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

[Stuart]

I personally don't think following a "strict diet" deserves any reward, really, since it should always be a pleasure to do, and so should be the doing of the personal investigations for everyone's benefit.

Such_, I didn't mean in that way, as a reward. Just the curiosity of how following those specific recommendations affects the gut microbes. And since that might interest a lot of people here and some are on a budget, it would be great to raffle the kits to investigate that.
Do you know any pigeon trainer?

I think he was just being a clever word -smith . I'm intrigued to see how dominant the lactobacillus are, I'd actually find it really difficult to drink a quart of milk a day. I've got no problem with doing it. I'd just find it physically difficult to drink that much liquid.

That's cool Such_ that you're willing to be a guinea pig.

 

[pboy]

stuart it isn't smart or good manners to act like an authority when you're full of ***t, you'll probably regret it later on in your life. You might think you are far into the health trip but its clear that you're but a noob. Not to be rude but, you see people come and go that say that kind of thing you do...its not something new, and it never lasts or gets them anywhere

if you were to find the happiest healthiest people around, athletes, the most attractive people...guarantee none of them care or give a toot about gut bacteria. Control what you can by obvious symptoms and feelings. You cant just trust 'health' gurus and websites to feed you information. Its better to look at raw science data, like what you'd find in a physiology textbook, and to pay very close attention in detail to everything going on in yourself. Be in a awakened meditation all the time, for a few years, and then you'll have some idea of whats going on

gut issues unless you contracted a major parasite from contaminated water or something, are pretty much never to do with gut bacteria. Its one of those things where like something isn't 100% right in someones life so they look up on pubmed and start thinking they have all these horrible diseases. Maybe one in multiple thousand people actually have some kind of bacterial problem...yet probably 2 out of 3 people have gut issues. Its almost always because of offensive food, cortisol and stress, or lack of secretion for another reason like imbalanced diet or nutrient deficiency

the 'immune' factors of gut bacteria are because the immune sstem is under threat...its obvious. The colon doesn't even absorb the break down products other than short acids and sodium and potassium, and all the short acids are harmful which is why they stimulate the immune system

just a heads up man, but you are probably too stuck in your little gig to realize how silly it is. It will play itself out and you'll eventually change your perspectives

 

[Such_Saturation]

Did pboy just

 

[EnoreeG]

It would be cool if we did something like Stuart proposed. Gather some crowd funded money and then raffle some tests for some members in here who are strict with Ray's recommendations. Especially American Gut Project and uBiome, because they offer comparisons..

Yeah, I like the idea of crowd funded money going to a small set of applicants who can submit. I've already had the American Gut study done, so I'm not applying. It would be interesting to have 2-3 applicants who definitely have different diets. And I think it would also be interesting to have at least one of those submit to a follow-on test after they have made a significant diet change. Supposedly, diet changes are reflected within days in the results.

If you are interested in some postings on results, here's some:

AGP results - Carin Hume, Roots 2 Health

AGP results - Erika Inglehaupt

AGP results - Heisenbug, Vegetable Pharm

Note that these blog posts don't give all the information returned from the lab. Not shown is a "taxa". A list showing several pages specifying, down to the Genus level, your most prominent species. My taxa inventoried over 70 genera. Yours could be longer or shorter.

 

[narouz]

But first we need to train a seagull to deliver the kit to pboy..

My intuition told me during a state of waking meditation
that he now lives in an ancient Aztec ruin in nearly inpenetrable jungle.
(He says "Texas," sure...of course that's a cover. )
In my vision only monkey's could be used to deliver to him.
They had pouches on their backs with velcro straps.

 

[Amazoniac]

Texas.. Yeah, right..

 

[Amazoniac]

It would be cool if we did something like Stuart proposed. Gather some crowd funded money and then raffle some tests for some members in here who are strict with Ray's recommendations. Especially American Gut Project and uBiome, because they offer comparisons..

Yeah, I like the idea of crowd funded money going to a small set of applicants who can submit. I've already had the American Gut study done, so I'm not applying. It would be interesting to have 2-3 applicants who definitely have different diets. And I think it would also be interesting to have at least one of those submit to a follow-on test after they have made a significant diet change. Supposedly, diet changes are reflected within days in the results.

In my opinion the best approach to gather more relevant data would be:

- 2 kits for a same person: one test before Ray, another after. Maybe a friend of somebody in here.
or
- kits for people that follow Ray's recommendations very closely, this way we can eliminate to a certain degree the individuality factor, and find what's common amongst that type of diet (large amounts of milch and fruit).

 

[narouz]

It would be cool if we did something like Stuart proposed. Gather some crowd funded money and then raffle some tests for some members in here who are strict with Ray's recommendations. Especially American Gut Project and uBiome, because they offer comparisons..

Yeah, I like the idea of crowd funded money going to a small set of applicants who can submit. I've already had the American Gut study done, so I'm not applying. It would be interesting to have 2-3 applicants who definitely have different diets. And I think it would also be interesting to have at least one of those submit to a follow-on test after they have made a significant diet change. Supposedly, diet changes are reflected within days in the results.

In my opinion the best approach to gather more relevant data would be:

- 2 kits for a same person: one test before Ray, another after. Maybe a friend of somebody in here.
or
- kits for people that follow Ray's recommendations very closely, this way we can eliminate to a certain degree the individuality factor, and find what's common amongst that type of diet (large amounts of milch and fruit).

Yeah, and my pet fascination:
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6385&p=76228&hilit=we+the+appendixless#p76228

I agree it would be great to find a few people
who do a very strict or optimal Peat diet.
'Course this will force some decision-making
as we've never described a strict or optimal Peat diet.
(I think it's okay to know what one is, though.
You just aren't allowed to say such a thing exists or to talk about it.)

Seems like Such may be doing one?
And maybe pboy, though he differs from Peat on some things
like protein amount and I bet some other things.

And it might be enlightening to look a results from those with gut issues.

 

[jyb]

Where did you read D-lactic acid is a burden for the brain? Obviously that would be a concern, at the condition it can actually reach the brain. But the fact that the brain carefully uses L-lactic acid otherwise would make this counter intuitive.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3292964/
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2015/476215/

Thanks. It raises some important questions for anyone on this thread, especially the second article. In particular, since it seems possible for lactic acid bacteria to "overgrowth" the upper intestines, does eating dairy or fermentable fibre + "good" bacteria cause SIBO or is it just an association? Secondly, is it likely that such diet will produce high amounts of D-Lactic acid instead of L-lactic acid? What about on low starch diet when fermentation in the upper intestine is minimised? I am not ruling out that for some (bad) diets, bacteria can be bad.

Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate. I usually read SIBO being caused by pathogens, not gram-positive bacteria which I expect to be protective against those pathogens. Also, I am not aware of babies or dairy tribes suffering from much poor digestion yet their diet heavily favours lactic acid bacteria.

 

[XPlus]

Where did you read D-lactic acid is a burden for the brain? Obviously that would be a concern, at the condition it can actually reach the brain. But the fact that the brain carefully uses L-lactic acid otherwise would make this counter intuitive.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3292964/
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2015/476215/

Thanks. It raises some important questions for anyone on this thread, especially the second article. In particular, since it seems possible for lactic acid bacteria to "overgrowth" the upper intestines, does eating dairy or fermentable fibre + "good" bacteria cause SIBO or is it just an association? Secondly, is it likely that such diet will produce high amounts of D-Lactic acid instead of L-lactic acid? What about on low starch diet when fermentation in the upper intestine is minimised? I am not ruling out that for some (bad) diets, bacteria can be bad.

Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate. I usually read SIBO being caused by pathogens, not gram-positive bacteria which I expect to be protective against those pathogens. Also, I am not aware of babies or dairy tribes suffering from much poor digestion yet their diet heavily favours lactic acid bacteria.

My main source of argument with your views Jyb (and this goes back to several threads) is the idea that certain types of bacteria don't cause overgrowth.

All bacteria operate under the simple equation More good time = More growth.

The question is what prevents them from overgrowing in certain environments when conditions are favorable. Is it some sort of mutual respect relationship with the human body?

 

[XPlus]

Also, I forgot to add, while highly pathogenic bacteria are harmful because of their highly toxic product (e.g. cholera) or invasive nature (e.g. avian flu), "good" bacteria will slowly burden the system with more toxic lactic acid and endotoxins. If their activity isn't regulated, on the long run their numbers will increase at the expense of physiological function (i.e. due to loss of the ability to carry out repair, renew and protect functions from lack of resources).

Everything in life can be viewed from an opportunity cost perspective because resources are finite. So whether it's us, the "friendly bacteria" or the highly pathogenic ones, there's always a competition for life.

 

[EnoreeG]

It would be cool if we did something like Stuart proposed. Gather some crowd funded money and then raffle some tests for some members in here who are strict with Ray's recommendations. Especially American Gut Project and uBiome, because they offer comparisons..

Yeah, I like the idea of crowd funded money going to a small set of applicants who can submit. I've already had the American Gut study done, so I'm not applying. It would be interesting to have 2-3 applicants who definitely have different diets. And I think it would also be interesting to have at least one of those submit to a follow-on test after they have made a significant diet change. Supposedly, diet changes are reflected within days in the results.

In my opinion the best approach to gather more relevant data would be:

- 2 kits for a same person: one test before Ray, another after. Maybe a friend of somebody in here.
or
- kits for people that follow Ray's recommendations very closely, this way we can eliminate to a certain degree the individuality factor, and find what's common amongst that type of diet (large amounts of milch and fruit).

Yeah, and my pet fascination:
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6385&p=76228&hilit=we+the+appendixless#p76228

I agree it would be great to find a few people
who do a very strict or optimal Peat diet.
'Course this will force some decision-making
as we've never described a strict or optimal Peat diet.

Seems like Such may be doing one?
And maybe pboy, ....

Maybe accomplish a diet definition by completing or voting on items in your thread on that issue:

http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=168&

Or draw to a close the poll that was started on identifying, I think, the real common characteristics agreed upon?

That's just saying, some of this work has been done, or attempted.

 

[EnoreeG]

Where did you read D-lactic acid is a burden for the brain? Obviously that would be a concern, at the condition it can actually reach the brain. But the fact that the brain carefully uses L-lactic acid otherwise would make this counter intuitive.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3292964/
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2015/476215/

Thanks. It raises some important questions for anyone on this thread, especially the second article. In particular, since it seems possible for lactic acid bacteria to "overgrowth" the upper intestines, does eating dairy or fermentable fibre + "good" bacteria cause SIBO or is it just an association? Secondly, is it likely that such diet will produce high amounts of D-Lactic acid instead of L-lactic acid? What about on low starch diet when fermentation in the upper intestine is minimised? I am not ruling out that for some (bad) diets, bacteria can be bad.

Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate. I usually read SIBO being caused by pathogens, not gram-positive bacteria which I expect to be protective against those pathogens. Also, I am not aware of babies or dairy tribes suffering from much poor digestion yet their diet heavily favours lactic acid bacteria.

jyb, and others actually, if 'we' are doing this, it might be good preparation to go to one of the websites that do this work and read about it all. It will save a lot of time and confusion and conjecturing about what, and not what these studies provide.

So a couple of thoughts. They tell you only, at a Genus level, what you have in your stool. And the counsel that this is not necessarily the exact proportions you would have living in you at the same time. And it's an approximation of what was living in the distal colon more than anything, not the extreme far end (small intestine) for sure. A lot happens in the day of a healthy gut, even if that's the average transit time. And a really lot happens in the transit time of food in an unhealthy gut if that transit time happens to be 3 days. Remember, germs tend to eat dead things. All the bacteria you start a meal with are dead (and potential food for others) by the time you finish voiding the remains of that meal.

The most significant things you will get from an assay will be what your 4-6 dominant Genera are, and a list of all the Genera the study-providers happen to be able to put down on a few pages so you can examine for the Genera of a few known pathogens.

The reasons they caution that your reported genera are not exactly what the proportions are in your colon is because of the "bugs eat bugs" thing for one. If certain microbes prefer to devour certain other microbes in the colon (this is a good thing, right?) the "uneaten" are the ones whose DNA is somewhat more highly represented in the poop. Still, it's assumed the whole assay has relevance. Another thing they caution about is that people tend to keep the same sets of bacteria, it's just the "load" or relative proportions that changes, somewhat. And also, that what eats your food in your SIBO condition may be a different species or genus or even family from what is eating food in another's case of SIBO. Germs are versatile to some degree.

So one has to read about it all to not end up drawing a lot of false conclusions. I'll just add one more reference to the Human Food Project here, but you can get more deeply into understanding what you might get out of having your sample analyzed if you read more on this in other articles listed on this page....

Microbial Diversity: sometimes you have it, sometimes you don’t

 

[EnoreeG]

Also, I forgot to add, while highly pathogenic bacteria are harmful because of their highly toxic product (e.g. cholera) or invasive nature (e.g. avian flu), "good" bacteria will slowly burden the system with more toxic lactic acid and endotoxins. If their activity isn't regulated, on the long run their numbers will increase at the expense of physiological function (i.e. due to loss of the ability to carry out repair, renew and protect functions from lack of resources).

Everything in life can be viewed from an opportunity cost perspective because resources are finite. So whether it's us, the "friendly bacteria" or the highly pathogenic ones, there's always a competition for life.

Competition, for sure! I think the reason some bacteria are termed commensal or mutualistic or synergetic or symbiotic is that whoever is using these words thinks that some bacteria can either function as part of the human team, competing together with us against other teams, or at least let us use them to our net advantage. I have no proof that any of these conditions exist, but some people definitely think that we aren't a destruction target of every creature in our gut.

 

[jyb]

My main source of argument with your views Jyb (and this goes back to several threads) is the idea that certain types of bacteria don't cause overgrowth.

For "overgrowth", I meant bacteria stuck there and multiplying *and* being harmful. But lactic acid bacteria need stuff to keep alive and they are not as inherently harmful - they are anti-inflammatory in the gut and do not produce endotoxin. As I have explained, it is not obvious to me whether the overgrowth seen for these bacteria in the study can occur in practice on the kinds of diet we are discussing. What complicates this even more is the difference between L and D - lactic acid, only the later seems a problem and associated in gut disease.

 

[XPlus]

Competition, for sure! I think the reason some bacteria are termed commensal or mutualistic or synergetic or symbiotic is that whoever is using these words thinks that some bacteria can either function as part of the human team, competing together with us against other teams, or at least let us use them to our net advantage. I have no proof that any of these conditions exist, but some people definitely think that we aren't a destruction target of every creature in our gut.

I agree, we can give certain descriptions to certain observed behaviors but that doesn't necessarily explain the purpose and mechanisms behind those behaviors.

For example, some political thinkers sometimes refer to the relationship of the Syrian regime and ISIS as mutualistic. This is because they realize for now the Syrian regime is using ISIS to present itself as a better option and ISIS benefits from casual trades with the regime. This doesn't disregard of the idea that they're fundamentally enemies and that they are in a life or death battle.

So, from a design point of view, we can keep the bacteria in the colon, to take care of highly pathogenic ones, process gunk and maybe produce some extra nutrients. They're regulated by the liveliness of the organism. Stressors overwhelm the body and weaken it's physiological function rendering it incapable of regulating bacterial presence. This is when the relationship is neither symbiotic nor mutualistic anymore.

It's commonly understood that bacteria are of colonial nature.
Are you suggesting that bacterial behavior is intrinsically different inside the body.

 

[jyb]

This shows you might not ever get D-lactic acid anyway as it strongly depends on type of lactic acid bacteria present, and raises the question of what kind of diet caused the D-lactic acid bacteria to appear and be kept flourished in the SIBO study. (starch?! I would think you need something big and slow sitting there in the upper intestine for the bacteria to ferment)

d Lactic acid concentration increases during storage, reaching a maximum of 7739 parts per million [ppm] by day 21 [kefir stored at 4°C].[1] The form of lactic acid found in kefir is almost 100% of the isomer L[+] lactic acid. On the other hand yogurt contains almost equal proportion of both isomers, D[-] lactic acid and L[+] lactic acid through the fermentation of lactose. Research in the former USSR [Russia] concluded that whole milk-kefir is well tolerated and gives adequate weight gain, providing a high content of indispensable fatty acids in blood serum of premature infants.[5] It is therefore logical to conclude that toddlers born at normal gestation should tolerate kefir quite well. D[-] lactic acid can cause Lactic acidosis, in which infants are more susceptible. This is why kefir is quite suitable for infants.

http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dna/kef ... sition.htm

More details on which strains may produce D-lactate:

Lactobacilli. These ferment sugars to lactic acid - this can be a problem for some patients because two forms are produced namely L lactate, which can be broken down and D lactate, which is the problem! Humans do not have the enzymes to break down D lactate. In cattle, D lactate acidosis can not be distinguished clinically from BSE! Lactobacilli have the potential to do good but if there is too much sugar and fruit sugar in the diet then there is potential for great harm.
Bifidobacteria. These assist digestion and protect against development of allergies and cancer.

We need to concentrate our efforts on the above 'goodies' - get these right and all else falls into place! Other bacteria, as below, will flourish if numbers of the above decline for whatever reason - Nature abhors a vacuum!

Streptococcus. This also ferments sugars to produce large amounts of lactic acid. This may give a tendency to acidosis. Lactic acid is metabolised in the liver by lactate dehydrogenase, so high levels of this may indicate bowel overgrowth with streptococcus. Fermentation produces two isomers of lactic acid, namely L-lactate and D-lactate. Again it is D-lactate which is the problem, the body cannot metabolise this, it accumulates in mitochondria and inhibits them, thus producing all the symptoms of CFS, including foggy brain. One can measure D lactate in the blood stream. Streptococcus over-growth treated with erythromycin has been shown to improve sleep quality.
Prevotella (bacteroides in the upper gut). It is thought that these ferment to produce hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide inhibits mitochondrial function directly. So a positive hydrogen sulphide urine test shows that there is a severe gut dysbiosis probably due to overgrowth of prevotella.

http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Fermenta ... ut_and_CFS

 

[EnoreeG]

Competition, for sure! I think the reason some bacteria are termed commensal or mutualistic or synergetic or symbiotic is that whoever is using these words thinks that some bacteria can either function as part of the human team, competing together with us against other teams, or at least let us use them to our net advantage. I have no proof that any of these conditions exist, but some people definitely think that we aren't a destruction target of every creature in our gut.

I agree, we can give certain descriptions to certain observed behaviors but that doesn't necessarily explain the purpose and mechanisms behind those behaviors.

For example, some political thinkers sometimes refer to the relationship of the Syrian regime and ISIS as mutualistic. This is because they realize for now the Syrian regime is using ISIS to present itself as a better option and ISIS benefits from casual trades with the regime. This doesn't disregard of the idea that they're fundamentally enemies and that they are in a life or death battle.

So, from a design point of view, we can keep the bacteria in the colon, to take care of highly pathogenic ones, process gunk and maybe produce some extra nutrients. They're regulated by the liveliness of the organism. Stressors overwhelm the body and weaken it's physiological function rendering it incapable of regulating bacterial presence. This is when the relationship is neither symbiotic nor mutualistic anymore.

It's commonly understood that bacteria are of colonial nature.
Are you suggesting that bacterial behavior is intrinsically different inside the body.

I hear what you are saying XPlus, and some good points to consider. I don't have "answers" so much as "opinions" garnered from reading, so as I say this, just remember, I'm not quoting studies right now but just giving my opinion.

My opinion, in slight contrast to yours, is that:

1. We don't keep the bacteria in the colon, etc. by design, but there's little we can do to eliminate them.

2. They are going to persist as long as we are alive, (the commensals, at any rate) but otherwise they aren't regulated by the liveliness of our organism, and as stressors overwhelm the body and weaken it physiologically, the commensals will continue to fight for us and protect us. They don't turn-coat and become pathogens when the going gets tough. All they want is a good diet of their favorite foods, and that is not our gut lining.

3. We are never much capable of "regulating the bacterial presence". Other than using anti-biotics, or changing our diet, and those are only approximations of what I would consider "regulation".

4. So I don't see a time of human physiological weakness when what we've in health been calling "commensal" bacteria suddenly become non-symbiotic or non-mutualistic.

5. So ultimately, I don't see the threat that you do. But ultimately, I see that a set of commensal friends remains true to the end, because by their very nature, they realize through all of evolution that their very life depends on us staying alive and providing them a source of their preferred food, which is plant fiber, and not host protoplasm. In some way, the commensals must realize that host death means their death. Likewise, in some way, the pathogens must realize that host death means their final victory and they can multiply for a while, then need to make spoors as they've consumed the host, until they can transfer to another host.

I guess that I, almost more strongly than others on this thread have this trust, and that may set me apart, but that's how I happen to believe and conduct my life. So for instance, if I ran into some difficulty with my health, and suffered extreme stress, if it was due to pathogens becoming dominant, I would try to change the mix back into my favor. But if it was due to any other cause, I would not suddenly start considering my commensal bacteria a threat. I would try, as usual my whole life, to fortify them with the best food I could provide, and hope that they would be strong enough to help me win the battle. They will always be considered 80% of my immune system, regardless of how sick I get. That's just me. I am totally not afraid of bacteria.

Regardless.

 

[Stuart]

I hear what you are saying XPlus, and some good points to consider. I don't have "answers" so much as "opinions" garnered from reading, so as I say this, just remember, I'm not quoting studies right now but just giving my opinion.

My opinion, in slight contrast to yours, is that:

1. We don't keep the bacteria in the colon, etc. by design, but there's little we can do to eliminate them.

2. They are going to persist as long as we are alive, (the commensals, at any rate) but otherwise they aren't regulated by the liveliness of our organism, and as stressors overwhelm the body and weaken it physiologically, the commensals will continue to fight for us and protect us. They don't turn-coat and become pathogens when the going gets tough. All they want is a good diet of their favorite foods, and that is not our gut lining.

3. We are never much capable of "regulating the bacterial presence". Other than using anti-biotics, or changing our diet, and those are only approximations of what I would consider "regulation".

4. So I don't see a time of human physiological weakness when what we've in health been calling "commensal" bacteria suddenly become non-symbiotic or non-mutualistic.

5. So ultimately, I don't see the threat that you do. But ultimately, I see that a set of commensal friends remains true to the end, because by their very nature, they realize through all of evolution that their very life depends on us staying alive and providing them a source of their preferred food, which is plant fiber, and not host protoplasm. In some way, the commensals must realize that host death means their death. Likewise, in some way, the pathogens must realize that host death means their final victory and they can multiply for a while, then need to make spoors as they've consumed the host, until they can transfer to another host.

I guess that I, almost more strongly than others on this thread have this trust, and that may set me apart, but that's how I happen to believe and conduct my life. So for instance, if I ran into some difficulty with my health, and suffered extreme stress, if it was due to pathogens becoming dominant, I would try to change the mix back into my favor. But if it was due to any other cause, I would not suddenly start considering my commensal bacteria a threat. I would try, as usual my whole life, to fortify them with the best food I could provide, and hope that they would be strong enough to help me win the battle. They will always be considered 80% of my immune system, regardless of how sick I get. That's just me. I am totally not afraid of bacteria.

Regardless.

That's amazing EnoreeG.

I can only add that It's important to remember that there Is no separation between 'us' and our 'microbiome' (or 'team bacteria' , 'gut bugs' - whatever term to describe that organ of your body). They are as intrinsic a part of who were are as our arms, legs, brain, liver etc. If that organ is healthy, the commensals will control the pathogens and your microbiome will perform its many roles in maintaining optimum health in your body (many of which as yet aren't well understood, or even identified - it's early days in unraveling the
mysteries of the human microbiome) . Sure you can suppress it with antibiotics, but you can chop an arm or a leg off, or have various parts of your body sugically removesd too. All fundamentally change who we are.

If you don't look after your microbiome, the pathogenic bacteria, which exist in all of us, this very moment, will do what pathogenic bacteria do - multiply beyond healthy numbers, release endotoxins, make various disease states more likely, in short make your life a misery. And the consequences of having an unhealthy microbiome may take years to exact its toll. I think this far into the thread there are few left who cling to the idea that suppressing your microbiota is a good idea. Obviously someone like Such_ provides enough mucus/mucins for his gut bacteria to eat in the absence of the fermentable fiber a more stereotypical Peat diet provides, with all the carbohydrate he eats. A more typical Peat approach provides ample mucus, AND fermentable fiber. Win /win.

Also note that many bacteria, yeasts and fungi, for example candida albicans, the prevotella EnoreeG mentioned, H pylori, E coli etc. exist in all of us from the moment we enter the birth canal (if naturally delivered, and within days if delivered by cesarean , and may well all have beneficial effects when your microbiome is healthy. The beneficial effects of candida and H pylori in the right numbers are already understood. The others may take Ph.d students and research labs decades to decipher. Which kind of makes sense. They've all been with us since long before we were even human. It's perhaps not surprising that they help to maintain optimum health when kept in the right numbers. If they didn't, the individuals with microbiomes that through the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction/ random mutation evolved a way to completely eliminate them would have had a survival advantage, and would have had more offspring than the ones who kept a small population. Evolution is such an uncompromising design tool.
I think it's fair to say that the health of your microbiome is a numbers game - ensure that the good guys are there in the right numbers and they will keep the ones who do bad things if not kept at the right numbers, under control.

 

[EnoreeG]

... They've all [the microbes] been with us since long before we were even human. It's perhaps not surprising that they help to maintain optimum health when kept in the right numbers. If they didn't, the individuals with microbiomes that through the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction/ random mutation evolved a way to completely eliminate them would have had a survival advantage, and would have had more offspring than the ones who kept a small population. Evolution is such an uncompromising design tool.
I think it's fair to say that the health of your microbiome is a numbers game - ensure that the good guys are there in the right numbers and they will keep the ones who do bad things if not kept at the right numbers, under control.

Strange, how much agreement we have on this, Stuart.

Your final words are perhaps the strongest, yet easiest to accept argument supporting why we have these gut microbes.

If a gut microbiome weren't a fantastic tool for survival of the species, a germ-free strain of humans would long ago have put us "germies" out of our pathetic life struggle and have taken over the earth. Same for all the other animal species, I assume.

So we must accept evolution as a most effective design tool, and likewise accept the microbiome it has given us as a constant companion. Fighting that fact is futile, non-productive, and fighting the micrbiome itself is apparently counter-productive.