Need Help With Lowering Estrogen Even More

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
EnoreeG said:
YuraCZ said:
EnoreeG said:
Did you read the link I provided?
Yes, but I don't want to start eating again foods like grains, legumes etc.. Because these foods are what gave me all my problems. Especially grains with the gluten= hashimoto's... I believe that fiber is a good thing, but without anti nutrients, phytoestrogens etc..

I'm not against ruling out certain foods. Grains, legumes, nightshades, etc. Hey, nix them. Then if you're still looking for fiber you still have a thousand things to choose among. As I said above, "Eat real, organic, whole foods and you can stop worrying about the type of fiber also."

I also said I'm not going to push this type fiber over that type fiber. Resistant starch over insoluble fiber, etc. I just encouraged reading a fiber article or two. It's the amount, not the source so much that I think you need, according to what I read (and eat).

Ever wonder why primitive people seem healthy all over the world? Without milk and orange juice? I think, except for a couple of tribes, they all eat fiber with every meal. Without classifying it or picking through it to eliminate phytates or phytoestrogens, (and without even washing it). What's wrong with this picture? Weston A. Price declared these peoples healthy after serious inspection. I wonder if they really were. Was his book a hoax, or did he miss something? Or am I missing something? I'm willing to look at others' articles.

I'd love to see something that convinces me that all the fiber I eat is really hurting me. I'd take serious aims at changing my way of eating. It would help if I had some health issues, but even without that, I'd take a look.

Ideally, your gut should be sterile, like a baby's gut. The endogenous synthesis of serotonin depends almost entirely on gut bacteria. So, over 90% of the serotonin you produce comes due to thee existence of that bacteria. Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut.
The point here is that fiber feeds that bacteria and they trigger the serotonin synthesis system. The insoluble fiber Ray recommends tends to reduce the count of this bacteria as well as absorb some of the toxins they produce. Soluble fiber may help with cholesterol but you pay a hefty price with increased serotonin production. I think the primitive people you cite eat primarily insoluble fiber, which Ray also recommends. Carrots, bamboo shoots, psyllium, etc. Or charcoal for people who don't like fiber for some reason.
 

YuraCZ

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
674
haidut said:
I think the primitive people you cite eat primarily insoluble fiber, which Ray also recommends. Carrots, bamboo shoots, psyllium, etc. Or charcoal for people who don't like fiber for some reason.

"Psyllium is composed of about 70 percent soluble fiber, which forms a gel in your intestines, binding to cholesterol and helping to slow digestion. About 30 percent of psyllium is insoluble fiber that contributes bulk to stool and helps to stimulate its movement through your intestinal tract, which improves bowel regularity."
 

YuraCZ

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
674
EnoreeG said:
I'm not against ruling out certain foods. Grains, legumes, nightshades, etc. Hey, nix them. Then if you're still looking for fiber you still have a thousand things to choose among. As I said above, "Eat real, organic, whole foods and you can stop worrying about the type of fiber also."

I also said I'm not going to push this type fiber over that type fiber. Resistant starch over insoluble fiber, etc. I just encouraged reading a fiber article or two. It's the amount, not the source so much that I think you need, according to what I read (and eat).

Ever wonder why primitive people seem healthy all over the world? Without milk and orange juice? I think, except for a couple of tribes, they all eat fiber with every meal. Without classifying it or picking through it to eliminate phytates or phytoestrogens, (and without even washing it). What's wrong with this picture? Weston A. Price declared these peoples healthy after serious inspection. I wonder if they really were. Was his book a hoax, or did he miss something? Or am I missing something? I'm willing to look at others' articles.

I'd love to see something that convinces me that all the fiber I eat is really hurting me. I'd take serious aims at changing my way of eating. It would help if I had some health issues, but even without that, I'd take a look.

The problem is. When you are hypothyroid your bowel movement is sluggish. So if you eat a lot of fiber under these circumstances. You become crazy bloated, gassy and fermentation with bacteria overgrow will be sky high..
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
YuraCZ said:
EnoreeG said:
I'm not against ruling out certain foods. Grains, legumes, nightshades, etc. Hey, nix them. Then if you're still looking for fiber you still have a thousand things to choose among. As I said above, "Eat real, organic, whole foods and you can stop worrying about the type of fiber also."

I also said I'm not going to push this type fiber over that type fiber. Resistant starch over insoluble fiber, etc. I just encouraged reading a fiber article or two. It's the amount, not the source so much that I think you need, according to what I read (and eat).

Ever wonder why primitive people seem healthy all over the world? Without milk and orange juice? I think, except for a couple of tribes, they all eat fiber with every meal. Without classifying it or picking through it to eliminate phytates or phytoestrogens, (and without even washing it). What's wrong with this picture? Weston A. Price declared these peoples healthy after serious inspection. I wonder if they really were. Was his book a hoax, or did he miss something? Or am I missing something? I'm willing to look at others' articles.

I'd love to see something that convinces me that all the fiber I eat is really hurting me. I'd take serious aims at changing my way of eating. It would help if I had some health issues, but even without that, I'd take a look.

The problem is. When you are hypothyroid your bowel movement is sluggish. So if you eat a lot of fiber under these circumstances. You become crazy bloated, gassy and fermentation with bacteria overgrow will be sky high..

YuraCZ, I have total respect for your point of view. There are other points of view out there that I also respect. One of the differences, generally, is determining cause and effect. You seem to be saying hypo-T causes sluggishness. My readings, and some of the links I provided, seem to say gut problems cause all thyroid issues that are Hashimoto's (which now accounts for about 80% of all hypo-T by some estimates) and maybe the rest also. So that point of view says "Fix the gut, fix the thyroid."

On the bloating, I think the issue is, if you start from an assumed Peat diet and just try to add the fiber, especially in sizable quantities, you get bloating because you have the microbes up in your small intestine from lack of fiber. You start fiber and don't lessen the sugars you're eating and you'll get bloating from the small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). If you are going to try to eat "Peat" plus fiber, you'll get this. Sugars and bacteria don't mix except to cause gas. You're going to have to change more than just adding fiber to your sugars. People who eat the most fiber (primitive peoples and people who have changed back to that, as in Paleo) minimize sugars and eat more complex carbs. Not just starches, but indigestible carbs too.

So yes, if you try to add fiber to "Peat" you may get bloating. Like I said. Read.

For starters, read some of Isabella Wentz. She has a newsletter, but she also has a book. Go to Amazon and check it out. Do the "Look inside", Read some of the reviews. People get over Hypo-T and no longer need medication! You can too! Check it out:

Hashimoto's Thyroiditis: Lifestyle Interventions for Finding and Treating the Root Cause
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
haidut said:
Ideally, your gut should be sterile, like a baby's gut. The endogenous synthesis of serotonin depends almost entirely on gut bacteria. So, over 90% of the serotonin you produce comes due to thee existence of that bacteria. Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut.
The point here is that fiber feeds that bacteria and they trigger the serotonin synthesis system. The insoluble fiber Ray recommends tends to reduce the count of this bacteria as well as absorb some of the toxins they produce. Soluble fiber may help with cholesterol but you pay a hefty price with increased serotonin production. I think the primitive people you cite eat primarily insoluble fiber, which Ray also recommends. Carrots, bamboo shoots, psyllium, etc. Or charcoal for people who don't like fiber for some reason.

Do you have a source for "gut should be sterile"?

I won't ask for "...like a baby's gut" because I know you won't find that. All baby guts have a microbiome from birth. It is now assumed that babies are compromised by being born C-section thus lacking at least all the microbial mix found in the birth canal. But at least they accumulate microbes from the amniotic fluid, swallowing a lot of it during the last 3 months of a full-term birth, and of course ingest a lot from birth on.

This is a fairly good representation of what a newborn is stocked up with to begin life:

The Role of Nutrition in Development of the Full-Term Neonatal Gut Microbiome

I appreciate your point on serotonin. It may be a bad thing. I suggest that consideration of serotonin is maybe due about 5% of the attention someone should pay to what goes on between a human and their microbiome. If that's all that is focused on, and it happens to be a "negative", then I can see how one might consider that a sterile gut is "optimum".

From my reading, I think differently, and I respect and appreciate the 2-3 pounds of microbes that live within me. We all know, if they were primarily pathogenic, I'd be dead in a day or two. What's keeping me alive? Why don't the Staphylococcus and E. coli that I was born with ever take over and do me in? I think these are worthy things to investigate if we aren't going to have sterile guts. The more I learn, the more I learn to trust and feed my gut microbes. That's why I eat whole foods with plenty of fiber and don't worry about the types.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
EnoreeG said:
haidut said:
Ideally, your gut should be sterile, like a baby's gut. The endogenous synthesis of serotonin depends almost entirely on gut bacteria. So, over 90% of the serotonin you produce comes due to thee existence of that bacteria. Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut.
The point here is that fiber feeds that bacteria and they trigger the serotonin synthesis system. The insoluble fiber Ray recommends tends to reduce the count of this bacteria as well as absorb some of the toxins they produce. Soluble fiber may help with cholesterol but you pay a hefty price with increased serotonin production. I think the primitive people you cite eat primarily insoluble fiber, which Ray also recommends. Carrots, bamboo shoots, psyllium, etc. Or charcoal for people who don't like fiber for some reason.

Do you have a source for "gut should be sterile"?

I won't ask for "...like a baby's gut" because I know you won't find that. All baby guts have a microbiome from birth. It is now assumed that babies are compromised by being born C-section thus lacking at least all the microbial mix found in the birth canal. But at least they accumulate microbes from the amniotic fluid, swallowing a lot of it during the last 3 months of a full-term birth, and of course ingest a lot from birth on.

This is a fairly good representation of what a newborn is stocked up with to begin life:

The Role of Nutrition in Development of the Full-Term Neonatal Gut Microbiome

I appreciate your point on serotonin. It may be a bad thing. I suggest that consideration of serotonin is maybe due about 5% of the attention someone should pay to what goes on between a human and their microbiome. If that's all that is focused on, and it happens to be a "negative", then I can see how one might consider that a sterile gut is "optimum".

From my reading, I think differently, and I respect and appreciate the 2-3 pounds of microbes that live within me. We all know, if they were primarily pathogenic, I'd be dead in a day or two. What's keeping me alive? Why don't the Staphylococcus and E. coli that I was born with ever take over and do me in? I think these are worthy things to investigate if we aren't going to have sterile guts. The more I learn, the more I learn to trust and feed my gut microbes. That's why I eat whole foods with plenty of fiber and don't worry about the types.

Here is the the thread where we discussed the role of gut bacteria in production of serotonin.
viewtopic.php?f=75&t=6409
Peat has said that keeping the gut sterile would be ideal from a health standpoint, and mentioned babies having the closest to having a sterile gut. However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead. Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection. I posted some studies recently showing that viral (and at least some bacterial) infections require serotonin to be able to take hold of the host. Cyproheptadine has potent anti-viral and anti-bacteria effects thorough blocking serotonin.
If 90% of serotonin production depends on the gut bacteria I think it is enough to count as a reason to keep it as sterile as possible. Peripheral serotonin production has been implicated in everything from obesity to osteoporosis. Pharma industry is in hot pursuit of drugs that inhibit TPH-2 and thus treat obesity. Drugs like ondansetron, which block serotonin effects in the gut are in clinical trials for osteoporosis.
I understand that everything has to be kept in balance, but from everything I see serotonin is best kept as low as possible. Try and find a study that shows negative effects on health from reduced gut serotonin.
Yes, we may have developed to co-exist with gut bacteria but that does not mean it is optimal. The organism does what it can under the conditions permitted by the environment. That does not mean that a more optimal environment does not exist - i.e. one without bacteria in the colon and small intestines.
Speaking of small intestines - many people have issues with SIBO and it can only happen if your gut is populated by the microbiome. Ideally the organism keeps in check but in the modern world of poor metabolism and health it increasingly doesn't. So the microbiome we evolved to live with is becoming pathological and starts to colonize the small intestine, which brings a host of health issues.
I concur with Peat that the cleaner the gut the better off you are. With clean gut, even starch is not a problem.
Just my 2c.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
haidut said:
Ideally, your gut should be sterile, like a baby's gut. The endogenous synthesis of serotonin depends almost entirely on gut bacteria. So, over 90% of the serotonin you produce comes due to thee existence of that bacteria. Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut.

I know this is faithful to Peat's view,
and I do tend to go along with him, generally.

When you think, though, about the qualification inherent there--
that those animals were living in a special, protected, sterile environment.
And when we know that we cannot live in such an environment...

...well...that is a pretty significant qualification.

If we cannot live in such a sterile environment,
then what is our best adaptation?
Maybe it is not to simply keep the gut as sterile as possible.
In some ways that might seem like the obvious, logical answer.
But maybe not.

To me, the element that seems perhaps a little suspect about the hypothesis,
is the part that argues for simply a certain quantity of gut bacteria--
as low a quantity as possible.

Maybe the problem is more complex.
Maybe it is not just a matter of volume or quantity,
but rather of quality--or perhaps a mixture of quantity and quality.

That is,
maybe the most effective gut in maintaining healthful markers like low serotonin, etc,
will not simply be the gut with the lowest quantity of bacteria.
Maybe it will be a gut with the best quality of bacteria.... :roll:
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
62
I think the key point to this is:

haidut said:
However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
4peatssake said:
I think the key point to this is:

haidut said:
However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead.

Yes, I know Peat addresses the impossibility of living in a sterile environment that way.
Still...the way he addresses it,
where he sees the problem as strictly a matter of quantity
as I describe above...

So his general strategy is to keep the quantity of bacteria low, and low in the gut.
-don't eat wrong foods which bacteria grow on
-consume carrot to regularly trim back bacteria
-maybe consume certain antibiotics to knock down bacteria...

As I say, that Peat strategy is still the one I tend to rely upon.
However, I have entertained other ways of looking at the problem,
which look at the bacteria problem as not just a quantity problem
but maybe also a more complex quality problem.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
narouz said:
haidut said:
Ideally, your gut should be sterile, like a baby's gut. The endogenous synthesis of serotonin depends almost entirely on gut bacteria. So, over 90% of the serotonin you produce comes due to thee existence of that bacteria. Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut.

Maybe the problem is more complex.
Maybe it is not just a matter of volume or quantity,
but rather of quality--or perhaps a mixture of quantity and quality.

That is,
maybe the most effective gut in maintaining healthful markers like low serotonin, etc,
will not simply be the gut with the lowest quantity of bacteria.
Maybe it will be a gut with the best quality of bacteria.... :roll:

Sounds good to me, narouz! I think a heavy determinant of quality is having a mix of commensal bacteria that is totally capable of keeping the pathogenic species at low quantities. One of the most amazing qualities that bacteria have is the "group think" capability of quorum sensing. I love this TED talk for explaining that:

How Bacteria "talk" (and count)

Once you digest this, it's easy to understand why people push probiotics to restore a dominant set of microbial species in the gut after a course of antibiotics. Dominant species dominate. Get the good guys in, and the rest are just impotent minorities, and stay that way. Fiber is just a way to feed your commensal friends.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
haidut said:
Here is the the thread where we discussed the role of gut bacteria in production of serotonin.
viewtopic.php?f=75&t=6409
Peat has said that keeping the gut sterile would be ideal from a health standpoint, and mentioned babies having the closest to having a sterile gut. However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead. Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection. I posted some studies recently showing that viral (and at least some bacterial) infections require serotonin to be able to take hold of the host. Cyproheptadine has potent anti-viral and anti-bacteria effects thorough blocking serotonin.
If 90% of serotonin production depends on the gut bacteria I think it is enough to count as a reason to keep it as sterile as possible. Peripheral serotonin production has been implicated in everything from obesity to osteoporosis. Pharma industry is in hot pursuit of drugs that inhibit TPH-2 and thus treat obesity. Drugs like ondansetron, which block serotonin effects in the gut are in clinical trials for osteoporosis.
I understand that everything has to be kept in balance, but from everything I see serotonin is best kept as low as possible. Try and find a study that shows negative effects on health from reduced gut serotonin.
Yes, we may have developed to co-exist with gut bacteria but that does not mean it is optimal. The organism does what it can under the conditions permitted by the environment. That does not mean that a more optimal environment does not exist - i.e. one without bacteria in the colon and small intestines.
Speaking of small intestines - many people have issues with SIBO and it can only happen if your gut is populated by the microbiome. Ideally the organism keeps in check but in the modern world of poor metabolism and health it increasingly doesn't. So the microbiome we evolved to live with is becoming pathological and starts to colonize the small intestine, which brings a host of health issues.
I concur with Peat that the cleaner the gut the better off you are. With clean gut, even starch is not a problem.
Just my 2c.

As I see it this boils down to an assumption: That bacteria, plain and simple cause a reaction of enterochromaffin cells (EC) to produce serotonin. And the conclusion: you need to rid the body of all bacteria, or at least minimize them as much as possible, because serotonin is produced in direct relationship to the amount of bacteria present in the gut. That seems to be your assumption.

But if you read about EC, they don't produce serotonin just in response to bacteria! The produce serotonin in response to toxins that some species of bacteria make. The first study you cited in the referenced thread didn't even mention toxins, or species. It was quite lacking in details. The second link in your referenced thread was only a Summary, and also had no detail, but did mention that "Altering the microbiota could improve 5-HT-related disease symptoms". This implies that it's the species, not the gross numbers, of microbes, that cause 5-HT activation of serotonin. It certainly doesn't say absolute numbers of bacteria could be reduced to inprove disease symptoms. So the studies cited in that thread in no way support "why Peat favors the germ free gut".

So there is no conclusion to make from those studies other than "If you have some bacteria you will get more serotonin than if you have none." Who knows what bacteria they reinnoculated the rats with when they wanted to see what serotonin production would be in the presence of bacteria. It could have been any amount of any species of bacteria. It could have been all pathogenic, toxic loaded bacteria. This is not a study to prove much about what serotonin is produced in healthy rats.

I think if you dig into the subject, you'll find that one of the functions of EC is to produce serotonin in response to toxins.

Not all gut bacteria produce substances toxic to the host. In fact in a health gut environment, most don't. If you dig more, you'll find out that bacteria that aid in human health by creating vitamins and saturated fats and immune-system fortification do not produce the toxins necessary to kick in serotonin production. Dig deeper, find a study that shows that some of the bacteria that people commonly take in "probiotic" doses are raising the levels of toxins, and therefore serotonin in the gut, and you'll have something to share that I will get excited about.

If you want to start researching the fact that it's the toxins, not the bacteria, that EC respond to, you can check these:

http://isccb12.webs.ull.es/PDF-Final/26-Prinz.pdf

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_2/S331.full

Notice especially in this second one, there is mention of exactly which, as they say "pathogenic" (not bacteria in general) species put out the toxins that cause 5-HT activation. You'll recognize the bad guys. They have familiar names like Staphylococcus aureus, and cholera. This article is naming specific toxins and specific species. It makes it quite clear it is species that are well known pathogens that are responsible for well described ailments such as nasea and diarrhea. Nowhere in this article do you get the idea that bacteria in general cause serotonin increases. It is specific bacteria that are known pathogens that release identified toxins that then can cause an enterochromaffin cell to produce serotonin. This is quite different from the slant of the thread you referenced.

I'd suggest that in light of how good bacteria keep pathogenic bacteria in check and keep humans and all other mammals in good health, it's still a good idea to have a healthy supply of pro-life biotics in the gut. It's been this way for millions of years and the only time in the history of the earth that there's ever been substantial reductions in the gut microbiome, in the case of use of antibiotics, you can finally see what repercussions people have for years in their health until they get around to finding out about probiotics and they take a dose or two, and suddenly, they often have full health restored. It's amazing how many people have experienced this. I hear testimony on the good effects of probiotics almost daily. After years of hearing this, it's somewhat strange to hear someone go the other direction and say that microbes are needed in smaller numbers in the human gut. In the small intestine, yes. But not in the large intestine or colon. That's my 2 cents at this point.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
EnoreeG said:
haidut said:
Here is the the thread where we discussed the role of gut bacteria in production of serotonin.
viewtopic.php?f=75&t=6409
Peat has said that keeping the gut sterile would be ideal from a health standpoint, and mentioned babies having the closest to having a sterile gut. However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead. Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection. I posted some studies recently showing that viral (and at least some bacterial) infections require serotonin to be able to take hold of the host. Cyproheptadine has potent anti-viral and anti-bacteria effects thorough blocking serotonin.
If 90% of serotonin production depends on the gut bacteria I think it is enough to count as a reason to keep it as sterile as possible. Peripheral serotonin production has been implicated in everything from obesity to osteoporosis. Pharma industry is in hot pursuit of drugs that inhibit TPH-2 and thus treat obesity. Drugs like ondansetron, which block serotonin effects in the gut are in clinical trials for osteoporosis.
I understand that everything has to be kept in balance, but from everything I see serotonin is best kept as low as possible. Try and find a study that shows negative effects on health from reduced gut serotonin.
Yes, we may have developed to co-exist with gut bacteria but that does not mean it is optimal. The organism does what it can under the conditions permitted by the environment. That does not mean that a more optimal environment does not exist - i.e. one without bacteria in the colon and small intestines.
Speaking of small intestines - many people have issues with SIBO and it can only happen if your gut is populated by the microbiome. Ideally the organism keeps in check but in the modern world of poor metabolism and health it increasingly doesn't. So the microbiome we evolved to live with is becoming pathological and starts to colonize the small intestine, which brings a host of health issues.
I concur with Peat that the cleaner the gut the better off you are. With clean gut, even starch is not a problem.
Just my 2c.

As I see it this boils down to an assumption: That bacteria, plain and simple cause a reaction of enterochromaffin cells (EC) to produce serotonin. And the conclusion: you need to rid the body of all bacteria, or at least minimize them as much as possible, because serotonin is produced in direct relationship to the amount of bacteria present in the gut. That seems to be your assumption.

But if you read about EC, they don't produce serotonin just in response to bacteria! The produce serotonin in response to toxins that some species of bacteria make. The first study you cited in the referenced thread didn't even mention toxins, or species. It was quite lacking in details. The second link in your referenced thread was only a Summary, and also had no detail, but did mention that "Altering the microbiota could improve 5-HT-related disease symptoms". This implies that it's the species, not the gross numbers, of microbes, that cause 5-HT activation of serotonin. It certainly doesn't say absolute numbers of bacteria could be reduced to inprove disease symptoms. So the studies cited in that thread in no way support "why Peat favors the germ free gut".

So there is no conclusion to make from those studies other than "If you have some bacteria you will get more serotonin than if you have none." Who knows what bacteria they reinnoculated the rats with when they wanted to see what serotonin production would be in the presence of bacteria. It could have been any amount of any species of bacteria. It could have been all pathogenic, toxic loaded bacteria. This is not a study to prove much about what serotonin is produced in healthy rats.

I think if you dig into the subject, you'll find that one of the functions of EC is to produce serotonin in response to toxins.

Not all gut bacteria produce substances toxic to the host. In fact in a health gut environment, most don't. If you dig more, you'll find out that bacteria that aid in human health by creating vitamins and saturated fats and immune-system fortification do not produce the toxins necessary to kick in serotonin production. Dig deeper, find a study that shows that some of the bacteria that people commonly take in "probiotic" doses are raising the levels of toxins, and therefore serotonin in the gut, and you'll have something to share that I will get excited about.

If you want to start researching the fact that it's the toxins, not the bacteria, that EC respond to, you can check these:

http://isccb12.webs.ull.es/PDF-Final/26-Prinz.pdf

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_2/S331.full

Notice especially in this second one, there is mention of exactly which, as they say "pathogenic" (not bacteria in general) species put out the toxins that cause 5-HT activation. You'll recognize the bad guys. They have familiar names like Staphylococcus aureus, and cholera. This article is naming specific toxins and specific species. It makes it quite clear it is species that are well known pathogens that are responsible for well described ailments such as nasea and diarrhea. Nowhere in this article do you get the idea that bacteria in general cause serotonin increases. It is specific bacteria that are known pathogens that release identified toxins that then can cause an enterochromaffin cell to produce serotonin. This is quite different from the slant of the thread you referenced.

I'd suggest that in light of how good bacteria keep pathogenic bacteria in check and keep humans and all other mammals in good health, it's still a good idea to have a healthy supply of pro-life biotics in the gut. It's been this way for millions of years and the only time in the history of the earth that there's ever been substantial reductions in the gut microbiome, in the case of use of antibiotics, you can finally see what repercussions people have for years in their health until they get around to finding out about probiotics and they take a dose or two, and suddenly, they often have full health restored. It's amazing how many people have experienced this. I hear testimony on the good effects of probiotics almost daily. After years of hearing this, it's somewhat strange to hear someone go the other direction and say that microbes are needed in smaller numbers in the human gut. In the small intestine, yes. But not in the large intestine or colon. That's my 2 cents at this point.

Check the clinical trials with probiotics on clinicaltrials.gov and see if you can find positive results. Many of them were cancelled due to side effects and the majority that completed found no benefit. On top of that there is some evidence that some autoimmune conditions like Lupus are the result of overgrowth of Lactobacilus strains. I don't think keeping your gut completely sterile is practical. But the evidence for charcoal for disease prevention and life extension is solid, and the main mechanism of action of charcoal is reduction of endotoxin and bacterial count in the gut. So, at least we can say that having less bacteria than we do now seems to be beneficial.
 

Tom

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
100
haidut said:
Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut (...) Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection.

Do you have a reference for this?

I haven´t gone through any of this research related to longevity with charcoal and sterile guts etc. But it seems that if the gut is sterile much less calories is generally absorbed (20-30% less?), and the same is true if large quantities of charcoal is given. The microbiota kind of assist in the absorption of nutrients and without it, you´d get less absorbed food. If so, it works more like a calorie restricted diet in practice. And there´s been studies suggesting that severe calorie restriction in rats can increase lifespan by 50% too (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21792819).

Also this from the 2010 Herb Doctor show about endotoxins:

HD: I was wondering Dr Peat, you don't actually sign up for the belief of the commensal organisms in the gut. Is that right? As far as you understand it, there needn't be gut bacteria. When we were studying, it was such a doctrine, the commensal organism theory, everyone has commensal gut bacteria and you need them.

RP: Well, the experiments with germ-free animals, they do find they are actually healthier than the normal germ-infected animals, until - if they grow up never exposed to bacteria, they seem very healthy, but then they've never developed their immune defences - and so, when they are exposed, they are extremely susceptible to infection. If we're going to live in a world with germs, we might as well get used to them.

viewtopic.php?t=5151

In other words by consuming some prebiotic foods like fiber on a general basis, you will assure a certain level of microbes and these will protect against the occasional very harmful infections, say you had a sterile gut and then went to India on a long vacation. Not such a great idea. This is similar as the studies showing people taking a probiotic like S Boulardii before a vacation will have much less travel diarrhea.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
haidut said:
EnoreeG said:
haidut said:
Here is the the thread where we discussed the role of gut bacteria in production of serotonin.
viewtopic.php?f=75&t=6409
Peat has said that keeping the gut sterile would be ideal from a health standpoint, and mentioned babies having the closest to having a sterile gut. However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead. Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection. I posted some studies recently showing that viral (and at least some bacterial) infections require serotonin to be able to take hold of the host. Cyproheptadine has potent anti-viral and anti-bacteria effects thorough blocking serotonin.
If 90% of serotonin production depends on the gut bacteria I think it is enough to count as a reason to keep it as sterile as possible. Peripheral serotonin production has been implicated in everything from obesity to osteoporosis. Pharma industry is in hot pursuit of drugs that inhibit TPH-2 and thus treat obesity. Drugs like ondansetron, which block serotonin effects in the gut are in clinical trials for osteoporosis.
I understand that everything has to be kept in balance, but from everything I see serotonin is best kept as low as possible. Try and find a study that shows negative effects on health from reduced gut serotonin.
Yes, we may have developed to co-exist with gut bacteria but that does not mean it is optimal. The organism does what it can under the conditions permitted by the environment. That does not mean that a more optimal environment does not exist - i.e. one without bacteria in the colon and small intestines.
Speaking of small intestines - many people have issues with SIBO and it can only happen if your gut is populated by the microbiome. Ideally the organism keeps in check but in the modern world of poor metabolism and health it increasingly doesn't. So the microbiome we evolved to live with is becoming pathological and starts to colonize the small intestine, which brings a host of health issues.
I concur with Peat that the cleaner the gut the better off you are. With clean gut, even starch is not a problem.
Just my 2c.

As I see it this boils down to an assumption: That bacteria, plain and simple cause a reaction of enterochromaffin cells (EC) to produce serotonin. And the conclusion: you need to rid the body of all bacteria, or at least minimize them as much as possible, because serotonin is produced in direct relationship to the amount of bacteria present in the gut. That seems to be your assumption.

But if you read about EC, they don't produce serotonin just in response to bacteria! The produce serotonin in response to toxins that some species of bacteria make. The first study you cited in the referenced thread didn't even mention toxins, or species. It was quite lacking in details. The second link in your referenced thread was only a Summary, and also had no detail, but did mention that "Altering the microbiota could improve 5-HT-related disease symptoms". This implies that it's the species, not the gross numbers, of microbes, that cause 5-HT activation of serotonin. It certainly doesn't say absolute numbers of bacteria could be reduced to inprove disease symptoms. So the studies cited in that thread in no way support "why Peat favors the germ free gut".

So there is no conclusion to make from those studies other than "If you have some bacteria you will get more serotonin than if you have none." Who knows what bacteria they reinnoculated the rats with when they wanted to see what serotonin production would be in the presence of bacteria. It could have been any amount of any species of bacteria. It could have been all pathogenic, toxic loaded bacteria. This is not a study to prove much about what serotonin is produced in healthy rats.

I think if you dig into the subject, you'll find that one of the functions of EC is to produce serotonin in response to toxins.

Not all gut bacteria produce substances toxic to the host. In fact in a health gut environment, most don't. If you dig more, you'll find out that bacteria that aid in human health by creating vitamins and saturated fats and immune-system fortification do not produce the toxins necessary to kick in serotonin production. Dig deeper, find a study that shows that some of the bacteria that people commonly take in "probiotic" doses are raising the levels of toxins, and therefore serotonin in the gut, and you'll have something to share that I will get excited about.

If you want to start researching the fact that it's the toxins, not the bacteria, that EC respond to, you can check these:

http://isccb12.webs.ull.es/PDF-Final/26-Prinz.pdf

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_2/S331.full

Notice especially in this second one, there is mention of exactly which, as they say "pathogenic" (not bacteria in general) species put out the toxins that cause 5-HT activation. You'll recognize the bad guys. They have familiar names like Staphylococcus aureus, and cholera. This article is naming specific toxins and specific species. It makes it quite clear it is species that are well known pathogens that are responsible for well described ailments such as nasea and diarrhea. Nowhere in this article do you get the idea that bacteria in general cause serotonin increases. It is specific bacteria that are known pathogens that release identified toxins that then can cause an enterochromaffin cell to produce serotonin. This is quite different from the slant of the thread you referenced.

I'd suggest that in light of how good bacteria keep pathogenic bacteria in check and keep humans and all other mammals in good health, it's still a good idea to have a healthy supply of pro-life biotics in the gut. It's been this way for millions of years and the only time in the history of the earth that there's ever been substantial reductions in the gut microbiome, in the case of use of antibiotics, you can finally see what repercussions people have for years in their health until they get around to finding out about probiotics and they take a dose or two, and suddenly, they often have full health restored. It's amazing how many people have experienced this. I hear testimony on the good effects of probiotics almost daily. After years of hearing this, it's somewhat strange to hear someone go the other direction and say that microbes are needed in smaller numbers in the human gut. In the small intestine, yes. But not in the large intestine or colon. That's my 2 cents at this point.

Check the clinical trials with probiotics on clinicaltrials.gov and see if you can find positive results. Many of them were cancelled due to side effects and the majority that completed found no benefit. On top of that there is some evidence that some autoimmune conditions like Lupus are the result of overgrowth of Lactobacilus strains. I don't think keeping your gut completely sterile is practical. But the evidence for charcoal for disease prevention and life extension is solid, and the main mechanism of action of charcoal is reduction of endotoxin and bacterial count in the gut. So, at least we can say that having less bacteria than we do now seems to be beneficial.

You're backing away from this without providing your references? Why not show the "clinical trials" you speak of? This new claim against probiotics is now also yours to prove if you wish. I have no questions about it.

We could all profit from your proof that there's nothing to commensal bacteria protecting us against toxins from certain known pathogens by the commensals keeping the numbers of pathogenic bacteria very reduced.

Short of that proof, I have to accept for now that: probiotics are good; they keep pathogenic bacteria reduced to minimal numbers; pathogens have no significant impact on us in very small numbers; thus the whole worry about excess serotonin from bacteria is for naught, because it rises only in response to toxins from the pathogens (as I demonstrated with the links previously), which are very nicely kept in check by our commensal strains. The equation seems to be: Few pathogens = few toxins = ideal levels of serotonin.

So I still say, if my sources say ample fiber is the way to maintain the right bacterial load, I go with fiber.

It's up to each of us though to choose our food and select what they want in the way of fiber.

I think one thing we agree upon is that fiber affects the gut microbiome.

We might not agree on how and where, but I happen to think that the amount of fiber affects where the principle mass of bacteria will reside along the gastrointestinal tract.

We might also agree that it shouldn't be in the small intestine.

I also think the fiber and new microbes we happen to ingest affects the species that are in the mix, and that the mix itself is not so critical except that it must always be predominantly beneficial species if we want to have immunity from disease and chronic inflammation.

All my study has shown me that a good mix, once established, has a powerful ability to maintain dominance over pathogens, and only extreme measures such as doses of antibiotics can upset this stability.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Tom said:
haidut said:
Animals with sterile guts live up to 50% longer than ones with bacteria in their gut (...) Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection.

Do you have a reference for this?

I haven´t gone through any of this research related to longevity with charcoal and sterile guts etc. But it seems that if the gut is sterile much less calories is generally absorbed (20-30% less?), and the same is true if large quantities of charcoal is given. The microbiota kind of assist in the absorption of nutrients and without it, you´d get less absorbed food. If so, it works more like a calorie restricted diet in practice. And there´s been studies suggesting that severe calorie restriction in rats can increase lifespan by 50% too (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21792819).

Also this from the 2010 Herb Doctor show about endotoxins:

HD: I was wondering Dr Peat, you don't actually sign up for the belief of the commensal organisms in the gut. Is that right? As far as you understand it, there needn't be gut bacteria. When we were studying, it was such a doctrine, the commensal organism theory, everyone has commensal gut bacteria and you need them.

RP: Well, the experiments with germ-free animals, they do find they are actually healthier than the normal germ-infected animals, until - if they grow up never exposed to bacteria, they seem very healthy, but then they've never developed their immune defences - and so, when they are exposed, they are extremely susceptible to infection. If we're going to live in a world with germs, we might as well get used to them.

viewtopic.php?t=5151

In other words by consuming some prebiotic foods like fiber on a general basis, you will assure a certain level of microbes and these will protect against the occasional very harmful infections, say you had a sterile gut and then went to India on a long vacation. Not such a great idea. This is similar as the studies showing people taking a probiotic like S Boulardii before a vacation will have much less travel diarrhea.

Wow, lots of good points Tom!

Yes, lower calorie diets have been shown to extend life, and gut bacteria do aid in absorption. They also create some short-chain fatty acids (saturated fats) from fiber, which nourish the gut, so that's extra calories that otherwise would not have been absorbed. So the thesis of "restrict microbes = restrict calories = longevity" works. The caveat is: Yike, if you want to try for longevity this way, and get rid of the germs (if even possible) you have to be quite diligent to keep away from germs your whole long life! So, what? Live in a sterile environment? One little dose of E. coli or whatever, with no mass of commensel bacteria to protect you, could kill the whole experiment while you're only 19 years old.

Your example of taking special probiotics before vacationing is a better real-life example of how to "get real" on this issue.

I think it would have been a little better guidance if Peat, in his interview response, instead of saying just "...we might as well get used to them." had said "...we might as well understand how to use them, and use commensals to protect against pathogens."

Aside: I've seen some studies that have shown that just restricting certain proteins (methionine and tryptophan I believe) may extend lifespan as much as restricting overall calories, so for those into longevity, this is an area to follow the research on.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
EnoreeG said:
haidut said:
EnoreeG said:
haidut said:
Here is the the thread where we discussed the role of gut bacteria in production of serotonin.
viewtopic.php?f=75&t=6409
Peat has said that keeping the gut sterile would be ideal from a health standpoint, and mentioned babies having the closest to having a sterile gut. However, he said keeping it completely sterile is impractical so one should do daily carrot salad or charcoal every 2-3 days instead. Rodents with sterile guts live much much longer than ones with "optimal" microbiome. In addition, their metabolic rate is 50%+ higher, and they are virtually resistant to infection. I posted some studies recently showing that viral (and at least some bacterial) infections require serotonin to be able to take hold of the host. Cyproheptadine has potent anti-viral and anti-bacteria effects thorough blocking serotonin.
If 90% of serotonin production depends on the gut bacteria I think it is enough to count as a reason to keep it as sterile as possible. Peripheral serotonin production has been implicated in everything from obesity to osteoporosis. Pharma industry is in hot pursuit of drugs that inhibit TPH-2 and thus treat obesity. Drugs like ondansetron, which block serotonin effects in the gut are in clinical trials for osteoporosis.
I understand that everything has to be kept in balance, but from everything I see serotonin is best kept as low as possible. Try and find a study that shows negative effects on health from reduced gut serotonin.
Yes, we may have developed to co-exist with gut bacteria but that does not mean it is optimal. The organism does what it can under the conditions permitted by the environment. That does not mean that a more optimal environment does not exist - i.e. one without bacteria in the colon and small intestines.
Speaking of small intestines - many people have issues with SIBO and it can only happen if your gut is populated by the microbiome. Ideally the organism keeps in check but in the modern world of poor metabolism and health it increasingly doesn't. So the microbiome we evolved to live with is becoming pathological and starts to colonize the small intestine, which brings a host of health issues.
I concur with Peat that the cleaner the gut the better off you are. With clean gut, even starch is not a problem.
Just my 2c.

As I see it this boils down to an assumption: That bacteria, plain and simple cause a reaction of enterochromaffin cells (EC) to produce serotonin. And the conclusion: you need to rid the body of all bacteria, or at least minimize them as much as possible, because serotonin is produced in direct relationship to the amount of bacteria present in the gut. That seems to be your assumption.

But if you read about EC, they don't produce serotonin just in response to bacteria! The produce serotonin in response to toxins that some species of bacteria make. The first study you cited in the referenced thread didn't even mention toxins, or species. It was quite lacking in details. The second link in your referenced thread was only a Summary, and also had no detail, but did mention that "Altering the microbiota could improve 5-HT-related disease symptoms". This implies that it's the species, not the gross numbers, of microbes, that cause 5-HT activation of serotonin. It certainly doesn't say absolute numbers of bacteria could be reduced to inprove disease symptoms. So the studies cited in that thread in no way support "why Peat favors the germ free gut".

So there is no conclusion to make from those studies other than "If you have some bacteria you will get more serotonin than if you have none." Who knows what bacteria they reinnoculated the rats with when they wanted to see what serotonin production would be in the presence of bacteria. It could have been any amount of any species of bacteria. It could have been all pathogenic, toxic loaded bacteria. This is not a study to prove much about what serotonin is produced in healthy rats.

I think if you dig into the subject, you'll find that one of the functions of EC is to produce serotonin in response to toxins.

Not all gut bacteria produce substances toxic to the host. In fact in a health gut environment, most don't. If you dig more, you'll find out that bacteria that aid in human health by creating vitamins and saturated fats and immune-system fortification do not produce the toxins necessary to kick in serotonin production. Dig deeper, find a study that shows that some of the bacteria that people commonly take in "probiotic" doses are raising the levels of toxins, and therefore serotonin in the gut, and you'll have something to share that I will get excited about.

If you want to start researching the fact that it's the toxins, not the bacteria, that EC respond to, you can check these:

http://isccb12.webs.ull.es/PDF-Final/26-Prinz.pdf

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_2/S331.full

Notice especially in this second one, there is mention of exactly which, as they say "pathogenic" (not bacteria in general) species put out the toxins that cause 5-HT activation. You'll recognize the bad guys. They have familiar names like Staphylococcus aureus, and cholera. This article is naming specific toxins and specific species. It makes it quite clear it is species that are well known pathogens that are responsible for well described ailments such as nasea and diarrhea. Nowhere in this article do you get the idea that bacteria in general cause serotonin increases. It is specific bacteria that are known pathogens that release identified toxins that then can cause an enterochromaffin cell to produce serotonin. This is quite different from the slant of the thread you referenced.

I'd suggest that in light of how good bacteria keep pathogenic bacteria in check and keep humans and all other mammals in good health, it's still a good idea to have a healthy supply of pro-life biotics in the gut. It's been this way for millions of years and the only time in the history of the earth that there's ever been substantial reductions in the gut microbiome, in the case of use of antibiotics, you can finally see what repercussions people have for years in their health until they get around to finding out about probiotics and they take a dose or two, and suddenly, they often have full health restored. It's amazing how many people have experienced this. I hear testimony on the good effects of probiotics almost daily. After years of hearing this, it's somewhat strange to hear someone go the other direction and say that microbes are needed in smaller numbers in the human gut. In the small intestine, yes. But not in the large intestine or colon. That's my 2 cents at this point.

Check the clinical trials with probiotics on clinicaltrials.gov and see if you can find positive results. Many of them were cancelled due to side effects and the majority that completed found no benefit. On top of that there is some evidence that some autoimmune conditions like Lupus are the result of overgrowth of Lactobacilus strains. I don't think keeping your gut completely sterile is practical. But the evidence for charcoal for disease prevention and life extension is solid, and the main mechanism of action of charcoal is reduction of endotoxin and bacterial count in the gut. So, at least we can say that having less bacteria than we do now seems to be beneficial.

You're backing away from this without providing your references? Why not show the "clinical trials" you speak of? This new claim against probiotics is now also yours to prove if you wish. I have no questions about it.

We could all profit from your proof that there's nothing to commensal bacteria protecting us against toxins from certain known pathogens by the commensals keeping the numbers of pathogenic bacteria very reduced.

Short of that proof, I have to accept for now that: probiotics are good; they keep pathogenic bacteria reduced to minimal numbers; pathogens have no significant impact on us in very small numbers; thus the whole worry about excess serotonin from bacteria is for naught, because it rises only in response to toxins from the pathogens (as I demonstrated with the links previously), which are very nicely kept in check by our commensal strains. The equation seems to be: Few pathogens = few toxins = ideal levels of serotonin.

So I still say, if my sources say ample fiber is the way to maintain the right bacterial load, I go with fiber.

It's up to each of us though to choose our food and select what they want in the way of fiber.

I think one thing we agree upon is that fiber affects the gut microbiome.

We might not agree on how and where, but I happen to think that the amount of fiber affects where the principle mass of bacteria will reside along the gastrointestinal tract.

We might also agree that it shouldn't be in the small intestine.

I also think the fiber and new microbes we happen to ingest affects the species that are in the mix, and that the mix itself is not so critical except that it must always be predominantly beneficial species if we want to have immunity from disease and chronic inflammation.

All my study has shown me that a good mix, once established, has a powerful ability to maintain dominance over pathogens, and only extreme measures such as doses of antibiotics can upset this stability.

No problem, I will provide some evidence on lack of effectiveness of probiotics. I will try to post something tonight.
Btw, I think you also need to show some proof that supplementing probiotics is beneficial. Not sure I buy the logic of if there is no evidence of harm then we assume it's beneficial.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
I would throw into this mix of ideas
the fact that many have had their appendix removed.
I've wondered how that might affect my approach to gut health.

In my questioning of the straight Peat approach to gut health,
I focus on the point at which he acknowledges that we have to learn to live with bacteria.
The sterile environment, sterile gut is not an option.

It's just that I've wondered if where Peat goes from there might be simplistic:
bacteria are bad
and need to be kept low by not feeding them
and by periodically whacking them with carrots and maybe antibiotics.

I started thinking: maybe that is too much of a
humans-are-good-and-need-to-stay-In-Control kind of gestalt.
Like in the movie Avatar
where the Type A militaristic earthlings see
the nature-lovin' creatures as threats requiring eradication.

(Boy, that's a devilishly mean position to imagine Peat in! Sorry, it's just a metaphor! :lol: )

In my readings lately about the microbiome,
I think I saw where there's like 1,000+ different "critters" typically inhabiting our guts.
And then I read...I'm going to butcher this going off-the-top-of-my-head, but here goes...
that like, in terms of the ratio of cells in "our" bodies that are actually "us"--
that is, that contain our DNA--
That we are way outnumbered by "other" cells.

The general, if sloppily evoked, notion I'm driving at is:
this whole microbiome world...
the more we learn about it,
the more complex it seems--to me, at least.
The way the gut has been linked to the brain
and to things like mood, emotion, intelligence....

The Peat approach...maybe it doesn't adequately take into account all that complexity.
Maybe instead of focusing simply on strategies of de-cultivating and whacking,
we should be thinking about more enlightened, qualitative cultivation and balancing.
 

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
narouz said:
The Peat approach...maybe it doesn't adequately take into account all that complexity.
Maybe instead of focusing simply on strategies of de-cultivating and whacking,
we should be thinking about more enlightened, qualitative cultivation and balancing.

I couldn't agree more, narouz. Considering that 4 or 5 of us have probably produced more on this thread in the last week, including references, on the subject of the gut microbiome than Peat ever did, I highlight your statement that Peat's approach doesn't adequately take into account the complexity, and I'll add that our total contributions here, so far, still haven't sufficiently resolved a set of guidelines based on the same complexity of this subject.

I'm glad we're still here to continue exploring this, again, under your guideline of: "Maybe instead of focusing simply on strategies of de-cultivating and whacking, we should be thinking about more enlightened, qualitative cultivation and balancing." Good guidance! ;)
 

Suikerbuik

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
700
they get around to finding out about probiotics and they take a dose or two, and suddenly, they often have full health restored. It's amazing how many people have experienced this. I hear testimony on the good effects of probiotics almost daily.
Being honest here, I don’t buy testimonies. Nor think probotics are really helpful in many cases, temporary may be.. Perhaps true is a reduced intestinal permeability for the time being. I too have yet to see the first really promising trials..

Furthermore, I don’t think serotonin synthesis is restricted to pathogenic bacteria only. Recently a study found serotonine release and increased gene expression in pathway related genes upon spore forming bacteria, which are fairly common. Certain bile acid derivatives was what increased serotonin the most (at least from what they tested), not really of a characteristic of pathogens only.

However, this supports the view for reduced fat and/or increased fiber intake. Which is something I agree on EnoreeG, if you do well on fiber, great, include them. Also for this standpoint I would see a study showing that fibers are detrimental in people not suffering bowel issues. So fibers I think are great for health if they are not supporting the growth of pathognenic bacteria.

Help me a bit on the definition of a pathogenic bacteria, though. I am not really sure what the definition of non-pathogenic is. Non-pathogenic bacteria can become pathogenic in a particular environment or gain access to certain genes (horizontal gene transfer) - an E.coli (or any other species) can be called an E.coli even while there is only 60% genetic similarity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom