[Julia37]

The milk thing is more than semantics - milk is thick and rich and doesn't have enough liquid in it to hydrate a person, so it's nutritionally more like a food. Good that you're drinking water between meals.The lactose intolerance test isn't very accurate. I saw on this board that people who've tested positive are able to tolerate a whole glass of milk with no symptoms - this makes me doubt the accuracy of the test. A better way to tell is to avoid dairy for at least 2 weeks and see if your symptoms improve. That's the test my doctor used on me, and it worked.

Also, dairy isn't meant for people, it's meant for baby cows, and I think the less dairy you eat the better, intolerant or not. It's surprisingly easy to give up.

 

[flux]

quote:The lactose intolerance test isn't very accurate

No, the test is accurate. But it measures malabsorption, not actual tolerance.

quote:ho've tested positive are able to tolerate a whole glass of milk with no symptoms

This is hardly surprising. Controlled studies using this accurate test appear to show that IBS, not lactose, is responsible for the symptoms.------------------I am not a doctor, nor do I work for profit in the medical/pharmacological field, but I have read scientific and medical texts, and have access to numerous sources of medical information that are not readily available to others. One should always consult a medical professional regarding advice received.

 

[flux]

quote:The lactose intolerance test isn't very accurate

No, the test is accurate. But it measures malabsorption, not actual tolerance.

quote:ho've tested positive are able to tolerate a whole glass of milk with no symptoms

This is hardly surprising. Controlled studies using this accurate test appear to show that IBS, not lactose, is responsible for the symptoms.------------------I am not a doctor, nor do I work for profit in the medical/pharmacological field, but I have read scientific and medical texts, and have access to numerous sources of medical information that are not readily available to others. One should always consult a medical professional regarding advice received.

 

[Ugh]

I hope the test was accurate, it was a real pain to take. Julia, I've tested it in an elimination diet anyway, so I don't believe I'm lactose intolerant.

quote:What you were eating for snacks may also play a role.

I made sure I ate exactly the same thing with the only variable being the way I ate it. I eat healthy, and by snack I just meant a food I would normally eat in a meal that was being alone. You may be right Kmottus about it having something to do with a starch being combined with something, I really have no idea, and no real way of knowing why it works for me. It's funny actually, becuase I took tetracycline and my gas was reduced, so I thought it was because of the antibiotic (and part of it probably was). But, clearly a major factor was that the instructions for taking tetracycline forced me to eat big meals with no snacking many hours apart. It never occured to me that something like this could affect gas. In fact, I always had read that with IBS it's better to space out meals, eat more meals, etc...so that's partly why I ate so many snacks.Kmottus, one thing that I've thought about is your comments in another thread concerning gas being absorbed. One theory would be that by not snacking, I reduce the amount of peristalsis and therefore the gas expelled. So, the gas just gets absorbed. The problem I have with that is it would mean a large amount of gas is being absorbed. Do you know how much is absorbed usually? Have you read anything about that? I'd be curious, because presumably it wouldn't be very hard to see how well humans absorb gas (just put some air in there and see how much comes out).

 

[Ugh]

I hope the test was accurate, it was a real pain to take. Julia, I've tested it in an elimination diet anyway, so I don't believe I'm lactose intolerant.

quote:What you were eating for snacks may also play a role.

I made sure I ate exactly the same thing with the only variable being the way I ate it. I eat healthy, and by snack I just meant a food I would normally eat in a meal that was being alone. You may be right Kmottus about it having something to do with a starch being combined with something, I really have no idea, and no real way of knowing why it works for me. It's funny actually, becuase I took tetracycline and my gas was reduced, so I thought it was because of the antibiotic (and part of it probably was). But, clearly a major factor was that the instructions for taking tetracycline forced me to eat big meals with no snacking many hours apart. It never occured to me that something like this could affect gas. In fact, I always had read that with IBS it's better to space out meals, eat more meals, etc...so that's partly why I ate so many snacks.Kmottus, one thing that I've thought about is your comments in another thread concerning gas being absorbed. One theory would be that by not snacking, I reduce the amount of peristalsis and therefore the gas expelled. So, the gas just gets absorbed. The problem I have with that is it would mean a large amount of gas is being absorbed. Do you know how much is absorbed usually? Have you read anything about that? I'd be curious, because presumably it wouldn't be very hard to see how well humans absorb gas (just put some air in there and see how much comes out).

 

[bonniei]

quote:The milk thing is more than semantics - milk is thick and rich and doesn't have enough liquid in it to hydrate a person, so it's nutritionally more like a food.

Julia37, this makes me think you perhaps missed the point of the original post altogether. I was not talking about hydrating drinks- my point was beware of liquidy, drinkable items in between meals not just solid snacks[This message has been edited by bonniei (edited 07-10-2001).]

 

[bonniei]

quote:The milk thing is more than semantics - milk is thick and rich and doesn't have enough liquid in it to hydrate a person, so it's nutritionally more like a food.

Julia37, this makes me think you perhaps missed the point of the original post altogether. I was not talking about hydrating drinks- my point was beware of liquidy, drinkable items in between meals not just solid snacks[This message has been edited by bonniei (edited 07-10-2001).]

 

[flux]

quote: So, the gas just gets absorbed. The problem I have with that is it would mean a large amount of gas is being absorbed. Do you know how much is absorbed usually? Have you read anything about that?

Basically, it's determined by Fick's law of diffusion, which is J = DA * deltaC / delta xThis says that diffusion rate J is proportional to the diffusion coefficient of the gas (D) tmes the area of the gut membrane (A) times the difference in gas partial pressure (deltaC) divided by the thickness of the membrane (delta x).Now the partial pressure gradient is maintained by the blood which removes the gas and excretes from the lung (how much gas being removed depends on its solubility; and other factors for CO2).About 14% of the hydrogen is removed and the rest is excreted. CO2 is more complicated to determine because it affects blood flow and because it binds to hemoglobin and because it can travel as HCO3. I don't think I can express it easily, but I think it is safe to say that it diffuses in greater volume than H2. Nitrogen doesn't get absorbed at all because the partial pressure in the blood is very high. Oxygen gets consumed by the bacteria so absorption plays little role.The thing is that most gas (relevant here) gets produced by bacteria in the colon and that's not much distance from the end. The colon has little forward motility compared to the transit of the small bowel, so it probably makes little differerence. So that is why most gas made here gets excreted rather than absorbed. Actually, I should point out that the motility of gas excretion is independent of stool excretion and we have virtually no understanding of its dynamics at this point. Most colonic gas, however, seems to be made in the descending and sigmoid colon because the pH in the ascending branch is too acidic which halts the gas-producing reactions. ------------------I am not a doctor, nor do I work for profit in the medical/pharmacological field, but I have read scientific and medical texts, and have access to numerous sources of medical information that are not readily available to others. One should always consult a medical professional regarding advice received.[This message has been edited by flux (edited 07-10-2001).]

 

[flux]

quote: So, the gas just gets absorbed. The problem I have with that is it would mean a large amount of gas is being absorbed. Do you know how much is absorbed usually? Have you read anything about that?

Basically, it's determined by Fick's law of diffusion, which is J = DA * deltaC / delta xThis says that diffusion rate J is proportional to the diffusion coefficient of the gas (D) tmes the area of the gut membrane (A) times the difference in gas partial pressure (deltaC) divided by the thickness of the membrane (delta x).Now the partial pressure gradient is maintained by the blood which removes the gas and excretes from the lung (how much gas being removed depends on its solubility; and other factors for CO2).About 14% of the hydrogen is removed and the rest is excreted. CO2 is more complicated to determine because it affects blood flow and because it binds to hemoglobin and because it can travel as HCO3. I don't think I can express it easily, but I think it is safe to say that it diffuses in greater volume than H2. Nitrogen doesn't get absorbed at all because the partial pressure in the blood is very high. Oxygen gets consumed by the bacteria so absorption plays little role.The thing is that most gas (relevant here) gets produced by bacteria in the colon and that's not much distance from the end. The colon has little forward motility compared to the transit of the small bowel, so it probably makes little differerence. So that is why most gas made here gets excreted rather than absorbed. Actually, I should point out that the motility of gas excretion is independent of stool excretion and we have virtually no understanding of its dynamics at this point. Most colonic gas, however, seems to be made in the descending and sigmoid colon because the pH in the ascending branch is too acidic which halts the gas-producing reactions. ------------------I am not a doctor, nor do I work for profit in the medical/pharmacological field, but I have read scientific and medical texts, and have access to numerous sources of medical information that are not readily available to others. One should always consult a medical professional regarding advice received.[This message has been edited by flux (edited 07-10-2001).]

 

[Ugh]

Thanks for the info flux! It seems that my reduction is most likely from something other than absorption. Especially because my transit time if anything is on the fast side. You did mention that gas movement is independent of stool movement, although I would think having faster stool movement than average would point towards above average gas movement.Flux or Kmottus, is there any medical condition (gastric emptying stuff, etc) that you can think of that would cause such a dramatic decrease in gas by just putting all food eaten into three short meals? I'm astonished that my gas has gone to under 20 by doing this.

 

[Ugh]

Thanks for the info flux! It seems that my reduction is most likely from something other than absorption. Especially because my transit time if anything is on the fast side. You did mention that gas movement is independent of stool movement, although I would think having faster stool movement than average would point towards above average gas movement.Flux or Kmottus, is there any medical condition (gastric emptying stuff, etc) that you can think of that would cause such a dramatic decrease in gas by just putting all food eaten into three short meals? I'm astonished that my gas has gone to under 20 by doing this.