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

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
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
This is too simplistic why ‘healthy commensal’ bacteria can become pathogenic?
- 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_
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.
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.
Where can I read how effective fibers regulate their numbers? And supress pathogenic bacteria.
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 lack these bacteria as Martin Blaser is indicating? What if a disfunctional microbiome isn’t a problem of ‘pathogen’ load?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.

You’re right in that d-lactid acid is usually only produced in the context of gut issues e.g. short bowel, crohn’s, sibo, etc. but that is common in people with health issues.
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
Oh sometimes I happen to eat dirt too by the way. And grow my own vegetables, fruits, have my own eggs or sometimes meat and have my hands dirty often - these activities are probably the best one can do for their health. I am just not convinced that bacterial balance is best regulated by fibers. Oh and I am also not afraid of bacteria virusses or whatever as you might think ;)
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Suikerbuik said:
Where can I read how effective fibers regulate their numbers? And supress pathogenic bacteria.
/
Suik - check the link to find this statement:

"Dietary components that stimulate fermentation lead to an increase in bacterial mass and consequently fecal mass and, thus have a stool bulking effect. It is estimated that about 30 g of bacteria are produced for every 100 g of carbohydrate that is fermented." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705355/

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)

/
You're ahead of me on this. All I know is that the immune system tries to wipe out foreign DNA once it gets "inside" us. I think bacteria is dead meat, but viruses can jump inside a cell and hide and do dirty work.

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 the effect of a particular species that defines a pathogen, not the family or genus. There are pathogenic species that occur in otherwise quite commensal families, etc. The old "bad apple" syndrome.

Healthy number? Enough to stay ahead of the pathogen's numbers, pure and simple. Well, no, it's more like you need enough of the commensals to where the pathogens don't dare to mount an attack. They just behave, like an anarchist with a small following. No action until numbers are sufficient to mount an insurrection mission that wouldn't be obvious suicide. But if the numbers of anarchists never swell to a believable tipping point nothing ever happens, and only the appearance of peace manifests. This is you healthy microbiome in action.

Species diversity? I think you can diversify by eating dirt, etc. But that isn't likely to change your dominant species, but just add "color" like suddenly allowing immigration of Cubans again to the USA. No way are they becoming dominant in a lifetime, but they will definitely change the mix slightly.

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.

Sounds totally believable. Like Canada and Bolivia and the USA and Australia can all conduct reasonably successful economies with reasonably content populations, yet with quite different peoples.

Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice, but I'm open to debate.

I think there are gram-positive bacteria that are pathogens. Such as Staphylococcus aureus, and other Staph and Strep species.

Definitely, the commensal bacteria talk to the immune cells of the human. Even some strains of pathogenic bacteria talk to the immune system and help defend against other species of pathogens.

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

There's really as much intrigue in play in the gut as there is in the international intelligence community. We need to be aware of and thankful of the fact that most bacteria are not harmful to us. Pathogens are few, and thanks to commensals, their numbers are kept small in the gut.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
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.

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.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
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.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
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.
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.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
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.


Okay. Now let's assume someone is under a lot of stress. Drinking alcohol, burning lots of PUFA and processing heaps of estrogen. Eventually, what's their liver going to look like? Sponge Bob inside an engine oil filter, perhaps (i.e. cirrhosis/fibrosis).
Now, when that person reaches this stage when liver function is impaired, lactic acid that was previously tolerated will become an additional burden. As the liver becomes weaker, the flow of digestive juices slows down. There is less enzymes to process food. Unprocessed foods are left for colon bacteria to feast on, slowly causing overgrowth. With time, there's less food being processed to meet the body's energy requirements. As the number of bacteria increases (i.e. regardless of pathology) their byproduct will be an additional burden to the already impaired liver. So, even if your bacteria happens to produce lactic acid mostly, the increased lactic acid production from the increase in their numbers will just make the liver worse off, contributing more to what looks like a vicious cycle.

This processes adds more burden on other parts of the physiology, as well (e.g. as livers function becomes weak, estrogen will not be detoxified efficiently. It will oppose thyroid and slow down the metabolism).

Eno, I'm saving few good arguments for you. I'm going through a quarter and it's too much for me to write.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
XPlus said:
Such_Saturation said:
Why didn't we vote this one some ten months ago :(

viewtopic.php?t=4565#p54979

I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway :lol:

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. :cry:

Kinda the nature of the internet forum beast....

I am aware some may think this sounds elitist or something.
Let them eat cake. :lol:
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
narouz said:
XPlus said:
Such_Saturation said:
Why didn't we vote this one some ten months ago :(

viewtopic.php?t=4565#p54979

I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway :lol:

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. :cry:

Kinda the nature of the internet forum beast....

I am aware some may think this sounds elitist or something.
Let them eat cake. :lol:

Narouz, I don't know how many internet forums you have been at, but as far as they go, I mean... dear lord, some of our offensive emoticons haven't even ever been used
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
narouz said:
XPlus said:
Such_Saturation said:
Why didn't we vote this one some ten months ago :(

viewtopic.php?t=4565#p54979

I'd vote for that but he didn't answer half of them anyway :lol:

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. :cry:

Kinda the nature of the internet forum beast....

I am aware some may think this sounds elitist or something.
Let them eat cake. :lol:

The hell with democracy.
Colonel Algaddafi approves of this :poke

Interesting thoughts Narouz, we should probably meet in a politics thread
 
OP
S

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
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.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
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 you ever do a stand-up routine on this, I want to be in the audience. But really, we've hashed this subject enough now that it's probably high-time to dance on it.

But mirth aside, I see one thing I still want to clarify, to whatever degree you were serious in saying
...if even beneficial bacteria can pose an endotoxin risk...
.

Is it because there was an earlier discussion on the few known species of gram-positive bacteria which produce endotoxins, and it is commonly thought that the gram-positive germs are all beneficial, that therefore we must concede that some beneficials then produce endotoxins? (Or do you have other evidence)?

As I reread the thread, the idea was introduced by jyb with:

Intuitively I'd still be surprised if the gram-positive bacteria could harm in practice

and we nearly all know by now that gram-positive bacteria are primarily beneficial, so one might assume therefore that jyb was correct, and all gram-positive species are beneficial. But after that jyb statement, both tara and I wrote that there are gram-positive species that are well-known pathogens,

I said:
I think there are gram-positive bacteria that are pathogens. Such as Staphylococcus aureus, and other Staph and Strep species.

tara said:
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.


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

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

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
I've been reading more about D-Lactate, which is blamed by Peat and many others for lactic acidosis and is seen in unusual concentration in SIBO sufferers, rather than L-Lactate.

The first question is, can you get too much D-Lactic acid from dietary sources? Some cultured dairy (kefir and some yogurts) seem low in D-Lactic acid. However, some yogurts are higher in it, as it depends on which bacteria were used. The following study showed what happens for the worst case yogurt. They conclude that it's not possible to get acidosis from such dietary source. So, how safe? What we can say is that when you eat, the amount of D-Lactate doesn't nudge blood pH much, whereas there is a slight nudge for the control subject drinking raw aqueous D-Lactate, which is known to be absorbed fast. It's hard to know what's much, the +/- 0.01 seems to be the kind of variations in pH you see between healthy people. If someone can find the typical pH variations one experiences during the day, that should be a better idea against which to compare.

https://openagrar.bmel-forschung.de/ser ... wiss_v30(2),p131ff.pdf

This leads me to suspect in practice lactic acidosis seen in SIBO is mostly endogenous from gut fermentation, if a person is colonised with the D-Lactic acid bacteria. A standard recommendation given seems to be 1) antibiotics trying to target those specific problematic strains or 2) avoid the fermentation by avoiding large quantities of sugar/starches.

I am guessing those strains were thriving in the first place because people eat such quantities on a conventional diet which gives plenty of carbs to ferment in the upper gut. I believe such diet is otherwise a pretty poor dietary source of live D-lactic acid bacteria - most people I see around me don't even eat any fermented dairy other than the couple grams of fake cheese slices on pizzas.

So overall not too surprised when you read Peat's negative stance of starch causing endotoxin. However, you better digest your sucrose fast if you're eating large quantities and have some SIBO.
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
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
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
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

How else would they ferment in the upper gut without undigested carbs like starch? I have trouble imagining some vegetables being efficient enough for this or at least not as much.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
It can't be as simple as being caused by the extra starch.
Many people rely mainly on starch for energy. Not everyone develops SIBO.
Overgrowth must be alaways thought of within the context of physiological stress to understand variability among people.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/enzymes ... -2211.html

How does your amalayse production go when liver is weak and/or when hypothyroid.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom