Gut flora and healthy body condition

SueGremlin
SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
http://www.naturalnews.com/036331_gut_flora_weight_loss_body_fat.html

What do you guys think of this?

I think it has a lot of credibility and makes a lot of sense. It is an up and coming area of research, and as a biologist, it is quite credible to me, as well as intriguing. Can bacteria actually manipulate your cravings? A growing body of research says so. From what little I've read about it so far, it is pretty convincing.

It entered my brain space this week while reflecting on my own weight loss. My tastes for food have changed dramatically over the last two years. I went from eating a lot of meats and sugary, fatty foods to craving a diet largely consisting of fruits, vegetables beans. When I started tracking calories, I was kind of forced to alter what I ate in order to stay satisfied. Should I eat a small bowl of mac and cheese, or a giant pile of sauteed greens? Which left me more sated? After figuring that out, the weight came flying off, as many other MFP members have also experienced. Did I prefer lasagna to garbanzo beans and spinach? You bet I did.

But after a while, I realized that this was not the case anymore. That given my druthers right now, I'd much rather have those garbanzos, and that lasagna leaves me feeling like I poured sakrete down my gullet. I eat meat/animal protein about once or twice a week because I simply don't want it more than that. What? This doesn’t compute to someone who has been overweight for her entire life. Why was this time different? I dunno. I have done yo-yo dieting from the time I was in 6th grade and my mom convinced me that I was fat and icky. But I always viewed "diets" as something temporary. My venture in to MFP was the first time I was able to keep an improved eating plan in a sustainable manner, and I was able to look forward to a year from now rather than a week from now. I never looked at my watch and thought "Am I THIN YET"? The element of time was on my side.

So what about bacteria? Bacteria are demanding little things that are basically eating and pooping machines. They exist by the billions in and on our bodies--in fact, for every body cell we have, we also harbor about 5 bacterial cells. They all have a voracious metabolism, and depending on their genetic programming, they have widely diverse tastes in foods. To give a quick example of bacterial diversity, there are bacteria that eat the usual things--meat, fruits and vegetables, which is why we put food in the fridge. Cold temperatures keep them at bay. But there are also bacteria that eat gasoline, glass, salt, metals and rocks. Obviously, the metabolic needs of these vary widely!

In today's modern, germ-phobic world, the word "bacteria" comes with quite a stigma, but without bacteria in our intestines and on our skin surfaces, we would quickly perish because of these aforementioned vital metabolic processes. The vast majority of microbes are not harmful or pathogenic. As the saying goes, a few bad apples don't spoil the whole bunch. We would not be able to process many nutrients without them. They secrete enzymes that break down carbohydrates into simple sugars, for instance. They produce essential vitamins that we would otherwise not get from our foods. And a whole host of other metabolic processes.

Bacteria, like animals and plants, given the right nutrition, will flourish and multiply. Do you hear that smacking sound? That's me hitting myself on the forehead. I am a scientist! I should have thought of this a long time ago. Of COURSE it makes sense that when you eat a certain food, it favors a certain type of bacteria in your gut. Of COURSE. But only recently it dawned on me that perhaps the needs of your bacterial colonies in there are dictated by your own cravings. If your guts crave something, perhaps your brain will, too. Is that so far-fetched? I do not think it is at all. So I did some digging and bodies peer-reviewed research agree. Eating certain foods favors certain bacterial populations. But does it go the other way around? Do certain bacterial populations favor certain foods, too?

The bacteria in a thin person's gut are different than those in an overweight person's. By transferring the gut flora from a rodent of healthy weight into an obese rodent's gut, you get a significant improvement in the weight of the formerly obese rodent. Research into this area highlights bacterial populations that are associated with insulin resistance, a widely researched factor in obesity and overweight-related metabolic problems. That is pretty compelling stuff, scientifically speaking. Can simple transplantation of gut bacteria from one person to another, as distasteful as it may seem, be indicated in certain cases? Of course this is not a quick fix, and I really believe I am a living example of a person who was able to alter my own guts, but I think it could be a really valuable part of the solution to the problems associated with weight management.

I'd love to hear thoughts on this from you guys in the MFP community.

Replies

  • Farrahrm
    Farrahrm Posts: 33 Member
    It may not be that the cause is being thin, and that the gut flora being different is the result. It could also be hormones too....and maybe other factors that we don't know yet. I think it is an interesting find though, and gut flora is very important to overall health.
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    It may not be that the cause is being thin, and that the gut flora being different is the result. It could also be hormones too....and maybe other factors that we don't know yet. I think it is an interesting find though, and gut flora is very important to overall health.
    That is what I am trying to say: That we know that people with different diets have different gut bacteria. But is it possible that it goes both ways? That diet affects bacteria, and bacteria affect diet?
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    It may not be that the cause is being thin, and that the gut flora being different is the result. It could also be hormones too....and maybe other factors that we don't know yet. I think it is an interesting find though, and gut flora is very important to overall health.
    That is what I am trying to say: That we know that people with different diets have different gut bacteria. But is it possible that it goes both ways? That diet affects bacteria, and bacteria affect diet?

    do fleas steer the dog?
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    It may not be that the cause is being thin, and that the gut flora being different is the result. It could also be hormones too....and maybe other factors that we don't know yet. I think it is an interesting find though, and gut flora is very important to overall health.
    That is what I am trying to say: That we know that people with different diets have different gut bacteria. But is it possible that it goes both ways? That diet affects bacteria, and bacteria affect diet?

    do fleas steer the dog?
    In some ways, absolutely!
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    It may not be that the cause is being thin, and that the gut flora being different is the result. It could also be hormones too....and maybe other factors that we don't know yet. I think it is an interesting find though, and gut flora is very important to overall health.
    That is what I am trying to say: That we know that people with different diets have different gut bacteria. But is it possible that it goes both ways? That diet affects bacteria, and bacteria affect diet?

    do fleas steer the dog?
    And I am really glad you brought this up.
    There are actually examples of this kind of thing, quite literally. There are parasites that steer the behavior of their hosts. Flukes of mammals have a complex life cycle. One stage of which requires the cow to eat an infected ant. The parasite-infected ant actually has altered behavior so that it prefers to climb out onto the ends of blades of grass, rendering them more likely to be eaten by the cow.
    There are many examples of this kind of thing in nature. Biology is cool.
  • Hakarn
    Hakarn Posts: 62 Member
    I think more recently it is estimated that we have 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells.

    I actually work on this. We do not know what the exact interactions are, but the gut-brain axis (the name it is given) seems plausible. One scientist in China actually lost 100 pounds or so just by feeding the bacteria in his body differently. This is not to say that everybody could use his diet because a Chinese microbiome may be different from a European based microbiome. In general the classes of bacteria may be the same, but the genera and species could be different.
  • Farrahrm
    Farrahrm Posts: 33 Member
    It is so interesting... Think about how much more we don't know.
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    I think more recently it is estimated that we have 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells.

    I actually work on this. We do not know what the exact interactions are, but the gut-brain axis (the name it is given) seems plausible. One scientist in China actually lost 100 pounds or so just by feeding the bacteria in his body differently. This is not to say that everybody could use his diet because a Chinese microbiome may be different from a European based microbiome. In general the classes of bacteria may be the same, but the genera and species could be different.
    Awesome! What do you work on? Symbiotic flora? Nutrition?
    What I do not understand yet is the diversity. Is it actually different species, or different expressions? Or a little of both? Some papers I read discuss your native flora being with you for life. Is that really so?

    The interactions and possibilities are seemingly endless.
  • Hakarn
    Hakarn Posts: 62 Member
    I work on symbiotic relationships. The symbionts actually have mechanisms to protect us from the pathogens. However, what we ingest affects them to the point that they can no longer protect us. For those wondering, no I do not know the secret to not harm the good guys :)

    There are many different species hanging around. The basic proportions are there for life, but like I said, you can cause havoc. For instance, antibiotics can kill off many of the good ones, lowering your defenses against the bad ones. If you eat a bunch of sugar, some of the bad ones can out-compete with the good ones. My boss found a paper a few weeks ago saying that E. coli in the gut thrives on nitrate (more so than sugar and other carbohydrates). Your body produces some nitrates when you are stressed out. If you have some pathogenic E. coli in your gut, you could be allowing it to flourish when you get stressed - causing an infection. Have you wondered why not everybody gets infected by E. coli when they eat contaminated food... this might be why.
  • allshebe
    allshebe Posts: 423 Member
    I think there is a definite correlation between what kinds of foods you eat and the relative populations of different microbes in the gut. If you eat a high fat diet, you will be able to support a larger population of "fat-eating" microbes than if you eat a low fat diet (just a generalized example). If your diet selects against the fat-eating bacteria for a long enough time for the population to adjust downward and you suddenly eat a high fat meal, it may well make you feel ill in short order, because there aren't enough of the "right kind" of microbes in your gut any more to help you deal with that sort of meal. So gut populations could definitely affect what you like or feel "comfortable" eating. Having those same microbes affect cravings is a bit more of a stretch - unless there is some mechanism by which some microbes can "reward"/make you feel good/better for eating a particular food - hypothetical example - if when you eat fat, the fat-eating microbes produce as a byproduct (in their poop) a chemical that reacts with a feel good receptor in your brain, your brain might recognize a cause and effect relationship and "desire" more fats to increase the "feel-good" chemical. I have no evidence that such a relationship exists though.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    My thoughts on the article …

    They seem to make a giant leap from correlation to causality. Because obese people (and mice) have a different composition of gut flora doesn't mean that the flora causes obesity. It could be the other way around. It could be another factor causing both.

    The website publishing this article has a certain agenda they are promoting. Look at the url … it is "natural news" (they are an all natural promoter) It is a .com … they are there to make money. Look at the advertisements they tout on the side … "organic vs inorganic minerals" (um … minerals are, by definition, inorganic substances… I know what they *mean* but they use industry buzzwords to support their hype), "clean Chlorella", "how to cure almost any cancer at home for $5.15 a day." It is clear that this is not an unbiased source. You do have to consider the quality of your sources. (ETA: these are not google ads that put what seems relevant to the visitor or I would get massage, ACSM cert, and McDonald's ads.)

    And sure, they list what looks like peer reviewed articles as sources, but many authors will pull what they want and ignore anything that doesn't support their side of the story. [I have a degree in social sciences, and another in math & physics, so I am pretty familiar with legitimate articles and pseudo-science.] None of their claims are directly linked to a reference with footnotes, etc. Even Wikipedia does that… So without going back and reading the actual articles (which were mostly on rats and mice, by the way), it's hard to say how legitimate any information on this page is.

    I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying I question the legitimacy of their information as real science. As a scientist, I would prefer to go off of real, peer-reviewed studies which follow the scientific method. It's a good starting point, but there is a lot of room for more studies, especially looking at humans' gut flora, and exploring cause-and-effect before I jump on this bandwagon.
  • Erin0164
    Erin0164 Posts: 64 Member
    Extremely interesting. I have been reading all the articles regarding fecal transplants to cure C difficile too. Now there is talk that bacteria transplants may help with food allergies too. Amazing what we do and do not know.
  • Hakarn
    Hakarn Posts: 62 Member
    Having those same microbes affect cravings is a bit more of a stretch - unless there is some mechanism by which some microbes can "reward"/make you feel good/better for eating a particular food - hypothetical example - if when you eat fat, the fat-eating microbes produce as a byproduct (in their poop) a chemical that reacts with a feel good receptor in your brain, your brain might recognize a cause and effect relationship and "desire" more fats to increase the "feel-good" chemical. I have no evidence that such a relationship exists though.

    Your intestines have tons and tons of neurons attached. The bacteria are thought to embed in your intestine lining, giving them access to send signals through to the neurons. I do not believe the bacteria are saying "Walk five steps forward" or to have complex emotions. However, is it such a stretch for them to be causing cravings for sugar or food in general? What the scientists propose is that they (the bacteria) are causing the craving, not just influencing how you react to food.
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    My thoughts on the article …

    They seem to make a giant leap from correlation to causality. Because obese people (and mice) have a different composition of gut flora doesn't mean that the flora causes obesity. It could be the other way around. It could be another factor causing both.

    The website publishing this article has a certain agenda they are promoting. Look at the url … it is "natural news" (they are an all natural promoter) It is a .com … they are there to make money. Look at the advertisements they tout on the side … "organic vs inorganic minerals" (um … minerals are, by definition, inorganic substances… I know what they *mean* but they use industry buzzwords to support their hype), "clean Chlorella", "how to cure almost any cancer at home for $5.15 a day." It is clear that this is not an unbiased source. You do have to consider the quality of your sources. (ETA: these are not google ads that put what seems relevant to the visitor or I would get massage, ACSM cert, and McDonald's ads.)

    And sure, they list what looks like peer reviewed articles as sources, but many authors will pull what they want and ignore anything that doesn't support their side of the story. [I have a degree in social sciences, and another in math & physics, so I am pretty familiar with legitimate articles and pseudo-science.] None of their claims are directly linked to a reference with footnotes, etc. Even Wikipedia does that… So without going back and reading the actual articles (which were mostly on rats and mice, by the way), it's hard to say how legitimate any information on this page is.

    I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying I question the legitimacy of their information as real science. As a scientist, I would prefer to go off of real, peer-reviewed studies which follow the scientific method. It's a good starting point, but there is a lot of room for more studies, especially looking at humans' gut flora, and exploring cause-and-effect before I jump on this bandwagon.
    I guess I could have used a better example, I just used that link because it was easy to read. I should have been more careful about using a site with an agenda, you're right.
    There are actually good peer-reviewed papers about it. The experiment with the rodents was pretty compelling to me. This may be a better place to look:
    http://journals.lww.com/jcge/Abstract/2010/09001/Obesity,_Metabolic_Syndrome,_and_Microbiota_.5.aspx
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    Having those same microbes affect cravings is a bit more of a stretch - unless there is some mechanism by which some microbes can "reward"/make you feel good/better for eating a particular food - hypothetical example - if when you eat fat, the fat-eating microbes produce as a byproduct (in their poop) a chemical that reacts with a feel good receptor in your brain, your brain might recognize a cause and effect relationship and "desire" more fats to increase the "feel-good" chemical. I have no evidence that such a relationship exists though.

    Your intestines have tons and tons of neurons attached. The bacteria are thought to embed in your intestine lining, giving them access to send signals through to the neurons. I do not believe the bacteria are saying "Walk five steps forward" or to have complex emotions. However, is it such a stretch for them to be causing cravings for sugar or food in general? What the scientists propose is that they (the bacteria) are causing the craving, not just influencing how you react to food.
    Yes. You put it much more succinctly than I did. IS it that much of a stretch? I really don't think it is. I admit that I have a lot of reading to do on the topic and have only scratched the surface, but it just computes with me.
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    My thoughts on the article …

    They seem to make a giant leap from correlation to causality. Because obese people (and mice) have a different composition of gut flora doesn't mean that the flora causes obesity. It could be the other way around. It could be another factor causing both.

    The website publishing this article has a certain agenda they are promoting. Look at the url … it is "natural news" (they are an all natural promoter) It is a .com … they are there to make money. Look at the advertisements they tout on the side … "organic vs inorganic minerals" (um … minerals are, by definition, inorganic substances… I know what they *mean* but they use industry buzzwords to support their hype), "clean Chlorella", "how to cure almost any cancer at home for $5.15 a day." It is clear that this is not an unbiased source. You do have to consider the quality of your sources. (ETA: these are not google ads that put what seems relevant to the visitor or I would get massage, ACSM cert, and McDonald's ads.)

    And sure, they list what looks like peer reviewed articles as sources, but many authors will pull what they want and ignore anything that doesn't support their side of the story. [I have a degree in social sciences, and another in math & physics, so I am pretty familiar with legitimate articles and pseudo-science.] None of their claims are directly linked to a reference with footnotes, etc. Even Wikipedia does that… So without going back and reading the actual articles (which were mostly on rats and mice, by the way), it's hard to say how legitimate any information on this page is.

    I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying I question the legitimacy of their information as real science. As a scientist, I would prefer to go off of real, peer-reviewed studies which follow the scientific method. It's a good starting point, but there is a lot of room for more studies, especially looking at humans' gut flora, and exploring cause-and-effect before I jump on this bandwagon.

    i'm a skeptic. but i'm an engineer by profession, so i tend to doubt everything until i have some sort of plausible explanation for why it may be. i see the bacteria in our guts as simply along for the ride.
  • SueGremlin
    SueGremlin Posts: 1,066 Member
    My thoughts on the article …

    They seem to make a giant leap from correlation to causality. Because obese people (and mice) have a different composition of gut flora doesn't mean that the flora causes obesity. It could be the other way around. It could be another factor causing both.

    The website publishing this article has a certain agenda they are promoting. Look at the url … it is "natural news" (they are an all natural promoter) It is a .com … they are there to make money. Look at the advertisements they tout on the side … "organic vs inorganic minerals" (um … minerals are, by definition, inorganic substances… I know what they *mean* but they use industry buzzwords to support their hype), "clean Chlorella", "how to cure almost any cancer at home for $5.15 a day." It is clear that this is not an unbiased source. You do have to consider the quality of your sources. (ETA: these are not google ads that put what seems relevant to the visitor or I would get massage, ACSM cert, and McDonald's ads.)

    And sure, they list what looks like peer reviewed articles as sources, but many authors will pull what they want and ignore anything that doesn't support their side of the story. [I have a degree in social sciences, and another in math & physics, so I am pretty familiar with legitimate articles and pseudo-science.] None of their claims are directly linked to a reference with footnotes, etc. Even Wikipedia does that… So without going back and reading the actual articles (which were mostly on rats and mice, by the way), it's hard to say how legitimate any information on this page is.

    I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying I question the legitimacy of their information as real science. As a scientist, I would prefer to go off of real, peer-reviewed studies which follow the scientific method. It's a good starting point, but there is a lot of room for more studies, especially looking at humans' gut flora, and exploring cause-and-effect before I jump on this bandwagon.

    i'm a skeptic. but i'm an engineer by profession, so i tend to doubt everything until i have some sort of plausible explanation for why it may be. i see the bacteria in our guts as simply along for the ride.
    Even though extensive biological knowledge indicates very much otherwise?