inflammation.
Anyway, all the interesting things found on that can't be posted here, but now I am going to try to replace as much fat in my diet as I can with coconut oil (virgin) and take my B5 (at the lowest level that I see results) along with my other multi Bs, electrolytes, minerals, vitamins and digestive enzymes, as many herbs as I can and add royal jelly when I can afford too (whew! thank goodness most of that is in one packet!) Sound like a plan?!
I figure after my intestines are all healed then my body can take over and all of those things won't be necessary, just maintaining a very healthy diet with only some supplementation should cover it.
Posted 14 March 2004 - 03:27 PM
Thought I would post this as well, as the sites I quoted from are selling Virgin Coconut Oil. The info on those sites (there are several) is largely quoted from a couple of Dr.s that have done research on the oil and written on the subject, also the moderator of the Thyroid site on www.about.com seems to be a fan of the oil for thyroid conditions.
I really hope this is a partial answer to regaining energy, hormone function and reducing the load on the body for lipid metabolism.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users