The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Effects of bacteria on obesity.
taeric
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
So, I was listening to NPR's story of the day from several days back and they had this story. Basically, it was about how the bacteria in our digestion track determines how many calories we absorb from our food. The idea was that all of your friends that can eat and eat and eat without gaining weight, may actually just not be getting as many calories out of their food as you are.
I am interested in hearing thoughts on here regarding this. I'm also curious if anyone knows of continuing research into this. In particular, I'm curious as to know whether this sort of thing is related to the difference in saliva between people. (I do not have a link handy, but I remember studies saying that different cultures taste different carbohydrates differently based upon the saliva they have. Effectively, this is why more italians love pasta than other cultures.)
Also, I'm curious if the destruction of seasonal diets has caused an abundance of all bacteria in us such that we are more efficient at eating all of our food. Effectively, eating the same food year round year after year could cause you to gain weight at the same caloric intake. (That make sense?)
I am interested in hearing thoughts on here regarding this. I'm also curious if anyone knows of continuing research into this. In particular, I'm curious as to know whether this sort of thing is related to the difference in saliva between people. (I do not have a link handy, but I remember studies saying that different cultures taste different carbohydrates differently based upon the saliva they have. Effectively, this is why more italians love pasta than other cultures.)
Also, I'm curious if the destruction of seasonal diets has caused an abundance of all bacteria in us such that we are more efficient at eating all of our food. Effectively, eating the same food year round year after year could cause you to gain weight at the same caloric intake. (That make sense?)
taeric on
0
Posts
Edit: More simply put, there is no question that the bacteria make a difference. There is also very little doubt (if any, I couldn't tell from the show) that you can control what bacteria you have in your gut. My angle is more just more what other thoughts this leads towards. My first question, for example, was if the seasonal diets helped keep the amount of bacteria in check in people. I'm curious if anyone knows of any studies regarding this or if they just have any thoughts on it in general. Note, I am not a researcher in this field, just curious.
I'm also lactose intolerant and I know people who can't eat gluten (wheat), and if your body is doing a shitty job of digesting something, you will know about, trust me.
Another obvious example is food poisoning (more common then you think, also known as the 24hr flu), and allergies. You won't get much out of the food because it will be fast tracked out of your body.
Allergies are a fairly separate entity entirely. (Speaking as someone that was allergic to chicken, rice, beef, grass, seafood (I just had to smell it to break out), cotton, and who knows what else as a child.)
For plausibility, I am curious if folks think that a lot of the habits of old for what to eat and when might have actually contributed to some of health benefits of old. That is, there has been a well established correlation between the "Western" diet and diabetes. I'm curious if studies like this could ever be used to establish that is in not only the foods directly, but the fact that they never change that can lead to some of the problems of our diet. (Make sense?)
The average "Western" diet is far from ideal, but don't kid yourself about what the old timers ate, why or when they ate it. They ate what they could when they could. If you want a healthy diet science can point you in the right direction, but most people have a pretty good idea already.
Fruit&veg, chances are you need more.
Meat, chances are you need less, eat some lentils instead
bread/pasta, chances are you need to switch from white to whole grain and multi grain
potatoes/rice, potatoes aren't great for you, switch from white rice to wild rice
Dairy, be reasonable and if you live in the north take some vitamin D
sugar/fat/candy, ......don't make me say this
And again, what you said seems to support my question. They ate what they could when they could. Which means for the most part, they ate what was available on a seasonal basis. Which leads directly to my question of how much of a difference this would have made on the bacteria present in their guts.
And, further, it does mean that as the bacteria is changing, you are getting less calories out of it than if it was already adjusted. (Make sense?
Cows break down cellulose with the help of bacteria that produce cellulase. We cannot break down cellulose (the wall of plant cells) and instead the cellulose functions as fiber (a literal poop pusher).
When a baby is born, it has no established bacteria. This is why doctors warn you about what to feed them, i.e. avoiding honey and other foods. The food they first eat determines the first round of indigenous bacteria.
What I'm trying to say here is that there is most likely no relationship between bacteria and obesity, considering that bacteria do little of the food processing, and would have no plausible way to initiate the signal transduction pathways for expressing the urge to eat (appetite + hunger).
The rest of what you said seems to echo parts of the show, though.
On top of that, how is it that the study does not show a relationship between the bacteria available to our digestive tracks and how much weight that is gained from food. I understand we are not mice. Is that alone enough to discredit the finding?
It's not that were not mice, its that we aren't living in bacteria free bubbles. Once bacteria gets a foothold in your gut its not going away just because you switch your diet up a little between seasons.
I would be interested in how anti-biotics interfere with your digestive track, since they are well known to have a measurable impact.
Not outside of international waters you can't. I can't wait to have my own Spider-Skull Island.
As for the correlation and causality. Well aware of that, which is why I'm only posing the question and not starting a diet book based on the theories
First, your body doesn't say "eat X kilograms of food per day". It says "eat until X calories have been absorbed." You've got a feedback control system that drives your food consumption toward whatever level will meet the number of calories your body is asking for. This would override any changes in intestinal efficiency pretty quickly; your inefficient friends would just feel compelled to eat additional food to make up for it.
I think if you're looking for a cause to paste onto obesity that you're better off looking at perturbations and malfunctions in this internal feedback system, and at reasons that compel people not to listen to it.
I know that conditions which create unusually high intestinal motility also tend to induce weight loss, I have no idea if any of that weight loss comes from the fact that waste is less processed when it's passed, though. Anyone know the facts on that?
I think relying on an internal "feedback" system for animals that are historically used to seasons of scarcity is not going to work out too well for you. Further, many folks have a drive that says if food is available, it should be eaten. This is further driven by a society that tells children to finish what is on the plate for years.
And I guess it should be stated, this is not looking for the cause of obesity. Rather, this could be a contributing factor. The show had hopes that this style of thing could be manipulated to help combat obesity. This is really no different than trying to use drugs to block the absorbtion of fat, is it? I feel both of those aims may be misguided, but I don't know.
Most of the bacteria in our guts are pretty tough. Considering the chemicals and pH variances we are constantly throwing at them, I wouldn't expect them to be so easily swayed because we suddenly start eating a lot of acidic cherries, for example. I think the difference between us and smaller animals is that there is already a huge variation in the diets of most people. Even if the variation is only between a small range of foods, the chemical properties of these foods can be radically different. I'm sure it might be possible to try to establish bacteria in our gut that thrived on fat, but even that could have some potential problems.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. I poop once every three days, but I'm pretty skinny. I'm 150 pounds and 5'8'' at 23. I don't eat as much as I did in high school, but I do eat more than necessary.
I also work out and am in the Army, so that could influence things a little.
I think the changes in the bacteria would be less from killing them with new foods than starving them of the ones they are good at eating. (That make sense?) I am also unsure as to how a lot of bacteria reproduces (especially the ones in us). I know it has been suggested before that if you keep eating the right kind of yogurt with certain live cultures, you can improve your digestive track. This makes it sound like some bacteria can not reproduce in the stomach. Also, adding in bacteria that thrive on something would be counter to the idea of the study. The idea seems more of the line that if we do not have bacteria in us to break something down, it passes through us more akin to fiber.
I don't think measuring their poop would tell you anything, because conservation of mass already tells us exactly what their wastes must weigh. If they're not gaining weight, then the weight of their food equals the combined weight of their excretions. Period. If they're gaining weight, the food weighs more. If they're losing weight, the food weighs less.
(Unless, of course, you are calling into question the entirety of the study. I would be interested in knowing any of the peer reviews it received. I will try and look up where and when it was published.)
I guess my question regarding that is if it is absolute that the longer food is in you the more you absorb from it. My understanding on this is that without certain bacteria, some foods just can not be broken down to be used by the human body.
Of course, I would also think another contribution to your argument would be that as people get larger, they actually hinder intestinal motion. (At least, I would presume they do.)
I only know anything about motility at all because I have hyperthyroid symptoms, and among those is faster motility leading to infrequent-but-consistent and unsourced diarrhea.
Just in case you missed it in the article, it did have this:
Right below that, it went on to show that this has been used to stop diabetes in mice:
Aren't all those conditions correlated with lack of exposure to bacteria in general? And is any antibiotic narrow enough to kill only the bacteria causing ulcers?
Also, not relevant to the digestive tract.
For the first part, I don't really know. I was just posting this because it is related to the digestive tract due to the fact that it removes bacteria that cause ulcers. (Unless I am mistaken about the stomach being part of the digestive tract.)
For the rest.... I don't know what to say. If there are bacteria that are helpful, anti-biotics that kill bacteria in the stomach are almost guaranteed to interfere. Right?
Also, I was off on my calculation earlier in a bad way. The "sterile" mice were fed 30% more food without gaining weight. This means that for every 100 a regular mice would get, they would be getting around 76.9 calories. (Unless I am off in the math, which is very highly likely.) This is a huge difference, no?