Scientists Explain Chocolate Cravings

[Demi]

The Washington Post
12 October, 2007

Scientists Explain Chocolate Cravings

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- If that craving for chocolate sometimes feels like it is coming from deep in your gut, that's because maybe it is.

A small study links the type of bacteria living in people's digestive system to a desire for chocolate. Everyone has a vast community of microbes in their guts. But people who crave daily chocolate show signs of having different colonies of bacteria than people who are immune to chocolate's allure.

That may be the case for other foods, too. The idea could eventually lead to treating some types of obesity by changing the composition of the trillions of bacteria occupying the intestines and stomach, said Sunil Kochhar, co-author of the study. It appears Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of Proteome Research.

Kochhar is in charge of metabolism research at the Nestle Research Center in Lausanne, Switzerland. The food conglomerate Nestle SA paid for the study. But this isn't part of an effort to convert a few to the dark side (or even milk) side of cocoa, Kocchar said.

In fact, the study was delayed because it took a year for the researchers to find 11 men who don't eat chocolate.

Kochhar compared the blood and urine of those 11 men, who he jokingly called "weird" for their indifference to chocolate, to 11 similar men who ate chocolate daily. They were all healthy, not obese, and were fed the same food for five days.

The researchers examined the byproducts of metabolism in their blood and urine and found that a dozen substances were significantly different between the two groups. For example, the amino acid glycine was higher in chocolate lovers, while taurine (an active ingredient in energy drinks) was higher in people who didn't eat chocolate. Also chocolate lovers had lower levels of the bad cholesterol, LDL.

The levels of several of the specific substances that were different in the two groups are known to be linked to different types of bacteria, Kochhar said.

Still to be determined is if the bacteria cause the craving, or if early in life people's diets changed the bacteria, which then reinforced food choices.

How gut bacteria affect people is a hot field of scientific research.

Past studies have shown that intestinal bacteria change when people lose weight, said Dr. Sam Klein, an obesity expert and professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

Since bacteria interact with what you eat, it is logical to think that there is a connection between those microbes and desires for certain foods, said Klein, who wasn't part of Kochhar's study.

Kochhar's research makes so much sense that people should have thought of it earlier, said J. Bruce German, professor of food chemistry at the University of California Davis. While five outside scientists thought the study was intriguing, Dr. Richard Bergman at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, had concerns about the accuracy of the initial division of the men into groups that wanted chocolate or were indifferent to it.

What matters to Kochhar is where the research could lead.

Kochhar said the relationship between food, people and what grows in their gut is important for the future: "If we understand the relationship, then we can find ways to nudge it in the right direction."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101200239.html

[mike_d]

My chocolate cravings haven't been as bad since I started supplementing with 500 mg of magnesium per day. I don't eat sweet chocolate so its not a simple sugars craving.

I believe kefir, cheese or yogurt helps promote healthy gut bacteria better than chocolate.

[kneebrace]

My chocolate cravings haven't been as bad since I started supplementing with 500 mg of magnesium per day. I don't eat sweet chocolate so its not a simple sugars craving.

I believe kefir, cheese or yogurt helps promote healthy gut bacteria better than chocolate.

Mike, I don't think any of the favourable bacteria in so called 'probiotic' foods such as kefir or yoghurt survive the acid environment of the stomach. There may be some 'pre' biotic encouragement to the good bacteria in the lower gut (which is not an acid environment) by the lactic acid contained in fermented foods. If you really want to encourage favourable gut bacteria, inulin actually works. And I wonder about this whole chocolate 'cravings' idea anyway. Why does (sugar free) chocolate being one of my favourite foods make that a 'craving'?

Stuart.

[Nancy LC]

How do the gut bacteria get there if they don't make it through the stomach? Teleportation? Sitting naked on dirty cushions? :lol:

[Wifezilla]

Hee hee hee

Chocolate and Naked in the same post. I am getting ideas!

"Honey!!! Where are you!"

[mike_d]

How do the gut bacteria get there if they don't make it through the stomach? Teleportation? Sitting naked on dirty cushions? :lol:I read a study that said they come from "contact with other individuals else from inside the appendix."

Well I live alone and I had my appendix removed years ago so I must rely on my intake of foods and avoid taking antibiotics unless necessary.

[Zei]

I don't have any idea if this research is on to something useful or not. I am not addicted to chocolate (can go without with no withdrawal-type problems), but I choose to eat chocolate from low-carb sources (without sugar alcohols) regularly to boost my mood because I feel out of sorts otherwise on a low-carb diet. I disagree with Wurtman's recommendation of a higher carb diet in "Potatoes not Prozac" because I think high carb is unhealthy, but for people like me who may not make enough serotonin naturally and feel pretty "blah" without the carbs, it is a dilemma and I am hoping the chocolate (which does genuinely boost my mood) may be a way to solve this. Guinea pig of one here. :)

[eryalen]

I thought it was the Theobromine (an anogram of caffein) that caused the addiction.

[pennink]

A small study links the type of bacteria living in people's digestive system to a desire for chocolate.


soooo, could i just take antibiotics and not have to diet?
:lol:

[Nancy LC]

I don't really crave chocolate, not like I crave other stuff.

[eryalen]

I am not addicted to chocolate (can go without with no withdrawal-type problems
Of course you're not. Neither am I (where's my stash).

[pennink]

I used to crave chocolate, now low carbing I don't.

I crave odd things... like popcorn (over that now), canned soup (not over that yet), peanut butter and jam sandwiches on wonder bread, and oh ya... fish and chips.

[eryalen]

Hee hee hee

Chocolate and Naked in the same post. I am getting ideas!

"Honey!!! Where are you!"
I'm here (well, it was worth a try).

[Zei]

There is a significant amount of theobromine in chocolate, along with some other long-sounding things I can't pronounce that probably in combination cause the mood-boosting effect. I consume unsweetened cocoa powder sweetened with stevia and stuff in a "cocoa" drink concoction I like alright but don't recommend the taste of to others. I also eat some of that 85% cocoa type chocolate bar stuff that's relatively low in carbs (5 gm net carbs for a pretty big serving). I think it'd take a miracle to get addicted to that stuff considering how bitter it tastes. If I ate the regular highly sweetened chocolates, I would crave the stuff but I think because I'd get hooked again on the carbs, not because of the chocolate itself, although I'm no scientist. I do know I'll want the entire bag if I let myself get just a little bit of regular Hershey's but no problem with the more bitter lower carb stuff.

[Demokat]

I just had a piece of 88%. :yum:

I think I'm addicted.

[tom sawyer]

It'd take a lot of evidence to convince me that variations in gut flora are responsible to any great degree for metabolic differences in people. To blame obesity on gut flora, just doesn't seem likely. There are too many better correlations that make more sense. And remember these are correlations, not any proof of cause and effect.

[eryalen]

I consume unsweetened cocoa powder sweetened with stevia and stuff in a "cocoa" drink concoction I like alright but don't recommend the taste of to others.
It may be better with some fat. I found coconut oil or cocoa butter or heavy cream adds a lot of flavour (I also add a touch of salt).

[eryalen]

I used to crave chocolate, now low carbing I don't.

I crave odd things... like popcorn (over that now), canned soup (not over that yet), peanut butter and jam sandwiches on wonder bread, and oh ya... fish and chips.
Fish and chips are OK, just don't eat the chips or the batter (I'm not kidding, try it).

[mike_d]

I didn't realize I ate too much dark chocolate today plus the protein chocolate shakes and a LC dark brownie-- it put me in la la land and I still feel out of it. It was very filling though.

[kneebrace]

There is a significant amount of theobromine in chocolate, along with some other long-sounding things I can't pronounce that probably in combination cause the mood-boosting effect. I consume unsweetened cocoa powder sweetened with stevia and stuff in a "cocoa" drink concoction I like alright but don't recommend the taste of to others. I also eat some of that 85% cocoa type chocolate bar stuff that's relatively low in carbs (5 gm net carbs for a pretty big serving). I think it'd take a miracle to get addicted to that stuff considering how bitter it tastes. If I ate the regular highly sweetened chocolates, I would crave the stuff but I think because I'd get hooked again on the carbs, not because of the chocolate itself, although I'm no scientist. I do know I'll want the entire bag if I let myself get just a little bit of regular Hershey's but no problem with the more bitter lower carb stuff.

Try some choc made with erythritol and stevia. Erythritol has none of the side effects of the other sugar alcohols and no calories or glycemic effect, yet it provides the functional effect of sugar admirably. It makes chocolate taste pretty well like any sugar sweetened choc but without any carbs. Which means that choc doesn't have to taste bitter at all. The danger of course is that it tastes so good that you'll want to eat too much of it, not because of any carb effect. Unless you think calories don't count of course, in which case I suppose you would be able to just go on eating it till you exploded :)

Theobromine is such a wonderful drug. It is such an effective mood enhancer without the raw stimulant effect of caffeine. Cocoa doesn't contain very much caffeine anyway. It makes you feel so good because of the theobromine. Which is why the Aztec priest class prized it so highly for getting in touch with their gods.

Stuart.

[kneebrace]

How do the gut bacteria get there if they don't make it through the stomach? Teleportation? Sitting naked on dirty cushions? :lol:

Nancy, apparently small numbers of the intestinal bacteria that can't survive stomach acidity colonize the developing embryonic digestive system from a mother's own digestive tract through the umbilical cord. Post birth, milk does a fine job of feeding them. Bacteria are very small. It only takes one to start the colony that will be there in varying numbers- depending on the 'pre' biotics in the food you eat- for the rest of your life. And that includes the 'bad' ones too. Candida, salmonella, klebsellia, etc, the whole box and dice. When the bad ones proliferate, you get sick. And sometimes they proliferate because you are already sick from some cause other than disturbed gut flora. In which case you usually become even more ill.

Not nearly as spectacular as teleporting, I'd have to admit. But way more interesting IMHO.

Stuart.

[Nancy LC]

Well, interesting theory but people get their colonies killed off when they take antibiotics. So they've got to recolonize somehow, presumably through the food you eat. So, I'm not quite sure how you can say they don't make it through the stomach.

Did you know that something like 60% of the volume of your poop is actually dead bacteria from your colony? Ew! I think I read that we have a few pounds of bacteria living in our intestines.

They are beginning to catalogue the bacteria found in people's guts, they think there's about 500 varieties.

[manger]

It makes chocolate taste pretty well like any sugar sweetened choc but without any carbs.
Stuart.
I suppose you meant to say "without any additional carbs". Even a 99% unsweetened chocolate, which I am quite fond of, contains almost 50% carbs.

[kneebrace]

I suppose you meant to say "without any additional carbs". Even a 99% unsweetened chocolate, which I am quite fond of, contains almost 50% carbs.

Where are you getting you figures manger? Cocoa mass contains about 10 % (USDA database) carbs of which some very small percentage is dietary fibre. So completely un- sugar sweetened choc contains less than 10% carbs. Even that amount of carbs is virtually zero sugar (< .5 g/100g). And the glycemic effect of the type of starch in the cocoa bean is negligible. Not as low as erythritol mind you, but pretty low :) .

Even the one percent added sugar of 99% choc boosts the carb level quickly. Added to which is the fact that it is so bitter that it removes much of the pleasure of eating choc for all but a few diehards. You still get the feel good theobromine fix of course - not an inconsiderable benefit :) . I'm constantly surprised by the number of low carbers who are trying to get used to < 70% cocoa solids choc when erythritol solves the problem anyway.

It's almost as if low carbers can't quite believe that erythritol is a low carber's sweetening dream come true. I must admit it took me a while too. There must be a catch. Except.... there isn't, apart from it being way more expensive than sugar.

Stuart.

[kneebrace]

Well, interesting theory but people get their colonies killed off when they take antibiotics. So they've got to recolonize somehow, presumably through the food you eat. So, I'm not quite sure how you can say they don't make it through the stomach.

Did you know that something like 60% of the volume of your poop is actually dead bacteria from your colony? Ew! I think I read that we have a few pounds of bacteria living in our intestines.

They are beginning to catalogue the bacteria found in people's guts, they think there's about 500 varieties.

Yep, it's certainly a bacterial zoo indeed. But antibiotics don't kill off all the bacteria (of any strain) completely anyway. They just play havoc with the required number and spectrum. Otherwise we'd be dead too :) . Bacteria are a very important part of our makeup.

But Nancy, isn't it interesting that you (and I'm certainly not suggesting you are alone :) ) have such a strong 'Ew' reaction to our bacterial team members. Without them we wouldn't exist. I think mother's particularly would do their kids a big favour by getting over their concerns about dirt.

Something to think about re antibiotics. If they were so effective at killing 'every' bacteria good and bad, big pharma wouldn't have to spend (and make) so much money developing new ones as the even initially limited effectiveness fades.

Stuart.

[manger]

Where are you getting you figures manger? Cocoa mass contains about 10 % (USDA database) carbs of which some very small percentage is dietary fibre. So completely un- sugar sweetened choc contains less than 10% carbs. Even that amount of carbs is zero sugar. The glycemic effect of the type of starch in the cocoa bean is negligible. Not as low as erythritol mind you, but pretty low :) .

Even the one percent added sugar of 99% choc boosts the carb level quickly. Added to which is the fact that it is so bitter that it removes much of the pleasure of eating choc for all but a few diehards. I'm constantly surprised by the number of low carbers who are trying to get used to < 70% cocoa solids choc when erythritol solves the problem anyway.

It's almost as if low carbers can't quite believe that erythritol is a low carber's sweetening dream come true. I must admit it took me a while too. There must be a catch. Except.... there isn't, apart from it being way more expensive than sugar.

Stuart.

Stuart, I admit that it may take a hard core chocolate lover to eat 99% chocolate. Perhaps more would learn to love it if they tried Scharffenberger. I tried Callebaut and others but nothing comes close. Anyway, I do not want to belabor it, my taste might be peculiar. I also drink pure cacao powder in hot water, with some butter of course. Any amount of sugar either in the chocolate or cacao tastes cloying to me.

The label on my Scharffenberger chocolate says:
for a serving of 40g
total amount of carbs 12g (1g fiber, 2g sugar)
that is less than 50%
but the USDA says it is more:
Baking chocolate, unsweetened, squares
Nutrient Units Value per
100 grams
Carbohydrate, by difference g 29.8
Fiber, total dietary g 16.6
Sugars, total g 0.91

[kneebrace]

Stuart, I admit that it may take a hard core chocolate lover to eat 99% chocolate. Perhaps more would learn to love it if they tried Scharffenberger. I tried Callebaut and others but nothing comes close. Anyway, I do not want to belabor it, my taste might be peculiar. I also drink pure cacao powder in hot water, with some butter of course. Any amount of sugar either in the chocolate or cacao tastes cloying to me.

The label on my Scharffenberger chocolate says:
for a serving of 40g
total amount of carbs 12g (1g fiber, 2g sugar)
that is less than 50%
but the USDA says it is more:
Baking chocolate, unsweetened, squares
Nutrient Units Value per
100 grams
Carbohydrate, by difference g 29.8
Fiber, total dietary g 16.6
Sugars, total g 0.91

Not peculiar at all. To each their own :). But Manger, from your own USDA figures. CHO 29.8 - Fb16.6 equals 13.2. No where near 50%. Also be aware that they are calculating the carb content 'by difference' which doesn't take into account constituents like ash. Just pick up any chocolate product and do the math on the nutritional panel. Once you remove the sugars (which in milk choc will come partially from lactose) and dietary fibre, the carb level is always around 10%. The actual carb content of the cocoa bean varies somewhat between varieties and growing location/conditions, but to my knowledge is never more than 14%, and usually around 10.

And please bear in mind that I'm not making any judgement call about your taste in choc Manger :) . But it's important to understand what we are talking about. Un- sugar sweetened dark choc is very low in carbs, and breathtakingly low in onboard sugars (far far less than most low carb veggies).

Cocoa mass is a very low carb food. By sweetening it with erythritol and some other intense non calorific sweetener (stevia or lo han if you don't like the artificials, and any one of a host if you don't mind eating xenobiotics) it remains so, and can still be as sweet as 'most' dark choc afficionados seem to prefer. Plus you can go on getting all the flavonoid/antioxidant benefits.

Stuart.

[manger]

Whatever the exact number of carbs is chocolate tastes terrific and is by far the one food with the highest content of bioflavonoids and antioxydants.
Here is a Wikipedia blurb:
Health benefits of cocoa consumption
Chocolate and cocoa contain a high level of flavonoids, specifically epicatechin, which may have beneficial cardiovascular effects on health[citation needed]. The ingestion of flavonol-rich cocoa is associated with acute elevation of circulating Nitrous oxide, enhanced flow-mediated vasodilation, and augmented microcirculation[3].

Prolonged intake of flavonol-rich cocoa has been linked to cardiovascular health benefits[citation needed], though it should be noted that this refers to plain cocoa. Milk chocolate's addition of whole milk reduces the overall cocoa content per ounce while increasing saturated fat levels, possibly negating some of cocoa's heart-healthy potential benefits. Nevertheless, studies have still found short term benefits in LDL cholesterol levels from dark chocolate consumption. [5]

Hollenberg and colleagues of Harvard Medical School studied the effects of cocoa and flavanols on Panama's Kuna Indian population, who are heavy consumers of cocoa. The researchers found that the Kuna Indians living on the islands had significantly lower rates of heart disease and cancer compared to those on the mainland who do not drink cocoa as on the islands. It is believed that the improved blood flow after consumption of flavanol-rich cocoa may help to achieve health benefits in hearts and other organs. In particular, the benefits may extend to the brain and have important implications for learning and memory. [6] [7]

Foods rich in cocoa appear to reduce blood pressure but drinking green and black tea may not, according to an analysis of previously published research in the April 9, 2007 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. [8]

[Nancy LC]

Yep, it's certainly a bacterial zoo indeed. But antibiotics don't kill off all the bacteria (of any strain) completely anyway. They just play havoc with the required number and spectrum. Otherwise we'd be dead too :) . Bacteria are a very important part of our makeup.
Actually I don't think that's true. They raise mice that are bacteria free in sterile environments. It does weird things, like tends to make them skinny and unable to digest certain things, but it isn't lethal.

[Kary]

Notice they used only men in the study....couldn't find ANY women who don't like chocolate :lol:

[kneebrace]

Actually I don't think that's true. They raise mice that are bacteria free in sterile environments. It does weird things, like tends to make them skinny and unable to digest certain things, but it isn't lethal.

It would be if you ever took them out of their sterile environment. Bacteria are so necessary for normal digestion and immunity. But I'm curious, the technology doesn't exist yet to concieve gestate and fully develop mammalian life in complete digestive tract sterility. The mouse embryos, even if concieved in a test tube, would have had to be harvested from an at least pubescent female mouse. Whose digestive tract would not have been sterile. And the fertilized embryo would have had to be implanted into the uterus of a female mouse whose digestive tract also could not have been made sterile. Nancy, I'm pretty sure that if you opened the intestines of the mice raised in the sterile environment, they would have still been teeming with bacteria. Not a very normal balance of course. No wonder they did so poorly. Eventually we might be able to sterilze the digestive tracts of mice. And then we would have a lot of dead mice :) .

Stuart.

[kneebrace]

Whatever the exact number of carbs is chocolate tastes terrific and is by far the one food with the highest content of bioflavonoids and antioxydants.
Here is a Wikipedia blurb:

I agree. The cocoa bean is a wonderful food. I think the point is Manger, that you can get all those benefits without trying to learn to like the minimally sugar sweetened that you eat, by avoiding choc that has any added sugar, and substituting erythritol sweetened choc. You obviously like the minimally sugar sweetened choc. But for those who like sweeter, but don't care for the adverse health effects of sugar, there is a wonderful, side effect free alternative sweetener with the functional properties of sugar so important in chocolate making (the reason you can't sweeten choc with just some intense sweetener like stevia or sucralose) which has the additional benefit of adding neither carbs nor calories. Eating this kind of sweet choc means that it is basically an extraordinary low carb health food in any amount, bearing in mind of course that if you are watching calories too, there are limits.

Stuart.

[Nancy LC]

But I'm curious, the technology doesn't exist yet to concieve gestate and fully develop mammalian life in complete digestive tract sterility. The mouse embryos, even if concieved in a test tube, would have had to be harvested from an at least pubescent female mouse.
I don't know the details but what I've read so far sounds like the intestines aren't colonized until one is actually born. So if you deliver the mouse by cesarian and whisk it into a sterile environment that might be how it is done.

But I just goggled on "mice devoid of intestinal bacteria" and came up with lots of hits, mostly to journal articles I can't read. I've also seen references to it in science articles on various places.

As far as your assertion probiotics don't do anything... well, there's a lot of studies out there that disagree with that.

These are the hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FKP&q=intestinal+bacteria+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2F&btnG=Search) I found on Science Daily about intestinal bacteria.

Here's an article about mice without flora (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021106075408.htm):
The team examined three groups of six-week-old male mice. One group of animals was reared with normal bacteria; another group was reared without any intestinal bacteria; a third group began bacteria-free but then were colonized with microbes taken from intestines of normal mice.

I just found your comments on intestinal bacteria to be contradictory to what I usually read.

[deirdra]

I like chocolate a lot, but don't crave it or overeat it now that I make my own with unsweetened cocoa + stevia + coconut oil +/- nuts.

The only time I intensely craved it was when I was eating the sugary commercial crap variety.

To me it would only be classified as an addiction if someone could not resist eating a full package of unsweetened baking chocolate.

[waywardsis]

Agreeing with deirdra here. I think chocolate cravings get confused (at least some of the time) with sugar cravings, as most people are eating the sugary stuff and that's what they're craving...a Mars bar or something.

Stuart...I am demanding an erythritol FAQ from you NOW!

[kneebrace]

I don't know the details but what I've read so far sounds like the intestines aren't colonized until one is actually born. So if you deliver the mouse by cesarian and whisk it into a sterile environment that might be how it is done.

But I just goggled on "mice devoid of intestinal bacteria" and came up with lots of hits, mostly to journal articles I can't read. I've also seen references to it in science articles on various places.

As far as your assertion probiotics don't do anything... well, there's a lot of studies out there that disagree with that.

These are the hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FKP&q=intestinal+bacteria+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2F&btnG=Search) I found on Science Daily about intestinal bacteria.

Nancy, I had a look at a few of the articles thrown up by a 'mice devoid of intestinal bacteria' google search. And I was wrong about mammalian intestines already being inoculated with intestinal flora at birth. But without immediate colonization through mother's milk, outside a sterile environment infant mammals soon succumb to opportunistic infection and will die. And the importance of lower gut bacteria in mediating normal digestion of food and assimilation of nutrients cannot be overstated. Who wants to live in a sterile bubble and not thrive?

Also, if you look back at my initial comment on this thread you will find that I said not that 'probiotics don't do anything', but that stomach acidity prevents favourable bacteria in food getting to where they are needed in the lower intestine. There are actually some strains of favourable bacteria that can withstand stomach Ph. But bifidus bacteria, one of the most beneficial, and one of the main bacterial strains in yoghurt, cannot. However, coating probiotic tablets enterically is a way of successfully transiting the hostile stomach environment. Unfortunately, you would have to take a lot of enterically coated tabs to even noticeably affect total numbers of those bacteria in the lower gut. And enterically coated tabs aren't cheap. A far better way to foster healthy populations of favourable bacteria is to feed the existing (possibly depressed by antibiotics) ones with 'pre' biotic favourite food, like inulin or Fructooligosaccharides. They're cheap, and stomach acidity doesn't affect them at all.

Nancy, the studies that probiotics in food are a good way to populate the lower gut with bacteria that can't withstand normal stomach acidity don't exist. There is a wealth of research evidence that enteric coated tablets do get the relatively tiny number of bacteria within past the stomach intact. But it's not a very cost effective way of boosting lower gut bacterial numbers anyway, so why would you bother? Yoghurt is, however, a great way to get the health benefits of dairy (for those people who don't have a sensitivity to casein - ie most humans) without the carbs milk contains. And lactic acid is a moderately effective pre biotic as well. I personally eat heaps of yoghurt, but I don't deceive myself that it's doing much for either the population or food supply of favourable intestinal flora.

Stuart.

[kneebrace]

I just found your comments on intestinal bacteria to be contradictory to what I usually read.

Yes you were right about mice (and I presume humans too) being born with sterile digestive tracts. But as to probiotics of certain beneficial bacteria (bifidus) making it past the hostile Ph of the stomach without enteric capsule protection, I can't see how it would be possible. And don't forget that even if they did, unless you took entire bottles of the enteric coated caps every day, you would only have a negnigible effect on total numbers of gut bacteria. By early childhood stomach bacteria outnumber number of cells in your body. The bacteria that can survive stomach acidity aren't even in yoghurt.

We were also discussing how the gut is colonized with the beneficial bacteria, if not through food. Many of the articles linked to by your 'mice devoid of intestinal bacteria' google search pointed out that a full range of those bacteria float about in small numbers in the air we breathe. Even skin contact is an effective vector. Stomach transmission in food would seem to be one of the less effective ways of trying to get the favourable bugs into your gut. Stomach Ph makes it a pretty effective gatekeeper. So getting them in there is not the problem. Feeding them with their 'pre' biotic fav foods would seem to be far more important, not to mention considerably cheaper.

Stuart.

[Nancy LC]

You only have to read a little bit of the research out there to realize they're getting probiotics into the digestive tract and are able to affect some changes to the gut flora with them. There's quite a lot of research going on in that field as they're trying to identify all the species of flora in the gut and what effects they have on us.

[kneebrace]

You only have to read a little bit of the research out there to realize they're getting probiotics into the digestive tract and are able to affect some changes to the gut flora with them. There's quite a lot of research going on in that field as they're trying to identify all the species of flora in the gut and what effects they have on us.

Nancy, that's what the probiotics companies want you to believe. I think the operative words in your post are 'some changes'. I think we've already agreed that enteric coating gets the bacteria past the hostile Ph of the stomach. Yoghurt does not. And the question remains why you would bother with probiotics at all when prebiotics are a far more effective way of optimizing gut flora. And I'm curious why you are not addressing the hostile stomach Ph factor in your posts or the issue that the actual numbers of bacteria in probiotic enterically coated caps are infinitesimally small. I think we're both agreed that lots of research into probiotics is going on. After all, the probiotic and yoghurt companies want to sell their wares. It's just that the whole idea of a pro biotic approach to optimizing gut flora seems fatally flawed.

You wouldn't just go on planting more and more seed in a garden in which the right nutrients for growth weren't present, in the hope of ending up with a wonderful garden. And if you got the conditions right, you might even find that the seed that was already there would thrive anyway. Your gut garden is no different.

Stuart.