Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
This is too simplistic why ‘healthy commensal’ bacteria can become pathogenic?If you don't look after your microbiome, the pathogenic bacteria, which exist in all of us, this very moment, will do what pathogenic bacteria do
I too am one of them until you find a way to completely change the gut microbiome, which I guess you can’t because there seems to be a ‘state’ which depends upon the health of the host, more so than the microbiome itself.- multiply beyond healthy numbers, release endotoxins, make various disease states more likely, in short make your life a misery. And the consequences of having an unhealthy microbiome may take years to exact its toll. I think this far into the thread there are few left who cling to the idea that suppressing your microbiota is a good idea. Obviously someone like Such_
Where can I read how effective fibers regulate their numbers? And supress pathogenic bacteria.provides enough mucus/mucins for his gut bacteria to eat in the absence of the fermentable fiber a more stereotypical Peat diet provides, with all the carbohydrate he eats. A more typical Peat approach provides ample mucus, AND fermentable fiber. Win /win.
What if we lack these bacteria as Martin Blaser is indicating? What if a disfunctional microbiome isn’t a problem of ‘pathogen’ load?Also note that many bacteria, yeasts and fungi, for example candida albicans, the prevotella EnoreeG mentioned, H pylori, E coli etc. exist in all of us from the moment we enter the birth canal (if naturally delivered, and within days if delivered by cesarean , and may well all have beneficial effects when your microbiome is healthy. The beneficial effects of candida and H pylori in the right numbers are already understood.
What if we happen to have an intracellular microbiome? Regulating metabolism and immune function as indicated by several studies (might look for the references later)The others may take Ph.d students and research labs decades to decipher. Which kind of makes sense. They've all been with us since long before we were even human. It's perhaps not surprising that they help to maintain optimum health when kept in the right numbers. If they didn't, the individuals with microbiomes that through the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction/ random mutation evolved a way to completely eliminate them would have had a survival advantage, and would have had more offspring than the ones who kept a small population. Evolution is such an uncompromising design tool.
This is something I am not satisfied with. How do you define a pathogen in terms of 16s rRNA? What is a healthy number of a particular species? I am not so much interested in taxonomic data I want to know how bacteria regulate their gene expression in the context of diet, health, immune markers. And is it known what drives species diversity?I think it's fair to say that the health of your microbiome is a numbers game - ensure that the good guys are there in the right numbers and they will keep the ones who do bad things if not kept at the right numbers, under control.
Don’t you consider peptidoglycan endotoxin? I guess it is as immune response evoking as lipopolysaccharide, since it bind NOD-like receptors, toll-like receptors and what not. Staph bacteria (MRSA) is also a gram positive.Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate.
/Suikerbuik said:Where can I read how effective fibers regulate their numbers? And supress pathogenic bacteria.
What if we happen to have an intracellular microbiome? Regulating metabolism and immune function as indicated by several studies (might look for the references later)
This is something I am not satisfied with. How do you define a pathogen in terms of 16s rRNA? What is a healthy number of a particular species? I am not so much interested in taxonomic data I want to know how bacteria regulate their gene expression in the context of diet, health, immune markers. And is it known what drives species diversity?
Also, preliminary research indicates that 2 completely seperate ‘microbiomes’ can peform exactly the same functions, but this is on RNA seq data and the activity of enzymes or translation of RNA into protein is another layer.
Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate.
jyb said:Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate. I usually read SIBO being caused by pathogens, not gram-positive bacteria which I expect to be protective against those pathogens. Also, I am not aware of babies or dairy tribes suffering from much poor digestion yet their diet heavily favours lactic acid bacteria.
In the classical sense, six gram-positive genera are typically pathogenic in humans. Two of these, Streptococcus and Staphylococcus, are cocci (sphere-shaped). The remaining organisms are bacilli (rod-shaped) and can be subdivided based on their ability to form spores. The non-spore formers are Corynebacterium and Listeria (a coccobacillus), whereas Bacillus and Clostridium produce spores.[16] The spore-forming bacteria can again be divided based on their respiration: Bacillus is a facultative anaerobe, while Clostridium is an obligate anaerobe.
tara said:Gram-negatives give off endotoxin when they die. Some gram-positives give off serious exotoxins while they are alive.
Yeah, I agree that those pathogenic gram +ves are not usually abundant in most people - just that when they do multiply too much, or become chronic, they can make us very sick.jyb said:tara said:Gram-negatives give off endotoxin when they die. Some gram-positives give off serious exotoxins while they are alive.
Fine, I should have meant gram-positive bacteria that usually populate the gut such as milk eaters. And after this thread, I should even probably further refine this to those not producing D-Lactic acid.
jyb said:XPlus said:My main source of argument with your views Jyb (and this goes back to several threads) is the idea that certain types of bacteria don't cause overgrowth.
For "overgrowth", I meant bacteria stuck there and multiplying *and* being harmful. But lactic acid bacteria need stuff to keep alive and they are not as inherently harmful - they are anti-inflammatory in the gut and do not produce endotoxin. As I have explained, it is not obvious to me whether the overgrowth seen for these bacteria in the study can occur in practice on the kinds of diet we are discussing. What complicates this even more is the difference between L and D - lactic acid, only the later seems a problem and associated in gut disease.
Such_Saturation said:
XPlus said:Such_Saturation said:
I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway
XPlus said:Such_Saturation said:
I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway
narouz said:XPlus said:Such_Saturation said:
I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway
Voting,
on a forum like this one
is not likely to yield wonderful results.
There are so many transient, frivolous posters,
not to mention the ones who want to burn fellow posters
or who encourage voting for the likes of Sarah Palin, etc.
Kinda the nature of the internet forum beast....
I am aware some may think this sounds elitist or something.
Let them eat cake.
narouz said:XPlus said:Such_Saturation said:
I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway
Voting,
on a forum like this one
is not likely to yield wonderful results.
There are so many transient, frivolous posters,
not to mention the ones who want to burn fellow posters
or who encourage voting for the likes of Sarah Palin, etc.
Kinda the nature of the internet forum beast....
I am aware some may think this sounds elitist or something.
Let them eat cake.
Stuart said:So maybe if even beneficial bacteria can pose an endotoxin risk, it would be better to not breast feed babies at all? I mean they're so vulnerable. Their immune systems aren't even fully formed. Don't they deserved the best?
Would formula be better perhaps?
Hang on, even formula contains a lot of fermentable fiber.
Somebody should hit the market with low fermentable fiber formula milk.
As long as there's plenty of sugar in it their colons will have plenty of mucus for the bacteria to eat anyway. That's good enough isn't it?
Perhaps fermentable fiber is just an unacceptable endotoxin risk. Our children are depending on us to get this right after all.
Or maybe the beneficial species of gut bacteria don't pose an endotoxin risk to breastfeeding babies, but do to adults. Horizontal gene transfer from on strain of bacteria to another perhaps. It going on constantly, in every colon on the planet, so why not at weaning specifically?
One thing is clear, you don't mess with endotoxins. So if there's even a remote chance that the bacteria that fermentable fiber promotes in your microbiota could produce endotoxins, it's hard to avoid the realization that breast milk is an unwise part of a baby's diet.
....if even beneficial bacteria can pose an endotoxin risk...
Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice
I think there are gram-positive bacteria that are pathogens. Such as Staphylococcus aureus, and other Staph and Strep species.
Gram-negatives give off endotoxin when they die. Some gram-positives give off serious exotoxins while they are alive.
Some gram positives can definitely cause serious problems, at least under some conditions.
From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram-positive_bacteria:
In the classical sense, six gram-positive genera are typically pathogenic in humans. Two of these, Streptococcus and Staphylococcus, are cocci (sphere-shaped). The remaining organisms are bacilli (rod-shaped) and can be subdivided based on their ability to form spores. The non-spore formers are Corynebacterium and Listeria (a coccobacillus), whereas Bacillus and Clostridium produce spores.[16] The spore-forming bacteria can again be divided based on their respiration: Bacillus is a facultative anaerobe, while Clostridium is an obligate anaerobe.
Suikerbuik said:I wasn't talking about d-lactid acid from foods as I too think that is relatively minor, however, d-lactic* acid produced by the gut microbiome can certainly be of concern. Though doubt it is a starch issue.
*edit