I wouldn't be too quick to trash the placebo effect. The brain and the mind the brain creates is a strong force -- like it or not, for good or ill. We have the potential to create some long-lasting positive/negative effects through placebo. Those effects continue to be clarified through the current scientific model.

It could very well turn out that, no, wheat grass is chemically no better or worse than any other vegetable. Yet when wheat grass is combined with the belief that wheat grass is healthier than the others, then, well, who knows what effect it may have on the body.

shane

Quote

Yet when wheat grass is combined with the belief that wheat grass is healthier than the others, then, well, who knows what effect it may have on the body.

I agree the mind is a very powerful healing agent and the placebo effect can come into play. Setting that aside I think WG stands on its own because of the fact that nature puts its very best into the seed and when the WG starts growing it is pulling its nutrients and life force from the parent seed that it is springing forth from. It's drawing those properties not only from the ground but it is drawing them mostly from the stores of nutrients stored in the seed. That makes the first few inches of growth where the nutrients, water, and sunlight come together to create a powerful new plant a true superfood. I think that synergism is why people continue to grow and drink WG juice through the years for the first few inches of the new plants green leaf and then compost the plant so as to start the cycle all over again. The WG juice is a source of dense nutrition IMO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 03:22AM by EZ rider.

EZ rider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...The WG juice is a source of dense nutrition IMO.
The people talking against Wheatgrass Juice
are the ones who don't drink it. I wish I could experience
field grown Wheat Grass rather than tray-grown Wheatgrass,
but no matter, it's still very nutritious. One only needs
to try it to see how it affects them. For me, I've even
started to juice the 2nd cuttings....it stretches the output,
and, while not as strong as the 1st cutting, is still pretty
potent.....WY

Quote:
According to William T. Jarvis, a retired professor of public health at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine and founder of the National Council against Health Fraud (www.ncahf.org), this is all baloney: “Enzymes are complex protein molecules produced by living organisms exclusively for their own use in promoting chemical reactions. Orally ingested enzymes are digested in the stomach and have no enzymatic activity in the eater.” Jarvis adds, “The fact that grass-eating animals are not spared from cancer, despite their large intake of fresh chlorophyll, seems to have been lost on Wigmore. In fact, chlorophyll cannot ‘detoxify the body’ because it is not absorbed.”


So according to the above quote, "Orally ingested enzymes are digested in the stomach and have no enzymatic activity in the eater.”
Jarvis's opinion is not just about wheatgrass juice but about enzymes.

Am I wrong or isn't the whole idea behind raw foods about ingesting the live enzymes because they are what give our bodies life and health.
He is just using wheatgrass juice as an example.

I myself love wheatgrass juice and it's benefits because I am one of the many lucky people who can tolerate it and love it. I also understand there are many people who can't tolerate the wheatgrass juice much the same as my body cannot tolerate pure citrus juice.

I see this man as just one more SAD eater who is on a mission to discredit the whole raw food way of life. If he really wanted to report something of value, he would set out to prove why something is good and has a place in our diets.
I don't put my trust in medical doctors and their cures (pills.)
I put my trust in mother nature and her cures (raw foods,living foods,enzymes)

As long as there are huge medical complexes to pay for there will always be people in the medical profession trying to discredit the natural way of life.
I am sure we can find many articles on just about any super food that people have found helpful in improving their lives where a person from the medical field will claim is just baloney. Their main claim in discrediting our life sustaining foods is simply that there are no scientific studies done to prove what we know to be true from experience.

Seriously rrraw, do you want to put your trust in such traditional schools of medicine and what their doctors claim to be the holy truths? I sure don't.

Wheatgrass, it does a body good!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 11:13PM by teloking57.

[Am I wrong or isn't the whole idea behind raw foods about ingesting the live enzymes because they are what give our bodies life and health. ]

That is one of the ideas that the people who don't know what they are talking about use to promote raw foodism.

But there are other ideas behind raw food that are more compelling and scientifically correct as well:

-the foods you can eat uncooked tend to have a higher concentration of micronutrients and protective phytochemicals

-the foods you can eat uncooked tend to have more fiber (unless you are relying too much on juice)

-the foods you can eat uncooked definitely have a much lower exogenouse glycotoxin load.

Some plant enzymes do seem to survive the low pH stomach enviroment, these are the more acidic ones such as bromelain and papain, and they do have some documented benefits as well.

But generally, enzymes are proteins and enzyme damage is simply protein damage, usually not a problem because the body will break down proteins into constituent amino acids anyway.

[Am I wrong or isn't the whole idea behind raw foods about ingesting the live enzymes because they are what give our bodies life and health. ]

<That is one of the ideas that the people who don't know what they are talking about use to promote raw foodism.>

So, I AM wrong AND I don't know what I am talking about. Ouch! hahaha

I'm not trying to promote raw foodism (in the way of making others eat and think the way in which I do), I am just trying to live it without being told that what works for me is a bunch of baloney by people who are being paid megabucks to promote the other guys way of thinking.

So I guess I will just have to go on ingesting live enzymes and thinking that they are what keeps me living healthy. However misguided it may be.

Wheatgrass, it does a body good!!!

[I am just trying to live it without being told that what works for me is a bunch of baloney by people who are being paid megabucks to promote the other guys way of thinking. ]

I didn't write as I did to hurt you or insult you, and I am sorry if I came across this way. I do have angst but it's not towards you, it's towards the people who are selling stuff on this basis.

People (raw food 'gurus') *are* getting megabucks for promoting this kind of baloney. And the stuff they sell usually isn't produce, it's their "superfoods" and other processed junk, or their books which are full of unsupported claims.

Raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds *are* good for you for a number of reasons but not so much because the enzymes are intact.

<<<I didn't write as I did to hurt you or insult you, and I am sorry if I came across this way. I do have angst but it's not towards you, it's towards the people who are selling stuff on this basis. >>>

I know, I'm just messin with ya. hahaha sorry

Wheatgrass, it does a body good!!!

What up teloking? It's been awhile.

(this is Narz BTW, my originally acct. was banned for sending RawNora running for the hills)

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> That is one of the ideas that the people who don't
> know what they are talking about use to promote
> raw foodism.
>
> But there are other ideas behind raw food that are
> more compelling and scientifically correct as
> well:
>
> -the foods you can eat uncooked tend to have a
> higher concentration of micronutrients and
> protective phytochemicals
>
> -the foods you can eat uncooked tend to have more
> fiber (unless you are relying too much on juice)
>
> -the foods you can eat uncooked definitely have a
> much lower exogenouse glycotoxin load.
>

by leaving out macronutrient damage, do you not believe that it occurs
or do you not see any science that is acceptable to you

[by leaving out macronutrient damage, do you not believe that it occurs
or do you not see any science that is acceptable to you]


Some fiber is broken down. But you can still eat a high fiber diet of solely cooked food.

Some fats are oxidized. This would not be much of a problem on a low fat diet.

Some proteins are damaged. But this is usually not a problem since our bodies don't use intact proteins but break them down into constituent amino acids.

Some damage falls under the glycotoxin category, already mentioned. These can be a problem when the diet load is high and/or the kidneys fail to clear them.

I think that deep fried fatty foods where the (refined) fat has been through hundreds of cooking cycles are the worst. Lightly steamed vegetables the best. Not all application of heat is equally damaging.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Some fiber is broken down. But you can still eat a
> high fiber diet of solely cooked food.
>
> Some fats are oxidized. This would not be much of
> a problem on a low fat diet.
>
> Some proteins are damaged. But this is usually not
> a problem since our bodies don't use intact
> proteins but break them down into constituent
> amino acids.
>
> Some damage falls under the glycotoxin category,
> already mentioned. These can be a problem when the
> diet load is high and/or the kidneys fail to clear
> them.
>
> I think that deep fried fatty foods where the
> (refined) fat has been through hundreds of cooking
> cycles are the worst. Lightly steamed vegetables
> the best. Not all application of heat is equally
> damaging.


the body must find it more difficult to deal with the damaged food particles.

this takes energy away from other bodily processes.

hence the massive difference between all raw and not all raw that many have reported.

only for those who are interested in having high energy of course.

rrraw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More from "National council of health frauds":
> [www.ncahf.org]

....the author (William T. Jarvis) is a Ph. D. (doctor of philosoghy), which means he could have a doctorate in anything from accounting to zoology. These 'doctors' are not medical doctors! One of the other authors in the OP's original posts (Michael Shermer) has a Ph. D. in the science of history [en.wikipedia.org] , and is a historian by profession. Another of the authors is a computer scientist. I doubt they are authorities on enzyme theory or the metabolism of chlorophyll.


>
> Answers to Questions about Wheatgrass Therapy
>
> Question: What is responsible for the reported
> "rush" that users report?
>
> NCAHF: There is no pharmacological reason why a
> user should experience a "rush." Possible
> explanations include the placebo effect (ie,
> enthusiasm for the therapy); route of
> administration (i.e., rectal applications may
> produce a "goosing" effect)

....goosing effect? ha


>
> Question: Why do people report that they are
> better following use of wheatgrass therapy?
>
> NCAHF: Since there is no scientific evidence that
> the therapy is effective...

....actually there's scientific study on it:

"Wheatgrass juice has been investigated as a possible therapy for ulcerative colitis. The components of wheatgrass juice include chlorophyll; vitamins A, C, and E; and various amino acids. It has been demonstrated that wheatgrass juice is anti-mutagenic. One constituent of wheatgrass is apigenin, which is believed to possess both anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Some believe that this constituent may be beneficial in ulcerative colitis.[42,44] It is a bioflavonoid that has been shown to inhibit TNF-induced transactivation.[43]
A randomized controlled trial of wheatgrass juice in the management of ulcerative colitis has demonstrated some efficacy. While sigmoidoscopic evaluation failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the treatment and control group, it was demonstrated that there was a significant difference in other symptomatic indicators of disease activity, such as rectal bleeding. Although there was not a statistically significant difference in relation to sigmoidoscopic evaluation, 78% of the treatment group improved compared to 30% of the control group.[44]"

[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2009 01:59PM by loeve.

..from the abstract of the wheat grass study:

"Fresh extract of wheat grass demonstrated a prominent tracing in cyclic voltammetry methodology, presumably corresponding to four groups of compounds that exhibit anti-oxidative properties. CONCLUSION: Wheat grass juice appeared effective and safe as a single or adjuvant treatment of active distal UC."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

....by the way, this study was published in 2002.. (the William T. Jarvis, Ph. D. NCAHF article was written prior to this study)

Thanks for debunking the credentials of the author of the pronouncement in the op, loeve. I had my suspicions, because clinicians don't make generalizations like this. Well, not unless clearly on the Pfizer payroll And while it is possible, and even prudent, that one educate oneself beyond one's specific discipline, to pass one's word off as legitimate expert authority on a subject outside of one's training is . . . dastardly. Twirl-your-moustache-and-laugh-pitilessly dastardly!

I think if one feels good about something personally that it says nothing about the liklihood of a placebo effect. It might just as easily be some benefit that we have not discovered or understood. The only way you would know is through a double blind randomized controlled trial which would not, in and of itself, negate the personal experiences of individuals. What's true personally and what's true "collectively" may be different. btw, am new to the board. This is my first post.

Paul

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> the body must find it more difficult to deal with
> the damaged food particles.

Depends on how much damage. Lightly steamed = probably insignificant.


> this takes energy away from other bodily
> processes.

No, it implies that more calories would be necessary if the food is
cooked. There is no evidence that this is true.

> hence the massive difference between all raw and
> not all raw that many have reported.

> only for those who are interested in having high
> energy of course.

I don't believe this. It's a matter of people saying anything they want. Or maybe placebo effect, too. Equal quantities of cooked vs. raw orange juice provide just about identical calories (energy) and would provide identical amounts of energy for a person with a relatively healthy GI tract.

But equal calories of McDonalds french fries vs. raw f+v with modest quantities of nuts and seeds, where the amount of calories is also large, say 1000 or more, now that is entirely different. Yes, you will "feel" like bogged down trash on a high deep fried diet whereas you might feel more like a million bucks on salads, fruit, nuts, and seeds.

As far as people feeling ill from adding small quantities of cooked foods to their habitual diet, it's probably just a response to a change from habit.

I doubt a true feeling of being bogged down could be elicited by adding 2 tbsp of beans or 1/4 cup of lightly steamed sweet potato to an otherwise raw salad. I'm skeptical that it makes that much of a difference. Certainly not night an day. It shouldn't make more of a 5% difference, if it was possible to quantify the feeling (barring allergies or something like that).

Some people report feeling bogged down after high fat gourmet raw meals in restaurants, especially when they are accustomed to low fat simple raw meals.

So there's more to it than simply cooked. What and how much and what is the previous dietary state like and for how long and the preconceived notions are also important.

Apologies for my grammar, too lazy write with utmost clarity tonight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2009 03:33AM by arugula.

Quote

I don't believe this. It's a matter of people saying anything they want.

Welcome to rawfoodsupport.com. BTW, I fasted on moonbeans for the last ten months & was so full of prana that I could see into the future & control it. In fact I'm writing this from September, 2008. I knew Obama would win!

Hey Narz, nice to see you. Yes it has been a while. I come around every now and then to see what topics are being discussed. When I saw this thread I felt compelled to speak in favor of the wheatgrass juice.

Wheatgrass, it does a body good!!!

According to the Ayurveda, the source of all prana is the sun. But you were getting reflections of that from the moon.

If you can control the future please send me a higher paying, secure job that is less stressful, so that I can fix up my house and sell it and move to a much smaller lower ecofootprint place where I can also grow my own food and share the bounty with people I can turn on to raw veganism.

See, it's for a good cause.

Thank you!

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > the body must find it more difficult to deal
> with
> > the damaged food particles.
>
> Depends on how much damage. Lightly steamed =
> probably insignificant.
>
>
> > this takes energy away from other bodily
> > processes.
>
> No, it implies that more calories would be
> necessary if the food is
> cooked. There is no evidence that this is true.
>

no evidence except that i eat less when eating raw fresh foods.

> > hence the massive difference between all raw
> and
> > not all raw that many have reported.
>
> > only for those who are interested in having
> high
> > energy of course.
>
> I don't believe this. It's a matter of people
> saying anything they want. Or maybe placebo
> effect, too. Equal quantities of cooked vs. raw
> orange juice provide just about identical calories
> (energy) and would provide identical amounts of
> energy for a person with a relatively healthy GI
> tract.
>

and you have been all raw for how long continously?


> But equal calories of McDonalds french fries vs.
> raw f+v with modest quantities of nuts and seeds,
> where the amount of calories is also large, say
> 1000 or more, now that is entirely different. Yes,
> you will "feel" like bogged down trash on a high
> deep fried diet whereas you might feel more like a
> million bucks on salads, fruit, nuts, and seeds.
>
> As far as people feeling ill from adding small
> quantities of cooked foods to their habitual diet,
> it's probably just a response to a change from
> habit.
>

or maybe not.
if you had experienced it you would not say that.

> I doubt a true feeling of being bogged down could
> be elicited by adding 2 tbsp of beans or 1/4 cup
> of lightly steamed sweet potato to an otherwise
> raw salad. I'm skeptical that it makes that much
> of a difference. Certainly not night an day. It
> shouldn't make more of a 5% difference, if it was
> possible to quantify the feeling (barring
> allergies or something like that).

you can doubt it or you can experience it

>
> Some people report feeling bogged down after high
> fat gourmet raw meals in restaurants, especially
> when they are accustomed to low fat simple raw
> meals.
>
> So there's more to it than simply cooked. What and
> how much and what is the previous dietary state
> like and for how long and the preconceived notions
> are also important.
>
> Apologies for my grammar, too lazy write with
> utmost clarity tonight.

of course.
nobody said raw meals do not do the same thing
that does not refute the experience shared here that you
deny because you have seemingly not engaged in all raw.

Fresh, I don't believe in magic. But I do believe in the power of the mind.

I could turn this around and ask you to add 2 tbsp of lightly steamed broccoli to your salad and see if it completely ruins your day, assuming you tolerate broccoli. Of course it would not. Unless you think it is a poison, and then it will. But a person who does not have this type of thinking would not notice it.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fresh, I don't believe in magic. But I do believe
> in the power of the mind.
>
> I could turn this around and ask you to add 2 tbsp
> of lightly steamed broccoli to your salad and see
> if it completely ruins your day, assuming you
> tolerate broccoli. Of course it would not. Unless
> you think it is a poison, and then it will. But a
> person who does not have this type of thinking
> would not notice it.


i was trying to share an experience that many have confirmed.

has nothing to do with magic.

i certainly don't wish to engage in extreme examples in order to prove a point as that was not the intent here. the main intent was regarding energy levels and how they are affected and how cooked food in general seems to be regarded by some as perfectly fine and problem free. the claim seems to be made only by those that eat cooked, strangely. and i'm not judging, just asking for truth and real experience.

i could similarly claim that intercourse is not enjoyable.
i haven't ever engaged in it, one could claim, but doubt that it feels good
and i hereby dismiss the experience of others who have had it.

anyway thanks for sharing

[i could similarly claim that intercourse is not enjoyable.
i haven't ever engaged in it, one could claim, but doubt that it feels good
and i hereby dismiss the experience of others who have had it. ]

It's not the same. There is a biological imperative for sex and for food. But not raw food. Food in general will do.

Anyway I commend you for not having had it. After the last one I wish I were still a virgin.

Best wishes to you in finding a worthy partner, I hope you will not ever settle for someone who does not honor you in every way.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> It's not the same. There is a biological
> imperative for sex and for food. But not raw food.
> Food in general will do.
>
> Anyway I commend you for not having had it. After
> the last one I wish I were still a virgin.
>
> Best wishes to you in finding a worthy partner, I
> hope you will not ever settle for someone who does
> not honor you in every way.

my example was hypothetical and not in regards to me
(note the "one could claim"

no biological imperative for raw food ?
that is interesting.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no biological imperative for raw food ?
> that is interesting.

No. A few years ago there was a news story about a gorilla in a zoo who escaped from her enclosure. She made a beeline for the concession stand where she helped herself to a cheese danish and some soda.

We are hardwired for consuming the most calories in the least amount of time. That usually means caloric ally-dense soft things, most of which are cooked. But raw food will do when there is no means to cook.

..cooked wheat grass? Medical doctors are famillar with 'chlorophyllin' (SCC), and prescribe it for various conditions. SCC is modified chemically from natural fresh 'raw chlorophyll' (which has its own nitch in the literature btw.) Its probably no surprise that raw wheat grass works differently than refined SCC, sometimes SCC seems good enough, sometimes it takes the whole plant juice to do the trick.


"2. Chlorophyll structure, stability, and derivatives
Structurally, chlorophyll is a substituted tetrapyrrole with a centrally bound magnesium atom (Fig. 1). The porphyrin macrocycle is further esterified to a diterpene alcohol, phytol, to form chlorophyll. In nature, chlorophyll a and b predominate in higher plants, whereas chlorophyll c, d, and e derivatives are found throughout various photosynthetic algae and diatomic species including brown, red, and yellow-green algae [6]. Furthermore, several additional classes of bacteriochlorophylls, not covered in this review, have additionally been isolated in photosynthetic bacteria [6], [18].

Fig. 1. Structure of chlorophyll derivatives found in higher plants including chlorophyll a (R = CH3) and chlorophyll b (R = CHO).

Widely distributed in green fruits and vegetables as primary photosynthetic pigments, chlorophyll a is typically found in higher amounts than chlorophyll b by a 3 to 1 margin. The distribution and content of chlorophyll in fruits and vegetables are dependent on a number of factors including species, agroclimactic conditions, pre- and postharvest treatment, and type and degree of food processing [19]. Although difficult to generalize across the diversity of plant tissue, the chlorophyll content of commonly consumed green vegetables typically exceeds the levels of other bioactive pigments, such as carotenoids, by up to a 5-fold margin (Table 1). This relatively high concentration makes chlorophyll a significant contributor to the total dietary phytochemical pool.

Tables 1. Representative chlorophyll and carotenoid content of common green vegetables

Fruit/Vegetable tissue Total chlorophyll content (ìg/g fresh tissue) Total carotenoid content (ìg/g fresh tissue)
Green beans 52 8.6
Broccoli 79 42
Brussel sprouts 68 49
Kale 1870 776
Peas 134 34
Spinach 1250 364

Data compiled from Lopez-Hernandez et al [124], Khachik et al [125], and Edelenbos et al [126].

The sensitivity of natural chlorophylls to extremes in pH and temperature allows for the formation of several distinct derivatives through processing of vegetable tissue and human digestion. The impact of food processing operations on chlorophylls in green fruits and vegetables has been thoroughly studied and is the subject of several reviews [20], [21], [22]. The main degradative reactions are summarized in Fig. 2. Thermal processing and/or acidification results in a perceivable discoloration of vegetable tissue from green to brown known as pheophytinization. This color loss is a result of the conversion of natural chlorophylls to Mg2+-free derivatives such as pheophytins and pyropheophytins [23], [24], [25]. Chlorophyllide derivatives can also be formed through mild thermal processing because an increase in endogenous chlorophyllase enzyme activity occurs from the mild heating of plant tissues [26]. In a process known as regreening, metallochlorophyll complexes of pheophytin a and pyropheophytin a are rapidly formed by the addition of divalent metal salts of zinc (Zn2+) and copper (Cu2+) to thermally processed vegetables before thermal treatment [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Both Cu2+ and Zn2+ complexes of chlorophylls have been shown to be significantly more stable to food processing conditions than their native counterparts [32] and have been used commercially both in the canning of green beans to improve the color of the finished product and in the generation of green color additives [27], [33].

Fig. 2. Major chlorophyll degradation and derivatization reactions occurring during food processing operations. Exposure to severe heat and/or acidic conditions, as is common in canning operations, results in loss of the central Mg2+ metal generating olive brown pheophytin and pyropheophytin pigments. Inclusion of divalent metals such as Zn2+ results in “regreening” by generation of Zn-pheophytin and Zn-pyropheophytins from respective metal-free derivatives. Chlorophyllase activity, induced by blanching operations, results in the formation of water-soluble chlorophyllides that further degrade through thermal processing and/or acidification to pheophorbide pigments. Commercial-grade SCC is a mixture of Cu-chlorin derivatives prepared by saponification of chlorophyll with NaOH followed by replacement of the Mg2+ atom by Cu2+.

Commercial-grade water-soluble chlorophyll derivatives known as chlorins are used as food-grade colorants. Although available chelated to various transition metals (Zn, Fe, Co, Cu) for distinct color and stability, the most common form is SCC. SCC is synthesized from a crude natural chlorophyll extract by treatment with methanolic sodium hydroxide followed by replacement of the central Mg atom with Cu [7]. The final product consists of a mixture of numerous chlorin-type compounds derived from natural chlorophyll, the primary components of which are referred to as Cu-chlorin e4 and Cu-chlorin e6 (Fig. 2) and sometimes minor amounts of Cu-chlorin e4 ethyl ester [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. With thermal sensitivity similar to that of other water-soluble chlorophyll derivatives [39], SCC has seen common utilization as a food-grade colorant in Europe, Asia, and, to a more limited but growing extent, the United States."

[www.nrjournal.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2009 12:52PM by loeve.

..while we have the free study available from Hacres, Michael Donaldson discusses chlorophyll and enzymes:

"Nutrition and cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet
Michael S Donaldson

Director of Research, Hallelujah Acres Foundation, 13553 Vantage Hwy, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA

Nutrition Journal 2004, 3:19doi:10.1186/1475-2891-3-19
...
"Chlorophyll
"All green plants also contain chlorophyll, the light-collecting molecule. Chlorophyll and its derivatives are very effective at binding polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (carcinogens largely from incomplete combustion of fuels), heterocyclic amines (generated when grilling foods), aflatoxin (a toxin from molds in foods which causes liver cancer), and other hydrophobic molecules. The chlorophyll-carcinogen complex is much harder for the body to absorb, so most of it is swept out with the feces. The chemoprotective effect of chlorophyll and its derivatives has been tested in laboratory cell cultures and animals [107,108]. There is so much compelling evidence for anti-carcinogenic effects of chlorophyll that a prospective randomized controlled trial is being conducted in Qidong, China to see if chlorophyllin can reduce the amount of liver cancer cases, which arise from aflatoxin exposure in their foods (corn, peanuts, soy sauce, and fermented soy beans). A 55% reduction in aflatoxin-DNA adducts were found in the group that took 100 mg of chlorophyllin three times a day [109]. It was supposed that the chlorophyllin bound up aflatoxins, but there were chlorophyllin derivatives also detected in the sera (which had a green tint to it) of the volunteers who took the supplement, indicating a possible role in the body besides binding carcinogens in the gut [110].
...
"Oral Enzymes
"Many people diagnosed with cancer have digestion or intestinal tract disorders as well. Impaired digestion will greatly hinder a nutritional approach to treating cancer. If the nutrients cannot be released from the food and taken up by the body, then the excellent food provided by the Hallelujah Diet will go to waste. Digestive enzyme supplements are used to ensure proper and adequate digestion of food. Even raw foods, which contain many digestive enzymes to assist in their digestion, will be more thoroughly digested with less of the body's own resources with the use of digestive enzymes. So, the enzymes taken with meals do not have a direct effect upon a tumor, but assist the body in getting all of the nutrition out of the food for healing and restoring the body to normal function. Recently, an in vitro system was used to test the use of supplemental digestive enzymes. The digestive enzymes improved the digestibility and bioaccessibility of proteins and carbohydrates in the lumen of the small intestine, not only under impaired digestive conditions, but also in healthy human digestion [168].

"There is evidence that indicates the presence of an enteropancreatic circulation of digestive enzymes [169]. Digestive enzymes appear to be preferentially absorbed into the bloodstream and then reaccumulated by the pancreas for use again. There appears to be a mechanism by which digestive enzymes can reach systemic circulation.

"Enzymes, especially proteases, if they reach systemic circulation, can have direct anti-tumor activity. Wald et al [170] reported on the anti-metastatic effect of enzyme supplements. Mice inoculated with the Lewis lung carcinoma were treated with a proteolytic enzyme supplement, given rectally (to avoid digestion). The primary tumor was cut out, so that the metastatic spread of the cancer could be measured. After surgical removal of the primary tumor (day 0), 90% of the control mice died by day 18 due to metastasized tumors. In the first group, which received the rectal enzyme supplement from the time of the tumor-removal surgery, 30% of the mice had died from metastasized cancer by day 25. In the second group, which received the enzymes from 6 days prior to removal of the primary tumor, only 10% of the animals showed the metastatic process by day 15. In the third group, which received the enzyme treatment since the initial inoculation of the Lewis lung carcinoma, no metastatic spread of the tumor was discernible. One hundred day-survival rates for the control, first, second, and third groups were 0, 60%, 90%, and 100%.

"In a similar experiment, an enzyme mixture of papain, trypsin, and chymotrypsin, as used in the preparation Wobe-Mugos E, was rectally given to mice that were inoculated with melanoma cells. Survival time was prolonged in the test group (38 days in the enzyme group compared to 24 days in the control mice) and 3 of the 10 enzyme-supplemented mice were cured. Again, a strong anti-metastatic effect of the proteolytic enzymes was seen [171].

"Further evidence of the efficacy of oral enzyme supplementation is available from clinical trials in Europe. Two different studies have demonstrated that two different oral proteolytic enzyme supplements were able to reduce high levels of transforming growth factor-â, which may be a factor in some cancers [172,173]. In the Slovak Republic an oral enzyme supplement was tested in a placebo-controlled trial of multiple myeloma. For stage III multiple myeloma, control group survival was 47 months, compared to 83 months (a 3 year gain) for patients who took the oral enzymes for more than 6 months [174].

"Enzyme supplements have also been shown to reduce side effects of cancer therapy. Enzyme supplementation resulted in fewer side effects for women undergoing radiation therapy for carcinomas of the uterine cervix [175], for patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancers [176], and for colorectal cancer patients undergoing conventional cancer treatments [177]. In a large multi-site study in Germany women undergoing conventional cancer therapy were put into a control group or a group that received an oral enzyme supplement. Disease and therapy related symptoms were all reduced, except tumor pain, by the enzyme supplement. Also, survival was longer with less recurrence and less metastases in the enzyme group [178]. In all of these studies the oral enzyme supplements were well tolerated, with only a small amount of mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms.

"Even though these few studies don't give a lot of evidence of the effectiveness of oral enzyme supplementation, it is clear that there are some circumstances that will be helped by enzyme supplementation, with very little danger of negative side effects. At the least, enzymes will improve digestion and lessen the digestive burden on the body, leaving more reserves for disease eradication. However, as the research indicates, the effect may be much greater than that, with the potential for direct anti-tumor activity."
...

[www.nutritionj.com]

Here is a radio interview with a Dr Chris Reynolds from Austrailia about wheat grass which is very informative. It is an hour long so be for warned but packed full of great information.[www.blogtalkradio.com]

Steve Meyerwitz has an excellent book on wheatgrass which is very informative as well

In the 1930"s Charles Snabel and Dr cholar did extensive studies on cerial grass and chlorophilin, It was believed the chlorophille was a good healer and was approved by the food and drug administration to be sold as such.

The late Ann Wigmore brought us wheat grass as an easy to grow food source, and stressed that people should chew their juice. In the radio interview with Dr Reynolds he states that one should hold the wheatgrass juice in the mouth for a length of time because when the juice enters the stomach the vital properties are nulified by the digestive juices.

I appreciate reading all the posts supporting the properties of wheat grass because it is one food that has brought me much healing.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway I commend you for not having had it. After
> the last one I wish I were still a virgin.

Wow! That's harsh! I guess he deserved it though, huh?