Need Help With Lowering Estrogen Even More

[EnoreeG]

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.

Check!

You might find YuraCZ's last link above interesting. There's at least some situations depicted there showing support for your claims! You'll have to see out what you want to use. It's a video. I can't patch a section of it here as a quote.

 

[EnoreeG]

A lot of important issues touched on here. Thanks!

 

[narouz]

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.

Something analogous may go on in the case of some yeast.
I will see if I can find the article or study--
I think "thebigpeatowski" posted it--
about how yeast (or at least some yeast) morph
as part of their life cycle or environment
into the filament-using kind of critter--
with the filament sticking into the intestinal wall
like some of the bacteria Peat talks about as being dangerous.

On a bit different tack,
I was thinking about Peat's view of keeping dangerous bacteria quiescent
by feeding them sugars rather than starch.
His notion is that if they get sugar,
they won't find it necessary to stab their filaments into the lining of our guts in search of food.
But I was wondering...
why wouldn't the same hold true for feeding them starch?

 

[narouz]

Here's that study about yeast morphing.
It was "thebigpeatowski" who found this, not me. :)

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15033 ... s7741.html

 

[EnoreeG]

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.

Great contributions, Suikerbuik. I concur, and add:

Testimonies might be trashed by some, especially, once they have what they consider better evidence. But I'll contend that as long as one has a memory, a testimony can be drawn upon - right or wrong! That is, if you have no science, but you just took a course of antibiotics and now you feel horrible and have indigestion or some other symptom, and you remember the testimony, you may just be inclined to beat a path to the store and buy some probiotics for relief, especially if you've heard little or no testimony showing harm from probiotics! This proves nothing, but putting the testimony out there is not something I see as misguiding. People know testimony is testimony. These days they often trust it more than science, considering what bought science has done to itself. Just my 2 cents.

Having said that, I, and also YuraCZ's video tend to agree with you that "probiotics may be helpful, but only temporily....". There can be a lot of asterisks attached to a probiotic recommendation. The video points out that people tend to develop their basic microbiome in the first 3 years of life. A lot of diversity may be added later, but not nearly so much as could have been added in the first 3 years. Also, my take on probiotics is they aren't something you need if you eat right and have no gut issues. You don't need probiotics to stay healthy, where health is defined as a good immune system and enough fiber (prebiotics) to keep your microbiome functioning to maintain that health. But if you suffer from immune system deficiencies, gut disturbances, or just took an antibiotic that you're sure has wiped out most of your gut bacteria and definitely the balance, then probiotics are the best way to restore (I shouldn't even use that word - you may never "restore") your microbiome. It's a best stab approach. Take the pills, eat healthy helpings of sauerkraut, whatever. Try to get a new dominant force down there that can take charge. But to keep the gut healthy, a dose or two of pills or kefir or sauerkraut is not going to do it without sufficient fiber to feed the germs.

Yes, I can see serotonin can result from other things. I only wanted to point out that it's not directly related to the gross number of bacteria you have on board.

On what is a pathogen, etc. that's a big subject. Watch YuraCZ's video. It has an example of which you speak -- where what is considered a pathogen in one society actually seems helpful in greater numbers in another society's guts!

Here's a bit of "perspective" I can offer on pathogens. First, there are zillions of species out there, and science has only arrived at ways of recognizing them (via DNA). But there essentially are still zillions of them out there, genetically changing as we try to pin them down and "identify" them. It's really sort of a useless task, but you know mankind, they want to classify everything. The reason identification of the non-pathogens is useless is that we already know maybe 90% of what we need to know to help people be healthy.

First, we know a few species we can put in a probiotic and they don't hurt you, but they help you reestablish a more or less healthy gut. That's a few species out of a zillion. But it's enough for now.

Second, we have a fairly good handle on the most destructive pathogens, and have found out they tend to show up in certain Phylum, or even Families of bacteria. Check out the Proteobacteria Phylum:

Proteobacteria

That helps us somewhat generalize about what MIGHT be pathogenic. You can go out and read more on this. My take on the net results though is that ALL these pathogens are magnificently kept in check by a healthy set of commensal bacteria in the gut. None of us would survive a day without this situation because we ALL get and have some of these pathogens in us at all times. They are effectively "kept as pets" by our dominant species. They serve a purpose. It's all OK. No different than having a few gang-bangers and a few mongrel dogs out on the streets of a very well policed city. Not that we have such well policed cities, but we certainly usually have that well policed of a gut.

So you are very much with the rest of us, and even the scientists at being at a loss to distinguish between pathogens and healthy bugs. It just turns out that we don't need to worry. As the video says, we've developed this mutual protection system over millions of years by having the microbes evolve with us. And fortunately they evolve way faster than we do, going through several generations daily. So they tend to keep up with the strange features of our modern world and modern diet better than our own body. They seem to talk to our enteric nervous system and feed input into our immune system and it all seems to keep us healthy. This is the story science is now telling us, not one I'm creating myself. You know the drug industry would be all over this microbiome thing and showing us how we need to get rid of the germs if they could sell us on it.

Instead, big-pharma is being pushed back into a corner because it's their drugs that are causing drug-resistant microbes to arrive on the scene, and make it even more important that we keep a powerful microbiome that defends us. Antibiotic drugs are becoming more and more useless against the newest strains of pathogens. It's now between us and our microbes to find safety. Or so it seems to me.

 

[HDD]

A family member was recently prescribed probiotics ($60) after taking antibiotics. It seems big-pharma is getting on board the gravy train!

 

[narouz]

A family member was recently prescribed probiotics ($60) after taking antibiotics. It seems big-pharma is getting on board the gravy train!

This would seem to have been the mainstream medical strategy for...
well, for a long time, right?
I mean, I can remember--hasn't it been at least 20 years ago?--
that it's been the typical thing to recommend yogurt/probiotics
after (even during, I think) a course of antibiotics...

 

[HDD]

During my daughters chemo treatment several years ago, and many rounds of antibiotics, I asked her oncologist about supplementing probiotics. She said that it was not ok, but commercial yogurt was fine.

 

[HDD]

A family member was recently prescribed probiotics ($60) after taking antibiotics. It seems big-pharma is getting on board the gravy train!

This would seem to have been the mainstream medical strategy for...
well, for a long time, right?
I mean, I can remember--hasn't it been at least 20 years ago?--
that it's been the typical thing to recommend yogurt/probiotics
after (even during, I think) a course of antibiotics...

I wouldn't know about what the medical community recommended since I have not taken prescribed antibiotics in over 30 years. However, alternative home remedies has centered on gut health.

Edit: I did not know there were prescription probiotics.

 

[narouz]

Another important aspect about the microbiome
(and therefore about the gut, and about endotoxin, and lowering estrogen :) )
is the question of whether bacteria permanently re-colonize the gut.

If we are hellbent (or Peatbent ) only on tamping them down,
and if they do not repopulate on their own, well...
then that would seem to me to be more reason to be open to strategies
for intentionally helping to cultivate the best ones.
And maybe to be more cautious about wacking them (antibiotics).

Here is an excerpt of a post I posted over in another thread about the question of repopulation.
It is by a poster with the handle "dvjorge".

It comes from a forum where the central topic is Candida.
English is a language this "dvjorge" guy learned late in life,
so it is not the best.
But he has posted on that "Curezone" site for many years,
and I've read a lot of them,
and he seems to me to be a persistent and intelligent seeker/researcher.
In the following post he displays some frustration because, apparently,
people misconstrue what he has said about the microbiome and repopulation:

"Yes, THEY DO COLONIZE !!!
I have repeated this a million of times but they DON'T last more than 3 months. I have been in contact with the Gordon Lab that is working in the Genome Proyect. I have discussed it with people who has been investigating it for years. If I go to the Curezone archives where I have posted more than 2000 times, I can find long discussions about it with people who have dedicated years to battle candida. There is reliable scientific information in the web from medical sources that recognize that permanent colonization hasn't been proved. I have dedicated a huge amount of hours to find medical papers demonstrating possible pharmaceutical probiotic colonization that be permanent, but it isn't demonstrated. They colonize but they don't last. After 18 days of stopping supplementation they can be detectable, even after 60 days, but not after 90 days. I don't post garbage. Go to the Probiotic Organization and read about it.

It looks like my bad English isn't well understood. They DO colonize but only temporary. There aren't proves they do colonize permanently. It is a matter of time ( months at best ) that they aren't detectable in feces or biopsies. People need to know that. People need to know that the benefits are as long as you supplement them. You gonna find articles about L. Reuteri, V-299, and other species that have been detectable after 60 days of stopping them, but no longer than 3 months. They decline very fast until there isn't more detection.

An article claiming they can detect them after 18 days don't say me anything since I have read other papers detecting colonization after 60 days. What is important is they do form colonies and growth in the intestines. This is something that has to be seen in the future with pharmaceutical grade probiotic, if it is ever possible.

Jorge.

This is fragment of a Patent Production from one of the larger Pharmaceutical grade Probiotic in the world. It is 2012 patent. I am posting it, but I won't continue arguing about it or any other topic. That time already passed for me. It is your turn to find the true and the best way to recover your health. It has been hard for me and I am doing an effort to help. That is it."

[0004] The gastrointestinal microflora has been shown to play a number of vital roles in maintaining gastrointestinal tract function and overall physiological health. For example, the growth and metabolism of the many individual bacterial species inhabiting the gastrointestinal tract depend primarily upon the substrates available to them, most of which are derived from the diet. See e.g., Gibson G. R. et al., 1995. Gastroenterology 106: 975-982; Christi, S. U. et al., 1992. Gut 33: 1234-1238. These finding have led to attempts to modify the structure and metabolic activities of the community through diet, primarily with probiotics which are live microbial food supplements. The best known probiotics are the lactic acid-producing bacteria (i.e., Lactobacilli) and Bifidobacteria, which are widely utilized in yogurts and other dairy products. These probiotic organisms are non-pathogenic and non-toxigenic, retain viability during storage, and survive passage through the stomach and small intestine. Since probiotics do not permanently colonize the host, they need to be ingested regularly for any health promoting properties to persist. Commercial probiotic preparations are generally comprised of mixtures of Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria, although yeast such as Saccharomyces have also been utilized.

 

[HDD]

During my daughters chemo treatment several years ago, and many rounds of antibiotics, I asked her oncologist about supplementing probiotics. She said that it was not ok, but commercial yogurt was fine.

I did end up giving her a very expensive brand of probiotics when she had c. diff. during her treatment. I believed it stopped the diarrhea within a few days. Coincidence?

 

[haidut]

So, EnoreeG, some studies to consider.

I will start with this one, discussing the micriobiome and autoimmunity.
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/23/6/518.full

"...Strikingly, germ-free K/BxN mice develop only an attenuated form of autoimmune arthritis, as well as a decrease in autoantibodies, germinal centers, and splenic Th17 cells."

"...Examining the influence of the microbiota on the onset and severity of experimental autoimmune encephalitis, a model for multiple sclerosis, Lee and colleagues demonstrated that a germ-free state reduced inflammation and clinical pathology compared with colonized mice."

"...Remarkably, SFB-monocolonized animals (germ-free animals that were colonized only with SFB) showed increased encephalitogenic Th17 cells not only in the gut but also within the spinal cord."

Also, here are some studies showing probiotics to be ineffective in a number of conditions, for which in theory they should be ideal for.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24777621
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1773351/
http://www.dldjournalonline.com/article ... ract?cc=y=
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2107
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/743303
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... l.pdf+html
http://www.hcplive.com/journals/interna ... in-Elderly

 

[EnoreeG]

So, EnoreeG, some studies to consider.

I will start with this one, discussing the micriobiome and autoimmunity.
http://lup.sagepub.com/content/23/6/518.full

"...Strikingly, germ-free K/BxN mice develop only an attenuated form of autoimmune arthritis, as well as a decrease in autoantibodies, germinal centers, and splenic Th17 cells."

"...Examining the influence of the microbiota on the onset and severity of experimental autoimmune encephalitis, a model for multiple sclerosis, Lee and colleagues demonstrated that a germ-free state reduced inflammation and clinical pathology compared with colonized mice."

"...Remarkably, SFB-monocolonized animals (germ-free animals that were colonized only with SFB) showed increased encephalitogenic Th17 cells not only in the gut but also within the spinal cord."

Also, here are some studies showing probiotics to be ineffective in a number of conditions, for which in theory they should be ideal for.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24777621
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1773351/
http://www.dldjournalonline.com/article ... ract?cc=y=
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2107
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/743303
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... l.pdf+html
http://www.hcplive.com/journals/interna ... in-Elderly

Thanks haidut. I couldn't open the initial study to view it without paying the fee, and the abstract says little but does admit that "Beyond the current efforts to identify such disease-promoting or -preventing commensals (“pathobionts” or “symbionts”), it will be important to determine what factors modulate them. Dietary changes are known to affect both the composition and function of the gut microbial communities, which in turn can alter the innate and adaptive immune system. In this review, we focus on the relationships between diet, microbiota, and autoimmune diseases."

They admit that diet and microbes affect autoimmune diseases, either positively or negatively. It seems they go on to do a study with germ free mice and then introduce some bacteria (SFB? according to your quote) and find heightened levels of an autoimmune condition. Yes, this proves that a specific (I assume) microbe can be causative in a disease or an autoimmune condition. It in no way touches the subject that had there been a healthy gut microbiome in the subject, there could have been less or even no raising of the autoimmune condition when the SFB is introduced (the normal case in populated guts).

This paper does not prove, but in it's abstract it declares as known fact that infants (rats or humans) need introduction of microbes after birth from the mother's milk in order to develop a properly resistant mucosal defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877894

It's already well accepted that an ample gut microbiome is generally key to preventing autoimmune conditions, and that therefore a study such as you cited, working with a subject with no microbiome, is therefore certain to show a failure of the immune system once a foreign bacteria is introduced, as essentially, the immune system has not developed in a germ free animal.

On the probiotic studies you provided, they are quite interesting. I thought you were providing studies that showed that probiotics were never beneficial. Having studies that show only the exceptions is strong implication that 1) probiotics generally work; 2) it is very important to describe some situations in which they have no effect. I think Inflammatory Bowel Disease is a great example of such a situation, and may be of importance to many readers here. So that is important to bring to people's attention.

I did find that some of the studies were sort of a silly waste of money, like the 4th one in your list proving that use of a single species probiotic did not help, and possibly worsened symptoms of colic in infants. Same problem with the study trying to relieve children of constipation by use of one raw milk bacteria, Bifidobacterium lactis.

Probiotics are generally more effective the greater number of species they include in the dose, except for one case I know of where S. boulardii as a probiotic is remarkably effective at eliminating C difficile. It's also quite difficult to conduct a scientific experiment on colic where the "symptoms" must be measured by counting the occurrences of "crying" or "fussing". I realize many studies are just conducted to give grad students a chance to work and the result will not make any contribution to science due to it's triviality, but I really don't like to even wade through a paragraph of an abstract when the study is valueless except to the student.

In sum though, thanks for the proof that there are times when a specific probiotic will not measure up to someone's expectations. If nothing else, it may save someone from purchasing a probiotic with too narrow a set of included microbes. One gets what one pays for, and probiotics with 8-15 species in them are definitely worth more than those with 2-5.

 

[narouz]

If helpful bacteria do re-colonize, but not permanently,
like only up to 60-90 days max,
as some science apparently shows,
then we might need to be more careful about maintaining and even cultivating them
especially in some situations.

Like with some people,
say without appendixes,
or hypothyroid (and thus immune underperforming),
or sluggish bowels,
or just f**ked up bowels for reasons unknown,
people who have weird bowels after antibiotics, etc...

... shoe might be on the other foot.
Those people might need to actually try to grow or regrow good bacteria...?

 

[narouz]

During my daughters chemo treatment several years ago, and many rounds of antibiotics, I asked her oncologist about supplementing probiotics. She said that it was not ok, but commercial yogurt was fine.

I did end up giving her a very expensive brand of probiotics when she had c. diff. during her treatment. I believed it stopped the diarrhea within a few days. Coincidence?

Hard to know isn't it HDD.
A testimonial--we've been talking about them.

If it helped and your daughter really had c.diff,
that is a something worth keeping in mind.

 

[YuraCZ]

 

[tara]

I agree that the constituents of the microbiome are likely to be important, not just the quantity. (And Peat has made references to this too - eg he's said some people with unfavourable balance of gut bacteria are better off avoiding starch altogether.) It makes sense to me that it's better to have a range of relatively non-pathogenic bacteria (and fungii(?)) around to help keep the real nasties - c. difficile, salmonella, campylocbacter, cholera, etc in check. I'm not sure that that means the more the better.

I also agree that we are probably better off without bacteria in the small intestine, and that tactics that keep them out can be helpful. For people who do not have difficulty with high serotonin levels, increased fibre may be a good way to improve this. But it's not the only possible remedy - anything that increases the speed of digestion may help, so strengthening general energy metabolism and energy available for maintaining and running the digestive system (eg by eating more calories, more of particular nutrients, or increasing CO2 levels, or supplementing thyroid, depending on one's context) may be more helpful for some people. I don't see a way around experimenting to see what works for the individual - there is unlikely to be one size that fits all.

I have not tried to give up starch or fibre, though I eat a lot less of both than I used too. (As an aside, back then when I ate lots of fibre and starch it didn't protect my from weeks long debilitating struggle with out of control campylobacter, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.)

As I read Peat, the serotonin connection with fibre and bacteria is not only with toxins triggering serotonin release, but also that stretching and friction increase serotonin. High quantity of bacteria can lead to large bulk, potentially leading to overstretching in some circumstances. Large amounts of rough fibre can trigger excess serotonin by friction in at least some circumstances, as well as just being damaging rough on a weakened digestive tract.
I refer to 'relatively non-pathogenic' bacteria because as I understand it, there are many species of gram-negative bacteria (including e. coli) that don't usually cause severe acute diarrhea or other severe acute issues, but which do produce endotoxin (released when they die). And the endotoxin itself is a burden, worsened by quantity, weak gut barrier, and slow transit.

There are so many interdependent pros and cons with various strategies, that it seems reasonable that the balance of these forces may differ somewhat from person to person.

My take is that if someone has a happy gut and happy microbiome, then it's a matter of if it ain't broke don't fix it - so I reckon enorgee is doing the right thing by continuing what has worked for him.
But that does not mean that EnoreeG's diet will fix the problems experienced by everyone else with their particular health issues. A strong, healthy gut may be able to handle a lot more fibre than a weakened one, and some people have learned that they do better with less soluble and digestible fibre, and there's no reason to think they would all benefit from a high fibre whole food diet - as testified by several people here.

 

[lexis]

Anyone tried the Indian herb called Shatavari.

 

[EnoreeG]

I agree that the constituents of the microbiome are likely to be important, not just the quantity. (And Peat has made references to this too - eg he's said some people with unfavourable balance of gut bacteria are better off avoiding starch altogether.) It makes sense to me that it's better to have a range of relatively non-pathogenic bacteria (and fungii(?)) around to help keep the real nasties - c. difficile, salmonella, campylocbacter, cholera, etc in check. I'm not sure that that means the more the better.

I have not tried to give up starch or fibre, though I eat a lot less of both than I used too. (As an aside, back then when I ate lots of fibre and starch it didn't protect my from weeks long debilitating struggle with out of control campylobacter, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.)

As I read Peat, the serotonin connection with fibre and bacteria is not only with toxins triggering serotonin release, but also that stretching and friction increase serotonin. High quantity of bacteria can lead to large bulk, potentially leading to overstretching in some circumstances. Large amounts of rough fibre can trigger excess serotonin by friction in at least some circumstances, as well as just being damaging rough on a weakened digestive tract.
I refer to 'relatively non-pathogenic' bacteria because as I understand it, there are many species of gram-negative bacteria (including e. coli) that don't usually cause severe acute diarrhea or other severe acute issues, but which do produce endotoxin (released when they die). And the endotoxin itself is a burden, worsened by quantity, weak gut barrier, and slow transit.

There are so many interdependent pros and cons with various strategies, that it seems reasonable that the balance of these forces may differ somewhat from person to person.

My take is that if someone has a happy gut and happy microbiome, then it's a matter of if it ain't broke don't fix it - so I reckon enorgee is doing the right thing by continuing what has worked for him.
But that does not mean that enorgee's diet will fix the problems experienced by everyone else with their particular health issues. A strong, healthy gut may be able to handle a lot more fibre than a weakened one, and some people have learned that they do better with less soluble and digestible fibre, and there's no reason to think they would all benefit from a high fibre whole food diet - as testified by several people here.

Good thoughts, Tara. You have me quite willing to qualify what I said when I generally, without qualification, encouraged eating a variety of fiber.

Doctors and dietitians now recommend 25-30 gm / day, when the USA average is about 15 gm / day.

I will now say, some considerable quantity of fiber in the diet, as recommended, or even greater amounts, is ideal. There is proven benefit. But that is only if you have a healthy gut, or at least are free from a few very debilitating conditions that make fiber a very difficult thing to handle, at least while the condition exists. These are conditions such as Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), Crohn's Disease (CD), and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). I did not talk about this in my earlier posts. That distorts what is available as options to people with these types of disorders. You are so right to bring up this aspect of the subject of fiber.

And when these conditions exist, as you explained, the stretching and friction, and resulting increase in serotonin, can be damaging. There are testimonies I've heard where people are suffering from these conditions, and an ignorant practitioner actually recommends increasing (usually via supplement) fiber, and the condition worsens. This is not a condition where fiber should be increased, and actually less fiber is indicated. But it is to bring back health and allow a recovery. Not to establish what is considered the ideal state.

I've read that some people have endured a condition such as IBD, CD, or UC so long that the gut is so seriously compromised that recovery will never be complete. Usually if people suffer thus, they are, or have been under a doctor's care and they know they have problems with fiber. They should just know it is their condition, not their humanness that requires a reduced fiber diet.

So I still urge people to aim for the ideal, instead of accept the minimum regarding fiber. Know your body, know your condition, and question all advice, even that of myself or a doctor.

A couple of replies to specific points you make:

...have a range of relatively non-pathogenic bacteria (and fungii(?)) around to help keep the real nasties - c. difficile, salmonella, campylocbacter, cholera, etc in check. I'm not sure that that means the more the better.

Agreed! You don't need any more of the non-pathogens around in the lower gut than what it takes to always have dominance. Bacterial quorum sensing is the key. Bacteria know about "strength in numbers" and they can count. Your friendly bacteria count the numbers of cells of each pathogenic species. When the numbers of a specific pathogen are too high, that species is reduced. LIkewise, pathogenic species wait until they have sufficient numbers before they even attack cells of the human body, or cells of your friendly bacteria. Obviously, the ideal situation is to have enough friendly bacteria to take care of all of this.

So how many do you need? All I can say is, you obviously need a bit more "friendlies" than "foes", and if you are in a situations where you frequently ingest sizeable quantities of E coli, or salmonella, etc. as when working in food service and ingesting as you prep., well, you better stock a little larger supply of "friendlies" because you may be taking on larger amounts of pathogenic forces than people normally would. You can search on "bacterial quorum sensing" to learn more about this. It's all quite reassuring and builds trust in your microbiome quite rapidly.

So yes, it's not "the more the better", but more like "try to at least have enough and then a little more to be safe". Since the numbers you have in the large intestine and colon are directly proportional to the fiber you eat, that's how you control the numbers. Remember, all the humanly digestible carbs, proteins and fats you eat are already absorbed in the small intestine! All you're giving your friendly germs to eat is what is passing on through as fiber, plus toxins (like old bile), and other rejected molecules. They don't get "leftover yummies" that your small intestine was careless enough, or thoughtful enough, to "pass down the line". It's fiber or nothing. You eat less fiber one day than before, and wham, microbes die. You can control this day by day. YOU decide on the size of the dominant species bulk. THEY decide on the bulk of the pathogens. YOU have nothing to say about that. There are no pharmaceutical antibiotics that just target pathogens. Iodine in the gut comes about as close as anything I've heard of, and I don't completely believe all I've heard about that.

As I read Peat, the serotonin connection with fibre and bacteria is not only with toxins triggering serotonin release, but also that stretching and friction increase serotonin. High quantity of bacteria can lead to large bulk, potentially leading to overstretching in some circumstances. Large amounts of rough fibre can trigger excess serotonin by friction in at least some circumstances, as well as just being damaging rough on a weakened digestive tract.

It's mostly the conditions I spoke of (IBD, etc.) that cause gut membrane weakness that then is damaged by fiber or invaded by microbes or toxins. Healthy gut loves the fiber, as much of the fiber will be soluble, which turns almost immediately into a gel-like substance that lubricates the entire bolus of material passing through the large intestine and colon. The insoluble fiber though gives firmness to the bulk, which would not exist if you ate a meal of just glucose/fructose/protein/fat, and this gives the peristalsis something of substance to hold, push and move through the gut. So as I understand it, the risks of "stretching, overstretching, and friction" that you speak of is only when the gut is already seriously compromised by an IBD type condition. There, yes, one needs to be cautious. And there too, is where many of the testimonies come from that bash fiber. People definitely have been put in situations where more was not better.

All I want though is that people realize that usually, the IBD and Crohn's type situations are the exception, can usually be reversed, and then fiber intake can be increased to where you can again have a decent amount of commensal bacteria in the gut to allow you to have a more proficient immune system. You can't get such an immune system when you suffer from IBD, Crohn's, or Ulcerative Colitis. So we might accept that 1) we need the fiber, but 2) in certain conditions we can't eat enough to be protective. To demonstrate that, here's a paper that talks about using specific probiotics to protect and restore the gut mucosa in Ulcerative Colitis. This was proposed as what must be done when you can't maintain enough gut microbes due to a required low-fiber diet:

Probiotics for Ulcerative Colitis

 

[tara]

@EnoreeG
I do agree that there can be benefits from lots of relatively beneficial gut bacteria.

I have some more points about what you said.
One is that even if diagnosed Crohn's, inflammatory bowel disease , ulcerative colitis etc are relatively rare, there are probably a larger number who have undiagnosed or subclinical versions of these that cause them trouble, or have a susceptibility to develop them if they push things with too much fibre.

Second, even if they are relatively rare in the general population, I'm guessing they are going to be a higher proportion reading a site like this, because people with health trouble are more likely to hunt out information about improving health. We know there are a number of members here with quite severe digestive trouble.

Third, you say that the serotonin triggering effects of stretching and friction are only a problem for people with those diseases, but I don't know what you base that on. My understanding of Peat is that he says serotonin is released in response to stretching and friction in the bowel for everyone, not just people with damaged guts. And some of us do seem to have trouble with conditions in which excess serotonin may be a factor, without obvious severe gut damage.

Fourth, absorbed endotoxin is a burden on everybody. The quantity of endotoxin in the gut is related to the quantity of gram-negative bacteria, and I guess the speed of transit. Reducing the quantity of bacteria seems likely to reduce the quantity of endoxoin in the gut, and therefore likely the quantity absorbed into the system to cause trouble. From this PoV, all gram-neg bacteria could be seen as at least somewhat pathogenic.

I don't think these reasons mean that everyone should always do everything they can to minimise gut bacteria. But I do think it means that there are pros and cons that can have effect, and that the optimal balance for more people than just the ones with diagnosed IBD, Crohns, UC etc may sometimes be to reduce the quantity of bacteria, even if it means a reduction in the populations available to defend against more severe pathogens.

Personally, I don't know what the best approach for myself is at this stage - ie whether I'd be better off with more or less fibre than I currently eat, and with more or fewer bacteria. As far as I know, I may have a somewhat leaky and inflamed gut, but if so, it's not so severe as to be obvious or generally uncomfortable. I had a lot more discomfort back when I ate a lot of fibre and starch, but I suspect it was mostly gas. My key condition is one that is known to involve serotonin imbalance amongst other things. Peat says likely excess serotonin, estrogen, histamine. So enough fibre to help carry away the excreted estrogen would be good. Reducing endotoxin burden should be helpful for me too - so the relatively indigestible carrot should help with both estrogen and endotoxin reduction. Stressing my gut out with physically large amounts of rough fibre, which I believe I have done in the past, may also have counter-productive effects for me.

There seems to be a trade off between higher serotonin, higher gut motility, and lower endotoxin, or lower serotonin but more sluggish peristalsis and so likely higher endotoxin (and potentially higher estrogen). The Peaty approach seems to involve getting metabolism up so the gut has the energy to function well, eating indigestible fibre like carrot and bamboo shoots (and maybe occasionally charcoal) to carry away endotoxin and estrogen, and if necessary to use cascara sagrada to reduce inflammation and aid peristalsis (and reduce the need for excess serotonin to keep things moving). These tactics might reduce the numbers of bacteria, but they don't wipe them out. It seems like a reasonable plan, and some people here report success with it.
I think I feel better when I eat regular carrot salads.