https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80801125029.htm

ummmm, I had the impression that us that live in this world of weight loss already know the right gut bacteria/microbiome is important.

I suspect those of us educating ourselves by regularly reading from websites like this one are likely more aware of such things than your typical dieter out there. Also: So starve those little buggers with a low carb diet!

If I remember one experient well enough to summarize-- the microbiome can be the deciding fate, no matter what diet is fed.

Much of our microbiome has been deleted. By diet and c-section and antiiotics. SOme are gone forever.

There is a tribe in south america that might offer options as they are only recently discovered , maybe 10 years now, and they have been tested. They have many more by type (species) than North AMericans. If I remember right something like 36 vs 24.

When was the last time a suppement had all 24???? Ass uming all 24 are good to have.

I wonder about the gut microbiome differences between people who consume plant material and those who don't. Thinking specifically right now of the all animal food/zero carb/carnivore-type diets, something I'm currently testing. Typical health articles seem to emphasize the idea we must feed a lot of plant matter to our gut bacteria or...what? Do a lot of plant food loving species die off when you don't feed them? And if so, does it matter for health? Improvement? Detriment? Anyone with knowledge on this?

There is another recent thread that talked a LOT about all of your questions. I'll look for it later or if somebody else has it marked maybe they can post it.

Wondering why it took the authors FIVE YEARS to publish their findings?

yes.


When feeding livestock especially the ruminants the feed needs a 2 week transition as the microbes in the rumen need to adjust to the change. THe percent of each type will alter. Realize these are only plant eaters. We dont have a rumen but the next best is the small intestines, and large intestines.

When I drop bread and not eat it for a few weeks then eat a hunk with butter, my stomach ache will start like clockwork X hours later. Payment for cheating. lol I learned to take a probiotic as soon as I ate off plan, and that prevented the distressed gut.

The amerian diet is big swings in food, certainly not 2 weeks to transition. Generally better to eat a bit of everythig eat day to keep bugs happy. IMO.

Maybe the researchers were short on the number of publications they must have for that year, and held this one to fill the numbers.

They say if you eat beans regularly you won't 'toot'

I wish. Lacking a specific enzyme was what caused the "toot" IMO, which is why Beano is effective. Have you seen any studies Mike to support an enzyme is turned on??? Eating a lot of beans has not eliminated the "toot" among family members...so just wondering.

I think I was feeding the "toot" with beans and certain veggies. That stuff we're unable to digest in them turns into a picnic for the little toot makers further downstream. That's my understanding, too, that there's some enzyme required to break down an unusual shaped type of sugar or something in them, that I don't think humans make. On my current animal foods experiment that's one thing I'm enjoying the absence of, the bloating and indigestion I got from plants.

So are we supposed to eat fiber in hopes that gut bacteria will ferment it to short chain fatty acids, with all their purported health benefits? Or worry that our gut bacteria will ferment the fiber we eat, effectively increasing the usable calorie content of our food? Personally I eat lots of fat, in hopes of absorbing it and using it to fuel my body.

I've tried fermentable fiber, resistant starch, increased sauerkraut in the diet. So far my research results amount to, sauerkraut is yummy, never caught any of it giving me improvements detectable for the home game. I can tell that low carb and keto did me good without expensive lab equipment.

One reason to prefer n=1 results--only large effects are measurable, small effects may be random. Even if not random, they may be clinically insignificant--by the time something is statistically significant for an individual, it's also liable to be clinically significant. Large sample size allows us to find things that are likely to be effective in a population, while highly unlikely to be effective in any one individual. Hoorah.