Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: technosmith on October 26, 2010, 03:27:37 am
-
Hey,
Does eating raw meat repopulate your gut bacteria, or is it only high meat that does this?
I currently take a probiotic supplement. Any thoughts on this?
(I don't do dairy by the way)
Phil
-
probiotic supplements shouldn't be necessary on a raw paleo diet.On raw paleo your gut ecology should find its own balance and if you are eatting mostly meat and fat the bacterial make up of your digestive track will differ from guts full of the acidophiles strains that are in most supplements, designed for the SAD gut. High meat does help me with meat digestion, but it is not necessary in order to populate the gut with wholesome bacteria.
If you are not eatting dairy then you definitely don't probiotic supplements, accidopilus is only good for digesting dairy and plant matter. Try to age your meats slightly and if you can tolerate aged meats then try to start some high meat if you are interested in priming the gut for optimum meat digestion.
I have yet to here to compaints about aged meats so it seems like a good place to start populating the gut with meat eatting microbs
-
Probiotic supplements are a waste of time, except possibly for EM/effective microorganisms products.
Fresh, raw meat does have bacteria in it but because the gut kills off 99 percent of the incoming bacteria, it is quicker and better to use high meat instead.
-
Hi,
Would it be reasonable to make high meat this way;
- Chop up the meat
- Put it in a glass jar with a sealable lid
- Put the glass jar inside a plastic bucket, which also has a lid
- Air it out everyday just by opening the lid of the plastic bucket, and then opening the lid of the glass jar for 1-2 seconds.
- Leave for 1 month +
I was thinking of putting the bucket in the garage. Its pretty cold at the moment, so don't think it will be much warmer than the fridge.
This sound OK?
-
You can try but I bet it still stinks out your garage...
-
Could it be that all this talk about gut flora might not be very important?
Those who had their colons removed live more or less normal lives for decades.
-
Could it be that all this talk about gut flora might not be very important?
I think its important...isn't that why when you take antibiotics and kill your gut flora you get problems?
Check on wiki how many functions gut flora has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
-
I think its important...isn't that why when you take antibiotics and kill your gut flora you get problems?
that's just a guess, nothing more.
no one disputes that antibiotics are a bad thing, how much bad is open for interpretation.
few times i had to take them i had no problems that i could notice. the only noticeable thing was my poop was unusually soft.
most people who take antibiotics never notice any issues.
if i was selling pro-biotics i would tell you gut flora is the most important thing ever.
if i was selling antibiotics i'd tell you it is not that important.
bottom line, no one knows
-
that's just a guess, nothing more.
It's guess based on some kind of research, not a random guess pulled out of a hat... If you would like to point me to research which says gut flora is of no importance I'd be happy to read it.
no one disputes that antibiotics are a bad thing, how much bad is open for interpretation.
it is known people don't get as many problems from antibiotics if they take any kind of probiotics, even just kefir.
most people who take antibiotics never notice any issues.
true, but who is to say they aren't helping by themselves by taking probiotics, or that the ones who took it had good gut flora to begin with...
if i was selling pro-biotics i would tell you gut flora is the most important thing ever.
if i was selling antibiotics i'd tell you it is not that important.
true, but there are many sources that talk about gut flora beneficial functions that are not recommending or selling probiotics
and there is sources not against antibiotics that still say probiotics are important
all I know is, my digestion has become better with eating raw meats, raw foods, fermented foods and especially aged raw meats...
it just makes sence to me that critters in your tummy are a good thing :D
-
(here is my eureka moment)
Bacteria are at the base of all animial life on earth. Its the bacteria that provide us with the building blocks for all animal life. Gut bacteria benefit both carnivore and herbivore alike. Consider herbivores , they eat foliage; well with such a poor amount of nutritional value in their diet how do they get all those wonderfull b vitamins that us carnivorous type need so much of to keep healthy. The decomposing bodies of gut flora and other substances excreted by the bacteria within the gut must provide the raw materials essential for life in these tasty animals and without bacteria the herbivore could not live. So herbivores aren't even vegetarian, they are in essence BACTERIAN.(coined it myself). Even in the gut of carnivores there are other types of bacteria that can break down the flesh into more pure and absorbable fuel. As well as I suspect there could be a positive steroid effect caused by chemicals given off by bacteria that provide great benefits and promote optimum growth and vitality at the cellular level. Think about it, its the bacteria first and formost that made the primordial soup on which all multi- cellular animals need for nourishment.
-
It is also known that families that over-use chemical cleaners etc, to kill all these bad bacteria, and are very bacteria-phobic about everything, get sick more and their kids develop allergies...so if this is the effect that it has when its happening in the environment around you, its easy to imagine it has the exact same effect on the environment inside you. No surprise gut flora is known to help metabolizing, preventing allergies & IBD...and the levels of certain bacteria control whether one is prone to obesity or not.
-
Bacteria are at the base of all animial life on earth.........
you can praise all you want, but bacteria is not essential for human body. bacteria is certainly beneficial and provides helpful functions but these functions are not essential. that's why many people live for many years without colon (bacteria resides the colon).
think of it like gall bladder or spleen, very useful organs but not essential.
-
yes, whats not essential can definitely be useful...
many people have wisdom teeth out, I have all mine, yeah I could be ok without them, but they are sharp as fangs and help me rip through meat and crush any food or bones...
many people successfully reproduce, live to an old age on SAD diet...so raw paleo is not essential for that, but its still a very important topic...
same with gut flora, even not essential, but its very useful, and important....
-
I disagree, Bacteria is essential to life, if the gut was completely void of bacteria then we could not live.
The major bulk of our fecal matter is bacteria and without bacteria in the gut your health would deteriorate and you would die. Without the bacteria breaking down indigestible matter and excreting their life giving nutrients the gut would become infested with fungus and you would die of a combination of fungal overgrowth poisoning and Mal nutrition
It is also known that families that overuse chemical cleaners etc, to kill all these bad bacteria, and are very bacteria-phobic about everything, get sick more and their kids develop allergies...so if this is the effect that it has when its happening in the environment around you, its easy to imagine it has the exact same effect on the environment inside you. No surprise gut flora is known to help metabolizing, preventing allergies & IBD...and the levels of certain bacteria control whether one is prone to obesity or not.
There is defiantly some overzealous obsessing being done about the dangers of bacteria, what is really worrisome to me in particular are the anti baterial agents that they now lace all soaps with, that crap you get in public restrooms is always laced with it. It is poisonous to humans,not only that but agents like triclosan are hormone disrupting and will damage the endocrine system and diminish the male drive and cause hormonal havoc in both men and women.(It is literally in every single personal care product given to prisoners in their care packs, if you find your self in jail be warned) even low doses have been proven to be endocrine disrupting. It diminishes overall life force and vitality by interfering with thyroid function as well.
In August 2009, the Canadian Medical Association asked the Canadian government to ban triclosan use in household products under concerns of creating bacterial resistance and producing dangerous side products (chloroform).[20]
Reports have suggested that triclosan can combine with chlorine in tap water to form chloroform ,[21] which the United States Environmental Protection Agency classifies as a probable human carcinogen. As a result, triclosan was the target of a UK cancer alert, even though the study showed that the amount of chloroform generated was less than amounts often present in chlorinated drinking waters.
Triclosan also reacts with the free chlorine in tap water to produce lesser amounts of other compounds, like 2,4-dichlorophenol.[21] Most of these intermediates convert into dioxins upon exposure to UV radiation (from the sun or other sources). Although small amounts of dioxins are produced, there is a great deal of concern over this effect, because some dioxins are extremely toxic and are very potent endocrine disruptor's. They are also chemically very stable, so that they are eliminated from the body very slowly (they can bioaccumulate to dangerous levels), and they persist in the environment for a very long time.
Triclosan is chemically somewhat similar to the dioxin class of compounds. Its production leads to small amounts of residual polychlorinated dioxins, and polychlorinated furans, which are contained in small amounts, in the products that are using it.
A 2006 study concluded that low doses of triclosan act as an endocrine disruptor in the North American bullfrog.[22] The hypothesis proposed is that triclosan blocks the metabolism of thyroid hormone, because it chemically mimics thyroid hormone, and binds to the hormone receptor sites, blocking them, so that normal hormones cannot be used. Triclosan has also been found in both the bile of fish living downstream from waste water processing plants and in human milk.[23] The negative effects of triclosan on the environment and its questionable benefits in toothpastes[24] has led to the Swedish Naturskyddsföreningen to recommend not using triclosan in toothpaste.[25] Another 2009 study demonstrated that triclosan exposure significantly impacts thyroid hormone concentrations in the male juvenile rats.[26]
Triclosan is used in a variety of common household products, including soaps, mouthwashes, dish detergents, toothpastes, deodorants, and hand sanitizers.[27] In the United States, manufacturers of products containing triclosan must indicate it on the label.
The American Dental Association published a response to the concerns stemming from the Virginia Tech study [21] stating that the study is not relevant to toothpaste.[28]
The use of triclosan as an additive for plastic production for use in food packages had not been approved by the EC.[29]
-
just intersted are raw eggs contain any good bacteria for the flora?
and people say its improves digestin (raw eggs) is it because of the bacteria it offers to the flora??
-
I disagree, Bacteria is essential to life
to a herbivore yes it is very essential, to a human body it is not.
-
just intersted are raw eggs contain any good bacteria for the flora?
the eggs are sterile, there are no bacteria in them, the only bacteria it can have is when it gets contaminated from outside.
-
I still disagree; >: Gut Bacteria is essential, can I get a witness.
If just a couple of doses of antibiotic can cause a yeast overgrowth by wiping out friendly bacteria , imagine what would happen without any gut bacteria. Fungal life forms would eat you alive and you would die a horrible death. The bacteria provide bio chemical protection against the fungus and are essential for keeping the gut ecology in balance. Bacteria is ever present within the body's of all humans, and no one can live without it, so I call it essential.
Can anyone dispute this point by point
-
One thing I can confirm is that antibiotics use really f*cked me up. I ended up vomiting and feeling like death for days. And the idiot nurse told me that it was physically impossible to get a reaction to antibiotics.
-
And the idiot nurse told me that it was physically impossibke to get a reaction to antibiotics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancomycin#Red_man_syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancomycin#Red_man_syndrome) I wish those nurses would get retrained. I've had an awful experience with antibiotic reaction, actually several. Most of the doctors/nurses pretended it wasn't happening while it was happening. Convenient for them to play that, when they don't have to suffer. At least one doctor was good about it, thank goodness. Even then, they should warn you of the possible dangers. Antibiotic reactions can be very serious.
-
Bacteria is ever present within the body's of all humans, and no one can live without it, so I call it essential.
not true, if it were then how do you explain people without colons living more or less normal lives for decades? without any bacteria.
and second false statement, you do not find bacteria within human body, ONLY IN THE COLON, the rest of human body is sterile.
i urge everyone to read anatomy books (college level) before making dubious claims and comments regarding human anatomy.
-
I am afraid that the 2nd is a false statement as bacteria are found in the oral cavity, the vagina and the rest of the intestinal system(small intestine, for example):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
While it is accurate to state that the colon harbours most of the bacteria within the human body it certainly does not contain all of them, and the rest of the gastrointestinal tract has some too.
-
I am afraid that the 2nd is a false statement as bacteria are found in the oral cavity, the vagina and the rest of the intestinal system(small intestine, for example)
While it is accurate to state that the colon harbours most of the bacteria within the human body it certainly does not contain all of them, and the rest of the gastrointestinal tract has some too.
agreed, so here is the follow up question, bacteria in oral cavity is it beneficial or harmful?
-
I am not going to answer for the mouth bacteria, but I know the bacteria in the vagina is very useful.
Without it a woman will be prone to yeast infections and other infections, this is one of the reasons they tell women not to take a douche, because that will wash out good bacteria which will lead to an imbalance.
Bacteria may not be essential if you live in a sterile bubble, but our natural lives are surrounded by bacteria.
EDIT: oh and I am not sure but bacteria in the mouth may be used for digestion, or if you have some food particles or whatever else in your mouth, the beneficial bacteria should use that...if you only put sterile food in your mouth you may not need it but who wants to eat sterile food....that isn't healthy
-
you can praise all you want, but bacteria is not essential for human body. bacteria is certainly beneficial and provides helpful functions but these functions are not essential. that's why many people live for many years without colon (bacteria resides the colon).
think of it like gall bladder or spleen, very useful organs but not essential.
Bacteria and other microbiota are found on all internal and external surfaces of human beings that are exposed to the environment--the skin, eyes, nose, and the entire GI tract from the mouth to the anus--not just the colon.
See:
Can We Live Without Bacteria?
http://ruralneurosurgery.org/?p=309
You cannot live without bacteria!
http://www.radiomartie.com/moreinfo/cant_live.shtml
Probiotics: Beneficial Bacteria You Just Can't Live Without
http://www.drwolff.com/articles/04032008_probiotics.html
(P)robiotics are actually defined as: "live microorganisms, which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host." (Microorganisms are tiny living organisms--such as bacteria, viruses, and yeasts--that can be seen only under a microscope.) Long story short, they're a few of the "good", beneficial bacteria that reside in our guts that we literally can't live without. And, although the majority of these bacteria live in our large and small intestines, they're also found in the mouth, esophagus, stomach, upper airway, skin and vagina.
So the answer is, no, you cannot possibly live without bacteria in and on at least some parts of your body and even people who have had their colons removed still have bacteria in and on their bodies. If you rephrased your question to be "Can I live without a colon?" the answer would be yes, obviously. However, if you have a functioning colon, then it has some bacteria in it, even if you suffer from gut dysbiosis as a result of antibiotic treatments.
-
you cannot possibly live without bacteria
well, you are assuming that ALL bacteria in the body is beneficial, i highly doubt that. i don't think there is any benefit of bacteria that's under fingernails.
-
But the fact that not all bacteria are beneficial is another good reason why we need the good bacteria...
-
well, you are assuming that ALL bacteria in the body is beneficial, i highly doubt that. i don't think there is any benefit of bacteria that's under fingernails.
Actually, you're assuming that I'm making that assumption, which I'm not. On the contrary, I'm fully aware that there are neutral (or their benefit is as yet undiscovered) and pathogenic bacteria, including lethal ones, and I have written about them in this very forum (and they are also discussed in some of the links I provided here and in other threads). We can live without lethal bacteria, but we cannot live without the good ones and we cannot avoid having some bacteria and other microbiota in and on our bodies. It's impossible to avoid them.
As a matter of fact, some scientists have lately started referring to us humans as "[amalgamations] of human and microbial parts":
"We think that there are 10 times more microbial cells on and in our bodies than there are human cells. That means that we're 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human. There's also an estimated 100 times more microbial genes than the genes in our human genome. So we're really a compendium [and] an amalgamation of human and microbial parts."
Gordon's research shows that these microbes living in our bodies aren't just there for the ride — they're actively contributing to the normal physiology of the human body. He points to the trillions of microbes that live in our gut, doing everything from encoding enzymes to serving as pathways for vitamin production to digesting the parts of food we can't digest on our own.
"We're trying to understand how these compendia of microbes operate as a community — how they are shaped by the habitats in which they live and, in turn, how they shape us," he says.
....
Gordon has also looked at the role microbes in the gut play in combating diseases.
He points to an example of a patient infected with the Clostridium difficile bacteria, which causes severe diarrhea and can frequently return, even when treated with antibiotics. The patient was treated with a transfusion of gut microbials from a healthy individual's fecal material to restore the bacterial flora in the intestinal tract — and symptoms improved.
"Most people have this view of our encounters with microbes from the perspective of disease. But that couldn't be farther from the truth," Gordon says. "Most of our interactions with microbes are beneficial and are healthy. And here you have an example of a transplantation of a microbial community ... to help cure this reoccurring and relapsing and severe disease."
--Jeffrey Gordon, Director of the Center for Genome Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, Bacterial Bonanza: Microbes Keep Us Alive, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129862107
But the fact that not all bacteria are beneficial is another good reason why we need the good bacteria...
correct
-
Life is a never ending biological war being waged by the countless forms of DNA against each other, for the right to live another generation. Fungal life forms have developed the ability to produce antibiotic poisons in order to subdue bacteria that would otherwise eat them, and bacteria have formed chemical defenses as well, both types of life forms are savagely trying to eat us every minuet of every day. Our body's have been designed to seek out and maintain a healthy balance of these organisms so that one pathogen cannot over take the whole shebang. If something is out of balance and if one harmfull organism becomes over populated then the immune system will purge it out, as long as the body is health and well nourished.
Some forms of bacteria and fungus are capable of producing poison and causing infection, but perhaps even the toxic strains may have some beneficial effects in small amounts. Low levels of poisonous excretions in the gut could have immune stimulating property's that function to regulate the overall bacteria profile of the gut. I still have doubts whether gut fungus or molds are really essential or if they are just an invasive enemy that only cause harm if they are allowed to grow unchecked. The antibiotic properties of molds and fungus can be very poisonous to humans and bacteria alike, and I am absolutely appalled by the way antibiotics are used by the medical field.
If you are so ill and have such a week immune system that you need an antibiotic in order to keep a mild infection under control , then there are some other serious health issues that need to be addressed. Most children where I live are never allowed to even try to fight off the mild infections that come with childhood and I honestly believe that many have had their immune system weakened and gut ecology destroyed by the use of antibiotics. I was put on antibiotics at six months old, two weeks after my 6 month vaccinations, for an ear infection(often after a vaccination the immune system becomes exhausted and leaves the body open to infection, I have seen it happen countless times)and once you are dosed with the stuff you end up even more damaged and less able to fight off future infection on your own. At a year old I had another major infection and had to be dosed again, and again at 18 months(many infections occurred within weeks of a vaccination(perhaps coincidence?)and after three years old I stopped fussing about ear pain and eventually the infections went away, I remember through my childhood that I would still get occasional infections but they would always go away on their own without antibiotics and I stayed fairly health through my teenage years. Almost every other member of my family in this generation has had to endure the same chronic ear and respiratory infection, but I have learned how to break the cycle and none of my kids has been vaccinated and have never had an infection that required antibiotics.(coincidence Perhaps?)
I just don't think most people are aware of how dangerous these synthetic variants of fungal poison are, My grandfather was allergic to penicillin and so was my father, I had an allergic reaction the last time I took antibiotics about 6 years ago when I first got real sick(hives from head to toe)My gut was never the same afterward. Does anyone else realize that many antibiotics contain the preservative Thimerisol (Mercury). I took agumentin which contains thimerisol, my father had a recent allergy test that showed he was allergic to thimerisol(allergic to mercury, Really?)perhaps many peoples immune reactions to antibiotics are exacerbated by other substances laced into the drug itself.
-
and second false statement, you do not find bacteria within human body, ONLY IN THE COLON, the rest of human body is sterile.
ys, where did get that info?
Have a look here:
"Strictly by the numbers, the vast majority — estimated by many scientists at 90 percent — of
the cells in what you think of as your body are actually bacteria, not human cells."
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/bacteria-r-us-23628/
-
good article, but a little vague.
can you elaborate this one?
P. aeruginosa and C. difficile are common residents of human bodies and under normal circumstances are benign.
where in human body? Organs? Blood? Muscles?
from the searches I concluded that bacteria is present only in the digestive tract, most of it in the colon, small percentage in stomach (h.pylori) for about 50% of population, some in small intestines, and some in the mouth cavity (i highly doubt that bacteria that lives on our teeth is beneficial).
my understanding is bones, muscles, blood, brain, all non-digestive internal organs and cavities are sterile unless they get bacterial infection as a result of injury.
it is also my understanding that newborns are completely sterile including the digestive tract. http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/colonization.html
if you can find reputable source that shows there is non-pathogenic bacteria in human cavity besides digestive tract and skin surface i'll gladly change my mind.
-
I didn't read that whole article majormark, but it looked to me like they were just talking about bacteria on the outside of us(digestive tract).
-
YS, this is a new wording you're using, different from that in your original statements:
...if you can find reputable source that shows there is non-pathogenic bacteria in human cavity besides digestive tract and skin surface i'll gladly change my mind.
You've correctly expanded beyond your original claim of bacteria being limited to the colon (quoting you: "...you do not find bacteria within human body, ONLY IN THE COLON, the rest of human body is sterile" (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/gut-bacteria/msg51255/#msg51255)), but you have still failed to include the vaginal and nasal cavities that Tyler and I mentioned. So your statements and questions are getting closer to the truth, but are not quite there yet.
-
I have had a nutritional blood analysis, A fancy title for looking at a drop of my blood through a high powered microscope and I saw it filled with what the technician referred to as respiratory bacteria, as well as blood parasites. I saw with my own eyes bacteria swimming in my bloodstream.
http://shangrilabiospa.com/livebloodcellanalysis.htm
Bacteria in the blood is a sign of a weak immune system.
-
yes, i have corrected myself to include the whole digestive tract as well as body surface which obviously has contact with foreign objects including bacteria, viruses, and other organisms. vaginal and nasal cavity is considered part of the body surface http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html
very detailed article, explains a lot.
conclusion: the closed loop cavities such as muscles, organs, blood, etc. in the healthy body do not have bacteria present. Organs and cavities that have contact or openings to the outside harbor both beneficial and harmful bacteria.
I saw with my own eyes bacteria swimming in my bloodstream.
bacteria in the blood may indicate some kind of infection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteremia
-
So I don't quite understand. If say, meat (muscle) has no bacteria present, why do people always say raw meats have "good bacteria"?
Same with raw milk?
-
Bacteria in the oral cavity cannot really be considered dangerous as it is actually one's diet that determines how well the teeth do. For example, when I consumed dairy or went in for raw vegan diets, my teeth almost fell out despite using antibacterial toothpastes etc. much of the time, whereas a rawpalaeodiet helped my teeth become and stay strong without the use of toothpaste.
-
So I don't quite understand. If say, meat (muscle) has no bacteria present, why do people always say raw meats have "good bacteria"?
Same with raw milk?
The meat has good bacteria on the outside digesting it since the animal was slaughtered. That's why searing the outside kills the bacteria.
I'm not sure on the mechanics of the milk. I assume since it's a liquid the bacteria that is in contact with the surface of the milk can pass into the core of the container easier and proliferate in the environment.
-
Humans as Ecosystems Old Friends Hypothesis
vaginal and nasal cavity is considered part of the body surface
Yes, as is the colon and rest of the GI tract and all areas that normally contain bacteria, exactly as I wrote:
Bacteria and other microbiota are found on all internal and external surfaces of human beings that are exposed to the environment--the skin, eyes, nose, and the entire GI tract from the mouth to the anus--not just the colon.
conclusion: the closed loop cavities such as muscles, organs, blood, etc. in the healthy body do not have bacteria present.
That's correct for healthy individuals. In infected individuals, the bacteria penetrate these areas, such as in the case of an infected wound and sinusitis infection in the normally sterile sinus cavities.
You're not claiming that anyone said that muscles, organs or blood normally contain bacteria in healthy individuals are you?
Organs and cavities that have contact or openings to the outside harbor both beneficial and harmful bacteria.
Correct, and recent science suggests that even "harmful bacteria" may play positive roles in certain limited circumstances (see Valerie Brown on this below) and some microbiota may be effectively neutral (though many of the ones currently regarded as neutral may have beneficial or harmful effects that are simply as yet unknown).
It's also not practical to kill all the bacteria everywhere on and in an adult human. It would require extraordinary bubble-boy type measures. Life-giving air, water and food all contain bacteria. So another conclusion is that while a human could live as a "bubble boy" for years and you can remove the colon from humans without killing them, you cannot remove all the bacteria from a human in a natural environment. To do so using artificial bubble-boy measures would likely produce sub-optimal results anyway, as indicated in the following sources (emphases mine):
Bacterial Bonanza: Microbes Keep Us Alive (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129862107), Jeffrey Gordon, Director of the Center for Genome Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis
"humans should start thinking of themselves as ecosystems, rather than discrete individuals"
Bacteria 'R Us (http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/bacteria-r-us-23628), Valerie Brown
"pathogens and beneficial bacteria are not necessarily mutually exclusive organisms. A microbe’s effects on the human body can depend on conditions. And if you approach the human body as an ecosystem, some researchers are finding, it may be possible to tune that system and prevent many diseases — from acute infections to chronic debilitating conditions — and even to foster mental health, through bacteria."
Helminthic therapy (incorrectly referred to as worm therapy): the reason for this site (http://www.jasper-lawrence.com/)
Jaspar Lawrence on the Old Friends Hypothesis (OFH) (a refinement of the Hygiene Hypothesis)--the idea that humans evolved to naturally have wider varieties and larger quantities of bacteria, worms and protozoa than what modern humans have and that this contributes to the diseases of civilization. The OFH makes the mistake of ignoring the contributing factor of diet in the development of the diseases of civilization, but I think the OFH likely explains another contributing factor and the OFH and dietary discordance are both part of the larger model of biological discordance.
Hadley C (2004) Should auld acquaintance be forgot (http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n12/full/7400308.html). EMBO Rep 5:1122-1124
"What we're talking about really is fundamental changes in lifestyle, it's not just the trivial matters of everyday domestic hygiene. It's the fact that we no longer drink water from the stream and we no longer have worms." --Graham Rook, a professor at the Centre for Infectious Diseases and International Health, London, main developer of the OFH
The Gut and Psychology Syndrome, Natasha Campbell-McBride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j-znlz8Xto&feature=related)
There's even a hypothesis that the mitochondria that exist within human cells and that are essential for human life evolved from bacteria:
Evolutionary Origin of Mitochondria
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/mitorigin.html
The endosymbiotic hypothesis for the origin of mitochondria (and chloroplasts) suggests that mitochondria are descended from specialized bacteria (probably purple nonsulfur bacteria) that somehow survived endocytosis by another species of prokaryote or some other cell type, and became incorporated into the cytoplasm. The ability of symbiont bacteria to conduct cellular respiration in host cells that relied on glycosis and fermentation would have provided a considerable evolutionary advantage. Similarly, host cells with symbiont bacteria capable of photosynthesis would also have an advantage. In both cases, the number of environments in which the cells could survive would have been greatly expanded.
So overall, bacteria and microbiota in general are crucially important for humans.
-
Review series on helminths, immune modulation and the hygiene hypothesis: the broader implications of the hygiene hypothesis.
Graham A W Rook
Immunology. 2009 Jan;126(1):3-11.
Centre for Infectious Diseases and International Health, London
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632706/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632706/)
Abstract
Man has moved rapidly from the hunter-gatherer environment to the living conditions of the rich industrialized countries. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that the resulting changed and reduced pattern of exposure to microorganisms has led to disordered regulation of the immune system, and hence to increases in certain inflammatory disorders. The concept began with the allergic disorders, but there are now good reasons for extending it to autoimmunity, inflammatory bowel disease, neuroinflammatory disorders, atherosclerosis, depression associated with raised inflammatory cytokines, and some cancers. This review discusses these possibilities in the context of Darwinian medicine, which uses knowledge of evolution to cast light on human diseases. The Darwinian approach enables one to correctly identify some of the organisms that are important for the 'Hygiene' or 'Old Friends' hypothesis, and to point to the potential exploitation of these organisms or their components in novel types of prophylaxis with applications in several branches of medicine.
Conclusion: ...in relation to allergic disorders the hypothesis is supported by epidemiology, experimental models and therapeutic trials, and backed up by the identification of relevant pathways and gene–environment interactions. Therefore, in view of man's unique ability to adapt to novel environments by means of culture and technology, faster than he can adapt by genetic change, it is logical to anticipate manifestations of gene–environment misfit in other disease contexts. ...
-
it is also my understanding that newborns are completely sterile including the digestive tract. http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/colonization.html (http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/colonization.html)
It's looking like the role of bacteria has been underestimated by even the most ardent proponents of the Old Friends Hypothesis and that fetuses may not be completely sterile after all. Some researchers now believe that fetuses have bacteria even before they are inoculated in the birth canal during natural childbirth. The sterile fetus notion apparently comes from an out-of-date assumption in 1900.
The New York Times: Human Microbiome May Be Seeded Before Birth
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/science/human-microbiome-may-be-seeded-before-birth.html?smid=pl-share (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/science/human-microbiome-may-be-seeded-before-birth.html?smid=pl-share)
We are each home to about 100 trillion bacteria, which we carry with us from birth till death. But when Juliette C. Madan was trained as a neonatologist in the mid-2000s, her teachers told her in no uncertain terms that we only acquire those bacteria after we are born. “It was clear as day, we were told, that fetuses were sterile,” she said.
Dr. Madan is now an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, and she’s come to a decidedly different view on the matter. “I think that the tenet that healthy fetuses are sterile is insane,” she said.
Dr. Madan and a number of other researchers are now convinced mothers seed their fetuses with microbes during pregnancy. They argue that this early inoculation may be important to the long-term health of babies. And manipulating these fetal microbes could open up new ways to treat medical conditions ranging from pre-term labor to allergies. They argue that this early inoculation may be important to the long-term health of babies. And manipulating these fetal microbes could open up new ways to treat medical conditions ranging from pre-term labor to allergies.
In 1900, the French pediatrician Henry Tissier declared unborn babies bacteria-free. Only when they started their journey down through the birth canal did they begin to get covered with microbes. The newborns then acquired more as they were handled and nursed.
“This was considered a kind of scientific dogma,” said Esther Jiménez Quintana of Complutense University of Madrid.
This dogma gained strength from studies on babies born prematurely. Infections are a major risk factor in early labor. Many researchers saw this as evidence that the only bacteria in the uterus were dangerous ones.
But scientists came to this conclusion without finding out whether healthy fetuses had bacteria, too. “It became a self-fulfilling prophecy,” said Dr. Madan.
That has started to change in the past few years. ....
-
Interesting, Phil. Good find.
-
Thanks Cheri.
WARNING: THIS GUT BACTERIA STUFF IS TURNING OUT TO BE HUGELY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALMOST ANYONE REALIZED!!!
Please, think twice about staying on a chronic ketogenic diet, especially one that is low in resistant starch and that you rarely or never come out of ketosis on and especially if you are not obese or have issues like:
- high fasting blood glucose
- cold fingers/hands/extremities/body, low body temperature in the early morning
- dry eyes
- chronic constipation or diarrhea
- history of antibiotic treatment
- history of autoimmune symptoms
(there are others)
Remember Aajonus saying that body fat was protective in some ways? That's one of the few things I think he probably got right.
More info to come. For now, please read Spanish Caravan's warnings at http://freetheanimal.com/2014/01/carbing-this-beast.html (http://freetheanimal.com/2014/01/carbing-this-beast.html) and whatever he writes in the future.
I have some comments there too, but his are especially important. Or if you don't want to read a cooked food blog for some bizarre reason, I guess you could check out my posts on resistant starch here and maybe search for info on raw foods high in resistant starch, and notice how they are all believed to be super healthy by the peoples that eat them. And also check for info here and elsewhere on the Old Friends Hypothesis.
-
Very interesting indeed, thanks Phil. I hadn’t read that thread: I only read this page 2 just now.
This confirms what I’ve always thought and said. Low carb and zero carb diets have nothing to do with a paleo nutrition.
-
Agreed, you were right Iguana. It's no wonder you've managed to stay on raw Paleo so long. If you had been ZC I think you would likely have been seriously ill by now, maybe even dead.
GCB was right to suspect that a raw diet too heavy in meat is problematic and may have contributed to his wife's cancer and death, probably not so much because it contained so much meat as because of what it probably didn't contain enough of to offset the mild stress from lots of lean meat and feed the gut bacteria--resistant starch and other prebiotics.
I know I asked for this before and it was voted down, but I hope it's becoming clearer now that it's time to bury ZC and completely disassociate this forum from it. Ban the term from any forum sub-heading. It's a nightmare. It's that serious. This is not hysterics, please believe me. I tried ZC for a few months myself out of curiosity, so it's not like I'm just blindly against it for no reason. It can actually improve symptoms in the short-term, which makes it misleading and therefore especially dangerous.
It kills off many of the good bacteria. Some even said that they eventually excrete almost no feces and they don't flatulate anymore. If that's true, that's horrific, not good. It would mean very little bacteria left, thus opening the way for extremely pathogenic bacteria to step in and take over later on. Once they take hold, it may be too late. The only hope I've seen for when the problem reaches that point is a fecal transplant and maybe raw honey, one of the last remaining therapeutics that can fight the super-germs of today.
I've said it before and now I'm even more convinced--humans cannot survive without bacteria. Bacteria are an essential part of what makes us human and keeps us alive.
-
I completely agree that ZC or VLC is probably detrimental over the long term, but my own experience suggests can be useful for shorter tern stints. For example, I suspect it was common for pre-agricultural peoples to go zero carb for stretches during the winter when carb containing foods weren't available, but once those foods because available again people knew to quickly add them back into their diets. I think there's a lot of gold to mine in seasonality, and exploring how seasonality can push us into dietary extremes for brief periods that deliver certain benefits.
-
Probably so, though as you likely know, some trees can provide berries during the winter or early spring. Typically, the berries are bitter in the fall so that birds and animals don't eat them too soon and they are still available when other fruits are gone, per what I've read. These trees could be life-saving and thus tended to be regarded as sacred.
Some Eskimos reportedly even froze berries to make them last through the winter. Sometimes they mixed them with other things like seal oil or pemmican to help preserve them and add flavor, IIRC.
Tyler won't like this bit, but if you believe that Europeans have even some ancient genes that originated in Africa, then the carby seasons were longer there, so presumably there would be a certain amount of adaptation to that, though who knows how much of that would have been canceled out by later Eurasian adaptation and mixing with Neanderthals/Denisovans. No proof one way or the other on how adapted we are to any particular place or time frame, of course, so it will be argued endlessly.
GCB of Instincto eating also thinks that humans originated in a tropical area and recommends tropical fruits in part for that reason, IIRC from his past posts.
Ray Peat, like GCB, claims that tropical fruits are healthier because they tend to contain saturated fats, instead of polyunsaturated, due to the warm climate, and because he also believes that humans originated in a tropical area and ate lots of tree foods in the original homeland.
Even some Tibetan Buddhist monks thought that "tree foods" were particularly good for longevity, which has been posted about before somewhere.
I'm not recommending any of these sources or drawing any conclusions, just sharing that the idea is out there that it may be more optimal to eat carby foods, particularly tropical carby foods, for a longer period than what's available fresh in cold climates. Some tropical fruits are fatty or starchy instead of sugary, so it gets rather complicated.
-
WARNING: THIS GUT BACTERIA STUFF IS TURNING OUT TO BE HUGELY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALMOST ANYONE REALIZED!!!
Please, think twice about staying on a chronic ketogenic diet, especially one that is low in resistant starch and that you rarely or never come out of ketosis on and especially if you are not obese or have issues like:
- high fasting blood glucose
- cold fingers/hands/extremities/body, low body temperature in the early morning
- dry eyes
- chronic constipation or diarrhea
- history of antibiotic treatment
- history of autoimmune symptoms
Phil, you have my undivided attention. I maintain low carb (<50g/day) to maintain good blood sugar control, but I think there is a link between supporting gut bacteria and further healing for me. As I understand the links you posted, a good plan would be to "count" RS using the list of resistant starches in food and aim for 20 - 30g of RS per day. Much of this would replace other carby foods, but I am not averse to exceeding 50g of carbs/day to achieve the RS goal. Does this should like a good plan to you?
Also, I'm wondering about gut bacteria... I already enjoy fermented foods. Should these be enough to "feed" the resistant starch? Or should I consider supplemental probiotics or other measures?
Thanks for your feedback.
-
Resistant starch is not a carb. I wish the word "starch" was not in the term, as it doesn't work like starch. It feeds essential gut bugs, not us. It is converted into fat by gut bacteria, so it should be counted as fat. However, it's only nearly pure RS if it's in the form of potato starch. With other foods, there would be both some regular starch and some RS.
-
Resistant starch is not a carb. I wish the word "starch" was not in the term, as it doesn't work like starch. It feeds essential gut bugs, not us. It is converted into fat by gut bacteria, so it should be counted as fat. However, it's only nearly pure RS if it's in the form of potato starch. With other foods, there would be both some regular starch and some RS.
Thanks for the clarification. It's an important distinction.
-
Agreed, you were right Iguana. It's no wonder you've managed to stay on raw Paleo so long. If you had been ZC I think you would likely have been seriously ill by now, maybe even dead.
GCB was right to suspect that a raw diet too heavy in meat is problematic and may have contributed to his wife's cancer and death, probably not so much because it contained so much meat as because of what it probably didn't contain enough of to offset the mild stress from lots of lean meat and feed the gut bacteria--resistant starch and other prebiotics.
I know I asked for this before and it was voted down, but I hope it's becoming clearer now that it's time to bury ZC and completely disassociate this forum from it. Ban the term from any forum sub-heading. It's a nightmare. It's that serious. This is not hysterics, please believe me. I tried ZC for a few months myself out of curiosity, so it's not like I'm just blindly against it for no reason. It can actually improve symptoms in the short-term, which makes it misleading and therefore especially dangerous.
It kills off many of the good bacteria. Some even said that they eventually excrete almost no feces and they don't flatulate anymore. If that's true, that's horrific, not good. It would mean very little bacteria left, thus opening the way for extremely pathogenic bacteria to step in and take over later on. Once they take hold, it may be too late. The only hope I've seen for when the problem reaches that point is a fecal transplant and maybe raw honey, one of the last remaining therapeutics that can fight the super-germs of today.
I've said it before and now I'm even more convinced--humans cannot survive without bacteria. Bacteria are an essential part of what makes us human and keeps us alive.
Wow. I think I really needed to read all this right now. Don't quite understand what RS is, but will keep reading.
-
I think you'd find if one did a study on the bacteria on low or zero carb, that there indeed are huge numbers, but of a different species... those that feed on fat and meat, as opposed to fibers or sugars. And that the fungi and yeasts that plague people would have died off for having little to feed on. Thus those who are successful with zc find little to worry about when thinking about invasive Pathogenic bacteria. In other words, I think you're over exaggerating the notion of bacteria free colons of meat eaters. Look at other meat eating species.
-
Oh my PP, you really are on a trip..? hehe
That is kind of ridiculous what you are writing above. You even suggest to get the zero carbers here banned? Wow.
I can tell you raw meat has a lot of bacteria! As has raw oysters... and seafood.. and.. about anything on this earth..lol
I really wonder how other carnivore species survive... >D
-
I think you'd find if one did a study on the bacteria on low or zero carb, that there indeed are huge numbers, but of a different species... those that feed on fat and meat, as opposed to fibers or sugars. And that the fungi and yeasts that plague people would have died off for having little to feed on. Thus those who are successful with zc find little to worry about when thinking about invasive Pathogenic bacteria.
Great idea Van, I was thinking exactly the same thing. Prove my concerns wrong by getting your gut microbiome tested. Yours would be an excellent case.
-
Oh my PP, you really are on a trip..? hehe
That is kind of ridiculous what you are writing above. You even suggest to get the zero carbers here banned? Wow.
No, I meant that the term ZC should not be used in any of the forum titles, to avoid giving the impression that we know it's safe to try. I think the ZCers and VLCers can be especially helpful by reporting what their gut microbiome test results show. I'm looking forward to seeing those. I hope it was much ado about nothing, but I've already been seeing some negative results from some folks who were tested.
-
I am sure I could find a credible source with a little research although if you have a link to a relativity cheap company that can test gut microbiome that would be great.
I can get mine tested in the near future although I am high carb but can serve as a good reference to compare with low carb.
-
I am sure I could find a credible source with a little research although if you have a link to a relativity cheap company that can test gut microbiome that would be great.
I can get mine tested in the near future although I am high carb but can serve as a good reference to compare with low carb.
Speaking of testing one's gut microbiome, here's a podcast with transcript from ChrisKresser.com with an interview from Jeff Leach from the American Gut Project: http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach (http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach).
Jeff Leach says, in part, "What’s interesting in American Gut is we have quite a few paleo dieters that have identified as paleo dieters in the study, and we need a lot more. It’s a group of people we’re very interested in, and we’re interested in the very low carbohydrate guys as well." There is a fee for participation.
-
No, I meant that the term ZC should not be used in any of the forum titles, to avoid giving the impression that we know it's safe to try. I think the ZCers and VLCers can be especially helpful by reporting what their gut microbiome test results show. I'm looking forward to seeing those. I hope it was much ado about nothing, but I've already been seeing some negative results from some folks who were tested.
I am very glad that there is ZC info here, but with lots of balanced feedback on it. It helps me recognize my own prior experiences with it for + & -. I don't know any other place I would get that.
-
Jeff Leach is a good source of info and has that American Gut test, and Dr. BG also recommends some tests. Google her to find her blog. She also comments at Free the Animal.
I am very glad that there is ZC info here, but with lots of balanced feedback on it. It helps me recognize my own prior experiences with it for + & -. I don't know any other place I would get that.
Right, failure stories can be more informative than success stories.
-
Speaking of testing one's gut microbiome, here's a podcast with transcript from ChrisKresser.com with an interview from Jeff Leach from the American Gut Project: http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach (http://chriskresser.com/you-are-what-your-bacteria-eat-the-importance-of-feeding-your-microbiome-with-jeff-leach).
Jeff Leach says, in part, "What’s interesting in American Gut is we have quite a few paleo dieters that have identified as paleo dieters in the study, and we need a lot more. It’s a group of people we’re very interested in, and we’re interested in the very low carbohydrate guys as well." There is a fee for participation.
If you listen carefully, Jeff iterates a least a couple of times, that he just doesn't know at this time as to whether a low carb diet that limits the amounts of starch for encouraging the bacterias that he is believing to be beneficial to the human gut is healthy or not. I like that he says that he doesn't know,, but it is clear that he thinks or believes it's not, as well as the host of the interview. Having predisposed thoughts/beliefs Can lead one to premature conclusions One premise was that a more alkaline gut is unhealthy,, that it's prone to invading bacterias, because seemingly only acidic producing bacteria can be protective. I find it curious that neither bring up the ph of carnivorous animal's guts or those of the inuits or American plains Indians. Another point is that if one was to cook all their meat (for those on a meat diet) one would essentially be killing most of the bacteria at least entering the mouth via meat. Carnivorous animals obviously don't cook, and also pick up millions of bacteria from their water source and their environment. My guess is that the science of gut bacteria and all the variables that exist will continue to educate and amaze us for some time, and that we won't have the final say in any time soon.
-
If you listen carefully, Jeff iterates a least a couple of times, that he just doesn't know at this time as to whether a low carb diet that limits the amounts of starch for encouraging the bacterias that he is believing to be beneficial to the human gut is healthy or not. I like that he says that he doesn't know,, but it is clear that he thinks or believes it's not, as well as the host of the interview.
I think his "we don't know" statements are very responsible, considering that scientists are in the early stages of gathering data. Someone posted a NPR article that reported conclusions that aren't supported by the data at this stage of research. I wish that writers would resist pouncing on imaginary conclusions. As they say, correlation is not causation.
As for me, I'm using my VLC in a more-RS way. If nothing else, it provides a nice variety of food.
-
Me too.
-
eveheart, I'm not a physician and I can't promise anything, but thyroid issues and immune system modulation are a couple things that RS is supposed to help with. Part of the Old Friends Hypothesis is that the good bacteria are well adapted to calm down the immune system (so it won't kill them) because they have been with humans for millions of years, IIRC.
It's true that we do need more data. While some of the early results are concerning, maybe we'll get lucky and it will turn out that VLC is not that much of a risk factor for poor microbiome after all. I'm looking forward to seeing more findings from the American Gut Project and I'm covering my bases and planning on asking my physician if this is something that I can get checked out, given my history of VLCing and antibiotics. I found a local medical practice that does such a test, according to the Lab company, and it was a nice coincidence that it was the practice I was already interested in.
If my microbiome is messed up, the next question will be what to do. If I have some real baddies they'll probably want to give me antibiotics. My guess is that it will be quite suboptimal but not a big amount of any serious pathogens. Maybe I'm just being optimistic, though. I'm hoping that RS will be sufficient and that I will be able to track my progress. Or maybe the result will at least be good enough that I can avoid antibiotics and wait for the fecal bacteria pills that are being developed to become widely available.
If my results are really good, then that will mean my current remaining symptoms are still largely a mystery, unless the docs come up with some other explanation. Luckily, I don't think I have a serious autoimmune issue like some folks are reporting. My improved body temperature, pulse and FBG seem to make that unlikely.
-
My auto-immune problems are of long-standing duration, decades before I ever tried VLC and RPD, but everything I read about RS makes sense. I've even read up on fecal implants... I still get a strong "ewww" reaction, and I have no idea how to determine if I'd be a good candidate and find a good donor. My medical coverage is through an HMO, and I laugh at the thought of even mentioning this sort of thing to them. I'll just see where this leads.
-
Yeah, I think I would inquire about testing before treatments. Docs don't tend to like it if you jump right to suggesting a treatment before they've checked to see if there's a reason for doing it.