Why Is There So Much Soluble Fibre In Human Breast Milk?

[EnoreeG]

@EnoreeG, I'd not be to answer these questions I think. Maybe an estimation of butyrate production in more ancient cultures. But else.. Okay we have some decent amount of knowledge these days, but what is it that we still don't know?

A point is that everyone always comes up with tregs and butyrate. Something I sometimes did too and although the mechanisms work as they find. I'd like to see prove that lack of butyrate really is behind the aberrant tregs found in human disease. Maybe it is out there, but I might have just not came across yet.

So the microbiome is really important, but what role fiber plays in that? And don't we already get enough by just drinking juices, eating some fuits and vegetables? Which means we don't have to watch our fiber intake, something that makes life easier .

EDIT: relevant typos

Suik, you seem to have the same problem with my statement...

Here's why: All the food you eat that is humanly digestible is already absorbed in the small intestine (SI), including all the fats. That happens to be what the SI is for. So SCFA production by large intestine and colonic bacteria isn't absorbed through the normal channel because that point in digestion is already past. But the endothelial cells of the large intestine happen to be able to absorb the SCFA manufactured by microbes, and use those acids for fuel. They get the SCFA directly, not needing the fuel taken in elsewhere and circulated through the blood, or taken to the liver and changed into glucose. They get it directly and use it directly, which is quite sweet.

...that jyb had when he said:

Secondly, babies and dairy tribes seem to do fine with the fibre contained in dairy/meat and possibly(?) a small amount of vegetable fibre. This indicated to me that whatever SCFA is needed, their diet provides. Again, I think this means the diet is *efficient* at maintaining a healthy gut. Thirdly, although a lot of the fat is digested by the time it reached the colon, I would be surprised if there still wasn't a lot left by the time it gets there. It could be a small fraction of what was eaten, but try to compare that to the small amount you get by human gut fermentation. We are not ruminants, we can ferment a bit, but if we get a lot from the diet then... Fourthly, you didn't say why locally gut produced SCFA is needed, as opposed to fatty acids absorbed and then transported to gut cells from the inside. When I eat fat, I expect the body to distributed various fatty acids to various organs so they work well. I don't see why most of it should come from immediate fermentation.

You both seem to have interpreted my statement to mean that I thought absorption of SCFA by the large intestine was essential. I didn't say that, only that the endothelium can absorb and immediately use the SCFA produced by microbes. It's a matter of efficiency. So I said "Sweet".

But I never meant to imply that the body can't nourish it's lower gut from food it digested in the small intestine and delivers to the gut as fats or glucose. I just assumed that type of cellular nutrition goes on always. After all, proteins, enzymes, hormones, and vitamins all still get delivered via the blood plasma, so why wouldn't SCFA also get delivered that way?

You went further, and brought up the butyrate/Treg connection. I'm not even on top of that. It might be that butyrate, directly absorbed in the lower gut is critical to Treg production, but I didn't know/say that. It's a good point I should follow up. Thanks for mentioning that.

 

[Suikerbuik]

No offense EnoreeG and you probably don't take it that way :).

absorption of SCFA by the large intestine was essential

Actually I think this is essential.
What I was trying to say is, bacteria produce those SCFA and those are found to modulate immunity and seem promising, especially since it is involved in pathways that are disunctional in human diseases. However, what I am not sure about is, can we by increasing butyrate or fiber cure these diseases? And is lack of butyrate production, or fiber consumption the cause of this abberant signaling? At this time I doubt.

We evolved with SCFA no doubt about that either. Nor can we neglect the presence of the microbiome, but should it be point of focus? I doubt.. We can and should indeed (always?) rely on 'gut feeling', but that is not telling us anything about the gut microbiome, well actually it does, but we better focus on something else (something that is also clear from your point) and that is whether you feel good with the stuff you eat or not.

Just for the sake of interest it is a thoughtful discussion. If we want to bring our understanding a bit further I suggest we come up with studies! I like data more than assumed facts, which currently seem to predominate our standpoints. The subject is huge, complex and contradictory. So all thoughful studies will do. Haidut, if you're back from your holiday, could you link studies showing butyrate increases signs of aging?

An example I find it interesting that wheat bran caused the highest butyrate concentrations in the faeces / distal part and guargum in the cecal region, but only wheat bran is associated with lower tumor mass. Could you explain me stuart?

It has previously been shown that guar gum and oat bran, while highly fermentable, are associated with low butyrate levels in the distal colon, while wheat bran causes significantly higher concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1374147/
(Does wheat bran or other foods stimulate different species in mouse compared to humans?)

Another paper (just published). I have not yet gone through it completely, since there are a lot of figures, but it is interesting though. (I've got full text if you have no access and are interested). Maybe we should also dig further into findings, e.g. how is that CD4 and CD2 expression directed by metabolic health or stress?

The clinical course of autoimmune and infectious disease varies greatly, even between individuals with the same condition. An understanding of the molecular basis for this heterogeneity could lead to significant improvements in both monitoring and treatment. During chronic infection the process of T-cell exhaustion inhibits the immune response, facilitating viral persistence1. Here we show that a transcriptional signature reflecting CD8 T-cell exhaustion is associated with poor clearance of chronic viral infection, but conversely predicts better prognosis in multiple autoimmune diseases. The development of CD8 T-cell exhaustion during chronic infection is driven both by persistence of antigen and by a lack of accessory ‘help’ signals. In autoimmunity, we find that where evidence of CD4 T-cell co-stimulation is pronounced, that of CD8 T-cell exhaustion is reduced. We can reproduce the exhaustion signature by modifying the balance of persistent stimulation of T-cell antigen receptors and specific CD2-induced co-stimulation provided to human CD8 T cells in vitro, suggesting that each process plays a role in dictating outcome in autoimmune disease. The ‘non-exhausted’ T-cell state driven by CD2-induced co-stimulation is reduced by signals through the exhaustion-associated inhibitory receptor PD-1, suggesting that induction of exhaustion may be a therapeutic strategy in autoimmune and inflammatory disease. Using expression of optimal surrogate markers of co-stimulation/exhaustion signatures in independent data sets, we confirm an association with good clinical outcome or response to therapy in infection (hepatitis C virus) and vaccination (yellow fever, malaria, influenza), but poor outcome in autoimmune and inflammatory disease (type 1 diabetes, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and dengue haemorrhagic fever). Thus, T-cell exhaustion plays a central role in determining outcome in autoimmune disease and targeted manipulation of this process could lead to new therapeutic opportunities.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 14468.html

 

[Stuart]

I do find it interesting that a lot of commenters are asking whether gut microbiota (or your microbiome generally) are 'essential'. I wonder if it matters. If they play a part , and I think we all agree that they play a very significant part, isn't it a good idea that we ensure that they are purring.
Now I've pointed out a couple of times that a Peat inspired diet does in fact provide ample fermentable fiber for gut microbiota to feast on, produce lots of butyrate, and promote all the whole body health effects that a fully functioning microbiome provides for the human body.
But I do get the idea from the echoing absence of anyone conceding this, that being so aware is difficult for people who consider themselves Peatarian. Actually I consider myself a Peatarian. But not all Peatarian concepts. The attitude that the microbiome is unimportant (even irrelevant) or actually harmful, is shown by the amount of fermentable fiber a Peat diet inevitably provides your gut microbiota (through the pectin in fruit, the inulin in veges, the collagen in bone broth, and of course the oligos in milk, to be both a grave contradiction and puzzling.
If a Peat diet did actaully deny your microbiome the fermentable fiber it needs to provide the health benefits your microbiome is designed to provide the human body, it might be grounds for convincingly demonizing fermentable fiber. But it provides them very well. It's just that Dr. Peat himself, and a lot of his adherents, find it almost impossible to deal with.
Doesn't this cut through the endless debate about this or that study on lab rats , which a few commenters have remarked are confounded by so many factors, including funding conflicts of interest, time frame limitations, interpretive bias, not to mention often being done not on humans , but on other species. The studies that I find convincing, are the ones looking at actual human populations that have been eating a particular way for tens of thousands of years. I've already pointed out that plenty of human populations get their fermentable fiber in ways that are easy to overlook. Like the dairy herdsmen who eat practically no vegetable fermentable fiber, but ample quantities in dairy and nose to tail animal consumption. Even the Inuit don't neglect their microbiota.

So isn't the main point that a Peat diet provides the fermentable fiber your microbiota needs to do its job properly. More seems to confer even greater health benefits. But the many other health benefits of eating Peat, particularly the pufa reduction, make it a no brainer for me personally anyway.

Actually for me the most telling comment of all came from Pboy. 'Bacteria just make things rot'.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Well it is a sizeable contribution for sure, but I've already seen all these point in the discussion already two or three times, so we are still going around in circles. Moreover this love of fiber seems to come with love for various Omega-'s or other beliefs in various combinations, so the best thing would be if we all presented ourselves like we are not the only sane person in the room

 

[Stuart]

Well it is a sizeable contribution for sure, but I've already seen all these point in the discussion already two or three times, so we are still going around in circles. Moreover this love of fiber seems to come with love for various Omega-'s or other beliefs in various combinations, so the best thing would be if we all presented ourselves like we are not the only sane person in the room

Fair comment. But just for clarification I don't think anyone here is insane, Pboy included. T'he bacteria just make things rot' comment , although I think it's a bit daft, may well be what he believes. Each to their own.

Does recognizing fermentable fiber's role in microbiome health - even on a Peat inspired diet- have to come with 'love for Omega 3's' though? Omega 3's are fats, not dietary fiber I thought. With completely distinct metabolic effects. Omega 3's are metabolized in the upper digestive tract. They don't even get to the colon.
'Various combinations' ? Which ones?
Also, I don't 'love fiber'. It tastes pretty boring on its own after all- both fermentable and non f.
I think fermentable fiber plays an important role in microbiome health, which Dr. Peat doesn't think is important, even though his own dietary recommendations inevitably provide it. That seems odd.
And I think the amount of fermentable fiber in breast milk reinforces that notion.

 

[Nicholas]

there is no evidence needed to decide how much or what types of fiber to ingest besides the evidence that your own body displays. we may even have it wrong for a time, but if we remain perceptive then even these things should be revealed to us. we will all have slightly to radically different outcomes. this is a very peatarian and liberating way of viewing the body.....struggles along the way and all. nobody has the right answer except for themselves. it sounds cliche, but i no longer believe that health and healing has to do with an outcome, but it is primarily always about the process of engagement unfettered by what other people think. this is an outward struggle as much as it is an internal struggle...as we often have our own thoughts of what we should think or feel about something that are not the body's thoughts.

 

[Stuart]

there is no evidence needed to decide how much or what types of fiber to ingest besides the evidence that your own body displays. we may even have it wrong for a time, but if we remain perceptive then even these things should be revealed to us.

Of course not. But if you eat Peat, feel wonderful, and use that result to somehow argue either the health of your microbiota or fermentable fiber is unimportant, (which Dr. Peat himself does) then it seems strange. Because that diet does provide both.

 

[Nicholas]

there is no evidence needed to decide how much or what types of fiber to ingest besides the evidence that your own body displays. we may even have it wrong for a time, but if we remain perceptive then even these things should be revealed to us.

Of course not. But if you eat Peat, feel wonderful, and use that result to somehow argue either the health of your microbiota or fermentable fiber is unimportant, (which Dr. Peat himself does) then it seems strange. Because that diet does provide both.

since you brought it up, yes - i agree...and have always been puzzled myself about all the anti-fiber/bacteria dogma in peatarian circles despite the stereotypical diet having all those things.

 

[EnoreeG]

there is no evidence needed to decide how much or what types of fiber to ingest besides the evidence that your own body displays. we may even have it wrong for a time, but if we remain perceptive then even these things should be revealed to us.

Of course not. But if you eat Peat, feel wonderful, and use that result to somehow argue either the health of your microbiota or fermentable fiber is unimportant, (which Dr. Peat himself does) then it seems strange. Because that diet does provide both.

since you brought it up, yes - i agree...and have always been puzzled myself about all the anti-fiber/bacteria dogma in peatarian circles despite the stereotypical diet having all those things.

Since you brought it up Stuart, I also agree.

And feel downright grateful to you for presenting it in this way! For many of us, the issue of "how much fiber", and the issue of "is it worth anything", and the issue of "but it feeds microbes and somewhere once, we embraced the idea that microbes are bad" may now all be closed issues, especially if we feel we must follow Peat's advice, and we think his advice was generally to avoid fiber because it fed microbes. I think, if you have amply demonstrated that a Peat diet, (as well as can be defined), provides ample fiber to maintain a healthy supply of commensal bacteria, then you have fixed these issues of "how much", "what is fiber worth", etc. that tended to make people think they had to be violating Peat law to embrace a single benefit of fiber.

People, more than they want truth or good logic, want to preserve their beliefs and institutions because it is very expensive in terms of brain-time to readjust principles and attitudes and built in rules. The brain runs most quickly on intuition, instinct, and habits. Your explanation may allow people to adopt a slightly different attitude to fiber (for one, that they are getting it in sufficient amounts and it's "I'm OK, Peat's OK) and still leave their habits, feelings and diet protocol alone. No changes needed.

Earlier, Stuart said:

If a Peat diet did actaully deny your microbiome the fermentable fiber it needs to provide the health benefits your microbiome is designed to provide the human body, it might be grounds for convincingly demonizing fermentable fiber. But it provides them very well. It's just that Dr. Peat himself, and a lot of his adherents, find it almost impossible to deal with...
Doesn't this cut through the endless debate....?

I think it does.

 

[Such_Saturation]

there is no evidence needed to decide how much or what types of fiber to ingest besides the evidence that your own body displays. we may even have it wrong for a time, but if we remain perceptive then even these things should be revealed to us.

Of course not. But if you eat Peat, feel wonderful, and use that result to somehow argue either the health of your microbiota or fermentable fiber is unimportant, (which Dr. Peat himself does) then it seems strange. Because that diet does provide both.

According to the food websites I get less than five grams of fiber a day, do you think there is some amount that they are missing?

 

[Nicholas]

there is no evidence needed to decide how much or what types of fiber to ingest besides the evidence that your own body displays. we may even have it wrong for a time, but if we remain perceptive then even these things should be revealed to us.

Of course not. But if you eat Peat, feel wonderful, and use that result to somehow argue either the health of your microbiota or fermentable fiber is unimportant, (which Dr. Peat himself does) then it seems strange. Because that diet does provide both.

According to the food websites I get less than five grams of fiber a day, do you think there is some amount that they are missing?

doesn't matter what the food websites say, right?

 

[Such_Saturation]

Got to remember your salad with each meal...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1QdvpDr3cA

 

[Amazoniac]

Instead of being concerned with the fermentation of carbs, I think discussing the fermentation of proteins is much wiser because it's way more detrimental. And that pboyperfectingevolution includes epithelial cells that shed off without a proper transit time, again metabolism and digestive coordination.

I guess that the poor health becomes first than the problematic gut, and then the snow ball begins to roll..

 

[Stuart]

According to the food websites I get less than five grams of fiber a day, do you think there is some amount that they are missing?

I'll assume ''they" refers to the food websites and not your gut microbiota
Most food websites don't differentiate between fermentable and non fermentable fiber. And none include animal fermentable fiber. Do you consume bone broth? Nor do they usually include the oligosaccharides in dairy produce. Do you drink milk? At a rough guess you're probably getting about 20 - 25 g of fermentable fiber alone. The figure you came up with probably accurately reflects the amount of nonfermentable fiber you're getting. But your gut bacteria couldn't care less whether you ate 2 or 200g of non fermentable fiber -they can't eat it. The bacteria in the rumen of a ruminant can, just not in monogastrics (poultry, swine, primates etc)
It's the fermentable fiber your microbiome thrives on.
So relax, on a stereotypical Peat diet, your microbiome won't be missing out.
But before we leave this, it's worth considering just why Dr. Peat seems to be missing the importance of your microbiota. He's the quintessential classical endocrinologist. He clearly thinks only in terms of individual cellular respiration. Which is certainly important, but it tends to overlook that individual cellular chemistry and the hormonal regulation employed by the human body is only a tiny fraction of what's actually going on.

The role of your microbiome in your health is vast. And more of its mysteries are being uncovered every day.
I just wish someone with Dr. Peat's intellect would start including it in his ruminations ( ) on the workings of the human body. He's already contributed so much. But this microbiome blind spot is holding him back. One of the most convincing indications of that for me is that he doesn't even seem to be aware that his own dietary recommendations supply ample fermentable fiber to your colonic microbiota - demonizing both in the process.

 

[Such_Saturation]

According to the food websites I get less than five grams of fiber a day, do you think there is some amount that they are missing?

I'll assume ''they" refers to the food websites and not your gut microbiota
Most food websites don't differentiate between fermentable and non fermentable fiber. And none include animal fermentable fiber. Do you consume bone broth? Nor do they usually include the oligosaccharides in dairy produce. Do you drink milk? At a rough guess you're probably getting about 20 - 25 g of fermentable fiber alone. The figure you came up with probably accurately reflects the amount of nonfermentable fiber you're getting. But your gut bacteria couldn't care less whether you ate 2 or 200g of non fermentable fiber -they can't eat it. The bacteria in the rumen of a ruminant can, just not in monogastrics (poultry, swine, primates etc)
So it's the fermentable fiber your microbiome thrives on.
So relax, on a stereotypical Peat diet, your microbiome won't be missing out.
But before we leave this, it's worth considering just why Dr. Peat seems to be missing the importance of your microbiota. He's the quintessential classical endocrinologist. He clearly thinks only in terms of individual cellular respiration. Which is certainly important, but it tends to overlook that individual cellular chemistry and the hormonal regulation employed by the human body is only a tiny fraction of what's actually going on.

The role of your microbiome in your health is vast. And more of its mysteries are being uncovered every day.
I just wish someone with Dr. Peat's intellect would start including it in his ruminations ( ) on the workings of the human body. He's already contributed so much. But this microbiome blind spot is holding him back. One of the most convincing indications of that for me is that he doesn't even seem to be aware that his own dietary recommendations supply ample fermentable fiber to your colonic microbiota - demonizing both in the process.

What is the oligosaccharide content of milk? As for "nonfermentable fiber", I am under the impression that it doesn't exist, just take wheat bran as an example, that one ferments in the colon.

 

[Stuart]

What is the oligosaccharide content of milk? As for "nonfermentable fiber", I am under the impression that it doesn't exist, just take wheat bran as an example, that one ferments in the colon.

No, wheat bran is basically cellulose. It's a non fermentable fiber. There's a lot of non fermentable fiber in plants. It's their 'bones'. Not sure about the oligosaccharides in cow's milk. It's way less than human milk. But if you drink a lot of milk, it adds up. I'll check on the exact amount.

 

[Stuart]

@Such_Saturation.
http://cdrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012 ... SPLASH.pdf
Bovine colostrum contains appreciable amounts of oligos - still far less than human colostrum. But mature human milk reduces to 12 - 14 g/l while bovine to only very small amounts. Mature goat or horse/camel milk has much more than cow, but less than human. Those Mongolian horse herders are fine.
I wouldn't rely on cow milk to provide fermentable fiber. But all fruit contains pectin, particularly ripe tropical fruits, and some vegetables like garlic onions and leeks contain a lot of inulin. High starch foods like potatoes provide some resistant starch when hot. But if allowed to cool - even it they're reheated later - far more. Fruit's probably the best way to feed your gut microbiota. Or just drink bone broth. Collagen has other benefits than feeding gut bacteria too.
One of the good reasons for consuming fermentable fiber is that it selectively feeds commensal bacteria in your gut which then competitively exclude the pathogenic species.

I've never understood why Dr. Peat can't see the point of encouraging the good guys, and discouraging the bad - which dietary fermentable fiber does. By all means eat as many grated carrots as you can stomach. Carrots are packed with fermentable fiber after all. Your colon bacteria will love you.

 

[Such_Saturation]

So can we say maybe a gram or so from three quarts of milk? http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(91)78467-1/pdf

I don't drink bone broth, I drink only clear juices. My friend, if I fart twice in a day it's a lot for me. And it always smells like kefir

Also about the wheat bran,

An example I find it interesting that wheat bran caused the highest butyrate concentrations in the faeces / distal part and guargum in the cecal region, but only wheat bran is associated with lower tumor mass. Could you explain me stuart?
It has previously been shown that guar gum and oat bran, while highly fermentable, are associated with low butyrate levels in the distal colon, while wheat bran causes significantly higher concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1374147/

 

[Stuart]

@ Such_Saturation
This is a pretty good explanation of wheat bran's fermentation characteristics:

"Some fibers are readily fermented by bacteria that normally colonize the colon. In addition to increasing the amount of bacteria in the colon, fermentation results in the formation of short-chain fatty acids (acetate, propionate, and butyrate) and gases (1). Short-chain fatty acids can be absorbed and metabolized to produce energy. Interestingly, the preferred energy source for colonocytes (epithelial cells that line the colon) is butyrate. Pectins, β-glucans, guar gum, inulin, and oligofructose are readily fermented, while cellulose and lignin are resistant to fermentation in the colon (6, 7). Foods that are rich in fermentable fibers include oats and barley, as well as fruit and vegetables. Cereal fibers that are rich in cellulose, such as wheat bran, are relatively resistant to bacterial fermentation (1)."

I think wheat bran produces butyrate at the distal end of the colon because of that resistance to bacterial fermentation. But there are other fermentable fibers, like long chain inulin, that are highly fermentable and yet the fermentation mainly seems to happen at the distal end. Pure cellulose won't feed gut bacteria at all, and wheat bran is mostly cellulose.

I'm curious now. You don't eat fruit or vegetables? No animal connective tissue at all?

 

[jyb]

I've never understood why Dr. Peat can't see the point of encouraging the good guys, and discouraging the bad - which dietary fermentable fiber does. By all means eat as many grated carrots as you can stomach. Carrots are packed with fermentable fiber after all. Your colon bacteria will love you.

He thinks even the non-endotoxin bacteria are not worth it, even if they are anti-inflammatory. Milk bacteria produces lactic acid for example, so in his view there is a risk of excess. Add to that his discussion that a sterile gut can function perfectly well (in an animal laboratory, and I seem to remember he added that even if not sterile, healthy humans may tend to have a lower bacteria count too). As for fermentable fibre, this carries a risk of feeding endotoxin bacteria should there be any, so when you see the role serotonin/endotoxin plays in his writings you can imagine he is VERY risk averse with fibre.

I think his view on the "good" bacteria being bad is the more debatable one when you look at studies since many of those aim to reduce endotoxin problems.