The Link Between Gut Bacteria and Mental Illness

[reggie]

Re: chugging whole milk?

interesting question reg - altho would think they'd (WWAV) try to keep as much IN the stuff as they could - see the link.

still hoping to get more input on the TIF proceedure???
since that is certainly pertinent to the topic of this one...
(esp since my gut IS beginning to drive me crazy/mental... ;)

If your Gut is really starting to bother you than drop the fake almond milk and start making your own Kefir, you can buy Kefir grains online and rely on pasturized milk if you have to. Bone broth, from grass fed animals, is also great. Bottom line, you need to start getting some healthy organisms into your system.

And it's worth your while to watch this 90min presentation. I love this Woman.

Here's some info on Kefir
http://chapters.westonaprice.org/day...to/milk-kefir/

http://chapters.westonaprice.org/cha...pagne-of-milk/

[shiny!]

Re: chugging whole milk?

2nd the Kefir recommendation, lektrode. It's really easy to make.. much easier than making yogurt, and it's delicious. If you're suffering from loss of beneficial intestinal flora, kefir will make you feel amazing.

Kefir is more healing than yogurt. Beneficial bacteria in kefir will repopulize your gut and become self-sustaining, while yogurt has to be taken regularly to keep the numbers up. You've heard of the Hunzas living past 100? Some people think it's because they drink a lot of kefir.

Kefir starter is called "grains". Grains grown in milk are more potent than grains grown in water. Each time you make a batch of kefir you strain out the grains and put them in a fresh jar of milk to grow the next batch. The grains will grow and grow, so you can share them with your friends.

Kefir Milk Grains on Amazon from a reputable vendor.

How to Make Kefir

If your Gut is really starting to bother you than drop the fake almond milk and start making your own Kefir, you can buy Kefir grains online and rely on pasturized milk if you have to. Bone broth, from grass fed animals, is also great. Bottom line, you need to start getting some healthy organisms into your system.

And it's worth your while to watch this 90min presentation. I love this Woman.

Here's some info on Kefir
http://chapters.westonaprice.org/day...to/milk-kefir/

http://chapters.westonaprice.org/cha...pagne-of-milk/

[Polish_Silver]

Evolutionary Blitzkrieg

You know, I always wonder why people think that even 2000 or 10000 years of so-called evolution has some appreciable impact on human genetic expression.

The documented rate of surviving real mutations is extremely low. Moreover, in order for some significant change to appear in a large part of the population, you need either extraordinary success due to said mutation or extraordinary failure on the part of the rest of the population.

I'd also note that cooking is a pretty recent phenomenon, genetically speaking. Humans have been eating raw meat for a lot longer than cooked.

Lastly, nature. In nature, omnivores eat all sorts of crap. I mean stuff like carrion, entrails, etc etc.

Here are some changes which have occured since the agricultural revolution:

1) Smaller teeth in asians.
2) lactose tolerance.
3) greater disease resistance
4) Fair skin (last 50k years)
5) Smaller male genetalia and lower testosterone levels in agricultural societies, especially in Asians, compared to Africans, especially African hunter gatherers. (Less sperm competition than in hunter gatherer societies, so less selection pressure on male fertility factors).


Cooked meat is something of the last 1-2 million years. Before that, raw meat was probably a small portion of the diet (as with chimps, bonoboes), where as, with homos, it was more like 30% .

Homos have these traits:

diet uses cooked meat extensively,

larger brain

smaller intestines.

[c1ue]

Re: Evolutionary Blitzkrieg

Here are some changes which have occured since the agricultural revolution:

1) Smaller teeth in asians.
2) lactose tolerance.
3) greater disease resistance
4) Fair skin (last 50k years)
5) Smaller male genetalia and lower testosterone levels in agricultural societies, especially in Asians, compared to Africans, especially African hunter gatherers. (Less sperm competition than in hunter gatherer societies, so less selection pressure on male fertility factors).


Cooked meat is something of the last 1-2 million years. Before that, raw meat was probably a small portion of the diet (as with chimps, bonoboes), where as, with homos, it was more like 30% .

Homos have these traits:

diet uses cooked meat extensively,

larger brain

smaller intestines.

Please post links.

I'm interested to see where you get these conclusions from - especially since at least a few of these are diet related. Most especially is the assertion that there is evidence of widespread human use of fire to cook meat for 1 or 2 million years.

Lastly the remnant population is very much a big key issue. Sleeping sickness kills literally millions in Africa and has done so for a very, very long time - yet the sickle cell adaptation is only represented in 10% to 40% of the population there.

[reggie]

Re: Evolutionary Blitzkrieg

Here are some changes which have occured since the agricultural revolution:

1) Smaller teeth in asians.
2) lactose tolerance.
3) greater disease resistance
4) Fair skin (last 50k years)
5) Smaller male genetalia and lower testosterone levels in agricultural societies, especially in Asians, compared to Africans, especially African hunter gatherers. (Less sperm competition than in hunter gatherer societies, so less selection pressure on male fertility factors).


Cooked meat is something of the last 1-2 million years. Before that, raw meat was probably a small portion of the diet (as with chimps, bonoboes), where as, with homos, it was more like 30% .

Homos have these traits:

diet uses cooked meat extensively,

larger brain

smaller intestines.

Perhaps a read of the following 1939 research project is in order here.

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration
A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects

BY WESTON A. PRICE, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.
Member Research Commission, American Dental Association
Member American Association of Physical Anthropologists
Author, "Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic"

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html

Chapter 2
THE PROGRESSIVE DECLINE OF MODERN CIVILIZATION

THAT modern man is declining in physical fitness has been emphasized by many eminent sociologists and other scientists. That the rate of degeneration is progressively accelerating constitutes a cause for great alarm, particularly since this is taking place in spite of the advance that is being made in modern science along many lines of investigation.

Chapter 19
PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND MORAL DETERIORATION

AFTER one has lived among the primitive racial stocks in different parts of the world and studied them in their isolation, few impressions can be more vivid than that of the absence of prisons and asylums. Few, if any, of the problems which confront modern civilization are more serious and disturbing than the progressive increase in the percentage of individuals with unsocial traits and a lack of irresponsibility.

Laird (1) has emphasized some phases of this in an article entitled, The Tail That Wags the Nation, in which he states: "The country's average level of general ability sinks lower with each generation. Should the ballot be restricted to citizens able to take care of themselves? One out of four cannot."

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Evolutionary Blitzkrieg

Please post links.

I'm interested to see where you get these conclusions from - especially since at least a few of these are diet related. Most especially is the assertion that there is evidence of widespread human use of fire to cook meat for 1 or 2 million years.

Lastly the remnant population is very much a big key issue. Sleeping sickness kills literally millions in Africa and has done so for a very, very long time - yet the sickle cell adaptation is only represented in 10% to 40% of the population there.

Can't follow up on all of them, but just taking lactose intolerance, it is prevalant where cows are kept, and not otherwise.

New world: no cows, lactose intolerance

Europe, india: Cows plentiful, lactose tolerant humans.


The meat cooking is based on inference. Fires don't preserve well. But we could not digest raw meat in large quantities. It is just too time consuming to chew or tenderize.

Wrangham is one of the leading authorities on this.

The size of genitalia is treated in depth in "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan

[c1ue]

Re: Evolutionary Blitzkrieg

Can't follow up on all of them, but just taking lactose intolerance, it is prevalant where cows are kept, and not otherwise.

New world: no cows, lactose intolerance

Europe, india: Cows plentiful, lactose tolerant humans.

Lactose intolerance is a very poor example.

For one thing, the only difference between a lactose tolerant and a lactose intolerant person - barring extreme cases - is flatulence.

Furthermore, it is far from clear that its genetic effect is completely separate from environment:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-27939567_ITM

several studies have reported that people with lactose maldigestion develop improved tolerance to lactose following repeated exposure [12,13]. The mechanism for this adaptation is most likely an alteration in the metabolic activity of the colonic microflora. This improved tolerance is accompanied by a decrease in colonic hydrogen production and increased microbial [beta]-galactosidase activity [3,12,13].

As for Europeans - it is a well supported theory that they're all from an extremely small starting population. As such, lactose tolerance there may be due to founder effect than anything else.

Equally the presence of cows - or shall we say, ruminants - is an equally false indicator. The entire Asiatic population of Central Asia were nomadic herders - which is to say they consumed a lot of milk. Sure, it was goat or other milk, but milk with lactose nonetheless.

As for India - your statement is flat out wrong:

http://www.indiamedicaltimes.com/201...n-perspective/

Almost 60 to 70 per cent of people in India are lactose intolerant.

The meat cooking is based on inference. Fires don't preserve well. But we could not digest raw meat in large quantities. It is just too time consuming to chew or tenderize.

Wrangham is one of the leading authorities on this.

Not without fat, true. As the Inuit showed - if you each enough fat, you can digest protein even raw.

The size of genitalia is treated in depth in "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan

Wow, a New York Times bestseller. Those are always known to be accurate; in fact from what I recall, it was pretty thoroughly trashed as being heavily slanted toward an ideological view as opposed to being a representation of research.

The research that I've seen says nothing of the sort - and furthermore so called graphical representations of genitalia size are all based on wildly erroneous collations of studies. Essentially, there isn't a 'standard' way to measure genitalia size, which in turn makes apples to apples comparisons impossible.

All in all, hard to tease much of credible substance from the pile of assertions.

[Polish_Silver]

diet vs genes

Lactose intolerance is a very poor example.

For one thing, the only difference between a lactose tolerant and a lactose intolerant person - barring extreme cases - is flatulence.

Furthermore, it is far from clear that its genetic effect is completely separate from environment:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-27939567_ITM



As for Europeans - it is a well supported theory that they're all from an extremely small starting population. As such, lactose tolerance there may be due to founder effect than anything else.

Equally the presence of cows - or shall we say, ruminants - is an equally false indicator. The entire Asiatic population of Central Asia were nomadic herders - which is to say they consumed a lot of milk. Sure, it was goat or other milk, but milk with lactose nonetheless.

As for India - your statement is flat out wrong:

http://www.indiamedicaltimes.com/201...n-perspective/





Not without fat, true. As the Inuit showed - if you each enough fat, you can digest protein even raw.



Wow, a New York Times bestseller. Those are always known to be accurate; in fact from what I recall, it was pretty thoroughly trashed as being heavily slanted toward an ideological view as opposed to being a representation of research.

The research that I've seen says nothing of the sort - and furthermore so called graphical representations of genitalia size are all based on wildly erroneous collations of studies. Essentially, there isn't a 'standard' way to measure genitalia size, which in turn makes apples to apples comparisons impossible.

All in all, hard to tease much of credible substance from the pile of assertions.

Mayr Affirms that racial differences are evolutionary adaptations.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102582192851


I had not heard that lactose intolerance is environmental. That's a good point.

But I doubt that paradigm will extend to alcohol tolerance or skin complexion.

It is surely not a "founder effect" that Swede's are more fair skinned than Africans.

Or that Europeans are more resistant to bubonic plague and small pox than Native Americans.

Every book I read has an ideology, because every author has a world view.

It's taboo to discuss penis size. That's why it won't be easily acknowledged. But there are standard ways of measuring testosterone. And Africans have higher levels than other ethnic groups.

If you want specific ethnic data, ask any hooker. Or here's an example from India.

[reggie]

Re: Evolutionary Blitzkrieg

Can't follow up on all of them, but just taking lactose intolerance, it is prevalant where cows are kept, and not otherwise.

New world: no cows, lactose intolerance

Europe, india: Cows plentiful, lactose tolerant humans.


The meat cooking is based on inference. Fires don't preserve well. But we could not digest raw meat in large quantities. It is just too time consuming to chew or tenderize.

Wrangham is one of the leading authorities on this.

The size of genitalia is treated in depth in "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan

Lactose intollerance is really Pasturized Milk Intollerance. Again, here is a great example of a problem that is obfuscated and a solution developed and promoted that addresses the obfuscated problem.

Boil Milk at high temps (ie. pasturization) and you kill many of the nutrients and enzymes that are needed to digest the milk. Hence, you end up with a substance that can be difficult for the human digestion system to process. Further, drink enough of this poison and you end up with a compromised digestive system that exaccerbates the issue. Once the digestive walls are compromised enough, eliminating milk or lactose won't solve the underlying problems.

Just spoke to a mom of a 1+ yr old ealier this week and she was complaining about how her kid now contantly has a runny nose. I asked her when she put the kid on pasturized cows milk, and she said it was at the same time her kid's runny nose started. This is an example of a widespread issue, becuase the body produces histamines to combat all of the dead molecules entering the body from pasturized milk.

In short, the entire frame of debate is obfuscated and twisted. One has to be totally reoriented in order to even begin a conversation. This is far too common to be accidental, especially when these communication techniques clearly eminate from military doctrine and are prolific throughout the global propaganda system. No wonder my posts sound like a thud in the minds of most.

[aaron]

Re: diet vs genes

It's taboo to discuss penis size. That's why it won't be easily acknowledged. But there are standard ways of measuring testosterone. And Africans have higher levels than other ethnic groups.

If you want specific ethnic data, ask any hooker. Or here's an example from India.

So, it seems a big tool might be an evolutionary disadvantage compared to a smaller one? (based on population size)
Or is it high testosterone?

------

These gut bacteria things seem to be in the vogue right now. I wonder which politician is pushing the agenda? Who is profiting?

On the other hand, a lot of it makes sense. I could see problems occurring if we are missing certain strains of bacteria because of antibiotic use and perhaps a society that has gone too "clean". We do not have the opportunity to pick the good germs back up again.


It even occurred to me that dandruff (very common) and similar skin problems may be the result of missing the "right" bacteria strains.

Where does the idea of mud masks come from? I looked it up a bit and all I see is places offering relatively sterile clay mixes. Was it a beauty/healing thing hundreds of years ago? If so, they surely used "real" mud.

[c1ue]

Re: diet vs genes

Mayr Affirms that racial differences are evolutionary adaptations.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102582192851


I had not heard that lactose intolerance is environmental. That's a good point.

But I doubt that paradigm will extend to alcohol tolerance or skin complexion.

It is surely not a "founder effect" that Swede's are more fair skinned than Africans.

The two are not mutually exclusive. As I noted previously, Europeans are by and large genetically non-diverse. This speaks towards the likelihood of a very small starting population - which is precisely founder effect. And it is in small populations where environmental impact on survivability is more likely to wreak significant changes to an overall genetic mix. Think Galapagos finches, but with humans in Ice Age Europe.

Or that Europeans are more resistant to bubonic plague and small pox than Native Americans.

Actually, Europeans aren't. At least, they weren't in the Black Death era. I'll note that even despite the Black Death, it isn't like Europeans are immune. They just are somewhat less likely to die in mass anymore from bubonic plague. The same culling effect situation exists for sleeping sickness + malaria in Africa - hence the sickle cell gene and its accompanying genetic disorder - but this genetic adaptation is by no means universal there despite having gone on for a lot longer than the bubonic plague.

Regarding alcohol/skin complexion: Even in Asia, there is a huge difference between genetic diversity among various groups. I'd also note that the alcohol issue you refer to is actually more complex.

For one thing, the 'flush' you refer to is actually the ability to digest alcohol faster than Europeans. It is just that in the process of said digestion, levels of certain substances increase to toxic levels - it is these which cause the overt symptoms.

So who exactly is better evolutionarily adapted to alcohol?

Every book I read has an ideology, because every author has a world view.

Certainly true, but there is a very distinct line between being an Honest Broker and an Advocate. I'd suggest reading the book of the former category by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Books which usurp anecdotes to lend the aura of science to a belief are fiction and should be treated purely as entertainment.

It's taboo to discuss penis size. That's why it won't be easily acknowledged. But there are standard ways of measuring testosterone. And Africans have higher levels than other ethnic groups.

I wasn't aware that testosterone levels equated to penis size. Certainly taking testosterone supplements seems to have the opposite effect on closely related parts of the male body.

If you want specific ethnic data, ask any hooker. Or here's an example from India.

Hmm, an assertion about Indian men having smaller penises - from a web site which sells smaller penis sized condoms. That's got to be credible.

[reggie]

Re: diet vs genes

So, it seems a big tool might be an evolutionary disadvantage compared to a smaller one? (based on population size)
Or is it high testosterone?

------

These gut bacteria things seem to be in the vogue right now. I wonder which politician is pushing the agenda? Who is profiting?

On the other hand, a lot of it makes sense. I could see problems occurring if we are missing certain strains of bacteria because of antibiotic use and perhaps a society that has gone too "clean". We do not have the opportunity to pick the good germs back up again.


It even occurred to me that dandruff (very common) and similar skin problems may be the result of missing the "right" bacteria strains.

Where does the idea of mud masks come from? I looked it up a bit and all I see is places offering relatively sterile clay mixes. Was it a beauty/healing thing hundreds of years ago? If so, they surely used "real" mud.

Of course we "have the opportunity to pick the good germs back up". One just has to step outside the mainstream communication streams in order to figure it out. Like I said before, bone broth, like grandmother's chicken soup, will do wonders for your digestive system, especially if the chicken farmer avoided soy and corn feeds.

The problem, as I see it, is that people are either too lazy to do their own research, or they're too scared to step outside the system and stop listening to the mainstream and alternative health and nututrition industries.

[lektrode]

Re: diet vs genes

yeah, but now the latest new use of probiotics will be to get skinny (since 'getting bigger' is already covered ;)

[vt]

Re: chugging whole milk?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cientists.html