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

Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
jyb said:
Such_Saturation said:
You can't smell kefir? :shock: It's like yogurt, but stronger and more sour. Try to think of its taste, for you use your nose when you taste anyway.

I've fermented kefir for many days. At room temperature. It reminds me more of cheese than yogurt, albeit not very strong cheese. Probably alcohol if you wait long enough.

I've only come in contact with one kefir, but it was indeed from the same brand that sells the milk I drink, so the resemblance in smell is that much more significant.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Stuart said:
The role of your microbiome in your health is vast. And more of its mysteries are being uncovered every day.
I just wish someone with Dr. Peat's intellect would start including it in his ruminations ( :eek: ) on the workings of the human body. He's already contributed so much. But this microbiome blind spot is holding him back. One of the most convincing indications of that for me is that he doesn't even seem to be aware that his own dietary recommendations supply ample fermentable fiber to your colonic microbiota - demonizing both in the process.

This kind of possible "blind spot" in Peat's way of thinking of the microbiome
has been the subject of speculation on my part in several threads
going back half a year to maybe a year.
So I've been open to views like yours and Enoree's for a while now.

But I'd never focused on the specific part played by fermentable fiber,
and your ideas are very intriguing to me.
And it is surprising to me when you argue that a strict Peat diet
actually has quite a lot of fermentable fiber
Personally, I'd like to examine that idea a bit more closely
because I'm not sure you're familiar enough with Peat's dietary recommendations
to claim that point for sure,
but you do make some good points in that argument.

So much room for theorizing and posting studies when it comes to the microbiome.
Such a vast area and so little known.
And I'm all for such input.
But I also appreciate the personal experience input.
pboy has had success with, apparently, a pretty strictly Peatian diet
(though I'd like to hear more details of his diet).
And Enoree seems to be going strong on his diet which has some significant departures
from a strict Peat diet.

With your diet and positive results, Stuart:
if I wanted to experiment with it,
I assume you'd say the easiest way would be to do as you did,
just add a lot of pectin...right?
I guess it's not gonna kill me to try it.
Would you give me some guidelines, please?
Were there other significant, non-Peatian aspects to your gut recovery?
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
jyb said:
Suikerbuik said:
Bacteria can also produce d-lactid acid and only the liver can process this to some (little?) extent, but you don't want that stuff it is a HUGEEE burden for your brain and heart.

Neurons actually seem to need some of it for stability, if you read this explanation of why astrocytes exist: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.u ... 20function

And I would guess, the opposite happens for the heart, which would prefer to use specific fatty acids to avoid any risk of lactic acid from using glucose poorly.

Is that D-lactid acid?? That can't be the case, or shoot me :D.
Organs indeed can process l-lactid acid fairly okay, but I am not talking about this optical isomer.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
If I could ask something, Stuart, what made you to stumble upon raypeatforum if you have not quite read through raypeat.com? In my case it happened the other way around, but I've seen this happen consistently in recent time. I think a lot of information that is contained there would allow us to approach discussions in a fashion that is more to the chase, so to speak.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
Suikerbuik said:
jyb said:
Suikerbuik said:
Bacteria can also produce d-lactid acid and only the liver can process this to some (little?) extent, but you don't want that stuff it is a HUGEEE burden for your brain and heart.

Neurons actually seem to need some of it for stability, if you read this explanation of why astrocytes exist: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.u ... 20function

And I would guess, the opposite happens for the heart, which would prefer to use specific fatty acids to avoid any risk of lactic acid from using glucose poorly.

Is that D-lactid acid?? That can't be the case, or shoot me :D.
Organs indeed can process l-lactid acid fairly okay, but I am not talking about this optical isomer.

No, not D-Lactic acid. And no, it's not about processing - the article is about *needing*.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Suikerbuik said:
Interesting enough reference 1 (http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/2/479.long#ref-4) in your quote shows the double edged sword of butyrate I've been guessing at in my earlier posts.

It is entirely possible that different concentrations of butyrate may result in very different physiological effects. For example, several laboratories have shown that low amounts of butyrate may stimulate cell proliferation while high amounts may inhibit it (30). In one report (30) colonic smooth muscle cells in primary culture were exposed to different molarities of butyrate. A low concentration of butyrate significantly stimulated cell proliferation whereas at higher levels of butyrate an inhibition of cell proliferation was observed. We (31) and others (32) have shown that there is a plateau for butyrate oxidation to CO2. Once that plateau has been reached, higher concentrations of butyrate are redirected to ketone body production, lipid synthesis, and other synthetic events (31). This may account for the seemingly paradoxical effects of butyrate at different molarities. Up to the plateau for butyrate oxidation, addition of butyrate may stimulate cell proliferation as the cell reaches its maximum energy level. Above that level, there may not be an increase in cell proliferation as butyrate will be redirected to other pathways.

This could be taken as evidence of a more general self-regulation ability
on the part of the microbiome.
Peat says we might as well get used to them
if we have to live in a world with bacteria.
So he accepts rather begrudgingly that we have to contend with them,
but he doesn't really embrace them,
it seems to me.

He still generally seems to think of them as a force to be trimmed back, controlled,
and maybe sometimes whacked strongly with certain antibiotics.

But what I find intriguing about Stuart's and Enoree's takes
is that theirs is more of an embrace of bacteria as at least sometimes-allies
in our picture of how the gut biome works.

As I noted upthread to Enoree,
maybe he and Peat both see a similar status--
a fairly clean small intestine--
but accomplished by a different strategy:
Peat whacking back and starving the bacteria at every turn;
Enoreee and Stuart relying upon the bacteria to self-regulate and control growth themselves....
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
Stuart said:
Whatever your kefir smelt like, if your grains were working, there would have been a lot of lactic acid wouldn't there?

Yes, of course.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
narouz said:
Suikerbuik said:
Interesting enough reference 1 (http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/2/479.long#ref-4) in your quote shows the double edged sword of butyrate I've been guessing at in my earlier posts.

It is entirely possible that different concentrations of butyrate may result in very different physiological effects. For example, several laboratories have shown that low amounts of butyrate may stimulate cell proliferation while high amounts may inhibit it (30). In one report (30) colonic smooth muscle cells in primary culture were exposed to different molarities of butyrate. A low concentration of butyrate significantly stimulated cell proliferation whereas at higher levels of butyrate an inhibition of cell proliferation was observed. We (31) and others (32) have shown that there is a plateau for butyrate oxidation to CO2. Once that plateau has been reached, higher concentrations of butyrate are redirected to ketone body production, lipid synthesis, and other synthetic events (31). This may account for the seemingly paradoxical effects of butyrate at different molarities. Up to the plateau for butyrate oxidation, addition of butyrate may stimulate cell proliferation as the cell reaches its maximum energy level. Above that level, there may not be an increase in cell proliferation as butyrate will be redirected to other pathways.

This could be taken as evidence of a more general self-regulation ability
on the part of the microbiome.
Peat says we might as well get used to them
if we have to live in a world with bacteria.
So he accepts rather begrudgingly that we have to contend with them,
but he doesn't really embrace them,
it seems to me.

He still generally seems to think of them as a force to be trimmed back, controlled,
and maybe sometimes whacked strongly with certain antibiotics.

But what I find intriguing about Stuart's and Enoree's takes
is that theirs is more of an embrace of bacteria as at least sometimes-allies
in our picture of how the gut biome works.

As I noted upthread to Enoree,
maybe he and Peat both see a similar status--
a fairly clean small intestine--
but accomplished by a different strategy:
Peat whacking back and starving the bacteria at every turn;
Enoreee and Stuart relying upon the bacteria to self-regulate and control growth themselves....

Well it only makes sense that if our cells enveloped a bacterium, our body should envelope a bacterial group. It is that fractal-like progression that so many people don't understand or cast aside. But the issue is that, while the result is awesome (us), the process takes a long time, and we know it involved things like serotonin at least on their side, who used it to signal the commitment to a sacrifice, or rather a compromise. So, ideally, the bacteria in our guts behave as one coherent entity, like us who surround them, and we ideally relate to them as a whole, because clearly we could never relate or feel empathy for one single bacterium. But the process is difficult, because the bacteria's very metabolism pushes against structure and cooperation (this goes for the ones who can't oxidise), and the way they assemble reminds me more of a herd of sheep than an organism.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
This is a very constructive talk folks and EnoreeG, Stuat, Jyb, Suikerbuik – I’m surprised and delighted you guys are quite knowledgeable on the subject. There have been also very interesting and valuable contributions from Pboy, Sea and Amazoniac.

The discussion doesn’t clear things up but rather brings many new very good questions to the table.
I’ve to say that my view is rather refined, not changed and I’ll sum up the discussion it up for a quick recap.

The arguments for the role of the microbitoa include the following points:
  • Immune support by cornering highly pathogenic bacteria (Sturat and EnoreeG)
  • Colon maintenance by further processing of toxic gunk (PBoy)
  • Manufacture of Micronutrients (Eno and Stuart)
  • Manfuacture of Buterate to provide energy for Colonocytes (Suikerbuik).
  • Anti-inflammatory effect (Jyb)
  • Transit and stool quality (oxidasation is normal)

So far there seems to be an agreement that bacteria could play a positive role in physiological function. However there’s a disagreement on the priorities and mechanisms of which bacteria operates in the human body. This raises quite few questions:


  • From a design point of view, is bacterial balance regulated by the work of higher level physiological functions or should it be set directly through introduction and feeding.

  • What is exactly bacterial balance and how many different species are necessary for that.

  • How is bacterial balance related to the level of stress (i.e. low metabolism, aging, disease, inadequate nutrition)

  • How intact is bacterial balance in respect to environmental variables such as air food and water. Is it self-regulating given adequate food or dependent on the host organism level of health.

  • Is immune function of the microflora crucial or supportive.

  • Is it possible to manage the tradeoff between anti-inflammatory lactic acid producing bacteria and endotoxin- producing bacteria and how.

  • Is butyrate essential to energize Colonocytes and why the body is incapable of providing the energy requirements of the colon.

  • Is the act of introducing and feeding certain bacteria alone capable of healing certain digestive and non-digestive health conditions.

  • Does consistent combating of bacterial activity have negative health consequences.

  • What’re the tradeoffs between the two extremes of consistently killing bacteria and nourishing them.

  • Is it necessary to eat a diet specifically to feed bacteria or is it enough if we just feed ourselves

  • Is there a real distinction between fibres in terms of fermentability.

  • Is it possible to have good bowl movement on a low fibre diet.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Such_Saturation said:
...because clearly we could never relate or feel empathy for one single bacterium....

Speak for yourself--and for pboy!--Such.
I have been evolving my Buddha-hood here recently
and plan soon to overtake pboy,
perhaps leap a chakra ahead of him on the Empathetic Path.
Ya listening, Amazoniac! :lol:


Such_Saturation said:
But the process is difficult, because the bacteria's very metabolism pushes against structure and cooperation (this goes for the ones who can't oxidise), and the way they assemble reminds me more of a herd of sheep than an organism.

Well...yeah, that's the Peat view, I guess.
Maybe there are other ways of looking at it.
It is such a complex area and
the stuff we're learning about it now
just points to more complexity.

Peat doesn't seem very interested in that complexity.
That's one of the things that caused me to open up to other ways of thinking about the microbiome.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
Stuart said:
No, fermentable fiber can be used by your colon microbiota for food, but not by your upper digestive tract. So it arrives in your colon intact. The bacteria which live in the colon produce enzymes which allow the nutrients to be absorbed and metabolized Pectin is an example of a 'fermentable fiber'. 'Collagen is another. But there are very many indeed. The oligosaccharides in breast milk, called HMO's (human milk oligosaccharides) are yet another. Whereas non fermentable fiber cannot be metabolized by colon bacteria either and just end up in your stool unchanged. The cellulose in your 'Dad's lettuce is one kind of nonfermentable fiber. The distinction between fermentable fiber and non fermentable is essential if you are interested in the role of the microbiome in the health of the human body.

We eat gelatin not collagen and there's no fibre in gelatin. It should be pure amino acids. Sea have posted evidence that HMOs are fundamentally different from fibres from other sources.
Also, Such_ mentioned an example of how those "non-fermentable" fibres actually ferment.
The distinction between fermentable fibre and non-fermenteble fibre needs a soild foundation from your side.


Stuart said:
I'm afraid that's a bit simplistic. Various parts of the body do different things to ensure the whole organism gets energy, expels waste products, and resists attack by pathogens and environmental stressors. But the human body (in fact any multicellular organism) is a combination of extremely specialized parts. Even whole organs, like the liver or your colon are made up of very speciallized parts, and those parts .... all the way down to molecular level. Your brain has a completely different function to your liver after all. And the exquisite beauty of the whole organism is that every part is intricately connected with every other part, including the colon. EnoreeG was pointing out that the colon (and the bacteria it contains) has a very important role in our immune system, that's all.

The point of this whole process you described various part of in little more detail is to deliver energy to every cell in the body to maintain the flow of life. Anything that lives off this process isn't essentially a main part of it.

Stuart said:
Not sure what you mean by 'direct absorption'. Through your skin? Soles of your feet.? Obviously some part of the body has to do the absorbing. In the human body different nutrients from food are absorbed at different parts of your digestive tract. Macro nutrients ( protein fat and carbohydrate) in your upper digestive tract. and vitamins and minerals in your colon. Colon microbiota can even manufacture (after which they are absorbed) certain vitamins, particularly vit K. The walls of your colon can even absorb the short chain fatty acids that commensal gut bacteria produce from fermentable fiber (for example the pectin in fruit) One of the powerful mechanisms for fermentable fiber to lower the risk of colon cancer is by lowering the pH of your colon.

I meant from digesting food. Food contains vitamins and minerals. It'd make sense to get our main requirements for micronutrients from foods.
This lowering of the PH isn't it essentially from lactic acid production. I don't think this supposed to be ideal.
Also, unless we have a clear idea what causes cancer, we shouldn't attribute acidity to it.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
narouz said:
Well...yeah, that's the Peat view, I guess.
Maybe there are other ways of looking at it.

Hmmm.

narouz said:
It is such a complex area and
the stuff we're learning about it now
just points to more complexity.

Yeah, I don't think it's possible for one person to cover all the complexity that a dozen or more minds can cover here, (almost real-time with studies being published daily that may pertain), even Ray Peat. Let's give him credit for what he did, and wrote down, mostly before there was an internet to research and try to keep up with.

narouz said:
Peat doesn't seem very interested in that complexity.
That's one of the things that caused me to open up to other ways of thinking about the microbiome.

Yeah, me too. I was already researching on my own, as most of us were, well before I ran into Peat. I haven't given it up, not one whit, while picking up on what Peat has to contribute, and I never will. No man is an island, and no brain is the universe. Peat's answers, could we pull him in here to the thread, would still only be one man's answers. We profit from allowing ourselves latitude. Gee, only on a Peat forum would one even consider not allowing themselves complete lattitude.

I like your conclusions, narouz. You are careful, but admitting to change and learning, as many here are.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
So what exactly has been produced that wasn't brought to the table in the first place?
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
XPlus said:
This is a very constructive talk folks and EnoreeG, Stuat, Jyb, Suikerbuik – I’m surprised and delighted you guys are quite knowledgeable on the subject. There have been also very interesting and valuable contributions from Pboy, Sea and Amazoniac.

The discussion doesn’t clear things up but rather brings many new very good questions to the table.
I’ve to say that my view is rather refined, not changed and I’ll sum up the discussion it up for a quick recap.

The arguments for the role of the microbitoa include the following points:
  • Immune support by cornering highly pathogenic bacteria (Sturat and EnoreeG)
  • Colon maintenance by further processing of toxic gunk (PBoy)
  • Manufacture of Micronutrients (Eno and Stuart)
  • Manfuacture of Buterate to provide energy for Colonocytes (Suikerbuik).
  • Anti-inflammatory effect (Jyb)
  • Transit and stool quality (oxidasation is normal)

So far there seems to be an agreement that bacteria could play a positive role in physiological function. However there’s a disagreement on the priorities and mechanisms of which bacteria operates in the human body. This raises quite few questions:


  • From a design point of view, is bacterial balance regulated by the work of higher level physiological functions or should it be set directly through introduction and feeding.

  • What is exactly bacterial balance and how many different species are necessary for that.

  • How is bacterial balance related to the level of stress (i.e. low metabolism, aging, disease, inadequate nutrition)

  • How intact is bacterial balance in respect to environmental variables such as air food and water. Is it self-regulating given adequate food or dependent on the host organism level of health.

  • Is immune function of the microflora crucial or supportive.

  • Is it possible to manage the tradeoff between anti-inflammatory lactic acid producing bacteria and endotoxin- producing bacteria and how.

  • Is butyrate essential to energize Colonocytes and why the body is incapable of providing the energy requirements of the colon.

  • Is the act of introducing and feeding certain bacteria alone capable of healing certain digestive and non-digestive health conditions.

  • Does consistent combating of bacterial activity have negative health consequences.

  • What’re the tradeoffs between the two extremes of consistently killing bacteria and nourishing them.

  • Is it necessary to eat a diet specifically to feed bacteria or is it enough if we just feed ourselves

  • Is there a real distinction between fibres in terms of fermentability.

  • Is it possible to have good bowl movement on a low fibre diet.

I like your summation of microbiota's role, and your list of questions also, XPlus.

I'll just proffer that for a good set of these questions, after a little study, one might turn out to assume an "attitude" that it matters little what we do, or think, life will go on down there and a bacterial/immune system homeostasis will persist. That's the attitude I've assumed recently.

But I can't just reply without throwing out a couple more links that might help with orientation on this maze of information that has come out since genetic mapping allows bacterial identification far faster than even information can be gathered on the other features of a microbial species besides it's simple identification.

There's a lot of articles available (on the right side) of the American Gut page of the Human Food Project Website:

American Gut

Mostly the same but some additional information may be found on the Human Food Project pages:

Human Food Project

If I had to take a stab at quickly addressing your list of questions, I would say we, the humans don't need to design or balance anything. This is thanks to the quorum sensing ability of microbes. If you have a dominant species that is good, (and you probably do have at least 2-3 dozen of these different species in quite great numbers living in you), you don't need to worry. If you don't you're probably flat on your back in a hospital somewhere.

We just need to insure we don't stray toward the "consistently killing them" end of the spectrum of actions, and we need to realize we are "eating for two" as they say for the condition of pregnancy: for us and for "them". A few simple rules suffice. Especially if we have no health problems.

Then we need to realize that if there is ill health anywhere in the body, but of course especially in the gut, the "them" side needs to be considered as part of the cause and solution. For instance, psoriasis. It's a skin condition. It's now probably definitely been pinned down to being auto-immune, caused by leaky gut, allowing circulation of toxins that are most easily expelled via the skin. So it comes back to the gut, and "them" guys who help maintain the health of the gut. It's not ALL them, but they are heavily involved.

The growing field of Integrative Medicine, with doctors jumping out of specialties such as endocrinology and into the integrative realm is a sign that the gut microbiome is turning out to be such an important influence on the human body that it cannot be ignored, nor can any part of the human be ignored if a practitioner is to make progress with treatment. Specialists are becoming, to a significant degree obsolete if they persist in looking at just one organ system in isolation. I see this all as driven by the importance now assigned to the microbiome. Medical doctors may not be our best friends, but they aren't stupid.

This shows how integrative medicine is trying to come up to speed on the gut microbiome in short order:

http://integrativerd.org/events/free-microbiome-webinar-the-microbiome-in-clinical-practice/
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
EnoreeG said:
You are unique in most circles by almost categorically refusing to believe studies. That is a prejudice, but it isn't at all unjustified. AND it's efficient! Yes, studies are funded. One strike against them. However, for those of us who are quite qualified to critique a study (not me), and who can find several studies who claim to have found the same results on an issue, I think there can be, in that one reviewer, some satisfaction that a point has been proven, regardless how small in terms of the whole body of knowledge. So I still like studies, and also reading what reviewers think of the studies.

When I was doing my bachelor, I had a finance professor who's quite critical of the literature and throughout his courses he made it part of our coursework to read a study and write a critique every week. I thought It's boring theortical nonsense at the time but come to realise the value now. One thing I learned is that these studies start with a hypothesis, an assumption of the reality that is then examined. So, what these studies are really is ideas and arguments of other people . These ideas are usually consistent with the culture, thoughts and frame of reference or the paradigm a person lives.

So for example, one of fundamental assumptions of modern economics is that people exist to reproduce and maximize wealth. There's an increasing belief that it is this superficial view that led us to financial crises. These assumptions are incorporated either directly or indirectly in many studies in economics and finance. It's the paradigm those scientists learned and its the one they're living.
There are biases and shortages in most if not all studies because at the end its the product of human thought.

Having an increasing interest in medicine, recently, I find similar dogmas to those in economics and finance.

This is a good example from Peat comparing schools of thought:
Ray Peat said:
“While jogging became popular for preventing heart disease, we were frequently told by experts how many miles a person has to run to burn off a pound of fat. However, in Russia, physiologists always remember to include the brain in their calculations, and it turns out that a walk through interesting and pleasant surroundings consumes more energy than does harder but more boring exercise. An active brain consumes a tremendous amount of fuel.”

I like how he said "always remember to include the brain in their calculations" as if it's suggestive that the other scientists don't use their brain. :D

EnoreeG said:
Further, I can read some studies about fiber and decide to believe that the fiber may be part of the cause for health, because fiber maintains healthy species of bacteria that are supposed to suppress pathogenic species. I read further, and believe that healthy people all over the world have been checked for the inhabitants of their microbiome (only in the last 3-5 years, since genetic sequencing has become practical and relatively inexpensive) and have been found to have quite different proportions of many (hundreds) species of bacteria. However, none of these healthy people have even moderate percentages of pathogenic species in their gut. So when a theory is proposed, or even studies are done showing that commensal bacteria can count pathogens, and want to keep the gut environment safe for their own purposes, and thus always limit the numbers of pathogens, I choose to believe this theory for the results they find. Results for instance, that additional pathogens can be introduced, and they will also be squelched by the commensals up to a certain point. At that point, when there is a very heavy pathogen load, the pathogens, who also can count, know their power, and dare to release a virulence that causes problems such as destruction of the endothelium and entry of pathogens into the body.

So I don't have a problem with accepting (as a personal belief only) theories as to why my gut stays healthy, and my body along with it.


EnoreeG said:
To me, this says they have to introduce a certain species of bacteria, in a certain dose, to bring about a pathology. They are assuming that without artificial introduction of this pathogen, the rat stays free of ulcerative colitis.


At another point in this citation, they mention that type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune condition can be prevented in female mice just by presence of significant numbers of one ccommensal species of bacteria:

A more recent study reported that a single commensal species, SFB, can protect female NOD mice against diabetes.91

It's just more "study talk" that I find available to believe if I wish, for an explanation of how even a varying set of dominant, commensal bacterial species are able to protect me, year after year, from pathogens, regardless of how I have changed diet. Two things I haven't done in these years of health though are: 1) I haven't taken antibiotics, and 2) I haven't even thought about reducing the fiber in my diet, let alone had even more than a day or two where the fiber was NOT quite plentiful.

Yes, again, I believe the theory, for now, that fiber feeds large intestinal bacteria which, regardless of species, as long as they are aligned with my immune system due to their type, keep pathogens totally in check. The fiber and the commensal bacteria together with the vitamins and fats they produce keep my mucus barrier and endothelium in good health and that essentially is my immune system, as the gut is by far the dirtiest part of the universe I am continually in contact with. All other assaults on my health pale in comparison with what I have right inside my gut. I believe I obviously need this immune system. Just a belief though to explain to me why I seem to stay in good health.

Mr. Eno
You do seem to me as if you're mostly speculating but surprisingly quite knowledgeable.
I would be interested to find out your motivation towards reading this despite being in good health.

If you ask me about your health, I would assume it has a lot that to do with how robust your system is rather than being the result of feeding bacteria.

I've come to believe now that disease and aging are positively related to stressors early in life. Peat also mentioned that how healthy your parents were has significant influence on your health. Imagine this going back to generations. Since he also mentions that our health influence the genes and it isn't the other way around, some people have a lot of undoing to do in their way to good health.

I've mentioned earlier that theres a capacity for everyone to handle fibre, and I believe this capacity depends on their state of health.
XPlus said:
Fibre mustn't be thought of as bad, it's the body's ability to process it that should be.


EnoreeG said:
Where is there an argument that the balance of bacteria in the gut is static? Other than the "balance" of commensals (whatever the species happen to be this week) tremendously outweighing the pathogens (whatever the species happen to be this week), I don't understand bacterial balancing.

These are impressions I used to get when I used to be interested in that particular area.

Stuart said:
Even antibiotics (at conceivable dose rates ) can only merely dent the bacterial party. They can certainly distort a healthy line up of gut bacteria though
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
Just my view on some of your points.

• From a design point of view, is bacterial balance regulated by the work of higher level physiological functions or should it be set directly through introduction and feeding.
Both
• What is exactly bacterial balance and how many different species are necessary for that.
Currently not defined, and there are some contradictory results. Bifido as Stuart mentioned is one.
• How is bacterial balance related to the level of stress (i.e. low metabolism, aging, disease, inadequate nutrition)
HUGE imo.
• How intact is bacterial balance in respect to environmental variables such as air food and water. Is it self-regulating given adequate food or dependent on the host organism level of health.
It is hard to induce profound changes with food. Health of the organism crucial for maintaining a healthy balance.
• Is immune function of the microflora crucial or supportive.
Microflora have only an immunefunction against phages - another interesting topic.
• Is it possible to manage the tradeoff between anti-inflammatory lactic acid producing bacteria and endotoxin- producing bacteria and how.
This, to my knowledge, is currently unknown. What I would like to know is, do certain diets increase the production of LPS (endotoxin). Some diets seem to upregulate LPS production and LPS shedding. If you minimze that with diet that'd be amazing.
• Is butyrate essential to energize Colonocytes and why the body is incapable of providing the energy requirements of the colon.
To some extent yes and the body is not incapable..
• Is the act of introducing and feeding certain bacteria alone capable of healing certain digestive and non-digestive health conditions.
Up till now, I am only aware of fecal transplants.
• Does consistent combating of bacterial activity have negative health consequences.
• What’re the tradeoffs between the two extremes of consistently killing bacteria and nourishing them.
Killing consistently will probably induce resistance (resistence is as old as bacteria) and possible adverse effects - your mitochonria are considered structures of microbial origin.
• Is it necessary to eat a diet specifically to feed bacteria or is it enough if we just feed ourselves
If you feed yourself with natural foods you feed them.
• Is there a real distinction between fibres in terms of fermentability.
Yeah. Like humans digest certain protein sources more efficiënt than others.
• Is it possible to have good bowl movement on a low fibre diet.
No experience with myself but I’d love to know how many fibers are created by our own mucosa.
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
jyb said:
Suikerbuik said:
jyb said:
Suikerbuik said:
Bacteria can also produce d-lactid acid and only the liver can process this to some (little?) extent, but you don't want that stuff it is a HUGEEE burden for your brain and heart.

Neurons actually seem to need some of it for stability, if you read this explanation of why astrocytes exist: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.u ... 20function

And I would guess, the opposite happens for the heart, which would prefer to use specific fatty acids to avoid any risk of lactic acid from using glucose poorly.

Is that D-lactid acid?? That can't be the case, or shoot me :D.
Organs indeed can process l-lactid acid fairly okay, but I am not talking about this optical isomer.

No, not D-Lactic acid. And no, it's not about processing - the article is about *needing*.

Lol.. What is your point? Processing, needing, metabolizing, .. cells have got the enzymes for it ;) (and I wasn't talking about astrocytes - I know them a bit as I worked with them). Just that the enzymatic balance in cells favor the breakdown of L-lactid acid heavily instead of producing it. And L or D lactid acid is a major differnce. D-lactid is a huge burden especially in the brain because it inhibits those enzymes "needed" in glial cells and is hardly broken down by the liver or other tissue.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
jyb said:
Suikerbuik said:
Bacteria can also produce d-lactid acid and only the liver can process this to some (little?) extent, but you don't want that stuff it is a HUGEEE burden for your brain and heart.

Neurons actually seem to need some of it for stability, if you read this explanation of why astrocytes exist: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.co.u ... 20function

And I would guess, the opposite happens for the heart, which would prefer to use specific fatty acids to avoid any risk of lactic acid from using glucose poorly.

Interesting, jyb. This article touches on several issues discussed in the Peat world. Like the ability of the brain to function without using hardly any glucose, the need for neurons to persist until the organism dies, lest memory is lost (this explains why DHA, as a PUFA, may happen to stay unoxidized and functional in the brain for as much as 100 years)

Yes, I've read the opposite happens in the heart, which prefers fatty acids for fuel and only turns to glucose during an actual heart attack:

Real cause of a Heart Attack
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
XPlus said:
EnoreeG said:
You are unique in most circles by almost categorically refusing to believe studies. That is a prejudice, but it isn't at all unjustified. AND it's efficient! Yes, studies are funded. One strike against them. However, for those of us who are quite qualified to critique a study (not me), and who can find several studies who claim to have found the same results on an issue, I think there can be, in that one reviewer, some satisfaction that a point has been proven, regardless how small in terms of the whole body of knowledge. So I still like studies, and also reading what reviewers think of the studies.

When I was doing my bachelor, I had a finance professor who's quite critical of the literature and throughout his courses he made it part of our coursework to read a study and write a critique every week. I thought It's boring theortical nonsense at the time but come to realise the value now.

Mr. Eno
You do seem to me as if you're mostly speculating but surprisingly quite knowledgeable.
I would be interested to find out your motivation towards reading this despite being in good health.

If you ask me about your health, I would assume it has a lot that to do with how robust your system is rather than being the result of feeding bacteria.

I've come to believe now that disease and aging are positively related to stressors early in life. Peat also mentioned that how healthy your parents were has significant influence on your health. Imagine this going back to generations. Since he also mentions that our health influence the genes and it isn't the other way around, some people have a lot of undoing to do in their way to good health.

I've mentioned earlier that theres a capacity for everyone to handle fibre, and I believe this capacity depends on their state of health.

My motivation? It's a hobby I guess. Plus an obsession to live a long time, being thoroughly robust during the whole time! So I'm not driving into this study to fix anything. But there's also a gratification in helping others with things I've already struggled to learn. I try to be somewhat of a fulcrum to speed the learning curve.

Maybe one reason I"m healthy is a low level of stressors early in life. I did have an easy childhood. I do believe that health (and other things) influence the genes. Epigenetics, in other words.

On the fiber handling capacity depending on one's state of health, I'd say it's circular and continuous. Not that the healthier you get the more fiber you need to consume. There's a limit or a minimum. But yes, to some degree, starting with say, combined SIBO and ulcerative colitis, one must find a way to build health in spite of seeming to not accept or process fiber. Addition of fiber in such a case might need to be gradual and selective, (maybe after first reducing it). Someone said recently that when other things didn't work, resistant starch provided some solution to dysbiosis. Whatever it takes. As the body gets stronger and more able, certainly fiber can be increased up to some point. But it's not a case of "the more the better". That's not true of any food (or even water).
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
Lactid acid, sure.. Of course read lactic acid but somehow (under control of my microbiome I guess) I keep typing 'lactid acid' automatically, excuse me.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom