Why Is There So Much Soluble Fibre In Human Breast Milk?

[jyb]

you guys still going on about this? The real question is do you want to have gas or do you not want to have gas...that's basically it. Stuart must have taken a microscope to many anus's over his life in order to know that much in detail of its workings. How do you know anything about how humans evolved or anything really at all.

That's already been done many times in studies. More bacteria does not mean more gas, nor overgrowth nor more serotonin. You must make the distinction between endotoxin bacteria and gram-positive ones. A healthy gut is not the same as gut you get from eating conventional foods. Eating PUFA and conventional foods is said to reduce bacteria diversity and then promote overgrowth of pathogens, which is seen in patients who go in for stool transplant when their gut doesn't work anymore. Eating cultured milk and even some types of fermented veggies absolutely should not make you produce more gas nor make the transit irregular, in fact probably the opposite really.

 

[XPlus]

Peat isn't anti fiber. He recommends ripe fruits while acknowledges the potential risk of eating excess or certain types of fiber. According to him, this potential risk arises when the system is incapable of precessing the fibre (i.e. digestive issues) or/and when the fiber isn't from a desirable source (e.g. unripe fruits, raw vegetables). Therefore, one should be aware of their threshold for handling fibre as well foods that are more risky in nature.

I know of people who had problems with constipation and benefited from more fiber in their diet.
But this mindlessly increasing internet health culture of recommending extra fiber and hippy-style fermented foods as a way to fix digestive issues is unfounded; and I challenge anyone to provide evidence for the essential role of bacteria in physiology.

The 1st question is: is bacteria essential to physiological function and by physiological function I refer to the process of supplying energy and nutrients to each and every cell in the body and filtering out the byproducts of this process.

If it is essential, please explain how and why.

The 2nd question: explain the physiological mechanics of the common experience where people treated with antibiotics feel temporary relief from digestive issues.

 

[jyb]

The 1st question is: is bacteria essential to physiological function and by physiological function I refer to the process of supplying energy and nutrients to each and every cell in the body and filtering out the byproducts of this process.

Most studied benefits of a healthy bacteria profile has nothing to do with supplying nutrients, although some claim it does provide some. It's more about preventing overgrowth of pathogens and interaction with the immune system to promote gut lining repair.

The 2nd question: explain the physiological mechanics of the common experience where people treated with antibiotics feel temporary relief from digestive issues.

In gut dysbiosis, some suggest to start with antibiotics before thinking on how to reintroduce healthier bacteria. If you kill pathogens, I'm sure its good as a bandaid. It's not guarantee it will kill more of the endotoxin bacteria though, sometimes I read antibiotics kill more of the anti-inflammatory bacteria rather than the pathogens. Hence some are cautious with antibiotics, but in some conditions you may have no choice but to turn to more "extreme" treatment initially: antibiotics or stool transplant. Just eating vegetables (even fermented) may have no effect on gut profile when you have dysbiosis - it's too late for an easy course of action. But there are very specific anti-inflammatory effects for some of these foods, in some conditions, otherwise.

 

[XPlus]

you guys still going on about this? The real question is do you want to have gas or do you not want to have gas...that's basically it. Stuart must have taken a microscope to many anus's over his life in order to know that much in detail of its workings. How do you know anything about how humans evolved or anything really at all.

That's already been done many times in studies. More bacteria does not mean more gas, nor overgrowth nor more serotonin. You must make the distinction between endotoxin bacteria and gram-positive ones. A healthy gut is not the same as gut you get from eating conventional foods. Eating PUFA and conventional foods is said to reduce bacteria diversity and then promote overgrowth of pathogens, which is seen in patients who go in for stool transplant when their gut doesn't work anymore. Eating cultured milk and even some types of fermented veggies absolutely should not make you produce more gas nor make the transit irregular, in fact probably the opposite really.

Jyb,

Where I come from it's common to get gas from drinking buttermilk.
I don't know about studies. Prescript assist is backed with scientific research and so is the heart healthy consumption of canola oil.

Pathogenic bacteria could be there in the gut all the time but not lead to trouble unless the right conditions allows for it.
Also, "good" bacteria could lead to overgrowth when the environment allows.

This is the story of a guy who traveled and it happens that his microbe changes depending on where he were (and what he ate).
http://humanfoodproject.com/going-feral ... rld-heard/

What seems like a recurring news in the quest to figuring out the microbiome is that bacterial balance isn't a constant. It's rather a constantly dynamic variable depending on environment. You could be in Dubai today eating camel in the middle of the desert and could be in Bali eating organic eggs, honey and yogurt the next week, each week you'll have a different structure of bacteria in your get. Yet, you can still be either healthy or unhealthy, slim or fat.

If the microbime is never the same, it cannot be in control of our health.
It's us who are in control of our microbiome by correcting physiological processes.
What sets temperature, humidity, oxygenation, PH and food? - it's they chemical processes governed by thyroid, concentration of CO2, flow of bile and digestive juice and diet.

 

[YuraCZ]

you guys still going on about this? The real question is do you want to have gas or do you not want to have gas...that's basically it. Stuart must have taken a microscope to many anus's over his life in order to know that much in detail of its workings. How do you know anything about how humans evolved or anything really at all.

That's already been done many times in studies. More bacteria does not mean more gas, nor overgrowth nor more serotonin. You must make the distinction between endotoxin bacteria and gram-positive ones. A healthy gut is not the same as gut you get from eating conventional foods. Eating PUFA and conventional foods is said to reduce bacteria diversity and then promote overgrowth of pathogens, which is seen in patients who go in for stool transplant when their gut doesn't work anymore. Eating cultured milk and even some types of fermented veggies absolutely should not make you produce more gas nor make the transit irregular, in fact probably the opposite really.

pboy has no idea what he's talking about.. It's ridiculous.. Btw I enjoy this topic.

 

[jyb]

What seems like a recurring news in the quest to figuring out the microbiome is that bacterial balance isn't a constant. It's rather a constantly dynamic variable depending on environment. You could be in Dubai today eating camel in the middle of the desert and could be in Bali eating organic eggs, honey and yogurt the next week, each week you'll have a different structure of bacteria in your get. Yet, you can still be either healthy or unhealthy, slim or fat.

If the microbime is never the same, it cannot be in control of our health.
It's us who are in of our microbe by correcting physiological processes.

Yes, your diet has a profound effect on the gut bacteria and this is the subject of studies. And the conventional diet is said to be bad in that respect due to promoting the bad bacteria instead of the good ones, for example the ones you have as a breastfeeding baby.

I disagree with you on the fact that good bacteria can "overgrow", intuitively I don't think its possible. But I have not read a study on that particular point.

 

[XPlus]

The 1st question is: is bacteria essential to physiological function and by physiological function I refer to the process of supplying energy and nutrients to each and every cell in the body and filtering out the byproducts of this process.

Most studied benefits of a healthy bacteria profile has nothing to do with supplying nutrients, although some claim it does provide some. It's more about preventing overgrowth of pathogens and interaction with the immune system to promote gut lining repair.

The 2nd question: explain the physiological mechanics of the common experience where people treated with antibiotics feel temporary relief from digestive issues.

In gut dysbiosis, some suggest to start with antibiotics before thinking on how to reintroduce healthier bacteria. If you kill pathogens, I'm sure its good as a bandaid. It's not guarantee it will kill more of the endotoxin bacteria though, sometimes I read antibiotics kill more of the anti-inflammatory bacteria rather than the pathogens. Hence some are cautious with antibiotics, but in some conditions you may have no choice but to turn to more "extreme" treatment initially: antibiotics or stool transplant. Just eating vegetables (even fermented) may have no effect on gut profile when you have dysbiosis - it's too late for an easy course of action. But there are very specific anti-inflammatory effects for some of these foods, in some conditions, otherwise.

Sounds like a reasonable function but is it essential.
I thought the immune system should be the first line in defense, though, it's definitely an advantage having a good flora as a 2nd line of of defense.

As for antibiotics, the relief seem to be from a state where bacteria activity is minimised.
This supports the idea of minimising their activity as opposed to promoting it.

 

[YuraCZ]

What seems like a recurring news in the quest to figuring out the microbiome is that bacterial balance isn't a constant. It's rather a constantly dynamic variable depending on environment. You could be in Dubai today eating camel in the middle of the desert and could be in Bali eating organic eggs, honey and yogurt the next week, each week you'll have a different structure of bacteria in your get. Yet, you can still be either healthy or unhealthy, slim or fat.

If the microbime is never the same, it cannot be in control of our health.
It's us who are in of our microbe by correcting physiological processes.

Yes, your diet has a profound effect on the gut bacteria and this is the subject of studies. And the conventional diet is said to be bad in that respect due to promoting the bad bacteria instead of the good ones, for example the ones you have as a breastfeeding baby.

I disagree with you on the fact that good bacteria can "overgrow", intuitively I don't think its possible. But I have not read a study on that particular point.

I know people with perfect health and they drank every day up to 2L of homemade (2days fermented process) kefir. This amount of probiotics in 2L of 2 days old kefir is equivalent like a 50 bottles of probiotic capsules from the store.. Btw I started kefir grains retention enemas and my bowel movement is better then ever. I think these little friends restore my intestinal mucus barrier..

 

[pboy]

what you mean to say yura is that im not full or programmed ***t I read that has no tangible application

im in great health and mood and have no problems at all, so im pretty sure I know what im talking about...im not looking. I don't take any microbial anything, and I don't take any anti microbial anything...so its a moot point

 

[jyb]

I know people with perfect health and they drank every day up to 2L of homemade (2days fermented process) kefir. This amount of probiotics in 2L of 2 days old kefir is equivalent like a 50 bottles of probiotic capsules from the store.. Btw I started kefir grains retention enemas and my bowel movement is better then ever. I think these little friends restore my intestinal mucus barrier..

Dairy tribes like those in the Caucasian Mountains or the Masai drank most milk cultured only. They didn't have a choice actually, as it's an efficient way to kill pathogens and preserve it at room temperature for a very long time.

 

[Sea]

What seems like a recurring news in the quest to figuring out the microbiome is that bacterial balance isn't a constant. It's rather a constantly dynamic variable depending on environment. You could be in Dubai today eating camel in the middle of the desert and could be in Bali eating organic eggs, honey and yogurt the next week, each week you'll have a different structure of bacteria in your get. Yet, you can still be either healthy or unhealthy, slim or fat.

If the microbime is never the same, it cannot be in control of our health.
It's us who are in of our microbe by correcting physiological processes.

Yes, your diet has a profound effect on the gut bacteria and this is the subject of studies. And the conventional diet is said to be bad in that respect due to promoting the bad bacteria instead of the good ones, for example the ones you have as a breastfeeding baby.

I disagree with you on the fact that good bacteria can "overgrow", intuitively I don't think its possible. But I have not read a study on that particular point.

"Most people with SIBO do have gut symptoms, but some patients, I’ve seen them just come in complaining of primarily mental health problems, perhaps a skin disorder or something like that, and I test them for SIBO and find that they have SIBO and they have an overgrowth specifically of D-lactate-forming species of bacteria, like Lactobacillus acidophilus, which is otherwise a good guy, a good bacteria. But the problem is when it’s overgrown or there’s too much of it in the wrong place, it can cause these kinds of issues." (http://chriskresser.com/solutions-for-s ... your-diet/)

I think bacteria cause disease when the metabolism is too slow to keep them in check, regardless of the type of bacteria that it is. We see that when people die they become totally consumed by bacteria so I'm not sure that we should make our bodies more conducive to their proliferation.

 

[XPlus]

@ Yura

I had my worse digestion while I was making some very good kefir.

Over consumption of certain foods isn't usually enough evidence to support whether they're ideal or not ideal.

I know of people who seem in very good health who also consume large amounts of Argan oil and starch. After all, kefir is probably much better than cottage-cheese flavored Carrageenan from the supermarket. The extra lactic acid isn't too bad of a problem for someone with good liver function.

System robustness in the context of epigentics, prenatal imprinting and physiological stress is a topic needs a thread on its own.

 

[jyb]

what you mean to say yura is that im not full or programmed s*** I read that has no tangible application

Studies about gut bacteria are made by authors wondering how to reduce endotoxin and fix the gut lining after exposure to conventional food and offenders like PUFA and gluten. This has nothing to do with human evolution discussions, it's more about what you can do when you have health problems.

 

[narouz]

There are a lot of ways pathogens have of destroying us. Mimicry, taking over genetic controls, inserting themselves into cells and stealing the energy, etc. They are very tricky once they get inside us. I don't mean in our gut. That is still outside us. All the more reason to keep the gut endothelium intact, well coated with mucus, continually absorbing minerals and other nutrients while repelling toxins and pathogenic onslaughts, and able to do repairs in short order. This is immunity, and this is predominantly the chore the commensals have decided to do for us, all for the price of sufficient food, which is the fermentable fiber we can't digest anyway. We are hardly attacked by pathogens in any way (if we don't have open wounds) compared how we could be under a continual state of attack in the intestines if we didn't have commensal bacterial forces working in our favor.

Relatively speaking, the commensals make life relatively easy for us "hosts". Otherwise, it would be a jungle in there. Just my "easy" point of view again.

Are both of these statements true?

Peat believes in keeping the small intestine pretty sterile.
Enoree believes in keeping the small intestine pretty sterile.

"Are both of these statements true?"

They are until you put any single (or multiple) specie of pathogen in charge in your gut. It's so simple to just put almost any species of friendly bacteria in charge though, why take the chance on a pathogen? But people do it every day when they take their doctor's orders and take a broad spectrum antibiotic.

Isn't it interesting that unless someone has submitted a stool sample for assay, they have absolutely no idea what their dominant bacterial species is down there? Absolutely no idea. Let alone that there are probably a good 30-50 genuses, each with several species, of commensal bacteria in the gut, all of which vastly outnumber any pathogen present. People usually cannot even name one of the good guys who inhabit their gut in the billions! Yet most of us readily recognize the names of several pathogens.

If there's anything vague about my answer to this, narouz, I'm guessing it might be because someone hasn't read my other posts here or doesn't get the fact that I totally subscribe to the notion that an ample quantity of one species of bacteria can totally control any other species of bacteria. This is my assumption until someone can show that minimal numbers of a bacteria has any kind of power over a hugely outnumbering other species.

Somehow, Enoree, I had it in my head that you had said
you thought most of the small intestine should be pretty clean--
just the lower part and colon needing lots of bacteria...

But my head was wrong!

The confluence I thought might exist between you and Peat on the gut was this:
I thought maybe you and Peat aimed for about the same result
(a largely clean upper part of the small intestine),
but seek to get there through different strategies:
Peat whacks back bacteria with carrot and antibiotics and eating little fiber and starch.
Enoree tries to get the bacteria to do the controlling and containment--to control themselves.

Like I say,
I think I was mistaken and you advocate a more robustly populated small intestine--all of it.

The rough model I'm exploring myself is somewhere in between you and Peat.
It's possible, maybe, that a healthy gut could look a lot like Peat's ideal:
very clean small intestine,
with some bacteria down in the lower reaches,
and bacteria in the colon.

I'm thinking that once one's gut gets screwed up
for whatever reason--
antibiotics an obvious culprit--
then the road back to a good bacteria balance may involve some feeding from us,
as you and others here advocate.
And, in my case, with no appendix, perhaps a bit more tricky and complicated.

And the intentional feeding/cultivation by us of the good guy bacteria
is probably only part of the puzzle.
Add to that piece pboy's metaphysical piece.
And then nutrients, sunlight, stress, etc.

 

[Stuart]

What if this "large bag of bacteria," as Stuart calls it, exists because we evolved in an environment where access to enough nutrition without tons of fiber was impossible - thus we needed this large intestine to process all this fiber and acquire extra nutrition from it that could potentially make us healthier and stronger.

Does that necessarily mean that it is necessary for us to use this bag?

Similarly, we evolved a liver to detoxify certain chemicals from our body, as we evolved in an environment where their presence was inevitable, but that does not mean it is necessary to our good health to consume toxins for the liver to detox.

I suppose that if the colon was just to deal with the fiber we used to have to eat, that would be true. My point all along has been that the gut/brain connection is now known to be so strong (and that's just one interaction between our colon microbiota and the rest of our body - it's all interrelated - and I think not surprisingly either) that it does seem odd not to try to promote the health of our microbiota. Rather than adopting the attitude that optimum health can be achieved without actively promoting gut health. But as you say, for most of the time humans have walked the earth, that was automatic. Now we have to be more proactive, because it's so easy to neglect our microbiome. The same applies to pufas. We evolved as a species that ate very little pufa. It's hardly surprising that the optimum diet for humans is very little pufa. Of course you're going to create problems if you ignore that design imperative. Same for fiber I guess.
That's just the way nature works. Someone like pboy who is happy just ignoring his microbiota may never know the benefits he would enjoy by so doing. And that's cool. He's happy. That's the main thing.

Humans are the only species this planet has ever known who try to second guess nature.
To our ongoing detriment it would seem.

 

[narouz]

I was listening to NPR this morning
and there was a cool show about the microbiome~brain connection
on the show On Point.

You can listen here:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/06/29/gut-bacteria-influences-mood

Had some good expert guests on the show.
One little bit that sticks in my mind is
I think it was Dr. Emeran Mayer who was saying
that, while exploration of the area is just beginning really,
they were finding some surprising things
about what influences the nature of the microbiome from person to person.
He mentioned exercise as being a significant influence.
And he said something like,
"It doesn't seem to matter much whether you eat meat,
but rather how many different kinds of plants you eat."

Here is a blurb about the show
and the guests:

How Your Gut Bacteria Influences Your Emotions
With guest host Jane Clayson.

Can bacteria in your gut influence your brain? Your mood? Your emotions? Top scientists say yes.

Bacteria under a microscope.
Bacteria under a microscope.

The human body is crawling with trillions of microorganisms. They outnumber human cells. Scientists think this gut bacteria could play a key role in how our bodies run. More and more researchers are looking not just at how the microbiome affects our health, but how it could affect our brain. Beyond digestion and stomach diseases. To how we think and feel. Tying gut bacteria to anxiety, depression, and other disorders. And the medical potential could be huge. This hour On Point: we’re going deep into the gut and the bacteria that could have a big impact on our entire body.

– Jane Clayson

Guests

Peter Andrey Smith, Brooklyn-based freelance writer specializing in stories about food, science, and tech. (@petersm_th)

Dr. Emeran Mayer, Gastroenterologist and professor in the Department of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Physiology at UCLA, where he is also director of the Gail and Gerald Oppenheimer Family Center for Neurobiology of Stress. Co-director of the CURE Digestive Diseases Research Center.

Rob Knight, Microbiologist and director of the Microbiome Initiative at the University of California San Diego, where he is also a professor of pediatrics and computer science. Co-founder of the American Gut Project. Co-author of “Follow Your Gut: The Enormous Impact of Tiny Microbes”

From The Reading List

New York Times: Can the bacteria in your gut explain your mood?— “Micro-organisms in our gut secrete a profound number of chemicals, and researchers like Lyte have found that among those chemicals are the same substances used by our neurons to communicate and regulate mood, like dopamine, serotonin and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). These, in turn, appear to play a function in intestinal disorders, which coincide with high levels of major depression and anxiety.”

NPR: One scientists’s race to help microbes help you — “Right now a lot of microbiome research is about pattern discovery. We’re finding connections between microbes and all kinds of conditions we never knew they were involved with — ranging from obesity to colon cancer to rheumatoid arthritis and (in mouse models) even things like autism, depression and multiple sclerosis.”

Live Science: The microbe-brain connection — “There are at least three ways gut microbes are communicating with the brain: the first is directly through the vagal nerve, which connects the network of nerves in the gut to the brain; the second is through circulating immune cells that are primed, or educated, in the gut and then travel to the brain; and the third may be metabolites, molecules that are produced by microbes in the gut that enter the blood and circulate to regions of the brain where they affect behavior.”

 

[pboy]

ive tried many things in the past, that's how I know what im doing now is better. The gut brain connection is mostly a stress response thing, it can be serotonin, histamine, or other things. THe gut doesn't generate catecholamines, thyroid, testosterone, progesterone or any of the beneficial hormones, it just generates stress signals or immune intermediates if its offended. I don't ignore human nature, in fact by following it to the fullest ive realized whats best. Im not talking about someone's theory of human apes or whatever, im talking my actual self, my nature, here now, whatever that is. Fiber is inpalatable by itself. Milk and sugar brews taste great, if you add fiber to it it just is annoying. What nature are you trusting? Does adding gooey mucus like tasteless bacteria/yeast make what you eat more palatable, or taste better?

 

[Stuart]

There are a lot of ways pathogens have of destroying us. Mimicry, taking over genetic controls, inserting themselves into cells and stealing the energy, etc. They are very tricky once they get inside us. I don't mean in our gut. That is still outside us. All the more reason to keep the gut endothelium intact, well coated with mucus, continually absorbing minerals and other nutrients while repelling toxins and pathogenic onslaughts, and able to do repairs in short order. This is immunity, and this is predominantly the chore the commensals have decided to do for us, all for the price of sufficient food, which is the fermentable fiber we can't digest anyway. We are hardly attacked by pathogens in any way (if we don't have open wounds) compared how we could be under a continual state of attack in the intestines if we didn't have commensal bacterial forces working in our favor.

Relatively speaking, the commensals make life relatively easy for us "hosts". Otherwise, it would be a jungle in there. Just my "easy" point of view again.

Are both of these statements true?

Peat believes in keeping the small intestine pretty sterile.
Enoree believes in keeping the small intestine pretty sterile.

"Are both of these statements true?"

They are until you put any single (or multiple) specie of pathogen in charge in your gut. It's so simple to just put almost any species of friendly bacteria in charge though, why take the chance on a pathogen? But people do it every day when they take their doctor's orders and take a broad spectrum antibiotic.

Isn't it interesting that unless someone has submitted a stool sample for assay, they have absolutely no idea what their dominant bacterial species is down there? Absolutely no idea. Let alone that there are probably a good 30-50 genuses, each with several species, of commensal bacteria in the gut, all of which vastly outnumber any pathogen present. People usually cannot even name one of the good guys who inhabit their gut in the billions! Yet most of us readily recognize the names of several pathogens.

If there's anything vague about my answer to this, narouz, I'm guessing it might be because someone hasn't read my other posts here or doesn't get the fact that I totally subscribe to the notion that an ample quantity of one species of bacteria can totally control any other species of bacteria. This is my assumption until someone can show that minimal numbers of a bacteria has any kind of power over a hugely outnumbering other species.

Somehow, Enoree, I had it in my head that you had said
you thought most of the small intestine should be pretty clean--
just the lower part and colon needing lots of bacteria...

But my head was wrong!

The confluence I thought might exist between you and Peat on the gut was this:
I thought maybe you and Peat aimed for about the same result
(a largely clean upper part of the small intestine),
but seek to get there through different strategies:
Peat whacks back bacteria with carrot and antibiotics and eating little fiber and starch.
Enoree tries to get the bacteria to do the controlling and containment--to control themselves.

Like I say,
I think I was mistaken and you advocate a more robustly populated small intestine--all of it.

The rough model I'm exploring myself is somewhere in between you and Peat.
It's possible, maybe, that a healthy gut could look a lot like Peat's ideal:
very clean small intestine,
with some bacteria down in the lower reaches,
and bacteria in the colon.

I'm thinking that once one's gut gets screwed up
for whatever reason--
antibiotics an obvious culprit--
then the road back to a good bacteria balance may involve some feeding from us,
as you and others here advocate.
And, in my case, with no appendix, perhaps a bit more tricky and complicated.

And the intentional feeding/cultivation by us of the good guy bacteria
is probably only part of the puzzle.
Add to that piece pboy's metaphysical piece.
And then nutrients, sunlight, stress, etc.

I agree. Do you think then that the less bacteria you have in your S.I the better? Or that your S.I. is supposed to have bacteria in it. In the numbers that Amazoniac described earlier.
Look, lets look at this from a slightly different perspective. Dr. Peat is clearly the consumate classical endocrinologist. I think that could well be why he is so dismissive about promoting the right mix of bacteria throughout your digestive tract. In your colon, fermentable fiber selectively feeds the bacteria we agree are beneficial. In a dysbiotic digestive tract, that kind of fiber can obviously cause problems if the bacteria that are beneficial in your colon, are SIBO'ing their way to a living higher up your digestive tract in unhealthy numbers. How to get to promote the right mix and numbers of beneficial and pathogenic bacteria throughout your digestive tract is the big question.
Narouz I salute you for not just taking the limited attitude that the more bacteria free a digestive tract is the better.

 

[Stuart]

Thanks Narouz that looks fascinating.
I'm appendix- less too. I miss it.

 

[narouz]

I agree. Do you think then that the less bacteria you have in your S.I the better? Or that your S.I. is supposed to have bacteria in it. In the numbers that Amazoniac described earlier.
Look, lets look at this from a slightly different perspective. Dr. Peat is clearly the consumate classical endocrinologist. I think that could well be why he is so dismissive about promoting the right mix of bacteria throughout your digestive tract. In your colon, fermentable fiber selectively feeds the bacteria we agree are beneficial. In a dysbiotic digestive tract, that kind of fiber can obviously cause problems if the bacteria that are beneficial in your colon, are SIBO'ing their way to a living higher up your digestive tract in unhealthy numbers. How to get to promote the right mix and numbers of beneficial and pathogenic bacteria throughout your digestive tract is the big question.
Narouz I salute you for not just taking the limited attitude that the more bacteria free a digestive tract is the better.

I'm not sure of anything about this dang microbiome!
Just trying out some other views than the strictly Peatian.

There is much to like about Peat's picture of the healthy bowel.
Peat leans towards thinking even the "good bacteria" have their negative effects--
like the production of lactic acid.

It may be that when one has a healthy balance of the right bacteria
then they are numerous enough to do the good things
many here argue that they do
while still not populating much of the small intestine
(and producing a lot of lactic acid and possibly endotoxin and gas).

I took a quick look at Amazoniac's post you mention,
but I'm gonna have to go back and peruse it more closely.