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

[tara]

At EnoreeG:
My understanding is:
That no gram +ives produce endotoxin. Endotoxins are part of the cell wall of bacteria classified as gram-ve, and are released when they die.
Some gram +ves produce exotoxins, which they spit out into their environment while the bacteria live on.
I don't know the names of the bacteria commonly called 'beneficial'.
The relationship between us and our bacteria is so complex and so unknown that I don't know that we can define any species as entirely beneficial. I expect there are many that have both advantages and disadvantages for us.

 

[tara]

@jyb
I assume that blood pH fluctuates to the extent that the body has difficulty quickly accessing sufficient buffers to keep it stable. General tissue pH can vary a lot before blood pH changes much.

 

[Stuart]

So does Dr. Peat only advise against fermentable fiber if you've got SIBO? If you haven't, the microbiome enhancing effects of making sure the commensal bacteria in your colon are well fed will protect you against developing it in the future?
Maybe it's instructive to look at the levels of fermentable fiber in breast milk again. It makes senxe that its constituents were not going to increase the chances of developing SIBO doesn't it?
Once you have SIBO i've got no idea how to cure it. Antibiotics can't help, because no antibiotic developed by humans as yet only targets overgrowth in your small intestine, but also decimates bacteria in your colon , where you need prolific bacteria. In fact broad spectrum antibiotics may well ensure that you actually make the SIBO even worse, because your colon bacteria are less likely to be able to keep the numbers in the S.I at healthy levels if they have been trashed by the antibiotics.

 

[tara]

@Stuart.
You seem to attribute a lot of power to bacteria. :)
How on Earth (or in colon), would having plentiful colon bacteria restrain SIBO?

And why would one assume that any other fermentable fibre is effectively equivalent to the components of breast milk?

 

[XPlus]

Yes, Tara. Corner him.
He's been ignoring some good arguments, like the one from Sea about HMOs.

Stuart,

Your argue “More fibre to feed bacteria = absolutely good, No fibre to feed bacteria = absolutely bad”
The idea to deliberately support unlimited bacterial growth stems from the idea that you can never have too much of a good thing. However, this only signifies ignorance because even the least harmful of things could do harm in extraordinarily large amounts (e.g. water intoxication).

Our argument is “Fibre must viewed in context”
If a person has digestive issues, then certain types and/or quantities are likely risky.
If a person doesn’t have digestive issues, then it’s okay to eat palatable fibre-rich foods in moderation, preferably ripe fruits and cooked vegetables.

When everything is functioning perfectly, the body seems to have the ability to tell you when to stop but it’s not fool proof. With persistence, people could overrun this mechanism. This why you have to brute force that resistant starch, asparagus, onion and leeks smoothie of yours.

No one is arguing for formulas or for killing baby’s bacteria. We’re acknowledging that there are certain inherit risks in eating certain foods. Don’t give your kids raw broccoli, flaxseed and kale smoothies and they’ll be just fine.

The main source of argument is bacterial overgrowth. How to prevent and/or fix it. Since you have no idea what causes it and how to fix it, then it is ill-founded to argue for fibre.

 

[jyb]

It can't be as simple as being caused by the extra starch.
Many people rely mainly on starch for energy. Not everyone develops SIBO.
Overgrowth must be alaways thought of within the context of physiological stress to understand variability among people.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/enzymes ... -2211.html

How does your amalayse production go when liver is weak and/or when hypothyroid.

Well you could say the same for any disease: only a fraction of people exposed to a risk factor develops disease. You could also say many people eat bread & gluten yet don't have any too obvious gut problem. Being ultra toxic does not mean most people will experience any symptom before old age.

Being sick and with slow digestion only increases this risk, but in the diet I can't see any larger risk factor as starch for upper gut fermentation? The carb seems to feed the bacteria really. I can't imagine the pectin in fruit doing that nearly as efficiently - it seems to take more time, in lower intestine.

 

[XPlus]

Whether starch is a risk factor when digestion is okay, this I cannot confirm. However, I think it’s unlikely.
You may have a reason to suspect that starch is the culprit but in my experience, small quantities of pectin gives me a quick sense of irritability while well-cooked starches are tolerable in large quantities.
A situation where I agree with you is when the starch is undercooked. It could really be much more terrible than the pectin.

 

[jyb]

Whether starch is a risk factor when digestion is okay, this I cannot confirm. However, I think it’s unlikely.
You may have a reason to suspect that starch is the culprit but in my experience, small quantities of pectin gives me a quick sense of irritability while well-cooked starches are tolerable in large quantities.
A situation where I agree with you is when the starch is undercooked. It could really be much more terrible than the pectin.

I picture what happens when you eat a potato. It's cooked, and you absorb a lot of the glucose, it enter the bloodstream very fast. But surely there must still be bits of glucose attached to fibre going along the intestine, as it reduces in content over time? Those bits of glucose seem like heaven for bacteria. You could make a case for potato boiled for hours and even more is digested immediately so less room for bacteria, although that's not what most people do when they eat a baked potato.

Pectin seems to ferment after more time in the lower intestines and it seems to be Stuart's reason to like it. Some people report irritability from fruit and there could be many factors, but I can't rule out pectin - you seem to be confident. It would be easy to test by eating a pinch of pectin powder - it can be found as a raw ingredient for making jam and is extracted from citrus fruit.

 

[XPlus]

Interesting.
Do you have any source for my further reading about starch digestion down the GI.

I've a question for you, as well.
Do you have a reasonable explanation as why some people don't seem to have any signs of overgrowth despite high consumption of starch.

My experience with pectin is mainly from Jam and some Haagen Dazs flavours. I can feel irritation almost immediately but this could be more sensory than fermentation-related.

 

[Stuart]

Yes, Tara. Corner him.
He's been ignoring some good arguments, like the one from Sea about HMOs.

Stuart,

Your argue “More fibre to feed bacteria = absolutely good, No fibre to feed bacteria = absolutely bad”
The idea to deliberately support unlimited bacterial growth stems from the idea that you can never have too much of a good thing. However, this only signifies ignorance because even the least harmful of things could do harm in extraordinarily large amounts (e.g. water intoxication).

It's important to distinguish between fermentable fibre, like the HMO's in breast milk, pectin in fruit, or inulin in below ground veges (these are only three, there are many such complex polysaccharides) which your colon bacteria can eat, but your upper digestive tract can't metabolize. The other kind, non fermentable fibre, doesn't feed any human microbiome bacteria, and just adds bulk to your stool. Their functions are completely different. It's a bit confusing to refer to just 'fiber' .
Also, what did Sea say about HMO's. Not sure what you're referring to. But I'm happy to comment on whatever he said. Just remind me.
And I'm a bit puzzled by you referring to any amount of fermentable fibre being better. My point all along is that the amount in breast milk is a good indication of what is ideal . It does babies nothing but good, so it seems unlikely that in the same proportion for adults it would be in any way harmful. It's also way more than most people get.
A lot of the comments in this thread seem to stray perilously close to arguing that your microbiome is somehow less important than any other organ. For someone like pboy, that may well be because he just can't accept a 'lowly' bacteria as having any, let alone an essential (just like your liver, or your brain etc) role in maintaining optimal health. Anyone who has an even slightly more sophisticated idea about that role. it's an interesting discussion. But if you find the going tough Xplus, perhaps it would be better if you didn't participate. Stay only if you think it's a worthwhile discussion. I'm ever more intrigued, but I do suggest you refrain from using parlance like 'corner him..' It's unhelpful and unneccessary. If you've got worthwhile things to contribute, I welcome them.

Our argument is “Fibre must viewed in context”
If a person has digestive issues, then certain types and/or quantities are likely risky.
If a person doesn’t have digestive issues, then it’s okay to eat palatable fibre-rich foods in moderation, preferably ripe fruits and cooked vegetables.

A couple of things. I've said from the outset that if you have SIBO then introducing more fiber will be difficult. But it may well be impossible to eliminate SIBO without increasing the power of your colonic bacteria to signal the release of the immune factors which control bacterial numbers and strains in the rest of your digestive tract -all the way to your mouth. And don't forget that your colon microbiota are in constant communication with your brain as well. Your S.I. is right next door. Why on earth would you think that the whole body immune system reach of your colon microbiome wouldn't make it to the S.I. ?
Actually I think it was Tara who asked about the colons role in preventing SIBO. It's an important point, but it does demonstrate how unprepared many of us are to recognize what a powerful ally a well cared for microbiome is, and also how fundamentally it detracts from your immune system (only one of its functions remember) arsenal if you neglect it.
Broad spectrum antibiotics just make the situation worse, because they don't just target bacteria (or even just pathogenic bacteria) in your S.I. but lay waste to a healthy colon microbiota as well. Garlic (lots of it, and raw, if you can) certainly helps. But one of the most effective long term solutions is to very gradually ramp up your consumption of fermentable fiber (supplementary fiber is fine, you take other supplements - eg aspirin don't you?) to resurrect your microbiome. Actually using antibiotics might indeed work, but only if you used a multifaceted (and also carefully timed) approach including fecal transplants and of course a great deal of fermentable fiber. A baby's colon is brought up to speed as quickly as possible in exactly the same way by being innoculated by its Mother's microbiome and then very well supplied by fermentable fiber in breast (or formula) millk. Formula has a lot of other questionable ingredients of course, particularly soy, but at least it has the fermentable fiber.
It will help if you see your digestive tract as a very integrated system Xplus. You simply can't achieve S.I health without colon health. The standout feature of the purist Peatarian attitude to the human microbiome (which you do seem to subscribe to) is that it attempts to discount the importance of microbiome health. The human body is an integrated system of multiple parts all working cohesively for the benefit of the whole. Dr Peat should know this. It puzzles me that he chooses not to accept how essential a fully functioning microbiota is to a human body being the best it can be.

So please bear in mind, what you are referring to as 'moderation' , particularly when you realize how much fermentable fiber is in breast milk, is anything but. Isn't it better described as 'inadequate'?

When everything is functioning perfectly, the body seems to have the ability to tell you when to stop but it’s not fool proof. With persistence, people could overrun this mechanism. This why you have to brute force that resistant starch, asparagus, onion and leeks smoothie of yours.

I've never put asparagus , onion or leek in a smoothie in my life. Where did you get that idea? Resistant starch ? Sure, many many times. But R.S by itself (all fiber supplements are in my experience) is quite tasteless. So other flavours, particularly milk and fruit, are great. The other three foods you mentioned are excellent food sources of inulin, but you would have to eat a lot of them to get the amount of fermentable fiber I think is wise, so I just find it easier to use supplements. I hate the feeling of overeating. I like to eat when I'm hungry. And I actually find I need less food because the gut bugs are so well fed - must be all that butyrate. But don't forget that I don't even get close to the amount that breastfeeding babies get. And the available coprolite evidence shows that until very recently, humans and prehumans were eating about 130g/d of fermentable fiber. So it's not as if I'm doing anything unusual. Comparatively, modern humans eat far less.

No one is arguing for formulas or for killing baby’s bacteria. We’re acknowledging that there are certain inherit risks in eating certain foods. Don’t give your kids raw broccoli, flaxseed and kale smoothies and they’ll be just fine.

The main source of argument is bacterial overgrowth. How to prevent and/or fix it. Since you have no idea what causes it and how to fix it, then it is ill-founded to argue for fibre.

That's not true actually. But SIBO develops over many years, usually throughout a habitually fermentable fiber undereating childhood, It's not entirely unsurprising that it can take as many years of gradually reintroducing it to bring your colonic microbiota back up to speed. As I outllined above, you can speed things up condiderably just by fasting for two days, getting a fecal transplant at the end of the fast, and as soon as you start eating again including (no surprise really) about the same amount of fermentable fiber as a baby gets in breast milk. But most importantly of all of course, save yourself the trouble of having to go through the same rigmarole again and don't forget to eat a pinch of soil every few days, and at least 80 g of fermentable fiber till your dying day.
If you can't manage the fast, antibiotics work almost as well, but are considerably more disruptive to your body. It is quite likely of course that particularly yeast overgrowths like candida will hide in biofilms, but this protocol is one of the fastest ways of reintroducing a healthier intake of fermentable fiber. And once your colon is back to full immune system signalling strength. your own immune system will be quite capable of dealing with biofilm hideaways.

I think it was EnoreeG who mentioned what a huge role colon microbiota play in the human immune system - 80% I think she said. I know they're only 'lowly' bacteria, but don't you think we should be paying such an important immune system player the respect it deserves?

Now Xplus, you seemed to think Sea brought up an interesting point about HMO's. So let's have it.

 

[jyb]

Interesting.
Do you have any source for my further reading about starch digestion down the GI.

I've a question for you, as well.
Do you have a reasonable explanation as why some people don't seem to have any signs of overgrowth despite high consumption of starch.

My experience with pectin is mainly from Jam and some Haagen Dazs flavours. I can feel irritation almost immediately but this could be more sensory than fermentation-related.

It seems to me like a risk factor on the observation that bacteria thrives on glucose and I imagine starch provides it in the upper gut, I didn't say most people eating starch will have clear SIBO symptoms. Conventional diet is heavy on starch, gluten, PUFA, margarine, grains,... But most people around me are okay on it they're mostly healthy, lean shaped and with good mood. And a small number have disease. So, does it mean I think margarine is good? No, I think it's evil.

 

[Stuart]

Is the argument that only people with SIBO. permeable bowel lining or some other microbiome dysbiosis have a problem with starch, or that starch itself is harmful? Human's have thrived on raw and cooked starch containing tubers for millenia. Don't Peatarians eat potatoes? I love them personally. And if you let them cool, the retrograded starch feeds colon bacteria as well.
Is there any clinical evidence that high starch foods like potatoes are unhealthy ? Some people might be intolerant of solanaceas of course. But there are many other starch containing tubers than potatoes if so.

 

[XPlus]

it's an interesting discussion. But if you find the going tough Xplus, perhaps it would be better if you didn't participate. Stay only if you think it's a worthwhile discussion. I'm ever more intrigued, but I do suggest you refrain from using parlance like 'corner him..' It's unhelpful and unneccessary. If you've got worthwhile things to contribute, I welcome them.

Let’s not get irritated over figurative humor, Stuart.
I hope it's not the bacteria communicating to us through your brain.

Here's a quote from Sea's

Hello Stuart,

Before Peat, I spent close to a year trying to fix digestive problems while eating a high soluble fiber diet along with supplementing numerous probiotics, soil based probiotics, fermented foods and prebiotic fibers. During this period my digestion got worse and my health deteriorated. Looking back, I had constant symptoms of high serotonin along with those of endotoxin poisoning.

While on Peat, I ate virtually 0 soluble fiber diet, and reversed digestive problems. I don't see how my experience is possible if soluble fiber really is the key.

You claim that if the bacteria aren't fed then they will eat the mucus lining and cause problems. Evolutionarily speaking, shouldn't the bacteria most likely to have a symbiotic relationship with humans be the ones who can survive off of our mucins as opposed to bacteria that require us to eat unpalatable fibers to support their growth? From research done on mucins it looks as though they could be considered a prebiotic that we produce ourselves.

I have reviewed this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406618/ and I can't find evidence that human babies receive 25 grams of soluble fiber/day. This table (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... CWS074TB1/) from the study shows that babies receive within a range of 5-15 grams/litre. So it looks like before weaning babies would receive between 7-20 or so grams of HMO's per day. I don't know that we can make a distinction as to whether or not more or less HMO is healthier. Further, I think it is important to note that human HMO's are not the same as soluble fiber from vegetation. The study explains:

"Today, HMOs are known to be more than just “food for bugs”. An accumulating body of evidence suggests that HMOs are antiadhesive antimicrobials that serve as soluble decoy receptors, prevent pathogen attachment to infant mucosal surfaces and lower the risk for viral, bacterial and protozoan parasite infections. In addition, HMOs may modulate epithelial and immune cell responses, reduce excessive mucosal leukocyte infiltration and activation, lower the risk for necrotizing enterocolitis and provide the infant with sialic acid as a potentially essential nutrient for brain development and cognition." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... #CWS074C44)

Clearly, soluble fiber from fruits, grains, or tubers does not contain these same properties. Therefore, I think a recommendation to consume 120 grams of soluble fiber daily on the basis of HMO's seems misguided at best.

I think that this article does a good job of debunking the idea that fruit has only recently become sweet and devoid of fiber: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-a ... ent-fruit/

A study from that article stated that wild Baobob contained only 1 part fiber for every 10 parts carbohydrate.

There is also a compelling theory that the discovery of honey which is a concentrated source of fructose, may have been the catalyst that allowed us to evolve smaller digestive tracts, and bigger brains. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 50/?no-ist) Other animals that subsist on vegetation, like the gorilla, have much larger digestive tracts that are better suited for colonic fermentation than the gi tracts of humans.

If soluble fiber is supposed to be consumed by humans for health then it follows that our taste buds should give us a craving for fibers. Yet, most humans consider fiber to be unpalatable. I recall that as a kid when me or my friends would consume oranges we would put a slice in our mouths, suck out the juice and discard the fiber in a manner similar to what this kid looks to be doing: http://www.vidavibrante.com/2013/01/25/ ... ng-orange/

I think that no one really knows much about gut bacteria and a lot of people are trying to blame every disease on bacteria much like many still try to do with genetics. I think that people in poor health are just going to be more susceptible to the most opportunistic strains of bacteria. So, I think that someone is not obese because they have a lot of ecoli, but that they have a lot of ecoli because they have a low body temperature/metabolism which allowed the ecoli to overgrow. Likewise, I think that people in good health tend to harbor the type of bacteria that are able to survive inside a human with a strong immune system so they may have strains that are thought of as beneficial present, when those bacteria aren't the cause of their good health. I know that some hunter gatherers have been studied, and they have H pylori, and all of these bacteria thought of as pathogens, yet they don't have any symptoms of bacterial overgrowth.

With all that being said, I think that eating some fiber helps to lower estrogen. My experience shows me that insoluble fiber works better than soluble fiber for this purpose as I notice that the later still increases serotonin/endotoxin although to a much lesser extent now than when I was eating a lot of soluble fiber. Whether or not someone with a really fast metabolism will need any fiber, I cannot say. I also don't really know if I would notice a benefit from soluble fiber when my metabolism becomes faster. These are things that I will continue to experiment with, but at this point in time I think Ray Peat makes a more compelling argument to limit fiber. I also have noticed some benefit from taking some prescript assist recently which I think worked to kill off some problematic pathogen that wasn't susceptible to my antibiotics. However, I have noticed much more drastic improvements in digestion and overall health from taking antibiotics which I continue to take occasionally.

 

[Stuart]

I read the study Sea referenced. Very interesting indeed. As it points out, HMO's are indeed MORE than just food for bugs. But if you read the whole study they go into great detail explaining that the first understood role of HMO's was the prebiotic 'food for colon microbiota' and since then improving research techniques have helped identify many more immunoprotective and immuno- developmental roles AS WELL as the 'food for bugs factor, not INSTEAD OF. HMO'S are indeed very special substances, but their fermentable fiber function is well understood. Have a look at it if you aren't sure.
Also Sea mentions that baobab, still consumed all over the world is only ten percent pectin. I looked at four references which all said that the internal pulp of baobab is about 50%. Just google 'pectin in baobab' if you're still wondering.
Look I won't speculate on why Sea chose to interpret that study the way she did. But you can confirm for yourself that it wasn't questioning the prebiotic (fermentable fiber) power of HMO's or the amounts amounts breastfeeding infants consume.
Also getting the baobab data wrong. A bit odd don't you think?
Sea clearly wasn't impressed by fermentable fiber. I'm really glad she's found something that works.
But my original query was asking why there is so much fermentable fiber in breast milk. Which is still the question anyone who wants to discount either the importance of your microbiome in your health generally, and fermentable fiber's contribution specifically, needs to ask.
Now I certainly don't doubt that HMO's do so much more than just feed your microbiome. If you can get it, I'd go for it. You'll get the fermentable fiber and a lot of other great stuff.
Sea also talked about honey. One of the groups I've mentioned a couple of times , the Hadza (a hunter gatherer society in Tanzania) , eat a lot of honey. They eat a lot of baobab too. And even honey contains fermentable fiber. But Sea chose not to mention the fermentable fiber in honey?
Also I've noticed that fruit has become a lot sweeter even just in my lifetime. The traditonal bush fruits Australian Aborigines eat are without exception only mildly sweet. In fact the only source of concentrated sugar available to humans until very recently was honey. And that contains fermentable fiber.
The other thing worth mentioning is that if our microbiome wasn't so important, why is it still such an important part of our immune system? Indeed, from an even more basic perspective, why is it still the biggest organ in our bodies. Don't forget your commensal microbiota isn't just in your colon. Certainly that's where the greatest number of bacteria live, but are spread throughout our digestive tract and skin as well. And they all communicate constantly with the rest of our bodies.
Then there's the coprolite evidence clearly showing that throughout their development, humans routinely consumed about 130g/d of fermentable fiber.
Xplus, the science of why your microbiome is so important to your health is actually very well understood, and research labs all over the world are adding detail to the big picture every day.
But you have to work out what works for you personally.
I do suggest you have a close look at the paper Sea linked to.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Stuart I'd like to see substantiation of your statements, because, if true, I think that will bring this discussion to a next level. It's not nothing you are claiming here..

the power of your colonic bacteria to signal the release of the immune factors which control bacterial numbers and strains in the rest of your digestive tract -all the way to your mouth.

But one of the most effective long term solutions is to very gradually ramp up your consumption of fermentable to resurrect your microbiome.

It's not entirely unsurprising that it can take as many years of gradually reintroducing it to bring your colonic microbiota back up to speed.

And once your colon is back to full immune system signalling strength. your own immune system will be quite capable of dealing with biofilm hideaways.

but don't you think we should be paying such an important immune system player the respect it deserves?
the science of why your microbiome is so important to your health is actually very well understood

 

[Suikerbuik]

How else would they ferment in the upper gut without undigested carbs like starch? I have trouble imagining some vegetables being efficient enough for this or at least not as much.

I doubt glucose is an issue that much. I think it's sugars like fructose, possibly lactose and easy fermentable fibers that are the issue. Conditions involving inflammation usually result in lower fructose uptake, while glucose is mostly unaffected to my knowlegde. This is supported by the experience xplus mentioned.

 

[Nicholas]

just to add to the balancing....pboy's intense dismissal of certain fibers/starches here is really not the full picture of what he probably believes as he has at least a couple quotes around here where he even recognizes that certain starches can have their place and not even be disruptive in certain contexts....and as far as fibers, you can find him speaking on how fiber can be good for bile elimination in certain contexts (despite not being sustainable). I bring this up just to point at a fact which even the pro-fiber/starch people recognize that these things have their place. pboy - i'd hate for anyone who is finding an authentic place for starch/fiber in their diet to take your generalizations here and mis-trust their perceptions. at the same time, for those who are further along - your comments might simply cause reflection and re-assessment.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Never doubt the pboy, dude. He knows if you do.

 

[Nicholas]

Never doubt the pboy, dude. He knows if you do.

i can't tell if you're joking.

 

[pboy]

lol....yea its hard to speak generally, its a lot easier to talk to individual cases...cause in many situations there would be a place for those things. Im just trying to bust up the mindset that purposefully cultivating bacteria is a good thing or has any relevance....pointing out that their by products are immune stimulants, gastric and otherwise irritants, cause gas pressure, NO and HS that impair cell respiration and mucus production (leading to constipation), serotonin and many things. Nothing positive comes from the bacteria or their by products. All the positive hormones and signal molecules are produced outside of the gut and are hurt by the gut being irritated or having the immune system provoked. The fiber has its place, but ideally wouldn't be used every day, and ultimately not needed at all. Starch is for the people who've been drinking too much water or liquid and are hypotonic...that is such a bad state to be in that the starch is actually a net benefit at that point...but even in the cases that starch and fiber are a net benefit, the potential fermentation and bacterial growth are things to contend with, not a bonus or benefit. And then if you are using fibers only a few are ok..anything astringent or with polyphenols...which is probably most fibers, is gonna add hypertonic pressure in the GI, provoke serotonin, soak up mucus, and overall promote estrogen and irritation, sensitivity to light and sound and all that. The only fibers that would be beneficial even in the rare cases would be the soft inner portion of fruits or roots (even carrot should be peeled). Brans, skins, peels, leaves, stringy stalky fibers, are all no good anytime

my whole life has been intimate experiments for years...and I don't have a braking system, I go all out into things...the amount of stuff ive had to deal with...and then all the normal life demands providing a mosaic for things, is how I know things...im not just speculating and its impossible for me to say anything or give any advice or suggestions that would cause any bit more suffering than needed. I understand the bigger picture and the paths of people so I just say things that I think would be helpful, having gone through things myself. I don't expect many to just believe me right away, its more of something that can be a glimmer of hope when they are in a rut...everyone has to flesh out the details and experiences first hand along their journey ...they have to KNOW something is right or wrong, ect....nature of things, by going through it

im still learning and fortifying what I know, and...some of the highest level things im realizing are hard to even put into words...unless it was pages...id have to just speak basically for a long time. And even then it doesnt really convey it all completely...id have to be there in person. Its why recently ive been talking so much about your environment, people, stresses, hormones, living towards a goal and vision, a purpose, metaphysics...these things all have a huge role, surpressing your voice, or skewing it, having a clean conscience...they all matter and everything is related and intertwined

The body is more like a hologram, a metaphor, for your life...the GI flows, your circulation and nerves flow, as your life flows...and not just mundane life...your pursuit of personal salvation that in which you can die in peace and happiness

the way ive been able to isolate and realize so many of these things is because my diet was (is) consistent and near perfect, so at that point...you can realize all the other things that have effects and theres no doubt of it being food related