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

[EnoreeG]

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.

duly noted. I won't change that post, tara, but consider this as a replacement to use your word "toxin" as the general word, instead of "endotoxin":

so I don't think, unless there is some evidence, that we need to assume that species that are known to be beneficial bacteria actually produce these endotoxins toxins, just because a few gram-positive ones do. I would prefer that it is known that the set described as "beneficial" does not have to include the entire set "gram-positive", if that makes sense.

Maybe tara can clarify as to bacteria known as "beneficial" whether there is knowledge of these producing endotoxins toxins. I have no knowledge of it, but my knowledge is very limited on this.

So it looks like we are both unable to say if there are "beneficial" bacteria that can still produce toxins. In your case, it seems to be because the major issue is that you are unsure, but would like to entertain the possibility that even "beneficial" species have negative effects on the human body. Fair enough. That's being open minded. Do you have any study that shows that any species that is known as "beneficial" has some negative effects on the human body?

If you are looking at this issue, it might be nice to acknowledge that science now generally recognizes that an overwhelming majority of bacterial species that show up in our gut and on our skin are classified as "beneficial". And it's very easy how they do this: they can classify bacteria as saccharolytic or proteolytic. This is, as "breaking down sugars [complex, simple, etc]", or "breaking down proteins" respectively. It turns out that the "beneficials" are saccharolytic. I think this helps a lot to understand why so many bacteria that inhabit the gut are beneficial. The primary food there is carbohydrates. Gut endothelium remember is a thin layer of cells, and cell walls are composed of fats and proteins. The endothelium cells don't even harbor glycogen like muscle cells, as they primarily burn short chain fatty acids directly absorbed from bacteria as fuel. It's a long way to a source of carbs for those beneficial sacchorolytic germs by trying to ingest the cell walls of the gut. Definitely an uphill battle.

Here's an interesting article about that:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705355/

 

[Nicholas]

"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" - pboy

i totally understand that you know and understand things personally. that should be the goal for all of us. on your comment regarding "the only fibers" could you please comment on how eating the soft inner portion of fruits is only in "rare cases"? Are you saying that the "soft inner portion of fruits" is not ideal? if so, are your carbs completely from milk and sugar? if so, where do you get your potassium? all i have gathered is that you don't eat fruits or vegetables. If you get potassium from juices, then wouldn't you be hypotonic or susceptible to such?

regarding tonicity: that subject is so confusing to me. i have the feeling that i struggle with it. i don't drink excessive liquids. barely a glass of milk a day usually, barely any OJ, some water with sweating, etc. is the goal to be between hypo and hyper? if so, couldn't the utilization of some starch be helpful in temporarily balancing to someone who is struggling with this issue that you don't struggle with?

 

[pboy]

I eat fruit sometimes just depends on quality but when I do I don't eat the peels or berries. Small amounts of the inner fruit fiber if they're ripe is pretty much non noticeable, so its fine, but technically it has a hiiiiiiiiiiint of a risk..but like I said its ok its non noticeable, and the 'risk' is like...pretty much a non factor in your tangible reality

Tonicity is a fine window and so many things effect it...fibers of various types, like...your whole body could be toned but then you ***t out some fibers and suddenly youre hypotonic because some of the contents of the stool was pulling water. Hypotonic is always bad, even a point of it. If you go hypertonic, the body can adjust to being in its perfect state, depending on how hyper you are and how active energy is being used, your metabolism, it can take some time...and sometimes it can if too hyper make you want to just pass out or feel kind of dull. The ideal is to when you eat something or drink something be just a little on the hypertonic side so then as you move and live the body adjusts to its perfect balance point. And yea milk and fruit are hypotonic...so no matter who you are if that's all you eat (drink) you have to add either some starch or white sugar or honey, I guess meat might also be something that would help tone it up. I just use sugar

 

[EnoreeG]

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

im still learning and fortifying what I know, and...some of the highest level things im realizing are hard to even put into words...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

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

With due respect to your current methods of approaching gut bacteria pboy, if, and only if, you ever have a physical condition that causes you to pause and reconsider what your philosophy is regarding gut microbes, you might fortify your knowledge by "going all out" into the link I just posted for tara:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705355/

plus this one (yep, special for you, and that possible day in the future):

http://iai.asm.org/content/76/8/3360.full

Read no further!

For others who might be interested, here's an excerpt from the last link:

Furthermore, the intimate relationship between the mucosal microflora residents, the intestinal epithelium, and the GALT is involved in sculpting the memory mechanisms of systemic immunity, such as oral tolerance. This was initially recognized after the discovery that the systemic response to a specific pathogen can be abrogated after ingestion of the antigen; this effect continues for several months in conventionally colonized mice, whereas in germfree mice systemic unresponsiveness persists for only a few days (100). Therefore, the innate immune system must be able to discriminate between potential pathogens and commensal bacteria. One way that this is achieved is by mammalian cell expression of Toll-like receptors (TLRs), which recognize conserved motifs on bacteria that are not present in higher eukaryotes. This innate strategy, which is discussed below, allows immediate recognition of bacteria so that the mammal can rapidly respond to a potential threat. Therefore, the unique dialogue that has developed between the bacteria in the normal flora and the epithelium with its associated GALT is critical to promoting the development as well as the homeostasis of the immune system.

This is only a brief introduction to the following sections of the document which contain sections on

EPITHELIAL CELL INTERACTIONS WITH PATHOGENS

EPITHELIUM-LPS INTERACTIONS: A COMPLEX SCENARIO

MECHANISMS UTILIZED BY INTESTINAL PATHOGENS TO INITIATE AND INDUCE DISEASE

BACTERIA IN IBD

SUBVERSION OF IMMUNE RESPONSES BY PATHOGENS

Oh my, is there more? Can it be that pathogens can take charge of the gut, regardless of "beneficials"? Only a thorough reading may disclose the true intentions of this article. Or it may not. One my be left with a continuing mystery. no promises.

 

[Nicholas]

....will try to pick this apart......so fruit is ok. so if fruit or milk is in someone's carbs, then they would have to be eating either sugar, honey, or starch or they will be pushing hypotonic. so if someone takes your advice to cut out the starch completely, this would mean that they'd have to be using sugar or honey therapeutically to balance out the hypotonic nature of milk and fruit? if one doesn't use milk, does this mean adding sugar to fruit? i like doing that... you have just created a very limited diet. : )

i guess i was looking at starch as something to be used therapeutically (which is accurate) but if it causes issues in the digestion then perhaps those negatives could even contribute to reduced metabolism and difficulty balancing the cell - which was the goal of using the "starch therapy" in the first place.

perhaps eating starches goes in waves of being beneficial and not related to elimination and other variables

 

[pboy]

pretty good way of looking at it yes

 

[Nicholas]

guess people didn't tone or balance their cells before the mass availability of sugar or honey?

 

[EnoreeG]

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,

I think this is what happened to me, Stuart. I ate quite poorly as a child, teen and 20-30 year old. Then the turnaround was gradual, prompted by this ailment, then that, until I finally knew enough about health to start making changes to improve my immune system. Somewhere along there, my gut got a better mix of germs and I stopped taking antibiotics to re-ruin it. I'd say half my life I was essentially sick, then the last half, phenomenally well. It wasn't overnight, and it happened so gradually I just started taking health for granted again.

 

[EnoreeG]

First, thanks to XPlus for reminding us of this Sea post, to which I want to say one thing:

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....



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 quote only these paragraphs because I think Sea discovered and listed something important about fiber that has been confirmed in various articles and which has been stated by Peat, though I can't give you a reference for Peat.

And that is your statement: "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."

I've heard Peat emphasize insoluble fiber. He recommends carrots because of the insoluble fiber. I have this reference where it is also praised as the main component of "health" with respect to fiber in general:

http://www.thepaleomom.com/2013/11/...uble-vs-soluble-fiber-smackdown-part-3-5.html

which concludes with the statement:

Yes, the points seem to be adding up for insoluble fiber. But, this isn’t to say that soluble fiber isn’t beneficial.

 

[Sea]

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."

Just because HMO's can be fermented by bacteria doesn't mean that the true purpose for HMO's is to feed bacteria. From nature we can see that bacteria can eat almost anything. It should be no surprise that bacteria can feed off of various components of human breast milk, but this does not mean that is desirable. The fact the HMO's contain antibacterial compounds should be disturbing to the theory that they are meant to feed bacteria: "...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."(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... #CWS074C44)

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?

You have yet to provide a source for your baobob claims. I previously referenced the following study from the South African Journal of Nutrition which analyzed the fiber content of the edible portion of wild baobob: http://archive.samj.org.za/1966%20VOL%2 ... hmeyer.pdf

This source claims the edible portion of the Baobob has around 10% fiber. Perhaps you are looking at sources that measure the whole fruit including skin and other parts which are not consumed by humans. Maybe you are looking at unripe baobobs. I do not know because you have not provided a source.

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.

We know that HMO's play a role in the development of the brain: "...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).

Perhaps, HMO's are protected as well as the body can from bacterial fermentation, and have the true role of growing the brain. In the future we may learn that healthy babies have less bacteria and less fermentation of their mother's HMO's resulting in a higher IQ. At this point in time we don't know, but clearly HMO's are not the same as dietary sources of fiber. Recommending fiber intake on the basis of HMO's would be like arguing that there is saturated fat in breast milk, therefore we should eat a lot of polyunsaturated fat because it is similar.

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.

Honey does not really contain much fiber. Of unprocessed food, honey probably has the greatest sugar:fiber ratio of anything humans can eat. Most honey you can buy will have 0 fiber listed on the nutrition label. Honey also contains antibacterial components that allow honey to stay good at room temperature, indefinitely. There are much better sources of fiber for the Hazda to consume, yet they rank honey as their most prized food. It is interesting that you mention the Hazda, because they do not agree with your views on fiber. The hazda have been observed and when consuming tubers(which they rank as their least favorite food) they do the following:

"While the women are digging, small tubers are commonly peeled and eaten. These are chewed for up to 3 min and a fibrous residue or quid is then spit out. The majority of the tubers, however, are collected over several hours of digging, then roasted for up to 30 min over an open fire, and allowed to cool briefly. Once cool, tubers are peeled, chewed, and a quid expectorated." (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/p ... inger1.pdf)

Why would the Hazda be spitting out fiber if it is so good for you? All the while, prizing a food with trace amounts of fiber and large amounts of sugar above all other foods.

Previously in this thread I posted the following article which debunks your idea that fruit is only recently becoming sweet: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-a ... ent-fruit/

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.

The immune system is likely in a constant war with the microbiome which is probably why they seem so related.

The biggest internal organ in our bodies is the liver. The biggest external organ is the skin. These organs work as defenses against bacteria and help to detoxify us of the poisons that they produce.

Perhaps you can share with us this coprolite evidence that is so clear as this is not something I am familiar with.

The research labs that study the microbiome are not very accurate and understand very little about this subject. Plenty of people send the same sample of poop to two different labs and get completely different results about their microbiome. This is a very new area of study in which virtually nothing is well understood. As a result, it probably isn't wise to do things like eat lots of tasteless fiber just because some health guru thinks feeding bacteria is a good plan. We should look to our natural instincts about taste and hunger as these are what evolved to keep us alive. Fermentable fiber simply tastes bad, and no human would naturally consume extra fiber when given the option of less fiber. On youtube there are plenty of videos of babies rejecting vegetables and other high fiber foods. Babies taste buds should cause them to want to eat fermentable fiber if it was necessary for a growing microbiome. Yet, babies routinely spend a great deal of effort rejecting fibrous foods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkvdr8SvLQ

 

[Stuart]

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

Excellent question. Now we're getting somewhere :) Here's something to start with, but I'll keep them coming:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298082/

 

[tara]

@EnoreeG
I think endotoxin is important, but I was also under the impression that all bacteria tend to stimulate serotonin production. Then there are the ones that don't directly harm us, but whose output may feed other less friendly microbes under some conditions (I've been reading Sunmountain's log on archaea, for instance).
I don't have any intention of trying to have a sterile gut in general - quite happy to believe that some of my inhabitants are helpful in some ways. But I wasn't obviously healthier when I used to eat lots of fibre (I still eat some).

 

[EnoreeG]

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."

Just because HMO's can be fermented by bacteria doesn't mean that the true purpose for HMO's is to feed bacteria. From nature we can see that bacteria can eat almost anything. It should be no surprise that bacteria can feed off of various components of human breast milk, but this does not mean that is desirable. The fact the HMO's contain antibacterial compounds should be disturbing to the theory that they are meant to feed bacteria: "...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."(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... #CWS074C44)

I'll leave Stuart to work this entire exchange if he wishes. I just quote the two at the beginning of your post, Sea, because I think this shows the bias (on both Stuart's and your part) that manifests throughout the exchange, and which I will claim is the most important part of the exchange (the bias that is) and not the particulars claimed/stated. People are entering the discussion with a bias. Let's face it. Mine is totally accepting of the positive value of the gut microbiome. I can't prove my point, but can argue it logically. I don't know if Sea or Stuart can do any better, ultimately. Why? Because as many have pointed out, science hasn't even settled this yet. So maybe the best we can do is provide some thoughts while at the same time, taking the pressure off ourselves and others for not definitively proving something that we can all go home with. That's my approach anyway -- don't stress over an unprovable hypothesis.

On this one point, I see this logic (and Stuart has touched on this before): We are running currently after a long time for evolution to come up with a successful species. On the human/microbe "contest", which is materially quite the same as the contest between all the other gut-carrying animals on the planet, the animal species have endured in spite of the contest, and have faced, and fallen prey to many other adversaries but have never, that I know of, fallen prey to bacteria, as a species. This says something.

Interpret it however you wish, but I think it says something. It might even be "Gut micriobiome - no biggie."

For me, knowing that an animal's milk contains substances that fortify the newborn's immune system, only part of which is fiber, which by the way, becomes less prevalent as the nursing progresses, tells me that this is all pro-survival. None of it is probably happenstance, just as none of it is trivial or simple. If you were to consider the whole process of pregnancy, birth and lactation as something designed and you considered it your job to work that design, or, to make it simpler, to modify the design, where would you begin? It's just another part of the universe that man, in all his great self-esteem, hasn't put down a decent showing as yet to take over the design of even a single celled organism.

So, I think it presumes a lot to make a statement about whether HMO's are purposed (Sea's word) or not, to feed gut microorganisms. Definitely they are there in the milk, most heavily in the colostrum which diminishes as nursing goes on in all mammals, and definitely they seem to have an effect on fortifying the immune system. Sea's reference seems to characterize HMO's as "containing anti-bacterial compounds" and "serve as soluble decoy receptors" which to me is less comprehensive and less "cooperative with the host" in activity than a reference I might provide, where the HMO's are more characterized as definitely there to start a communication with components of the human (or other mammal) immune system:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24691111

Which states, in part: "HMOSs attenuate mucosal responses to surface inflammatory stimuli during early development, while enhancing signals that support maturation of the intestinal mucosal immune system."

I would say that the test built by these researches admitted at the onset that they were testing, not just whether HMO's were working as anti-bacterials, but, as they stated: "The hypothesis that human milk oligosaccharides from colostrum (cHMOSs) can directly modulate the signaling pathways of the immature mucosa was tested." It seems they are talking about inter-species communication and a setting up of an intelligence, or at least setting up a set of stimulus-response agreements. Again, whether this is a "design" or an arbitrary result of evolution is up to each of us to speculate on.

As to Sea's statement that "Bacteria can feed off of various components of human breast milk, but this does not mean that is desirable." I would only say, as Stuart already did, according to evolutionary logic, if it doesn't provide a benefit, it may not disappear, but on the other hand, if it proves a disability, it definitely will tend to be eliminated or the species may succumb. The conclusion is that, HMO's even just as food, are not a harm to mammal infants or they would have disappeared long ago.

Looking at it only logically, I can see where gut microbes, feeding off HMO's could be desirable. If they convert the HMO's effectively to saturated fats and vitamins, just as they do for adults, then they are providing nutrition to infants that are not needed to be included in the milk itself. They are doing combining of minerals such that new molecules are derived. So while Sea may claim that this MAY not be desirable, I don't know of any study yet that has shown that it isn't desirable. I would lean toward thinking that evolution has already proven that it is desirable.

 

[Stuart]

Just because HMO's can be fermented by bacteria doesn't mean that the true purpose for HMO's is to feed bacteria. From nature we can see that bacteria can eat almost anything. It should be no surprise that bacteria can feed off of various components of human breast milk, but this does not mean that is desirable. The fact the HMO's contain antibacterial compounds should be disturbing to the theory that they are meant to feed bacteria: "...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."(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... #CWS074C44)

Well, not quite. Although gut bacteria can eat mucus/mucins too, the beneficial ones prefer fermentable fiber. Isn't that why ALL breastfed babies are 'forced' to eat so much fermentable fiber? Otherwise breast milk would surely contain less fermentable fiber, and more of a better food to promote them don't you think?
But it's great that you can at least see that promoting bacteria in your colon is a good idea. It is important to note that you don't just want to promote 'any' bacteria. You want to promote the commensals primarily. Otherwise the pathogenic bacteria will get an even boost with the beneficial ones. You don't want to do that. That's why the high amount of fermentable fiber in breast milk is there, To give a baby's gut microbiota the leg up it needs when it most needs it.
This has been the point all along Sea. The amount of fermentable fiber in breast milk is very revealing about both the importance of promoting the health of your microbiome and also the best way to do it - because ALL babies get it - even formula fed. But as the article you linked to pointed out, dinky di HMO's contain many other beneficial constituents than the fermentable fiber. So breast milk is far superior to formula from that perspective alone.
I have to ask you though, do you think their are some babies who are going to be harmed, even in a minor way by it?
Breast milk constituents just cut through people' s attempts to cast aspersions at fermentable fiber's role in gut health/your health in an incontrovertible way don't you think?
Because it's so impossible to ignore.
And you are right that the many different fermentable fibers available are eaten preferentially by a slightly different range of beneficial bacteria and at slightly different rates. If you want to get as close as possible to the bacterial fermentation characteristics of the fermentable fiber in breast milk, just use Galacto Oligosaccharides (GOS). It's the one added to formula for that very reason. But pectin and inulin do an equally fine job of promoting microbiome health. So it's probably no surprise that fruit and veges are a great source of them. And if you eat animals, connective tissue is gut bacteria food too.
That doesn't mean of course that many modern humans have inflicted so much damage on their microbiomes - and not just from entire post weaning childhoods of not consuming fermentable fiber either - that the road back to full gut health may be very arduous indeed.

You have yet to provide a source for your baobob claims.

Here you go:
http://baobabsuperfruit.com/wp-content/ ... ted-LR.pdf
http://www.baobab-fruit.com/overview.html

These are just two. There are many more. As I pointed out in my previous comment, all you have to do is google 'pectin in baobab'. But it will help if you spell baobab correctly. :)

We know that HMO's play a role in the development of the brain: "...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).

Perhaps, HMO's are protected as well as the body can from bacterial fermentation, and have the true role of growing the brain. In the future we may learn that healthy babies have less bacteria and less fermentation of their mother's HMO's resulting in a higher IQ. At this point in time we don't know, but clearly HMO's are not the same as dietary sources of fiber. Recommending fiber intake on the basis of HMO's would be like arguing that there is saturated fat in breast milk, therefore we should eat a lot of polyunsaturated fat because it is similar.

But this very study also points out the powerful prebiotic effect of the fermentable fiber component of HMO's. I've never doubted that HMO'S contain many many other benefits as well. But I have to ask you again, if the prebiotic effect isn't important, why do you think the fermentable fiber is there? It doesn't do anything else but feed commensal bacteria. And if that was even conceivably not in the baby's best interests, why, in such an intricate mix of ingredients, is there so much fermentable fiber?

Funny you mention it, the proportion of saturated fat in breast milk indeed probably is a good indication of a healthy amount to include in your diet. But if you are struggling with weight issues, lowering your total calorie intake while respecting those proportions is probably prudent.

Honey does not really contain much fiber. Of unprocessed food, honey probably has the greatest sugar:fiber ratio of anything humans can eat. Most honey you can buy will have 0 fiber listed on the nutrition label. Honey also contains antibacterial components that allow honey to stay good at room temperature, indefinitely. There are much better sources of fiber for the Hazda to consume, yet they rank honey as their most prized food. It is interesting that you mention the Hazda, because they do not agree with your views on fiber. The hazda have been observed and when consuming tubers(which they rank as their least favorite food) they do the following:

"While the women are digging, small tubers are commonly peeled and eaten. These are chewed for up to 3 min and a fibrous residue or quid is then spit out. The majority of the tubers, however, are collected over several hours of digging, then roasted for up to 30 min over an open fire, and allowed to cool briefly. Once cool, tubers are peeled, chewed, and a quid expectorated." (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/p ... inger1.pdf)

Why would the Hazda be spitting out fiber if it is so good for you? All the while, prizing a food with trace amounts of fiber and large amounts of sugar above all other foods.

Previously in this thread I posted the following article which debunks your idea that fruit is only recently becoming sweet: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-a ... ent-fruit/

Heres a couple of articles about the fermentable fiber in honey.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15826039
http://www.ifrj.upm.edu.my/17%20(03)%202010/IFRJ-2010-557-561%20Norrakiah%20Malaysia%20ok.pdf

If people just used their tastebuds to guide their food choices in the modern world they'd just eat junk food and suffer the health consequences. Many people do. Are you claiming that chicken deepfried in pufas isn't delicious?
A twinkie/donut/pufa and grain laden slice of your favourite cake perhaps?

If traditional living remnant humans like the Hadza didn't spit out a great deal of fiber, they'd consume a lot more than the 150g/ d of fermentable fiber (and way more nonfermentable) that even Hadza CHILDREN consume. The point is, if you eat the foods which shaped our evolution (and made the people eating them healthier/more likely to survive/have healthy offspring...) it is quite impossible to avoid eating a lot of fermentable fiber.
The amount of fermentable fiber in breast milk is just a partcularly good illustration of that.

You asked about the coprolite evidence of ancestral fermentable fiber consumption.
These will give you a start:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20416127
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705355/
I just googled 'coprolite evidence of prebiotic consumption'. There's plenty out there. It really isn't controversial.

The immune system is likely in a constant war with the microbiome which is probably why they seem so related.

The biggest internal organ in our bodies is the liver. The biggest external organ is the skin. These organs work as defenses against bacteria and help to detoxify us of the poisons that they produce.

Perhaps you can share with us this coprolite evidence that is so clear as this is not something I am familiar with.

The research labs that study the microbiome are not very accurate and understand very little about this subject. Plenty of people send the same sample of poop to two different labs and get completely different results about their microbiome. This is a very new area of study in which virtually nothing is well understood. As a result, it probably isn't wise to do things like eat lots of tasteless fiber just because some health guru thinks feeding bacteria is a good plan. We should look to our natural instincts about taste and hunger as these are what evolved to keep us alive. Fermentable fiber simply tastes bad, and no human would naturally consume extra fiber when given the option of less fiber. On youtube there are plenty of videos of babies rejecting vegetables and other high fiber foods. Babies taste buds should cause them to want to eat fermentable fiber if it was necessary for a growing microbiome. Yet, babies routinely spend a great deal of effort rejecting fibrous foods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkvdr8SvLQ

[/quote]

Do you take issue with the notion that your microbiome includes the bacterial populations throughout your body, including on (and in) your skin - all over your body- throughout your digestive tract, ending of course with the big bag of bacteria called your colon? It really does dwarf any other organ. But I agree that your are in constant war with many bacteria and other substance/factors that seek to do us harm. That's why your own microbiome is so essential. Because it is helping you to win that war. Indeed as I think EnoreeG hinted, that's why we have a microbiome at all. Because if there was a better weapon to fight that war with, we'd have it , and not be the 'Germies' we are.
But I do detect in all your comments an 'antibacterial' theme, similar indeed to pboy's. Don't be afraid of bacteria Sea. They're a fundamental part of who you are.
Babies spit out non fermentable fiber in the same way Hadza people do. It's 'fibrous' after all. But babies also seem to adore breast milk, and make no attempt to spit out large amount of fermentable fiber in it. I don't think they even could. The fermentable fiber in breast milk is a kind of sugar. They have no choice I'm afraid. It's going straight to their colons to promote healthy bacteria.
It will help if you see that as a good thing. Nature has for millions of years after all.
It does seem rather arrogant of humans to try to fundamentally change/ignore/ discount what evolution worked out eons ago. This wouldn't be the first example of us so doing either.

 

[EnoreeG]

It does seem rather arrogant of humans to try to fundamentally change/ignore/ discount what evolution worked out eons ago. This wouldn't be the first example of us so doing either.

Thanks for all the links, Stuart. I continue to learn. Humans are so smart, they have to realize that they might need to balance the results of modern science's creations like twinkies and bottled honey with the study of where we came from, why it matters, and how persuasive arguments (in articles and advertisements) and alluring excitements (like thrill-foods) can distort the whole reality that shaped us, and continues to shape us. Man's minds and hands have made him the one species that can create unrecognized poisons, including concepts, that overpower all of what evolved in nature and bring it all to naught. What modern science has done is vastly compound the problems. For each new invention, there is not just needed a science to determine how to "commercialize it", but there is needed a lot of science to determine what the contraindications might be.

Back in the slow moving days before technology, evolution kept up with natural changes in the environment (for the most part, but yes, some species perished). Now, man has manufactured millions of new challenges. Evolution won't keep up. The only smart way to guide each other is to do as you are doing, and study how we got here before the modern era, and also heavily critique anything new in terms of it's effect on what our evolution has brought us up to. The EPA and USDA are not researching things to this degree, so we are left with very life threatening alternatives everywhere we look. Thanks for getting us to take a look at one small aspect that's been a part of our lives since the beginning but has almost been abandoned by certain societies, which is breast milk. This is a nice token that is representative of what we need to do with all aspects of modern life if we want to be truly healthy.

 

[Stuart]

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..

This is a good intro to the notion that the human immune system isn't just a collection of localized cellular reactions. The signaling pathways between your colon and your brain for example and the effective deployment of various immune system functions that are mediated all the way from the colon is indeed difficult for people to accept. Particularly when it's being done by 'lowly' bacteria. This is only a populist piece, but it expresses well that the way people think of 'themselves' as being somehow independent of their microbiome, is a grave mistake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/magaz ... .html?_r=0

 

[EnoreeG]

A thorough introduction to the subject of our microbiota, Stuart. Thanks!

 

[EnoreeG]

Reading your Michael Pollen link, Stuart, and it's relating our gut microbes to our foods, reminded me of this study which shows that in modern times, eating organic foods is essential to health. Not just because they lack insecticides and herbicides which can poison us, but because at least one of these herbicides is a real threat to the proper dominance of beneficial organisms in our gut, and when that dominance is upset, encouragement is given to the pathogens.

I'm speaking of a study of a widely used herbicide which states it will

disrupt gut bacteria in animals, preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens.

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-cont...phosate_II_Samsel-Seneff_Toxicology_FNL-1.pdf

This bodes nothing but ill health to those existing on a diet of un-protected, non-organic foods. Symptoms such as rises in the cases of degenerative disease are becoming more and more obvious, but this onslaught to our bodies, via our gut microbiota continues.

 

[Stuart]

Reading your Michael Pollen link, Stuart, and it's relating our gut microbes to our foods, reminded me of this study which shows that in modern times, eating organic foods is essential to health. Not just because they lack insecticides and herbicides which can poison us, but because at least one of these herbicides is a real threat to the proper dominance of beneficial organisms in our gut, and when that dominance is upset, encouragement is given to the pathogens.

I'm speaking of a study of a widely used herbicide which states it will

disrupt gut bacteria in animals, preferentially killing beneficial forms and causing an overgrowth of pathogens.

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-cont...phosate_II_Samsel-Seneff_Toxicology_FNL-1.pdf

This bodes nothing but ill health to those existing on a diet of un-protected, non-organic foods. Symptoms such as rises in the cases of degenerative disease are becoming more and more obvious, but this onslaught to our bodies, via our gut microbiota continues.

That's really interesting/troubling EnoreeG. Only last night I was listening to somebody talking about the profound disruptive effect Glyphosate exposure has on cellular respiration. So it's probably not surprising that it doesn't do your microbiome much good either.
I love Micheal Pollan. The local public radio station the 'ABC' serialized him reading his book 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' It was captivating. His voice has a wonderful cadence. And the writing itself was remarkable. If you get a chance I highly recommend it.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Aha still ongoing. Yeah the latter part of glyphosphate is quite concerning. I am also aware of the nytimes article Stuart. Guess you know/ like: "microbes maketh man" and "babies are born dirty, with a gutful of bacteria" too, but I find it still observational.. Not denying the human microbiome, but the possible role for (supplemental) fibers in (established) human disease.

A quote from your article about H. Pylori, and he is Martin Blaser:
"he makes the rather breathtaking suggestion that this microbe’s evolutionary role might be to help shuffle us off life’s stage once our childbearing years have passed. So important does Blaser regard this strange, paradoxical symbiont that he has proposed not one but two unconventional therapeutic interventions: inoculate children with H. pylori to give them the benefit of its services early in life, and then exterminate it with antibiotics at age 40, when it is liable to begin causing trouble."

Recently I saw another study coming by: "Burn Injury Alters the Intestinal Microbiome and Increases Gut Permeability and Bacterial Translocation".I guess this is unrelated to fiber intake. What would be interesting is doing this study again and give the mice fibers to see if they are doing better or worse. However, what this does show is that microbial composition is responsive to 'OUR signals', which is my guess is that this is far more important (communication is bidirectional of course).