Stupid comment from a fucktard (“Sky”), this morning:
This GREAT article from the NY Times makes it all moot:
Enough of the splitting hairs while trying to distinguish and separate your own beliefs/agendas from the others.
The bottom line: Follow a LCHF diet while trying to keep the carbs (especially the processed kind) from anywhere around 100gms/day to less than that. This should work for the majority of the people out there.
It’s too fucktarded laf to comment on. Clue: “Enough of the splitting hairs while trying to distinguish and separate your own beliefs/agendas from the others.” …“The bottom line: Follow…”
Can people this fucking stupid—so self-contradictory—in a single small comment really exist? Evolution must have jumped the shark. “Sky” is stealing good oxygen from plants and animals.
The thing is, the article is pretty decent and its theme echoes what Tim and I were putting out from the start: just feed the microbiome, let it take care of itself. Later, with admonitions from a collaborator, we changed a bit and embraced the idea that some addition of probiotics based upon soil, might help. Many of us, myself included, found that to be true and beneficial.
There Is No ‘Healthy’ Microbiome, by Ed Yong
This reasoning is faulty. It romanticizes our relationships with our microbes, painting them as happy partnerships that were better off in the good old days. It also invokes an increasingly common trope: that there is a “normal” or “healthy” microbiome that one should aim for. There is not. The microbiome is complex, varied, ever changing and context-dependent — qualities that are the enemies of easy categorization.
“Healthy” microbes can easily turn rogue. Those in our guts are undoubtedly helpful, but if they cross the lining of the intestine and enter our bloodstream, they can trigger a debilitating immune response. The same microbes can be beneficial allies or dangerous threats, all for the difference of a few millimeters.
Conversely, “unhealthy” configurations of microbes can be normal, even necessary. Ruth E. Ley at Cornell University and colleagues demonstrated this in dramatic fashion when they found that microbiomes go through a huge upheaval by the third trimester of pregnancy. They end up looking like the microbiomes of people with metabolic syndrome — a disorder that involves obesity, high blood sugar and a higher risk of diabetes and heart disease. These communities might indicate someone on the verge of chronic disease — or merely motherhood. Packing fat and building up blood sugar makes sense when you are nourishing a growing fetus.
This, in my view, is all correct from the standpoint of too complex to understand. Someday, you’ll read the book Tim and I started and that I continue to work on very slowly (no rush, the biome will be a bigger market later).
How many times have I said our guts are all snowflakes?
How often do I eschew really engaging with the folks who come into comments giving testimony to a hundred different specific interventions? I love they’re there, but such interventions are applicable to them. At best, others get clues for their own journeys.
Yong gets it both importantly right and importantly wrong. He’s wrong, simply because he contradicts himself. If there’s an objectively bad gut—such as one infected by a C. diff overgrowth—then that’s an unhealthy microbiome and the inverse is a relatively healthy one. But he’s right in that there are about 7 billion different guts not infected with C. diff and it’s a beyond-all-supercomputer problem to determine which is the most healthy.
This is the new frontier and exploration is all I’m promoting. I think we know enough to understand that eating lots of real foods promotes a microbiome THAT WORKS FOR YOU.
Beyond that, HFLC gut starving, head-in-sand, appeal to complexity is just fucktarded, as Sky so generously—though unintentionally—shows.
One can deal with their unruly children by starving them to death. It comes with a lot of downstream costs, however.