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

[jyb]

I've seesawed my whole life between diarrhea and constipation. 2 months in with the fermentable fiber I suddenly realized I was a Bristol poster boy. Day after day of the elusive clean break.
You'll have to pardon my enthusiasm for fermentable fiber.

It doesn't show for certain that it's due to the soluble fibre & it's impact on bacteria itself though. People report good results with carrot salad and activated charcoal (charcoal has been well studied elsewhere too). Potential mechanism include binding and clearing of oestrogen, of stomach and maybe small intestine pathogens (reminiscent of testimonies about vinegar for SIBO), or just an aid in bulking up stools to help regular transit, and in the particular case of charcoal removal of heavy metals in the gut. None of those alleged benefits are related to the solubility of fibre itself, even if soluble fibre can in other ways help ferment and bulk up stools.

I remain to be convinced we need a lot of fibre in the diet for a healthy gut. I am however convinced that some bacteria like milk fermenting ones have interesting anti-inflammatory properties, but not sure whether you need so much fibre otherwise to maintain a healthy gut and flora.

Different diets differ in how efficient they are at maintaining good transit, good bacteria and healthy gut lining. Dairy tribes don't seem to need huge lots of extra vegetable fibre. There is pre-biotics in some dairy products and meat, but in quantities that's different than like adding say 50g pectin... But I could see how with some other diets, more vegetable fibres might be beneficial. Vice versa, conventional diets with "varied" foods are known to negatively impact bacterial diversity. Bacteria need the bulk of the diet to be consistent to adapt and thrive. This even applies to vegetable categories, if you believe Art Ayers, just eating many different vegetables is not consistent.

I could even see how diets less good at maintaining healthy gut lining, might make the gut bacteria more important than on a grain free and heavy saturated fat diet that's healthier towards gut lining.

The same goes for nutrients derived from bacterial fermentation - whether they are useful to you depends on what's your diet. If you eat dairy products, you are already eating SCFA, it has already been fermented in the cow's gut for you. Vice versa, if you're a vegan, you better have bacteria to give K2 in your gut... Intuitively, because the cow's gut so much efficient at fermentation, I expect to get most of these goodies from dairy rather than from my own gut, even if I were to take lots of extra fibre. The bacterial fermentation is a machine to produce fats and nutrients in ruminants, which are then used as energy (you hunt the ruminant's liver to get all that retinol) and forwarded to the milk. In humans you can ferment too, just so less efficient it seems - so many vitamin deficiencies seen in vegetarians.

 

[Suikerbuik]

I too would like to see more convincing evidence for an high amount of fiber in our diets. I also would like to see conclusive amounts of butyrate produced by a more ancient diet and if current diets really lack this. I think the most butyrate stuff is done on mice but human evidence is lacking. Not that I think the studies are false, but I think there are other more important mechanisms at play in human diseases.

It is clear that you cannot avoid fiber completely, but the question is, do we really need additional fiber?
I'd also like to see evidence for the statement that our microbiome is 80% of our immunity. Altered microbiome is found in disease, no doubt, but is that a result or initiating event? I would not be surprised if fiber plays a minimal role in that.

And is there proof for the hygiene hypothesis? I am not completely into this, but you guys seem to be well informed. I know that allergies asthma etc. occur less in rural areas. But is that because those people, in general, have less stress, are found more outside, eat more foods closer to nature, have less exposure to artificial lighting or noise, have a less social pressure, etc. etc. In urban regions you cannot go into a subway or bus these days that does not have 'free' wifi, or is not located next to some fastfood shop.

The microbiome is cool, overlooked by science for sure. But on the other hand, a bit hyped maybe lately? I would like to see evidence first! What of all the research is relevant for reality? From all these perspectives I feel pboy. I mean 30 years back it was genetics, now it is the microbiome, and over 100 years they find aliens controlling us?

 

[EnoreeG]

I've seesawed my whole life between diarrhea and constipation. 2 months in with the fermentable fiber I suddenly realized I was a Bristol poster boy. Day after day of the elusive clean break.
You'll have to pardon my enthusiasm for fermentable fiber.

It doesn't show for certain that it's due to the soluble fibre & it's impact on bacteria itself though. People report good results with carrot salad and activated charcoal (charcoal has been well studied elsewhere too). Potential mechanism include binding and clearing of oestrogen, of stomach and maybe small intestine pathogens (reminiscent of testimonies about vinegar for SIBO), or just an aid in bulking up stools to help regular transit, and in the particular case of charcoal removal of heavy metals in the gut. None of those alleged benefits are related to the solubility of fibre itself, even if soluble fibre can in other ways help ferment and bulk up stools.

I remain to be convinced we need a lot of fibre in the diet for a healthy gut. I am however convinced that some bacteria like milk fermenting ones have interesting anti-inflammatory properties, but not sure whether you need so much fibre otherwise to maintain a healthy gut and flora.

Different diets differ in how efficient they are at maintaining good transit, good bacteria and healthy gut lining. Dairy tribes don't seem to need huge lots of extra vegetable fibre. There is pre-biotics in some dairy products and meat, but in quantities that's different than like adding say 50g pectin... But I could see how with some other diets, more vegetable fibres might be beneficial. Vice versa, conventional diets with "varied" foods are known to negatively impact bacterial diversity. Bacteria need the bulk of the diet to be consistent to adapt and thrive. This even applies to vegetable categories, if you believe Art Ayers, just eating many different vegetables is not consistent.

I could even see how diets less good at maintaining healthy gut lining, might make the gut bacteria more important than on a grain free and heavy saturated fat diet that's healthier towards gut lining.

The same goes for nutrients derived from bacterial fermentation - whether they are useful to you depends on what's your diet. If you eat dairy products, you are already eating SCFA, it has already been fermented in the cow's gut for you. Vice versa, if you're a vegan, you better have bacteria to give K2 in your gut... Intuitively, because the cow's gut so much efficient at fermentation, I expect to get most of these goodies from dairy rather than from my own gut, even if I were to take lots of extra fibre. The bacterial fermentation is a machine to produce fats and nutrients in ruminants, which are then used as energy (you hunt the ruminant's liver to get all that retinol) and forwarded to the milk. In humans you can ferment too, just so less efficient it seems - so many vitamin deficiencies seen in vegetarians.

jyb, allmost every paragraph here is an argument against accepting the values of fiber that a typical, pro-fiber article touts, so I'm not trying to convince you that the "science" in my pro-fiber articles is looking at it any other way than you wish to see it. You probably can show dozens of articles that present things the way you wish to see fiber. That's fine. I'm good with it.

I'll point out that when I praise fiber, I have yet to say "how much". So an argument against "a lot of fiber" is actually the most acceptable argument you've presented. It's a nebulous target and I totally agree with it. I'm certainly not for "a lot of fiber" and all that would imply. For all I know, what I actually now think of as a dangerously low level of fiber (I don't really have a number, but lets just say 8 grams of fiber!) may be fine for just about anyone's health. The USDA recommends 14 grams of fiber for every 1,000 calories consumed. The average USA citizen is supposed to be consuming about 15 grams (regardless of calories consumed). None of this matters to me as far as my body goes. I don't consume foods so much for the fiber, as for the nutrients. Nutrient density to me happens to come from fiber rich foods. I and my gut are happy with that. I have no idea even how much fiber I consume but it's probably above the USDA recommendation.

I'd say in my contributions here, I mostly want people to be aware that the microbiome matters as a significant part of the immune system, and it does need some fiber to be robust in the large intestine. A carrot salad of some small size may be fine for meeting this goal. I don't know, so I don't quantify a minimum fiber intake. I'll define a "robust" microbiome as having at least enough variety of good species to keep pathogens properly contained. And enough fiber is needed to provide some bulk such that peristalsis can easily move the bolus of material along, to provide the gel forming from soluble fiber sufficient to make the bolus very slippery, to provide enough vitamins to immediately nourish the membranes it contacts, to provide some water-holding capacity so that derived substances are soluble, to carry out toxins and excess hormones that have been dumped in the SI in the bile, to decrease the risk of diverticulosis and diverticulitis, to regulating immune homeostasis (see the link below if you want this explained), etc. That's probably not the whole list. But it also isn't a list that requires a separate allocation of fiber for each item. One shot of fiber in a meal should do all this stuff. Make it a tiny shot. I don't argue with that. Also, I don't argue with the experts who say "If you eat too much fiber, you'll know it". They are rather confident about this and say it quite easily. So I don't worry even as much as you do about you or others getting too much. It's not like fiber is as tasty as pizza or cream pie, and tempting you to overindulge.

Gut microbe/Gut immune cell Interaction

Since I've sworn off squabbling with each paragraph you've put together to explain your position, I'll just explain my position on your last question -- about why SCFA such as butyrate are useful as they are provided via fiber, outside of the amount that you got from your food.

Here's why: All the food you eat that is humanly digestible is already absorbed in the small intestine (SI), including all the fats. That happens to be what the SI is for. So SCFA production by large intestine and colonic bacteria isn't absorbed through the normal channel because that point in digestion is already past. But the endothelial cells of the large intestine happen to be able to absorb the SCFA manufactured by microbes, and use those acids for fuel. They get the SCFA directly, not needing the fuel taken in elsewhere and circulated through the blood, or taken to the liver and changed into glucose. They get it directly and use it directly, which is quite sweet.

 

[EnoreeG]

I too would like to see more convincing evidence for an high amount of fiber in our diets. I also would like to see conclusive amounts of butyrate produced by a more ancient diet and if current diets really lack this. I think the most butyrate stuff is done on mice but human evidence is lacking. Not that I think the studies are false, but I think there are other more important mechanisms at play in human diseases.

It is clear that you cannot avoid fiber completely, but the question is, do we really need additional fiber?
I'd also like to see evidence for the statement that our microbiome is 80% of our immunity. Altered microbiome is found in disease, no doubt, but is that a result or initiating event? I would not be surprised if fiber plays a minimal role in that.

And is there proof for the hygiene hypothesis? I am not completely into this, but you guys seem to be well informed. I know that allergies asthma etc. occur less in rural areas. But is that because those people, in general, have less stress, are found more outside, eat more foods closer to nature, have less exposure to artificial lighting or noise, have a less social pressure, etc. etc. In urban regions you cannot go into a subway or bus these days that does not have 'free' wifi, or is not located next to some fastfood shop.

The microbiome is cool, overlooked by science for sure. But on the other hand, a bit hyped maybe lately? I would like to see evidence first! What of all the research is relevant for reality? From all these perspectives I feel pboy. I mean 30 years back it was genetics, now it is the microbiome, and over 100 years they find aliens controlling us?

Good questions, Suikerbuik. And you're capable. I'd bet you could answer all these in a matter of 1/2 hour if you sit down and press the internet really hard.

I'm set. I'll leave this up to you, if you wish answers.

I agree, the academic landscape will change, and having worked these issues to death in another 5 years the scientists will have moved on to study other things relating to health. We must realize that science feasts on questions that CAN be answered, and that is allowed by technology. Right now, science is feasting on the gains they can make thanks to the new abilities in genetic sequencing. These questions couldn't even have been asked before the sequencing was possible. Now we can actually produce a taxa of gut microbes that exist in a human in very short order, for very little cost. It's a sudden goldmine of new possibilities for study.

A different technological breakthrough will allow a new level of knowledge in the future. Maybe we finally meet the aliens....

 

[tara]

Some have mentioned we need to try to steer clear of certain soils, etc. due to possible contaminants such as toxic chemicals. I don't think that's a concern. To add a new species, all you need is a dust particle or a clay particle. It's still going to have maybe a dozen species that you don't currently have inside you. What's the chance it will have a significant amount of mercury, lead or uranium? Nil, I'd say. My main avoidance would be anywhere herbicides/insecticides might lurk.

You are probably right that only a very tiny amount of soil would be needed to get in more microrganisms.
But I am not so indifferent to lead and other toxins in sub/urban soils, and the effects of lead on brain development, particularly on growing childrens' brains, and other health issues.

My own lead levels are borderline high, and others in my neighbourhood have significantly higher levels. None of us were deliberately eating soil, but many of us gardened, and ate food from the garden, and the children are often muddy. Lead arsenate was a common pesticide a few decades ago. Many suburban areas are built on former a market gardens and orchards. They eliminated lead in petrol because the evidence of harm was incontrovertible. Every time someone sanded and repainted an old house, or the lead paint wore off the glass houses, there could be more lead in the soil. Lead sticks to the soil for a very long time.

I read up on this a bit last year. Apparently if there is lead in the soil, it can be significantly taken up by leafy greens, roots, stalks, in the free-range eggs, etc, and the dust and soil on the surface doesn't always wash off easily and completely. But the main way kids get lead is by ingesting soil and dust from playing on the ground and on dusty floors etc.

Arsenic washes away in water quicker than lead, but fence posts etc can add very high concentrations in close proximity. Arsenic messes with pyruvate dehydrogenase. I don't know if that's the only way it messes with health, but it is pretty important.
Persistent organic pesticides can stick around for decades too.

I don't know that lead is a significant factor in undermining my health, but I'm not ruling it out.

 

[narouz]

...But for me at least that has been completely resolved by upping the fermentable fiber/SBO's. So my experience is that there is a strong connection between microbiome health and allergies...
I've seesawed my whole life between diarrhea and constipation. 2 months in with the fermentable fiber I suddenly realized I was a Bristol poster boy. Day after day of the elusive clean break.
You'll have to pardon my enthusiasm for fermentable fiber. For me it's been a game changer. Just as recently really slashing my Pufa consumption has also taken my health (curiously enough my tooth/gum health particularly) to a higher level too....

Maybe I've missed it, Stuart,
but I'd like to hear more about your excellent bowel/health recovery
if you feel like sharing.
Beyond the pectin and organic dirt, I mean,
what were the ingredients of your recovery diet?
What you ate and what you avoided.
And supplements.
And recovery lifestyle too.

I think I remember that you said you only think soil-based bacteria are effective.
Not kefir, kraut, kombucha, etc.
How did you arrive at that view?

Oh,
and with our missing appendixes...
Enoree's thought is a good one I'll look into,
but the main question I have had in mind in this regard
is--if you accept the view that the appendix exists at least partly
as a reservoir for replenishing bacteria--
for those of us without an appendix,
how might this change our dietary gameplan?
One obvious possibility would seem to be
that we may need to try to intentionally make up for the absence
by consuming certain bacteria or maybe providing special foods for bacteria--
like maybe pectin ...

 

[narouz]

I too would like to see more convincing evidence for an high amount of fiber in our diets. I also would like to see conclusive amounts of butyrate produced by a more ancient diet and if current diets really lack this. I think the most butyrate stuff is done on mice but human evidence is lacking. Not that I think the studies are false, but I think there are other more important mechanisms at play in human diseases.

It is clear that you cannot avoid fiber completely, but the question is, do we really need additional fiber?
I'd also like to see evidence for the statement that our microbiome is 80% of our immunity. Altered microbiome is found in disease, no doubt, but is that a result or initiating event? I would not be surprised if fiber plays a minimal role in that.

And is there proof for the hygiene hypothesis? I am not completely into this, but you guys seem to be well informed. I know that allergies asthma etc. occur less in rural areas. But is that because those people, in general, have less stress, are found more outside, eat more foods closer to nature, have less exposure to artificial lighting or noise, have a less social pressure, etc. etc. In urban regions you cannot go into a subway or bus these days that does not have 'free' wifi, or is not located next to some fastfood shop.

The microbiome is cool, overlooked by science for sure. But on the other hand, a bit hyped maybe lately? I would like to see evidence first! What of all the research is relevant for reality? From all these perspectives I feel pboy. I mean 30 years back it was genetics, now it is the microbiome, and over 100 years they find aliens controlling us?

Suik-
I don't necessarily see Stuart's success with pectin
as proof that everyone would benefit from the same approach.
Just as pboy's more Peatian approach may not work for all.
But...they are a couple of compelling cases.
Oh, and don't forget EnoreeG's case, with his fibrous organic veggies.

Maybe people without appendixes could benefit from Stuart's diet.
Maybe hard-rocking gurus who smack fools upside the haid could do well on pboy's.

It would surprise me if this microbiome stuff did not get damn complex....

 

[Suikerbuik]

It would surprise me if this microbiome stuff did not get damn complex....

It is.. We are talking about 2 to 10 million genes working in concert in different niches, and all the things mentioned in a previous post (about the hygiene hypothesis) are things that affect the microbiome to some extent. We still can only guess what our own 20000 genes do.

And why are people with completely different microbiomes both healthy?

@EnoreeG, I'd not be to answer these questions I think. Maybe an estimation of butyrate production in more ancient cultures. But else.. Okay we have some decent amount of knowledge these days, but what is it that we still don't know?

A point is that everyone always comes up with tregs and butyrate. Something I sometimes did too and although the mechanisms work as they find. I'd like to see prove that lack of butyrate really is behind the aberrant tregs found in human disease. Maybe it is out there, but I might have just not came across yet.

Sadly, science involvoing human health only sparingly seems to feast on answerable questions, it looks like it feasts on money to be made. All the functional work on mice is eventually done for some probiotic (you're not going to find I guess), and the additional work on humans just somehow needs to fit their hypothesis for a decent paper.

But is it needed? The researcher 100 years ago did some really good effort in understanding how things work and they came pretty far. Looks like they had more common sense than these day's researchers. Today it's like running some experiments and only take the statistically significant changes, make a mouse model based on those changes, but fail in the transition to humans, because humans are far more complex and have a different interactome. It will will take some decades to figure out what's going on. Scientists these days are fairly stubborn :) - no one wants to admit they have been wrong and some fields really seem stuck.

So the microbiome is really important, but what role fiber plays in that? And don't we already get enough by just drinking juices, eating some fuits and vegetables? Which means we don't have to watch our fiber intake, something that makes life easier .

EDIT: relevant typos

 

[Stuart]

All interesting perspectives. So thanks, this is fascinating.
To address the last issue first - the soil contaminant factor in the dirt you consume - that Tara commented on. Humans have added some terrible (for human health and the environment the biosphere has now to endure) No question. Even the air we breathe is now groaning with estrogen mimicking compounds, So it's no wonder Dr. Peat is so concerned about estrogen dominance. When baby alligators turn up in the Florida everglades with innappropriate vestigal sex organs with increasing frequency, it's pretty alarming. PCB's, Phlalates..it's a very long list. Lead arsenic, mercury too of course.
Do you try to chelate heavy metals with anything Tara? Coriander perhaps?. A pinch of any soil, even the suss ones, which as EnoreeG mentioned, will contain billions (well perhaps only millions - the numbers are staggering though aren't they?) probably won't contain high levels of contaminants. But why take the risK? And even a miniscule reduction won't hurt.

@Narouz
Art Ayers' blog 'Cooling Inflammation' blog talks a lot about the difference between the bacterial species that live in our guts, and the ones found in fermented foods. He does think there are numerous and powerful health benefits from consuming fermented foods though, and makes and eats a lot of them himself. As I said. I would too (and did for decades) but the acidity took a serious toll on my dental enamel. I probably could just use them as a condiment though.

@jyb
Jeff Leach, one of the main people behind the American Gut Project, has done a lot of research with the Hadza hunter gatherers of Tanzania, who eat a great deal of fiber, both fermentable and not. To investigate the very question you pose, he now spends a lot of time with Mongolian herdspeople who eat practically none, but prodigious amounts of dairy, particularly fermented dairy. I've been meaning to check up on any results his research has shown for the last couple of days, but you people take up far too much of my time
Perhaps the oligos in milk may be enough to keep their gut microbiota thriving.
Maybe a lot of dietary carbohydrate produces enough mucins/mucus for beneficial gut bacteria. The lactose and other sugars/starch in a strict Peatarian approach that escapes utilization in your upper digestive tract may help as well. And fruit and the veges Peat recommends contain plenty of Pectin/inulin anyway.

The main point for me is that we all have this (to use Narouz's descriptor 'dang') microbiome which is intricately involved in our immune system, our moods, the operation of our brain generally - in short every mechanism in our bodies. Whether it's 80% of our immune system or not seems a bit beside the point. Even if it was far less, looking after it would seem wise. And how do you even put a specific figure on something like that anyway? Even the linguistic prevalence of terms like 'going with your gut', trusting your gut instinct etc. is surely a reminder that the health of your gut microbiota is of profound importance.
So how much of each (fermentable/non fermentable) type of fiber is enough? If anything, the fact that some human populations have thrived for millenia on both extremes and everything in between seems to indicate that it probably doesn't matter as long as your gut bacteria eat something. Also, I think it's important to recognize that no dietary fiber is 'harmful' The thing I take issue with Dr. Peat over is that the fermentable fiber that he specifically advises against, pectin, is found in all fruits, particularly ripe tropical fruits, which he highly recommends. And Peatarian dietary philosophy also seems to ignore the profound role bacteria play in optimum health. Which seems to lead to Pbooyesque notions that 'bacteria just make things rot'. A trained biologist like Dr. Peat would be only too aware that 'rotting' is actually enzyme breakdown. Our upper digestive tracts produce their own enzymes for the job. And our colons (and actually to a far lesser extent even the upper bit ) farm bacteria who also do it (breakdown stuff with enzymes). To me, that''s a cohesive, incredibly beautiful system we simply have no choice but to celebrate. The fact that our entire digestve system from our stomachs to the other end are all stinky festering places (I've never yet smelled vomit that didn't make me want to do likewise) shouldn't blind us to the the bigger picture of how necessary to our health that horribleness is.
@enoreeG
I will definitely get to that ileocecal valve massage stuff. Sounds really interesting. Mine will have muscles on its own before you know it.

 

[jyb]

Here's why: All the food you eat that is humanly digestible is already absorbed in the small intestine (SI), including all the fats. That happens to be what the SI is for. So SCFA production by large intestine and colonic bacteria isn't absorbed through the normal channel because that point in digestion is already past. But the endothelial cells of the large intestine happen to be able to absorb the SCFA manufactured by microbes, and use those acids for fuel. They get the SCFA directly, not needing the fuel taken in elsewhere and circulated through the blood, or taken to the liver and changed into glucose. They get it directly and use it directly, which is quite sweet.

I'm skeptic about this for several reasons. Firstly, I just see too many recent studies showing that the vegan and vegetarian studies are bad. The anti-oxidants they provide seems to be not useful, in fact slightly correlated with damage, but I also see association with bowel cancers specifically. All that fibre does not seem to protect the gut. Those diets could be bad anyway so there are other factors, they're low fat and low nutrient in my opinion, but the fact is there does not seem to be a protective effect. So whatever SCFA's role and quantity produced, it does not seem like it's doing something there. Secondly, babies and dairy tribes seem to do fine with the fibre contained in dairy/meat and possibly(?) a small amount of vegetable fibre. This indicated to me that whatever SCFA is needed, their diet provides. Again, I think this means the diet is *efficient* at maintaining a healthy gut. Thirdly, although a lot of the fat is digested by the time it reached the colon, I would be surprised if there still wasn't a lot left by the time it gets there. It could be a small fraction of what was eaten, but try to compare that to the small amount you get by human gut fermentation. We are not ruminants, we can ferment a bit, but if we get a lot from the diet then... Fourthly, you didn't say why locally gut produced SCFA is needed, as opposed to fatty acids absorbed and then transported to gut cells from the inside. When I eat fat, I expect the body to distributed various fatty acids to various organs so they work well. I don't see why most of it should come from immediate fermentation. Of course on a low fat diet, this might be more important if you want to get it, but it doesn't show what happens when cells have access to their preferred energy fuel in the normal way of blood transport. The liver seems to love this and I doubt it would be viciously converting it to glucose to deprive colon cells, in fact it's more the other way round in the larger scheme of allocating various energy sources to various organs. In general targeted distribution of various fatty acids or glucose seems pretty standard, in fact required for life especially neurons, heart and I'm sure all the rest too. Those organs each have *very* specific ideal fuel needs which the body tries to meet after digestion, storage and transformation in various places, and on a good diet these specifications are I think always met.

So, I have no problem believing the output of good bacterial fermentation is good. In fact the efficient bacterial fermentation in the ruminant gut is why I think dairy and meat is so nutritious. But do you really need a lot of vegetable fibre to get there if your diet is rich in good animal produce?

 

[Stuart]

jyb
No idea about sfca dietary consumption. But the immunoprotective role of colonic production of sfca's (particularly butyrate) has been exhaustively established AFAIK. I agree that vegan/vegetarian diets are unhealthy for a host of other reasons (particularly vegan- ovo lacto vegetarians are considerably better off). Besides, vegetarians have a very low incidence of bowel cancer, despite eating a lot of pufa, don't they?

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vege ... 1503117785

So I think the in situ production of butyrate is very revealingly protective for their gut health. Of course they suffer from lot's of other health/ mortality problems.
The other thing worth remembering is that if you eat a lot of animal tissue, but do it nose to tail, you're actually consuming more fermentable fiber than most vegetarians, who certainly consume a lot of nonfermentable fiber.

I've said all along that a strictly followed Peatarian diet, can provide ample fermentable fiber from the pectin in fruit, the inulin in below ground vegetables, and the connective tissue fiber (eg collagen) from animals (particularly bonebroth)
Isn't the point that Dr. Peat himself doesn't seem to realize that his own diet recommendations are already promoting the health of your microbiota? In fact he seems to make a point of denying that it's even important.

So the colonic production of sfca's that a Peat diet provides, coupled with pufa avoidance, and a high calcium /phosphorus ratio plus all the other good ideas, like gelatin, aspirin etc. are a pretty powerful combination.

But the microbiome enhancement actually seems to happen almost against his better judgement.

It's worth bearing in mind in any discussion of microbiome health, that non fermentable fiber doesn't lead to any colonic sfca production. It has to be fermentable fiber. The pectin, milk oligos, inulin and animal connective tissue fiber provided by a Peatarian diet are very microbiome friendly. What's odd is that he isn't choosing to recognize that that is what's going on.
My raising of the fermentable fiber in breast milk factor is just to show that nature worked out that fermentable fiber promotes microbiome health eons ago. And even though Dr. Peat and most of his adherents seem to be resisting the notion, a strictly followed Peat diet provides that fermentable fiber.
Now of course you could concievably tweak a Peat diet to try to reduce your fermentable fiber. But as long as you still consume milk, fruit, bone broth, and below ground vegetables, your commensal microbiota will produce plenty of butyrate from the fermentable fiber so provided, and your microbiome will reward you in health benefits accordingly.
Now in my personal experience, getting substantially more fermentable fiber increases those benefits. Someone who suffers from SIBO might find the going tough. But there are particular fermentable fiber types -long chain inulin is one - that seems to be preferentially fermented at the distal end of the colon. And the immunoprotective effect of providing colon commensals (but not S.I escapees) with plenty of butyrate producing food also seems to help with the SIBO eventually too.

I do agree that butyrate is a very healthy substance. The mechanisms of why it's most potent when colon bacteria produce it from fermentable fiber are very well understood. It's been extensively researched for over fifty years.
It wouldn't be relevant if we didn't have a colon, full of bacteria, from a couple of days after you are born till your dying day whatever diet you eat. You have to keep those bacteria healthy, or your colon (and all the myriad interrelationships between the colon and the rest of your body - particularly the immunomodulatory role it plays) will suffer won't it? 80% of our immune system? If it was only 20% it would still seem like a good idea.

 

[XPlus]

I always think of the gut microbiome as the 1st line of defense, not the 2nd. I like that writers claim it constitutes 80% of the immune system. I'm just saying what I like, because XPlus has asked for proof of bacteria being essential to physiological function:

You’re correct. It could be thought of as the first line in defense in a functional sense.
In the metaphoric sense I intended, I meant to refer to its function as having a secondary supportive role.

I'd still like to find out whether bacteria are essential to provision of energy and filtration of toxins, in a sense that the body, cannot do without their presence.

so I don't know what is required for proof if studies are insufficient.

Yes, studies are meaningless if their theoretical premise is inconsistent with “real-life” application. In my experience, this is the case with the increasingly-popular ideas promoted by the microbiome research.

I don’t have much training in the area of scientific research but I know that not all studies are engineered efficiently and do not produce meaningful results (e.g.caffeine shortens lifespan by shortening telomeres). Also, some studies just fail when people experiment with their recommendations.

One finance professor I know from NSW claims confidently that he’s capable of disproving the vast majority of studies in the literature by pointing out holes in their methodologies.
Regardless of discipline, studies use same methodologies and I doubt that studies in medicine are more solid than those of economics and finance (i.e. reference to the recent economic crisis).
Nowadays, most scientific studies are a sophisticated way of telling people “My milkshake is better than yours”.

When I experiment with something that I haven’t tried before and it happens to takes care of my problems, I know this is real progress beyond doubt and speculation, beyond theory and philosophy.

On your statement elsewhere that the dominant species in the gut can change quite rapidly, that may be the case, but it doesn't prove that the bacteria are insignificant. All that happens if dominant species of bacteria change, is something like a "changing of the guard" at any military post. The enemy is still known and identified, you just have a different beneficial species (or 2 or dozens) that are now prominent, thanks to different foods being ingested.

Yes, that argument will require more backing from my side. However, your argument just blows off the idea of bacterial balance and the many other arguments suggesting how static it is.

As I've said elsewhere, I eat to first feed my immune system, which is primarily microbial, and second to get the nutrition I need, while making sure my "nutritious" foods don't do anything to hamper those microbes.

Most recommendations inline with yours are based on the idea that people don’t eat enough fibre but looking around me, people actually seem to eat more than enough.

I don’t know of anyone who neglects their gut bacteria (as Stuart proposes). Most food in the industrialized world have some sort of fibre in them. Be it Xanthan gum, Arabic gum, Guar gum, pectin or carrageenan. There’s fibre in your chips, fibre in your burger, fiber in your pizza and even fibre in your can of Pepsi. Also, almost all the people I ever met eat their fruit and salad regularly if not every day. So even if not everyone binges on bags of psyllium husks, there’s still a great deal of fibre in most people’s diet.

Wherever I travel I find people eat a lot of fiber. Be it rice, bread, fruits and vegetables. These make up the list of basic foods most people eat on the planet. Yet, there’s an increasing number of people dealing with bad digestion, acne, UTIs, bad breath, back pain, gas and bloating.

It seems like there's enough fibre to put those bacteria in a perpetual state of satiety.

The problem I find with much of thoughts about bacteria is that it's inline with the very simplistic, rigid perception of the organism, where you hear people talk about things like membranes, receptors, pipes pumps, genes and no one really figures out an answer to questions.
The increasingly popular thoughts on the gut are in line with this conventional thinking. It can't be correct because that which it has been built upon is incorrect.


If you really think that we've the answer to this, and know what exactly causes certain diseases and conditions like diabetes, IBS and IBD, for example, then why aren't we capable of resolving them. The answer is simple. It's because we haven't really figured it out and we've been beating around the bush.

We could spend a whole day figuring a way out of a maze but someone else looking down at it from a distance could figure it out in seconds.

Now all I know is there are a bunch of gentlemen in their 50s and 60s (including my father) who’ve recently discovered the magic health benefits of eating more lettuce. I don’t know what you guys ate when you were young but I’ve had more fiber than the sheikh of Qatar uses to produce gas.

If today you suddenly realise that you need more fiber to improve transit and stool quality in compensation for improper nutrition, then tomorrow you'll need digestive enzymes to process more of it and end up ordering HCL after reading that article on Chris Kresser's website. The next thing you know, you'll end up reading a 700 page book written by a kiwi trying to figure out a way to get rid of that bad thrush.

 

[Stuart]

@Xplus
I get the impression you're not making any distinction between the metabolic effects of fermentable and non fermentable fiber. Is there some reason for that? It's fermentable fiber that's so important for a fully functioning microbiome. Non fermentable fiber in humans is just to provide bulk to your stool.

You identified 'removal of toxins' as something your microbiota does. Isn't that the liver's job?
Your previous comment didn't mention the immunoprotective role played by the microbiome (all along your digestive tract of course, but certainly most powerful in the colon). I think EnoreeG was talking about the microbiome's integral role in the body's immune system. I don't actually think your microbiome plays much of a role in removal of toxins. It's more about the immune system, and of course vitamin manufacture/absorption. Probably just as important is its role in preventing inflammation - all over the body, not just in the colon itself. Don't forget mineral absorption either. Without a powering microbiome, you'll have much more difficulty absorbing minerals.

 

[EnoreeG]

Here's why: All the food you eat that is humanly digestible is already absorbed in the small intestine (SI), including all the fats. That happens to be what the SI is for. So SCFA production by large intestine and colonic bacteria isn't absorbed through the normal channel because that point in digestion is already past. But the endothelial cells of the large intestine happen to be able to absorb the SCFA manufactured by microbes, and use those acids for fuel. They get the SCFA directly, not needing the fuel taken in elsewhere and circulated through the blood, or taken to the liver and changed into glucose. They get it directly and use it directly, which is quite sweet.

I'm skeptic about this for several reasons. Firstly, I just see too many recent studies showing that the vegan and vegetarian studies are bad. The anti-oxidants they provide seems to be not useful, in fact slightly correlated with damage, but I also see association with bowel cancers specifically. All that fibre does not seem to protect the gut. Those diets could be bad anyway so there are other factors, they're low fat and low nutrient in my opinion, but the fact is there does not seem to be a protective effect. So whatever SCFA's role and quantity produced, it does not seem like it's doing something there. Secondly, babies and dairy tribes seem to do fine with the fibre contained in dairy/meat and possibly(?) a small amount of vegetable fibre. This indicated to me that whatever SCFA is needed, their diet provides. Again, I think this means the diet is *efficient* at maintaining a healthy gut. Thirdly, although a lot of the fat is digested by the time it reached the colon, I would be surprised if there still wasn't a lot left by the time it gets there. It could be a small fraction of what was eaten, but try to compare that to the small amount you get by human gut fermentation. We are not ruminants, we can ferment a bit, but if we get a lot from the diet then... Fourthly, you didn't say why locally gut produced SCFA is needed, as opposed to fatty acids absorbed and then transported to gut cells from the inside. When I eat fat, I expect the body to distributed various fatty acids to various organs so they work well. I don't see why most of it should come from immediate fermentation. Of course on a low fat diet, this might be more important if you want to get it, but it doesn't show what happens when cells have access to their preferred energy fuel in the normal way of blood transport. The liver seems to love this and I doubt it would be viciously converting it to glucose to deprive colon cells, in fact it's more the other way round in the larger scheme of allocating various energy sources to various organs. In general targeted distribution of various fatty acids or glucose seems pretty standard, in fact required for life especially neurons, heart and I'm sure all the rest too. Those organs each have *very* specific ideal fuel needs which the body tries to meet after digestion, storage and transformation in various places, and on a good diet these specifications are I think always met.

So, I have no problem believing the output of good bacterial fermentation is good. In fact the efficient bacterial fermentation in the ruminant gut is why I think dairy and meat is so nutritious. But do you really need a lot of vegetable fibre to get there if your diet is rich in good animal produce?

jyb, I'm not going to help you with your skepticism. Just stay skeptical. I don't do continuing battles. It's more efficient to leave you skeptical. That's why I didn't answer all the other paragraphs of your skepticism in your OP regarding this. Go back to that post. Notice your use of "efficent/efficiency". I was just trying to show that it's efficient for the colon to use butyric acid directly from what the gut microbes produced. Not that the butyric acid was essential, nor that it must be assimilated in the colon. It was an explanation of efficiency working in the human body. My final comment was that I thought this was "quite sweet". Not a statement of SCFA needing to be absorbed in the colon, lest it die.

All you say about how any foods, ingested in the small intestine can eventually reach the large intestine and colon and nurture it is quite true. No argument. Never meant there to be.

You finally ask, "Do you really need a lot of vegetable fiber". I addressed this a couple of posts ago.

I'll point out that when I praise fiber, I have yet to say "how much". So an argument against "a lot of fiber" is actually the most acceptable argument you've presented. It's a nebulous target and I totally agree with it. I'm certainly not for "a lot of fiber" and all that would imply. For all I know, what I actually now think of as a dangerously low level of fiber (I don't really have a number, but lets just say 8 grams of fiber!) may be fine for just about anyone's health. The USDA recommends 14 grams of fiber for every 1,000 calories consumed. The average USA citizen is supposed to be consuming about 15 grams (regardless of calories consumed). None of this matters to me as far as my body goes. I don't consume foods so much for the fiber, as for the nutrients.

I've never said "a lot" or any amount. That is your point of view, that someone is out here saying "a lot of fiber", but I don't see anyone here saying "a lot of fiber" except those who wish to put that title on someone else.

Here's a way you could at it: You've said (above) "So, I have no problem believing the output of good bacterial fermentation is good." Now realize that there can be too much of a good thing. So then figure out what you think is a sufficient amount of fiber to realize that "good" aspect you just mentioned, and figure out what you think is too much, and keep your fiber within those boundaries.

For me, this is way too much trouble. I eat for nutrition. I think of non-starchy vegetables as being the most rich source of all the nutrients I need except for some fats and protein. I know how much fat and protein I need, calorie wise, just to be safe, and these come mostly from animal products, and then the remainder of my food consists of vegetables, with a little fruit. If this seems strange, don't follow my example. That's just me, maximizing nutrient density. I have no place in my diet for the "entertaining, but possibly nutrient poor" foods. So with my daily vegetable intake, I happen to get a lot of fiber. Not my "required" amount. It just happens. And I happen to stay healthy. This shouldn't affect anyone else here, except they can reflect on an n=1 case that shows that fiber doesn't seem to be dangerous. Year after year. For the last 40 years. It's a long term study. No GI disturbances at all during that 40 years. Only a few cases of colds, or the flu (maybe 10 in 40 years). No antibiotics. No doctor visits except once for some stitches.

 

[Suikerbuik]

oops wrong button!

 

[EnoreeG]

jyb
No idea about sfca dietary consumption. But the immunoprotective role of colonic production of sfca's (particularly butyrate) has been exhaustively established AFAIK. I agree that vegan/vegetarian diets are unhealthy for a host of other reasons (particularly vegan- ovo lacto vegetarians are considerably better off). Besides, vegetarians have a very low incidence of bowel cancer, despite eating a lot of pufa, don't they?

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vege ... 1503117785

So I think the in situ production of butyrate is very revealingly protective for their gut health. Of course they suffer from lot's of other health/ mortality problems.
The other thing worth remembering is that if you eat a lot of animal tissue, but do it nose to tail, you're actually consuming more fermentable fiber than most vegetarians, who certainly consume a lot of nonfermentable fiber.

I've said all along that a strictly followed Peatarian diet, can provide ample fermentable fiber from the pectin in fruit, the inulin in below ground vegetables, and the connective tissue fiber (eg collagen) from animals (particularly bonebroth)
Isn't the point that Dr. Peat himself doesn't seem to realize that his own diet recommendations are already promoting the health of your microbiota? In fact he seems to make a point of denying that it's even important.

So the colonic production of sfca's that a Peat diet provides, coupled with pufa avoidance, and a high calcium /phosphorus ratio plus all the other good ideas, like gelatin, aspirin etc. are a pretty powerful combination.

But the microbiome enhancement actually seems to happen almost against his better judgement.

It's worth bearing in mind in any discussion of microbiome health, that non fermentable fiber doesn't lead to any colonic sfca production. It has to be fermentable fiber. The pectin, milk oligos, inulin and animal connective tissue fiber provided by a Peatarian diet are very microbiome friendly. What's odd is that he isn't choosing to recognize that that is what's going on.
My raising of the fermentable fiber in breast milk factor is just to show that nature worked out that fermentable fiber promotes microbiome health eons ago. And even though Dr. Peat and most of his adherents seem to be resisting the notion, a strictly followed Peat diet provides that fermentable fiber.
Now of course you could concievably tweak a Peat diet to try to reduce your fermentable fiber. But as long as you still consume milk, fruit, bone broth, and below ground vegetables, your commensal microbiota will produce plenty of butyrate from the fermentable fiber so provided, and your microbiome will reward you in health benefits accordingly.
Now in my personal experience, getting substantially more fermentable fiber increases those benefits. Someone who suffers from SIBO might find the going tough. But there are particular fermentable fiber types -long chain inulin is one - that seems to be preferentially fermented at the distal end of the colon. And the immunoprotective effect of providing colon commensals (but not S.I escapees) with plenty of butyrate producing food also seems to help with the SIBO eventually too.

I do agree that butyrate is a very healthy substance. The mechanisms of why it's most potent when colon bacteria produce it from fermentable fiber are very well understood. It's been extensively researched for over fifty years.
It wouldn't be relevant if we didn't have a colon, full of bacteria, from a couple of days after you are born till your dying day whatever diet you eat. You have to keep those bacteria healthy, or your colon (and all the myriad interrelationships between the colon and the rest of your body - particularly the immunomodulatory role it plays) will suffer won't it? 80% of our immune system? If it was only 20% it would still seem like a good idea.

Lots of information coming out of you today, Stuart. A veritable feast! I have nothing to add, but I think I will instead provide a critique of your writing style: I find it elegant.

 

[XPlus]

I get the impression you're not making any distinction between the metabolic effects of fermentable and non fermentable fiber. Is there some reason for that? It's fermentable fiber that's so important for a fully functioning microbiome. Non fermentable fiber in humans is just to provide bulk to your stool.

I thought all fibre ferments. Even Peat's carrot is supposed to ferment, eventually.
There are fibres that are easily ferementable (e.g. lettuce) and ones that just more resistant to bacterial fermentation (e.g. wheat bran, bamboo shoots) but I'm not aware of any fibre that isn't fermentable except for microfibre, carbon fibre and fiberglass.

You identified 'removal of toxins' as something your microbiota does. Isn't that the liver's job?

I'm assuming that the main function of physiology is to provide energy to cells and filter out the byproducts of this process. So I'm assigning essentiality to anything that is involved in this process and I wonder where the bacteria fits in this model.

I don't actually think your microbiome plays much of a role in removal of toxins. It's more about the immune system, and of course vitamin manufacture/absorption. Probably just as important is its role in preventing inflammation - all over the body, not just in the colon itself. Don't forget mineral absorption either. Without a powering microbiome, you'll have much more difficulty absorbing minerals.

It is not possible to get to get vitmain/mineral needs by direct absorption from food?
Also, is it not possible for the human system to take care of it's immune function without bacteria?

I'm unconvinced.

 

[EnoreeG]

Some have mentioned we need to try to steer clear of certain soils, etc. due to possible contaminants such as toxic chemicals. I don't think that's a concern. To add a new species, all you need is a dust particle or a clay particle. It's still going to have maybe a dozen species that you don't currently have inside you. What's the chance it will have a significant amount of mercury, lead or uranium? Nil, I'd say. My main avoidance would be anywhere herbicides/insecticides might lurk.

You are probably right that only a very tiny amount of soil would be needed to get in more microrganisms.
But I am not so indifferent to lead and other toxins in sub/urban soils, and the effects of lead on brain development, particularly on growing childrens' brains, and other health issues.

My own lead levels are borderline high, and others in my neighbourhood have significantly higher levels. None of us were deliberately eating soil, but many of us gardened, and ate food from the garden, and the children are often muddy. Lead arsenate was a common pesticide a few decades ago. Many suburban areas are built on former a market gardens and orchards. They eliminated lead in petrol because the evidence of harm was incontrovertible. Every time someone sanded and repainted an old house, or the lead paint wore off the glass houses, there could be more lead in the soil. Lead sticks to the soil for a very long time.

I read up on this a bit last year. Apparently if there is lead in the soil, it can be significantly taken up by leafy greens, roots, stalks, in the free-range eggs, etc, and the dust and soil on the surface doesn't always wash off easily and completely. But the main way kids get lead is by ingesting soil and dust from playing on the ground and on dusty floors etc.

Arsenic washes away in water quicker than lead, but fence posts etc can add very high concentrations in close proximity. Arsenic messes with pyruvate dehydrogenase. I don't know if that's the only way it messes with health, but it is pretty important.
Persistent organic pesticides can stick around for decades too.

I don't know that lead is a significant factor in undermining my health, but I'm not ruling it out.

Scary, tara! Good you are watching the intake of additional lead. What are you doing to detox?

Detox from Heavy Metals

nerotoxin protocol

I use this second method to get rid of some mercury from amalgam fillings. Notice the exit route is via the liver throwing toxins into bile, and the gallbladder dumping this into the small intestine. Toxins will just get reingested though without sufficient fiber to carry out the toxins (not just mercury, cadmium and lead, but also estrogens as we talked about before) in the stool. Notice the 2nd article mentions the value of pectin as well as charcoal for capturing the toxins so they aren't readsorbed.

 

[Stuart]

I get the impression you're not making any distinction between the metabolic effects of fermentable and non fermentable fiber. Is there some reason for that? It's fermentable fiber that's so important for a fully functioning microbiome. Non fermentable fiber in humans is just to provide bulk to your stool.

I thought all fibre ferments. Even Peat's carrot is supposed to ferment, eventually.
There are fibres that are easily ferementable (e.g. lettuce) and ones that just more resistant to bacterial fermentation (e.g. wheat bran, bamboo shoots) but I'm not aware of any fibre that isn't fermentable except for microfibre, carbon fibre and fiberglass.

No, fermentable fiber can be used by your colon microbiota for food, but not by your upper digestive tract. So it arrives in your colon intact. The bacteria which live in the colon produce enzymes which allow the nutrients to be absorbed and metabolized Pectin is an example of a 'fermentable fiber'. 'Collagen is another. But there are very many indeed. The oligosaccharides in breast milk, called HMO's (human milk oligosaccharides) are yet another. Whereas non fermentable fiber cannot be metabolized by colon bacteria either and just end up in your stool unchanged. The cellulose in your 'Dad's lettuce is one kind of nonfermentable fiber. The distinction between fermentable fiber and non fermentable is essential if you are interested in the role of the microbiome in the health of the human body.

You identified 'removal of toxins' as something your microbiota does. Isn't that the liver's job?

I'm assuming that the main function of physiology is to provide energy to cells and filter out the byproducts of this process. So I'm assigning essentially to anything that is involved in this process and I wonder where that bacteria fits in this model.

I'm afraid that's a bit simplistic. Various parts of the body do different things to ensure the whole organism gets energy, expels waste products, and resists attack by pathogens and environmental stressors. But the human body (in fact any multicellular organism) is a combination of extremely specialized parts. Even whole organs, like the liver or your colon are made up of very speciallized parts, and those parts .... all the way down to molecular level. Your brain has a completely different function to your liver after all. And the exquisite beauty of the whole organism is that every part is intricately connected with every other part, including the colon. EnoreeG was pointing out that the colon (and the bacteria it contains) has a very important role in our immune system, that's all.

I don't actually think your microbiome plays much of a role in removal of toxins. It's more about the immune system, and of course vitamin manufacture/absorption. Probably just as important is its role in preventing inflammation - all over the body, not just in the colon itself. Don't forget mineral absorption either. Without a powering microbiome, you'll have much more difficulty absorbing minerals.

It is not possible to get to get vitmain/mineral needs by direct absorption from food?
Also, is it not possible for the human system to take care of it's immune function without bacteria?

Not sure what you mean by 'direct absorption'. Through your skin? Soles of your feet.? Obviously some part of the body has to do the absorbing. In the human body different nutrients from food are absorbed at different parts of your digestive tract. Macro nutrients ( protein fat and carbohydrate) in your upper digestive tract. and vitamins and minerals in your colon. Colon microbiota can even manufacture (after which they are absorbed) certain vitamins, particularly vit K. The walls of your colon can even absorb the short chain fatty acids that commensal gut bacteria produce from fermentable fiber (for example the pectin in fruit) One of the powerful mechanisms for fermentable fiber to lower the risk of colon cancer is by lowering the pH of your colon.

Well lets do the Math. If your microbiome mediates 80 % of your immune system, that leaves the rest of your body only able to put up a 20% effort. A bit shabby wouldn't you say?

I'm unconvinced.

Fair enough

 

[EnoreeG]

I always think of the gut microbiome as the 1st line of defense, not the 2nd. I like that writers claim it constitutes 80% of the immune system. I'm just saying what I like, because XPlus has asked for proof of bacteria being essential to physiological function:

You’re correct. It could be thought of as the first line in defense in a functional sense.
In the metaphoric sense I intended, I meant to refer to its function as having a secondary supportive role.

I'd still like to find out whether bacteria are essential to provision of energy and filtration of toxins, in a sense that the body, cannot do without their presence.

so I don't know what is required for proof if studies are insufficient.

Yes, studies are meaningless if their theoretical premise is inconsistent with “real-life” application. In my experience, this is the case with the increasingly-popular ideas promoted by the microbiome research.

I don’t have much training in the area of scientific research but I know that not all studies are engineered efficiently and do not produce meaningful results (e.g.caffeine shortens lifespan by shortening telomeres). Also, some studies just fail when people experiment with their recommendations.

One finance professor I know from NSW claims confidently that he’s capable of disproving the vast majority of studies in the literature by pointing out holes in their methodologies.
Regardless of discipline, studies use same methodologies and I doubt that studies in medicine are more solid than those of economics and finance (i.e. reference to the recent economic crisis).
Nowadays, most scientific studies are a sophisticated way of telling people “My milkshake is better than yours”.

When I experiment with something that I haven’t tried before and it happens to takes care of my problems, I know this is real progress beyond doubt and speculation, beyond theory and philosophy.

On your statement elsewhere that the dominant species in the gut can change quite rapidly, that may be the case, but it doesn't prove that the bacteria are insignificant. All that happens if dominant species of bacteria change, is something like a "changing of the guard" at any military post. The enemy is still known and identified, you just have a different beneficial species (or 2 or dozens) that are now prominent, thanks to different foods being ingested.

Yes, that argument will require more backing from my side. However, your argument just blows off the idea of bacterial balance and the many other arguments suggesting how static it is.

As I've said elsewhere, I eat to first feed my immune system, which is primarily microbial, and second to get the nutrition I need, while making sure my "nutritious" foods don't do anything to hamper those microbes.

Most recommendations inline with yours are based on the idea that people don’t eat enough fibre but looking around me, people actually seem to eat more than enough.

I don’t know of anyone who neglects their gut bacteria (as Stuart proposes). Most food in the industrialized world have some sort of fibre in them. Be it Xanthan gum, Arabic gum, Guar gum, pectin or carrageenan. There’s fibre in your chips, fibre in your burger, fiber in your pizza and even fibre in your can of Pepsi. Also, almost all the people I ever met eat their fruit and salad regularly if not every day. So even if not everyone binges on bags of psyllium husks, there’s still a great deal of fibre in most people’s diet.

Wherever I travel I find people eat a lot of fiber. Be it rice, bread, fruits and vegetables. These make up the list of basic foods most people eat on the planet. Yet, there’s an increasing number of people dealing with bad digestion, acne, UTIs, bad breath, back pain, gas and bloating.

It seems like there's enough fibre to put those bacteria in a perpetual state of satiety.

The problem I find with much of thoughts about bacteria is that it's inline with the very simplistic, rigid perception of the organism, where you hear people talk about things like membranes, receptors, pipes pumps, genes and no one really figures out an answer to questions.
The increasingly popular thoughts on the gut are in line with this conventional thinking. It can't be correct because that which it has been built upon is incorrect.


If you really think that we've the answer to this, and know what exactly causes certain diseases and conditions like diabetes, IBS and IBD, for example, then why aren't we capable of resolving them. The answer is simple. It's because we haven't really figured it out and we've been beating around the bush.

We could spend a whole day figuring a way out of a maze but someone else looking down at it from a distance could figure it out in seconds.

Now all I know is there are a bunch of gentlemen in their 50s and 60s (including my father) who’ve recently discovered the magic health benefits of eating more lettuce. I don’t know what you guys ate when you were young but I’ve had more fiber than the sheikh of Qatar uses to produce gas.

If today you suddenly realise that you need more fiber to improve transit and stool quality in compensation for improper nutrition, then tomorrow you'll need digestive enzymes to process more of it and end up ordering HCL after reading that article on Chris Kresser's website. The next thing you know, you'll end up reading a 700 page book written by a kiwi trying to figure out a way to get rid of that bad thrush.

Good thoughts, XPlus.

You said

I'd still like to find out whether bacteria are essential to provision of energy and filtration of toxins, in a sense that the body, cannot do without their presence.

Stuart has replied to this already, but I'll just say I don't think gut bacteria are essential for either of these functions. They provide some vitamins, a little short chain fatty acids, and don't do much to remove toxins. Nothing essential here.

You are unique in most circles by almost categorically refusing to believe studies. That is a prejudice, but it isn't at all unjustified. AND it's efficient! Yes, studies are funded. One strike against them. However, for those of us who are quite qualified to critique a study (not me), and who can find several studies who claim to have found the same results on an issue, I think there can be, in that one reviewer, some satisfaction that a point has been proven, regardless how small in terms of the whole body of knowledge. So I still like studies, and also reading what reviewers think of the studies.

So you are left believing what? Testimonies? Your own observations only? The latter at least seems to be the case when you say

When I experiment with something that I haven’t tried before and it happens to takes care of my problems, I know this is real progress beyond doubt and speculation, beyond theory and philosophy.

I do this also. I like the studies though as substantiation, as they often don't just prove the result comes from the cause, but they often have theories about why, which to me is very entertaining, and which I allow myself to believe per their idea, provided I remind myself that the theory part I am only believing and not accepting as perpetual truth.

For instance, I said recently on this thread that I've had no gut issues for 40 years, while eating a very nutrient dense and relatively high fiber diet. What's going on inside I can't tell, but no pain means no worries. I can deduce that my diet is good for me.

Further, I can read some studies about fiber and decide to believe that the fiber may be part of the cause for health, because fiber maintains healthy species of bacteria that are supposed to suppress pathogenic species. I read further, and believe that healthy people all over the world have been checked for the inhabitants of their microbiome (only in the last 3-5 years, since genetic sequencing has become practical and relatively inexpensive) and have been found to have quite different proportions of many (hundreds) species of bacteria. However, none of these healthy people have even moderate percentages of pathogenic species in their gut. So when a theory is proposed, or even studies are done showing that commensal bacteria can count pathogens, and want to keep the gut environment safe for their own purposes, and thus always limit the numbers of pathogens, I choose to believe this theory for the results they find. Results for instance, that additional pathogens can be introduced, and they will also be squelched by the commensals up to a certain point. At that point, when there is a very heavy pathogen load, the pathogens, who also can count, know their power, and dare to release a virulence that causes problems such as destruction of the endothelium and entry of pathogens into the body.

So I don't have a problem with accepting (as a personal belief only) theories as to why my gut stays healthy, and my body along with it. For instance, in this study:
The role of gut microbiota in immune homeostasis

We find

A reduction in Firmicutes and Bacteroides species and an overgrowth of proteobacteria has been characterized in IBD patients.67,68 Interestingly, similar changes in the microbial communities were found in a mouse model of acute colitis, where inflammation was induced by the adoptive transfer of transgenic CD8+ T cells that attacked the intestinal epithelium.69

Despite compelling evidence that demonstrates dysbiosis in patients and animals with IBD, it is difficult to assign host-predisposing factors that cause dysbiosis. However, two animal studies have elegantly demonstrated that intestinal inflammation can be the major cause of dysbiosis, leading to the selection of microbiota species with a colitogenic phenotype. T-bet is a member of the T-box transcription factor family that plays a crucial role in the regulation of immune cells. T-bet−/−Rag−/− ulcerative colitis (TRUC) mice have colonic inflammation that resembles ulcerative colitis in humans.70 The colitis in TRUC mice is driven by the overproduction of the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF-α by colonic DCs and transfer of the microbiota from TRUC mice into wild type recipients transmits colitis. A later study discovered that the presence of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis in TRUC mice can elicit colitis in SPF but not GF wildtype mice.71 This suggested that Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis worked in concert with other members of the endogenous microbial community to induce inflammation.

To me, this says they have to introduce a certain species of bacteria, in a certain dose, to bring about a pathology. They are assuming that without artificial introduction of this pathogen, the rat stays free of ulcerative colitis.

At another point in this citation, they mention that type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune condition can be prevented in female mice just by presence of significant numbers of one ccommensal species of bacteria:

A more recent study reported that a single commensal species, SFB, can protect female NOD mice against diabetes.91

It's just more "study talk" that I find available to believe if I wish, for an explanation of how even a varying set of dominant, commensal bacterial species are able to protect me, year after year, from pathogens, regardless of how I have changed diet. Two things I haven't done in these years of health though are: 1) I haven't taken antibiotics, and 2) I haven't even thought about reducing the fiber in my diet, let alone had even more than a day or two where the fiber was NOT quite plentiful.

Yes, again, I believe the theory, for now, that fiber feeds large intestinal bacteria which, regardless of species, as long as they are aligned with my immune system due to their type, keep pathogens totally in check. The fiber and the commensal bacteria together with the vitamins and fats they produce keep my mucus barrier and endothelium in good health and that essentially is my immune system, as the gut is by far the dirtiest part of the universe I am continually in contact with. All other assaults on my health pale in comparison with what I have right inside my gut. I believe I obviously need this immune system. Just a belief though to explain to me why I seem to stay in good health.

You said

However, your argument just blows off the idea of bacterial balance and the many other arguments suggesting how static it is.

Where is there an argument that the balance of bacteria in the gut is static? Other than the "balance" of commensals (whatever the species happen to be this week) tremendously outweighing the pathogens (whatever the species happen to be this week), I don't understand bacterial balancing.