Serotonin Production (gut) Depends On Bacteria

[haidut]

I think people keep hearing sterile gut and thinking our intestines are make from stainless steel and we just need to wipe it clean.

Having a sterile gut is impossible and we would most likely die quickly without any gut bacteria. The main points are to keep the bacteria from traveling up the gut where they cause trouble with normal digestion and to keep them in check and not let them proliferate out of control.

We won't die quickly with a sterile gut. It has been achieved multiple times in humans as a side effect of prolonged antibiotic therapy. What it does do is it may allow bad bacteria to colonize the clean gut and that may be lethal. So a clean gut is not a problem, it's the potential to be colonized with pathogenic bacteria. However, if there is a practical way to keep your gut clean, it is preferable. In other words, in the absense of practical methods or resources to keep your gut always clean then it is the lesser of two evils to have it colonized by "beneficial" bacteria as opposed to something like the Clostridium strain. But it is not preferable to having a clean gut.

 

[Zachs]

Haidut, don't gut bacteria produce many useful things as well though like vitamins and saturated fatty acids? How would some foods get broken down and absorbed?

 

[haidut]

Haidut, don't gut bacteria produce many useful things as well though like vitamins and saturated fatty acids? How would some foods get broken down and absorbed?

Nope, if you are healthy (as per official medical standards) your stomach and small intestine should be sterile. Digestion and absorption happens mostly there and bacteria not only don't play a positive role but if you have it in small intestine or stomach then it's pathogenic (i.e. SIBO, ulcers, etc). Bacteria should be only in the colon, and when food reaches the colon ideally it should be digested as close to 100% as possible and expelled as quickly as possible to prevent the bacteria in the colon form digesting whatever leftovers there are from the food and making endotoxin. So from Peat's point of view, healthy means all three portions of the digestive tract should be sterile as opposed to official medical guidelines of having only the first two clean.
The colon bacteria can do some good for things like turning vitamin K1 into vitamin K2 or producing SCFA like butyrate. However, butyrate is actually pro-serotonergic as the study in my original post shows so even though it inhibits cancer it is actually irritating to the stomach as are the SCFA acetate and proprionate. Peat says the same thing in one of his recent interviews. He said butyrate is probably effective for cancer and many people are selling it for that purpose, but it is pro-inflammatory for the gut. Btw, it is fairly common knowledge that giving butyrate to dogs and cats with cancer effectively allows them to live disease free and die from other cause (aging). Just Google around for butyrate and cancer in pets. Why this is not hailed around the world as a breakthrough in cancer therapy is beyound me...

 

[Suikerbuik]

However, butyrate is actually pro-serotonergic as the study in my original post shows so even though it inhibits cancer it is actually irritating to the stomach as are the SCFA acetate and proprionate. Peat says the same thing in one of his recent interviews. He said butyrate is probably effective for cancer and many people are selling it for that purpose, but it is pro-inflammatory for the gut.

Not sure if you can say this. It is known to regulate T-regs and some say Th17, but it is dependent of the context and in that case it was actually favourable. And to be honest I am not sure to what extent the study in the initial post translates to humans. Is the concentration used represetative to that in humans? - seems too low but some metabolites act like double edged swords. I also find the TPH1 expression in butyrate treated cells is not really notable (only 2 fold compared to GF and for those unfamiliar with the study, it is 20 fold increased in cholate treated). By the way, do you know how long those cells were treated with compound and if there was supplemental tryptophan in the culture medium? And if we consider butyrate pro-inflammatory because of the serotonergic actions, than alpa-tocopherol is too?

Add: I find this a difficult subject. I am not against your views but having difficulties determining what is reality.

 

[pboy]

its quite easy to tell butyic acid isn't good, like ive said before...smell it, taste it, it'll make you gag

 

[haidut]

However, butyrate is actually pro-serotonergic as the study in my original post shows so even though it inhibits cancer it is actually irritating to the stomach as are the SCFA acetate and proprionate. Peat says the same thing in one of his recent interviews. He said butyrate is probably effective for cancer and many people are selling it for that purpose, but it is pro-inflammatory for the gut.

Not sure if you can say this. It is known to regulate T-regs and some say Th17, but it is dependent of the context and in that case it was actually favourable. And to be honest I am not sure to what extent the study in the initial post translates to humans. Is the concentration used represetative to that in humans? - seems too low but some metabolites act like double edged swords. I also find the TPH1 expression in butyrate treated cells is not really notable (only 2 fold compared to GF and for those unfamiliar with the study, it is 20 fold increased in cholate treated). By the way, do you know how long those cells were treated with compound and if there was supplemental tryptophan in the culture medium? And if we consider butyrate pro-inflammatory because of the serotonergic actions, than alpa-tocopherol is too?

Add: I find this a difficult subject. I am not against your views but having difficulties determining what is reality.

Yes, alpha tocopherol was shown to be serotonergic in some rodent studies. The gut study got me interested and I found references to other studies showing 10mg/kg oral alpha tocopherol to rats is serotonergic.
As far as butyrate, I am just saying Peat considers is a double edge sword and this study seems to support his views. Overall it may be a net positive.
As far as being germ-free - I guess if it's not practical then we might as well mitigate by controlling bacterial load with charcoal and carrot. But I don't know of a study that shows having a germ free colon is detrimental.

 

[jyb]

its quite easy to tell butyic acid isn't good, like ive said before...smell it, taste it, it'll make you gag

You think cascara tastes lovely? Caffeine powder? Thiamine? Methylene Blue? Niacinamide? I tasted all of those. The list goes on and shows you that isolated stuff, including therapeutic ones, taste like hell. Any of those would make you puke if you kept those in your mouth. Dairy contains lots of butyric, never made me gag. Even some whole foods like liver would make you gag, yet are very nutritious.

So, smell and taste are often irrelevant I think...

 

[tara]

its quite easy to tell butyic acid isn't good, like ive said before...smell it, taste it, it'll make you gag

Butter tastes and smells delicious. (No idea what pure butyrate tastes or smells like. )

 

[tara]

The main points are to keep the bacteria from traveling up the gut where they cause trouble with normal digestion and to keep them in check and not let them proliferate out of control.

That's how it seems to me too.

 

[Nicholas]

" Its about your mind in a huge way, and your spirit. You can be in a certain state, with certain thoughts, then witnessing something can (not eating anything, or changing anything else) profoundly change mood and flow and secretions, and its always something that gives hope and that a success is a real possibility." - pboy

I think when you try to get into the realm of specifically controlling gut cleanliness or thinking about it, it's not the point. that's not the way it works. Gut cleanliness has to do with everything. It has to do with everything and it is technically different for every person what is required for balancing the *body*. You can't just deide to balance the gut specifically or even clean the gut and make it sterile - that's not the way it works. It has to work from the cell up. The cells have to do all the decision making. We work with the cells.
If you perceive, think, act...you don't have to know anything about physiology besides what you perceive on your own. The state of your mind and the way in which you PERCEIVE YOUR OWN BODY has worlds more to do with your health than what supplements you take or the foods you eat. But i could be wrong.

{i do eat about 2 carrot salads a week.....when i eat it is usually dependent on craving}

 

[lexis]

OK, here is a follow up on the study above, which I read carefully. Couple of VERY interesting facts and observations.

Overall, a very very interesting study and some specific practical ideas on how to lower peripheral serotonin with antibiotics or pCPA. I personally think that pCPA is the less risky option, but microbiota depletion has the advantage of being more long lasting as well as potentially having other beneficial effects on immune system (i.e. the smaller spleen seen in animals without microbiota).
Thoughts?

Whats your experience with pCPA?

 

[tara]

Yes, alpha tocopherol was shown to be serotonergic in some rodent studies. The gut study got me interested and I found references to other studies showing 10mg/kg oral alpha tocopherol to rats is serotonergic.

Ah ha. So I guess I'd be better off not taking an 800IU vit E capsule if I'm feeling at all dodgy to start with.

 

[haidut]

OK, here is a follow up on the study above, which I read carefully. Couple of VERY interesting facts and observations.

Overall, a very very interesting study and some specific practical ideas on how to lower peripheral serotonin with antibiotics or pCPA. I personally think that pCPA is the less risky option, but microbiota depletion has the advantage of being more long lasting as well as potentially having other beneficial effects on immune system (i.e. the smaller spleen seen in animals without microbiota).
Thoughts?

Whats your experience with pCPA?

I have tried it and it does certainly lower serotonin but it also gives me headache. Definitely not something to be tried lightly.

 

[NathanK]

A sterile gut was probably the last major questionable thing for me that Ray has spoken about. He's chipped away at me after Ive fought him on so many things. Personal experimentation FTW.

I had always assumed Ray's postulation of a sterile gut was a little weak based on an old rat study i read involving fatty liver. The rats with the sterilized guts in that study had a complete remission of fatty liver. Haiduts studies make that picture much clearer for me.

RE: Haiduts second study showing chocolate's effect on the liver and fat absorption. Off hand, I imagine those effects are mitigated by chocolate's caffeine content.

 

[Makrosky]

post 86336

OK, here is a follow up on the study above, which I read carefully. Couple of VERY interesting facts and observations.

Overall, a very very interesting study and some specific practical ideas on how to lower peripheral serotonin with antibiotics or pCPA. I personally think that pCPA is the less risky option, but microbiota depletion has the advantage of being more long lasting as well as potentially having other beneficial effects on immune system (i.e. the smaller spleen seen in animals without microbiota).
Thoughts?

Whats your experience with pCPA?

I have tried it and it does certainly lower serotonin but it also gives me headache. Definitely not something to be tried lightly.

I've been trying ginger, either in fresh juice (very unpleasant experience) or in dried root pills, and for my limited experience I would say it indeed lowers serotonin. More potent fresh than dried. But I also got a VERY BIG headache from both.

 

[Giraffe]

post 86657 RE: Haiduts second study showing chocolate's effect on the liver and fat absorption. Off hand, I imagine those effects are mitigated by chocolate's caffeine content.

Chocolate??? ... (cholate?)

 

[lexis]

Those who are against the idea of a sterile gut are saying that its okay for bacteria to breed in the mouth and cause dental diseases.There is a strong correlation between oral health and gut health

 

[Kasper]

Those who are against the idea of a sterile gut are saying that its okay for bacteria to breed in the mouth and cause dental diseases.There is a strong correlation between oral health and gut health

There are just a handfull of bacteria species that cause dental problems. There are thousands of species of bacteria that cause no problems:

Oral bacteria work with our immune system to keep our bodies disease free by fighting disease-producing germs that try to come in through the mouth. For example, some of these bacteria produce organic acids that kill the organisms that cause intestinal problems.[5] Without these good bacteria, our immune systems would be constantly bombarded by airborne and saliva-transferred germs. Bacteria are also needed to control the growth of fungus. “Balance between all the different bacteria and fungus are critical” or else the “fungus overgrows and takes over.”[8] So, ironically, though bacteria have the potential to harm us, our mouth and the good bacteria in it are the body’s first line of defense. These bacteria are transmitted to a human early in their childhood through their contact with their caretakers by kisses or food premastication.

In other words, either kill all your bacteria in your mouth with antibiotics or whatever, and fight the rest of your life every bacteria yourself (with constant antibiotics, baking soda, or whatever)...

OR don't mess around with the balance too much, and let those good bacteria fight the bad bacteria for you.

 

[hmac]

Gerald Pollack has shown in his experiments that when water is structured it excludes bacteria. There is a magnetic generator (http://www.searlmagnetics.com/) which creates power using an implosive motion (the opposite motion to all common generators, which use explosion); an interesting by-product of this form of energy generation is that it seems to have the effect of creating a field of coherence around it, within which the air appears to be pure and free of bacteria. The generator is having the same effect on the air as ATP is having on the protoplasm of the cell. In both examples energy is seen to create coherence (structure), the natural consequence of which is the exclusion of bacteria.
Peat has mentioned in virtually everything he's ever written that the energy promoting substances have a cohering effect on the organism and that this coherence is the prerequisite of good health. Since coherence and bacteria are mutually exclusive, good health and bacteria must also be so.
In this context, to argue that bacteria can contribute positively to the health of the human organism is to argue against the benefit of good mitochondrial respiration and against the central thesis of Peat's work; that energy and structure are interdependent at every level.

 

[brandonk]

Gerald Pollack has shown in his experiments that when water is structured it excludes bacteria. There is a magnetic generator (http://www.searlmagnetics.com/) which creates power using an implosive motion (the opposite motion to all common generators, which use explosion); an interesting by-product of this form of energy generation is that it seems to have the effect of creating a field of coherence around it, within which the air appears to be pure and free of bacteria. The generator is having the same effect on the air as ATP is having on the protoplasm of the cell. In both examples energy is seen to create coherence (structure), the natural consequence of which is the exclusion of bacteria.
Peat has mentioned in virtually everything he's ever written that the energy promoting substances have a cohering effect on the organism and that this coherence is the prerequisite of good health. Since coherence and bacteria are mutually exclusive, good health and bacteria must also be so.
In this context, to argue that bacteria can contribute positively to the health of the human organism is to argue against the benefit of good mitochondrial respiration and against the central thesis of Peat's work; that energy and structure are interdependent at every level.

The question might be whether there are strains of bacteria, such as bifidobacteria, that can function at a high redox potential and improve the coherence of the organism, for example, by improving the slightly oxidized balance of the GSSG/GSH ratio.
http://www.che.utexas.edu/georgiou/dev/ ... g%2006.pdf