So Is There No Symbiotic Bacteria at All??

[marko9437]

If we're always heavily limiting starches to starve out gut bacteria and heavily favor anti-microbial substances, then I guess that presumes the vast majority of the gut bacteria is parasitical/harmful and that it's best to wage a constant war on them?

I guess it means having a gut microbiome that is mainly composed of symbiotic and mildly beneficial bacteria is an impossibility and a myth?

That's kind of a depressing reality if true?

 

[yerrag]

Not everyone is heavily limiting starches though. Some are. You do what helps cope with the state your gut is in.

If you have a gut microbiome that is in balance, then your gut will do well. There are also varying degrees of a gut doing well.

When one doesn't constipate and move his bowels once a day, one may think his gut his fine.

Then when he no longer farts, he would say this is nirvana.

Then when his poop no longer smells, he says this must be heaven.

And then when he no longer needs toilet paper to poop as well, he thinks can this get any better?

So cheer up, the reality is the reality you see is yours and your gut's. There is some work to be done.

 

[boris]

.... the vast majority of the gut bacteria is parasitical/harmful and that it's best to wage a constant war on them?

No, quite the opposite . People often confound Peats view, because they take a single quote from him out of context.

He says it's important to keep the bacteria "happy and harmless". That means keeping the metabolic rate high, keeping peristalsis high, removing stress, and removing bad foods.

When he talks about a sterile gut, he always refers to the small intestine. Bacteria are very welcome and needed in the large intestine. Stress, bad nutrition, and hypothyroidism cause the bacteria to overgrow and invade the small intestine, and even the stomach, the esophagus, and the mouth.

 

[yerrag]

When he talks about a sterile gut, he always refers to the small intestine.

He could just have said so. Good job for reading between the lines.

I wish he would follow George HW Bush and say "Read my lips. S-S-I. Sterile Small Intestine."

 

[boris]

@yerrag I have never heard him not mention it. Only time I read about Peat supposedly saying the gut has to be completely sterile is from other people. never Peat himself.

 

[yerrag]

@yerrag I have never heard him not mention it. Only time I read about Peat supposedly saying the gut has to be completely sterile is from other people. never Peat himself.

I must have missed him saying so. For the longest time, sterile gut is what I hear, and for the longest time, I wondered like hmmm...

But if I had heard sterile small intestine, it would light a fuse like it just did hearing it from you.

 

[marko9437]

No, quite the opposite . People often confound Peats view, because they take a single quote from him out of context.

He says it's important to keep the bacteria "happy and harmless". That means keeping the metabolic rate high, keeping peristalsis high, removing stress, and removing bad foods.

When he talks about a sterile gut, he always refers to the small intestine. Bacteria are very welcome and needed in the large intestine. Stress, bad nutrition, and hypothyroidism cause the bacteria to overgrow and invade the small intestine, and even the stomach, the esophagus, and the mouth.

Thanks for the clarification buddy. So I guess if you feel that your gut is fine then you can skip on the carrot salad, or just do it here and there.

 

[boris]

Thanks for the clarification buddy. So I guess if you feel that your gut is fine then you can skip on the carrot salad, or just do it here and there.

If you have regular bowel movements, it shouldn't be necessary. But it's still good since it also reduces estrogen. The carrot has very mild antibacterial properties it can't eradicate the microbiome. Peat likes it because it stimulates peristalsis while being mostly unavailable to eat for the bacteria. It also helps carry out endotoxin and estrogen. It basically acts like a broom.


@yerrag

Ray Peat: "Normally the upper part starting with your stomach, almost everyone has a sterile upper small intestine. As you go down, the likelyhood of having bacteria increases. And as a persons thyroid function decreases, their intestinal secretions are reduced, peristalsis is reduced, bacteria tend to creep farther and farther. A really healthy person has a almost sterile whole small intestine. The sicker you are, the lower your thyroid function, the more bacteria live in your small intestine ..."

Ray Peat: "Back when many people were healthy, the small intestine was known to be sterile. All the way from the mouth to the secum was germ free. But now something like 80% or 90% have bacteria living way up to the duodenum."

 

[schultz]

He has talked about certain bacteria being antiinflammatory.

He talks about a sterile gut sometimes to demonstrate certain ideas/points. He is not saying that you need to achieve this generally in life.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

No, quite the opposite . People often confound Peats view, because they take a single quote from him out of context.

He says it's important to keep the bacteria "happy and harmless". That means keeping the metabolic rate high, keeping peristalsis high, removing stress, and removing bad foods.

When he talks about a sterile gut, he always refers to the small intestine. Bacteria are very welcome and needed in the large intestine. Stress, bad nutrition, and hypothyroidism cause the bacteria to overgrow and invade the small intestine, and even the stomach, the esophagus, and the mouth.

Keeping the gut flow going( mainly avoiding constipation and increasing digestive capacity) should prevent the harmful effects of bacterial products, such as excessive endotoxin, while keeping the good effects, such as protection against pathogenic bacteria by a healthy, symbiotic gut biome and the supply of nutrients( B- vitamins and vitamin K).

I think some of the confusion also comes from Ray mentioning rats with sterile guts being healthy. This, of course, doesn't mean that he's saying that humans should have a sterile gut. It just means that, in a sterile environment, a gut biome isn't necessary for life, but in the real world, with bacteria everywhere, having a well- established, symbiotic bacterial population in the intestines is a life- saver. I think Ray even said that a little endotoxin is important to challenge the immune system( gently) and make it stronger, which is in stark contrast to having SIBO and absorbing a ton of toxins from the bowel.

Ray has stated that milk is a great bulking agent for bowel movements, because it stimulates abundant bacterial fermentation( in the large intestine), due to the lactose, so giving the bacteria a little bit of food( especifically carbs) can't be very harmful.

I used to be a lot more anti- gut bacteria, but now I have changed my stance on this a bit, after experimenting with a higher fiber intake. I think ingesting even fermentable fiber can be safe, as long as the person isn't constipated. The foods which have fiber also have other substances( such as polyphenols and flavonoids) which help shape the bacterial population towards a symbiotic type, instead of a parasitic one, like CLASH mentioned in one of his interviews with Hans.

It's interesting that, in J.H. Kellogg's book about endotoxemia, he mentions how even harmful types of bacteria can be made harmless when the environment is full of carbs and low in protein. The less time the food remnants stay in the colon, the less time the bacteria will have to putrefy it.

 

[boris]

@Rafael Lao Wai yes, he also said the completely germ free animals from the experiments had great digestion, but when they then introduced a single type of even beneficial bacteria, it would cause injury. It's all about balance.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

@Rafael Lao Wai yes, he also said the completely germ free animals from the experiments had great digestion, but when they then introduced even a single type of beneficial bacteria, it would cause injury. It's all about balance.

For sure.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Peat absolutely, 100% thinks a completely sterile gut is optimal.

Now, sometimes he's said good things about the lactobacillus strains, but even then he still says overall they're not optimal and they're detrimental when compared to a germ free gut, and are Mostly posititive in the context of a normal bacteria ridden animal.

Read what he says about parrots vs rabbits, or about germ free rats in general. Lactobacillus are decent, but I think he's conflicted on whether they're truly optimal.

Note though, that this is what he says, not what's actually true. People on this forum often mix up the two.

First thing to note is that not all bacteria produce endotoxin. Only gram negative bacteria do. So gram positive bacteria do not produce endotoxin / LPS. They just don't, it seems like a lot of people on here are confused about that (like haidut, who's done a lot of good, but routinely makes claims/infers gram positive bacteria produce endotoxin.

Examples of gram positive bacteria are lactobacillus specifically, and really all the lactic acid bacteria we use for yogurt production. Bifido. Stuff like that.

Examples of gram negative bacteria are stuff like E. coli.

Of studies done on modern himans, 75%+ of gut/intestinal bacteria are gram negative.

Don't think that gram posotitive bacteria are automatically good for you though. MRSA is a gram positive bacteria. Gram positive doesn't necessarily mean inert or fine. It just means it won't produce endotoxin/LPS. Neither will yeasts but they're not good to be colonized by either.

I think a sterile gut would be optimal too, as long as the person gets some SCFA I'm the diet - coconut oil, butter, and a decent amount of vinegar would all suffice.

Besides that, lactobacillus specifically is the only general bacterial type that I really trust. It does seem to have benefits, even in germ free rats still get benefits from certain lactobacillus strains, even when they have a sterile gut, meaning the benefits from the bacteria itself, and not from competition and removal of other bacteria.

 

[yerrag]

If you have regular bowel movements, it shouldn't be necessary. But it's still good since it also reduces estrogen. The carrot has very mild antibacterial properties it can't eradicate the microbiome. Peat likes it because it stimulates peristalsis while being mostly unavailable to eat for the bacteria. It also helps carry out endotoxin and estrogen. It basically acts like a broom.


@yerrag

Ray Peat: "Normally the upper part starting with your stomach, almost everyone has a sterile upper small intestine. As you go down, the likelyhood of having bacteria increases. And as a persons thyroid function decreases, their intestinal secretions are reduced, peristalsis is reduced, bacteria tend to creep farther and farther. A really healthy person has a almost sterile whole small intestine. The sicker you are, the lower your thyroid function, the more bacteria live in your small intestine ..."

Ray Peat: "Back when many people were healthy, the small intestine was known to be sterile. All the way from the mouth to the secum was germ free. But now something like 80% or 90% have bacteria living way up to the duodenum."

Thanks.

Were these from interviews or from his newsletters? Any idea what years? As I may have to read his newsletters from way back.

 

[boris]

@yerrag from interviews! This is a great search engine for his interviews Ray Peat Search

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Also the carrot salad has been debunked here many times - raw carrots measurably and repeatably increase breath hydrogen (a measure of bacterial fermentation in the gut), in addition to the fact that we know carrots contain pectin and other digestible fibers.

Bamboo shoots are better for this purpose though honestly I think none of them are necessary.

 

[boris]

@BigYellowLemon Parts of it get digested, but others don't. I always have whole carrot chunks in my otherwise normal stool.

 

[yerrag]

@yerrag from interviews! This is a great search engine for his interviews Ray Peat Search

Did you find the interviews using this search? What search terms did you use?

I only found one result when I used sterile small intestine, and then I listened, he talked of it, and then expanded that sterile concept from the mouth to the appendix,

I should maybe limit search to "sterile" and look up many, many interviews, or use the search "small intestine" as well.

But it's interesting that I searched his site raypeat.com and could not get a result when I searched "sterile small intestine."

 

[boris]

@yerrag I searched "small intestine". It doesn't work like google, it can only find exact sequences of words, so searching "sterile small intestine" would only show results where he used the words in that exact order.

 

[Rick K]

He could just have said so. Good job for reading between the lines.

I wish he would follow George HW Bush and say "Read my lips. S-S-I. Sterile Small Intestine."

Didn't George also say "no new vaxes"?