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

Sea

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
164
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:
Sea said:
You have yet to provide a source for your baobob claims.
Here you go:
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.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
What about the calories made available by the bacteria, could that account for the 10-30%?
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Sea said:
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.

Sea said:
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! :barf

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.

Sea said:
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?

t0joqq.jpg


Sea said:
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.

tara said:
That milk has particular substances may indicate that babies can do well with those substances. There are other differences between baby nutritional needs and nutritional needs at other ages, too (eg. iron, tryptophan). The fibre you have been promoting for adults is mostly not the same as the fibre in breast milk, anyway. The analogy seems irrelevant to me.

Exactly. :carrot2


The white Gerber baby grew up to be Asian:

3128ydg.jpg
 
OP
S

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
@ 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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
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?

And ties in so neatly with the bacterial innoculation by the mother's microbiome during birth don't you think?

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.

What if this ‘innoculation process’ happens in the placenta already long before we're born?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
237
Suikerbuik said:
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?

And ties in so neatly with the bacterial innoculation by the mother's microbiome during birth don't you think?

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.

What if this ‘innoculation process’ happens in the placenta already long before we're born?

We know it does not. How would that happen? Babies from c-section have been shown to have different flora from natural birth.
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
We know it does not.
What is the evidence?
How would that happen?
Via the bloodstream followed by placenta.
Babies from c-section have been shown to have different flora from natural birth.
That is no prove proof. Mothers exposed to more stress also bear babies with a different microbiome.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Stuart said:
@ sea
Can I ask you, what do you think the hundred trillion bacteria in YOUR gut are for?
I'm not Sea, but I reckon one/the important raison d'etre of bacteria is probably to survive and reproduce the next generation of their own species. Some of them happen to do it best in our guts, and would prefer not to kill us too quickly.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
237
Suikerbuik said:
We know it does not.
What is the evidence?
How would that happen?
Via the bloodstream followed by placenta.
Babies from c-section have been shown to have different flora from natural birth.
That is no prove. Mothers exposed to more stress also bear babies with a different microbiome.

Bacteria in the fetus would be called an infection before birth. Via the blood? You're saying that the mother is delivering bacteria to the fetus via her bloodstream? How is it that the burden of evidence is on me when you can just say things like that? Hard to take you seriously with the spelling errors... I did not say that a mother's stressors don't affect her microbiome. This is true of course... A baby was inside the mom experiencing her stress levels, it has inherited a microbiome from her, continues to via her breast milk, and has imprinted stress responses and patterns because of this...
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Such_Saturation said:
What about the calories made available by the bacteria, could that account for the 10-30%?

Yes, what about it? Sounds likely! I say "probable".... Your strong point, Such, is briefly making "Such strong points." :roll:
 

Sea

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
164
narouz said:
Sea said:
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...

Thank you for that, Sea.
What does your diet look like, roughly?

Currently, my diet is mainly: Orange Juice, apple juice, cheese pizza, ice cream, collagen, milk, starbucks doubleshot and frappucino drinks, redbull, mexican coke, frozen cherries, and carrots. Around 3500 calories/day.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Stuart said:
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.
I consider life in general and human beings in particular to be amazing, but as a mother I don't consider arguments based-on presumptions of intelligent design to be very useful/credible.

Stuart said:
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.
I think the microbiome may increase when we die, too?
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Sea said:
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:
Sea said:
You have yet to provide a source for your baobob claims.
Here you go:
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.

Sea, I would like to come up to speed on your point of view without reading everything you've written here so far on this thread. A lot of what I'm reading now is to refute something by Stuart, but I'm still lacking what you are claiming. Also, as one other asked, what do you eat?

You are making some good points, but I would like your point of view, as in making a positive statement of your belief in regards to the thread, as I'm failing in gaining this from just the negatives you use to reply to Stuart.

For instance, you say to Stuart

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.

So while Stuart may be right that the predominance of beneficial gut bacteria do prefer fermentable fiber over mucins, and while you may be right to point out an exception to that rule, which is quite valuable to the education of all present, I wish to know what you think of the value of HMO in milk for the young of a species, and what you think of the value of bacteria in the gut. It's hard to get these beliefs from articles you cite to show exceptions to other's claims, though these so far to seem to have merit.

Another example: you say to Stuart

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.

Are you saying that the fiberlike, microbe-feeding HMO's can have no value to feed certain commensal bacteria while at the same time helping A. muciniphila establish a dialogue and then a more robust mucin layer? The best I can tell, that is what you claim. That it's an "either / or" situation. Please explain if I've inferred something more than you wish to claim here.

Another example where you seem to make a point of showing a different point of view to Stuart, but your logic is not quite clear:

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.

This statement could be used to support use of fiber in treatment of IBS. That is, "marginally effective" is in effect, "effective", and is far from "contraindicated" or "definitely a negative treatment." So sometimes your statements are coming across as, well, "marginally effective", at least they are marginal at swaying me in this discussion because I have no idea to what you wish to sway us.

Can you explain your point of view with regard to the value or intended function of soluble fiber in human breast milk?
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
tara said:
Stuart said:
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.
I consider life in general and human beings in particular to be amazing, but as a mother I don't consider arguments based-on presumptions of intelligent design to be very useful/credible.

Stuart said:
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.
I think the microbiome may increase when we die, too?

Strange, but I don't consider the use of the word "design" to be anything more than "handy" in Stuart's statement. I think his operative word is "intricate". However you get to "intricate" is up to the individual, but if one doesn't argue with "intricate" then how can there be an argument. "Intricate" is the word to argue with, as I see it.

I also often use the word "design" when talking about scientific matters in life sciences. It's quite obvious if one has ever studied in fields that actually require design skills (engineering, architecture, etc.) that what you see in nature has the most remarkable resemblance to designed structures and designed processes. Beautiful consistency, symmetry, and efficiency. Far, far from chaos. So from that, I think it is "natural" for an observant person to use the word "design" quite effectively as it gives a great feeling for what is being viewed or studied. I don't think that someone who has a tendency to try to avoid any relationship to deism should take offense to these analogies, or interpret the use of the word "design" so literally that they must then infer that the speaker intended to imply they believed in intelligent design of things which others wish to consider arbitrarily evolved.

However, having said that, and being fully capable of looking at other sides of issues, my rational mind comes easily to the conclusion that if, as you say tara, I am looking for truly useful/credible arguments, then I should certainly not give any less credibility to possibilities of true and complete intelligent design, because all I see in nature reflects what appears to be an intelligent design. No proof, just appearance! Don't fight appearance without proof is more my motto. Don't "believe" things. Stay open to possibilities. So ruling out the possibility of "intelligent design" is a much stronger "belief" than being open to the possibility. Not being "open" is the self-damning situation as I see it.
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
Bacteria in the fetus would be called an infection before birth.
Lol.. another such statement. Why would the presence of bacteria immediately mean infection? It’s only in your mind that bacteria are inextricably associated with infection.

It’s been posted several times on the forum now I guess, but here you go:

In recent years, a greater appreciation for the microbes inhabiting human body sites has emerged. In the female mammary gland, milk has been shown to contain bacterial species, ostensibly from the skin. We decided to investigate whether there is a microbiome within the mammary tissue. Using 16S rRNA sequencing and culture, we analysed breast tissue from 81 women with and without cancer in Canada and Ireland. A diverse population of bacteria were detected within tissue collected from sites all around the breast in women aged 18 to 90, not all of whom had a history of lactating. The principal phylum was Proteobacteria. The most abundant taxa in the Canadian samples were ... None of the subjects had signs or symptoms of infection, but the presence of viable bacteria was confirmed in some samples by culture. The extent to which these organisms play a role in health or disease remains to be determined. http://aem.asm.org/content/early/2014/0 ... M.00242-14

Via the blood? You're saying that the mother is delivering bacteria to the fetus via her bloodstream? How is it that the burden of evidence is on me when you can just say things like that?

I started with IF, and you come up a statement ‘we KNOW’, apparantly because you heard it somewhere and it fits your thoughts, but you should actually question this and if you do, this supposed ‘fact’ would become an assumption in my opinion.

Besides being found in tissue like the breast. There are also studies showing that bacteria are found in the brain tissue in some cases, but I guess that is via the blood residing inside white blood cells that are unable to kill that micro-organism. I doubt that is happening here though. Anyway here is an indication that they are found in umbilical cord blood:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16187156

They then looked at the meconium in mice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18281199

And continued to look for bacterial DNA in human meconium
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7912609312

(link to the new scientist article is above. Note that new scientist is not peer-reviewed, hence the body of true evidence is still lacking. Anyway I didn't use 'IF' for nothing. My response earlier:
Aha still ongoing. Yeah the latter part of glyphosphate is quite concerning. I am also aware of the nytimes article Stuart. Guess you know/ like: "microbes maketh man" and "babies are born dirty, with a gutful of bacteria" too, but I find it still observational.. Not denying the human microbiome, but the possible role for (supplemental) fibers in (established) human disease.

Hard to take you seriously with the spelling errors...
Well yeah I can find myself in that. Reading back a written post makes one realize there are errors in there, but on a forum who cares, at least I don’t. It’s fine by me as long as you understand me and supposedly you do. Changed it though in case it bothers you.

I did not say that a mother's stressors don't affect her microbiome. This is true of course... A baby was inside the mom experiencing her stress levels, it has inherited a microbiome from her, continues to via her breast milk, and has imprinted stress responses and patterns because of this...
So what is the point of having a different microbiome when born by c-section? You’re thinking too black and white, as if a baby is born is with a fully equiped microbiome. Ofc. not but being born sterile is another question.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
EnoreeG said:
Strange, but I don't consider the use of the word "design" to be anything more than "handy" in Stuart's statement. I think his operative word is "intricate". However you get to "intricate" is up to the individual, but if one doesn't argue with "intricate" then how can there be an argument. "Intricate" is the word to argue with, as I see it.

I also often use the word "design" when talking about scientific matters in life sciences. It's quite obvious if one has ever studied in fields that actually require design skills (engineering, architecture, etc.) that what you see in nature has the most remarkable resemblance to designed structures and designed processes. Beautiful consistency, symmetry, and efficiency. Far, far from chaos. So from that, I think it is "natural" for an observant person to use the word "design" quite effectively as it gives a great feeling for what is being viewed or studied. I don't think that someone who has a tendency to try to avoid any relationship to deism should take offense to these analogies, or interpret the use of the word "design" so literally that they must then infer that the speaker intended to imply they believed in intelligent design of things which others wish to consider arbitrarily evolved.

However, having said that, and being fully capable of looking at other sides of issues, my rational mind comes easily to the conclusion that if, as you say tara, I am looking for truly useful/credible arguments, then I should certainly not give any less credibility to possibilities of true and complete intelligent design, because all I see in nature reflects what appears to be an intelligent design. No proof, just appearance! Don't fight appearance without proof is more my motto. Don't "believe" things. Stay open to possibilities. So ruling out the possibility of "intelligent design" is a much stronger "belief" than being open to the possibility. Not being "open" is the self-damning situation as I see it.

I use the word design for evolved life from time to time too, because it is handy. But I was starting to think Stuart has been arguing generally in this thread, from the title on, as though if sth exists, it must be a deliberate beneficial part of the design. I too find great elegance and intricately functional 'design' in the natural world, but I also find some randomness, and some conflict.

I reckon intelligent design that did not achieve it's purposes by circuitous evoutionary routes, would not design big-headed bipedals like us to give birth through a part of the anatomy that the rest of the time has to be strong enough to hold all the rest of our innards up against gravity. As a mother this becomes obvious. :)
 
OP
S

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Suikerbuik said:
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?

And ties in so neatly with the bacterial innoculation by the mother's microbiome during birth don't you think?

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.

What if this ‘innoculation process’ happens in the placenta already long before we're born?
There actually are some bacteria from the mother's oral cavity ( of all places) that move through the blood to the placental wall and amniotic fluid. If the baby swallows some amniotic fluid, which often happens, some of these mouth bacteria will end up in the infants colon. If the mother has even low grade peridontal disease the developing foetus will spit the dummy and initiate pre term birth. So floss your teeth expectant mums!
But there is no food in the foetus' colon so the bacteria don't proliferate. Those bacteria are joined during vaginal birth by the mother's colonic microbiota. One of the reasons that colostrum has the most fermentable fiber is that there is no time to lose getting the baby's microbiome performing its immune system functions as quickly as possible. And there's even more beneficial bacteria in the breast milk too. It's an absolute bacterial breeding frenzy soon after the baby has its first feed of fermentable fiber rich colostrum. And the frenzy continues at a slightly slower speed for the first two weeks of a baby's life - by which time the digestive tract microbiota, all the way from its mouth to colon is up and running. When bacterial numbers have been established in their desirable species ratios, it becomes an ongoing process of making sure the good guys are keeping the bad guys under control. It ends when you die.
Until 2013 this trick of the oral bacteria making their way through the blood to the placenta, and then via any swallowed amniotic fluid to the foetus'colon wasn't even known about. Bizarre isn't it?
A newborn is inoculated by the mother's skin microbiota too during breastfeeding. It's such a lively mutualistic world we share with our microbiota. Just think, without a microbiome, evolution would have come up with some other equally effective way of keeping the pathogenic bacteria at bay
The fact that it didn't surely attests to what a powerful ally our microbiome is.
Which seems to be why the prebiotic effect (not the only trick of course Sea) of HMO's is so powerful. And why I think continuing to provide the prebiotics post weaning is such a good idea.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
tara said:
I use the word design for evolved life from time to time too, because it is handy. But I was starting to think Stuart has been arguing generally in this thread, from the title on, as though if sth exists, it must be a deliberate beneficial part of the design. I too find great elegance and intricately functional 'design' in the natural world, but I also find some randomness, and some conflict.

I reckon intelligent design that did not achieve it's purposes by circuitous evoutionary routes, would not design big-headed bipedals like us to give birth through a part of the anatomy that the rest of the time has to be strong enough to hold all the rest of our innards up against gravity. As a mother this becomes obvious. :)

Now those are some thought provoking ideas. My favorite kind.

You may be right about Stuart's assumptions. It doesn't matter to me, but might be very important to others. I just look at what the studies say, which so far, are not attributing purpose to effects we see, other than survival being a driving force in each generation.

On the possibility of intelligent design, which I allow for, I don't limit it to a "big bang" or even a classic 6-day event. I'm totally open to intelligence and evolution occupying the same space, one helping build the other. If I suddenly found myself with a great gain in intelligence, that grew by the second, or at least by the minute, and I felt so powerful after a period of time that I conceived of creating life forms, I think I would still start simply and play with the elements and the electrical attractions and eventually work on a single cell, then on other complexities. But obviously, this point of view is "just me" with my current limitations. Regardless, whatever I would be able to come up with in the way of life would probably have "design" written all over it. That's the only way I've ever been able to build most things except possibly jokes and abstract art and jazz.
 
OP
S

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
tara said:
Stuart said:
@ sea
Can I ask you, what do you think the hundred trillion bacteria in YOUR gut are for?
I'm not Sea, but I reckon one/the important raison d'etre of bacteria is probably to survive and reproduce the next generation of their own species. Some of them happen to do it best in our guts, and would prefer not to kill us too quickly.
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.

But it does explain to a large degree the distrust a lot of people seem to have of their microbiome.
I really couldn't understand how Xplus couldn't see that his liver and his microbiome were both just organs of his body. I still disagree with it, but at least now I understand.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom