Kmoose sugar and starch feeds bacteria and if our gut has a lot of bad bacteria (one crohns theory) than we don't want to feed it.
This is much too simplistic, and the SCD misses the ball completely on what actually happens.
Bacteria do no just use sugar, they use lots of things depending on the type, some use sugar, others use iron. Many invasive pathogens do not use sugar but iron. Bacteria can actually speed up the process of something rusting, because they use the iron and turn it into iron oxide and because the iron is corrodable, it make it rust even faster. Bacteria use the iron you eat as a person, that's why our body has a number of defense mechanisms to stop this, why do you think our body uses lactoferrin, one of it's mechanics is binding to iron, to stop bacteria from getting it.
So it's wrong what the SCD said, at the very least it is incomplete.
Invasive bacteria also don't tend to give one iota if you feed them or not, depletion studies (those are studies on animals where they deplete the animals with respect to sugar / iron and other metals) do not result in much improvement, bacteria will simply use other pathways to steal what they need from the host.
If it was that simple we would simply stop eating sugar and all our bad bacteria would die, that doesn't happen at all, pathogens that are potentially involved in crohn are way too advanced, and they likely don't even rely on sugar to begin with.
Another reason SCD is wrong, is that she underestimated the absorption rate and breakdown of disaccharids, and wrongly assumed that monosaccharids, still called "fast carbs", are much faster abosrbed than polysaccharids because of the breakdown process, they have shown this isn't the case
she assumed this is what happened, she had no proof for it.
And if someone disagrees then tell me why, because people say "ah you're wrong", but don't counter any of the points made.
