Is Resistant Starch By Means of Potato Starch Bad For You?

My thesis is that if it is, it’s not because of anything Grace Liu of Animal Pharm is feverishly posting, in five parts so far. The time for vitriol and snark is over; so this time, it’s just the facts, ma’am, and you can judge for yourselves.

…I mean, really. If she’d just say, “I don’t recommend PS, I think there are better prebiotics,” then fine. I’d still think it plays a role, but whatever. Chocolate. Vanilla. But this endless cycle of “proof” that “PS is destroying gutz!!!” is quite ridiculous, smelling a lot more like a campaign to discredit those of us who’ve been advocating it than honest, science-based inquiry.  Since I’m seeing little in the way of this “doctor’s” conclusions being challenged, I guess it’s time to do so semi-formally.

This addresses just the first part of the last of her posts on the topic: High Dose Potato Starch Can Make You Fatter, Insulin Resistant By Lowering GLP-1 AND ESPECIALLY If You Are Missing Bifidobacteria longum and Akkermansia mucinophila, aka SAD Microbial Fingerprint (Part V) NSFW (December 24, 2014).

First off, she cites Bodinham, 2014 and Table 1. Her take:

The drop in the gut hormone GLP1 was quite significant and was one of the few parameters that met statistically significance in this study.

Optimal gut health is supposed to yield better fat burning, leanness and metabolic improvements, no? Not high dosage RS2 it appears. Why? [emphasis added]

Then she lists everything from Table 1 as “proof” that RS2 is bad vis-a-vis gut health or downstream consequences. The problem is, almost everything on that table is labelled NS, meaning not statistically significant. The few things that are not labelled NS, she misinterprets as BAD!!!

For instance: “OMG GLP-1 decreased!” But what does Bodinham actually say?

Fasting GLP1 concentrations were significantly lower (P=0.049) following HAM-RS2 compared with placebo; however, there was a significantly greater meal GLP1 excursion with HAM-RS2 than with the placebo (P=0.009; Fig. 1C). [emphasis added]


Indeed, GLP1, a well-defined incretin, was found to be elevated postprandially after HAM-RS2 intake, again a finding which was not found in our previous published work in those without diabetes (23) but has been reported in studies of RS in animal models (24). Interestingly, there was no effect of this elevated GLP1 on postprandial insulin levels and so any effect on postprandial glucose disposal may have been through insulin-independent mechanisms. GLP1 has been shown to directly increase muscle glucose uptake in rodent models (25), with the GLP1 receptor recently localized to human skeletal muscle (26). GLP1 acutely raises nitric oxide (NO) levels and so acute changes in both microvascular recruitment (27) and endothelial function (28) at the level of the muscle are believed to be involved in this effect. In the current study, glucose uptake across forearm muscle measured directly using A-V sampling was increased following HAM-RS2 intake and against a background of elevated GLP1 (Fig. 1) [emphasis added]

So, while fasting levels were lower, the after-meal effect was higher. GLP-1 has a half-life of 1-5 minutes in the blood. The lowered fasting GLP-1 is probably a good thing, but seen simply as a curiosity by Bodinham. To make a lesser point, her series is about potato starch, not HAM (high amylose maize RS2).

And just as an aside—a lesson in dishonest manipulation—here’s the line item on pancreatic fat she makes a big—32.5% INCREASED, WTF!?!?!—deal of:

Screen Shot 2014 12 28 at 3 52 12 PM

Beyond the fact that the non-significant findings overlap in potential +/-, if you wanted to manipulate someone, would you tell them they were driving 13 in a 10 zone, or that they were breaking the speed limit by over 32%!

But here’s the real kicker…this Bodinham 2014 study was conducted on “well-controlled T2 diabetics.”

Bodinham’s conclusion:

In conclusion, this is the first RS feeding study in human T2DM where the metabolic effects of RS (rather than a manipulation of dietary glycemic index/glycemic load (37)) have been investigated. HAM-RS2 intake improved meal glucose tolerance in patients with existing good diabetic-control due to a mechanism which appears to involve increased muscle uptake of FAs and increased S-IMCL. However, as a caveat, changes in both ectopic TG distribution and plasma TG were found, the clinical significance of which is unknown. Further work is now warranted to elucidate the molecular mechanisms within muscle tissue attributable to HAM-RS2, which would be vital in terms of recommending diet/exercise interventions to maximize the benefits for muscle glucose uptake. A larger scale intervention should now be undertaken in patients using high-fiber foods, with less well-controlled diabetes and over a longer time frame before a change to the evidenced-based dietary guidelines could be proposed. [emphasis added]

Bodinham is saying he thinks that RS2 has further improved T2D in these subjects —just like we’ve been saying here for 2 years in over 100 posts—not destroyed them in any way…but there were a few metabolic changes they were not expecting to see. These were not normal, healthy, people…they all had diabetes and were either taking meds (15 out of 17 participants) or being controlled through diet and exercise (2/17):

All participants had well-controlled diabetes (mean HbA1c levels of 46.6 (s.e.m. 2) mmol/mol at screening) and were diet and exercise controlled (2/17), taking metformin (13/17) or metformin and pioglitazone (2/17), were weight stable, and excluded if they had a history of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, or other endocrine diseases.

OK. Then she invokes an older study, same dude, Bodinham 2012. She does the same thing: takes Table 1 and makes all of the NS items sound like a death sentence. Unfortunately for her, the only thing on Table 1 that was really significant was a reduction in fasting glucose. She explains this is really—trust her—a bad thing. Yes, you’ll read that right:

Fasting glucose THIS TIME decreased BUT that is because all the spikes in post-prandial insulin is shoving all the glucose into adipose cells now and making them fatty which is clear by the increased TG and higher insulin-related consequences: higher systolic and diastolic blood pressures. wtf. I bet it lowered GLP1 where it is already low and lame in overweight and T2 diabetes subjects. [double emphasis added]

What did Bodinham say?

This study was designed to further explore the effects of HAM-RS2 on insulin secretion. To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate a significant improvement in first-phase insulin secretion following short-term supplementation with dietary fibre in the form of resistant starch (HAM-RS2). This work adds to our group’s previous findings of a positive effect of HAM-RS2 on insulin sensitivity. [emphasis added]

Let’s take another look at her GLP-1 “theory.”  In this 2012 study just cited, Bodinham said:

However, whilst there are data from rodent studies showing increases in GLP-1 following RS intake [15]–[17] data confirming this effect in humans are lacking, and indeed, one study in humans has shown that it may take a year of increased fibre intake (increase of 20 g/day) to increase GLP-1 secretion.

But just 2 years later, in 2014, he did show that RS2 raised postprandial GLP-1 in the human T2D subjects. So, all of this GLP-1 “proof” is completely wrong, and seems intentionally misleading.

Indeed, GLP1, a well-defined incretin, was found to be elevated postprandially after HAM-RS2 intake, again a finding which was not found in our previous published work in those without diabetes… (Bodinham, 2014) [emphasis added]

Yet, here’s what she says says:

What is GLP1?

I love GLP-1.

It helps us to burn and remodel fat. “Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), a gut-derived peptide, has been reported to have profound effects on metabolism and to reduce insulin resistance (Yang et al 2013).” High protein diets raise GLP-1 and satiating PYY gut hormones to cause nice fat burning. It appears that high dosage raw starches causes a downward trend of this fat-burning molecule. Ruh-OH. This time it does not depend on either the pre-existing gut or what human gut symbions are missing. It happens in healthy human subjects in several trials so far. [emphasis added]

So, she uses a guy’s study to try and “prove” what’s not proved, implying it’s relevant to healthy people; is going to make them fat, when it actually involved diabetic people and improved their status on balance. Then, she finally acknowledges the diabetic point, but only to make a false distinction in healthy people, claiming results that don’t actually exist.

OK, I think I’ve wasted enough time on this. Really, the whole post is a mess. The links don’t jive with what she’s saying. She’s just making stuff up, as in the foregoing. I suspect that a similar close examination of her Parts 1-4 are going to yield similar poison fruit. And, if you have a good memory, you might even remember when she wrote this in her own comments:

(Akkermansia is good for us ;) lol unless overgrown in defective barriers


Unfortunately, so very many just read post titles, skim—maybe check a few sycophant comments—and chalk it up to another “excellent post” by the “Gut Goddess” Fake Doctor. In contrast, there are over 130 posts here on RS and GutGeneral, over 10,000 comments, over two years. The positive anecdotes of N=1,000+ are legion.

I can only conclude that she wants to stop or inhibit that for her own selfish gain, because she has statistically insignificant relevance to do with any shred of it. She’s made no long-term meaningful contributions—often inhibiting—but rather, only tried to dishonestly garner an unearned limelight.

Finally, she’s spent five posts on a straw man, because except for diabetics and those who insist on remaining VLC, high dose potato starch was never touted as the be-all-cure-all. Not even from the very first post on RS. I’ve addressed this before.

Now, this simply serves as something linkable next time someone asks me to address her idiotic posts that they don’t want to take the time to examine closely themselves.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Adrian on December 28, 2014 at 15:36

    Finally the real analysis/debate begins. Richard a lot of us don’t have the time available to wade through the stuff. Personally I would love it if you or someone else went through all of Grace’s post and assessed what she is saying.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 28, 2014 at 15:46

      I don’t have time, nor does anyone else. More importantly, I’m not the only one fed up with her stuff.

      FYI, this is not actually the only “inconsistencies” I know of in the series. I have a whole file. But, I’m also constrained in terms of writing a post of reasonable dimension my audience might read.

      You’re on your own but I’m moving forward. Keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of comments and emails I get thank me for introducing them to get awareness.

      We have a lot of work to do in terms of making better the methods. I’m not going to spend any more time challenging a looter.

  2. Billy+Bob on December 28, 2014 at 17:11

    Great! I tried pointing out another inconsistency, but it was quickly deleted. Funny that she accused you and Tim of cherry picking studies, she couldn’t even do that…she just put a link and made up a lie. For instance, Gut Goddess says:

    “Avoid RPS if there is too much pathogenic E coli. Raw potato starch is a prebiotic for pathogenic E coli. This Russian researcher states RPS are ‘prebiotics for E coli (Ivchenko et al 2006).’ (the good and the bad strains).”

    But when you look, you find a poorly translated abstract that discusses the actions of Raw Potato Starch, nowhere does this say that potato starch grows pathogenic E. coli :

    Here’s the abstract linked:

    “Modified and resistant starches regulate the colon microbiota metabolism and gene expression. This adaptive response allows bacteria to obtain the new enzymes to metabolize the unusual substrates. The potato starches modify the colon residential microorganisms. It was a reason the study the influence of the modified and resistant potato starches on the E. coli lines defected in the gene reparation system. It allows us to estimate the participation of some components of gene reparation system in the adoptive response of bacteria to the chemical compounds. Potato starches in the concentration 1% have been found to be indifferent to the DNA E. coli lines Wp. RecA. PolA [Russian character: see text] UvrA. High amilose notato starch stimulates these lines growth that indicates to its prebiotic canacities.”

    I would like to see this study, in full, and translated properly. I suspect it would read much like this paper:

    Response of Nursery Pigs to a Synbiotic Preparation of Starch and an Anti-Escherichia coli K88 Probiotic

    “Postweaning diarrhea in pigs is frequently caused by enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88 (ETEC). The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of E. coli probiotics (PRO) in young pigs challenged with E. coli K88. We also tested the synbiotic interaction with raw potato starch (RPS), which can be used as a prebiotic…

    In conclusion, we have demonstrated in vivo that the selection of probiotic E. coli strains against E. coli K88 is effective in preventing diarrhea in piglets when fed in conjunction with raw potato starch. A benefit of selecting probiotic strains of the same genus and species as the pathogen one is trying to exclude is that the organisms typically occupy the same niche in the gut.”

    So, actually, I think that Gut Goddesses proclamation that ‘Raw potato starch is a prebiotic for pathogenic E coli.’ is another blatant lie. But to her credit, all she had to work with was a poorly translated Russian abstract and maybe she didn’t have 5 minutes to fact-check what she wrote.


    • Adrian on December 28, 2014 at 17:47

      Billy&Bob The: Response of Nursery Pigs to a Synbiotic Preparation of Starch and an Anti-Escherichia coli K88 Probiotic
      Seems to confirm what she said “RPS are ‘prebiotics for E coli ’ (the good and the bad strains).

    • Billy+Bob on December 28, 2014 at 18:31

      Adrian – I realize that there is a play on words going on, ie. “prebiotic for a pathogen.”

      However, I don’t believe that is what is going on in the pig study (or the Russian one). Read this, from the pig study:

      “We screened 463 strains of E. coli for the ability to inhibit E. coli K88 [the pathogenic strain] and utilize starch. In our collection, we had two strains of E. coli (UM-2 and UM-7) that inhibited E. coli K88 and grew weakly on starch, an unusual characteristic for E. coli. We have previously demonstrated that dietary potato starch inclusion enhanced piglet digestive health by reducing diarrhea in young pigs challenged with ETEC [pathogenic E. coli]….Here, we describe a feeding trial using E. coli UM-2 and UM-7 as probiotics in diets containing 14% RPS as the prebiotic.”

      What this paper says, is that they had to search high and low to find some E. coli that would actually grow on potato starch. The pathogenic strains (ETEC/K88) did NOT grow on potato starch.

      I think that if the reality was as Grace described, you’d see increases in all E. coli strains.

    • Adrian on December 28, 2014 at 18:50

      Billy&Bob Thank you for the clarification. ‘We have previously demonstrated that dietary potato starch inclusion enhanced piglet digestive health by reducing diarrhea in young pigs challenged with ETEC [pathogenic E. coli]’ is pretty clear. When they say ‘grew weakly on starch, an unusual characteristic for E. coli’ are they saying that it is unusual for E.coli generally to grow on starch?

    • Adrian on December 28, 2014 at 19:13

      Sorry you actually answered the second bit already

    • Billy+Bob on December 28, 2014 at 20:12

      Adrian – It’s kind of fun. Pick a claim she makes, then click the links and see if she nails it. I’ve been playing all evening! Like this:

      GutGoddess says:

      “Prebiotics alone work too to lower toxic E coli. Every prebiotic appears to work, EXCEPT RAW POTATO STARCH (Pubmed).”

      When you click the link embedded on the word “pubmed,” it goes to a Pubmed search page where the key words searched for were “(prebiotic) AND e. coli.”

      So, somewhere here should be proof that every prebiotic lowers toxic e. coli except for RAW POTATO STARCH.

      What I see is 178 papers with the words ‘prebiotic’ and ‘e coli.’ Nothing jumps at me saying all prebiotics, except RPS, lower pathogenic e. coli. I clicked through the results that popped up on her initial link, and I couldn’t find anything that even talked about which prebiotics lower E. coli.

      I spent a good 30 minutes manipulating the search terms, and I could find nothing that suggests RPS makes pathogenic e. coli grow rampantly.

      Finally, using plain Google I got a hit on “Potato starch and e. coli.” It was this:

      “Potato starch and raw starches ferments furiously and fervently where it lands. Worse, potato starch ‘removes’ the potent guardians of the uppergut, leaving the uppergut vulnerable to infections, E coli, fungi/candida and other potential commensals-turned-vipers and the vipers themselves.”

      Guess where that came from? The Gut Goddesses’ Part IV. Ha!

      So far as can tell, the only place on the entire internet that confirms this recent post by the Gut Goddess, is the post just before it.

      What a deal!

    • space on December 29, 2014 at 14:57

      Wow, that is appalling re the search page. Thanks Billy+Bob.
      I never bothered to click on any of her links, or even properly read the articles as the logic was so circular and nonsensical. She would often contradict herself in the comments too. The tone of it all seemed so strange to me, one minute she was going on about hamster guts, and then the next saying she loves RPS for those who were healthy. I also just don’t see logically how it would be possible for RPS to only feed pathogenic bacteria. That seems impossible – if indeed that was what she was claiming, I kind of lost track.

      One throw away comment recently re eating raw potato was something along the lines of ‘they don’t even feed that to pigs’. But I’ve seen that there are quite a few people who recommend putting raw potato in smoothies, from Ashwin Patel (who she seemed to listen to) to Wheat Belly’s W Davis. Again, it is the tone of it all, ‘not even lowly animals eat that shit’. But it is these throw away comments which start to alarm people.

  3. Harriet on December 28, 2014 at 18:46

    Thanks for this Richard. I was getting more than a little irritated by the anti-PS campaign but really couldn’t be bothered to do a proper analysis. So thanks for doing that one for us. As you suggest, its not worth taking her on in regards to all her statements. She has proven herself to be badly wrong on too many aspects and so has completely lost credibility. It would take a huge amount of time and work to get that credibility back. I’m happy just to leave her alone and just follow on with you and Tim.

    And I’m one whose overall health has improved with increased RS, particularly PS. And just as general feedback my ankylosing spondylitis which flared up in the early weeks of taking PS last January is now back to pre-PS levels of pain and disability. So I’m not “better” but I’m no worse after taking it for a year than I was before I started. Ditto my arthritic fingers.

    • gabkad on December 29, 2014 at 10:59

      Harriet, Nature Rheumatology has just put out an article on gut dysbiosis and ankylosing spondylitis. I asked Tim if he could get one of his contacts to get the full article from the abstract. I have it downloaded but not sure if it’s kosher to just post the URL here. Let me know. You could email Tim for it. (There’s all these ‘rules’ made to be broken….)

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 11:20

      Yea, unless it’s a publicly available free text, I prefer not to post links from uploads. So, yea, exchange in small groups via email.

    • Ozquoll on December 31, 2014 at 14:58

      Harriet, Paul Jaminet has a recent-ish post about AS on his site. He has an interesting theory about what causes it.

  4. Billy+Bob on December 28, 2014 at 23:02

    I don’t know why I bothered, but I clicked on the link embedded in this blockbuster statement:

    “Probiotics and synbiotics may improve liver aminotransferases levels in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients. [not potato starch/RS2]:

    It links to this abstract:

    “Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is defined as a spectrum of liver diseases ranging from simple steatosis to steatohepatitis (NASH). Alterations in intestinal microbiota and inflammatory response may play a key role in disease progression and development of complications in liver diseases, mainly in cirrhosis and NASH. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing probiotics, prebiotics or both (synbiotics) in the treatment of NAFLD in adult patients. After the screening process, 9 full-text articles were included in the review and 6 studies were excluded. Three randomized controlled trials were finally included in the qualitative synthesis. All patients in all the 3 studies were randomized to receive different formulations of probiotics, synbiotics or placebo. Reductions in aminotransferases were observed in the treated group in 2 of the studies. However, in one study reductions were also detected in the control group. In conclusion, the available evidence precludes, for the moment, recommendations on the use of pre and probiotics in clinical practice.”

    It’s simply the abstract of a paper that reviewed other papers, and concluded that there is not enough evidence to recommend pre- and probiotics in clinical practices for fatty liver disease.

    I was hoping to find a paper showing that RAW POTATO STARCH is the only prebiotic that doesn’t cure fatty livers.


  5. Billy+Bob on December 28, 2014 at 23:07

    OK…one more for the road.

    Gut Goddess said:

    “The Folz family experiment — I briefly reviewed earlier here. Gut diversity dropped in each person on high dose potato starch — particularly for the leanness building gut species.”

    I see that Tim Steele said, just tonight, on Vegetable Pharm:

    “Tanya – I think you are referring to what is called “relative diversity”. In the program (MG-rast) that I used to get the percentages, or “relative abundance”, there was also an option to look at the relative diversity. This is a score for the increase or decrease of total different types of bacteria seen. In all cases in the Folz’ Family, everyone’s diversity score increased.

    MG-rast describes this as: “…alpha diversity analysis script ( performs the rarefaction analysis by subsampling the OTUs biome table on the basis of a minimum rarefaction depth value that is chosen by the user depending on the minimum number of sequences/sample obtained.”

    For instance, you can see in the pie chart looking circle for Child 1 in the post above, a visual picture of the species present before (red) and after (green) 6 weeks of potato starch. The diversity score for Child 1 was 21.145 before and 21.463 after.

    I know that doesn’t really tell you much, but maybe it answers your question…yes, the diversity and total bacteria can be quantified. ”

    Why does Tim Steele lie so much? What an asshole!

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 08:24


      I’m somewhat skeptical of this notion of chasing the Holly Grail of diversity. I may be wrong, but I’m always on the lookout for the fallacy of ‘if some is good then more is better.’

      It may very well be that Hadza gut diversity is what it is because of the environment in which they live and the way they live in it, and the gut diversity of a health-conscious person living in a Park Ave apartment and working in a hermetically sealed high rise cubicle farm in lower Manhattan is all it needs to be in that particular environment.

      Moreover, increased diversity could very well mean more that tend to be or become pathogenic while lower diversity, fewer of the same.

      Context applies.

    • gabkad on December 29, 2014 at 17:01

      Why would you want Treponema species if you didn’t need them………. shiver….

    • gabkad on December 29, 2014 at 17:06

      Probably most people haven’t looked closely at the gut microbiome analyses of Hadza poop. Well, honestly, they’ve got some exotic species in there that I have no idea how anyone over here on the other side of the Atlantic would sport.

      And btw, what is this? A microbiome sport? Fuggedoubit. Have the bugs you need. If you want Treponema, go to Tanzania. And good luck with that. You may end up with a couple of ameba species while you are at it. Remember the poop sample studies don’t include protozoans.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 17:09

      Yep, WHERE you are means a lot, even if you are at risk for the same sorts of diseases.

      Data point:

      Gut Microbiomes of Infants with High Risk for Diabetes Differ by Location

    • Ashwin Patel on January 2, 2015 at 14:27

      Its really all about what you eat and your ability to extract energy out of the content(you includes your Gut Microflora). The Composition of your daily diet may contain material that the Human part is unable to digest due to lack of functional enzyme systems. Eat an unusual undigstible food regularly and you develop the ability to extract energy out of that food via the Gut microbiota . A very good example is the ability of Japanese people to digest Seaweed, a staple among that population, via marine Bacteria that have colonized their Guts. Your microbiota evolves with your diet.

  6. Adrian on December 29, 2014 at 00:43

    Okay I have dived into the pig study and it clearly states that the combination of the RPS and the Probiotic (good) E-Coli was most effective in:
    1) reducing pathogenic (bad)E-Coli
    2) improving healthy diversity
    3) achieving best weight gain
    and that the RPS by itself:
    1) Increased pathogenic E-Coli – ‘ in the RPS diet, the total E. coli count was not affected (Table 5); E. coli K88 proliferated (Table 5) and contributed to an increase in diarrhea in these pigs (Table 3). ‘
    2) Reduced healthy diversity
    3) Had the worst weight gain
    The Probiotic E-Coli by itself had the second best effect for desired outcomes. So from my reading of the study the RPS by itself was a negative influence and it was only a positive when combined with a probiotic e-coli species that was specifically selected to be both anti pathogenic and able to digest starch. So this would seem to me to back Grace’s thesis that RPS supports biology that like it. The next question for me is is she correct in stating that RPS favors creating imbalances by favoring feeding certain biology that like over important ones that don’t eat it.

    • Adrian on December 29, 2014 at 00:45

      Its meant to say at the end ‘biology that like IT over important ones that don’t eat it.

    • Adrian on December 29, 2014 at 01:06

      I also want to acknowledge that no one is, or was, saying only take RPA, and that all along Richard and Tim have been saying good healthy wholefood fibers supported by smart diverse prebiotics are the way to go, just in case anyone thought I was going along that track.

    • Adrian on December 29, 2014 at 01:09

      RPS not RPA

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 08:50


      OK, a few points about this cherry picked pig study.

      1. Even if completely valid, it doesn’t absolve her of the numerous misrepresentations documented in this post.

      2. From the conclusion of the study, it looks to me that what they were looking for is the BEST method for controlling pathogenic E coli and it turned out to be a blend of RPS and probiotics. Should come as no surprise. Thousands of bottles (literally) of probiotics have gone out of Amazon’s storehouses since I had my own ENHANCED results with them (my mom, too) after having GOOD results with only RPS. I don’t think they were looking to drag RPS through the mud, they simply found it worked better with the probiotics.

      3. From the methods: “A wheat-soybean meal basal diet…” OK, I suppose that humans on a 100% wheat and soy diet might have more to worry about that humans on a diverse diet of whole animal and plant sources.

      4. What pathogens might inulin feed? How about glucomannan? And on and on for every plant fiber that gets eaten by gut bugs. Pathogens have to eat too and it’s absolutely preposterous to imply that RPS is the only thing that feeds them.

      5. Everybody is a snowflake. Moreover, a gut microbiome carries by age, gender, diet, season, environment, occupation, individual goals, and probably a lot of stuff. If you take identical twins living in the same place and eating the same things, but one is a pig farmer and the other, a lawyer, they are likely to have significant differences in diversity. Accordingly, one might do better than another supplementing RPS, or, one might do worse, both might do better, both might do worse, or it’s a matter of individual dose. These are all variables she isn’t even touching on. And that’s because she’s waging a dishonest campaign. No two ways about it.

    • Billy+Bob on December 29, 2014 at 10:13

      Adrian – You make the same mistake Gut Goddess did. You didn’t read the paper very carefully, just jumped to the chart showing E. coli amounts with different diets.

      Please read this, from the introduction, and see if you can find why the RPS might just have more E. coli than the other diets:

      “treatment 1, positive-control diet (C), no probiotics or RPS but containing in-feed antibiotics;

      treatment 2, probiotic (PRO), no feed antibiotics plus a 50:50 mixture of probiotic E. coli strains UM-2 and UM-7;

      treatment 3, 14% RPS, no antibiotics (RPS);

      treatment 4, 14% RPS plus a 50:50 mixture of probiotic E. coli strains UM-2 and UM-7, no antibiotics (PRO-RPS).”

      The purpose of this study was to find ways to raise piglets without conventional antibiotics. As stated in the paper:

      ” We have previously demonstrated that dietary potato starch inclusion enhanced piglet digestive health by reducing diarrhea in young pigs challenged with ETEC (4). The prebiotic effect of raw potato starch may be attributed to the fact that the starch granules are much larger than those of cereal grains (42) and consequently reach the distal small intestines and colon, where they modify fermentation.”

      So, what do you think? What would the E. coli look like in a control diet WITHOUT antibiotics?

      The assertion that this study fails to show is that RPS selectively feeds pathogenic E. coli.

      Gut Goddess says this study shows that, but in several places, it clearly states that E. coli does not grow well on starch, except for 2 strains of beneficial E. coli that they found.

      ” An important property of our probiotics was that they could ferment starch or at least the by-products of starch and thus had the added benefit of being able to multiply in the gut, while E. coli is not usually able to grow on starch.

      See? That’s called “cherry-picking.” Ignoring the statements that counter your argument, finding a table that supports it, but leaving out the data that could disrupt your argument.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 14:03

      “but containing in-feed antibiotics”

      And how ironic is that, considering that when she came in to latch on to what Tim and I were up to here, the absolute very first thing she did was assert that EVERYONE who’s ever had a round of antibiotics has a compromised gut; no ifs, ands, or buts. It was the first distinction she tried to make.

      Funny how it’s not an important distinction when it’s inconvenient.

    • Adrian on December 29, 2014 at 17:11

      Good point. I missed the importance of the effect of the antibiotics on the control.

  7. Adrian on December 29, 2014 at 02:14

    Following on from ‘The next question for me is is she correct in stating that RPS favors creating imbalances by favoring feeding certain biology that like RPS over important ones that don’t eat it?’ – How much actual difference does it make if you are getting a diverse array of prebiotic foods and supplements that feed the ones that don’t like RPS????? which could get back to Richard’s Chocolate or Vanilla

    • Billy Bob on December 29, 2014 at 10:22

      That is a very good point. I really don’t think that RPS is the greatest prebiotic in the world. I have some problems with it. Number 1 is quality control. It’s sold as a food item, and should be cooked. Eating it raw is gambling a bit. Unless you make your own, from organic potatoes, you don’t know what you are getting.

      Commercial potato starch may have been heated in the processing and it may not contain all the RS it should.

      Commercial potato starch might be contaminated with something.

      Commercial potato starch may contain high levels of solanine that some may be sensitive to.

      For me, the best prebiotic is inulin. But I have tried RPS and even eat some raw potato now and then.

      But if asked, I would simply say, “I don’t prefer RPS, I prefer to buy the more expensive inulin.”

      Had GutGoddess took this route instead of a months-long slamfest against RPS no one would begrudge her that. I think her series went on too long unchallenged, so she got bolder and bolder. She obviously wants people to ‘retweet’ her sound-bites to make RPS seem not only ineffective, but dangerous.

    • Brad on December 29, 2014 at 12:04

      @BillyBob, well you can easily make your own RPS or just eat raw potato. Tatertot has written about this before, prob Richard too. A decent blender can easily make PS. Supposedly the potato juice is full of Vit-C and a bunch of other good stuff. I’ve eaten a little raw spuds and undercooked cassava root with no problem. Have not eaten significant qty’s though.

    • Billy Bob on December 29, 2014 at 19:18

      Brad – Raw potato will kill you dead! Do not eat it. You can’t even feed raw potatoes to animals!

      Proof is here!

      And here!

      And here!

      But after you are done ignoring my links, I will tell you that in reality, I have tried making my own…it was a pain in the ass. I bought two bags of Bob’s Red Mill, one bag tasted like pure crap, the other was flavorless. I started experimenting with other fibers, and now do a blend of Metamucil pure inulin and apple pectin. I take 1-3TBS a day and find it keeps me regular and I must say healthier than ever.

      I have nothing against potato starch. In theory, it should be the perfect prebiotic, and I think the home made stuff is, but buying it is a bit of a crap-shoot. Was for me anyway. That doesn’t mean I will start making up lies about it.

    • BrazilBrad on December 30, 2014 at 04:28

      The whole idea is just retarded… that RS makes you fat or that raw tubers will kill you. It’s well known, and so anyone who supposedly is a serious student of this stuff, no less a “doctor” cough!… knows that the Hadza and various other ancient (ie, did not die out) African tribes eat lots of partially cooked tubers at times. Meaning, 5 minutes on the fire to make them easy to peel means LOTS of internal rawness and high RS content. Would you characterize most of these African tribes people as FAT or THIN?

  8. Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 17:29

    …Nobody said I couldn’t be a bit snarky in the comments…

    Saw this earlier today and thought, what a perfect representation of the Gut Goddess and some of her commenters.

    Scientology Will Make You Better So Fast No Limits Knowledge Forever – You’ll be winning every moment, go faster, be better, you can do it, you’re doing it. The Golden Age of Knowledge meets the Golden Age of Tech Phase II. New superior levels, you can audit — faster and better. More cognitions, BOOM fast! 1 second, 2 seconds. Be free to soar.

    (I bet you can’t not watch the whole thing)

  9. Daniel on December 29, 2014 at 05:33

    As far as I know Grace is talking about HIGH DOSE PS.

    If I take PS in a high dose its bad for me. But in low dose, like 1-2 teaspoons a day it works great!

    • Brad on December 29, 2014 at 12:00

      Me too. 1-2 good. 4 or more, cramps and constipation.

    • BrazilBrad on December 30, 2014 at 04:38

      Btw, this “high dose” thing is also retarded. Most people are aware of the “in moderation”, “dose makes the poison” thing, and as far as I know Richard, Tatertot, etc. have never recommended “high dosing” RPS. If Grace was just warning people not to overdo it on RPS consumption it would not take her a shitload of blog posts going down all manner of tangents and “tenth-order terms”. She seems to have an ulterior, if not obvious, motive here.

    • Duck Dodgers on December 30, 2014 at 21:40


      Yep. I completely agree that harping on “high dose” is retarded. High dose of anything has negative effects (duh). “High doses” of water can cause death. “High doses” of antioxidants have negative effects. “High doses” of inulin-rich onions will cause negative effects. “High doses” of probiotic-rich dirt will have negative effects. Etc. etc, etc. The same would be true of any fiber as well. This is Paracelsus’ golden rule, which any doctor of pharmacology should know.

      Every fiber plays a role in health—from RS to poorly fermented cellulose. To single out RS2 as being “bad,” while other fibers are “good” is to be a fiber racist.

    • BrazilBrad on December 31, 2014 at 02:19

      LOL Duck… yeah a roughage-racist, fiber-favoritist… a prebiotic-picker, if you will. ;-)

  10. Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 08:32

    I’m dropping in this comment by Gemma that she posted on a previous comment thread, for the record:

    I wish to discuss gut bugs.

    tatertot said: “I did share all of my gut test reports, health concerns and bloodwork labs with Grace as a friend, not a doctor, and gave her permission to discuss as she saw fit.”

    Except we see no discussion. We see a never ending monologue using you as an example of gut failure because of “high-dose PS, which resulted in fatty liver, gout, depleted Akkermansia, animal Bifido, hamster gut” and who knows what else.

    And lots of people get very concerned as a result, request YOU to clarify WHY Dr. Grace seems to think what she writes, will PS kill me, am I turning into hamster, as it is not clear by reading her blog. Despite all your attempts to explain that the gout happened in result of your summer experiment with high dose cocoa nibs which are high in purines and caused a mess, that the PS you take is no high dose in the context of your OVERALL diet, that your high Bifido species composition is as it is, and that you feel healthy and fit.

    If I get this part wrong, please clarify :-)

    Dr. Grace’s writing is not clear to me, either. I tried. First I thought it is my English. So I read some more papers and such. Still no sense. The gut microbiome science is still scratching the surface only. Therefore, I think NOBODY should make any premature conclusions at this phase, given that:

    1. Fecal sample analysis might not represent the mucosa inhabitants (Akkermansia, Bifido) precisely.

    2. I think it might not matter so much what species are there (except the clearly pathogenic ones). It matters what they DO, what genes they express. This is not reflected in AmGut or Ubiome reports, of course.

    3. There is something called horizontal gene transfer. It can easily be that the bacteria exchange (=steal) the needed genes and when doing that, they do not politely ask: “are you Bifido or not? Or, are you animal or human strain?” So it might be that the particular species composition expressing the right genes is performing its role just fine.

    4. Some “animal” Bifido were shown to be even better in displacing pathogens and protecting the mucosa then “human” species. I see no reason in celebrating some strains only. Everybody is different, displays different glycan composition and attracts or needs different bugs.

    5. When discussing the available info on mucosa guardians Angelmansia, pardon me, Akkermansia, it was proposed that they maybe show up when needed by us, in case of emergency. Maybe it is the opposite: they are high when there is enough for them to eat, and they also increase their numbers and provoke the creation of richer mucosal layer when THEY feel hungry, e.g. when an animal is hibernating and/or starving. They are predators, they do not care for us, they care for THEMSELVES, the little devils.

    And we could go on…

    Personally for me the whole discussion that started on resistant starches opened the door to lots of fascinating information on the overall importance of real food and fiber diversity, in my own diet too. I am still learning (and sharing what I learn, from time to time, if you do not mind).

    • JagerVater on December 29, 2014 at 09:17

      I think this is the key factor:

      1. Fecal sample analysis might not represent the mucosa inhabitants (Akkermansia, Bifido) precisely.

      If prebiotic fibers are helping to build mucosal layers, those strains may be happily living in those layers and are not being lost to BMs while a less robust mucosal layer may see more lost, hence the greater presence in fecal based testing

    • ses on December 29, 2014 at 20:26

      Great point/thinking. Esp in an area of such complexity as gut-biomes-plural-and-human-health, super-creative and flexible hypothesis-generation is key.

  11. Billy Bob on December 29, 2014 at 10:47

    Just looking at her Part IV post, and saw this, mentioning the same Bodinham 2014 paper that showed the researchers were pleased with the results of HAMS on T2D study subjects:


    Bodinham et al 2014. Authors were shocked to find that 40g HAM-RS2 (raw starch, resistant starch type II) failed to improve blood sugars, hyperinsulinemia, or glycemic control. High dosage raw starches actually worsened many parameters including insulin resistance.”

    Also, I noticed that her latest trick is citing herself throughout her posts. Nice.

  12. Lynn C on December 29, 2014 at 12:12

    Can I play?

    I remember a while back, Dr. BG posted a pig study saying that RS2 appears to raise insulin. I asked Tim about it, and he wrote a whole blog post! So, guess what Richard? You aren’t the first one to expose Grace’s fabricated RS2 bashing stories, lol.

  13. Dr(but call me Joe) on December 29, 2014 at 15:27

    OK, she’s down. Can I get a kick in?

    You guys missed a very obvious lie.

    Her headlines have been ‘RS2 causes increase in bodyfat (wtf)’ for weeks now. She said in the recent post that the Bodinham 2014 paper proves:

    –increased fat mass (32.2 kg v 31.8 kg)
    –increased BMI
    –increased weight

    But a very quick glance at table 1, which she so nicely linked for me, says differently:

    – Fat mass on RS2 was 32.2 (+/- 2.7) and on placebo it was 31.8 (+/- 2.9) Not Significant

    – BMI on RS2 was 31 (+/- 1.3) and on placebo it was 30.7 (+/- 1.4) Not Significant

    – Weight on RS2 was 92.5 (+/- 5) and on placebo it was 91.7 (+/- 5). Not Significant

    If this is her idea of a WTF moment in life…

    If you look at the same table in the Bodinham 2012 paper, the fat and BMI stayed the same, but the weight dropped a bit, still all NS.

    For her to make these grandiose claims and then back them up with papers that don’t support her assertions is just tomfoolery.

    I hope no one takes her seriously.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 16:52

      Heh, Joe:

      Yea, it’s really such a mess when you start digging you just have to stop. Perhaps we could do a Kickstarter to fund “Plant Positive” to dig through all of it and do a 70-video series. :)

  14. Alesia on December 29, 2014 at 18:15

    Well I for one just had two tbsp of RPS, and a cup of goat goat milk kefir that I made (okay the SCOBYs made it but I helped), and then I’m hitting the hay. Ready for a great night’s sleep and lots of dreams. So far no adverse affects for me.

    To each their own I say, but it’s nice if others would actually try a n=1 to see if something works for them instead just of citing studies. Yeah sure read around, but see what makes sense, and try it. Just don’t blindly follow “goddesses” or gods either.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 18:25

      Amen, Alesia. You have pleased doG. ;)

      This is what Tim and I did and accomplished over a long time, get tons of people to do n=1 and report. Thousands. Admittedly, at a point, it seemed “GG” was helping, but in private communications, she kept making shit up just like outlined above and it finally blew up (well, I blew it up, but in Tim’s defense, he din’t have the personal experience I had). I’m tempted to go to details but I’ve sworn to leave all that alone.

      So, tell me about your dreams…

    • Billy Bob on December 29, 2014 at 19:31

      Here, Richard –

      Something to dream about!

  15. Alesia on December 29, 2014 at 18:45

    It’s ment to say effects above… bad grammar keeps me awake apparently.

    As far as the dreams go they could be “good” or “bad” but I’m referring to image clarity, intensity and more realism. Like a movie but better. :)

    • Richard Nikoley on December 29, 2014 at 18:47

      Me too. And an ability to remember.

      Have you had a time warp yet, where in the space of two hours you feel like you lived weeks or months of time in a dream?

    • Bret on December 30, 2014 at 04:46

      +1 on the intensity, clarity, and ability to remember. Though for me, this did not start until a few days into a mild potato hack (where I did not have any RS beyond a greenish banana per day), and even continued for a few days when I came off of it at home for Christmas.

      As for RPS, coming from a common sense only perspective outside the realm of hard science, I don’t see how it could be any more harmful than any other isolated component of a whole food — butter, garlic powder, sugar, etc. I wouldn’t gorge on any of these things, since doing so would likely cause an unwanted nutritional imbalance. But a dose over a period of time for a therapeutic purpose seems completely harmless. I’m sure in any case there is potential for minority exceptions with unique physiological/metabolic problems.

      But unlike Jimmy Moore admitted when he was cornered in the comments of his own “safe starches” post, I don’t believe we need to plaster a big a disclaimer across these things for that small minority of people, who should already know they need to scrutinize any generic advice due to their afflictions.

    • Alesia on December 30, 2014 at 10:26

      No! That’d be fantastic. I’ll be waiting! Maybe if I do an n=1 with removing toxins from RPS with actual acid, instead of just regular ol’ citric acid will yield faster results. Jk. :)

  16. Gina on December 29, 2014 at 21:21

    I didn’t experience any symptoms good or bad of any kind through 2 bags of Bob’s Red Mill PS (4 tbsp/day). I wouldn’t recommend it to a healthy person who already gets plenty of RS in their diet, but it would be hard to convince me that I damaged myself. I’m glad I tried it, since I think it is a good way to find out if your gut is healthy and if you get enough RS without supplementing.

    • Bret on December 30, 2014 at 04:52

      Same experience here, Gina. Admittedly, I did not test my BG while taking this stuff, but I noticed no change in energy, weight, or dreams to speak of.

      I started experiencing dreams after eating lots of potatoes each day. Don’t know if my brain needs other potato components for those dreams that other people don’t, or what. Or maybe it was all a coincidence and simply the result of many months of eating good quality carbs and fermentable fibers.

    • BrazilBrad on December 30, 2014 at 05:17

      I’ve often wondered if potato carbs are metabolized quite differently from other types like white-rice, white-bread, pasta, etc. Like how coconut oil is metabolized very differently from other types of fats. In general we categorize things and treat them as equal – carbs, fats, proteins – often without investigating them thoroughly. Why, I don’t know. Intellectual laziness? Lack of research funding? Could it be that the carbs of potatoes and similar tubers are metabolized differently from white flour products, I mean besides the whole seed/grain anti-nutrient thing? Have tests been done on this but just not very well known?

  17. BrazilBrad on December 30, 2014 at 03:39

    GLP1 wrt fat metabolism and body-comp is a “tenth-order term” to steal an oft used talking point of Peter Attia M.D. Physical activity is THE “first-order term”. A second-order term (my opinion) is not eating 6+ times per day, spiking insulin and shutting down lipolysis all–day–long. 3rd-order might be just shifting all your daily carb intake to the evening to again, keep the lipolysis candle burning. The degree of effect from these lower order factors are debatable, but what is obvious is the huge chasm between first-order (exercise) and tenth-order (gut microbiota). Focus on high-order terms and get much better ROI for your time/efforts. So the nutshell view…

    Energy I/O (high order)
    Hormone levels (mid order)
    Gut microbiota (low order)

    This is not to say that gut bugs are not important for other reasons. I’m talking only about fat metabolism here.

    • BrazilBrad on December 30, 2014 at 03:50

      Attia has a couple good paragraphs on this topic of “relative importance”. See starting at the 5th paragraph of this irisin page which begins… “My first point has to do with the concept of relative importance.”

  18. newbie on December 30, 2014 at 05:09

    Richard, I didn’t want to get into the fray, but can no longer hold this comment – you have all heard the saying “a good defence is a good offence”.
    BG started her current anti-RPS posts at the same time that you announced that the book deal is actually happening soon – IMHO, it is plausible that she wanted to dramatically affect sales, discrediting the book’s recommendations with negative associations in the public domain prior to its release. A negative PR campaign!
    Thanks for posting Gemma’s comment, I was wondering what she had to say, given your reference to it in a previous post.

    • Gemma on December 30, 2014 at 09:03


      What more is to be added? Anybody needs more explanation? :-)

      Oh, wait, for those who still worry about their Akkermansia, and wonder how to increase their levels and might have missed the paper that Tim Steele posted some time ago:

      Stool Microbiome and Metabolome Differences between Colorectal Cancer Patients and Healthy Adults 2013

      “In this study we used stool profiling to identify intestinal bacteria and metabolites that are differentially represented in humans with colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to healthy controls to identify how microbial functions may influence CRC development.

      There were no significant differences in the overall microbial community structure associated with the disease state, but several bacterial genera, particularly butyrate-producing species, were under-represented in the CRC samples, while a mucin-degrading species, Akkermansia muciniphila, was about 4-fold higher in CRC (p<0.01)."

      So in this respect I am glad that even Grace has finally realized that MORE does not always mean better.

    • Mike Mutzel on December 30, 2014 at 13:43

      Great post and commentary. Since you mention Akkermansia, I’d like to add a reference that was published last June. It appears that whey protein and exercise have a favorable impact on this genera of bugs.

      Happy new year,


      Clarke, S. F., Murphy, E. F., O’sullivan, O., Lucey, A. J., Humphreys, M., Hogan, A., et al. (2014). Exercise and associated dietary extremes impact on gut microbial diversity. Gut. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306541

  19. eddie belschner on December 30, 2014 at 13:08


    Wow this one is long Richard ***been some time since Ive been here!!!!…. all the talk on akkermansia , PS etc , Grace … I have to chime in… Im still a believer that YEAST play the role, Low yeast /low yeast in check —- your bacteria chew and chomp the RS.. 3.5 years in on my PERSONAL study , I now have low to no yeast– many of you dont look here. Today my Ruminococcus are higher then normal, 17.7 the next comparison is 6 %(eating group) in ubiome …. my Parabacteroides are 5.4 next closest is .98%(eating group) +++++ Parabacteroides help us digest healthful, high-fiber diets that we cannot otherwise process, and their levels are enriched in the presence of these resistant starches ++++++++Ruminococcus bacteria in our gut microbiomes play a major role in helping us digest resistant starches, and the complex carbohydrates found in high fiber foods

    I eat no potato starch…. Im not bashing it, I began eating plantain chips months ago( I even asked about it)–Ive added coffee and cocoa ,sun flower lectin from almond milk now my bifido is low , which im working on. always has
    (from what I have learned due to my genetics ) seems they hammer yeasts cell wall

    I still feel– those with screwed guts , are high in yeast/ fungi — get um down — get the good bugs in and your bacteria will feed…..

    I may not post much but still read here and there, — I read it all JIMMY MOORE, TIMS, GRACES and YOU RICHARD I weed it all out for my personal gain

    :) and I have no CROHNS, no COLITIS , NO IBS , great blood pressure , etc —-> it all pointed to high yeast and low bacteria…

    I still say most docs are ASS WIPES…. the akkermansia fight you guys are having :) , what ever it did in me , I think it —rebuilt something –maybe came for the process of repair. I went from over 11% akermansia in the revised results of American Gut to now 1.40 in ubiome

    To me it might be the GLUE for the wall paper — the paper being the good bacteria. akermansia the glue. I stripped my yeast and akermansia laid shape My results from 2 years ago to today in Amgut and Ubiome are completely different like two plants

  20. Sidney on December 30, 2014 at 14:57

    I’ve haven’t been keeping up with the blog the last 4 months, but WTF? Last I remember, I thought Richard and Grace were friends and writing a book together. Can someone give me the Cliff Notes version of what happened?!

  21. Cunty on December 31, 2014 at 00:40

    Dude, if I were you or tim, or tim AND you for that matter, I’d take Grace up on her previous offer. Love and sex is so much better than war.

    • gabkad on December 31, 2014 at 05:32

      Who said it was about love and sex?

      This is the problem: she can’t relate to men without showing her bits. Has no confidence that whatever is in her grey matter ought to be plenty. Still caught in that silly trap where a woman can’t just be smart, she has to show off her saggy tits too. She makes herself look stupid.

      Your suggestion just put me off my breakfast. Thanks.

  22. Adrian on January 7, 2015 at 15:07

    What’s the deal with the supposed ‘Ancestral Core’? Does anyone know of any actual scientific papers or credible researchers talking ‘Ancestral Core’? Also reading Grace’s stuff I can’t help but ask How did she make the leap from Bifidobacteria to Bifidobacteria longum being ancestral core? Can’t find any scientific evidence saying that Bif. Long. is ancestral core over an above Bif generally? As usual Grace’s links go nowhere that actually mention Bif. Long. better that Bif. generally? Adrian

    • Billy Bob on January 7, 2015 at 15:25

      Adrian – Luckily “Herr Doktor’s” favorite gut testing lab, Genova Diagnostics, just added Bifido Longum to their list of tests! Now you will have a way to ensure you are growing this ‘ancestral core’ and not just rely on luck. It’s only $199!

      To put it bluntly…she’s full of shit.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 7, 2015 at 16:34


      Just make sure you don’t “decimate” your Akkermansia, ’cause then you’ll only be left with 9 out of 10. ;)

    • Brad on January 7, 2015 at 16:54

      yer just mucin with us.

    • Duck Dodgers on January 7, 2015 at 16:56

      The concept of the “Ancestral Core” came from a paper (Moeller et al PNAS 2014) that she linked to in a blog post from November. Here’s the key quote from Grace:

      Grace said:

      Ancestral Core:
      Roseburia, F. prausnitzii, BIFIDOBACTERIA, Bacteroides, Clostridium

      The ancestral core made us human. These are enriched 2 to 5-fold in humans through deep evolutionary time compared to our wild African chimp and ape cousins. These gut flora eat a range of plant polysaccharides but the more immunoprotective, the more they are likely to consume breastmilk-like oligosaccharides (inulin type fructans, GOS, raffinose family oligosaccharides) and inulin. Roseburia, F. prausnitzii, BIFIDOBACTERIA and Clostridium thrive and crossfeed on RS3 and inulin/oligosaccharides, but not raw starches/RS2

      Wonderful. So, she wants us to believe that it’s the five-fold increase in non-raw starch eating bacteria “that make us human.” It’s difficult to express how poor this logic is.

      The study is only looking at the changes in the common bacterial species that exists between us and our wild African chimp and ape cousins. And as Stephan Guyenet explains, apes and chimps just don’t eat much starch to begin with:

      Apes and chimpanzees are well known to eat a low starch diet. Chimpanzees, which eat a low-starch diet (high fruit), have only have two copies of AMY1, while humans carry 2-15 copies (average ~6). [Source].

      So, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that we should not expect starch-eating bacterial species to be common between us and other primates, like apes and chimpanzees (duh).

      Rather, all the “ancestral core” only tells us is which bacterial species make us primates. If you want to just be a primate, focus on your ancestral core.

      If you want to be human, stop listening to Grace and stop obsessing about the primate-like fraction of your microbiome.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 7, 2015 at 17:13

      …Is that a hamster (with a hamster gut) I see in your photo there, Brad?

    • Richard Nikoley on January 7, 2015 at 17:18

      Is that your hamster gut talking, Duck? Or do you really have duck guts?

    • Brad on January 7, 2015 at 17:27

      No, it’s just a fat mouse. No doubt caused by too much carb consumption. Notice how he’s lifting to increase his muscle insulin sensitivity.

    • Brad on January 7, 2015 at 17:33

      Actually he’s trying to buff up and lean out. He’s tired the hamsters scoring all the chicks… and ducks.

    • Adrian on January 7, 2015 at 18:01

      Thanks very much fellas. That was educational and entertaining all in one. Nice to have a good chuckle.

  23. eddie on January 7, 2015 at 18:37

    I would say bifido is a CORE — bacteria due to the fact it deglycosylates glyco proteins Many of the bifido’s remove — glycoside (but especially glycoproteins) from which the sugar entity gets removed– This is what happens in milk with infants. Infants need it to break glycoproteins in milk(the sugar) — the bifidobacteria degrades and utilizes human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) 1
    asa carbon source .

    • eddie on January 7, 2015 at 19:49

      But when one has a defect– IBS IBD crohns etc

      your GI looks at these markers

      ASCA, ALCA, AMCA, ACCA and here from the link theres two more , my insurance classifies these as a fungus test(the four I listed). (united health care) from the link you see mannose and glycoproteins in pretty much in all

      this link may interest you with milk , and to me relates to the importance of bacteria (here bifido) breaking it down……. back to your raw milk being better…

      my personal experience candida s cell wall is made of mannose , I had high AMCA antibodies….I also had low bifido. If i ate foods similar my AMCA rose… Until I lowered yeast, upped my bifido —I now have no yeast problems and I can eat many glycoproteins which make mannose.. having no effect. i say it maybe the fact I was able to lower yeast from hammering it supplements ,antifungals etc then at the right time got my bifido up to regulate deglycosylates glyco proteins

      this is just me— ive lost all my docs , and dont have crohns , colitis etc now my ubiome from last month looks like nothing close to my nasty amgut I did almost 2 years ago. I now have no starch problems as well.

      to me if someones sick docs should look closely at each person instead of factory treatment. looking back I should had gotten vancomycin and an antifungal — vanco a glycopeptide antibiotic made by the soil bacterium Actinobacteria species ( in the same class of bifido (actionobacteria) and an antifungal to lower mannose from the yeast

      this link shows some mannose foods-(many glyoproteins make mannose- when I personally pulled some out my AMCA dropped

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 08:50

      Ed Yong said: Whenever we eat a sandwich or quaff some beer, this yeast-breaker—Bacteroides thetaiotamicron, or B-theta for short—also gets a rich meal.

      I would be interested in hearing how one increases their B-theta populations. Before public/sanitized water was introduced, virtually all of our not-too-distant ancestors drank “small beer” in lieu of water (the water wasn’t safe unless you had access to a spring). Even the children drank small beer. The small beer wouldn’t have been pasteurized either.

      Here’s George Washington’s home recipe for small beer:

      George Washington wrote:

      Take a large Siffer [Sifter] full of Bran Hops to your Taste.–Boil these 3 hours then strain out 30 Gall[ons] into a cooler put in 3 Gall[ons] Molasses while the Beer is Scalding hot or rather draw the Melasses into the cooler & St[r]ain the Beer on it while boiling Hot. Let this stand till it is little more than Blood warm then put in a quart of Yea[s]t if the Weather is very Cold cover it with a Blank[et] & let it Work in the Cooler 24 hours then put it into the Cask–leave the bung open till it is almost don[e] Working–Bottle it that day Week it was Brewed.

      So, our not-too-distant ancestors were eating and drinking enormous quantities of yeast, on a daily basis, and with virtually every meal and virtually every beverage. Yet, they somehow survived fairly well. George Washington lived to 67, dying of medical malpractice (blood letted to death after a severe sore throat) and that was an average adult lifespan in those days. I’m sure many people had yeast overgrowth, but I doubt everyone suffered terribly from it.

      Another fun fact…Our first ten Presidents lived longer (avg. 77.4 years) than our last ten deceased Presidents (avg. 74.1 years).

      So, our not-too-distant ancestors consumed tons of yeast and their gut bugs were likely able to digest it fairly well. Meanwhile, we worry about the yeast in a slice of bread!

      I see barley blooms bifido quite well. People did eat (and drink) lots of barley back then. But I’m curious as to what blooms this B-theta.

      Any thoughts?

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 09:38

      Now we’re having fun… Bifidobeer!

      Antiobesity effect of bifidobeer on obese rats and its mechanism (2009)

      This study investigated the anti-obesity effect of bifidobeer on obese rats and its potential mechanism. Initially, a rat model of obesity was established by feeding with high lipid forage. The model rats were then divided into three groups and fed with either bifidobeer, commercial beer, and purified water, with the control group being the rats given purified water. All the rats were fed with basal forage for 4 weeks, then killed, and were evaluated for body weight, body fat, feeding efficiency (FE), glucose (GLU), total cholesterol (TCHO), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), leptin, and insulin levels, as well as for number of viable particles of bifidobacteria in the faeces. Results showed that compared with those of obese rats given purified water, the abdominal fat/body weight, TG and GLU levels of the rats fed with bifidobeer decreased significantly, while the number of viable particles of bifidobacteria in the faeces increased significantly. However, the above-mentioned indices of the obese rats fed with commercial beer showed no significant difference from those fed with purified water. In addition, the abdominal fat/body weight GLU and insulin levels of the obese rats given bifidobeer showed no significant difference from those of normal rats. In conclusion, bifidobeer promotes the growth of bifidobacteria in the intestinal tract of rats and regulates fat storage as well as glucose and lipid metabolism.

      How is Bifidobeer made?

      Experimental Study on Technology Used for Brewing Bifidobeer (2006)

      To study technology used for brewing bifidobeer which is fermented by Bifidobacterium bifidum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Australia malt is Spared and milled.Wort is prepared by lixiviated saccharification, filtered,hops added,boiled and Co-fermented by Bifidobacterium bifidum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and making antisepsis and centrifugation. The quality of beer is evaluated by several important performances. Malt and rice are smashed well. Wort is very good,in which fermentable sugar andα-amidonitrogen are moderate. Quality performances of Beer are up to the criterion,not only improve its favor and health, but also save preparation of functional oligosaccharide and enhance the industry of fermentable food. Technology used for brewing bifidobeer needs to be improved for large-scale production and market sale.”

      My guess is that you someone could make this at home, no?

    • Billy Bob on January 7, 2015 at 18:49

      Eddie – Yes, that sounds like a good statement. The only thing I have issues with is making people believe that “bifido” isn’t good enough, it has to be “bifidobacterium longum”. Any bifido that grows in a human is human bifido.

      Bifido, in general, seems to be a great marker of health. That seems to be a univerally held belief. Gracey would have us believe that good levels of bifido are meaningless unless they are all longum.

      For that, I cry ‘foul.’

    • Duck Dodgers on January 7, 2015 at 19:17

      Eddie said: “I would say bifido is a CORE — bacteria due to the fact it deglycosylates glyco proteins”

      Well, I wouldn’t say that bifido is unique in that regard. That’s the entire reason the microbiome exists—to consume the glycosidic linkages (i.e. glycans, such as glycoproteins).

      How glycan metabolism shapes the human gut microbiota

      “Symbiotic microorganisms that reside in the human intestine are adept at foraging glycans”

      That’s why the bacteria are all there in the fist place—to consume the glycosidic linkages that our human enzymes can’t digest. That’s their food!

    • Duck Dodgers on January 7, 2015 at 20:11

      Interesting stuff, Eddie! But again, it’s not like Bifido is the only species that eats glycoproteins. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to suggest that.

      Your gut barrier (mucin-2) is a giant wall of glycoproteins. And when your gut bugs don’t have glycans to eat, they eat the glycoprotein mucin-2. Every glycans is a potential food for the gut bugs.

      But, still, that’s really neat stuff!

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 14:30

      So look at it this way

      in the IBD expanded panel you have 4 antibodies

      you can find out out where your problem lies
      see link and then google each, you can learn what foods make each or fall into them

      Depending on what yeast you have , your target or fight is completely different. you maybe helping with certain foods, or actually hurting your self

      then take the OAT
      SEE the sample report —–

      your makers in areas mean things…. depending on what markers you have high can help you pin point what yeast you may be fighting. As well what toxins this yeast is making will –pin point your treatment.. yeast can screw with citric acid / vitamin C etc etc look at the markers

      by doing them — you can pin point more clear your treatment. lets say you have candida candida tropicalis you may have good butyrate but it can use it —good luck

      why I also like the stool test at great plans as well to me this tells you many inflammation markers etc — sample

      me personally I think THE GDX test are a completely worthless… compared to this lab. great plans lab also looks at micro yeasts in the column. If your have taken down alot of your yeast , and you feel good you may have lots of micro yeast… like babies…months later.. back comes the problem when they grow out. Why I say , many end up back in the same boat

      For me I watched this… I had micro yeasts , and now dont , I now also dont have problems and my other tests to me say im clean— I also have no effects coming back…

    • eddie on January 8, 2015 at 18:15


      to me the GDX is too basic …the OAT at great plans to me is so far more in depth. many more detailed markers. they also look at micro yeasts.

      You have micro yeasts,,,but large amounts are abnormal. Look at the great plans link OAT example to the left.. To me this is a KEY time/point as to hopefully get bacteria to bloom and do there job. What I think happen to me

      I think my fiber eaters ,starch eaters and bifido /lacto….to off all my fiber eaters are HIGH as well key starch eater is HIGH now. seems lacto is doing it job , to me it seems as the bifido– must poke a hole in candida ( glycoproteins) keeping them from getting out of control

      with the great plans lab at the end they give you info /links to what is making eat item high. You can also request to talk to the nice lady at the lab— who has great info. you get about 20 to 30 min free.
      this is a link that tells you what some mean
      Not a great plans link but similar info

      L@@K here —–>

    • Gemma on January 8, 2015 at 04:26

      I believe Eddie is talking Bifido probiotic supplements he was taking to heal his disease, and Bifido do help, nobody disputes that (if I am not wrong they are a bit compromised and low in those with FUT2 non secretor status). So he threw some Bifido strains and their genes in, and it helped.

      Correct me if I am wrong Eddie – BEFORE you had low count Bifido and too high Akkermansia, and AFTER you healed the Bifido count went up and Akkermansia back to low, back to normal?

      Do you happen to know what Bifido species there are now, based on one testing? And, frankly – do you care? :-)

    • Gemma on January 8, 2015 at 04:32

      By the way, Eddie seems to be quite right with his mannose and yeast theory, see latest article by Ed Yong, talking about the yeast eater Bacteroides thetaiotamicron:

      Our Own Friendly Neighbourhood Yeast-Breakers

      “Yeasts are fungi. They are surrounded by a sturdy cell wall, which contains a complex group of carbohydrates called alpha-mannans. These consist a few simple sugars that unite, in groups of a hundred or more, to form elaborate structures that look like the head of a gigantic rake—a long backbone, with umpteen prongs branching from it.

      These structures are tough work for the meagre set of digestive enzymes encoded within our own genome. But bacteria have no such problems. They are digestive wunderkinds. B-theta alone has over 250 carbohydrate-busting enzymes—one of the largest sets of any microbe. For comparison, we have just 100 or so, even though our genome is 500 times bigger.

      Alpha-mannans are also implicated in some inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn’s disease. There’s some evidence that people with this condition have antibodies that target mannans and might therefore overreact to the presence of yeast in their guts.”

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 06:09

      thanks for pointing that out

      Why I point to this link at times

      NO GI on this plant will say yeast or fungi is a problem in people. they point to bacteria ONLY.. I had mine laugh in my face 3.5 years ago. They use the ASCA antibody test as well when looking at celiac with the countless other celiac tests. Mine I call a cocky –A-hole ran the IBD (EXPANDED)panel. ( One of the best things he did even thou he had no idea what each antibody ment) from here and other tests I was told immune system drugs humera etc etc .. I said F-off I ll find my cause… and you know I have I dont have have crohns or colitis

      and Im in better health then my friends who had no crohns or colitis …. No one wants to believe certain yeasts /fungi target certain mannose / glyco proteins For me getting the yeast down —and bacteria up to block them now allows me to EAT many glyco proteins and no have any effects with my antibodies rising—- why I point back to this link

      any of you with a gut problem or IBS ask your GI they will laugh in your face about yeast

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 07:04

      my akkermansia is now lower but still in the higher then avg ( good amount)

      All of us carry Clostridium bacteria in our gut as they are a normal component of a healthy digestive microbiome ( mine is good)

      my bifido is still in the low range but has a good mix in the actionobacteria

      my ubiome shows for Actinobacteria

      I am now —> low on ( i am super low) PROTEOBACTERIA–folks with inflammatory bowel disease seem to have more Proteobacteria and fewer varieties of other bacteria. I am very low now— before I had tons and tons of yeast/fungi

      My Ruminococcus are HIGH—- starch eater , and why I say I now can eat starch again ( have more then most people

      my Parabacteroides are high as well—— help us digest healthful, high-fiber diets that we cannot otherwise process, and their levels are enriched in the presence of these —–>resistant starches. <——— I eat tons of fiber, nuts seeds and veggies

      BUT my YEAST and FUNGI are extermely LOW why I say bacteria are now EATING the food there ment to eat… and I dont have

      GUT disease :) Id be happy to share my UBIOME

      my AMCA — is now in range — as well all my crazy tests look good — and I FEEL good

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 09:01

      very interesting– it maybe the fact that , these people had there lacto bacteria un affected ..most lacto is in the stomach , upper GI.. to me these break and ferment with yeast. 9like we see in the process to make bread-cheese, wine, kraut etc)

      Maybe they had((( no ))))problems because there was no loss of lacto. Todays people , loose many from many uses of antibiotics thru life. The people may have had key lacto and bifo helping ferment (lacto with yest) and bifido keeping them( yeast in check) reducing glycoproteins

      very interesting barley BLOOMS bifido… does coffee , seems they like sunflower lecthin as well .. many with gut problems have NO bifido or low bifido — to me they dont stick or take due to over load of yeast , when screwed.

      just thoughts again…not fact

    • Richard Nikoley on January 8, 2015 at 09:02


      You went and did it again.

      “People did eat (and drink) lots of barley back then.”

      John Barleycorn Must Die.

    • Gemma on January 8, 2015 at 09:02

      @Duck Dodgers

      “But I’m curious as to what blooms this B-theta.”

      I do not my believe eyes, what a question :-)

      Anyway, here you are:
      Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron

      “Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron is an obligate anaerobe, a major endosymbiont of the human gut. The bacterium uses various polysaccharides as its source of carbon and energy. B. thetaiotaomicron is able to use amylose, amylopectin, and pullulan (all three forms of starch) in addition to maltooligosaccharides.”

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 09:30

      Gemma said: “B. thetaiotaomicron is able to use amylose, amylopectin, and pullulan (all three forms of starch) in addition to maltooligosaccharides”

      Well, you can find maltooligosaccharides in beer. And you can get maltooligosaccharides from hydrolyzing starch with α-amylase.

    • BrazilBrad on January 8, 2015 at 09:38

      that “fun fact” is interesting. However, can we conclude that drinking “small beer” versus just water is beneficial today? Any idea how that would add to daily calorie intake. Just curious.

    • Billy Bob on January 8, 2015 at 09:42

      Go right ahead…if you want @DRUNKEN HAMSTER GUTZZZ, wtf

      I’ll take a Bifidolongum Lite!

      I can see your commercial, three hamsters, each belching “Bif, I, do” through there swollen, fatty liver cheek pouches stuff with PS.

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 09:51

      However, can we conclude that drinking “small beer” versus just water is beneficial today? Any idea how that would add to daily calorie intake. Just curious.

      Well, I think we can just classify “small beer” as an “alive” fermented water. It was very watered down and had barely any alcohol:

      How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died

      Beer was the most commonly consumed form of alcohol, but with an alcohol content significantly lower than today’s beers. Careful reading of contemporary sources including cookery and domestic economy books suggest that the alcohol percent of beer consumed in the home was probably only 1% to 2%; often less as it was watered down, especially for consumption by women and children [43,46,47]. In pubs, the alcohol content of beer was more regulated and generally higher, ranging from 2% to 3%. These are still weak beers, compared to today’s average of around 5%. Spirits were more intermittently consumed by men and rarely by women: respectability and gin did not go together [48]. Working class men and women seldom drank wine, except for port or sherry. A third or more of households were temperate or teetotal, partly due to the sustained efforts of the anti-alcohol movement.

      But again, if you research these weak “small” beers, they often were consumed in lieu of water, since the water wasn’t very safe to drink. However, they may have had a few calories from the grains.

      Wikipedia: Small Beer

      “Small beer (also, small ale) is a beer/ale that contains very little alcohol. Sometimes unfiltered and porridge-like, it was a favored drink in Medieval Europe and colonial North America as opposed to the often polluted water and the expensive beer used for festivities. Small beer was also produced in households for consumption by children and servants at those occasions”

      So, my guess is that it was a kind of prebiotic/probiotic beverage.

    • BrazilBrad on January 8, 2015 at 09:57

      Interesting. Also that it was consumed quite a lot by the ancient Egyptians, who also ate a lot of grains – I think barley and spelt, or emmer? I forget.
      It’s interesting that many people make home made yogurt (kefir) but not beer. That might change if people come to think of beer as a pre/pro biotic.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 8, 2015 at 10:12

      Kombucha has upwards of 1-2% alcohol when made as it’s supposed to be.

      That’s why “Whole Foods” has been phasing it out, in favor of “Enlightened” versions, for Fucking Morons.

    • Billy Bob on January 8, 2015 at 10:17

      “Kvass” translates to “yeast.” Kvass is traditionally made with stale rye bread or beets, both which seem to be exceptional ‘starters’ for yeast.

      What would Dave Asprey think of all this?

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 10:19

      BrazilBrad said: “It’s interesting that many people make home made yogurt (kefir) but not beer. That might change if people come to think of beer as a pre/pro biotic”

      Exactly. Here, check this out…

      John (a beer expert) said:

      “There’s 2 big differences between the pub beers of the Victorian age and today’s big commercial beers (I won’t name them because they’re very big corporations with highly paid lawyers, but you know who I’m talking about). The obvious difference is that the beers are very different styles. Today’s big beer’s are lager beers with adjuncts (rice and/or corn typically) the pub beers in England in the 1880’s were what’s called an ale today (different yeast). I don’t know much about the recipes for Stouts and IPAs in the Victorian times, but today’s beers of those styles are typically all malted barley (which is the backbone of our big corporate beers too) with maybe some wheat or oats. Adding rice or corn to a beer lightens the body and in some ways makes a beer more drinkable. That’s why those big beer companies are so big, they make very drinkable beer. The second difference and I’m guessing the more pertinent one, is that the beers in the Victorian age were very likely unfiltered. Filtering beer removes all the yeast and any other “bugs” (bacteria) that might be living in the beer. In the Paleo world, we know that fermented foods are healthy, well, those beers of 130 years ago (and most of today’s craft beers) had all the same healthy bugs as fermented foods do today. In fact, because Louis Pasteur had just discovered that yeast was responsible for fermentation in 1866 pasteurization was not common in the Victorian age. The idea of “sanitary” brewing was still very new and I expect expensive. So not only did those old beers have live yeast they had a host of other organisms, my favorite being lactobacillus

      Think “Raw Beer” will become a thing? :) I don’t drink much beer. Maybe microbreweries are already doing this.

      Richard, I think a post may be in order!

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 10:36

      I will say that promoting live yeast consumption can be a mixed bag for people who have messed up modern guts. Though, I suppose anybody who can tolerate kombucha would probably do well with it.

    • BrazilBrad on January 8, 2015 at 10:42

      I would be interested. I don’t drink much alcohol at all, mainly because I don’t care about the buzz and it just seems like vacant calories for the most part to me. But a “raw” bio-active beer that has health benefits is another story.
      My crystal ball shows the shark jump in a few years as Dr. Oz dumps the resveratrol-wine gig for BAB (Bio Active Beer)

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 10:45

      the bifido beer thing is interesting. A buddy of mine worked for a micro brew and one of the head masters said this….

      theres alot of cool wild yeasts there starting to use in beer, Great flavors etc but there hard to control in the beer process. He said no one really knows what they do to do you… that sacred me..

      but the bifido beer , interesting beer was alot different in the 1400 – 1800’s im sure a weaker lighter taste more lactos i bet

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 10:48

      BIO active health beer…

      you know , there could be a huge market for this , even if it isnt so healthy , you get the crazy , hype people –it could takeoff

    • BrazilBrad on January 8, 2015 at 10:50

      No doubt there are DIY/home-made beer kits and websites out there. Any targeting this pre/probiotic aspect? Amazon,, etc.

      Side topic; bumped into this link about probiotic diy rootbeer…

    • Richard Nikoley on January 8, 2015 at 11:25

      I’ll have to ask my baby bro, but he’ll probably not be interested and I’m not particularly. He’s a long haul truck driver now, but also a brew master and I’ll tell you that even though all recipes are trade secrets, he can brew just about anything (of course, the shops he goes to for supplies are the source).

      Sierra Nevada Pale Ale (a fav)? No problem. 50/50 would fail a blind taste test. He did a 9% ale once years ago n a Memorial day camping trip, and man did we get fucked up, farts included.

      My favorite aspect is on our annual trip to Hat Creek in N CA where I fly hang gliders every early August, he loads an iced keg in the back of his pickup and meets me at landing with an ice cold home brewed ale. Fuck it, but that’s living!

      Easy to love baby Mikey!

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 11:30

      you LUCKY BASTARD :)

      AHH the access to good home brewed beer, has to be great

    • BrazilBrad on January 8, 2015 at 11:49

      Yeah, but the overlords will make it illegal like raw milk.

    • newbie on January 8, 2015 at 12:15

      I wouldn’t normally be commenting on these ideas, but I had to smile as you are suggesting brewing your own – here’s a guy who used his gut microbiota to brew his alcohol, in vivo so to speak….

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 13:41

      Duck ,

      from Newbies article********
      take a look at this…. ———–> patient had an infection with Saccharomyces cerevisiae

      this falls under ASCA in antibodies, as we see here one can have a problem with a strain of bakers / brewers yeast , many with gut problems have ASCA high when GI docs do a standard IBD panel

      many dont look further with the IBD expanded panel. BUt we only knew this guy had a problem because he felt drunk. image how many are sick with out — dizziness

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 14:04

      Yep Eddie. I believe there’s a relationship. I had lifelong brain fog—not quite drunkenness—that cleared once I started eating more (supplemental) fibers. So, I can sort of relate to the syndrome. Not fun. And you’re unaware it’s a problem the whole time.

    • eddie belschner on January 8, 2015 at 14:10

      this is why , I point to the great plans OAT test

      and the labcorp IBD expanded panel 162045 test
      from spending all my money in testing these two seem the best at helping and pin pointing for people

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 14:15

      So, break it down into layman’s English for me. You take the test and if things look bad, you work on your gut and avoid certain foods. Wouldn’t you basically reach the same conclusions if you suspected yeast and started with an elimination diet and slowly reintroducing foods that are less likely to flourish yeast?

    • gabkad on January 8, 2015 at 17:13

      Tell John that the whole point of making ale was to make water drinkable. Go back to Elizabethan times or Tudor times and you’ll find that ale was the way people made water safe to drink. The alcohol level was lower than today’s ales and they had to be consumed relatively quickly because they did not contain hops. Hops, when they were introduced, were used as a preservative.

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 17:31

      gabkad said: “Tell John that the whole point of making ale was to make water drinkable”

      Yep. He knows. We know. The whole comment section where that clip was taken from is all about small beer replacing unsafe drinking water.

    • Duck Dodgers on January 8, 2015 at 17:44

      Eddie said: “I think THE GDX test are a completely”

      I had a Genova organic acids test about two years ago (part of the NutrEval test), a few months before I started fighting yeast. Nothing was abnormal on it. The doc still eventually figured out from my symptoms that I had yeast issues.

      Eddie said: “If your have taken down alot of your yeast , and you feel good you may have lots of micro yeast… like babies…months later.. back comes the problem when they grow out. Why I say , many end up back in the same boat”

      Great. So, how does one fight micro yeast? I would think people always have micro yeast getting read to bloom. Probably a never-ending process. Or is it just getting Bifido and friends in place and feeding fiber?

    • Gemma on January 9, 2015 at 09:34


      Can you clarify the issue of micro yeasts?

      Are you suggesting there are some tiny tiny yeasts smaller than small?

      Or what exactly do you mean?

    • eddie belschner on January 9, 2015 at 11:57

      Gemma ,

      on the great plans test —-you see a section of micro yeasts — yeasts in general are not uniformly through out your stool . Read below, I can see this related to me— the problem one test isnt going to give you the answer you want , my first test , I did after using antifungals, etc etc —I had no yeast cultured –and I figured it would be that way from what I did– As well the questionable test I do( some say questionable) said my numbers were all in tolerance. But this test said I had Moderate MICRO yeasts which is not normal ( to me giving you the potential for them to bloom back –my thoughts are and were I took out the over growth , I even had mucus blobs coming out.) but to me its like they leave behind the ability to regrow.

      My second test later — showed NONE (micro yeast ) and no grown cultures(yeasts). My IBD expanded panel was still in tolerance AMCA and all the others. My oat scores were also better next round arbainose dropping (yeast produce this)

      from great plans below:::::
      The microscopic finding of yeast in the stool is
      helpful in identifying whether there is
      proliferation of yeast. Rare yeast may be
      normal; however, “”””””yeast observed in higher
      amounts (few, moderate, or many) is abnormal””””””””””

      Read the test —- When investigating the presence of yeast, disparity may exist between culturing and microscopic examination. Yeast are not uniformly dispersed throughout the stool, this may lead to undetectable or low levels of yeast identified by microscopy, despite a cultured amount of yeast.
      Conversely, microscopic examination may reveal a significant amount of yeast present, but no yeast cultured. Yeast does not always survive transit through the intestines rendering it unvialb

      to me — when you get your overgrown yeast under control….. your left with micro yeast. If you have to much– they grow back in force. Where I say –the good bacteria “”maybe””” use them for food( or whatever) …. ( fiber eaters , starch eaters , and the bifido– keep them from taking the glycoproteins –to make cell walls– to grow out in pathogenic form . Seems the bifido block them –by deflating the glyco proteins they need for there cell wall. No good bacteria no ending the process of yeast overgrowth. ( I say this because Ive tracked my AMCA) which is mannose( many glycoproteins) <——-foods or candida cell wall
      my AMCA dropped over time–fighting yeasts

      TO ME NO EASY TASK— from what Ive done
      seems I had no good bacteria– all bad, and lots of yeast( in the form of candida or aspergillus–raising my AMCA. I got them to the right point (yeast) and the bacteria were able to take over and out number the yeast.. my ubiome looks good to me between all tests proves this
      I dont have crohns, IBS and or ulcer colitis –or hemorrhoids anymore

      I plan to test this theroy more this YEAR — in doing more OAT tests, IBD expanded panels and Ubiome ( because to me you have to track BOTH) you cant wear pants with out a belt. ( yeast and bacteria– what ever role they do seem to work in a pair– loose one loose your health , over grow one – over load your problems

      personally to me— doctors end up F_ing you up tossing antibiotics at you– creating more yeast , killing your lacto and bifido and making super CDIFF , as well overgrowth nasty bacteria

    • Gemma on January 10, 2015 at 01:56


      Thanks for the explanation, it all makes a lot of sense.

  24. eddie on January 7, 2015 at 19:05

    In a small defense ..I will say some (bifido) are better then others. I personally use 3 strains ..I wont name 3 that I feel arent so good. I have added an additional strain which has done some strange things.

    To me people should research each strain and look at what they do and how they will benfit them

    But its not for me to say which is best..I will say my personal thought bifido long is core..but the others do something in there own way.. I personally like the akermansia my self and have talked about it long before everyone here….it may have been me who started it.. some how I belive this strain to be the glue on the lining mucus. To much is bad ..none is bad . Diabetes people seem to have lost theres. We may never know the correct amount. I can say in myself my has shifted as my health changed

  25. Steve on August 31, 2015 at 00:43

    As for the original topic of this thread, is resistant starch by means of potato starch “bad” – well in my case, no, based on one little home test. I’ve had some kind of overgrowth in the gut for years, candida or whatever, and mixing carbs with a lot of liquid usually gives me 2 days of gas and swollen glands, from only one dose.

    So I tried this:
    Day 1, on empty stomach, a full glass water with a 1″ chunk of raw potato, just peeled and pureed in it. No problems from this in my gut.

    Day 2, on empty stomach, a full glass water with a 1” chunk of cooked and fully cooled (from fridge) potato. Like clockwork, I got the 2 days gas and glands problem from this.

    So the peeled pureed raw potato was fine for me, but the cooked and cooled potato had enough non-resistant starch in it to cause the problem. I have not yet tried the powdered raw potato starch.

    In my daily diet, I eat carbs, non sugary ones, but I don’t wash them down with copious amounts of liquid, preferring to drink water between meals instead. This prevents most, but not all, of the issues my gut has with ordinary starches. I take some anti-candida supplements fairly often, which also help. But have never gotten rid of the problem completely.

    Probiotics haven’t helped. Kombucha causes a complete mess with me, I get the gas and gland issue for days after drinking it.

  26. eddie on September 1, 2015 at 13:43

    Just a little note for you……. why you may feel..ill drinking kombucha

    kombucha may contain many beneficial strains of lactic acid bacteria (or probiotics), it can also contain ——–>>>>>several strains of yeast. Some of these yeasts are beneficial to the body, while others are not. <<<<<<<————

    The problem with wildly fermented kombucha tea is that most of us have no way of knowing what strains of yeast the kombucha contains or do they list them…..

    In fact, one study found that some kombucha samples harbored Candida albicans, the yeast that is responsible for Candida overgrowth

    many with —
    Candida overgrowth
    Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth
    Irritable bowel syndrome
    do do well………………………..if your free and clear or tolerate yeasts then you may do well with it

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.