I’m pretty sure both bifido and lactobacillus species dont produce LPS and many of them dont produce histamine or d lactate. Some actually inhibit and block lps and many produce compounds like GABA. They also inhibit more pathogenic strains like gram negative e.coli, klebsiella, psuedomonas, citrobactor, campylobactor, salmonella etc. As was pointed out a small intestine overgrowth may not be ideal but having the populations in the colon may not be such as bad thing. Many people report healing themselves of digestive issues using these species. There are clinical studies using these on IBD patients with success. It seems a combination of these bacteria with antibiotics would be a potent combination overall for someone with IBD or gut issues, however taking them orally may be an issue due to small intestine overgrowth possibility so taking them as an enema may be more feasible.
I think there may be a difference between isolated soluble fibers like inulin and FOS and something like garlic or a banana. Attempting to avoid soluble fibers, which seems to be implied here, would create a very restrictive diet. Assuming no dysbiosis I’d think fiber from safe foods like fruits, yams, potatoes, roots would have a different effect than the isolated supplemental fibers we are being sold as “prebiotics”.
Some essential oils are just as potent if not more potent than antibiotics. Oregano, thyme, cinnamon, and lemongrass are some examples with extremely low minimum inhibitory concentrations in ranges from .3% To 5% (v/v).
If you cant be sterile you might as well choose the least worst option especially if you have a gut issue.
Nice post. I've wondered about EM1 beneficial bacteria which I use regularly on my fishpond as well as on my cats' drinking water. And I've used probiotics myself in the past, and only limited to times when I had to take antibiotics. Lately, I've been staying away from probiotics though. But I'm conflicted as I find it hard to reconcile the concept of having a sterile gut to the concept of having a healthy microbiome. Reconciling these views would probably have to start with disabusing us of the notion that all gut bacteria are bad. Knowing that there are bacteria that don't produce endotoxins is very helpful, for one.
For me a sterile gut is anathema to our biology. Perhaps a more suitable phrase is a relatively sterile gut. This gut would still have a wide diversity of bacterial species that as a whole is the microbiome of the gut. The diversity is a requisite starting point, as it allows the body to have an assortment of capability to counter threats as part of the body's immune system. After diversity comes balance, which comes from a good mix of bacteria. A good mix is where the beneficial nature outweighs the harmful nature of the microbiome. There is Jekyll and Hyde duality to the microbiome, where there is a constant tug-of-war between good and evil, if you will. We have to set the environment of our gut to be such that good predominates. Consider that between good and evil bacteria, there is a silent majority of bacteria that's sitting on the fence. The good bacteria has to be dominant, as this will bring the rest of the fence-sitting bacteria to its side. And when such is the case, there is a healthy gut.
But that's still not enough. Maybe the next thing is to not have too much bacteria in our gut. And this is what I mean by having a relatively sterile gut. And for me, it makes sense if we take antibiotics such as tetracyclines with regular low dosages. Since such antibiotics don't discriminate, it would simply pare down the size of the microbiome while maintaining the balance and diversity.
But I'm not sure if I'm making sense here. I'm just trying to reconcile what I see to be conflicts in what I'm reading about gut bacteria.