Stuart said:Sea said: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?
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...
You claim that beneficial bacteria prefer fermentable fiber over mucins while there is convincing evidence to the contrary:
"The bacterium, Akkermansia muciniphila, digests mucus and makes up 3–5% of the microbes in a healthy mammalian gut. But the intestines of obese humans and mice, and those with type 2 diabetes, have much lower levels." (http://www.nature.com/news/gut-microbe- ... es-1.12975)
You yourself have admitted that fermentable fibers are bacterias favorite food, and there is no stopping any type of bacteria from eating if you are consuming fermentable fibers. Mucin degrading bacteria do not depend on fermentable fiber intake as they prefer to set up camp in our mucin layer where they interact with us:
"A. muciniphila also seems to have a 'dialogue' with the cells of the intestinal lining and with the immune system, says Cani, sending a signal that affects the production of anti-microbial molecules, while increasing the production of mucus. It seems as if the bacterium is telling the host that it will take care of any invading harmful microbes in exchange for more food, he adds.", and would likely gain dominace over time through a diet devoid of fermentable fibers. (http://www.nature.com/news/gut-microbe- ... es-1.12975)
Paul Jaminet agrees:
"The point of the left panel is that a healthy gut is characterized by a thick mucosal layer that shields our intestinal and immune cells from direct contact with bacteria. The inner mucus layer is infused with antimicrobial peptides to minimize its bacterial content. The outer mucus layer contains a population of friendly mucin-degrading bacteria – symbionts like Akkermansia who evolved to feed on our mucus. These friendly bacteria provide another layer of defense against infectious pathogens; bacteria tend to be quite good at keeping out competitors. Akkermansia has been found to prevent obesity." (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2015/06/di ... the-mucus/)
You keep claiming that there is a large amount of fermentable fiber in breast milk when this has been demonstrated to be false. As I have pointed out to you previously, breast milk contains a small fraction of compounds known as HMO's, of which only a smaller fraction could be considered fermentable fiber.
If HMO's are designed to feed a growing colony of bacteria then I would expect to see their amounts increase over the period of breast feeding in order to support a growing colony. Yet, we see that the opposite occurs: "Colostrum, the thick, yellowish fluid secreted by the mammary gland a few days before and after parturition, contains as much as 20–25 g/L of HMO (Coppa et al. 1999; Gabrielli et al. 2011). As milk production matures, HMO concentrations decline to 5–20 g/L " (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406618/)
We also know that initially, when HMO's are being consumed at the highest level, bacterial fermentation of HMO's is not immediate:
"In the first stage between birth and ∼2 months of life, feces of breast-fed infants contains sialylated and non-sialylated HMOs that are similar, but not identical to the corresponding milk samples. In the subsequent second stage, the feces contains mainly HMO degradation and processing products that are fairly different from the HMOs in the corresponding milk samples. In the third stage, starting from when feedings other than human milk are introduced, HMOs entirely disappear from the infant's feces (Albrecht, Schols, van den Heuvel, et al. 2011)." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406618/)
We also know that, "...most data on prebiotic effects of HMO stem from isolated in vitro fermentation studies..." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406618/)
And that:
"HMOs also directly reduce microbial infections by serving as antiadhesive antimicrobials (Kunz et al. 2000; Newburg et al. 2005). Many viral, bacterial or protozoan pathogens need to adhere to mucosal surfaces to colonize or invade the host and cause disease." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406618/)
From this data I don't think you can make a strong case that HMO's are evolutionarily intended as fermentable fiber. I think a more likely theory is that HMO's protect from bacterial infection before the infants mucin lining is fully developed. This would indicate that fermentable fiber in the diet should be kept to a minimum, while the bodies production of mucins should be well supported.
Stuart said:Here you go:Sea said:You have yet to provide a source for your baobob claims.
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. :)
Neither of those sources are original sources. I have provided an original source which explains the methods used to measure the composition of the edible components of a wild baobab. In order to move past the contradiction, you need to provide a better source that will allow us to compare the methods used to determine composition. Either way, it is probably a waste of time because we know that the Hazda have a habit of spitting out fiber. And, even if the Hazda eat some fiber, that does not mean that consuming fiber is beneficial. Fiber has been studied in humans and does not seem to cure conditions that your theory says it should:
"Systematic reviews have shown that the treatment of IBS patients with fibre is controversial. One recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (20) quantified the effectiveness of different types of fibre. The reviewers found that fibre was only marginally effective in terms of global symptom improvement or constipation and there was no effect in IBS related abdominal pain. Fibre has a role in treating constipation but its value for IBS, pain and diarrhea is controversial. Any effectivenss of fibre in the long-term management of IBS remains questionable. Clinically, bran is no better than placebo in the relief of the overall symptoms of IBS, and is possibly worse than a normal diet for some symptoms." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2659900/)
"A recent pooled analysis of 13 prospective cohort studies (6) found that dietary fibre was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer after adjusting for other dietary risk factors. The Cochrane collaboration (7) systematically reviewed five studies of over 4000 subjects for the effect of dietary fibre on the incidence or recurrence of colorectal adenomas and incidence of colorectal cancer over a two-to four-year period. The population included all subjects that had adenomatous polyps but no history of colorectal cancer or a documented ‘clean colon’ at baseline with follow-up colonoscopy. Study interventions included soluble and insoluble dietary fibre or a comprehensive dietary intervention with high fibre whole food sources. The combined data showed no outcome difference between the intervention and control groups in the number of subjects with at least one adenoma or a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer. The Cochrane reviewers (7) concluded that there was no evidence from randomized controlled trials to suggest that increased dietary fibre intake would reduce the incidence or recurrence of adenomatous polyps." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2659900/)
Stuart said:Sea said: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.
Your studies about honey support my claim that there are only trace amounts of fermentable fiber in honey, which also contains antibacterial properties. One of your sources states:
"It is also noted that wild honeys may contain antibacterial components. Čurda and Plocková (1995) suggested that honey obtained from different floral sources shows inhibitory effects on the growth of lactic acid bacteria. Some of the inhibitory effects could be due to the high sugar content which reduces the Aw for microbial growth and the presence of organic acids and hydrogen peroxide (Mundo
et al., 2004). (http://www.ifrj.upm.edu.my/17%20%2803%2 ... a%20ok.pdf)
The same source concluded that, "FOS was detected in the local honey but in low
amounts ranging from 0.001 to 0.035 mg/g." (http://www.ifrj.upm.edu.my/17%20%2803%2 ... a%20ok.pdf)
These amounts are truly insignificant, and when combined with the antibacterial properties therein, honey does not seem like a food supportive of bacterial fermentation. This is probably one of the reasons honey is shelf stable for thousands of years.
I don't think that fried chicken tastes good. On the other hand, I think that a cake made without vegetable oils is quite tasty and healthy. But, my taste buds would start to crave fruit juice or something else if I ate a lot of cake in a row. Our taste buds evolved to guide us to the foods that our body needs the most at that point in time for survival.
Stuart said: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.
Previously you claimed, "Then there's the coprolite evidence clearly showing that throughout their development, humans routinely consumed about 130g/d of fermentable fiber."
The evidence you have provided does not support your claim. The second link you posted only makes a 1 sentence reference to your first link, and is otherwise unrelated to coprolite. The first article is only looking at coprolite from the Chihuahuan Desert in which many types of food are unavailable for human consumption. As a result, you can't really draw any conclusion about how much fiber paleolithic humans consumed from this article.
Further, this article does not use science to determine the amount of fiber humans would have been eating in the Chihuahuan Desert. The article makes numerous assumptions about fiber intake, on the basis of the types of plants found in the stool. The stool cannot tell us how much fiber these humans were eating, only what types of foods their diet was composed of. The author of the article assumes that these people were eating 2700 calories/day and consuming the whole plant, not spitting out any fiber. I think both of these assumptions are questionable. High fiber diets are very satiating so I doubt its likely these humans were consuming 2700 calories. They also could have been spitting out a lot of this fiber. Lastly, nothing is known about whether these humans were healthy or not.
Stuart said: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.
Germ free mice have been studied. From these studies we can know that when a mice lacks its microbiome it experiences a much faster metabolic rate than those mice who have the "beneficial bacteria".
"For example, GF mice must consume 10–30% more food to maintain the same body weight as CONV-R controls (Backhed et al., 2004; Gordon and Pesti, 1971). Despite this increased food intake, GF mice are leaner with a ~40% decrease in the size of their epididymal fat pads (Backhed et al., 2004). They have a similar decrease in liver glycogen levels. GF mice also have lower blood glucose and insulin levels and are resistant to obesity induced by a high-fat diet (Backhed et al., 2007)." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3099420/)
My own experience tells me that bacteria really do have a large impact on our metabolic rates. I experienced profound increases in my own metabolism through antibiotics and other substances designed to kill bacteria. I don't have any cravings for fibers, and I think that if you eat what tastes good, then you won't have a high intake of fiber. I think that you are the one ignoring evolution, by choosing to consume large amounts of unpalatable fiber.