Brian's mentioned this a few times and maybe even explained it, but what's the significance of a stretched stomach?

david

A 'stretched' stomach means we've abused our bodies (again...) through eating too much.

[ 'stretched' stomach means we've abused our bodies (again...) through eating too much.]

I see it as more abusive to the body to take in an inadequate amount of dietary fiber. The current recommended amount of 30 g per day is not all that protective, 60 g per day is better and 120 g per day would eliminate the need for many if not most hospitals.

I believe that the people here who are getting more than 40 g per day are doing raw "best."

But to accomplish a truly therapeutic fiber content without stretching the stomach is a feat for some, requiring something akin to grazing all day long. For me it is a huge veg salad, a moderately large fruit salad, and additional pieces of fruit or veg servings. My salads take a very long time to eat.

arugula,

I'm just curious: you've mentioned elsewhere that your salads take a long time to eat, I think it was you, anyhow. What is the volume of your salads? How long does it take to get through one? And are you chewing the whole time? I have read in raw guides that it's just as good to throw a huge salad into a VitaMix and drink it down gradually.

As a regular vegetarian, while in a nutrition class project, I discovered that I was consuming about 38 grams of fiber daily. The problem was it was unclear what the optimum ratio of soluble:insoluble fiber is healthy for me. The standards I've seen keep changing.

dvdai,

When people eat cooked foods, their stomachs don't need to stretch as much to hold a lot of calories because the food often doesn't have much fiber or water. Cooked foods are highly concentrated.

Raw foods, on the other hand, are sparse in terms of calories. So it takes a lot more volume to hold a significant amount of calories.

A typical cooked meal might be between 700 to 1000 calories. This volume of this many calories might be the size of a grapefruit. On the other hand, and equivalent raw meal might have the volume of a 5 to 10 pound melon.

So it takes a larger stomach to hold a significant amount of raw food calories.

When I first started raw, I had to eat 5-6 meals a day to be satisfied. Now I get by with 2 meals. But my stomach can hold a significantly larger volume of food that it could when I first started. All it takes is practice, and the stomach will stretch to hold more food. Just go gently with this practice.

The thing about stomach stretching that I have difficulty with is that I feel like I am over-eating. When I ate cooked food (which basically would make me feel a bit ill because it was so hard to digest) I would stop eating after eating a certain volume. But with raw food I know that I have to get more calories so I ignore the "full" signal and I kind of feel like there isn't another mechanism to tell me when to stop eating. I mean I am sure it exists.... maybe the body says "ok, i have enough calories/nutrients" whereas in the past it would say "okay i don't have any more room". but i haven't really heard that voice yet. and in the meantime, it kind of feels uncomfortable.

but maybe i am mistaking stomach stretching from eating raw foods with stomach stretching of just plain over eating!

{What is the volume of your salads? How long does it take to get through one? And are you chewing the whole time?]

I use a 12 cup container and I fill it to the brim. It takes about 45 minutes to 1 hour, and no I am not chewing continuously. At work, I work while I am eating and the kids I work with are constantly interrupting me.

A digression here: I sometimes bring them fruit, and it gives me so much pleasure to see those kids eating fruit. There's something so timeless about it.

[ I have read in raw guides that it's just as good to throw a huge salad into a VitaMix and drink it down gradually. ]

This has pros and cons. The pro is that you are going to get more uptake of the vitamins, minerals, fats, sugars, aminos, calories, and protective phytochemicals. The con is that you will be breaking down some of the fibers. 12 g of fiber from a salad of mostly torn leaves will give you more fiber benefit than 12 g of fiber from the same after blending.

You don't have to choose between one or the other absolutely, though, you can incorporate both.

[As a regular vegetarian, while in a nutrition class project, I discovered that I was consuming about 38 grams of fiber daily. The problem was it was unclear what the optimum ratio of soluble:insoluble fiber is healthy for me. The standards I've seen keep changing.]

It's hard to find soluble vs insoluble content info.

here is a sparse chart but it is better than nothing
[www.dietaryfiberfood.com]

Just going from 1 g soluble/8 insoluble to 3.5 g soluble/22.5 g insoluble fiber per day has been shown to make significant improvments in LDL and fasting glucose. PMID: 15163472

Double it again and like magic, type II diabetes and CVD risks are markedly reduced, if not outright zero. But I believe the tricky part is to do this well before a certain amount of damage has taken place. Parts of your body are self-repairing, but not kidneys.

Such a simple thing, and hardly anybody does it.

As you know (but others might not), the soluble is more protective, that's the part that bacteria convert into short-chain fatty acids that do so much magic for the body but you do need both types, because the insoluble fibers are the parts that help move food out the large intestine and keep that it "clean."

Continue to eat lots of f+v and a handful of nuts/seeds and you will get what you need and more.

arugula,

Your contribution is always invaluable! Thank you so much for doing some digging for me and answering my somewhat probing query about your salad[I am discovering that there is a different standard for polite inquiry where raw foodism is concerned: so much more personal biological data. Thanks for not finding me impertinent!]. I suppose the easiest way to get a good ratio of sol:insol fiber is to eat as large a variety of produce as possible and to listen to one's gut. Again, thanks.

P.S. Are you a teacher? When I was a Montessori intern, it made me monkeynuts to see what the 5-&-unders would get sent to school with for lunch. I would literally fume! And it was such a struggle to institute a raw apple and crudité plate for all-day snacking for them, to say nothing of water cups! Their behavior changed markedly once they were able to rehydrate themselves, poor little mites.

Quote

annex -- "I haven't really heard that voice yet. and in the meantime, it kind of feels uncomfortable."

I am a lot more comfortable not eating more then I need to feel satisfied. I don't even like to feel full and certainly not stuffed. My stomach size has steadily decreased since going raw and my weight has decreased as well. I eat small meals using my body signals as my coach. I try to stay in my comfort zone between the first slight return of mild hunger and the first slight signal of comfort or absence of hunger. Its the place where I feel the least concerned about food and can focus on other things.

[Are you a teacher? When I was a Montessori intern, it made me monkeynuts to see what the 5-&-unders would get sent to school with for lunch. I would literally fume!]

Yes, special needs kids, this was where the need was greatest and I found employment. These are the worst kids in the county, normal IQs but egregiously bad behavior. Mostly very low SES. It is probably the most demanding thing I have ever done but it's also rewarding at times. If you'd told me ten years ago if that this was where I'd end up I'd have said you were nuts. And yet I feel it's where I belong.

Their diets are horrific. The (free) school breakfasts and lunches would kill anybody. They get a lot of milk, though, and although it provides lots of nutrition at artificially low cost, it is kind of inappropriate since about 85% of them are lactose intolerant.

Yeah, it's going to be a routine thing for me from now on, to bring in lots of fruit. I think I will bring them nuts and seeds also, we don't have a paranoia about nut allergies at my school. One of them clearly doesn't get enough to eat at home, she is 7 but has the body of a 5 yo, and she takes everything I have to give.

Somehow I've managed to be raw for two years without ever worrying how many grams of fibre I get each day.

I just get whatever fibre comes within the packages that are my raw fruits, nuts, greens, vegetables...

Like EZ Rider, my feeling is that we should be gradually disciplining ourselves to eat less, rather than more...(although I'm a big fan of Dr D in many ways, I diverge there...)

I definitely feel better (eg my tummy feels flatter, and calmer) on the days I'm so busy with other things that I don't think about food and just eat small amounts.

And I found after going raw that I never needed to count calories again - the liberation!

This is only my opinion, and I can quite see that others will see things differently, but this 'systematic over-eating'/stomach stretching has never felt right to me.

[my feeling is that we should be gradually disciplining ourselves to eat less, rather than more...(although I'm a big fan of Dr D in many ways, I diverge there...]

Well yes, we *should* be eating less in terms of calories. But with higher fiber diets this is almost always bulky. Doesn't Dr. Graham eat very large quantities of food in a day, at least 20 pieces of fruit plus a few romaine hearts daily?

If you are in the low fat contingent and you are eating enough to maintain a healthy weight and have plenty of energy for activities and you are not too reliant on a juicer, you are probably getting enough fiber.

But some of the high fat people who also juice are not getting their fiber. They are cheating. IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2008 07:59PM by arugula.

Hey arugula,

Nice to hear you are helping out those kids, they are very lucky to have you. Wish you all the best. I was curious about this comment you made above

Parts of your body are self-repairing, but not kidneys.

I wasn't aware of this, but perhaps you are referring to a specific type of damage? I thought one could allow for some healing to occur in at least some cases by reducing excessive protein intake, for instance.

Cheers,
J

[I thought one could allow for some healing to occur in at least some cases by reducing excessive protein intake, for instance. ]

This is after a certain amount of damage has taken place, after that, forget it, the glomeruli can't function anymore. If any of them are still intact yes, those intact ones will benefit from lower protein, but the sclerotic (= dead) ones will not be restored under any circumstances that I know of. When too many of them are dead, it's curtains.

Some people with kidney disease get to a point where only 10-20% of their glomeruli still function because they don't realize they have it, they may have headaches and get tired easily and see blood in their urine but without a doctor to assess protein levels in the urine and a strident prompting to see a specialist for more tests and appropriate lifestyle changes, they just get worse. That's when they need dialysis and/or transplants. It's really tragic when they get a donor in the family and the transplant still fails. I know of one such case, not through my readings but through a legal case I once worked on.

Most people, even RNs, know very little about kidney care.

This is one instance where it really is better to see a real doctor, because if you see urine in your blood and there is protein in your urine and your doctor tells you this is a bad sign, but you're only at 20% glomeruli loss (= 80% kidney function), you can still lead a normal life without dialysis or transplant *if* you nip it in the bud.

Our bodies are incredibly resilient but parts of them were not meant to withstand the severe damage that we inflict.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2008 04:45AM by arugula.

Oh man, that makes me so glad I'm raw. Not only does raw food taste radiantly alive but when I eat it I feel healthier & safer. I know some people don't agree with that but thats the way I feel about eating raw foods. Long live raw foods !

"Parts of your body are self-repairing, but not kidneys."

I have heard of special meditations and other practices which revitalize the kidneys, I have tried to find specifics of how to do this, but I haven't found much. In traditional chinese medicine ones vitality, well being, longevity is very much tied to the kidney meridian.

[ have heard of special meditations and other practices which revitalize the kidneys]

If they worked, nobody would need dialysis.

[vitality, well being, longevity is very much tied to the kidney]

Yes, because if they can't get rid of the bad stuff in the blood and keep the good stuff from leaving the blood, you're going to be in a pickle. And you will start to look like you are pickled, too.

You can always tell a diabetic with end-stage renal disease by looking at them. They look short of ghoulish and greenish. Shudders.

Thanks all for the responses, including Bryan. The info on the kidneys from arugula was interesting as well.

david

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [ have heard of special meditations and other
> practices which revitalize the kidneys]
>
> If they worked, nobody would need dialysis.

I'm not saying that they work or not, I don't know, but nobody would need dialysis either if they took care of their kidneys in the first place. So we are talking about people who haven't been taking care of their kidneys to begin with.

Now regarding the OP I thought that the stomach stretching problem worked the other way, people entered the raw food diet with large stomachs from overeating. Then they had to get used to many mono meals thoughout the day and their stomachs felt empty until their stomachs got smaller. This took about a month for the stomachs to get smaller.

This is tips on how to shrink your stomach, it says that it takes a few weeks to get a smaller stomach so it should probably take a few weeks to get a larger stomach too:
[www.fasting.ws]

Lillianswan

Quote

tips on how to shrink your stomach, [www.fasting.ws]

Thanks for posting the link to that info. It confirms what I have been thinking about eating to the absence of hunger rather then eating until "full" and the effect on stomach size. Also, the info about the volume of liquids is something I hadn't considered before but it sure makes sense.

Arugula,
"If they worked, nobody would need dialysis."

TCM like any medicine has limititions. TCM also doesn't quite see the organs in the same way as western medicine. Can a raw vegan diet help someone recover from this type of severe kidney problem?

Nope, sclerotic glomeruli are scarrred, dead, unable to filter and there is no way to bring them back to life as far as I know. They aren't like the cardiovascular system that is able to repair itself to some extent if proper dietary measures are taken (way too drastic for most people but a piece of cake for a raw vegan).

I suspect this has to do with the size (diameter) of the "pipes" involved, they are microscopic in the glomeruli compared to up to an inch in an aorta and much easier to clog and thus kill the tissues that are supported, but I can't be certain that size is the reason why they can't be fixed.

What I know for sure is that if you abuse this very delicate filtration device for too long it will no longer filter. Prevention is always key.

A raw diet is very likely to produce less damage to the kidney over the long term. Other things that help the kidneys: lower blood pressure, lower glucose levels in the plasma, lower levels of miscellaneous "junk" in the plasma.

As the kidneys are damaged, they are less able to filter out dietary junk including glycotoxins (produced in food on application of heat, higher temperature = more glycotoxins) and so these glycotoxins will accumulate to a greater extent in the tissues of people with damaged kidneys compared to normals.

This is one more reason why people on long-term raw vegan diets, also presumably relatively low in protein compared to SAD, should age at a slower rate than SAD eaters. Their kidneys are working better, not as hard, and lasting longer.

Coincidence.

Article on BBC Internet News today that suggests kidney damage can be 'reversed' (with the right diet!).

[news.bbc.co.uk]

I just saw that a minute ago, it seems they are deficient in thiamine. But again the emphasis is on early intervention. It has to happen before the glomeruli are dead.

debbietook -- Interesting article, thanks for the link.


Looks like I am getting plenty of vitamin B1 from the fresh squeezed orange juice that I start my days with. Here's some info about B1 and a list of food sources: [en.wikipedia.org]

What an interesting path this thread has taken. I found out quite by accident that Brussel sprouts "contain an antinutrient, a natural chemical that splits the thiamin (vitamin B1) molecule so that it is no longer nutritionally useful." adding "This thiamin inhibitor is inactivated by cooking."
[www.asianhomerecipe.com]

Other members of the cabbage family contain this antinutrient. Such as red cabbage in rats. I actually like red cabbage, but don't eat it that often. I used to eat alot of raw broccoli, but its lost its appeal in the last ten years. I tried boc choy raw, man does that taste nasty, it probably has more than the usual amount of anti-thiamin.
[www.asianhomerecipe.com]

I don't think this means to never eat your veggies, if they appeal to you, you should have some.

This webpage says "Most fruits and vegetables are not a significant source of thiamine."
[www.zimbio.com]
But it doesn't seem to be a too informed webpage.


Let us hope that everyone can improve their overall health, no matter where you are. Wow, I never knew that some organs were so much more sensitive than others.


Thank you Debbie, Arugula, ez rider!

Thiamin isn't one of the trouble spots for vegans. If your diet is decent you get enough.

The only trouble spots for vegans in the vitamin category are B12 and sometimes D.

good veg sources
[www.nutritiondata.com]

fruit sources
[www.nutritiondata.com]

nut and seed sources
[www.nutritiondata.com]