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

[Stuart]

Yes, I didn't actually use the word intelligent. I did say 'intricate' though. I think intricacy is all around us - and not just in the carbon based life forms on this planet either. Astrophysics reveals equally intricate designs throughout the known universe constantly.
As to the notion of 'intelligent design', I think it would require a known end point, which has always struck me as a peculiarly human preoccupation. Whatever gods may be, they won't have human perceptual limitations I think. Which makes even pondering their existence a bit futile.
Back to things microbiomic!

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yes, I didn't actually use the word intelligent. I did say 'intricate' though. I think intricacy is all around us - and not just in the carbon based life forms on this planet either. Astrophysics reveals equally intricate designs throughout the known universe constantly.
As to the notion of 'intelligent design', I think it would require a known end point, which has always struck me as a peculiarly human preoccupation. Whatever gods may be, they won't have human perceptual limitations I think. Which makes even pondering their existence a bit futile.
Back to things microbiomic!

But that says more about how you interpret evidence than any wall of text would even come close to doing. There's no shame in discussing these things, although failing to do so can be a little dishonest.

 

[Stuart]

Yes, I didn't actually use the word intelligent. I did say 'intricate' though. I think intricacy is all around us - and not just in the carbon based life forms on this planet either. Astrophysics reveals equally intricate designs throughout the known universe constantly.
As to the notion of 'intelligent design', I think it would require a known end point, which has always struck me as a peculiarly human preoccupation. Whatever gods may be, they won't have human perceptual limitations I think. Which makes even pondering their existence a bit futile.
Back to things microbiomic!

But that says more about how you interpret evidence than any wall of text would even come close to doing. There's no shame in discussing these things, although failing to do so can be a little dishonest.

Shame? Of course not. I've always seen it as more of a time thing. Ontology is fascinating. But humans usually seem to want to morph it back to god bothering. Which is surely just an intellectual morass.

 

[narouz]

@ sea
Can I ask you, what do you think the hundred trillion bacteria in YOUR gut are for? Do you think a human microbiome has ANY role in the optimum functioning of your immune system?
As a baby makes its way down the birth canal it is innoculated with the microbiota of its mother (I'm assuming you accept that). What do you think that innoculation is for?

I think ONLY ONE constituent in HMO's is food for gut bugs - the fermentable fiber component. There are many other functions and constituents, many of which we aren't even aware of yet, let alone fully understand, But the prebiotic effect is uncontroversial. And ties in so neatly with the bacterial innoculation by the mother's microbiome during birth don't you think?

In other posts I think you've used the word "beautiful"
to describe how you envision the workings and purpose of the microbiome.

You could say this is an argument from aesthetics.
The elegance appeals to you.

I'm fine with this form of argument.
It should be remembered that Peat is okay with it too.
Not that it is decisive,
but that it has some validity.
Peat has discussed the value to scientists in cultivating their artistic perception.
He believes the imagination is useful in science.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/william-blake.shtml

There is a certain ilk of posters on the forum
who look down their noses at this side of Peat's work.
They arrogantly refer to their own
supposedly pure, objective, just-the-facts-ma'am personal inclinations
as "actionable science" or "action-oriented science" and such like.
And that, they decree, is the only valid form of discourse on the forum.
All the rest is "nonsense and drivel."

So...Stuart,
not to say that everything you say is true because of this.
Just that I don't reject arguments from elegance or beauty.
And I don't think Peat would either.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yes, I didn't actually use the word intelligent. I did say 'intricate' though. I think intricacy is all around us - and not just in the carbon based life forms on this planet either. Astrophysics reveals equally intricate designs throughout the known universe constantly.
As to the notion of 'intelligent design', I think it would require a known end point, which has always struck me as a peculiarly human preoccupation. Whatever gods may be, they won't have human perceptual limitations I think. Which makes even pondering their existence a bit futile.
Back to things microbiomic!

But that says more about how you interpret evidence than any wall of text would even come close to doing. There's no shame in discussing these things, although failing to do so can be a little dishonest.

Shame? Of course not. I've always seen it as more of a time thing. Ontology is fascinating. But humans usually seem to want to morph it back to god bothering. Which is surely just an intellectual morass.

The human perceptual capacities must necessarily be contained inside the greater capacities of the reality that surrounds them (the "gods" that you mention), and can be demonstrated to have the same overall structure of function than their larger brothers. This is why negating the chance of establishing an "end point" common to everything, big or small, is not a rationally justified action.

 

[Nicholas]

thinking out loud: ingesting certain kinds of fiber....bile maybe has an easier exit.....perhaps some do not have whatever problem that causes bile problems. perhaps bloating or water retention is really a bile problem for some. haven't noticed this tightening up really with fruit fiber or resistant starch but more with bread, oats, carrot, foods with gums...but not sure if what i'm perceiving is correct. during a period where i ingested these things i produced a very large bowel movement....as in.....large....and it was healthy looking....thing is, i wasn't really eating more than normal. could have been a bile dump? many noticeable improvements since then that have been consistent. oh, also....for like 2 days leading up to this said bowel movement i felt gross. some of the things i was eating before this happened were all purpose flour scones with baking powder, 30ingredienttortillas, preservative-laden microwaveable pouch rice, and whipped cream that had gums in it.

(don't hate): http://www.livestrong.com/article/51566 ... n-stomach/

in paleo days ate a lot of vegetable fiber. inititally positive.....maybe not stress hormone euphoria but bile relief euphoria. thinking more and more that it's about a particular balance of certain kinds of fibers.

 

[EnoreeG]

thinking out loud: ingesting certain kinds of fiber....bile maybe has an easier exit.....perhaps some do not have whatever problem that causes bile problems. perhaps bloating or water retention is really a bile problem for some. haven't noticed this tightening up really with fruit fiber or resistant starch but more with bread, oats, carrot, foods with gums...but not sure if what i'm perceiving is correct. during a period where i ingested these things i produced a very large bowel movement....as in.....large....and it was healthy looking....thing is, i wasn't really eating more than normal. could have been a bile dump? many noticeable improvements since then that have been consistent. oh, also....for like 2 days leading up to this said bowel movement i felt gross. some of the things i was eating before this happened were all purpose flour scones with baking powder, 30ingredienttortillas, preservative-laden microwaveable pouch rice, and whipped cream that had gums in it.

Thinking out loud also, Nicholas, as I've observed some of the same results. Confusing, because I've tried to relate 1 for 1, what I eat with what comes out in a timely manner, and it just doesn't follow sometimes.

My conclusion at this time, which is not at all set, let alone verified by others or by studies, is that this inconsistency you talk about is not due to bile, and also not just due to the foods you eat affecting what they turn into and how big it is on exit, but it may be about what the change in foods do to the transit time. A lot of things change when transit time changes, including hydration (looseness), multiplication of the bacterial bulk, possibly congestion which then slows down even the next 3-4 meals transit time. The converse can happen, as we're all aware; you can eat one meal and it can sometimes be identified exiting only 20 min. later. But this is easier to understand than the great slowing of transit time sometimes.

Yes, it could be the gums. In my life, it's been hard to pin down. So I just figure it's foods that somehow drastically affect transit time once in a while.

 

[Nicholas]

i'm not a hamster, but i love oats and rye bread (though never eat them):
http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... d615b280fd

 

[tara]

Actually someone else suggested that 'parasite' notion, Xplus from memory. Is that what you believe. that your microbiome is a parasite? Don't you think that would cause the 'host' (using your reasoning I think, but I may be misinterpreting you) to use even just a tiny fraction of its resources in maintaining its separateness, which would inevitably make it food for some other organism that was more genuinely mutualistic. Isn't that how evolution works? Any tiny disadvantage, llke ' enduring a parasite' rather than a complete team effort makes you history?
That's how I see it anyway. Evolution is totally unforgiving of that kind of duplicity. If we were separate entities to our microbiomes, rather than a group effort from birth to death, it would make sense IMHO.

You don't believe in the existence of parasites/parasitic relationships?
Evolution isn't finished. There is ongoing competition.

 

[tara]

@ such, narouz
If there were an end point towards which design/evolution were pointing, I don't think we we could know what it is, and therefore cannot rationally argue from it.
A good scientific hypothesis is usually as simple and elegant as is consistent with the available data - does that count as elegance?

 

[Stuart]

You don't believe in the existence of parasites/parasitic relationships?
Evolution isn't finished. There is ongoing competition.

Sure on all three. Evolution will never be finished. That's why (to use your descriptor) it's such an elegant mechanism.
Some things are parasitic relationships and some are mutualistic and cooperative. like the organs in the human body for example the microbiome or the liver. If they didn't enhance the whole superorganism we would be at a competitive disadvantage to some mutation that was more mutualistic and coperative.
So you're still avoiding the issue. Why would you want to see any of the organs of the human body as parasitic?
If your microbiome isn't as healthy as it can be your genes aren't quite as likely to figure in the gene pool going forward. Same with your liver or any other part of your body don't you think?
By definition, a parasite will tend to reduce the survivabiity of any organism or superorganism such as homo sapiens. Your microbiome actually brings some great tricks to the challenge of controlling true parasites too.
And microbiomes have proved so good at enhancing the whole organism health, that most animals on planet earth have them, all the way down to insects.
Don't be afraid of your microbiome Tara. Look after it, and it will look after you. Just as any of your other organs will. Throughout the history of life on earth the diet available to most life forms has suited their design. Nose to tail animal consumption and eating whole fruits and vegetables (for human's ) which automatically kept their microbiomes healthy. If any parasite or infectious disease overwhelmed the cohesive efforts of all our organs (or at the evolutionary margins, just made them a tiny bit under the weather) , the whole box and dice would become ever so slightly more likely to somebody else's meal. It was a totally ruthless and uncompromising system.
And it made us the animal we are today.
Why do modern humans think they can impose their own rules on that incredibly elegant design. There's just as many pathogenic bacteria as there ever were - possibly even more with the widespread use of broad spectrum antibiotics , which automatically suppress someone's microbiome . There's probably even more environmental stressors now than back in the day. And our design hasn't changed one iota. Sure we're less likely to be someone else's dinner. And the food choices available to us which make it so much easier to suppress any organ in our bodies - liver , brain, pancreas, microbiome etc.. are legion. But why on earth would you do it wilfully?

 

[Stuart]

thinking out loud: ingesting certain kinds of fiber....bile maybe has an easier exit.....perhaps some do not have whatever problem that causes bile problems. perhaps bloating or water retention is really a bile problem for some. haven't noticed this tightening up really with fruit fiber or resistant starch but more with bread, oats, carrot, foods with gums...but not sure if what i'm perceiving is correct. during a period where i ingested these things i produced a very large bowel movement....as in.....large....and it was healthy looking....thing is, i wasn't really eating more than normal. could have been a bile dump? many noticeable improvements since then that have been consistent. oh, also....for like 2 days leading up to this said bowel movement i felt gross. some of the things i was eating before this happened were all purpose flour scones with baking powder, 30ingredienttortillas, preservative-laden microwaveable pouch rice, and whipped cream that had gums in it.

There seem to be so many factors that affect transit time. Just feeling stressed by circumstances - for example a carnivore trying to make a meal out of you makes you s*** yourself after all.
But nonfermentable fiber will tend to increase stool volume while fermentable fiber won't. I eat a prodigious amount of fermentable fiber and probably the same amount of nonfermentable fiber as anyone eating a Peatarian diet that includes whole fruit and vegetables. In other words, I don't supplement nonfermentable fiber, but I do supplement fermentable fiber - a lot. I have one bowel movement most days, occasionally one every two days, and if anything the volume is slightly smaller than before I upped the fermentable fiber a couple of years ago. Fermentable fiber is used by gut bacteria to make SFCA's, which is absorbed by the gut endothelium and used for energy like dietary fats.
Whereas non fermentable fiber is just passing through.

 

[Sea]

We should look to our natural instincts about taste and hunger as these are what evolved to keep us alive.

Paleo fetish? :) Yes but evolution is an extremely slow process. So slow that our individual lifetimes are just a micro snapshot in the long term.

The palate can change drastically. Do a water fast for a few days and your mouth will become extremely sensitive to salt and other flavors. Prisoners adjust to prison food. Dieters adjust to their new adjustment.

If our taste buds weren't accurate then our species would not live very long. People wouldn't know whether or not they were hungry, or how much they should eat. Your example supports my argument that our taste buds are a good guide for what we need to eat or drink to maintain life.

Ray Peat explains:

"Our instincts give us a few clues about our nutritional needs, such as thirst, the hunger for salt, the pleasantness of sweet things, and the unpleasantness of certain odors or very acrid or bitter tastes." (http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml)

“Any craving is a good starting point, because we have several biological mechanisms for correcting specific nutritional deficiencies. When something is interfering with your ability to use sugar, you crave it because if you don’t eat it you will waste protein to make it.” (Peat, Raymond. From PMS to Menopause: Female Hormones in Context)

Fermentable fiber simply tastes bad, and no human would naturally consume extra fiber when given the option of less fiber.

A lot of things taste simply bad without condiments. Salt is a condiment. Everything tastes bland without salt. Meat is bland without salt. Meat is marinated with plenty of salt and sweet tangy sugar marinades. Roasted and salted nuts. Salted olives in brine. Bacon is cured with salt. Bacon without salt would be disgusting, as is unsalted butter and unsalted potatoes. Unsalted hard boiled eggs? Disgusting!

Sweet fruit is the only non-condiment food besides maybe some vegetables like raw carrot or raw cucumber or bamboo shoot, but one is not getting sufficient carbohydrate calories from raw carrot or cucumber.

You wanna talk about human intuition and natural instincts? Read this book, "Salt: A World History"

http://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-Histor ... 0142001619

Great book. We definitely developed the intuition for salt. It describes how important salt was for us.

I don't think many would agree that fiber tastes good with added salt. Salt cravings, and what tastes good with or without salt are dependent on your bodies own sodium balance at that specific point in time. Ray Peat doesn't tell people to consume a set amount of salt because he understands that humans should salt to taste as our taste buds are the best guide to our individual needs for sodium.

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

There are a lot of videos on YouTube of many things.

Babies reject fiber? What is baby food made from?

I think it is well accepted that in general babies and young kids don't like vegetables. Ray Peat seems to agree when he states:

"The manufacturers of pureed vegetables for babies used to put large amounts of salt, sugar, and monosodium glutamate into their products, because the added chemicals served as instinctual signals that made the material somewhat acceptable to the babies. There was no scientific basis for providing these vegetables to babies in a form that they would accept, but it was a profitable practice that was compatible with the social pressure against prolonged breast feeding." (http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml)

Most honey you can buy will have 0 fiber listed on the nutrition label

A bit of a contradiction if you're going by "natural intuition." That wild honey had some fiber. What a nutrition label says means nothing in that context. Plus nutrition labels go by per serving so there may be 0 of something per serving, but in the whole thing the number wouldn't be 0.

As I explained in a previous post, the amount of fiber in honey is truly miniscule. If a product is 99% sugar and has 1% fiber do you really expect it to taste good because of the fiber? Regardless, we can buy fiber in supplemental form and taste it plain. I have personally tasted many types of fermentable fiber and I don't think any of them taste good.

 

[Sea]

@ sea
Can I ask you, what do you think the hundred trillion bacteria in YOUR gut are for? Do you think a human microbiome has ANY role in the optimum functioning of your immune system?
As a baby makes its way down the birth canal it is innoculated with the microbiota of its mother (I'm assuming you accept that). What do you think that innoculation is for?

I think ONLY ONE constituent in HMO's is food for gut bugs - the fermentable fiber component. There are many other functions and constituents, many of which we aren't even aware of yet, let alone fully understand, But the prebiotic effect is uncontroversial. And ties in so neatly with the bacterial innoculation by the mother's microbiome during birth don't you think? What is the prebiotic effect for if not to encourage the development of a baby's microbiota? We know that gut bugs love eating fermentable fiber. We also know the HMO's in breast milk contain fermentable fiber (note don't JUST contain fermentable fiber ) . The sources you have quoted all confirm it. Yet you still deny that the fermentable fiber component of HMO's can't help but promote those beneficial seed amounts of bacteria the mother provides.

I think the bacteria occupying a human are an active infection. No, I don't think the bacteria benefit our immune systems. You call it inoculation, I would call it infection.

Stuart, the prebiotic effect is not uncontroversial, that is why we are having this discussion. Your own source explains that it isn't even known if HMO's function as a prebiotic in humans. In a test tube, when the other components of the HMO are stripped away, bacteria can ferment it. This doesn't mean that is what happens in humans when all of the antibacterial components of the HMOs are active and intact. Your source explains that the fermentable part of an HMO may be there simply to deter bacterial colonization of the newborn, allowing bacteria to be carried out in the feces.

The Hadza spit out the non fermentable fiber in one of the tubers they use as a staple. They don't spit out the fermentable fiber in baobab because it's (a) inseparable from everything else, and (b) not even noticeable. Baobab is a very bland fruit. Have you ever eaten it? The 'slightly sweet chalk' description one of Jeff Leach's field assistants used is pretty accurate. Australian Aborigines , like the Hadza, have eaten prodigious quantities of baobab for tens of thousands of years. All companies that I have bought baobab powder from in the past do their own testing. And the pectin always comes in at about 50%. You'll find that ALL brands of baobab powder online state likewise. Can't help you further than that. But if you need to think it's only 10%, I can't stop you. What is known. because various researchers have measured it, is that even Hadza children consume about 150g of fermentable fiber . You'd think if fermentable fiber was potentially harmful in any way, it would have shown up sometime in the last 200.000 years. Evolution has proven to be a pretty effective engine for adaptive change after all. If not looking after your microbiome did not confer some kind of survival advantage, you wouldn't have one.

Stuart, do you have a source to support your claim that Hazda children consume 150g of fermentable fiber daily? If you do, can you also demonstrate that the Hazda have better health outcomes than populations who consume less fermentable fiber? The danger of fermentable fiber has shown up Stuart. Ray Peat explains:

“Since endotoxemia can produce aerobic glycolysis in an otherwise healthy person (Bundgaard, et al., 2003), a minimally “Warburgian” approach–i.e,, a merely reasonable approach–would involve minimizing the absorption of endotoxin. Inhibiting bacterial growth, while optimizing intestinal resistance, would have no harmful side effects. Preventing excessive sympathetic nervous activity and maintaining the intestine’s energy production can be achieved by optimizing hormones and nutrition. Something as simple as a grated carrot with salt and vinegar can produce major changes in bowel health, reducing endotoxin absorption, and restoring constructive hormonal functions. Medical tradition and inertia make it unlikely that the connection between cancer and bowel toxins will be recognized by the mainstream of medicine and governemt. In another article I will describe some of the recent history relating to this issue.”

“Besides avoiding foods containing fermentable fibers and starches that resist quick digestion, eating fibrous foods that contain antibacterial chemicals, such as bamboo shoots or raw carrots, helps to reduce endotoxin and serotonin. Activated charcoal can absorb many toxins, including bacterial endotoxin, so it is likely to reduce serotonin absorption from the intestine. Since it can also bind or destroy vitamins, it should be used only intermittently. Frolkis, et al. (1989, 1984) found that it extended median and average lifespan of rats, beginning in old age (28 months) by 43% and 34%, respectively, when given in large quantities (equivalent to about a cup per day for humans) for ten days of each month.” (http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/0 ... aw-carrot/)

Are you suggesting that you taking oral broadspectrum antibiotics makes you germ free, even while you are taking them? It's actually very difficult to keep lab rodents germ free. Anything germ free quite frankly. We are surrounded by and contain prodigious numbers of bacteria. The air we breathe and everything we touch is teeming with them. It does seem curious that you are determined to fight that, when evolution gave you a microbiome which fights the immune system battle on your behalf.

No, I suggest that taking antibiotics kills bacteria, thereby lowering the burden the active infection places on the liver and other organs. You are right that we are surrounded by bacteria, which is exactly why I don't think we should consume a lot of fermentable fiber. Bacteria and other pathogens are known to kill humans and can result in many chronic illnesses when their populations get out of hand. I don't understand why you view bacteria as beneficial to humans. We are a separate species and humans don't have a monopoly on evolution. Some bacteria have evolved to resist our stomach acid and live inside of us, I don't think you should be so eager to feed them.

You quoted a source 'debunking' the notion that traditionally eaten fruits not selectively bred for sweetness aren't as sweet as the modern versions. I can only point out that I have tasted most of the fruits Australian Aborigines consume. I actually grow a couple of the wild plum varieties in my garden (amazing thorns). And without exception they are only mildly sweet when ripe. Not sure about the rest of the world. But even in my own lifetime. all modern fruit varieties bear much sweeter fruit. There's a strong commercial incentive to make it so. Usually works.

I agree. Honey only contains very small quantities of prebiotic (fermentable) fiber. All concentrated sugars have a long room temperature shelf life. Jam (in Australia anyway) is never sold refrigerated.

The main point, of course, is that the innoculation by the mother's microbiome and the breastfeeding cultivation of that developing microbiome is clearly an intricately designed and effected process. So why on earth would you want to suppress it? It's not as if your microbiome naturally atrophies the older you get. Bacteral numbers naturally increase in proportion to body size.

Your experience does not contradict the article I posted which measured wild fruits sugar and fiber content and compared them with modern fruits. Honey has been a source of food for humans for a very long time, possible for the entirety of our current form. Honey has always been high in sugar.

I think you have hit on a key point towards the end of your post. The microbiome does not shrink as you age. The older you get, the more bacteria you get infected with, until eventually you die and the bacteria have a massive feast. Personally, I would rather fight the bacteria than bend over backwards to feed a species that is in competition with us for food, and would eat us if given the opportunity.

 

[Stuart]

@ Sea
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think You were born with a microbiome? What is it's function do you think? Don't worry about answering for every other animal on the face of the earth from insects up - who, odd as it seems, also have one. Just yours.

 

[cantstoppeating]

@ Sea
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think You were born with a microbiome? What is it's function do you think? Don't worry about answering for every other animal on the face of the earth from insects up - who, odd as it seems, also have one. Just yours.

I have answered this question for you. I will oblige you again. It's very simple. Try to read carefully, and follow along, I'm about to drop some serious knowledge:

We were born with a microbiome because it is an evolutionary adaptive trait. That means that sometime in the past, people with microbiomes survived long enough to replicate than people without microbiomes. You could say we formed a symbiotic relationship with bacteria: they scratched our back and we scratched theirs.

That's where the conversation ends. Knowing that, you can't say that we need a microbiome without factoring in the environment. The environment of today is very different to the environment of thousands of years ago.

And by environment I don't just mean what we see outside, but everything we do to alter it in our favour like with the consumption of foods e.g. oranges, oysters, carrots, coconut oil, thyroid, pregnenolone.

If you understand this, yet still continue to spout about the microbiome then you're foolishly sticking to an idea without any reason.

 

[Stuart]

@ Sea
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think You were born with a microbiome? What is it's function do you think? Don't worry about answering for every other animal on the face of the earth from insects up - who, odd as it seems, also have one. Just yours.

I have answered this question for you. I will oblige you again. It's very simple. Try to read carefully, and follow along, I'm about to drop some serious knowledge:

We were born with a microbiome because it is an evolutionary adaptive trait. That means that sometime in the past, people with microbiomes survived long enough to replicate than people without microbiomes. You could say we formed a symbiotic relationship with bacteria: they scratched our back and we scratched theirs.

That's where the conversation ends. Knowing that, you can't say that we need a microbiome without factoring in the environment. The environment of today is very different to the environment of thousands of years ago.

And by environment I don't just mean what we see outside, but everything we do to alter it in our favour like with the consumption of foods e.g. oranges, oysters, carrots, coconut oil, thyroid, pregnenolone.

If you understand this, yet still continue to spout about the microbiome then you're foolishly sticking to an idea without any reason.

If biohacking rocks your boat, can I suggest you do both - look after your microbiome too.
Then you can get the advantages of both
It's important to remember that even if you wanted to you couldn't get rid of your microbiome. Antibiotics can help you with some infectious disease of course. but even the strongest ones can only briefly dent the prodigious numbers in your colon. If you took them every day for the rest of your life resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria would simply populate your microbiome and you would be worse off than before.
But you would have also skewed the relative proportions of species and strains away from the beneficial ones that you really want to nurture.
There is a very strong recurring theme through the comments on this thread that it is either desirable or possible to divest yourself of your microbiome. The Ray Peat quotes mentioned here are without exception about bacteria in your S.I. , not the ones in your colon. You naturally have a small population of bacteria in your S.I., and all the way back up to your mouth and all over the surface of your body. As soon as you stop taking antibiotics those populations recover very quickly (within hours). In your colon its all bacteria - between 2 and 3 pounds of them. Every time you have a bowel movement, it's largely bacteria - even while you are taking a course of antibiotics.
Bacteria are an integral part of you 'Cantstop_ , with very elegantly designed beneficial functions. Resistance is futile I'm afraid. Better to just let them get on with the job don't you think?

 

[cantstoppeating]

@ Sea
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think You were born with a microbiome? What is it's function do you think? Don't worry about answering for every other animal on the face of the earth from insects up - who, odd as it seems, also have one. Just yours.

I have answered this question for you. I will oblige you again. It's very simple. Try to read carefully, and follow along, I'm about to drop some serious knowledge:

We were born with a microbiome because it is an evolutionary adaptive trait. That means that sometime in the past, people with microbiomes survived long enough to replicate than people without microbiomes. You could say we formed a symbiotic relationship with bacteria: they scratched our back and we scratched theirs.

That's where the conversation ends. Knowing that, you can't say that we need a microbiome without factoring in the environment. The environment of today is very different to the environment of thousands of years ago.

And by environment I don't just mean what we see outside, but everything we do to alter it in our favour like with the consumption of foods e.g. oranges, oysters, carrots, coconut oil, thyroid, pregnenolone.

If you understand this, yet still continue to spout about the microbiome then you're foolishly sticking to an idea without any reason.

If biohacking rocks your boat, can I suggest you do both - look after your microbiome too.
Then you can get the advantages of both

I don't know what 'biohacking' is and it's clear you have no interest but to spout stuff about a microbiome in the face of counter reason and evidence. You asked a question, got the answer, then dodged it and continued talking rubbish.

You really should take yourself back to a paleo/kruse discussion board where you can indulge your irrational fascination with the microbiome without critical thought.

 

[Stuart]

You really should take yourself back to a paleo/kruse discussion board where you can indulge your irrational fascination with the microbiome without critical thought.

Are you asking me to leave? Because I don't agree with you?

 

[Sea]

@ Sea
You didn't answer my question. Why do you think You were born with a microbiome? What is it's function do you think? Don't worry about answering for every other animal on the face of the earth from insects up - who, odd as it seems, also have one. Just yours.

I thought I explained that I think bacteria infect humans. I think that the function of bacteria are to eat and reproduce. In humans I think that bacteria slow our metabolic rates down which makes it easier for them to expand and eat more of our food. Some bacteria are known to lower our stomach acid and use other tactics so that we digest less food and they get more leftovers. I think they slowly kill the human and have a big feast once the human dies and loses its defenses against bacteria.