Sorry, Your Gut Bacteria Are Not The Answer To All Your Health Problems

[Nicholas]

so you're saying the bacteria is either from others or is self-induced. and even further you are saying that bacteria can exist whether we feed them with food or not. when they are self-induced, they are self-induced with negative thoughts (this is mainstream). but then that begs the question: where do the negative thoughts come from. i think you may be using the wrong metaphor that bacteria become the thoughts inside of us. i think the more accurate (though less fanciful or scientific) is that these are literal spirits and not bacteria. But perhaps you are just symbolically labeling these spirits as bacteria. going with my understanding, knowing that those thoughts or "bacteria" are not OUR thoughts is a kind of freeing recognition.....but that recognition comes with a price because then now you are in the territory of learning how to fend them off.

we have no individual or personal thoughts. there are only two thoughts: good/evil. and neither of those thoughts are something we own but rather something we are discerning between.

 

[Stuart]

You're living in denial Stu.

In 2001, Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist, coined the term "microbiome,"

This is exactly how old your microbiome is.

No, not quite. That's the date someone gave them a name, not how long they've existed Using your liver as an example again, do you think livers first appeared when a human gave them a name ?
Livers, microbiomes, in fact every organ of the human body first appeared in animals eons before humans even existed. In fact microbiomes first appeared long before livers.
But I am curious, you do seem to want to think of your microbiome as a parasite, rather than as an essential part of you. Without a microbiome, you'd be dead within a couple of days. Just as you would without any essential organ, including your liver.

And here goes your credibility:

The hype has kicked off a gold rush. Big food companies—including Nestle, PepsiCo, Monsanto, and General Mills—have funded gut bacteria studies

Agribusiness firms, including Monsanto, AgBiome and Bayer CropScience, are looking into how bacteria can help farmers

Not sure what your point is. Are you questioning that Agribusiness and big Pharma aren't trying to cash in on the emerging understanding of the importance of the human microbiome?

Still, despite the optimism, some researchers caution that much of what we hear about microbiome science isn't always, well, science.

I agree. It will probably be many decades before the microbiome and its importance to human health is fully understood.

80% of Immune function? Brain Telecom? IBD cure?

[/quote]
Is this from the article?

"We are discovering a whole new ecosystem," she says. But "I do have some fear—we all do in the field—that the hype and the potential overpromise and the idea that somehow this is going to be different—there is a terrific fear that it will all backfire."

This sounds wiser then the wild claims on Mercola's website and KombuchaGirl's Blog.

[/quote]
I agree that populist health sites aren't a particularly good place to get the facts. But the research is being done, the discoveries are being made, and if you really are interested in finding out, the information is out there. But I do think even Mercola's site can pique your interest in a rapidly developing field. Then you've got to do some real work and re educate yourself properly.
As the quote points out 'We are discovering a whole new ecosystem'. The trick of course, is to be able to resist the hype and concentrate on the substance.

And here goes your microbiome:

The goal of the first phase of the HMP was to identify the microbial makeup of a "healthy" microbiome. And, in a study published earlier this year, researchers made an important discovery—that there is no such thing.

Sure, the microbiomes of the Hadza are completely different to an American consuming regular SBO's and a similar amount of fermentable fiber. Some species that researchers thought were necessary for a healthy microbiome - and also automatically present in large numbers if you consume that amount of fermentable fiber - are only a minor percent of their gut microbiota. This isn't suggesting that having a healthy microbiome isn't the goal, just that we don't yet understand which species (or even if it's solely a ''species' matter) are critical.

' And here goes your microbiome' You think?

"We were going about it all wrong,"

Absolutely.

I agree. The progress of science has ever been a rocky road. Just like all human progress.

Jonathan Eisen, a professor and biologist who studies the ecology of microbes at the University of California-Davis, shares Proctor's concerns. In a series on his blog called "The Overselling the Microbiome Awards," Eisen highlights what he considers to be skewed science. He has taken on transplants purported to treat multiple sclerosis, celiac disease, and Crohn's disease. He casts doubt on a study claiming there's a connection between a mother's oral hygiene during pregnancy to the health of her newborn. He critiques the notion that you can use bacteria to battle breast cancer, prevent stroke, and cure Alzheimer's.

Skewed Science. Enough said.

[/quote]
Actually it's peridontal disease in the Mother that seems to directly affect the health of newborns, not the oral hygiene. A person can practice excellent oral hygiene and still have peridontal disease. But peridontal disease definitely causes an imbalance of your oral microbiota. So he was sort of half right. Even this guy isn't claiming that the bacteria troughout our microbiomes - skin, oral stomach, S.I, and colon aren't essential for optimum health. But he's right that we are years away from being able to devise microbiome interventions for specific diseases. But he'd no doubt be aware that a person is less likely to get any disease if their microbiome is healthy. Just like without a healthy liver you're more prone to suffer from a raft of health issues.

Worse, the growing popularity of untested and unregulated therapies based in microbiome research—such as probiotics and DIY fecal transplants—could pose health threats to the public.
Given the concerns of Proctor and Eisen, that might be a smart approach. "You haven't seen any specific therapy or product yet, and in that regard it is still some years away," Proctor says. "There is a certain pace at which things can happen and it is such a brand new area that there is a lot yet to be understood."

Rings a bill, KeffirBoy.

[/quote]
Dear oh dear. I've mentioned a couple of times that I don't consume any fermented foods. You don't need them for a healthy microbiota. SBO's and fermentable fiber. That'll do the trick :)

And here goes the less than 14yo Manosanto-funded microbiome studies:

Eisen says that one of the most common errors in studies is confusion between correlation and causation. "The microbiome has 400 million different variables that you can measure about it," Eisen explains. "The different sites, the different species, the relative abundance of those species, the variation—if you have that many variables, I can guarantee statistically that some of them will be perfectly correlated with Crohn's disease and have nothing to do with it."

Given the concerns of Proctor and Eisen, that might be a smart approach. "You haven't seen any specific therapy or product yet, and in that regard it is still some years away," Proctor says. "There is a certain pace at which things can happen and it is such a brand new area that there is a lot yet to be understood."

I agree, humans are very prone to confusing correlation with causation.

Yes, because a skewed science is counterproductive.

Well they're your words Xplus. I didn't see them anywhere in the article.
The article does point out that it's a very new field of inquiry. But nowwhere does it even remotely suggest that the health of your microbiome isn't a prerequisite for optimum health. Not once did I notice even a suggestion that microbiome health wasn't even moderately important. There's actually a reason for that Xplus. It's a given. It's been universally accepted by anyone working in the field for years.
But there's certainly a lot of hype. Humans are experts at hype.

You can never hope to healthy if your liver isn't. So why would it be any different for your microbiome

It's perplexing to compare an internal organ to a parasite.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
This is your most telling statement Xplus. Kind of like pboy's 'bacteria just make things rot.'
Parts of your microbiome are internal. One part - your skin microbiota - is external. Even Dr. Peat would be aware that your microbiome is an organ of your body in the same way your liver is one. They're both part of your health team. It's important not to forget that

 

[oxidation_is_normal]

So basically your title is a straw man... How do you expect the thread to go from there?

 

[Stuart]

@pboy
I have to ask you, do you think all the anitbiotics did more than dent the 100 trillion bacteria in your colon?
It might have made that number slightly smaller while you were on them, and it certainly would have distorted the commensal/pathogen ratio. But you said you hadn't taken them for a while. Everything you touch, every breath you take, is full of bacteria. And they breed prolifically. It would be absolutely impossible to divest yourself of your microbiome unless you lived in a sterile tent non stop.
Even if you wanted to, which is perplexing enough.

 

[Suikerbuik]

This isn't suggesting that having a healthy microbiome isn't the goal, just that we don't yet understand which species (or even if it's solely a ''species' matter) are critical.

From the article:
"It is not the makeup—these communities come together and they actually become bigger than the sum of their parts…It almost doesn't matter who is present, it just matters what they are doing."

Jonathan Eisen, a professor and biologist who studies the ecology of microbes at the University of California-Davis, shares Proctor's concerns. In a series on his blog called "The Overselling the Microbiome Awards," Eisen highlights what he considers to be skewed science. He has taken on transplants purported to treat multiple sclerosis, celiac disease, and Crohn's disease. He casts doubt on a study claiming there's a connection between a mother's oral hygiene during pregnancy to the health of her newborn. He critiques the notion that you can use bacteria to battle breast cancer, prevent stroke, and cure Alzheimer's.

Skewed Science. Enough said

Just the opinion of one man still and, though he is involved in the research and really seems to know what he is talking about, it does not mean his opinion is the truth. It is just that claims people make by extrapolating research are not (yet?) supported by science i.e. what we do is still oberservational. He is not in denial of the microbiome at all, he only implies that even with all the intresting the research being done, we just cannot make such profound claims about fiber, pre-, probiotics yet.
Another point one could make: humans have a large ego and someone with allure and certain view will likely always try to defend that once chosen a side.

 

[Stuart]

Just the opinion of one man still and, though he is involved in the research and really seems to know what he is talking about, it does not mean his opinion is the truth. It is just that claims people make by extrapolating research are not (yet?) supported by science i.e. what we do is still oberservational. He is not in denial of the microbiome at all, he only implies that even with all the intresting the research being done, we just cannot make such profound claims about fiber, pre-, probiotics yet.
Another point one could make: humans have a large ego and someone with allure and certain view will likely always try to defend that once chosen a side.

I agree. That's why I brought up the fermentable fiber content of breast milk to cut through the research and debate. Breast milk contains a lot of fermentable fiber. There are many other functions of the other constituents of HMO's. Many are not even identified yet. But the only function of fermentable fiber is prebiotic - to feed and encourage the proliferation of certain bacteria. There is zero disagreement on this in the scientific world. And it goes hand in hand with the innoculation (in a process similar to a person taking probiotics) of the baby's unformed microbiome with the mother's microbiota in the birth canal.
It's a beautiful system, and it goes on constantly - every time a human is born naturally. or in the breastfeeding years afterwards, every time it has a feed.
This is something that we can't easily ignore. During birth itself and while a young human is breastfeeding, their microbiomes are being actively encouraged.
Yet some people here still seem to be claiming that your microbiome is irrelevant to your health.
I do find that interesting.

 

[XPlus]

So basically your title is a straw man... How do you expect the thread to go from there?

This isn't the debate forum Oxy.
Click here for the debate thread

You seem always very angrily dismissive.
Too much bacterial party down the GI?

 

[XPlus]

Another point one could make: humans have a large ego and someone with allure and certain view will likely always try to defend that once chosen a side.

Sui,

There's no such thing in life as pure objectivity. Just like there doesn't exist pure randomness.

What I say, what you say and what everyone around here says will always have influences.
We are predisposed to back whatever belief we invest in. The time we provide for reading the studies and books, for experimenting, the pain we go through, the costs we bear and the discussions we parttake are all precious to us.
I understand the compromise someone might make when they spend a large chunk of the day reading and analyzing studies and this is at the expense of their career, relationships and other commitments.
Still, there should be no comprise when it comes to distinction between theory and application.

Also and most importantly, approaching any topic should always be done with a frame of reference.
A frame of reference that gives consistent definitions of the workings and mechanisms specific to that area of knowledge.

I can't talk about estrogen as being an anabolic hormone on bodybuilding websites and then jump here to preach the same thing. People here have a different frame of reference. One that explains the role of estrogen and the mechanism of how it works within different contexts.

For me, I come from a background similar to Stuart's.
I used to go around telling people about how important the microbiome and how we need to take care of it, and that this area of research is promising.
My GI specialist jumped when he found out I'm using prescipt assist and knew things about Crohn's and Mycobacteria.
I read a ton of studies, blogs and websites. I observed and analysied other poeple's experiences. I tried hundreds of supplements and foodstuff.
Eventually, when every theory out there just didn't seem to go anywhere for me, I started to feel like I'm beating around the bush until I stumbled upon Peat. Only 9months ago and today I've gone from having severe digestive issues to almost normal.

So going back to my first point about investing in beliefs and having a frame of reference. I've invested a lot of my time and energy into the the microbiome hype and to this day I still poses some of that influence but I really cannot buy into Peat's ideas of the metabolism, stress, nutrition and disregard his view of the gut.

He may have not discussed this matter in details but contrary to what people sometimes suggest here that doesn't make him wrong.
Peat has been in this trade for a very long time and these ideas are fairly new so there's not a lot of influence of them in his views.
Also, the reason I posted this article, is to try open up minds that there's a lot of confusion and hype.
That's another reason I think Peat is not buying into it much.
People are approaching this thing as if it's the best next thing, the marvelous discovery of something that has been neglected for a long time but there's isn't much healthy skepticism. At least one that questions whether it's importance is mere correlation with good health.

To me, it seems like a very poor choice of priorities, one that gives people false hopes.

 

[Stuart]

So Xplus... still waiting for someone to have more than wilful attempts to answer why an important role of breast milk is to promote the beneficial bacteria in a tiny human's microbiome. It's amazing watching you avoiding the issue. It's a fact and it incontrovertibly shows that the health of the microbiome is THE number one priority in the list of jobs when a new human is born.
The first stage in that process happens even before the baby emerges into the world, with the innoculation by the mother's microbiome during the baby's passage through the birth canal. But sowing the seed isn't enough. Those bacteria won't flourish if they're not supplied with their favourite food - fermentable fiber.
Hang on, it's on tap - breast milk. Not just even more bacteria, but plenty of the fermentable fiber they need to grow big and strong and have lots and lots of their own kiddie bacteria to carry on the family name. If the mucus/mucins that a high carbohydrate diet (Peatarian for instance) was as good as or even better than fermentable fiber, breast milk wouldn't contain so much of it , just more lactose.
Clearly the health of your microbiome is pretty important.

And the bacteria don't just need feeding properly during breastfeeding. They only live for 20 minutes after all. Offspring of those bacteria will need to be properly looked after till your dying day.
Now you may have noticed that I'm not using my own experience with looking after my microbiome at all. If somebody specifically asks for some advice, I'll happily give it. And I'm really glad you've found something that works for you. But n=1 subjectivity is irrelevant. Sure, report it if somebody asks you for it for some diagnostic purpose.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it just gets in the way of worthwhile discussion.
And I respect that you and I have a different opinion about the importance of microbiome health to whole body health. That's totally fine by me. As long as you keep your personal experience out of a discussion about why there is so much fermentable fiber in breast milk, we might all learn something.
O.K?

 

[cantstoppeating]

So Xplus... still waiting for someone to have more than wilful attempts to answer why an important role of breast milk is to promote the beneficial bacteria in a tiny human's microbiome. It's amazing watching you avoiding the issue. It's a fact and it incontrovertibly shows that the health of the microbiome is THE number one priority in the list of jobs when a new human is born.
The first stage in that process happens even before the baby emerges into the world, with the innoculation by the mother's microbiome during the baby's passage through the birth canal. But sowing the seed isn't enough. Those bacteria won't flourish if they're not supplied with their favourite food - fermentable fiber.
Hang on, it's on tap - breast milk. Not just even more bacteria, but plenty of the fermentable fiber they need to grow big and strong and have lots and lots of their own kiddie bacteria to carry on the family name. If the mucus/mucins that a high carbohydrate diet (Peatarian for instance) was as good as or even better than fermentable fiber, breast milk wouldn't contain so much of it , just more lactose.
Clearly the health of your microbiome is pretty important.

And the bacteria don't just need feeding properly during breastfeeding. They only live for 20 minutes after all. Offspring of those bacteria will need to be properly looked after till your dying day.
Now you may have noticed that I'm not using my own experience with looking after my microbiome at all. If somebody specifically asks for some advice, I'll happily give it. And I'm really glad you've found something that works for you. But n=1 subjectivity is irrelevant. Sure, report it if somebody asks you for it for some diagnostic purpose.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it just gets in the way of worthwhile discussion.
And I respect that you and I have a different opinion about the importance of microbiome health to whole body health. That's totally fine by me. As long as you keep your personal experience out of a discussion about why there is so much fermentable fiber in breast milk, we might all learn something.
O.K?

You're not understanding that when looking at the results of evolution today, you're looking at environments that were present 100s of years ago. We evolved with bacteria because it was present in the environment. We now know enough about our body (thanks to Peat et al) to construct an environment to maximally optimise health, vitality, fitness etc. One of the caveats of this environment is to maintain a near sterile gut which we can do with lysine, antibiotics, carrots, charcoal, coconut oil, vinegar, garlic.

What you're trying to do is maximise the distance travelled while looking at the old dirt roads used by horses years ago and announcing 'see! we should use horses!' In the current environment however, we now have cars, trains and planes that we can take advantage of and increase the distance travelled.

 

[XPlus]

So Xplus... still waiting for someone to have more than wilful attempts to answer why an important role of breast milk is to promote the beneficial bacteria in a tiny human's microbiome. It's amazing watching you avoiding the issue. It's a fact and it incontrovertibly shows that the health of the microbiome is THE number one priority in the list of jobs when a new human is born.
The first stage in that process happens even before the baby emerges into the world, with the innoculation by the mother's microbiome during the baby's passage through the birth canal. But sowing the seed isn't enough. Those bacteria won't flourish if they're not supplied with their favourite food - fermentable fiber.
Hang on, it's on tap - breast milk. Not just even more bacteria, but plenty of the fermentable fiber they need to grow big and strong and have lots and lots of their own kiddie bacteria to carry on the family name. If the mucus/mucins that a high carbohydrate diet (Peatarian for instance) was as good as or even better than fermentable fiber, breast milk wouldn't contain so much of it , just more lactose.
Clearly the health of your microbiome is pretty important.

And the bacteria don't just need feeding properly during breastfeeding. They only live for 20 minutes after all. Offspring of those bacteria will need to be properly looked after till your dying day.
Now you may have noticed that I'm not using my own experience with looking after my microbiome at all. If somebody specifically asks for some advice, I'll happily give it. And I'm really glad you've found something that works for you. But n=1 subjectivity is irrelevant. Sure, report it if somebody asks you for it for some diagnostic purpose.
But for the purposes of this discussion, it just gets in the way of worthwhile discussion.
And I respect that you and I have a different opinion about the importance of microbiome health to whole body health. That's totally fine by me. As long as you keep your personal experience out of a discussion about why there is so much fermentable fiber in breast milk, we might all learn something.
O.K?

I have, and others have attempted to answer your questions on several occasions, Stuart.
The reason why you look at breast milk as food for bacteria is the same reason why you see no answer in our comments. It's because you like to view things your way and it's only fair. You absolutely have the right to do so. It must come from doing lots of reading, research and analysis.

However, don't forget that you always have the right to refine your perspective and since you're here I assume you intend to do so. It would be arbitrary to be on a Peat forum trying to convince people out of his ideas.

Since you also mention few times that your views are not from experience, I see no point for arguing for them persistently.
Theory should always be consistent with application. Otherwise it's a form of speculation.

My experience indeed gets in the way of a discussion that's worthwhile with you.
Because my experience is always backed with competent, coherent, consistent and comprehensive theoretical frame of reference that is Ray Peat. Unlike the 14yo bro science you bring to the table.

 

[narouz]

He may have not discussed this matter in details but contrary to what people sometimes suggest here that doesn't make him wrong.

Yeah, doesn't make him wrong.
But...kinda hard though to see it as a good argument for him being right on the subject. :)

It is a kind of balancing act you hover around in your discussion, XPlus,
and you make some good points.
I've noted that some relate to the forum and to Peat
as like The Ray Peat Belief Forum.
Others relate to it as something more like
A Peat-centered Questioning Forum.

And then there is, for many I guess, a tension between those two poles.
That is where the balancing I spoke of earlier comes in.
As you say is the case with you yourself,
most here probably think a lot of Peat and his ideas
and so they tend to extend confidence or belief to just about all areas,
even the areas he treats scantily or seems not too interested in.

I'd say this tends to be the case with me, generally.
When in doubt, I lean toward Peat's view.
But...I will venture out sometimes, question his ideas.
Especially in areas where he simply hasn't written or commented in much detail.
I can't see that that is a bad way of operating.
It just involves some balancing,
as I described above.

If I'm remembering right,
I think your personal experience is
that you've been into Peat for about 9 months
and have had great results using his approach to gut health.

I like to hear of such experiences
and I think they are valuable.

I've been applying Peat gut principles for over 3 years with mixed results.
But I have such confidence or belief in the whole of Peat's work,
that I continue to approach health in a strongly Peatanic way.
Again, a balancing.

Your balancing act looks a little different from mine,
probably because of our different personal experiences.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Peat has been in this trade for a very long time and these ideas are fairly new so there's not a lot of influence of them in his views.

Yeah, I think long and hard before betting against Peat.
Still...I do stop short of comments like,
"I've been following Peat for years and he's never been wrong about anything!"
or
"I've never seen anyone fail on a Peat diet"--
that sort of thing. :)

People are approaching this thing as if it's the best next thing, the marvelous discovery of something that has been neglected for a long time but there's isn't much healthy skepticism. At least one that questions whether it's importance is mere correlation with good health.

To me, it seems like a very poor choice of priorities, one that gives people false hopes.

I really can't see anything wrong with getting interested in areas of science
where new knowledge is emerging.
I don't see a lot of longtime Peatians here
throwing Peat's ideas into the trash can
and rushing to embrace bizarre ideas about microbiome health.

Even in the case of Stuart,
when the rhetoric is toned down
and his respect for Peat's other ideas is also weighed...
his basic notion is not necessarily a bomb in the house o' Peat.
If Stuart's claim is correct--
that there is quite a lot of fermentable fiber even in an optimal Peat diet--
well...maybe not so much a bomb as just a possible tweak.
A significant tweak, yeah, but....

 

[narouz]

...It would be arbitrary to be on a Peat forum trying to convince people out of his ideas.

Since you also mention few times that your views are not from experience, I see no point for arguing for them persistently.

At risk of seeming to be a Stuart fanboi...
Of course
when a new poster comes here and first thing he does is say a certain Peat idea sucks...
that's going to provoke an immune response from the forum.
Early in the thread I felt obliged to interrogate him a bit
to make sure it wasn't some typical bs--
like somebody from Perfect Health Diet Land or something just wants to come start a fight
to get his ya ya's out.
We've all seen that move.

Well, okay: maybe an excess of certitude in some of Stuart's posts.
But, taken a whole...I see it as an interesting challenge
to an area of PeatDom that might've been getting a bit overgrown and encrusted with barnacles and...
of becoming dogma, simply.

I don't know if Stuart is right, but...I've enjoyed the discussion
and I think it is valuable.

On your point about Stuart's personal experiences.
I seem to recall that Stuart did voice his personal experience about his gut health.
I don't see anything at all amiss in that.
(I do think it weird that Stuart takes you to task for voicing your personal experience, but... )

Because my experience is always backed with competent, coherent, consistent and comprehensive theoretical frame of reference that is Ray Peat. Unlike the 14yo bro science you bring to the table.

Here you tack quite ardently
toward The Ray Peat Belief Forum pole I described just upthread.
I do think Stuart's posts rise above the bro science of a 14 year-old.

 

[narouz]

...As long as you keep your personal experience out of a discussion about why there is so much fermentable fiber in breast milk, we might all learn something.
O.K?

Stuart-
I've been your fanboi in a couple posts above.
So to balance things out with you and XPlus...

I valued hearing about your amazing recovery through pectin mega-dosing. :)
I valued hearing about XPlus' gut health success through application of stardard Peat principles. :)

And I've valued the links to studies and the speculative commentary too.
All of that is valuable.
I don't see why personal experience should be nullified. :)

 

[javacody]

The idea of a sterile gut is a flawed one and one that Ray.himself addressed in a recent Herb Doctors interview.

He said rats or mice (can't remember which) did fine with sterile guts but their immune systems did not develop.

So many of you are quick to hand wave the importance of the uBiome. But it is required to develop our immune systems at birth.

You choose not to believe, but I believe the science is strong here.

Also, if you've not actually had your uBiome tested before AND after your dietary changes how do you KNOW that you have sterile guts?

You all claiming to follow Peat and claiming to be scientific are anything but.

Show us the evidence on your guts. Otherwise you're just talking ***t. LITERALLY

 

[Brian]

I think when Peat is talking about a sterile gut, he doesn't mean 100% sterile. I think he means just under control. And if your digestion and bowel transit are poor because of lowered metabolism, then his suggestions to minimize endotoxin become really useful (carrot salad, charcoal, etc). But once your metabolism/digestion is much more robust than all of this becomes unimportant to be conscious of.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Also, if you've not actually had your uBiome tested before AND after your dietary changes how do you KNOW that you have sterile guts?

You all claiming to follow Peat and claiming to be scientific are anything but.

Show us the evidence on your guts. Otherwise you're just talking s***. LITERALLY

 

[mt_dreams]

The end game here appears to be to control bad bacteria. You can do this with antibiotics (food or pharma), fiber, probitotics, food restriction, body vibrations, stress levels, etc. My guess would be that it would be easier to control a smaller bacteria population, compared to a larger one, much like trying to control a classroom of hyped up kids. I'll keep eating 5-10g of fiber from fruit & carrots (much like babies do, so it appears), and be on my merry little way. I feel I have more control by not obsessing over the scientific details of this matter. If the brain & bacteria do in fact share a link, then I can control my bacteria with my thoughts. Positive ones exciting the good bacteria, and negative vibrations stirring up the not so good bacteria. Better to keep those bad boys dormant, and be in a state to accept the light. I'm not sure who's the chicken & who's the egg in this whole gut/brain system, but a quick observation of my daily thoughts will tell me who's awake inside.

 

[Stuart]

The end game here appears to be to control bad bacteria. You can do this with antibiotics (food or pharma), fiber, probitotics, food restriction, body vibrations, stress levels, etc. My guess would be that it would be easier to control a smaller bacteria population, compared to a larger one, much like trying to control a classroom of hyped up kids. I'll keep eating 5-10g of fiber from fruit & carrots (much like babies do, so it appears), and be on my merry little way. I feel I have more control by not obsessing over the scientific details of this matter. If the brain & bacteria do in fact share a link, then I can control my bacteria with my thoughts. Positive ones exciting the good bacteria, and negative vibrations stirring up the not so good bacteria. Better to keep those bad boys dormant, and be in a state to accept the light. I'm not sure who's the chicken & who's the egg in this whole gut/brain system, but a quick observation of my daily thoughts will tell me who's awake inside.

Amazing. Really sensible perspective.
And FWIW I'm the first to admit that many of my comments here haven't been diplomatically expressed. So of course Peat catechism purists are going to feel insulted. So I offer anyone who's felt offended my heartfelt apologies.
Somebody like pboy is apparently blissfully unaware that this very moment (even after doing all the things he has used to try to suppress his microbiota- antibiotics particularly) he is STILL carrying round between 2 and 3 pounds of bacteria (about the 100 trillion individuals) that are a part of ALL humans on the face of the earth who don't spend their lives in oxygen tents. On their skin, mouth, stomach, S.i. and last (but certainly not least their colons) His ilk are really going to react defensively. So for the pboys who feel offended I apologize to you AND your gut buddies. The ones you strongly believe either aren't important to your health or don't even exist.

One of the things that's always impessed me about Ray Peat is that he's never been above admitting that he has got something wrong. The human microbiome has always existed (many many millions of years predating you or I or Dr. Peat) and its importance to our health is demonstrated unequivocally by how powerfully it is nurtured from the moment a baby starts it's journey to the outside world. But the minutia of the mechanisms involved won't be fully understood till long after we are all dead. Dr. Peat may only have a few decades left in him. And the scientific understanding of the importance of your microbiome is a very young endeavour. So I would be very surprised if such a smart cookie doesn't incorporate this emerging field into his ideas accordingly. Somebody (the guy with the AMAZING physique I think - are those muscles real?) hinted in a recent comment that that process is already underway.
A couple of other things. Raw carrot and charcoal don't have any antibacterial effect at all. But as Dr. Peat points out, they are amazingly effective absorbers of endotoxin. So you won't be doing your microbiome any harm by employing them. They are surely but enhancements to a fully functioning microbiota.

As the previous commenter pointed out, the 5- 10 g of fermentable fiber a stereotypical Peatarian diet provides, plus all the mucus/mucins that all the other carbohydrate promotes in the human colon, will ensure that your onboard bacterial team chug along in fine shape. More fermentabe fiber can only enhance that, but anyone with SIBO is going to find the process of ramping up fermentable fiber intake will be difficult.

So I for one have never doubted that a Peatarian approach to health isn't entirely compatible with a healthy microbiome. For the people who feel affronted by that notion, you might eventually find that the Peat ground shifts beneath them and they simply are looking at a slightly different paradigm.
Paying attention to the amount of fermentable fiber in breast milk as a warm milky reminder of the importance of your microbiome is just an early part of that transition don't you think ?

 

[Nicholas]

funny timing mt. dreams & Stuart....today it dawned on me that i may have a correlation in my body with serotonin (or bad bacteria) and my stress levels. this has always been pretty consistent that when i get super stressed, i get really bloated, retain water, etc. I have almost the same exact symptoms when i am starved. Do we know if it's that they multiply under certain conditions or just that they cause disruption?