Necessity Of Butyrate

[tara]

I think it is mostly pastured, though maybe a little supplementary feeding for brief periods depending on weather etc.
Tastes really good.

 

[narouz]

Peata posted this quote over in another thread,
and it contained a note about butyrate, so...
(thanks Peata)

from Peat's Multiple Sclerosis and Other Hormone-Related Brain Syndromes:

"Nutritional supplements that might help to prevent or correct these brain syndromes include: Vitamin E and coconut oil; vitamin A; magnesium, sodium; thyroid which includes T3; large amounts of animal protein, especially eggs; sulfur, such as magnesium sulfate or flowers of sulfur, but not to take continuously, because of sulfur's interference with copper absorption; pregnenolone; progesterone if needed. Bright light, weak in the blue end of the spectrum and with protection against ultraviolet, activates respiratory metabolism and quenches free radicals. Raw carrot fiber and/or laxatives if needed; charcoal occasionally for gas or bowel irritation. Coconut oil serves several purposes. Its butyric acid is known to increase T3 uptake by glial cells. It has a general pro-thyroid action, for example by diluting and displacing antithyroid unsaturated oils, its short- and medium-chain fatty acids sustain blood sugar and have antiallergic actions, and it protects mitochondria against stressinjury."

 

[BingDing]

Except that CO doesn't have any butyric acid, as the devil's advocate (Bukowski?) on peatarian.com pointed out. Butter has a lot, though.

But this is a good thread, I've never been able to figure out what foods are soluble fibers. The link upthread was pretty helpful.

 

[sm1693]

- Ray affirms "coconut oil's butyric acid is known to increase T3 uptake by glial cells".
Problem is, coconut oil doesn't contain any butyric acid, but does contain similar longer saturated fatty acids, which would possibly achieve the same effects, but no study can prove it yet.

My own searching on several listings of oil compositions seems to confirm the above quote.

I don't think Ray intentionally uses hyperbole or exaggerations, but rather that he lives in his own world of knowledge, which has no relation to "mainstream" knowledge, making it difficult for people to grasp the frontier separating Ray's facts from Ray's assumptions.

I really like the above quote. Makes it sound like we're gunslingers in the wild west, always stayin just one step ahead of johnny law...

 

[Brian]

Except that CO doesn't have any butyric acid, as the devil's advocate (Bukowski?) on peatarian.com pointed out. Butter has a lot, though.

I think Ray was referring to the ketone body beta-hydroxybutyrate that is formed by the liver from metabolizing the MCTs in coconut oil.

Butyrate from large intestine fermentation of resistant starch also seems to be metabolized into a similar ketone when enough is produced and absorbed. I think that must explain why I feel warmer when eating parboiled rice and cooked/cooled potatoes as staples. Cooked in some coconut oil I find they provide a very steady energy source. They probably also provide a steady source of bacteria produced B-vitamins as well.

 

[SQu]

Tara, why not give it a bash for a few days until it weakens or you get feedback, positive or negative? in my experience there's useful information there.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Except that CO doesn't have any butyric acid, as the devil's advocate (Bukowski?) on peatarian.com pointed out. Butter has a lot, though.

I think Ray was referring to the ketone body beta-hydroxybutyrate that is formed by the liver from metabolizing the MCTs in coconut oil.

Hmm good point. Once again it proves a tricky business, attacking Ray Peat's quotes with a small mindset.

 

[BingDing]

Except that CO doesn't have any butyric acid, as the devil's advocate (Bukowski?) on peatarian.com pointed out. Butter has a lot, though.

I think Ray was referring to the ketone body beta-hydroxybutyrate that is formed by the liver from metabolizing the MCTs in coconut oil.

Hmm good point. Once again it proves a tricky business, attacking Ray Peat's quotes with a small mindset.

 

[sm1693]

Possibly Senor Peat's reasoning against using starch as food for butyric acid creating bacteria...

So, from the fact that the healthiest people don't have bacteria, and the butyric acid is produced by fermentative bacteria, it should be limited to the colon. And preferably the materials that feed the bacteria should've been digested and absorbed in the small intestine. I think, ideally we shouldn't be making any butyric acid in the intestine. Both butyric acid and propionic acid have some pro-inflammatory effect as well as their anti-cancer effect. Even though, they are potential cancer therapies, ultimately for minimizing the intestinal production of them…

viewtopic.php?f=73&t=6093&p=72634&hilit=propionic+acid+butyric#p72634

 

[narouz]

I have a special interest in the topic
so being picky on a few points...

1."...the healthiest people don't have bacteria..."
I know it's Dr. Peat, but!
I'd like more detailed proof of this.
In any event
it is, I would think, a simplification or overstatement.
I mean, in the experiment often referred to by Peat
with the sterile-gut mice
even Peat said they could not live in that state outside the laboratory,
and...

2. "...the butyric acid is produced by fermentative bacteria, it should be limited to the colon."
So, right there he seems to be saying that, presumably,
even "the healthiest people"
have bacteria in the colon.
Also, Peat would seem to be saying that
there is a value to some bacteria in the gut--in the colon.
I mean, we've known this really,
because Peat has said things along the lines of
"if you've got to live amongst them (bacteria),
you might as well make friends with them."

3. Another question this raises for me is:
okay...if it is desirable to have some bacteria in the gut to make butyrate
and maybe do other stuff,
and if those bacteria are responsible for desirable fermentation,
well
then they need something to ferment.
What foods would appropriately feed those bacteria
in order to induce that fermentation?

4. Finally, and this is specific to me (appendixless) and a small subset:
how might all the above notions fit into the scenario
of those without an appendix?
The appendix is situated right at the very end of the small intestine
in the cecum,
just before the intestines empty into the colon.
If the appendix does indeed serve the function
of being a reservoir for healthy bacteria,
what if one doesn't have an appendix
and the intestinal flora is wiped out or strongly affected by, say, antibiotics?

 

[Such_Saturation]

 

[Amazoniac]

I have a special interest in the topic
so being picky on a few points...

1."...the healthiest people don't have bacteria..."
I know it's Dr. Peat, but!
I'd like more detailed proof of this.
In any event
it is, I would think, a simplification or overstatement.
I mean, in the experiment often referred to by Peat
with the sterile-gut mice
even Peat said they could not live in that state outside the laboratory,
and...

2. "...the butyric acid is produced by fermentative bacteria, it should be limited to the colon."
So, right there he seems to be saying that, presumably,
even "the healthiest people"
have bacteria in the colon.
Also, Peat would seem to be saying that
there is a value to some bacteria in the gut--in the colon.
I mean, we've known this really,
because Peat has said things along the lines of
"if you've got to live amongst them (bacteria),
you might as well make friends with them."

3. Another question this raises for me is:
okay...if it is desirable to have some bacteria in the gut to make butyrate
and maybe do other stuff,
and if those bacteria are responsible for desirable fermentation,
well
then they need something to ferment.
What would those materials ferment?

4. Finally, and this is specific to me (appendixless) and a small subset:
how might all the above notions fit into the scenario
of those without an appendix?
The appendix is situated right at the very end of the small intestine
in the cecum,
just before the intestines empty into the colon.
If the appendix does indeed serve the function
of being a reservoir for healthy bacteria,
what if one doesn't have an appendix
and the intestinal flora is wiped out or strongly affected by, say, antibiotics?

Hi narouz,

Trace those quotes in their context that you won't find any contradiction..

 

[sm1693]

Trace those quotes in their context that you won't find any contradiction..

Perhaps you can add something of value to the thread as Narouz has done with his specific and intuitive line of questioning? You can start with the quotes or ideas in which you see no contradiction and why.

 

[narouz]

See. I gotcha thinkin', right!?

 

[narouz]

I have a special interest in the topic
so being picky on a few points...

1."...the healthiest people don't have bacteria..."
I know it's Dr. Peat, but!
I'd like more detailed proof of this.
In any event
it is, I would think, a simplification or overstatement.
I mean, in the experiment often referred to by Peat
with the sterile-gut mice
even Peat said they could not live in that state outside the laboratory,
and...

2. "...the butyric acid is produced by fermentative bacteria, it should be limited to the colon."
So, right there he seems to be saying that, presumably,
even "the healthiest people"
have bacteria in the colon.
Also, Peat would seem to be saying that
there is a value to some bacteria in the gut--in the colon.
I mean, we've known this really,
because Peat has said things along the lines of
"if you've got to live amongst them (bacteria),
you might as well make friends with them."

3. Another question this raises for me is:
okay...if it is desirable to have some bacteria in the gut to make butyrate
and maybe do other stuff,
and if those bacteria are responsible for desirable fermentation,
well
then they need something to ferment.
What would those materials ferment?

4. Finally, and this is specific to me (appendixless) and a small subset:
how might all the above notions fit into the scenario
of those without an appendix?
The appendix is situated right at the very end of the small intestine
in the cecum,
just before the intestines empty into the colon.
If the appendix does indeed serve the function
of being a reservoir for healthy bacteria,
what if one doesn't have an appendix
and the intestinal flora is wiped out or strongly affected by, say, antibiotics?

Hi narouz,

Trace those quotes in their context that you won't find any contradiction..

Well, for starters:
"...the healthiest people don't have bacteria..."
Wrong.
According to what he goes on to say.
Right?
(well, at least he would seem to imply
that it is healthy to have bacteria making butyrate in the colon, yes?)

 

[Such_Saturation]

See. I gotcha thinkin', right!?

Yes, weeks ago

 

[Amazoniac]

I have a special interest in the topic
so being picky on a few points...

1."...the healthiest people don't have bacteria..."
I know it's Dr. Peat, but!
I'd like more detailed proof of this.
In any event
it is, I would think, a simplification or overstatement.
I mean, in the experiment often referred to by Peat
with the sterile-gut mice
even Peat said they could not live in that state outside the laboratory,
and...

2. "...the butyric acid is produced by fermentative bacteria, it should be limited to the colon."
So, right there he seems to be saying that, presumably,
even "the healthiest people"
have bacteria in the colon.
Also, Peat would seem to be saying that
there is a value to some bacteria in the gut--in the colon.
I mean, we've known this really,
because Peat has said things along the lines of
"if you've got to live amongst them (bacteria),
you might as well make friends with them."

3. Another question this raises for me is:
okay...if it is desirable to have some bacteria in the gut to make butyrate
and maybe do other stuff,
and if those bacteria are responsible for desirable fermentation,
well
then they need something to ferment.
What would those materials ferment?

4. Finally, and this is specific to me (appendixless) and a small subset:
how might all the above notions fit into the scenario
of those without an appendix?
The appendix is situated right at the very end of the small intestine
in the cecum,
just before the intestines empty into the colon.
If the appendix does indeed serve the function
of being a reservoir for healthy bacteria,
what if one doesn't have an appendix
and the intestinal flora is wiped out or strongly affected by, say, antibiotics?

Hi narouz,

Trace those quotes in their context that you won't find any contradiction..

Well, for starters:
"...the healthiest people don't have bacteria..."
Wrong.
According to what he goes on to say.
Right?
(well, at least he would seem to imply
that it is healthy to have bacteria making butyrate in the colon, yes?)

The guy that quoted him kindly left the link where you can read the context. He doesn't contradict himself at all. Please check.

#3 I'm not sure if I understood you but it's not desirable, we have no choice. So the best approach would be to nourish yourself, work on immunity and eat some fermentable carbohydrates.

#4 There are many possibilities to this that you won't be able to define precisely the current situation unless you test. This whole field of microbiology is very interesting and important, but there are priorities that shouldn't be dismissed.
We talked before and you suspect that you have an infection, right? Working on immune system is a priority. Then gradually increase the fermentable carbohydrates until you feel satisfied and nourished.
In other words, they should feast in your left-overs, not the other way around.

 

[narouz]

The guy that quoted him kindly left the link where you can read the context. He doesn't contradict himself at all. Please check.

Will do.
But it would seem to me that
just based upon the quote
the notion that a completely sterile gut is ideal/workable...doesn't work.

#3 I'm not sure if I understood you but it's not desirable, we have no choice. So the best approach would be to nourish yourself, work on immunity and eat some fermentable carbohydrates.

I believe the consumption of fermentable carbohydrates
to the end of nourishing the microbiome
is a PHD workpoint?
Please, I'm not carping!
I may very well end up agreeing with you.
But...it is not Peatian, is it?
Just trying to keep microbiome theories labeled correctly...

#4 There are many possibilities to this that you won't be able to define precisely the current situation unless you test.

See my response above.
I've never heard Peat approach digestive issues by recommending sophisticated testing.

This whole field of microbiology is very interesting and important, but there are priorities that shouldn't be dismissed.

I guess this goes to the general POV I'm probing here.
Peat wouldn't seem to think it is terribly "interesting and important."
For him, it seems the main thing is simply to fight it back by various tactics.
I'm thinking you (and PHD) should be in sympathy with me here...?

We talked before and you suspect that you have an infection, right? Working on immune system is a priority. Then gradually increase the fermentable carbohydrates until you feel satisfied and nourished.
In other words, they should feast in your left-overs, not the other way around.

Again, I'm open to these impulses.
But not Peatian, I'd have to think.
Perhaps PHD...?

 

[Amazoniac]

The guy that quoted him kindly left the link where you can read the context. He doesn't contradict himself at all. Please check.

Will do.
But it would seem to me that
just based upon the quote
the notion that a completely sterile gut is ideal/workable...doesn't work.

#3 I'm not sure if I understood you but it's not desirable, we have no choice. So the best approach would be to nourish yourself, work on immunity and eat some fermentable carbohydrates.

I believe the consumption of fermentable carbohydrates
to the end of nourishing the microbiome
is a PHD workpoint?
Please, I'm not carping!
I may very well end up agreeing with you.
But...it is not Peatian, is it?
Just trying to keep microbiome theories labeled correctly...

#4 There are many possibilities to this that you won't be able to define precisely the current situation unless you test.

See my response above.
I've never heard Peat approach digestive issues by recommending sophisticated testing.

This whole field of microbiology is very interesting and important, but there are priorities that shouldn't be dismissed.

I guess this goes to the general POV I'm probing here.
Peat wouldn't seem to think it is terribly "interesting and important."
For him, it seems the main thing is simply to fight it back by various tactics.
I'm thinking you (and PHD) should be in sympathy with me here...?

We talked before and you suspect that you have an infection, right? Working on immune system is a priority. Then gradually increase the fermentable carbohydrates until you feel satisfied and nourished.
In other words, they should feast in your left-overs, not the other way around.

Again, I'm open to these impulses.
But not Peatian, I'd have to think.
Perhaps PHD...?

This is what I meant by focusing on what is important: it won't make a difference where those approaches come from, in the same way that it won't make a difference if you have a gut infection regardless of appendix - it will still be there..
The healthier you are, the less you need to compensate with those strategies to keep your gut healthy. And I guess that this is what Ray Peat is trying to achieve: a relatively sterile small intestine and a normally colonized large intestine.

Antibiotics do have their place as a last resource, if nothing seems to work. Which is usually what happens in the majority of cases: pathogens are way more sophisticated than symbiotic microbes, so even with an optimal diet, sometimes is hard to treat those infections. On the other hand, using antibiotics without a proper diet is even more dangerous.

I'm sorry narouz but I'm not sure where you are trying to get here..
Is it to try something that goes beyond Ray Peat's recommendations?

 

[narouz]

I'm sorry narouz but I'm not sure where you are trying to get here..
Is it to try something that goes beyond Ray Peat's recommendations

Oh sure.
I've said I'm open to other POV's.
Like PHD.

This is what I meant by focusing on what is important: it won't make a difference where those approaches come from...

Well...it's just my preferred way of proceeding here. :)
I don't believe in censoring out anything not Peat.
But I do like to keep things sorted out--
what is Peat
and
what is something else.
And if it is something else,
does it have a label.

Antibiotics do have their place as a last resource, if nothing seems to work.

Again, Amazoniac's opinion?
PHD's?
Peat's?
Just trying to keep things sorted.

And I guess that this is what Ray Peat is trying to achieve: a relatively sterile small intestine and a normally colonized large intestine.

Well...I'm not sure about that.
I haven't heard Peat specify the exact desired state like that.
Well, let me qualify:
I have heard Peat say that
generally the bacteria should stay down lower in the intestines.

I'd like to get a little more clarity on these matters microbiome-ish.

For instance,
over in one of haidut's recent threads about antibiotics,
the language floating about there is quite vague.
The use of charcoal and antibiotics talked about over there,
under the idea that they are harmonious with Peat's ideas,
is simply bombs away.
Eradication would seem to be a desirable outcome.

There is no such finely tuned language like you employ:
"a relatively sterile small intestine and a normally colonized large intestine."

Is Peat's goal just to tamp the bacteria down a bit--
down into the small intestine?
Down into the colon, ideally?

And then I have other related things I'm questioning,
like the appendix thing.

...it won't make a difference if you have a gut infection regardless of appendix - it will still be there...

I do think my lack of an appendix may necessitate special interventions--not sure.
But on the main point of gut infections and how to address them,
it would seem to me there are different ways being tossed about.
I can't say that Peat favors testing,
especially straight off.
I would say that he usually approaches the possibility with the same strategy
which does not, at least firstly, involve testing.
He would say to eat the correct foods,
eat carrot,
take the usual supps like Cascara, etc.

Whereas, if I've been reading you right
(here and elsewhere),
I believe you advise sophisticated GI testing if something seems chronically amiss.

And if that turns up a bad bug...
well, I'm assuming, but I may be wrong,
that you would recommend killing said bug with pharmas...?

These would seem to be different ways of seeing and responding to things,
wouldn't you agree?

Which is usually what happens in the majority of cases: pathogens are way more sophisticated than symbiotic microbes, so even with an optimal diet, sometimes is hard to treat those infections.

Here too.
Just trying to sort out.
I wouldn't say this is Peat's view.
(Again, not that I wish to censor other views.
Just to identify the source. :) )