Probiotics: Essential Or Misguided Reasoning?

[Velve921]

In several forum posts there were discussions regarding probiotics or healthy gut flora and its legitimacy?

At this point, does Peat believe that probiotics are not essential and they can infact be toxic due to lactic acid or fermentation?

Haidut discussed probiotics its side effects during digestion...I believe he even referenced a study about lactobacilus being a correlation to Lupus on his interview Danny Roddy.

Let me know everyones thoughts and any studies would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[doodlebug]

After a lifetime of having NO gut issues, I now have SIBO. And you know what I've suspicious of?? Both the pre-biotic potato starch I experimented with a year ago (just because), and the probiotics I have always taken. But then again, I do have a carbohydrate metabolism disorder, and I don't digest protein as well as I should. But I think the carbo disorder simply fed what I had already built up. And both my d-lactose and l-lactose are sky high. hmmmmmm

 

[XPlus]

Chances that you'd find a few peatrians who'd recommend probiotics although it seems obvious to me that Peat doesn't think of them highly - or maybe not at all.
He thought certain strains might be beneficial, when he was asked about them - but that doesn't seem to imply essentiality.

You might also come across those who think he completely disregards bacteria. Maybe because he mentioned a study that found animals kept in the lab with sterile guts lived longer and had efficient digestion.
But I've seen him mention supplementing vitamin K when using antibitoics as they kill vitamin K producing bacteria in the gut.
He also talked about sugar-starved yeast being problematic.
I think he mentioned that the small intestine part of the GI tract should be sterile, otherwise bacterial growth in that area and beyond could be troublesome.

So it seems to me that living with them in harmony is what he believes.
It's probably OK to have some fermented food every once in a while if digestion is good but if something messes up with an exisitng harmony (i.e. causing bacterial growth out of the colon) it's a problem that should be corrected; and - in my experience - fermented foods, bacteria and anything that encourages their growth don't help. They might actually make the problem worse.

I've personally tried a ton of probiotics and fermented foods and I believe it's all junk.

 

[daIllu]

About the rat study Peat has said that the mice with germ free guts were healthier until they did come into contact with some bacteria, since if they've never come into contact with bacteria they've never got to develop their immune defences.

It was this interview at 16min mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_pxDHREj_w with Andrew Murray in 2011.

So I kinda look it in the way of like if someone was never to get into any conflicts in their life they would maybe be mentally healthier than people who do get into conflicts but once they do get into a conflict they get really depressed and everything because they've never been exposed to that kind of thing before.

I dunno if you can look at it that way but I don't really know much about bacteria so that's just the only way for me to make sense of it atm. Offcourse if I think of it that way maybe I should consider if it's worth to smoke a cigarette a week to get more used to cig smoke a little bit, what's the balancing point for "healthy" amount of toxins? :P

 

[Velve921]

All great information!

When I get a chance I will listen to the interview with Ray.

So currently we have this bacteria that inhabit the large intestine; however, if unhealthy foods is digested and peristalsis eventually slows the movement of intestinal wall...bacteria could overflow into the small intestine? Just trying to understand the mechanism as my master's degree is having difficulty conveying the proper understanding.

I am sure a lot of my questions will be answered inthe interview but just wanted to throw out some thoughts in the mean time.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[Nicholas]

kind of relevant, but i think that every now and then eating different foods than you typically eat is something i've perceived to be beneficial. it opens up the pathway of seeing how one's diet (and therefore bacteria balancing) can be tweaked or worked with. it can also reveal food cravings that can be suppressed by routine. another thing i've pondered lately is how taking supplements can interfere with our ability to crave.....crave not just the nutrient, but also the accompanying elements of a certain food (i.e. fiber, starch, etc.). supplements could potentially be "unnatural" purely in the context of how it affects bacteria balancing. when i stopped taking Taurine and Lysine after taking it for a month, i had an overwhelming craving for all kinds of lamb and pork and high-fiber fruits.

 

[narouz]

I've personally tried a ton of probiotics and fermented foods and I believe it's all junk.

All of it, eh?

https://www.google.com/search?q=pro...biw=1024&bih=667#tbm=isch&q=probiotics+brands

https://www.google.com/search?q=fer...ved=0ahUKEwiM7qTIw67JAhUKlx4KHRiQAcgQ_AUICCgD

 

[XPlus]

So currently we have this bacteria that inhabit the large intestine; however, if unhealthy foods is digested and peristalsis eventually slows the movement of intestinal wall...bacteria could overflow into the small intestine?

My understanding is something like this:

post 88843

My main source of argument with your views Jyb (and this goes back to several threads) is the idea that certain types of bacteria don't cause overgrowth.

For "overgrowth", I meant bacteria stuck there and multiplying *and* being harmful. But lactic acid bacteria need stuff to keep alive and they are not as inherently harmful - they are anti-inflammatory in the gut and do not produce endotoxin. As I have explained, it is not obvious to me whether the overgrowth seen for these bacteria in the study can occur in practice on the kinds of diet we are discussing. What complicates this even more is the difference between L and D - lactic acid, only the later seems a problem and associated in gut disease.

Okay. Now let's assume someone is under a lot of stress. Drinking alcohol, burning lots of PUFA and processing heaps of estrogen. Eventually, what's their liver going to look like? Sponge Bob inside an engine oil filter, perhaps (i.e. cirrhosis/fibrosis).
Now, when that person reaches this stage when liver function is impaired, lactic acid that was previously tolerated will become an additional burden. As the liver becomes weaker, the flow of digestive juices slows down. There is less enzymes to process food. Unprocessed foods are left for colon bacteria to feast on, slowly causing overgrowth. With time, there's less food being processed to meet the body's energy requirements. As the number of bacteria increases (i.e. regardless of pathology) their byproduct will be an additional burden to the already impaired liver. So, even if your bacteria happens to produce lactic acid mostly, the increased lactic acid production from the increase in their numbers will just make the liver worse off, contributing more to what looks like a vicious cycle.

This processes adds more burden on other parts of the physiology, as well (e.g. as livers function becomes weak, estrogen will not be detoxified efficiently. It will oppose thyroid and slow down the metabolism).

Eno, I'm saving few good arguments for you. I'm going through a quarter and it's too much for me to write.

post 92925 I didn't forget about you Eno.

1. We don't keep the bacteria in the colon, etc. by design, but there's little we can do to eliminate them.

If that was the case, then we would have evolved to keep the GI completely sterile. That point I made was actually more supportive to your case.

2. They are going to persist as long as we are alive, (the commensals, at any rate) but otherwise they aren't regulated by the liveliness of our organism, and as stressors overwhelm the body and weaken it physiologically, the commensals will continue to fight for us and protect us. They don't turn-coat and become pathogens when the going gets tough. All they want is a good diet of their favorite foods, and that is not our gut lining.

There are documented cases of “commensals” turning pathogenic. Flesh eating bacteria and some bacteria that cause persistent sinus infections are an example of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staphylococcus_aureus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicill ... cus_aureus

This one is a very interesting read
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8526/

Opportunistic pathogens are those isolated from patients whose host defense mechanisms have been compromised. They may be the agents of disease (e.g., in patients who have been predisposed to urinary tract infections with Escherichia coli by catheterization). Finally, some bacteria, such as Lactobacillus acidophilus, are considered to be nonpathogens, because they rarely or never cause human disease. Their categorization as nonpathogens may change, however, because of the adaptability of bacteria and the detrimental effect of modern radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy on resistance mechanisms. In fact, some bacteria previously considered to be nonpathogens are now known to cause disease. Serratia marcescens, for example, is a common soil bacterium that causes pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and bacteremia in compromised hosts.

There are some funny contradictions in here
http://www.kitchenstewardship.com/2012/ ... n-the-gut/

There doesn’t seem to be consensus on the idea of “friendly” bacteria. There’s lot of hoopla assuming the friendliness of the tiny parasitic predators.

3 We are never much capable of "regulating the bacterial presence". Other than using anti-biotics, or changing our diet, and those are only approximations of what I would consider "regulation".

Since you’re into this bacterial business, I assume you aware that even small changes in the environment, such as temperature affect their reproduction. This is why – for example – body temperature raises during fever. It’s to control the replication of the pathogens.
Accordingly, someone who’s hypothyroid with relatively lower body temperatures will offer a more pleasant environment for the bacteria to thrive. (1)
Also, enzyme, bile and acid production depends on physiological health. Starting from the thyroid to the salivary glands, liver, pancreas and the stomach . (2)
Stomach acid s is especially an interesting factor. With PH as low as 1 it’s very potent against bacteria. That’s why we usually only get sick when we’re tired. Because all bodily systems including adrenals and digestion are weak and the bacteria can easily change the acidity around them to survive. In the normal functioning of processes it’ll be very difficult for them to survive. (2.1)
Digestive enzymes work better at higher temps. So when someone temps are good there’s not much food left for the bacteria. (2.2)
Co2 protects oxygen within the system, so the largely anaerobic population of the gut will not like it much when you live in the higher altitudes or simply supplement more Co2. (3)
Light exposure is another factor that adds to resistance against bacteria. Dead matter decays at a faster rate in the dark. (4)
All the parameters I mentioned in 1-4, when their function is optimal, not only work against bacterial presence but also provide clear examples that the variables involved in our physiological function can be manipulated to control bacterial growth. In other words, they can be pushed synergistically either up or down and their movement can alter bacterial populations.
If you want a real life demonstration of this, I urge you to plant some tomatoes. When the tomatoes are ripe enough, remove one from the same plant and leave it in the kitchen sink for few days. Compare this to the fruit still unpicked on the plant. There should be clear difference which one is still intact.

4. So I don't see a time of human physiological weakness when what we've in health been calling "commensal" bacteria suddenly become non-symbiotic or non-mutualistic.

Refer to number 2

5. So ultimately, I don't see the threat that you do. But ultimately, I see that a set of commensal friends remains true to the end, because by their very nature, they realize through all of evolution that their very life depends on us staying alive and providing them a source of their preferred food, which is plant fiber, and not host protoplasm. In some way, the commensals must realize that host death means their death. Likewise, in some way, the pathogens must realize that host death means their final victory and they can multiply for a while, then need to make spoors as they've consumed the host, until they can transfer to another host.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposi ... rjournal-8
“The small amount of oxygen remaining in the body is quickly depleted by cellular metabolism and aerobic microbes naturally present in respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, creating an ideal environment for the proliferation of anaerobic organisms. These multiply, consuming the body's carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, to produce a variety of substances including propionic acid, lactic acid, methane, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. The process of microbial proliferation within a body is referred to as putrefaction and leads to the second stage of decomposition, known as bloat”
This not only supports my previous argument for oxygen, it shows that our parasitic friends can’t wait for us to die so they can feast on our dead bodies. This supports another point I mentioned earlier that bacteria simply exist to feed and replicate. There isn’t a magic mechanism that regulates their behavior and keeps them from not harming us; because they love us or perhaps because they’re aware we’re the source of their food. Tell them to stay away from your kitchen sink the next time you prepare food.

The machine doesn’t understand that the loop should stop, unless you programme it to do so.

Further Reading
http://australianmuseum.net.au/decompos ... a#bacteria

That's just me. I am totally not afraid of bacteria.

Regardless.

Good for you :P

post 111223

I've personally tried a ton of probiotics and fermented foods and I believe it's all junk.

All of it, huh?

https://www.google.com/search?q=pro...biw=1024&bih=667#tbm=isch&q=probiotics+brands

https://www.google.com/search?q=fer...ved=0ahUKEwiM7qTIw67JAhUKlx4KHRiQAcgQ_AUICCgD

You're trying to dig something, Narouz, aren't you.

 

[narouz]

post 111236You're trying to dig something, Narouz, aren't you.

 

[Giraffe]

post 110742 In several forum posts there were discussions regarding probiotics or healthy gut flora and its legitimacy?

At this point, does Peat believe that probiotics are not essential and they can infact be toxic due to lactic acid or fermentation?

Haidut discussed probiotics its side effects during digestion...I believe he even referenced a study about lactobacilus being a correlation to Lupus on his interview Danny Roddy.

Let me know everyones thoughts and any studies would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks!

I heard a German researcher say in a lecture that more than half of the species in the gut are not studied because they can't be grown in a Petri dish.

Digestion and emotion, KMUD, january 2015

RP: I think that the interactions of the intestinal bacteria are too complicated to divide them neatly into beneficial and harmful.

 

[narouz]

Digestion and emotion, KMUD, january 2015

RP: I think that the interactions of the intestinal bacteria are too complicated to divide them neatly into beneficial and harmful.

Also, perhaps, too complicated
to be always addressed most effectively
with the simple strategy of regularly killing down gut bacteria
with weaker or stronger kinds of antibiotics (carrot to pharma antibiotics)...?

 

[XPlus]

post 111239

post 111236You're trying to dig something, Narouz, aren't you.

While I was particularly referring to the things I've experimented with, I think probiotics if not harmful are at least worthless and fermented food is inferior.

 

[narouz]

post 111260

post 111239

post 111236You're trying to dig something, Narouz, aren't you.

While I was particularly referring to the things I've experimented with, I think probiotics if not harmful are at least worthless and fermented food is inferior.

So we might revise to say:
"The probiotics and fermented foods I tried didn't help me"...? :)

 

[XPlus]

post 111274

post 111260

post 111239

post 111236You're trying to dig something, Narouz, aren't you.

While I was particularly referring to the things I've experimented with, I think probiotics if not harmful are at least worthless and fermented food is inferior.

So we might revise to say:
"The probiotics and fermented foods I tried didn't help me"...? :)

Why not.
But if I start writing politically correct things, I might come across more like Daniel Craig - uncool.
That also attracts a lot of Australian argumentators.

 

[Giraffe]

post 111249

Digestion and emotion, KMUD, january 2015

RP: I think that the interactions of the intestinal bacteria are too complicated to divide them neatly into beneficial and harmful.

Also, perhaps, too complicated
to be always addressed most effectively
with the simple strategy of regularly killing down gut bacteria
with weaker or stronger kinds of antibiotics (carrot to pharma antibiotics)...?

For me smelly gasses (with or without cramps) and a pregnant looking belly are clear signs that something is out of whack, and a carrot reliably takes care of it. I know that certain foods in certain amounts are offenders for me, and I try to not have them so often. I eat yoghurt, because I like it. If I interpret Peat right, there are pros and cons to yoghurt.

This simple strategy seems to work for me (digestion-wise), others are less fortunate.

 

[narouz]

But if I start writing politically correct things, I might come across more like Daniel Craig - uncool.

Not the first characterization that comes to mind , but...

That also attracts a lot of Australian argumentators.

You're gonna have to take that up with tara. :)

 

[tara]

To add to the above, I think a couple of other factors promoting excessive microbiota in the small intestine are:
- impaired ileocecal valve - it's supposed to be a one-way thing, but if it's impaired a little backflow can occur from the colon.
- insufficient non-fermentable fibre or other stuff to carry them out
- excessive stuff that is indigestible to the human but excessively feeds the microbes - may only be a problem if the other factors also line up, since many people do fine with lots of fermentable oligosaccharides etc.
- insufficient digestive enzymes, so that the food doesn't get broken down and absorbed quickly enough, but continues on down to feed the microbes.
- slowed transit, so they get to build up higher numbers before they are moved on out.
The latter two can both happen under the influence of malnourishment and/or low thyroid function, and maybe also associated low CO2 levels.

In terms of sterility, I think it's relative, not absolute. I don't think anyone has a completely sterile SI, but some people have a managable few million bacteria, while others have way more.

 

[Philomath]

From a study in the Nature Today journal:
Wiping out gut bugs stops obesity

University of Geneva researchers reported that animals without intestinal microbiota had better glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, less white fat and lower body mass.
viewtopic.php?f=220&t=8648#p111075


viewtopic.php?f=220&t=8648#p111075