Buzz is out that Dave Asprey didn’t like his RS via PS experiment. (I would have been surprised if he had, because if beneficial, LC is an ass and he’s been wrong for a long time—which I love to be, but he’s not demonstrated, yet.) Moreover, if he actually took the months I and others have taken to be able to down bolus doses of PS, chased with beans and have no bloating or gas, then it would necessarily mean that he or his protocols are not all that “Bulletproof.”…If he couldn’t manage to go where so many other men and women have managed to go, in the hundreds, worldwide? Bulletproof?
Or, does Bulletproof mean Tender Flower, at the end of the day?
The irrational assumption is that when everything doesn’t come up roses, that there’s something wrong in eating a natural, easily obtainable fraction of a potato that doesn’t even get digested by you (hunter-gatherers can make potato starch). From what I got 2nd hand from the podcast, Dave is concerned with feeding bad bacteria. But I thought we’re in a Bulletproof context? Bad bacteria? Enough to make a difference, and with all that daily intake of butyrate and MCTs?
PS feeds a variety of bacteria, and some feed only off the by-products of others that eat RS. The general idea is that with 100 trillion gut bugs, you’re pissing up a rope tied to a string you’re pushing upwind to try to figure this out. You need to trust evolution.
So, most simply, the idea is that resistant starch is a very proven substrate that feeds good bacteria and some bad. It’s they who are your antibiotic chemical plants against each other. And guess what? This war is 3 billion years old, so evolution probably has something to do with why the normal human state is for lots of good bugs, with bad ones who piss in the pool, kept in check. They can evolve antibiotics that work far faster than all the drug companies and FDA combined, and are species targeted. Of course, this is evolution we’re working with, and not even the good guys care about a human life; so man-made antibiotics definitely have their place. I’ll take a fucked up gut any day if I get to live another day, should I have a raging infection and the good guys have been overcome.
…But please understand: I like Dave, and quite a lot. He cracks me up, and I’ve sat across the table a couple of times (who puts a pat of butter on his sushi? Dave, that’s who.). He knows this—si il n’existait pas il faudrait l’inventer—and I’m just a different sort of self experimenter, not to mention a different kind of blogger and promoter.
…A commenter, DuckDodgers, took the time to embed a bunch of links in text for a comment, and I figured that nice work needed a bigger audience. It began with something someone else had written.
Besides it’s not as if gut bacteria is optional – you need to have it anyway, thus feed it anyway, it’s just a decision how much food they get.
~~~
Bingo.
Here’s why Asprey’s fear mongering is weak. Just look at the evidence (hat tip to Jeff Leach, of the American Gut Project).
Jeff Leach wrote: When it comes to the health and well being of your gut microbes, nothing matters more than fermentable substrates (You can read about here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here – you get the idea). As the rules/tenants of basic microbial ecology go, a reduction in fermentable substrates derived from carbohydrates means less energy sources for the microbes – who depend on host-derived substrates as well, as in the case of mucin-degraders like Akkermansia. As fermentation drops, so to does the byproducts of fermentation which include short chain fatty acids (primarily acetate, butyrate, propionate), organic acids, and gases like hydrogen. All of this can and will dramatically shift the pH of the colonic environment. As it stands in a healthy or normal gut, the pH of the colon changes from proximal to distal end, being more acidic in the proximal (front) end than the tail end – mainly as a function of more rapid fermentation as food items empty from the small intestine. As the pH shifts to being more alkaline from less fermentation, a number of shoes begin to drop (or can). A less acidic environment means acid sensitive groups of bacteria, like those in the Phylum Proteobacteria, which includes a who’s who of bad guys like strains of E. Coli, Salmonella, Vibrio, Helicobacter, might bloom – not a good thing. You see the same blooms following antibiotic treatment. In addition, as pH shifts away from acidic, the genus Bacteroides can also bloom as well, gaining an ecological niche in this less acidic environment courtesy of a low carb diet. For those of you keeping score, many talk about the American gut in general being dominated by Bacteroides as a function of our high fat, high sugar diet. The reality is, it might have to do with what we are not eating – dietary fiber (of all kinds). The all-important butyrate producers Roseburia spp. and Eubacterium also drop in abundance as pH shifts away from acidic as well. A drop in fecal butyrate and butyrate producing bacteria was demonstrated in an elegant study comparing diets of varying amounts of carbs. Given the importance of butyrate in colonic health, any dietary strategy that potentially shifts pH away from acidity as a function of reduced fermentation, might contribute to various forms of IBD. So, low carb equals a less acidic colonic environment due to the drop in fermentation (and I presume harder, and less frequent stools as a function of reduced biomass from bacteria – or maybe not). As pH shifts, prospects for opportunistic pathogens increase, as does opportunities for gram-negative bacteria like Bacteroides and Enterobacter. When you add this up – and a lot of more shifts in the microbial ecology of the low carb gut – you most certainly have a classic case of microbial dysbiosis – as the name implies, an imbalance. This dysbiosis can lead to issues associated with IBD, autoimmune disease, metabolic disorders and so on. But again, a large cohort of low, low carb dieters has never been looked at using 16S rRNA methods. So the jury is still out – but will be fascinating to see. [end quoted text]
Click on those studies that Leach references — particularly the ones about pathogens disappearing when the pH shifts from alkaline from to acidic.
Now, consider that pathogens, like Candida, become benign in acidic environments and pathogenic in alkaline environments, and you begin to see the big picture.
People who worry about RS feeding the bad microbes seem to be oblivious to the fact that it very likely doesn’t matter since the “good guys” bloom in an acidic digestive tract and the bad guys get crowded out and inactivated by those same acids.
~~~
Ball. Court. Dave.
john m 
tatertot 
sootedninjas 
Emma 
Bill
Warning: Declaration of FV_TC_Walker_Comment_blank::walk($elements, $max_depth) should be compatible with Walker::walk($elements, $max_depth, ...$args) in /home/freethea/public_html/wp-content/plugins/thoughtful-comments/walkers.php on line 0
Warning: Declaration of FV_TC_Walker_Comment_blank::paged_walk($elements, $max_depth, $page_num, $per_page) should be compatible with Walker::paged_walk($elements, $max_depth, $page_num, $per_page, ...$args) in /home/freethea/public_html/wp-content/plugins/thoughtful-comments/walkers.php on line 0
“Click on those studies that Leach references — particularly the ones about pathogens disappearing when the pH shifts from alkaline TO acidic.”
Small typo. Other than that, Dave can stick it in his pipe and smoke it. Good points.
Dang, Richard – I’m starting to think you actually believe in this stuff…
Don’t ask me why, but I was looking into vaginas last night.
The va jay-jay is a perfect breeding ground for pathogens, but there is a certain bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus ) that wants to colonize every single cooter in the world. Its prime directive is to perform extreme acts as a cunning linguist and secrete lactic acid into its heavenly home.
This lactic acid makes the poo-tang just acidic enough to keep almost every other form of bacteria, fungus, and yeast out of his private playground. There are a few other pathogenic opportunists that can also live at the same pH, but Lactobacillus acidophilus has built-in defenses against these, and can just outright kill them off at will when his populations are high enough.
For whatever reason, many women don’t maintain optimal communities of Lactobacillus acidophilus in their nether regions and their husbands end up making late night trips to the Wal-Mart to buy things like Lactobacillus acidophilus supplements, pH improving products complete with plungers and putties, and even sometimes find themselves in the yogurt aisle carrying all manner of implementation that has nothing to do with food prep.
When these don’t work, the OB/GYN puts them on antifungals. antibiotics, and god knows what else to help the poor ladies out. Generally, some relief is found, but usually not for long.
Here’s the moral of this story. What’s happening in the Vagina Monologues is also happening in the gut. It’s just not as obvious, and all the efforts to correct the problems in the gut are just as effective as those late night Wal-Mart visits–not very.
It’s like Grace was saying a while back–you can’t feed empty cages. But also, you can’t keep your caged animals alive very long if you don’t feed them. I suspect a lot that goes wrong in the feminine hygiene arena starts in the gut. Huge colonies of pathogens that overwhelm the immune system and lead to dysfunction in the bacteria everywhere. A self-replicating problem, when doctors prescribe antibiotics for everything.
The difference between the microbes that are found in lady parts and microbes that are found in the gut is the food they need to thrive. Some microbes, like Lactobacillus acidophilus, are perfectly suited to eat things secreted from the skin of their host, while bacteria that do the most good in our gut need to be fed things like resistant starch and other fibers. Lots of the bacteria in our guts are perfectly suited to feeding just like Lactobacillus acidophilus, they eat the secretions/mucus of the gut and don’t need much external input. They are happy just eating whatever they find. These are also the microbes that raise the pH and make the place hospitable for their trailer trash cousins who are headed to town tomorrow.
It’s kind of funny how the pH stuff is all coming to light now, it was actually one of the first things we talked about, but I guess also easy to overlook.
“Don’t ask me why, but I was looking into vaginas last night.”
New best offhand, deadpan quote ever.
just looking ?
I found it’s best to have “safe search moderation’ turned ON or you will literally be looking into vaginas. It took me 3 hours to realize I could turn off the adult content.
But if you eliminate “bad” microbes from women parts there’s going to be less sex – they seems to be controlling the host’s promiscuity level in order to spread.
evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/05/demon-within.html
evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/05/demon-within-part-ii.html
I was trying to find a way to let you guys know about this without randomly talking about vaginas on a digestion post, so excellent work tatertot on opening the door…
I had been suffering from a monthly dose of thrush for about a year which I have treated over the past three months with a twice daily dose of potato starch, acidophilus and Reuteri probiotics. It’s completely cured.
I can’t isolate one of those three variables and say for sure what fixed things up, but I’m convinced it was the gradual replenishment of good bacteria combined with the food they like in the form of RS.
Another win!
I just have to believe that it’s all connected. My wife did the AmGut test the same time I did, she has long history of antibiotic use and also lots of problems that result in those late night runs to Wal-Mart where I get to learn all there is to know about feminine hygiene.
Her gut report was full of microbes that when you looked them up, say, ‘common pathogen of the mouth’, ‘common pathogen of the urinary tract’, ‘common pathogen of vagina’, etc… She had none of the so-called probiotics on her report.
She’s finally been hitting the potato starch and taking some good probiotics and she’ll be testing again soon. Hope it shows a turnaround. But I think it illustrates exactly what’s going on–it’s a whole body deal when you get everything out-of-whack.
The acidophilus that should be growing in the vagina requires a good supply of secretions to eat, just like good gut bugs need RS or a crap-load of other fibers to thrive. If the gut is starved, the body responds, possibly by slowing down the normal secretions that feed acidophilus, or changing the pH of the body to where acidophilus doesn’t thrive.
Cramming yogurt up the hoo-ha may seem like a smart idea, but it’s very short-sighted I believe. The same with taking probiotics or eating tons of yogurt without the requisite fermentable fibers.
+1
Best quote ever!!
It also means that all those alkalizing products out there are all bullshit. All those “alkalizing” vegetables are the ones that just happen to do a good job of fermenting into SCFAs and thereby acidify the intestines.
Are we now advocating potato starch cure bad vagina bacteria? If it works in the gut, can it work there?
I can see it now:
Tatertot and Richard bring a new Potato Starch douche to the market and become billionaires!
According to what’s recommended for douching is something acidic like vinegar (?), would potato starch mixed with vinegar not only clean but provide substrate for acid producing bacteria?
Since the starch settles in watery solutions, you may need to add something like processed cellulose (?) as a thickener. Which is also a prebiotic.
That end of the body is not my expertise, but you may have a point here.
or use a mixture of yoghurt and starch.
Hey, Gab – If I had one, I’d surely try. But I don’t know if the acidophilus can eat RS. It may rely almost completely on the secretions from the epithelium. However, the combo of RS and an acidophilus enriched yogurt may create an environment where attachment to epithelial cells is more likely.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC108154/ here’s a good description of how it’s supposed to work…”Lactobacilli are believed to interfere with pathogens by different mechanisms. The first is competitive exclusion of genitourinary pathogens from receptors present on the surface of the genitourinary epithelium (5, 21). Second, lactobacilli coaggregate with some uropathogenic bacteria (14), a process that, when linked to the production of antimicrobial compounds, such as lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocin-like substances (12, 15), and possibly biosurfactants (21), would result in inhibition of the growth of the pathogen.”
Here’s what determines if lacto can adhere:
The factors responsible for adherence to epithelial vaginal cells seemed to be glycoproteins (L. acidophilus and L. gasseri) and carbohydrate (L. jensenii). The receptors of the vaginal cells were glycolipids, which presumably were the targets of the competition observed between the lactobacilli and the pathogenic microbes.
Maybe the ‘carbohydrate’ is a good indication that RS may make a difference after all.
I find the research fascinating, though, on the parallels between vaginal microbes and gut microbes. I knowmy wife has struggled with this her whole life.
Antibiotics—yeast infection—antifungals—UTI—abx—yeast—-never ends.
Have you read anything about FUT2? It’s a sugar we excrete (fucoid) in the villi of the cells in our small intestine that feeds gut microbes that keep pathogens out of the small intestine. 20% of the world’s population is FUT2 deficient (‘nonsecretors’) and are susceptible to all sorts of bowel problems, but have 100% protection from Norovirus. Isn’t that bizarre?
I have to wonder if there is a nonsecretor angle for vaginal microbiome as well, or if it is completely different. We have microbes all over our body, in every nook and cranny, and they all have to eat. Most eat skin cells, sweat, fat, secretions, or whatever–they don’t need fed. I doubt that vaginal microbes need fed, either, they just need a nice environment where they can adhere to skin cells and do their ‘thang.’
Never tried it, but I think the use of acidic douche is to kill the sorts of bowel bacteria that can infect the vagina. We know that the pathogenic types don’t appreciate acidic environments.
By using yoghurt, it’s also acidic. But it’s thicker and hangs around longer. Sometimes rinsing with a liquid, is not advisable in some situations. Like for example, it has been shown that excessive sinus rinsing can prolong sinus infections. It washes everything away and that includes the good bugs and too much mucous.
Just thinking here that adding the RS to the yoghurt wouldn’t necessarily provide substrate for bacteria but it would provide substance and stick-to-it ness and stay in location for longer.
What were women, historically, using douche for? Was it a misguided attempt at preventing pregnancy by washing out semen? (I don’t know, it’s a before my time thing. I think I read it in a novel.)
The juice from fermented sauerkraut might work
Asprey also seems fixated on the fact that there were some rare glacial bacteria in Tatertot’s gut. Call me weird, but perhaps this isn’t surprising for someone living at the North Pole. Or is it Asprey’s point that the PS resulted in the glacial critters taking up residence in Tatertot’s gut?
I drink water every day that comes from a well drilled 30 feet into glacial silt, could that be where it came from?
They still find frozen wooly mammoths in the ground where I live. More than one person who lives here has complained of funky tasting well-water, and they find the well is drilled directly through a frozen mammoth or ox or some other ice age creature that has begun to thaw and pollute their water…wonder what there gut microbes would look like. Ha!
I like to think I have a strong stomach. But………..
I wonder if the frozen mammoth meat is still edible? Talk about authentic Paleo food….
One of the best-documented accounts of a prehistoric meal comes at the end of Frozen Fauna of the “Mammoth Steppe (1990), by Alaska zoology professor Dale Guthrie. After successfully unearthing and preserving “Blue Babe,” a 36,000-year-old steppe bison found near Fairbanks in 1979, Guthrie’s team celebrates by simmering some leftover flesh from Babe’s neck “in a pot of stock and vegetables.” The author reports that “the meat was well aged but still a little tough, and it gave the stew a strong Pleistocene aroma.” Now, I’m all for scientific esprit de corps, and I’m not by nature an incurious sort, but I’ll say right now I don’t see the appeal. Let’s keep it simple: Frozen meat from tundra = specimen; frozen meat from freezer = dinner. Study the mammoths and eat the burgers, and anyone who craves that great prehistoric taste can wash ’em down with Tab.”
washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/2555/prehistoric-meat-up
good one! Tater, that could be your million dollar idea, woolly mammoth jerky, the true Paleo food!!
Or Astroglide “tater” for the poontang. :)
I just re-read the comments on the bulletproof site.
I am very sad for humanity.
People can be really really stupid.
Slightly off topic but I’ve got a bunch of mcT oil on hand. Does it make sense to take with potato starch for some off the wall bullet starch proof cocktail? Or should I pitch it and just do PS like I do now.
Hey Richard & Tatertot Tim, [re-post from the ‘Confirmation Bias’ post]
An example of the conflicting/contradictory results regarding RS & insulin responses I mentioned before.
— Dietary Fibre Improves First-phase Insulin Secretion in Overweight Individuals — doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040834
“Analysis of the 7-day dietary records revealed no significant differences between the HAM-RS2 and placebo for either energy or macronutrient intakes. Fibre intake was significantly higher during the HAM-RS2 intervention compared with the placebo (57.861.2 g/day versus 17.561.6 g/day, respectively; p=,0.001) which can be directly attributed to the HAM-RS2 supplement. Blood glucose concentrations during the FSIVGTT were not significantly different following supplementation with either HAM-RS2 or placebo (Figure 1). However, plasma insulin (Figure 2) and C-peptide (Figure 3) concentrations were signifi- cantly higher following 4 weeks supplementation with HAM-RS2 compared with placebo (p=0.009 and p=0.016, respectively).
Whilst modelling of the data showed no significant difference between the supplements for insulin sensitivity or disposition index, there was a significantly higher first-phase insulin response (AIRg) following supplementation with HAM-RS2 compared with placebo and a trend for increased glucose effectiveness with the HAM-RS2 (Table 2).”
“Although this study showed an improvement in insulin secretion following HAM-RS2, it did not demonstrate an improvement in insulin sensitivity which we have shown previously using the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp [7–9].”
Do you think the fact that they were testing RSII (aka raw potato, banana, and high-amylose starch) & not RSIII is meaningful to the results in any way?
This study looks at the incidence of scFOS, RS and wheat bran on colon tumours, also exploring the SCFA angle. Curious ‘non-linear’ affect of RS in terms of butyrate/tumor suppression.
— Short-chain fructo-oligosaccharides reduce the occurrence of colon tumors and develop gut-associated lymphoid tissue in Min mice — [Cancer Research. 225-228, January 15, 1997
[RS was retrograded high-amylose corn starch]
“Neither starch-free wheat bran nor resistant starch modified the number of tumors. However, short-chainfructo-oligosaccharides dramatically reduced the incidence of colon tumors and concomitantly developed gut-associated lymphoid tissue.”
“sc-FOSs and RS are fermentable fibers that provide protection against earlier stages of colon carcinogenesis: they both reduce the number of azoxymethane-induced aberrant crypt foci in rats, in conjunction with high butyrate production (4). The inefficiency of RS in the present experiment suggests that fermentation either is not involved in the protective effect or is not sufficient by itself. In vivo and in vitro studies indicate that fructo-oligosaccharides can be used successfully as prebiotics to enhance the population of BifidobaCterium in the large intestine (15, 16). Direct evidence that Bifidobacterium stimulate murine antitumor immunity and modify cytokine expression has also been reported (17).”
This one quoted an unexpected wheat bran/RS interaction in terms of butyrate production (no idea why – any thoughts? Also, why does wheat brans’ ‘butyrate enhancing’ effect not then translate into positive morbidity/mortality results in the literature?)
— Resistant Starch-A Review —
“when RS was combined with an insoluble dietary fiber like wheat bran, much higher SCFA levels, in particular butyrate was ob- served in the feces”
rs711 – One thing that is pretty clear from many studies, a combination of RS and some other plant fiber is better than either on their own. Also, many show slight differences between RS2 and RS3.
To that end, you can probably see why eating a Perfect Health Diet type of menu AND adding some RS to give you a combined fermentable fiber intake of about 20-40g/day is probably ‘optimal’ in terms of feeding gut microbes.
Going through studies is tough–they are all designed to spur new studies, and the jargon that scientists use is almost incomprehensible to the lay reader. For instance, ‘statistical significance, p=.0016’ means absolutely nothing to me, but may have a biochemist jumping up and down for one reason or another.
Here’s a fun exercise: Go to PubMed (or Cambridge Journals, or Google Scholar), type ‘resistant starch’ in the search bar, then use the advanced search to ensure the results you get are for those words to appear somewhere in the title or abstract. Hit Enter. These are all peer-reviewed studies you will get.
Then, on the left, you’ll see where you can ask for specific years. Go through and re-do the search starting in 1987 and ending in 2014 (or just pick a few years). What you will see is a very linear increase in studies on RS. Also look at what they were studying in the 90’s compared to what they are studying in 2014. It’s utterly amazing how much research has gone into RS, and how completely unaware the general public still is.
So, yes, sure, there are plenty of studies out there from the 90’s, 00’s, and 10’s that don’t give glowing reports on every single thing that was looked at in the study, but that hasn’t stopped researchers from continuing to study those and other areas.
Hi everybody, new here. I’ve been paleo-ish for 2 years and a half and I’ve tested different degrees of low-carbism, even doing epi-paleo for a while (great for losing weight, not so good for everything else).
It has been a couple of months that I’ve increased my carb intake (starches and fruits) and I feel definitely better.
I also ditched IF because eating large meals gave me massive bloatings and generally I didn’t like to stuff myself.
It has been a couple of days now that I’ve started supplementing with PS (3T yesterday) and trying to increase the intake of RS. So far, besides the increased trips to the toilet, I haven’t noticed any benefits. On the contrary, I’ve been feeling more tired than usually, the past few days, and sleep has worsened a little. In addition, I’ve been having mild aches on my hip (these are really mild and come and go, but it has been a couple of months that I haven’t been suffering them).
Nevertheless, I’m not rushing to conclusions and I am willing to give RS and more fermentable fiber in the diet a couple of weeks. I like to think that something is happening, a kind of war between the good bacteria and my immune system against bad bacteria. The bad bacteria, sensing that they’re losing this battle, are trying to cause the more damage they can :D. Anyway I reckon my body is using a lot of energy in this war.
One thing, however, stroke me reading on this post about the importance of an acidic environment in the gut.
Isn’t it curious that in order to harm bad bacteria, fight cavities and dental plaque and to promote teeth remineralization you need an elevated pH in the mouth? (carifree.com/patient/learn/how-cavities-form.html)
It’s quite odd that in two different parts of the digestive system, where bacteria play a major role, different rules apply, in order to keep these environments healthy.
Anyone has any thoughts on this? Why you think this is the case?
I would love to hear your opinion.
Hi, Drini – Hang in there! I think you are on the right track. As to pH in mouth and gut–that is very strange. Also amazing how well controlled pH is in a normal functioning body, and how messed up it gets with antacids and PPI type drugs. Thanks! Maybe GabKad will see and comment, she’s a dentist!
I have had a similar experience as Drini. Low-carb Paleo for about 2 years, but have added more starch in potatoes, sweet and white and some white rice recently because I think I am really too low carb at this point for no good reason. (65 YO woman, excellent health, pretty normal size, no real issues with blood sugar, etc. but gluten sensitive). Been on PS (about 1 Tbl a day for about a week and will up the amount next week.) I just feel “off” and my right hip and knees are really bothering me–way more than usual. I may have overdone it on the treadmill, but I don’t think it is that, really. Will keep up the RS and check back in. I am going with fight going on inside me as why I feel kind of crummy. The RS is a fascinating subject.
Richard: Got the John Sarno book on TMS and seeing many parallels in my life on pain and what’s goin’ on in my wee mind. I have always believed a connection exists, so maybe this will be of help to me.
I drink the PS in water as I swallow my frozen raw liver “pills”. The PS has just enough flavor to offset the liver if it doesn’t hit the mark clean and clings to the back of my throat. GAG!!!!! This is the only way I can do liver. Thanks for all the info, tater and Richard.
I don’t think it’s all that surprising. The enamel of the teeth don’t like acids. You can actually wear away the enamel by chewing on lemons or exposing your teeth to too much pool water.
pmid.us/PMC2633165 (nice pictures)
The Relman-Stanford group research has also shown that even within the gut there is a very specific “biogeography” from site to site.
In addition to the work they’ve done on mapping the bacteria in the oral cavity, they’ve also found that the that the flora in the healthy mucosa of the gut differs from site to site within the gut and differs considerably from what is present in fecal material (which often has higher numbers of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria).
So, different sections of the the stomach and intestines have very specific bacterial demographics. And the bacteria in your poop is really just a piece of the puzzle (and not all that indicative of your mucosal microbiota in various sites of your digestive tract).
The fact that the mouth needs a more alkaline environment isn’t surprising when you realize just how different and specialized the bacteria is on every organ and every inch of your body.
Interestingly, H. Pylori — which dislikes acidity and secretes ammonia to lessen the acidity in the stomach and make the environment more tolerable for itself — is hypothesized to contribute towards GERD, which can release acid into the esophagus and mouth where the acid doesn’t belong. This improperly-placed acidity can contribute towards tooth enamel erosion. How’s that for biogeography!
Good blog. I’m in the middle of working on a blog looking at the relationship between fungal candida overgrowth and gluten sensitivity and your identification of C. Albicans and the pH of the gut is spot on. However, it’s not just that C. Albicans will grow in an alkaline environment, C. Albicans can actively alter the pH of the digestive tract via fermentation of amino acids. In my opinion this has a tremendous impact on leaky gut and the microbiota and may be a potential game changer in gluten induced intestinal permeability. The optimal environment for fungal candida conversion….Low glucose and high amino acid content. Here is a link to a study…
mbio.asm.org/content/2/3/e00055-11.full
Richard, the results so far have been exciting, but before you count scalps and finalize your book, I’d like to see some input on your and Tater’s take on RS from informed skeptical folks like Stephan Guyenet, Peter of Hyperlipid and say a gastroenterologist. Just as most people missed the RS piece of the puzzle up to now, maybe you guys are missing some things or getting something wrong?
oneradionetwork.com/health/norman-robillard-ph-d-health-depends-bacteria-gut-january-23-2014/
Norm Robillard should HATE Richard and I. Have a listen to this podcast from yesterday. If you get bored, jump to 1hr, 10 minute point and listen for 4 or 5 minutes. Read Norm’s credentials while you are listening.
I think at this point, the only valid argument is, ‘Nobody has defined the ‘perfect’ gut microbiome makeup.’
That’s true, and they probably never will, but it doesn’t change what I think about the need for fermentable fibers.
But, I’m sure everyone will chime in soon enough. If ‘farts’ is the biggest problem, I’m happy.
Thanks for the link, Tater. It’s good to see that the expert most-quoted by critics of RS is now surprisingly positive about it. That does warrant some victory dancing. Persuading Peter and Stephan a bit would warrant some more.
I went ahead with your suggestion: searching for ‘resistant starch’ – limited to title/abstract from 1987-2014 in PubMed – I found about 780 studies.
I also looked at what they were doing in the 90s compared to now. It seems like in the 90s the studies were mostly trying to understand fibers’ potential in improving colorectal mutagenesis outcomes.
As far as the 2000s-present day range goes, here are some examples of the study titles appearing on the first page of results:
“Dietary red meat aggravates dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis in mice whereas resistant starch attenuates inflammation.”
“Effect of resistant starch RS4 added to the high-fat diets on selected biochemical parameters in Wistar rats.”
“Effects of potato fiber and potato-resistant starch on biomarkers of colonic health in rats fed diets containing red meat.”
2nd page result(s) – “Inhibition by resistant starch of red meat-induced promutagenic adducts in mouse colon.”
These study titles seem to suggest potential benefits of RS on physiology are inferred from a comparison of outcomes with ‘high-fat/red meat’ rodent diets – I hope we can all agree, such a ‘diet’ is pretty horrible diet for nearly any living thing. This, though, doesn’t mean that seemingly positive outcomes from dietary inclusion of RS should be brushed aside.
The studies seem to mix in their results with many different fiber types ( including RS), so disentangling any kind of effect is a gargantuan task. It’d be interesting to see more human studies on RS with fewer variables that are better controlled.
The fact that people continue to study something is no guarantee of its validity (and vice-versa).
I agree, people are generally incredibly ignorant about such important matters, but it’s certainly not limited to RS – but to health and nutrition at large (+ loads of other important stuff unfortunately).
Tim, statistical significance is of paramount importance when attempting to interpret data usefully. This is something lay readers should know and is usually taught in high school (it was in mine at least…although I quickly forgot it and had to relearn it, like most things!). Sorry to insist but not appreciating the importance of P values in the context of scientific investigation is big NO NO – it’s very easy to get a handle on thankfully. KhanAcademy videos will get you up to speed quickly if you feel the need :)
Maybe you can shed some light on this for me: I’m a bit confused about Jeff Leach being (apparently) quite certain about the benefits of certain bacterial species increasing/decreasing in response to dietary changes, while in the same article/comment making an emphatic point to say how much we still do not understand about the species themselves and their impact on us…he seems to be pulling the brakes while getting ahead of himself simultaneously. Is there a resource or review paper you can point me to where the distinctions amongst bacterial species and their purported effects are made more clear? Or defines where the boundaries of our current knowledge regarding the microbiome lie?
I feel like I’m missing something – and I probably am (surprise surprise!).
Thanks for the guidance!
@rs711,
You’re probably not going to find the answer to any of your questions in a single study — at least not yet. There is so much research on RS, and so much data, that at some point you need to take a step back and look at the big picture — including all of the n=1s.
The whole point of the American Gut Project is to help answer these questions. And even that project will only get us so far.
…And to clarify, later in that interview:
@DuckDodgers
Interesting. I had read these 2 pieces of writing not long ago.
I think that Jeff’s project will be very important in advancing our knowledge of human health – kudos to him, really. We need more people taking on important although yet undiscovered areas of microbiology.
However, I think he would better serve his investigation if he refrained from gross generalisations, such as:
-the title of one of his recent articles – “Sorry low carbers, your microbiome is just not that into you”
or “But I would never recommend a low carb diet. I think you can eat lots and lots of healthy carbs and maintain your weight”
or “The low carb thing is really terrifying to me from a microbiome perspective”…terrifying really suggests a strong level of certainty.
or, even stranger “when I see a very low carb person, I often see not only a huge drop in dietary fiber, but a drop in diversity of dietary fiber and a significant drop in resistant starch” Really? Most people transition from a SAD diet – is he really claiming SAD to some version of LC Paleo has LESS green leafies/fiber/RS? I’m sure that may be the case, but the majority? hhmm…
Furthermore, it seems reasonable that certainty should be proportional to how you come by your claims and the rigor you’ve applied in trying to actively disprove them: knowledge of ‘fermentation’ —> generalisations about diets is one thing…direct observations is another.
It’d be scientifically sound to see a genuine interest in trying to prove ones ideas wrong rather focusing solely on trying to prove them right – these are not the same.
It’s frustrating to have to wait for clearer results, I hope that our impatience doesn’t slow down an already complex and laborious process = scientific discovery.
@rs711
While statistical significance has its uses, it’s not the be-all and end-all and also has potential pitfalls:
“Statistical signficance is … a diversion from the proper objects of scientific study. … Statistical significance should be a tiny part of an inquiry concerned with the size and importance of relationships. Unhappily it has become the central and standard error of many sciences. …. Real science depends on size, on magnitude.” (The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives, by Stephen T. Ziliak and Deirdre N. McCloskey)
“Statistical significance will happen by chance about 5% of the time, yielding false-positive results. Researchers may exploit this phenomenon by asking lots of questions and then creating a story around what are likely random, or chance, events.” (Henry I. Miller and S. Stanley Young,
“A Turkey is fed for a 1000 days—-every [day] confirms to its statistical department that the human race cares about its welfare ‘with increased statistical significance’. On the 1001st day, the turkey has a surprise.” (Nassim Taleb,
Normally impatience is associated more with going too fast than with slowing down. I don’t see how some people doing self experimenation and sharing the results is going to slow things down. On the contrary, it is already speeding things up and drawing more attention to the topic. Waiting for clearer results or desired p values before trying RS would slow down the learning process for anyone who did that. I don’t have to wait and didn’t, and I have so far benefited. As always, YMMV.
@Paleophil
Yes, understanding the utility of P values, not overstating them and understanding the scope of the inferences made from them are good scientific practices, totally agreed – that was kind my point.
F*ck patience, an overrated quality IMHO. The more then N=1’s, the better!
But what won’t make the scientific discovery go faster are holding claims that don’t match the available data. We can try to make educated guesses as much as we want – they still remain guesses/hypotheses in the absence of strong data. The stronger our claims are in the absence of good evidence (of all kinds) the less likely we are to adopt better theories quicker and the more likely we are to feel ‘wed’ to those we are ‘used to’ or already feel comfortable with.
Scientists should be more like sluts = minimal personal investment in a ‘theory’ and a progressive ‘open mind’ to novel ones
Yes, agreed on the importance of good scientific practice, including analyzing this stuff with a skeptical eye. It makes sense to try get an expert to review the material or answer questions, to minimize errors and overextrapolations.
One question about Jeff’s results appears to have gone unanswered on Facebook – facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=594416030643965&set=a.320702151348689.74407.235960469822858&ty… – which suggested that his microbiome may have improved when he ate more LCHF, rather than worsened.
Most reported versions of LC Paleo I have seen do appear to contain significantly less RS than the SAD–due to generally less grains, legumes, and potatoes.
I went to check out that FB link – thanks! It’s a perfect example of how his data is “confusing” (perfectly normal) and isn’t yet conducive to claims of great certainty – either way.
I’d challenge the assumption that the SAD diet is more fiber rich than what people switch to when they claim to be on a health LC-Paleo diet.
Why? Because the end-products we call food in a SAD diet are based on fibers/starches that are in the acellular form most of the time —> basically, fibres/starches that are “pre-broken down”, precisely the opposite state in which our body is accustomed to handling them.
Check this out: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402009/ “Comparison with ancestral diets suggests dense acellular carbohydrates promote an inflammatory microbiota, and may be the primary dietary cause of leptin resistance and obesity”
It’s hardly a surprising conclusion that refined carbs contribute to disease. I think Paleophil was specifically referring to RS consumption.
rs711
Or, “pre-broken down” fibers and starches are what molars and salivary amylose is for.
No Richard, that is not what I’m referring to (& neither is the paper I linked to):
“Whereas foods with living cells will have their
low carbohydrate density “locked in” until their cell walls are breached by digestive processes, the chyme produced after consumption of acellular flour and sugar-based foods is thus suggested to have a higher carbohydrate concentration than almost anything the microbiota of the upper GI tract from mouth to small bowel would have encountered during our coevolution”
That’s why my comment was about: how the quantity of fiber &/or RS from “grains, legumes & potatoes” in a SAD diet might be substantially less than suggested, because of the processing that often accompanies these – turning them into acellular carbs.