Obesity Caused By Gut Flora

javacody

Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
316
Age
50
Recent article I stumbled across on Facebook:

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...bout-flora-how-important-gut-health-really-is

There have been many, many studies pointing to gut flora as THE factor in obesity. Obviously there are myriad ways to screw up your gut flora (ultra refined processed foods with bad stuff in them, lack of good sleep, stress, antibiotics, maybe immunizations).

But so far, I've read of no way to fix this problem.

So what's the Peat based approach to correct this lack of diversity in the guts of the obese?

I know he doesn't advocate probiotics or fermented foods. This seems to be a missing piece of his work?
 

onioneyedox

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
108
I'm have been wondering this as well. In paleo world the trend is, or I think don't follow that closely nowadays, eating fibers such as inulin, cooked cooled starch, gum like stuff (acacia, psyllium etc). Those are apparently metabolised by good bacteria that produce butyrate and and other short chain fatty acids, which in turn are good for the gut. Also they produce acids that limit yeasts and fungi.

I have been eating this stuff on and off for sometime and I don't think it has had any bad effects. Better bowel movements. Well and some gas but that tends to be my problem anyway...

I personally believe/think, that overly sensitive guts of many "peatarians" (and Peat's himself, god forbid) might benefit from better fed and better balance of bacteria.

http://thegutinstitute.com/ and it's predecessor drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com have lot's of this stuff for the interested. I don't personally care for the the soil probiotics, or the legumes or fermented foods.



Here people are rather limiting bacteria and their effects, by eating/supplementing laxatives, antibiotics, charcoal, and famously carrots. Though about carrots, I have read/heard that their function might not as straight forward as Peat says (like Bukowski's posts in old peatarian.com).


Atm, I think feeding the bacteria might be better than starving and killing them constantly. In the real world gut is full of bacteria anyway, so might as well try to get better species and maybe limit the bad species. On the other case the opportunistic species grow first, which might not be the best thing. That is vague, I know. I don't know much about this stuff just experimenting away. I'm sure in 10 years both peat and paleo people are wiser.
 

Tom

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
100
I think the idea of cellular carbs (meaning from "living" foods where the carb is locked into the cell) vs acellular carbs, causing different types of microbiata, makes some sense. The latter may result in an inflammatory microbiata, which then leads to overeating and obesity.

So I think the solution for some could be to avoid sucrose, honey, juices and instead eat only fruits, vegetables, tubers, potatoes, lean meat and possibly some dairy, for some time until the more desirable microbiata is established, and will have the upper hand. Then the acellular carbohydrates can be tolerated in small quantities if kept in check by cellular carbohydrates and the general bacteria count is low (for example with help by the daily carrot salad).

The theory is explained in this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402009/

Among the most common elements of Westernized foods are the nonperishable products flour and sugar. A fundamental distinction between modern foods containing these and ancestral foods is carbohydrate density. Figure 1A shows the carbohydrate density of a broad selection of foods, with modern foods in grey (USDA data). Foods that would be permitted on a Paleolithic or “primal” diet – the “ancestral foods” – are those in the categories of root tubers, leafy vegetables, fruit, nuts, meats, eggs, and fish, and are shown in white. Tubers, fruits, or functional plant parts such as leaves and stems store their carbohydrates in organelles as part of fiber-walled living cells. These are thought to remain largely intact during cooking, which instead mostly breaks cell-to-cell adhesion.92,93 This cellular storage appears to mandate a maximum density of around 23% non-fibrous carbohydrate by mass, the bulk of the cellular weight being made up of water. The acellular carbohydrates of flour,94 sugar and processed plant-starch products are considerably more dense. Grains themselves are also highly dense, dry stores of starch designed for rapid macroscopic enzymic mobilization during germination.95 Whereas foods with living cells will have their low carbohydrate density “locked in” until their cell walls are breached by digestive processes, the chyme produced after consumption of acellular flour and sugar-based foods is thus suggested to have a higher carbohydrate concentration than almost anything the microbiota of the upper GI tract from mouth to small bowel would have encountered during our coevolution. This may stimulate differing bacterial species to prosper or be outcompeted, or increase some microbial metabolic pathways and waste products in preference to others. It is proposed that the effects of these enhanced carbohydrate concentrations will include a more inflammatory GI microbiota, initially causing leptin resistance, hence the greatly elevated leptin levels seen in Western populations when compared to those eating a wholly cellular diet.7,12–15

It should be noted that anyone that does not eat starches, be it from tubers/potatoes or from grains will not immediately have the needed enzymes etc to properly use it, and such foods will almost per definition cause some initial digestive problems for them. This may pass over time. People that have done water fasting for long periods of time will know that breaking the fast with starches is a terrible idea. Better is fruit juices, fruits and lean meat.

When so many of the paleo people say they are "fructose intolerant", the problem is really that they never eat much fructose and are thus incapable of suddenly handling a lot of it. So they try fruits, honey, sucorse, experience problems and conclude they cannot tolerate fructose.

Fruitarians apparently can handle enormous quantities of fructose without any problems, but they would not deny that it takes time to adjust to such a diet and bad experiences can be expected for quite some time. I believe it is similar with the root vegetables like potatoes and tubers.

I think the "banana" diet that was used 100 years ago to cure celiac disease in children, may offer some clues to a dietary plan that could be effective also for adults today to cure digestive disorders and change the microbiata. The specific carbohydrate diet and later GAPS diet is based on this old research, but I believe often fail because they do not take into account the celluar vs acellular carb idea, and are sometimes way too high in fat.

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article ... id=1174032
 

Attachments

  • n.png
    n.png
    16.3 KB · Views: 1,101

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
I don't think any fermentation product is good...butyric acid included. I think those people are so hungry for carbs but still phobic so they came up with that theory to not feel bad about eating some carbohydrates yet saying...still, oh its the short chain fats not the carbs that are good! Have you ever smelled butyric acid? It smeels like hellish death. And it has accompanying gas, and it provokes the immune system. Theres not supposed to be bacteria anywhere but the large intestine, and mostly just on the ascending side. Naturally bile keeps your small intestine clean. If you had an actual growth in the small intestine it would be a serious problem and there would be no question about it, not just like a day to day minor nag that most people deal with in life. And the bacteria in the colon basically are going to be there regardless of what you do, and don't need to be fed, its better not to feed them in fact, you get more nasty by p roducts

im beginning to realize people are obsessed with thinking everything has to do with food itself, as to their problems. That's most of it, but for some reason no one wants to look at other aspects of life and being that affect those kinds of things. Stress is probably the worst thing there is, as a broad umbrella term. And as ive said before, a lot of the 'fat' people have is just retained water and salt from stress

the single most important thing for health is state of perspectives and therefore how you act in life. Also, its having a comfortable space to live, and for most people in our society who are damaged and all that, living alone for a while is probably the only way they'll have any chance to actually figure their being out, but most people don't even try they just veg out and pass out, even those that live alone and have a chance to study themselves
 

Tom

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
100
I don´t know pboy.. I certainly won´t disagree with the importance of keeping the bacteria count very low in the small intestine. But I do not think the cellular carb type diet I mentioned will (over time) lead to more bacteria in the small intestine, quite the contrary. It may lead to more bacteria in the large intestine feeding on the fibers etc. And I am not sure if this is a good or a bad thing at this point. The fibers will also soak up some junk on the way, like excess estrogens and speed up transition time. It appears that the overgrowth of microbes in the small intestine is really coming from the large intestine so if the type of bacteria is better in the large intestine it will also be better in the small intestine.

Another point is that the small intestine will never be completely sterile no matter how many carrot salads you consume, and these bacteria can feed on other stuff, like protein etc even if the diet is free of fibers and polysaccharide/starch. If the diet has a lot of free sugars, it can also feed yeasts.

The whole thing is rather complicated and I certainly don´t have all the answers. I am trying to be openminded and use some common sense.


On forums like this perhaps we overfocus on the importance of food, but that´s certainly not the case in society in general where things are still almost exclusively blamed on psychological and genetical factors, I guess it´s just part of the western culture to think that way. If someone had a really bad day and all sorts of problems and came to Freud he would find little interest in digestive problems and dietary habits, and instead focus on (in my opinion) irrelevant theories of the persons relationship with mother and father during childhood etc. But in primitive socities, if you´re having a bad mood, they will often immediately connect it to a troubled stomach, that you ate something bad the day before or something.

And as for stress, I think it depends on what type of stress you talk about. Is it the stress from living in a world full of pollution, noises etc, or it is the demand for acheivement and too much competition, or any other type of stress? There´s certainly a lot of stress connected with eating these days, and perhaps we should just admit that the majority of people in the western world suffer from some level of eating disorder, where corporations have used fear as kind of a propaganda tool to change people´s dietary habits to suit their lust for profit. It is hard for some people just to eat a normal meal and recognize if food taste good or bad because the worrying of gaining weight and look ugly (and therefore become an "unsuccessful loser") or to get one of the many degenerative diseases, overshadows the whole thing.

I have been reading recently about some of the traditional people in the Pacific. For example there´s the Tokuleans, that traditionally obtainted as much as 55% of energy from coconut fat (120-140 gram per day), according to an article from 1981 (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/34/8/1552.full.pdf) They appeared free of modern disease, no obesity etc, caloric intake was moderate. They consumed about 6 grams of PUFA per day. A diet with 13% protein, mainly from fish, plus taro, breadfruit, and lots of coconut products. Today this population has the highest rate of diabetes in the world, at 38%. Why is that?

Obviously the environment must be less stressed than say in a big city; they would be close to the sea, nature, the natural elements. The pleasant sounds from the sea (and birds?) would have a relaxing effect etc, their circadian rhytm may be excellent... So why are they now overeating? Alcohol obviously plays a role as does all the imported food, animal protein seems to have gone up to, they eat more sucrose, vegetable oils, refined flour, more salt etc. It is just hard to suggest that food is not one of the major cause of their problems. A poor diet can lead to stress too.

I think it has also been suggested that in the western world suicide rates are higher in rural than in urban areas. I think of such rural areas as people living closer to nature, that it´s less polluted and so on.

On another note it has been shown that the suicide rate is highest amongst the absolute poorest and the absolute richest. So many of the so called 1%, may not be much more happy than the homeless people.

I´ll write about the pro/cons of living alone another time.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
It would be over simplistic to set a single variable as the sole cause for obesity.
It’s a complex net of biological events that occur simultaneously and build up through time to make up obesity.

The common attributions to obesity in modern times, such as gut flora, inactivity and over consumption of sugar, are likely forms of correlation.

The blueprint of the micro flora is a function of the inside and outside environment; and is constantly changing. The obese, usually have a preference for starchy and PUFA rich foods.

We know from Peat that PUFA synergizes with estrogen to supress the thyroid and severely slow down metabolism. Simultaneously, over consumption of starch amplifies the process. These complications make up the bigger chunk of ingredients for the obesity recipe.

With impaired thyroid function, obese people usually develop acne, cysts, rashes, UTIs, bad digestion - all the sings of bacterial overgrowth.

The fact that bacterial overgrowth can be caused by the "good" bacteria is enough to conclude that on the long-run it's not the imbalance but rather the overgrowth that is a main problem.
Bacteria cannot be entirely eliminated but In the normal course of business, the body should be able to contain their numbers and filter their toxins.

I've been on popular candida diets for over a year, before Peat, and read quite a bit in the literature. I can confidently say that that the fundamental theory behind them is rubbish. It might not be wrong but it's a lot of beating around the bush. It's like observing the effect of the coral reef population on median sea temperature, while there are other major factors at play.

When the system is stressed, consumption of probiotics, excess fibre, excess starch, fermented foods is like lubricating an engine with ethanol.

As for the correcting the problem, understanding its complexity allows us to give it a little more time.
Thyroid function is the fundamental thing in making sure the immune and digestive systems are keeping bacterial overgrowth at bay. Eating good foods while optimising thyroid sets up a balanced flora on the long-run.
After the system is given some time to heal, it'll be less susceptible to bacterial overgrowth.

Living in a clean and pleasant area is also a good idea.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
XPlus said:
The fact that bacterial overgrowth can be caused by the "good" bacteria is enough to conclude that on the long-run it's not the imbalance but rather the overgrowth that is a main problem.
Bacteria cannot be entirely eliminated but In the normal course of business, the body should be able to contain their numbers and filter their toxins. .

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Imbalance will cause overgrowth and I'm not sure if you can deny that it is bad to have a non-diverse gut flora (typical of floras seen in infections, of which one treatment is poop transplant to start over from scratch). If your flora get T Gondii, this will help E Coli spread in the small intestine and overgrow. A healthy diverse flora is supposed to prevent T Gondii getting set up in the first place. I am not sure if you can have overgrowth of the non-endotoxin (gram-positive, milk type) bacteria, which are anti-inflammatory. Some of those don't even colonise the gut permanently (it stays for a while but dies off after some time if you stop the diet), even if studies show it is enough for an effect on gut lining repair.

So...overgrowth is bad if the food you're eating promotes the LPS bacteria. And probably (harmful) overgrowth only occurs for those type of bacteria, although this is just a guess. But do you want to kill non-LPS bacteria while you are regularly taking antibiotics (PUFA and modern diets can also do this)? You start to have those since your age of breastfeeding normally. But they cannot be re-introduced very easily once they are wiped out. Antibiotics are not neutral as to which type of bacteria will survive (and some of the bad bacteria strains do not even respond well to antibiotics). I feel uneasy if I took antibiotics and there was a risk to kill my gram-neg bacteria while leaving the inflammatory ones to flourish.

That's assuming you are not already at the overgrowth infection stage and your flora hasn't lost too many strains other than the bad ones, otherwise wiping things out initially might indeed be part of a one-off careful therapy.
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
jyb said:
XPlus said:
The fact that bacterial overgrowth can be caused by the "good" bacteria is enough to conclude that on the long-run it's not the imbalance but rather the overgrowth that is a main problem.
Bacteria cannot be entirely eliminated but In the normal course of business, the body should be able to contain their numbers and filter their toxins. .

It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Imbalance will cause overgrowth and I'm not sure if you can deny that it is bad to have a non-diverse gut flora (typical of floras seen in infections, of which one treatment is poop transplant to start over from scratch). If your flora get T Gondii, this will help E Coli spread in the small intestine and overgrow. A healthy diverse flora is supposed to prevent T Gondii getting set up in the first place. I am not sure if you can have overgrowth of the non-endotoxin (gram-positive, milk type) bacteria, which are anti-inflammatory. Some of those don't even colonise the gut permanently (it stays for a while but dies off after some time if you stop the diet), even if studies show it is enough for an effect on gut lining repair.

So...overgrowth is bad if the food you're eating promotes the LPS bacteria. And probably (harmful) overgrowth only occurs for those type of bacteria, although this is just a guess. But do you want to kill non-LPS bacteria while you are regularly taking antibiotics (PUFA and modern diets can also do this)? You start to have those since your age of breastfeeding normally. But they cannot be re-introduced very easily once they are wiped out. Antibiotics are not neutral as to which type of bacteria will survive (and some of the bad bacteria strains do not even respond well to antibiotics). I feel uneasy if I took antibiotics and there was a risk to kill my gram-neg bacteria while leaving the inflammatory ones to flourish.

That's assuming you are not already at the overgrowth infection stage and your flora hasn't lost too many strains other than the bad ones, otherwise wiping things out initially might indeed be part of a one-off careful therapy.

I had high hopes for the gut flora research, until I found Peat actually working for me.
Contrary to the gut flora theory, Peat seems to think that bacteria is not essential for human physiology.
He usually refers to a study where animals with sterile guts live longer, to support this views.
Also, he's very particular about toxic products of bacterial colonies inside the system: endotoxins and lactic acid.
I remember one interview, where he mentioned that lactic acid producing bacteria having anti-inflammatory effect on the system but the problem remains that they produce lactic acid.
The bacteria found in milk, is usually lactic acid producing bacteria. Supposedly, this is a good type of bacteria but with SIBO, things like buttermilk and yogurt don't serve the gut well.

I can relate to your experience with antibiotics. Every time I reset my flora, I end up not feeling very well for few days and it takes great care with food and sometime to reestablish a good one.

One area I'm currently investigating is terrain, inside and outside.
Look at different types of foodstuff and how fast they decay.
Under similar conditions, something like a carrot can look solid for weeks while significant decay occurs in the human body after only 36hrs of death.
The rate of decay in a corpse is an interesting example of how when energy fails and physiology crumbles, the body's own enzymes and bacteria start melting it down.

I tend to think of the same process in living people. Life and death aren't white and black - there are shades of grey in between and death is an ultimate black out of energy. It could occur slowly as aging and be speed up by physiological stress.
Depending on the level of that stress, the system exhibits weaknesses in its physiological function and part of it is to control bacteria from taking over.
In other words, what's keeping bacteria from eating us alive is our body's ability to handle them efficiently, our working physiology, that's in the larger part the digestive and immune systems.

We shouldn't deny the environment's influence on microbial composition but I do lean more towards the idea that overgrowth and imbalance are manifestations of physiological stress rather than independent events emerging from the environment as it's commonly thought of.

Since the environment is capable of inducing stress, these two ideas could be thought of interchangeably, hence, your egg and chicken argument.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
XPlus said:
I remember one interview, where he mentioned that lactic acid producing bacteria having anti-inflammatory effect on the system but the problem remains that they produce lactic acid.
The bacteria found in milk, is usually lactic acid producing bacteria. Supposedly, this is a good type of bacteria but with SIBO, things like buttermilk and yogurt don't serve the gut well.

At some point you have to pick. Do you want those milk bacteria to help prevent overgrowth by the endotoxin bacteria, knowing that lactic acid is produced? Those bacteria first got in the gut by transmission by breastfeeding, but they could be wiped out by antibiotics or modern diets. The major assumption in your reply is that it is not worth it, that the lactic acid nullifies the benefits (the other assumption is that those bacteria work against as opposed to for the immune system, whereas the contrary is suggested by studies unlike for LPS bacteria). In Ray's view, the lactic acid is risk for metabolic burden, with net effect is less sugar absorbed and available for the liver. Does this risk materialise for you? We have all the tools available to judge whether metabolism slows, whether hypoglycaemia and stress sets in. I have so far not felt this effect from drinking the more cultured dairy products, yet I would be very sensitive to hypoglycaemia if it occurred. On that note, the simple sugars are quickly absorbed, so I am not sure how the bacteria would be able to steal it before they are quickly absorbed (and that's assuming that there are any sitting there in the small intestine while eating).

Another problem is the net effect. If your gut is not-sterile but prevents for example infection by T Gondii or H Pylori, and then overgrowth by E Coli, isn't that a good thing to control the bacterial count? Dysbiosis, of which suspected causes are antibiotics and modern diets, could be the root *cause* of gut problems by allowing new pathogens to settle (this is not my personal opinion - it is now studied a lot and not just empirical studies). I think you'll agree if you have to chose between two equal amounts, it is much better to have non-endotoxin bacteria rather than E Coli sitting there and forming a barrier...
 

XPlus

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
556
jyb said:
XPlus said:
I remember one interview, where he mentioned that lactic acid producing bacteria having anti-inflammatory effect on the system but the problem remains that they produce lactic acid.
The bacteria found in milk, is usually lactic acid producing bacteria. Supposedly, this is a good type of bacteria but with SIBO, things like buttermilk and yogurt don't serve the gut well.

At some point you have to pick. Do you want those milk bacteria to help prevent overgrowth by the endotoxin bacteria, knowing that lactic acid is produced?

I only had relatively positive outcomes from antifungal treatments. I’ve played around with bacteria for sometime and come to realize they don’t work (positively) unless the body keeps their activity at equilibrium. Unless we’re not too stressed and live in a place where the environment's bacterial balance from food and air is more organic, they’re best out or dead.

True, some bacteria are better than others. However, cumulative burden, from endotoxins or lactic acid isn’t ideal. Ideally both would be reduced to minimum. This is achieved by correcting physiological stress as a priority. Everything else comes second in line of defense.

Relying on introduced bacterial balance to fix digestion is like doing straight cardio for weight loss. One could burn 2000 calories in a setting but undo it all with dinner at Friday’s.

Similarly, you could alter your gut flora for few days but how long can you hold the same composition given changes in food and the outside environment, especially when the system is under a lot of accumulated stress.
Bacterial composition won't hold its own structure solid. It only takes a walk in a moldy place, a fried chip, some extra fibre and starch or some rotten food to undo it.
 
OP
J

javacody

Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
316
Age
50
I really appreciate the feedback and discussion.

You all have thought pretty deeply about this topic.

I'm still not sure what to make of it.

We have seen that fecal transplant from fat donors to skinny sick people causes the skinny people to get fat (the example I'm thinking of was a woman with a C Diff infection who received a fecal transplant from her overweight daughter).

Even with zero dietary changes.

That's the thing that troubles me.

And something that I don't think has been explained in a satisfactory way by Dr. Peat or by anyone else.

If just changing the bacteria makes you fat without a change in diet, then what hope does one have of altering their microbiome through diet?

Further, it seems as though long term obesity cannot be solved by ignoring the microbiome.

It is very rare for people to PERMANENTLY fix obesity.

And I think the microbiome is key.

Yes, stress is a factor. Stress changes the microbiome. This has been demonstrated.

But I feel like once you become obese, your body may not have the means to ever correct things permanently because we are operating so far outside of the parameters of our evolution.

So simply removing stress is not likely to be enough. Or the stress may be unavoidable unless you move into a hut in Africa and become a hunter gatherer.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
javacody said:
And something that I don't think has been explained in a satisfactory way by Dr. Peat or by anyone else.

If just changing the bacteria makes you fat without a change in diet, then what hope does one have of altering their microbiome through diet?

I disagree: there is a huge amount studied. Endotoxins, gut lining repair, bacteria-host interaction of fat metabolism, bacterial overgrowth, link with the immune system, neonatal gut composition, effect of food and PUFA on colonies, pros/cons of antibiotics, reversibility of dysbiosis, no effects of commercial probiotics, conversion of PUFA to CLA, causality between dysbiosis and gut infection, etc.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
some people are just fat because of too much fat literally, but the people who are in pretty good or ok shape in the limbs and face...but if you notice, almost everyone has like a gut still or some kind of little pouch. That isn't fat anymore, it might be in rare cases, but its intestinal inflammation basically, which happens, if not dietary induced, from excess cortisol basically. If your life is in a situation of feeling trapped or under threat, or that there is something that you desperately need to do as soon as possible, that will always be there. Sucks to hear, but its the truth. You can look it up and in my life ive seen how it all works over the course of the past several years. Cortisol stimulates aldosterone, m ostly in the small intestine. So basically you constantly retain more sodium (and water) and lose potassium at a huge rate, it also interferes chronically with digestion and elimination, mostly of protein but also other things probably starch aslo, sugars seem quick enough to be able to make it still, but the indigested material then gets fermented and produces odors often (the protein) and can become sticky, which provokes large amounts of bile to cleanse it. The whole cycle also prevents growth of collagen and bone, suppresses immune system, and amongst other things. Its why its huge in Ayurveda they always talk about the importance of not eating when under stress. The problem is now days its kind of a necessity for say 90% of the population because they need their jobs or whtever, most jobs are stressful and rushed, people are force to work too many hours without down time, so they have to eat late...which also in my experience provokes cortisol if its after dark, which then hurts digestion, and creates more fermentation which compounds the stress. Yet living a chill life if you don't have a fat bank account will often lead to more stress because you'll not be able to support your life. Food for thought, im not going to spell out how to solve that problem, but just pay attention to that in your life. Living with a person that stresses or surpresses you or is gross or smoething, alone, can basically ruin your digestion and create a gut and other things. Like...yes, this is a serious problem, but just pay attention and move towards something. For some people chronic cortisol can lead to more infections and bacteria, yes, but some people are resistant, such as myself. Ive been in hellish situations for prolonged periods seemingly hopeless...hard to even describe, and yet never once got sick...its more of a mind thing as to whetehr or not that happens. If you let it in...the fear and doubt and all that, and kind of give up or drop your morals and values and hope, you get sick basically. If you keep true to self and decisively act, and never accept something as right that harms you and you know isn't...and speak truthfully in defense of that, you'll never get sick. Life is very metaphysical as much as it is physical
 
OP
J

javacody

Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
316
Age
50
I still don't think the situation where the woman who was skinny with C Diff but then got fatter after a fecal transplant from her daughter (and now cannot lose the weight) has been explained.

So please, speak specifically to that case. Her personal situation has not changed. She's not more stressed. She eats the same diet.

The only change has been her microbiome.

It is my understanding that this has been duplicated in rats.

pboy, you bring up something that is tangentially related to my specific question but is actually dead on for my specific condition.

And I've wondered about mental conditioning to handle stress.

It is trainable. We have SEALs, Green Berets, SAS, Spetznas, Israeli commandos, etc who face extreme stress and manage to stay lean, mean, and ready to fight.

I'd love to here your (and others) thoughts on achieving the mindset to handle long term stress successfully in detail.

I'm in a situation as the sole care taker for my autistic daughter. Parents of autistic kids often end up with PTSD. I won't get into that other than to say if your kid looks normal people just assume you're a crappy parent and treat you thusly. And that schools don't know how to deal with kids with extreme anxiety.

This situation is improving, but I need to be prepared to take care of my daughter for the rest of my life.

And I'm OK with this. I just need help figuring how to heal so I can be there for her.
 

Tom

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
100
pboy, I think you make some very good points (that also to some extent fit my own experience). However I´d like to present some counter arguments..

The correlation between caloric intake and weight (BMI) is pretty strong if you compare country by country. And as I mentioned in the other post, there are countries with apparently low level of stress (like those on the Tokelau islands) that have extremely high rates of diabetes and obesity. But then maybe I´m wrong, maybe the Tokelauans are very stressed.

One could also turn it around and say that a little bit of stress prevents obesity, just as sigarette smoking (stressful in my opinion as it increases cortisol and adrenalin) makes people leaner. Average BMI was 2 points lower for smokers than non-smokers in the US, according to one study. And if they quit (this is especially true for women), they typically gain a lot of weight. Why is that?

Americans simply eat a ton of calories. Why they do that must be explained.

Based on the studies I´ve seen, I think there´s likely a correlation between grains and overeating (and my theory is that one of the reasons is the gut bacteria they promote - another of course that they are starches). All these small paleo diet trials where people eat only lean meat, fruits, vegetables, the participants spontaneously reduce caloric intake by 15-30% and lose a lot of weight. Australian aborigines that went out in the bush lost a lot of weight and reversed diabetes in just 7 weeks, but smaller trials done 20 years later showed similar results with similar diet, hence diet seems the major factor.

Alas, of the thousands of studies performed on weight loss which can be read on pubmed, almost none look at diets that excludes grains.

I am on the fence as regards dairy, I do contemplate that if people ate about similar as in the paleo diet trials but instead used the following (basically replace meat with low fat milk), that may be equally effective:

2 quarts 1.5% milk
1 quart fresh orange juice
2 raw carrots
2 eggs
20 gm gelatine

This is roughly based on Peat´s recommendations for weight loss based on a few different statements he has made on different occasions.

It may not be so hard to lose weight as we think, but the grains will have to go, and probably also the sucrose.

I really think we have to look at studies, because people on the internet say all sorts of things, and as others have suggested, testimonials from people on public message boards can never be fully trusted.

All the "paleo" people seems to follow a diet that typically deviate from the smaller trials I mentioned, they are more like Atkins-paleo diets, high in fat, relatively low in fruits. Testimonials from such people does not mean so much.

One thing is for certain: diabetes is an incredibly profitable disease for the pharmaceutical industry, and I wouldn´t be surprised if they would do anything they can to distort science and public opinion to prevent the true cause and treatment of this disease to be found. It is naive to think that the world isn´t ruled by money and that industry has good intentions and want to help humanity at the expense of their profitability.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
tobacco lowers stress...it favors adrenaline over cortisol, which is huge...and it raises DHEA a lot, so basically you still are up to the fight but aren't like being poisoned by it, if that make ssense. It doesn't stop cortisol if its warranted, but it tends to keep it way more in check via adrenaline which is protective in that case and DHEA...but DHEA depends a lot, adrenaline too, as to the person you are and how you're wired...how much you sense and KNOW you deserve...or are being wronged, by the situation...and how good your intentions are. Gut related, food issues, can cause obesity and yes grains are the major culprit, along with too much oils. But if your diet is even somewhat good, its stress that's the problem basically. Cody brought up PTSD, which is a major problem..but that's just a blanket term. Stressful memories affect the person in a huge way, their whole wiring, and perspectives can be come damaged...and if you don't see the world as having a potential to support you, or other people, you'll almost never relax...no matter what, even if no imminent threat. Cannabis, time in nature, interacting with sweet people, and overcoming barriers with a sense of faith involved, are the best things to heal that over time but it takes many repetitions, years of experiencing good feelings and love..and a sense of higher power, or that life is good...something up there, at least..that it can be very good, to overcome that. If your wiring isn't in that kidn of tune, you'll probably always have a gut also and other problems. But then a lot of things people don't think of as imminent threats still provoke cortisol, to their subconscious..if very in tune...you kind of already have to be open to love and sensitive to notice all the offenses that there are out there, and people...it would take me pages to write on it. You have to develpe as a person to notice ..its a progressive thing, but it all matters...the more the insulation gets removed, the more perfect things have to be, but also the more healthy and ecstatic you are and filled with blissful feelings and a sense of higher connection
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
javacody said:
I still don't think the situation where the woman who was skinny with C Diff but then got fatter after a fecal transplant from her daughter (and now cannot lose the weight) has been explained.

So please, speak specifically to that case. Her personal situation has not changed. She's not more stressed. She eats the same diet.

The only change has been her microbiome.

Hi java,
I recall reading about her quite a while ago. I can think of at least one other hypothesis that might be relevant to this case, though I can't confirm whether it's true or not.

IIRC, her c.difficile infection was severe and long lasting before that transplant. So she may have been severely malnourished and stressed from that for quite some time, possibly with a reduced metabolism and therefore reduced base maintenance calorie use (as well as suffering run-down in other systems). Severe chronic malnourishment , esp. with additional stress, seems to sometimes prime people to store more fat once they start getting some nourishment again. If good nourishment continues, this seems to sometimes allow the body to eventually increase it's metabolism again. This seems to be an evolutionarily useful mechanism for surviving in conditions of repeated famines. (This hypothesis is inspired more by my reading of Gwyneth Olwyn than my reading of Peat, but it seems consistent with his views too.)

What I don't recall, is how long they monitored her for - so I don't know if she retained the additional weight long term, or if she eventually returned to something closer to her pre-illness size. I also don't recall if she became very fat, or just a bit more than before.
 
OP
J

javacody

Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
316
Age
50
tara said:
javacody said:
I still don't think the situation where the woman who was skinny with C Diff but then got fatter after a fecal transplant from her daughter (and now cannot lose the weight) has been explained.

So please, speak specifically to that case. Her personal situation has not changed. She's not more stressed. She eats the same diet.

The only change has been her microbiome.

Hi java,
I recall reading about her quite a while ago. I can think of at least one other hypothesis that might be relevant to this case, though I can't confirm whether it's true or not.

IIRC, her c.difficile infection was severe and long lasting before that transplant. So she may have been severely malnourished and stressed from that for quite some time, possibly with a reduced metabolism and therefore reduced base maintenance calorie use (as well as suffering run-down in other systems). Severe chronic malnourishment , esp. with additional stress, seems to sometimes prime people to store more fat once they start getting some nourishment again. If good nourishment continues, this seems to sometimes allow the body to eventually increase it's metabolism again. This seems to be an evolutionarily useful mechanism for surviving in conditions of repeated famines. (This hypothesis is inspired more by my reading of Gwyneth Olwyn than my reading of Peat, but it seems consistent with his views too.)

What I don't recall, is how long they monitored her for - so I don't know if she retained the additional weight long term, or if she eventually returned to something closer to her pre-illness size. I also don't recall if she became very fat, or just a bit more than before.

I was actually considering the same possibility. If I remember correctly, she gained 10 pounds and was unable to lose it.

But that is a common symptom that many people have after a stressful period in their lives. So it very well could be the explanation.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
javacody said:
I was actually considering the same possibility. If I remember correctly, she gained 10 pounds and was unable to lose it.

But that is a common symptom that many people have after a stressful period in their lives. So it very well could be the explanation.
10 pounds isn't much. I agree, many people gain that after a stressful patch or event.
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
62
tara said:
javacody said:
I was actually considering the same possibility. If I remember correctly, she gained 10 pounds and was unable to lose it.

But that is a common symptom that many people have after a stressful period in their lives. So it very well could be the explanation.
10 pounds isn't much. I agree, many people gain that after a stressful patch or event.
10 pounds can be a full size difference to some people. It depends on context.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom