Obesity - From Enzyme Nutrition book by Dr. Edward Howell

From the book Enzyme Nutrition by Dr Edward Howell
Glands Influence Obesity
The idea that overactive or underactive glands can influence body weight is not new. A reducing method which has lost some of its original popularity involves the use of thyroxin, an extract made from the thyroid glands of animals and put into a tablet. When physicians prescribe thyroxin by mouth to lose weight, the heart races, the victim loses weight, the nervous system is keyed up, and the eyes bulge. In this way, fat is burned. If too large a dose is used, or if the drug is taken over a longer period, the patient may develop the condition known as nervousness or anxiety.
However, the concept that an individual has the power to influence his overactive glands has never been presented before to my knowledge. A person desiring to shed surplus weight can do so, and can also keep it off. The first thing a weight reducer must do is capture the idea that certain foods excite and whip up the glands that control obesity. If you cease whipping a galloping horse, he will slow down. If you stop whipping the glands, they go more slowly, and excess weight starts diminishing. According to the work of Drs. Jacobs and Colwell, cited above, the pituitary and pancreas get some of the whipping. Their excess secretions have abnormal repercussions on other endocrine glands, and diseases are born. If you would do almost anything to reduce, but cannot tolerate the idea of being confronted with a lot of technical terminology, the following discussion of raw calories and cooked calories may be just what you need. The kind of calories that are used is just as important as how many.
The calorie lists in use make no distinction between raw calories and cooked calories. This is, in my opinion, a very serious oversight. I can find no indication in scientific literature presenting the idea that raw food is inherently less fattening than the same amount of calories in cooked food, and that cooked food overstimulates the endocrine system. The quick rejoinder from some critics will be that less raw food is assimilated. That may be precisely true. Or, put another way, too much fat-inducing cooked food is assimilated. If enough raw food is absorbed to promote normal weight, this can be accepted as the ideal function of food. If the same amount of cooked food brings on overweight, the cooked calories must give an accounting of their bizarre conduct. It makes good logic to remember that the vast multitudes of creation have been thriving on raw food, but not getting fat, for millions of years. Raw calories are relatively non-stimulating to glands and tend to stabilize weight. Cooked calories excite glands and tend to be fattening. I am not here referring to something like a dish of cooked spinach, which has few calories in the first place. But a slice of bread or a boiled potato stimulates glands and will put on the ounces which add up into many pounds. Let us learn something from animals. Technical men in the business of extracting the maximum profit from farm animals found it was not economical to feed hogs raw potatoes. The hogs would not get fat enough. Cooking the potatoes, however, produced the fat hogs that brought the farmer the kind of money required to make a profit. This in spite of the extra expense of labor and energy involved in cooking!
Raw Versus Cooked Calories
As a general rule we may say a raw potato is not as fattening as the same potato cooked. A raw banana is not as fattening as a baked banana. A raw apple is not as fattening as a baked apple. A spoonful of raw honey is not as fattening as the same amount of calories in the form of white sugar. Two ounces of raw walnuts are less fattening than the same amount of roasted walnuts. A glass of raw (freshly squeezed) fruit juice should put on less weight than a glass of ready-made juice.
There is no direct experimental evidence to support many of these statements relative to raw and cooked calories. But there are a great many related facts, originating in research laboratories scattered over the world, which coalesce to support the doctrine. During some 40 years I have been actively engaged in library research; collecting, cataloguing, and trying to evaluate data from these sources that comprise the substance of this manuscript. Laboratory rats and mice are used for many types of studies. In many cases the period of observation may be only a few weeks, or possibly 2 or 3 months. During this short period the animals are fed the “standard “scientific” manufactured chow diet, but no indications develop that the diet is not effective in preventing obesity or the onset of disease. Some, but not many, studies require prolonged observation of animals exposed to the chow diet for 1 or 2 years and it is here that obesity and disease show up. The chow diet may be considered to be roughly equivalent to the average human diet. While it has nothing raw, it contains more vitamins and minerals than the food consumed by many humans. Therefore, if the chow diet induces obesity and a multitude of diseases in laboratory animals, its equivalent can be expected to do the same in man. 
  Some intriguing experiments were performed on normal people and diabetics by Drs. S.M. Rosenthal and E.E. Ziegler at George Washington University Hospital in 1929. The subjects ate almost two ounces of raw starch and then had blood tests for sugar. Eating cooked starch, as is well known, causes the blood sugar of diabetics to sky-rocket, unless they use insulin. The diabetics in this study used no insulin and yet after raw starch ingestion, the blood sugar rose only 6 milligrams the first half hour. Then it decreased 9 milligrams after 1 hour, and 14 milligrams 21⁄2 hours after ingestion of the raw starch. In some diabetic individuals, the decrease in blood sugar was as much as 35 milligrams. In the normal persons there was a slight increase followed by a slight decrease in blood sugar in 1 hour. This is convincing evidence that there is a difference between raw and cooked calories.
Raw Fat Is Not Fattening
A pound of raw beefsteak may add only protein to the tissues and not put on any fat. On the other hand, the same amount of cooked beefsteak may give the eater a little unwanted fat. Many peoples, such as the primitive, isolated Eskimo, as we have seen, ate raw meat as a part of their diet. Dr. V.E. Levine of Omaha, Nebraska, examined 3,000 primitive Eskimos during 3 trips to the Arctic and found only one overweight person. These Eskimos ate enormous amounts of fat. It is hard to escape the conclusion that raw food is not fattening in the conventional sense. Raw blubber and other fats used by the Eskimo, along with the raw butter that was formerly enjoyed throughout America, do not promote weight gain. Raw fats evidently belong in a special pigeonhole in nutritional speculations. Furthermore, medical reports on primitive, isolated Eskimos emphasize that these heavy eaters of raw animal fat had no hypertension (high blood pressure) or hardening of the arteries. All raw fats are inhabited by the enzyme lipase which should not be ignored in speculations on a perfect diet. This enzyme is absent in the kind of fats presently used in the kitchen.
Nice Calories and Evil Ones
Avocados are blessed with a lot of nice calories. Ever hear of anyone getting fat on them? Or on bananas, which also have plenty of raw calories? It would be an exceptional person who could eat enough bananas to get fat. All of these high-calorie raw foods might fill out a thin individual to a slight degree, but they know just where to put the ounces, and when to stop. They will not drape the weight about in ugly disarray over the exterior, or clog up delicate heart arteries. The doctor who invented the banana diet for reducing, George Harrop, put his overweight patients on a milk and banana diet and wrote up his results in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1934. His results should dispose of the idea that bananas are fattening because their calories count up to so-and-so. To judge a banana, an avocado, an apple, or an orange by its calories is just as misleading and false as evaluating the moral stature of a pretty woman by her exterior embellishments. There is a difference between raw and cooked calories.
Some light on the way in which the brain can control the appetite for better or for worse was supplied by scientists at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. They inserted electrodes into the brains of 33 rats in an area called the hypothalamus. By using a weak electric current to stimulate the hypothalamus, the investigators could make the rats eat or drink more or less at will. I have a theory that the same area of the brain is being constantly bombarded in stout people by certain chemical agents floating around in the bloodstream looking for ways to create mischief. It is suspected these stimulants are produced by the highly refined carbohydrate materials commonly eaten. This piece of research was performed by G.L. Mogenson, C.G. Gentil, and A.F. Stevenson (1971).
 A doctor at Columbia University, B.N. Berg, wanted to learn if the amount of food eaten had anything to do with health. He reported in 1960 that 339 rats were used to test out this idea. Some of them were permitted to eat all they wished, while others were given only measured amounts of food. When they were about 800 days old the restricted rats weighed about 40 percent less than the unrestricted. Restricted rats had smooth, clean fur and fine hair. Their teeth showed no abnormalities. They were lively and aggressive and consumed the food promptly. On autopsy there was little or no evidence of body fat. In contrast with the sleek appearance of restricted rats, the coat of the unrestricted feeders was coarse and soiled. The incisor teeth were elongated and frequently fractured. They became sluggish, slept most of the time, accepting food pellets but storing them away without eating them. Examination at autopsy revealed large deposits of fat which accounted for most of the difference in weight between the two groups. Female fertility was better in the animals eating less. The regular stock diet was used for all animals. This consisted of manufactured pellets of processed, heat-treated food, suitably supplemented with commercial vitamins and minerals. Whether animals would react in the same way if the experiment had utilized a raw diet is not known, since it has not been tried, according to my information. However, wild animals eat all they wish of natural, raw food and remain in fine physical condition.
Anatomists have learned that as the young organism grows, the weight of its organs assumes a progressively smaller portion of the total body weight. This is true of the pancreas, kidneys, heart, brain, etc. But the fat accumulation behaves in a directly contrary manner, at least in response to a heat-treated diet. Fat becomes a progressively larger share of the total body weight as growth continues to maturity. This is shown in Table 6.2. The figures on the rat are from V. Korenchevsky, Lister Institute, London, The Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 54:13–24 (1942). The figures on the goose are from R.H. Roberson and D.W. Francis, New Mexico State University, Poultry Science 44:835–9 (1965). Abdominal fat weights are expressed here as grams per 100 grams of body weight.
Table 6.2

During the time the body weight of the goose was increasing about 3 or 4 times, the abdominal fat was multiplying more than 10 times. In the rat, between ages 25 days and 450 days, body weight increased from 63 grams to 536 grams, or 8 times, and abdominal fat increased from 0.554 to 42.9 grams, or 75 times. Stored fat is nature’s device to guard against starvation in the event food is unavailable for long periods. For wild creatures this is the mechanism for maintaining life under adverse conditions. But such acute scarcity of calories is seldom a human problem in the Western world. Refrigerators and warehouses have taken over the job of food storage and made it unnecessary for man to carry a supply of reserve calories under his skin.
Doctors at Harvard Medical School discovered how to make mice fat. There were 3 groups. One group was made fat by injection of a chemical called gold thioglucose which made a lesion in a particular area of the brain. In another group a lesion was placed in the same area by surgical means. The third group inherited a tendency toward fatness. What went on secretively inside the body was worse than that which transpires within the smoke-filled rooms of a partisan political caucus. The body weight doubled. The liver became twice as heavy in some animals. There was an enlargement of the heart and some increase in the kidneys and pancreas. The only parts becoming smaller in the fat mice were the brains in all of them and sex organs in some. These investigations were made by Drs. N.B. Marshall, S.B. Andrus, and J. Mayer and reported in 1957.
The Value of Avoiding Frequent Snacks
Two rat experiments carried out independently throw some light on the possible effects snacking and frequent eating versus restricted feeding for a 2-hour daily period have on body weight and lifespan. Two separate groups of researchers participated: G.A. Leveille, University of Illinois (1972) and G. Pose, P. Fabry and H.A. Ketz, Institute Ernahrung, Potsdam, Germany (Nutritional Abstracts and Reviews 38:7027, 1968). Both groups found that the rats fed but once a day had a lower body weight and higher enzyme activities in the pancreas and fat cells. Leveille also found that the lifespan of the controlled eaters was longer by 17 percent.
The above American and German research has shown more enzymes were found in the pancreas and other tissues after eating a solitary daily meal than when the animals were permitted to eat at will throughout the day. But we must not forget that all of these experimental results are based on the use of 100 percent heat-treated, enzyme-free laboratory diets. Such experiments with raw food are as scarce as the proverbial hen’s teeth. Nevertheless, it is clear that heat-treated food acts as a powerful stimulus for enzyme production by the body. If the enzymes are manufactured only once each day, there will not be as many of them used up as when food is eaten, and enzymes are produced, 5 or 10 times each day. Perhaps that is the reason more enzymes are found in the tissues following a single daily feeding and why these animals live longer (688 days against 587 days). Science has no idea how long human beings could live if their tissues never suffered the chemical abuse of unnatural food. Eighty years might just be a starter.
Tissue Enzymes Die Out
Leveille also discovered that the enzyme activities in the tissues became weaker as the rats got older, so that at the age of 18 months (old age for the rats on the modern enzyme-free fabricated diets) the enzymes were much weaker than in the young rat. For instance, he represented the activity of a certain tissue enzyme in rats 1 month of age by 1040 units, while in rats 18 months old this value had shrunken to 184 units. This is in line with older scientific data testifying to the decrease of enzyme activity of the tissues and fluids of insects, animals, and humans as old age arrrives. Some of the older experiments along this line were presented in my volume, The Status of Food Enzymes in Digestion and Metabolism (1946), which is available in some of the technical libraries. The book was reprinted under the title Food Enzymes for Health and Longevity in 1980.
It can be accepted as a working rule that the enzyme potential is limited and withers as time marches on. The more lavishly a young body gives up its enzymes, the sooner the state of enzyme poverty, or old age, is reached. As a test for enzyme sufficiency, it is not enough to examine some of the digestive secretions, although these have shown less enzyme activity in later life. More important is the status of intracellular or tissue enzymes.
Reducing While Asleep
Animals have a secret about reducing. They just go to sleep. It’s as easy as that. No arduous exercises at all. There are creatures that lose weight while sleeping. It is called hibernation, the winter sleep of animals. There is also a summer sleep known as estivation. The winter sleepers get fattened up before winter sets in. Then they curl up in a secluded spot and let the months go by. In the meantime, the only part of the sleepers not taking it easy is their fat-burning enzymes. They keep busy dissolving just enough of the fat store to keep the temperature of the body a little above freezing. Just enough fat is burned to keep the heart beating ever so feebly and the respiration so sluggish as to be imperceptible. When the warmth of spring awakens the once-fat sleeper, the excess of fat has vanished. A tiny animal may lose only ounces, but a bear might lose 50 pounds of fat. These animals eat raw diets and have no fear of enzyme deficiencies. That’s the key to their weight loss.
 But there is a hint that some extremely overweight people may be short of certain enzymes. In 1966, Dr. David Galton of the Tufts University School of Medicine, made some tests on the abdominal fat of 11 extra heavyweights (ranging from 280 to 430 pounds, with an average of 340 pounds) and found an enzyme deficiency in their fat deposits. Lipase is the enzyme found to be deficient in obese humans. It can be said that lipase is involved in some way with fat metabolism. It may be that obesity and abnormal cholesterol deposits both have their genesis in our failure to permit fat predigestion in the upper stomach (food-enzyme stomach) by destroying the natural lipase content of fatty foods.
At this point it is opportune to consider how to balance a diet containing cooked food and raw food if one wishes to replace the enzymes missing in the cooked portion. Raw vegetables in the form of salads and fruit are the kinds of raw food used by most people. While these low-calorie foods have some enzymes, they are more useful for their vitamin and mineral content. High-calorie foods have far more of the 3 main digestive enzymes, but unfortunately these foods are customarily eaten cooked and hence without enzymes.
With a meal of meat, potatoes, and bread, many people include a combination vegetable salad. This will not provide enough food enzymes, although every little bit helps. Foods with a high calorie content, such as meat, potatoes, and bread also have high enzyme values when they are raw. When these foods are eaten as served at the table they are enzymeless and cannot be balanced with salad vegetables, which can give you an abundance of minerals and vitamins, but not enzymes.
Some foods which are endowed with both calories and enzymes are palatable in the raw state and some are not. Examples of the former are bananas, avocados, grapes, mangoes, olives from the tree, fresh raw dates, fresh raw figs, raw honey, raw butter, and unpasteurized milk; germinated, inhibitor-free raw cereal grains and seeds; and germinated, inhibitor-free raw tree nuts. If commerce could supply these foods in the raw state, such a diet could offer high-quality proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, and with the addition of salad vegetables, it would fill our nutritional needs.
I have stated earlier that a diet containing 75 percent of raw calories and 25 percent of cooked calories is a vast improvement over the virtually enzymeless diet used by most people. The foods I singled out above are moderately endowed with both food enzymes and calories and can be eaten along with other raw salad vegetables, sprouts, greens, and cooked food to supply all the bodily nutritional requirements.
In our dialogue I have mentioned supplemental enzymes. Let us discuss this aspect of the enzyme subject. One of the first enzyme supplements used by doctors was pepsin, prepared from the stomachs of pigs. It was used for patients whose digestion of protein was impaired, required a highly acid medium to do its work, and would not work on fats and carbohydrates. Another enzyme supplement is made from the pancreas from slaughterhouse animals. Its enzymes digest proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. The fault with pancreas extract is that its enzymes work best in neutral or slightly alkaline media. Its home is the alkaline duodenum. Pepsin is at home in the stomach because gastric juice is highly acid due to the presence of hydrocholoric acid. Pancreatic enzymes are normally secreted and flow into the alkaline intestine and will not work in acid.
   In order to make pancreatic extract suitable for oral use it is made into tablets covered with a so-called enteric coating. This prevents the tablets from dissolving in the acid stomach. But when they reach the intestine the alkaline juice dissolves the coating and releases the enzymes. The purpose of these pancreatic tablets is to promote digestion of food in cases where the pancreas fails to make these enzymes. But hyposecretion of the pancreas is rare. As I have pointed out, the pancreas and other organs secreting digestive enzymes make far too many enzymes because we fail to put food enzymes into the stomach to predigest our food. Because the pancreatic tablets cannot perform predigestion, there is little need for them.
I first became aware of enzymes in foods in 1932. At that time pancreatic extract was frequently used in powder form. But I soon realized that what was needed was an enzyme extract which could digest in mild acid. This would permit predigestion of food in the upper stomach before the stomach acid became too strong. The enzymes of many foods, from both meat and plants, can operate in mild acid, but the cost of extracting these food enzymes is prohibitive. Certain industries also had need for enzymes that would digest in acid media, for example, to aid the removal of starch in de-sizing textiles and in separating protein fragments from hides. The Chinese and Japanese originally found that fungi were good producers of acid enzymes and that extracts of various enzymes could be pepared from them. I formulated a compound embodying the three major enzymes, protease, amylase, and lipase, which digest protein, starch, and fat, respectively.
   Fungi have been used in China and other Oriental countries for thousands of years in preparing various foods, many derived from soybean. Fungi called Aspergilli supplied the enzymes for making tasty and easily digested food products from soybeans. Japan is far ahead of us in producing enzymes from Aspergillus oryzae and other wholesome fungi, supplying enzymes for digesting proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. Yeast and mushrooms are fungi. There are hundreds of varieties of Aspergilli, a few of which produce aflatoxins and are not wholesome. Experienced people use only the wholesome varieties.
    To obtain the desired enzymes, a selected strain of wholesome Aspergillus oryzae is cultured on food materials such as wheat bran, or soybeans to which various minerals have been added. Different combinations of various food substrates produce the several enzymes needed, such as amylase, protease, and lipase. Extracts of these enzymes are dried into powders and put into capsules. The Aspergillus enzymes are especially valuable for gastric predigestion because they digest best in mild acid, while the pancreatic and salivary enzymes digest in neutral and alkaline media. Aspergillus enzyme supplements and food enzymes both work in the mild acid media that are found in the stomach one half to one hour after food is eaten.
    For most effective predigestion, the enzyme capsule should be taken with the meal. If you wait until finishing the meal, you delay action of the enzymes. I chew an enzyme capsule with my food because I wish to start the digestive process immediately. When raw food is chewed, the enzymes in it are released and its digestion begins instantly, even before the food is swallowed. The same thing happens when an enzyme capsule is chewed with your food. Some might find the taste of the enzyme powder objectionable but if you swallow the capsule without chewing it, time is required for it to dissolve and release its enzymes. Some people open the capsule instead and sprinkle the enzyme powder on the food.
   If you happen to have some coated enzyme tablets, or enzyme capsules containing bile, do not chew them. They are very bitter. Coated tablets are not intended for predigesting food in the stomach. You would be wasting your money if you bought them for predigestion, for they do not dissolve in the food-enzyme stomach, but later, in the small intestine.
Can you treat yourself with concentrated enzyme supplements for various ailments? Generally, no. It requires specialized knowledge and experience. Success with therapy in established diseases usually involves massive or frequent dosages or both, and is strictly a job for a doctor. Moreover, if the full potentiality of enzyme therapy is to be realized in cases of advanced, serious disease, a course of proper enzyme therapy must be carried out in a hospital or other institution having adequate nursing facilities. In many cases, part of the program utilizes a special diet, tailored to the case. Multiple small feedings of food throughout the day may be indicated, each feeding coupled with the ingestion of the enzymes. Many years ago, I spent about ten years as a member of a sanitarium staff where special diet procedures were employed in the management of a wide range of chronic and intractable diseases. I therefore am in a position to appreciate the profound impact an amalgamation of specialized dietary therapy and intensive enzyme therapy could have on these human ailments.
It is illogical to expect a full treatment program to be carried out at home with the precision and detail required. One or two units, usually capsules, at a meal is adequate to assist predigestion in the food-enzyme stomach. This is a nutritional supplementation. You are replacing enzymes which are supposed to be in your food, but are not. The amount used as a nutritional supplement is not sufficient for therapeutic use in many intractable states, especially where the patient wants to see results as soon as possible. Using more units requires careful professional supervision, possibly for prolonged periods.

Shopping cart

View your shopping cart.

User login