The Future of Dieting Is Personalized Algorithms Based on Your Gut Bacteria | Hacker News Reader

The Future of Dieting Is Personalized Algorithms Based on Your Gut Bacteria

nymag.com

46 pointsheydenberk57 comments

The New Yorker had solid overview -- i.e., "how much we know about how little we know" -- of the gut microbiome in 2012: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/22/germs-are-us

The calories-in, calories-out crowd isn't wrong thermodynamically speaking (I am fairly certain!), but an important component of that is how many calories are being taken-up by bacteria and how many are passed through without being utilized. If my gut sucks up 20% more calories from the same food as someone else, I'm going to have a harder time managing my weight than he/she will... even if we eat and 'move' at precisely the same amounts.

While this research is interesting I don't know that it will ultimately be all that valuable to the average person in the real world. For the average person who just wants to lose some weight, we all know that we need to consume fewer calories. And if we still don't lose weight we need to consume fewer calories still. It's not that complicated. The core problem is actually going through with it and sticking to your reduced calorie intake. Getting your gut bacteria algorithm worked out for you isn't going to matter if you're still sneaking in the soda and Snickers as extra calories. I think the only real-world beneficiaries of this research will be people on the far end of the spectrum of health/body hacking like body builders or world class athletes. I suppose also people who are hospitalized for obesity related issues, but those are a small fraction of the population.

Changes in the gut could be quite profound -- well beyond caloric uptake. It's quite likely that gut bacteria influences mood and other things we commonly attribute solely to the brain. If that's the case who knows the impact gut biome changes could make on desire, "willpower," adherence to a diet, the allure of "soda and Snickers" compared to other foods.

Gut bacteria effects you in every way possible. Changing your gut bacteria may help you avoid Snickers and soda. Your gut bacteria may be effecting your hunger, motivation, mood, and all sorts of stuff.

See also: Why It Was Easier to Be Skinny in the 1980s A new study finds that people today who eat and exercise the same amount as people 20 years ago are still fatter. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/why-it-was...

>They found a very surprising correlation: A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher. In other words, people today are about 10 percent heavier than people were in the 1980s, even if they follow the exact same diet and exercise plans.

Gut bacteria may play a role.

Candid question : Is gut bacteria (in terms of variety, strains, etc) affected by diet? Foods like kefir or some yogurts are known to influence the bacterial fauna, so just wondering.

Yes. There's been other studies that have compared the biodiversity of the gut in some of the few modern hunter-gatherer societies to western ones, and the hunter-gatherers have far more diverse varieties of gut bacteria than us westerners do[1]. And also that people with more diverse gut bacteria tend to be leaner and healthier[2].

It's likely (though I don't know if there's been specific studies in this direction yet), that the reason Americans have gotten so fat over the past few decades even when controlling for average calorie intake, is that our diet of mostly highly processed foods reduces gut biome diversity.

[1] http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140415/ncomms4654/full/nco... [2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/nature1...

That's a good point. I'd also think that certain gut issues - heartburn, etc - are variables that can be changed via medication? Thinking of Nexium here.

While it's an interesting approach, I am reminded of the former NFL linebacker Bill Romanowski, who frequently had his blood/urine/stool samples analyzed. I'm pretty sure that trio of tests is proven to work at identifying the same kinds of things, but that's just a hunch.

A vegan or vegetarian diet alter the gut biome[1]

"Maintaining a strict vegan or vegetarian diet results in a significant shift in the microbiota while total cell numbers remain unaltered."

Another study[2] found that the biome changes as soon as one day after changing diets.

1: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v66/n1/full/ejcn2011141a.... 2: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/817769, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7484/full/nature1...

It is a great deal more complicated than that. Taking antibiotics kills gut bacteria. Doctors almost never tell you that needs to be actively counteracted. I have been told (by a phd chemist) that coconut oil does good things for gut flora. People with certain conditions where they get prescribed antibiotics routinely see higher than average incidences of c. diff infections, which are sometimes resolved by surgically removing a portion of the colon.

Another comment suggested we have more obesity due to less gut microbe diversity caused by eating more processed foods. It can readily believe that is true, but I would suggest that use of antibiotics may play an unrecognized or underrecognized role.

You mention coconut oil does good things for gut flora. In ketogenic diets, it's recommend to take MCT oil with your meals (as it's supposedly thermogenic and helps burn fat specifically). MCT oil and coconut oil are extremely similar chemically. I'm wonder if coconut and MCT oil are modifying gut bacteria composition, contributing to bacteria than tends towards leaner body composition.

EDIT: hot damn! MCT oil has protectant qualities for both the liver and the intestines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12560783/

MCT oil just means medium chain triglycerides, something coconut oil is high in. MCTs were historically prescribed for certain medical conditions, like cancers impacting the gut, because they can be absorbed directly without being broken down, thus the body expends less energy and effort on them. In fact, you can supplement MCT oil topically, by slathering it on your skin. So if your gut is all kinds of messed up, you can use it topically instead of orally.

I have a condition where doctors still sometimes recommend MCT oil. It is one of the more established non drug treatments. My experience is that it is better tolerated if your gut does not work right, presumably because you basically absorb it instead of digesting it.

It also has natural antibiotic properties. It appears to also move metals at low rates, which can be problematic for some people, thus placing limits on how much they can take it.

Do people who don't eat sugar ever have a problem with being overweight? I stopped eating sugar 18 months ago to help my sinuses (it worked), and as a side effect lost about 30 pounds. Basically my appetite shrunk. I wasn't even trying to lose weight, it just happened.

how do you "not eat sugar"? sugars are in every food...

Probably means added sugar...

He probably meant processed foods, refined sugar, high GI carbs, that sort of stuff.

If he/she is talking about added sugar its still not too meaningful. Drinking a glass of OJ has no added sugar but its still very similar to drinking soda.

Start by eating lots of fatty foots instead. Meat, vegetables, eggs, and nuts have very little to no sugar.

The keto (short for ketogenic) diet is a popular name for this. You only eat proteins and fats as your macronutrients (with room for 20g or less of net carbs per day). You have to consciously choose to avoid carbohydrates, which can be difficult. But the energy/mood stability and quick weight loss are undeniable positive results.

I keep hearing its adherents claim various benefits of "keto": is there any credible sources (i.e. research) that back these claims up?

For instance, what about glucose for mental performance?

No offence, but my current (admittedly limited) understanding of the subject leads me to mentally file it under "dubious", along with "no-fap" and such.

I don't want to flood you with a ton of studies (I have lots more bookmarked), but here are several:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148063

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23155696

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23110922

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673594

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20101008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19099589

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17447017

As for glucose, it can be created by the liver as needed using a process called gluconeogenesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

Thanks for the links!

I'll be sure to look into these.

I even wonder if there could be some simple questionnaire about their parents heredity directly suggesting people to eat whatever could help their gut bacteria.

Also I've read that the gut bacteria is not very well understood (hard to reproduce in a lab).

anybody know what affordable glucose-monitoring devices can measure glucose responses at 5 minute intervals ? Would love to get my hands on one of those to test personal hypotheses

What if it recommends me food that I don't like? What if cafeteria only offers non-compliant food on some days? What if I go to a party? What if I eat out with other people?

"We all know the friend who eats what they want and is thin" - No, we don't. You can turn fat pretty much any person who is not suffering from serious metabolic disorders. If you think you've found an outlier who can eat, pick a random number here.. 6000 calories every day and still stay thin then you've probably found a genetic freak. Certainly such a person should be examined to see what genetic variations allow them to do that.

The trick to eating whatever you want is not wanting all that much.

Sidenote: This was figured out ~4000 years in the PAST according to Ayurveda(edit: and TCM as the cultures were sharing information), its documented in Sanskrit texts which themselves were recorded after only millennia of oral tradition

Uh, source? I can't imagine anyone was too preoccupied with dieting 4000 years ago.

The future of dieting is burning more calories than you consume. Just like it has always been.

Someone currently inventing the smart toilet will soon rule them all.

Well that doesn't make sense... calories in, calories out, thermodynamics, it's as simple as that, right?!?

Edit: Seems I've inadvertently demonstrated Poe's Law...

No one is overweight/obese because of gut bacteria. There may be marginal effects, but it's a bit like optimizing the tires on a soccer mom's mini-van.

Marginal effects can add up quite quickly over a lifetime.

Take someone 100 pounds overweight. That is 350000 Kcal more consumption in their lifetime than they should've had. Let's spread that over 10 years, or 35000 Kcal a year. That works out to about a 100 Kcal difference per day. Over 20 years, it would be about 50 Kcal.

Now, they could've made different choices, and there are some people who stay a healthy weight by making different choices. But I would not dismiss small changes as being irrelevant because given the time scale, those changes do add up.

It doesn't work quite like that, because there is a negative feedback loop. When you increase in weight your metabolism goes up. If you are at a steady weight and increase your consumption by 50 kcal a day, you will reach a new steady weight where your metabolism is 50 kcal more.

50 kcal extra a day means steady state weight increases by about 3 pounds or 1.5 kg.

Just because its more complicated than calories in calories out doesnt mean its not true.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/woman-becomes-...

I find your metaphor agreeable but not your argument: I'd wager that many minivans are running far below optimal gas efficiency because their tires are under-inflated.

No one is overweight/obese because of gut bacteria.

That is an excellent baseless assertion you have there!

Care to back that up with facts?

Or should we just take your word for it?

The issue is that humans are not deterministic machines. We are often presented with internal urges and cravings. We are faced with stresses that lower our ability to maintain discipline. We have different needs, so you can't just adopt a one size fits all plan. And we do have different microbiomes that will create all sorts of issues with respect to our ability to make decisions, exercise and recover.

So while it is fundamentally true that a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss, it's not trivial to create a consistent deficit while maintaining good nutrition.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/02/04/Woman-becomes-obes...

35 pounds gained from changing her stomach bacteria.

Measuring calories burnt and calories consumed is trickier than it looks reading nutriction facts and calories/hour tables.

Also, your body is much smarter than you in adapting to changes to calories getting in and out. If you accept that human body do a lot more to influence your behavior than your consciousness realize, you have to admit that not all things depends solely on one's will. Calories consumption are one of those things.

Also, you can study large groups of people for macro influences of a diet at humand body. But individually is known to provide a lot of diversity. Two people on the exactly same diet and exercise routine won't have the exactly same body effects. Much of that was put in the account of DNA. But maybe some of this is due to gut bacteria. That's a possibility worth researching.

your body is much smarter than you in adapting to changes to calories getting in and out

I'm not entirely sure if you're alluding to it but starvation mode is a myth.

I would also suggest subscribing to /r/loseit or /r/progresspics for a while and seeing how many of the success stories involve anything more than "I stopped eating so much and now I'm thin!". Sometimes it's "I started keto/paleo, which meant I wasn't eating many calories and now I'm thin!".

While you can apply calories to those situations, at best calories is an incomplete model. A can of tuna and a can of coke both have 120calories. Yet its obvious that those are going to effect the bodies systems in different ways.

Also, weight is just one measurement. People that eat paleo and other diets often improve all their health numbers like blood pressure and other stuff. So there is a bigger picture to grasp.

Why is it obvious? These are the exact questions that nutritionists are trying to answer without the benefit of being able to force people to eat what they want to test because they're in a Nazi death camp.

Do you know, for example, that poor Japanese in the navy used to just eat rice. Nothing else. Just plain rice:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/eating-too-much-rice-almost...

Some had to be forced to eat protein by chopping it up into the rice.

Or that someone did a twinkie diet and it worked:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profes...

What worked? Losing weight eating twinkies isn't the healthiest option, I think obviously. I did know they ate only rice actually, and what I would say is to even use that as a point makes my point more clear. You are surprised that those food sources work because inherently you know they aren't the traditional mumbo jumbo. So like my comment says, more to it than weight, thats just a single measurement to go by.

We're talking specifically about weight loss and the accuracy of CICO in weight loss, not nutrition in general.

I'm not at all sure what your point is in that context.

> I'm not entirely sure if you're alluding to it but starvation mode is a myth.

I'm curious if you know this as a fact with proof, I'd be very interested in how that might be proven.

Metabolism?

Doesn't matter that much for the majority of people:

http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-peop...

I know you are being facetious, but the attitude you are making fun of is pervasive across the internet. In this specific case, people are not considering that lesser and greater amounts of ingested calories are excreted depending on how much was absorbed during the digestion process. More generally, people cargo cult some scientific sound bite and then stubbornly defend it without considering that they may be wrong since they are backed by "science".

I misread this as " The Future of Dating ... "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com