Serotonin Production (gut) Depends On Bacteria

[EIRE24]

Whether you consume and tolerate starch is really an individual thing. I don't handle it well and tend to avoid it now. I was eating a lot of starch & little fat when I got appendicitis - mostly potatoes and rice. Charcoal didn't help me much in that case, but I was only taking about 2 capsules per day and only when I had "issues."

Charcoal will hinder the absorption of nutrients, so it's best to take it in between meals (like one might eat the carrot salad) - but if you are real sick, you probably won't care about it hindering absorption. I usually take a couple of capsules after going out and eating a meal I know likely had some PUFA.

If I experience nausea or bad stomach discomfort, I usually take two capsules in between meals and then some cascara at night before bed (to make sure constipation isn't an issue). In my experience, it's pretty harmless and works well, but I only use it when I need it. Sometimes as little as one capsule is sufficient to get a little relief.

I too have my appendix removed. I used to eat a pretty usual diet for a kid of a variety of things but the year I got the appendicitis I was eating lots of oats for breakfast. I love starch and I'm assuming when you say you have issues its stomach pain and or swelling? I'm not really sure how to gauge or see if I tolerate starch to be certain. I don't get any noticeable problems when I consume it but I do have acne and dry skin problems which could be linked to it?

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to take it so I may just take the capsules before bed or would it be better in the morning when I wake up before my first meal?

Thanks,

Andrew

 

[heartnhands]

Yes, very interesting, haidut!



I wonder how long it took the mice's biome to return to normal
Or if it did, indeed, return to something like it was before the experiment.



I wonder why their cecums (I guess "ceca" is the plural) enlarged.
And why their spleens shrank (I don't know much about spleens).



Yeah, this was the obvious question for me.



And here we're into the world of the gut biome
as possibly/likely serving some useful purpose--
ie, worth preserving possibly or worth intervening in to direct toward more ideal balances
(As opposed to simply cleansing/sterilizing as far as possible).

Are there sources of such bacteria in any particular foods? Peat did say something about gut bacteria being able to provide some Vitamin K in response to a question on the KMUD hear doctor show.

Has anyone compared the effeciency of taking baking soda several times a day vs. Charcaol? The former seems like a safer way to encourage best practices to me...but I'm going to have to put the baking soda in caps if I decide to go with such ptactice.

The size of the Charcaol particles seems more problematic than Vitamin K or tetrocycline. PLEASE Share your thoughts.

 

[DaveFoster]

@haidut

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that 50 g activated charcoal weekly or bi-weekly with a low-fiber or non-fiber diet will result in near gut sterilization. I'm not sure about biofilms.

Do you think this is safe and sustainable? I know Ray's recommended against charcoal use due to incorrect particle size and the like, but the Health Natura product looks solid, or at least it makes you solid.

 

[Bodhi]

I do not understand that Ray Peat who dives so deep into different subjects backed with allot of science, the subject of intestinal flora seems so shallow...
Again i support the Serotonin/Endotoxin concept.

What i do not understand is that there are so many different pro biotic strains for example L.Infantis which is given trough breast feeding a baby, and there is allot of evidence that babies who did not got breast fed have more health problems.

My point is that i think its a bit weird to use only the (hormonal) view about the role of Serotonin in metabolism and use animal studies to show the benefits of low serotonin aka sterile guts... We are not mice!

The promotion of sterile guts can only be done when we do a human study around the world population first and look at which strains we all have in common and then study the role and effects of each different strain in HUMANS first to be able to conclude if a sterile gut is better...

I think that when a baby get's breast fed allot of basic strains come from the mother, these strains are there for a reason i do not understand why Peat is not looking into this fact....

I personally think that when we where still nomadic as people we got basic strains and while growing up we moved from patch to patch of soils where we ate from and in this way we got in contact with all kinds of different strains, so maybe we need to find out what happens if we sterilize guts and fill m up with the most complex most divers strains possible....

I would expect from a person like Peat to at least come with something like sterilize the gut first and take the following strains who do not produce serotonin.
But he said himself that it's hard to get sterile guts because we get bacteria from our food, well Peat know so much about food, but he does jot seem not to know which strains of flora comes with certain types of foods...

Sorry i am a Peat fan but on this subject he assumes way to much for me....

 

[EIRE24]

I do not understand that Ray Peat who dives so deep into different subjects backed with allot of science, the subject of intestinal flora seems so shallow...
Again i support the Serotonin/Endotoxin concept.

What i do not understand is that there are so many different pro biotic strains for example L.Infantis which is given trough breast feeding a baby, and there is allot of evidence that babies who did not got breast fed have more health problems.

My point is that i think its a bit weird to use only the (hormonal) view about the role of Serotonin in metabolism and use animal studies to show the benefits of low serotonin aka sterile guts... We are not mice!

The promotion of sterile guts can only be done when we do a human study around the world population first and look at which strains we all have in common and then study the role and effects of each different strain in HUMANS first to be able to conclude if a sterile gut is better...

I think that when a baby get's breast fed allot of basic strains come from the mother, these strains are there for a reason i do not understand why Peat is not looking into this fact....

I personally think that when we where still nomadic as people we got basic strains and while growing up we moved from patch to patch of soils where we ate from and in this way we got in contact with all kinds of different strains, so maybe we need to find out what happens if we sterilize guts and fill m up with the most complex most divers strains possible....

I would expect from a person like Peat to at least come with something like sterilize the gut first and take the following strains who do not produce serotonin.
But he said himself that it's hard to get sterile guts because we get bacteria from our food, well Peat know so much about food, but he does jot seem not to know which strains of flora comes with certain types of foods...

Sorry i am a Peat fan but on this subject he assumes way to much for me....

I agree with this

 

[haidut]

@haidut

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that 50 g activated charcoal weekly or bi-weekly with a low-fiber or non-fiber diet will result in near gut sterilization. I'm not sure about biofilms.

Do you think this is safe and sustainable? I know Ray's recommended against charcoal use due to incorrect particle size and the like, but the Health Natura product looks solid, or at least it makes you solid.

That's the dose given in hospitals when endotoxin overload is suspected. Combined with coconut oil as per my other post it may be even more effective. Can't vouch for products, but if the hospitals use stuff for poisoning cases and it works then it should have some benefit for endotoxin too. I would ask Peat what charcoal specifications he recommends so we can judge the products better.

 

[DaveFoster]

@haidut
@Everyone else

I e-mailed Peat about activated charcoal products, and he only said to take it intermittently, as it's non-specific in its absorption of substances, so one could end up with deficiencies.

 

[haidut]

@haidut
@Everyone else

I e-mailed Peat about activated charcoal products, and he only said to take it intermittently, as it's non-specific in its absorption of substances, so one could end up with deficiencies.

Yep, he has said it before. His general recommendation is 2-3 times weekly, once a day.

 

[YuraCZ]

All this "sterile gut" or "no bacteria" thing. Why are the most healthy, without allergies and all kind of food intolerances and prone to every bacteria etc.. people who growed up close to the nature, with animals, with daily exposure to dirt etc.. They all have much stronger immune system and they are much healthier overall, than kids who grew up in "sterile" home in the city with lots of antibiotics etc. are all sick as ****. I would really like to hear from Peat or haidut reaction to this.. Btw WE ARE 10% cells and 90% bacteria right? :)

 

[haidut]

All this "sterile gut" or "no bacteria" thing. Why are the most healthy, without allergies and all kind of food intolerances and prone to every bacteria etc.. people who growed up close to the nature, with animals, with daily exposure to dirt etc.. They all have much stronger immune system and they are much healthier overall, than kids who grew up in "sterile" home in the city with lots of antibiotics etc. are all sick as ****. I would really like to hear from Peat or haidut reaction to this.. Btw WE ARE 10% cells and 90% bacteria right? :)

No on both counts. First, we are about 1:1 bacteria and cells. A study recently came out that heavily criticized the idea promoted by mass media that somehow we are composed of more bacteria than cells. Even the 1:1 ratio is way too generous to bacteria. Keep in mind that given the size of bacteria (usually larger than a cell) having as many as your cells would occupy a space the size of another...you. Clearly that is not the case.
Second, living in pathogen-rich environment does not mean much for your gut. Unless you are shoving dirt and whatnot up your behind, your colon is relatively isolated from the crap around you. The pathogen exposure is more of a way to keep the immune system primed and ready to remove debris. Getting bacteria in your colon is quite dangerous and can get you enterocolitis requiring emergency surgery and even then death rates are high. So, even the "natural" bacteria in your colon can be dangerous if the immune system is not working well or you have lesions due to IBD or impaction.

 

[YuraCZ]

No on both counts. First, we are about 1:1 bacteria and cells. A study recently came out that heavily criticized the idea promoted by mass media that somehow we are composed of more bacteria than cells. Even the 1:1 ratio is way too generous to bacteria. Keep in mind that given the size of bacteria (usually larger than a cell) having as many as your cells would occupy a space the size of another...you. Clearly that is not the case.
Second, living in pathogen-rich environment does not mean much for your gut. Unless you are shoving dirt and whatnot up your behind, your colon is relatively isolated from the crap around you. The pathogen exposure is more of a way to keep the immune system primed and ready to remove debris. Getting bacteria in your colon is quite dangerous and can get you enterocolitis requiring emergency surgery and even then death rates are high. So, even the "natural" bacteria in your colon can be dangerous if the immune system is not working well or you have lesions due to IBD or impaction.

lol and no answer for my question "sterile" sick people vs kids (with much stronger immune system and with better health overall) from the farm with always dirty hands..

 

[haidut]

lol and no answer for my question "sterile" sick people vs kids (with much stronger immune system and with better health overall) from the farm with always dirty hands..

I don't question that these people with more pathogen exposure are more resilient to infections. I just don't think this is related to gut bacteria. The "microbiome" is quite different from the the pathogens you get exposed to from dirt and lilvestock. Dirt actually gives you exposure to more fungi than bacteria. Hence the reason roots have anti-fungal compounds and one of the reasons carrot salad has anti-fungal and a mild antibacterial effect as well.

 

[Mufasa]

This germ free gut theory of Ray Peat is one thing I doubt the most about of all Ray Peat's work. I think the serotonin lowering effect is without doubt, it just seems to risky to me, to try make your gut germ free, while there is so little long term studies about the effect of this.

What do you think about this study @haidut? They claim that germ free animals have significantly smaller thyroids.

Thieme E-Journals - Hormone and Metabolic Research / Abstract

Experiments were designed to determine if changes in rat intestinal bacterial flora are accompanied by changes in thyroid function. Attempts to modify intestinal bacterial flora of Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were made by (a) feeding the non-orally absorbed antibiotic, kanamycin; (b) insanitary caging. Thyroid function was also compared in germfree and ex-germ-free animals. Qualitative and quantitative studies of intestinal bacteria were carried out concurrently; at the end of each study thyroidal radioactive iodine (RAI) uptakes and plasma radioactivities were determined at three or 24 hours after radioiodine (Na131I) was administered. Thyroid glands were weighed and total iodine concentration was measured as well as plasma protein-bound iodine (PBI). Kanamycin lowered the total aerobic and anaerobic bacterial counts of female rats and this was accompanied by reduced three hours thyroidal RAI uptakes after 42 and 72 days of treatment Insanitary caging for four or eight weeks did not change intestinal bacterial flora and there were no differences in thyroid function. Female germ-free animals had significantly smaller thyroids than conventional female rats. These studies have shown that reduction in the intestinal bacterial flora may affect thyroid function - simulating modest supplementation with iodine.

 

[haidut]

This germ free gut theory of Ray Peat is one thing I doubt the most about of all Ray Peat's work. I think the serotonin lowering effect is without doubt, it just seems to risky to me, to try make your gut germ free, while there is so little long term studies about the effect of this.

What do you think about this study @haidut? They claim that germ free animals have significantly smaller thyroids.

Thieme E-Journals - Hormone and Metabolic Research / Abstract

Experiments were designed to determine if changes in rat intestinal bacterial flora are accompanied by changes in thyroid function. Attempts to modify intestinal bacterial flora of Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were made by (a) feeding the non-orally absorbed antibiotic, kanamycin; (b) insanitary caging. Thyroid function was also compared in germfree and ex-germ-free animals. Qualitative and quantitative studies of intestinal bacteria were carried out concurrently; at the end of each study thyroidal radioactive iodine (RAI) uptakes and plasma radioactivities were determined at three or 24 hours after radioiodine (Na131I) was administered. Thyroid glands were weighed and total iodine concentration was measured as well as plasma protein-bound iodine (PBI). Kanamycin lowered the total aerobic and anaerobic bacterial counts of female rats and this was accompanied by reduced three hours thyroidal RAI uptakes after 42 and 72 days of treatment Insanitary caging for four or eight weeks did not change intestinal bacterial flora and there were no differences in thyroid function. Female germ-free animals had significantly smaller thyroids than conventional female rats. These studies have shown that reduction in the intestinal bacterial flora may affect thyroid function - simulating modest supplementation with iodine.

Can you please articulate what the risk would be of being germ-free? Babies are like that for 9 months before birth and some continue to be like that for a few months after birth. The human studies where people got germ-free by accident due to long-term antibiotic therapy did not find any health issues. I am not saying we should all jump on the germ-free train but so far the fear seems unjustified. Again, in human studies, there were no health issues noted from people staying germ-free as long as 12 months. If you know of a proposed mechanism why being germ-free would be bad for us please share.

 

[Peata]

lol and no answer for my question "sterile" sick people vs kids (with much stronger immune system and with better health overall) from the farm with always dirty hands..

I don't question that these people with more pathogen exposure are more resilient to infections. I just don't think this is related to gut bacteria. The "microbiome" is quite different from the the pathogens you get exposed to from dirt and lilvestock. Dirt actually gives you exposure to more fungi than bacteria. Hence the reason roots have anti-fungal compounds and one of the reasons carrot salad has anti-fungal and a mild antibacterial effect as well.

I grew up on a farm -directly exposed to dirt, creek, river and pond water, animals and their feces, what have you, pretty much on a daily basis, and I got as many colds and flus, doctor treatments and environmental allergies as any of my "city mouse" classmates.

 

[Elle]

Where do people who get things like C. Diff after a course of potent antibiotics fit into this?

 

[Tarmander]

Where do people who get things like C. Diff after a course of potent antibiotics fit into this?

modern hospitals will kill ya...

Hospital mess ups are the 3rd leading cause of death (or was it 4th?), and I have enough nurse friends who tell me how many mess ups go unreported I would not be surprised if it was higher. Go to a hospital for any length of time and get antibiotics and you can pretty much guarantee MRSA or C Diff

 

[Mufasa]

Can you please articulate what the risk would be of being germ-free? Babies are like that for 9 months before birth and some continue to be like that for a few months after birth. The human studies where people got germ-free by accident due to long-term antibiotic therapy did not find any health issues. I am not saying we should all jump on the germ-free train but so far the fear seems unjustified. Again, in human studies, there were no health issues noted from people staying germ-free as long as 12 months. If you know of a proposed mechanism why being germ-free would be bad for us please share.

Before I got to this diet, I read a lot of stuff from Nastasha Campbell McBride and Chris Kresser. Their strategies haven't worked for me at all, and I tried it for 4 years. I have made incredible progress in a couple of months on this "diet" and your supplements, but I haven't gotten into making my gut germ free, because some of the reasonings I read in that time seemed solid to me, or at least I have always kept the option open that Ray Peat may underestimate some of the functions of the bacteria in our gut.

Here are some of the proposed mechanisms I read:

1) A balanced microbiome would protect you from any kind of pathogens. A healthy mother would pass a balanced microbiome to her child at birth. This balanced microbiome would protect the child of ever getting invaded by pathogens, that cause diarrhea and also many of the autistic and ADD symptomps according to Natasha Campbell McBride. If the mother has a microbiome full of pathogens, that would be detrimental for the development of the child.

2) A balanced microbiome would provide you with a constant supply of B-vitamins. B-vitamins very fast get out of your blood after a meal (or supplements). Having a constant supply from your gut would give an advantage over germ free people that only get B-vitamin any time they eat something.

3) Gut microbes can convert inactive T4 into T3 sulfate, which can then be recovered as active T3 by an enzyme called intestinal sulfatase. On the enterohepatic cycle of triiodothyronine in rats; importance of the intestinal microflora

So the "risk" of making yourself germ-free using antibiotics or other means, would in theory be that it may be harder to get back a "balanced" microbiome, because you have lost species that are normally present in this balanced flora? At birth, you get the microbiome from your mother, so after birth, the only way would be a poop transplantation I guess?

I'm sure I haven't read all the studies you have read on this subject, and open to explore more of this subject on both sides of the equation, especially now my brain is finally working again :)

 

[Tarmander]

People who have gone Carb free for a period of time develop a gut flora adapted to that. Increasing carb intake can then be a double edged sword. On one hand they feel better, more energy, but on the other hand the bacterial overgrowth and the endotoxin created makes you feel fatigued and sickly (sore throat, etc).

The gut environment has adapted to a low carb environment, and increasing those carbs rapidly probably accounts for most people's problems with Peat's stuff. Cleansing the gut is definitely risky. Before going the antibiotic route, charcoal and carrot should probably be exhausted as options. You can test your body's bacterial health by having a large carby meal...like rice and honey. How do you feel? Crappy and good at the same time?

 

[ecstatichamster]

@haidut bacteria are MUCH smaller than cells, no?