Gut Germs Appear to Play Role in Multiple Sclerosis
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
So before my tech career, I did a 1.5yr Fellowship at a renowned research lab -- The Rockefeller University. Our entire programme of research was around the possible causes of multiple sclerosis. One of the reasons I decided to pursue Computer Science rather than clinical research was the slow discovery cycle in clinical research. I got so much faster (albiet smaller) victories in Computer Science.
That was 1996. This is 20 years later and sadly we're still trying to determine the etiology of the disease. My research advisor passed away, the other is deep in retirement. We're still trying to figure out the mess of genetic and environmental factors which cause MS (our theory was Human Herpes Virus 6.)
I owe so much respect to individuals who pursue clinical research for a generation despite how slow progress can be. I was pulling my hair out in 1996 when I worked on this, because it was so slow with so little signal to success/failure. ...In the meantime, I get antsy if my build takes longer than two minutes or if a scrum sprint goes over by a day.
PS this is also why I admire Craig Venter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter) so much -- he worked so hard to institute the practices of automation into biomedical research. It is also why im so excited by Mousera/Vium
http://m.ajpgi.physiology.org/content/277/5/G922
It seems like a pretty obvious connection once you know that detail. If you have any kind of chronic medical condition, you would likely benefit from improving your gut health. (Hint: Dietary changes are a good place to start.)
I do have a food blog if you want to follow my eating journey for some reason.
https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0...
That's the thing with diets. There is a real well reasoned argument for and against most anything...
Still a really fascinating and well written book.
This is something our bodies do out of pretty desperate lack of nutrients, and it's of course devastating from an evolutionary standpoint.
The thesis of the book is that we've cooked food for so long that our digestive system is adapted to it. It even speculates that the shrunken digestive system made our bigger brains possible. All that is far from uncontroversial, but it's a well written and argued text.
A little cooking is good for making things more digestible. Overcooking depletes nutrients.
I tend to like things like stir fry or similar high heat, short cook time approaches.
(No, I will not try to back this up with citations.)
Remember the E. Coli epidemic in Hamburg a few years ago? It started from raw bean sprouts.
That's a hygiene problem not a culinary one.
I doubt that stir frying bean sprouts would be enough to sterilise them and surely no one cooks them any longer than that.
Used to eat a lot, mostly sprouted at home and we never took any special precautions, just normal domestic hygiene. Ate a lot of them raw too.
Of course I haven't tested either the internal temperature of a bean sprout during stir frying nor have I tried infecting one with E. Coli to see if the E. Coli is neutralised by stir frying. Perhaps someone with the necessary gear and expertise could try it.
Like take your comment that I replied to. It is incredibly specific advice. As if there is 1 brand of toilet paper that is absolutely the right one.
[1] This is not medical advice. Terms and conditions may apply. Consult a physician and toilet paper specialist before stopping to wipe.
I refused, did some research on my own, and went on keto. My thyroid bloodwork is back to normal and I have no symptoms. And I feel much 'healthier' and more 'energetic' than before all this as well.
I am not proposing keto diet as a magical cure-for-all, but as a possible venue that should be tried before being forced to undergo irreversible surgical procedures for example.
P.S. body does not 'switch' the energy source to fat, it increases the production of ketones as result of interrupted Krebs cycle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle ) because oxaloacetate gets rerouted for use in gluconeogenesis (creating glucose for brain's needs), because there's not enough glucose in diet. This interruption causes the buildup of the main source for Kreb's cycle, acetyl-COA, which is then converted to acetoacetate (a ketone), which is then also partially converted to acetone and beta-hydroxybutyrate (also ketones). Of these, body uses acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate as fuel. Body is always able to use them, it's just that there's not enough of them to use if you're not on carb-restricted diet, so body defaults to using glucose as fuel.
Like you say, long-term effects of keto are poorly studied, mostly because of two reasons: early keto hype as an effective seizure treatment died out once we got good enough chemical seizure treatments, and there was a lot of money poured into blaming fat intake for negative health effects of increased carb intake from the 50ies (starting with Ancel Keys), and picking up significantly in 70ies.
There are animal studies that demonstrate increased longevity of animals on keto diet, similar to calorie restriction and strict veganism. While the calorie restriction and strict veganism most likely work through lowered intake of methionine (an essential aminoacid which functions as START coding block for protein synthesis, meaning that with lowered methionine intake your body creates protein at lowered rate and renews itself more slowly), keto achieves that through effectively tricking the body to go into 'starvation mode' i.e. the mode of using own fat reserves while the actual fat source is the diet.
My father does not remember that locals got some particular health problems from that. Old people looked healthy and worked pretty much until the dearth. What is especially interesting that it was also true for descendants of Russian emigrants there from 100 years ago, but they did grow some vegetables and cereals.
Of cause, that does not prove that meat is healthy. But it does show that in a particular climate eating only meat is not harmful when the meat is from animals that was treated by locals with extreme respect and that were fed on grass that was either fresh or covered with snow at winter.
All bad things related to meat consumption are result of intensive and unhealthy farming practices, and combining increased fat intake with increased carb intake (especially fructose). Correlation, not causation.
That being said, there are two issues with meat: in the West, we pretty much only consider muscle as meat, and dislike the internal organs, when it should be the other way around. Even obligate carnivores prefer internal organs because they are richer with fat, and often leave a lot of muscle meat on carcasses.
Second, and related, issue is that muscle meat based diet is a high-protein diet, not high-fat diet, so it's more akin to Atkins than to keto diet. High protein diet comes with its own set of issues: it places significantly higher load on liver, which causes increase in liver size; obligate carnivores have extremely large livers compared to their body size (just google for an image of shark's liver compared to its body, it's almost 1/3 of the volume). This also applies to humans, for example Inuit have enlarged livers as well.
This is the result of increased need for protein-processing capacity. Liver can only process so much protein into fuel per unit of its volume per unit of time. And to use Inuit as example again, because of this, they keep snacking every couple of hours, more often when exerting themselves physically.
A related concept is 'rabbit starvation': eating lean meat (rabbit in winter) is not enough to keep a human being alive - while you're in theory ingesting enough calories to survive, your liver's capacity to process pure protein into fuel is less than your body's need for fuel.
The summary doesn't mention 'grass-fed', only 'wagyu'; wagyu is intensively grain-fed in the last year of their life or so.
To quote from a quickly-googled article:
"What many people overlook is that farmers make Wagyu as fatty as possible by feeding their cows huge amounts of grain for the last 300-500 days of their lives. Some farmers even add wine and beer to further increase fat content. The result is that a wagyu cow’s muscle tissue is thoroughly marbled with fat. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of fat that is not good for you. The mold toxins in all that grain are bad for the cow and end up in its fat, and then in you, which would mean wagyu beef has a disproportionately high toxin load."
Much better than the usual crowd I get in these kind of discussions, the 'sensitive vegan' type who pushes false statistics to try to hide being emotionally invested behind the authority of science (two of their favorite falsehoods are to push all people who consume meat into the same group for comparison vs vegans - bad science, because majority of omnivores have very bad diets incomparable to my efforts at keeping on keto, and arguing that 'cows emit methane, so we need to eat less meat', never 'cows emit methane, so let's eat other meat more'). And then when I display patience and deconstruct their arguments, the mask of reason falls off and they just start calling me Hitler, murderer etc. lol.
"Processed" is a vague word that means very little.
Sure that includes cheese, preserved meats, honey, grains, and many liquids, but you can also find those held in paper, wax, wood, and glass containers. Hamburger Helper is processed and it always comes in a plastic bag.
But I think the best way is to realize you are free to experiment with your diet - with careful tracking of your diet, you may be able to find certain foods that work great or certain foods that make you feel worse etc. You can run an "n of 1" experiment on yourself and see what works. No need to wait for a study/evidence because its not coming anytime soon.
Yes, Dr. Michael Greger also sells books and DVDs through the site, but you need neither buy anything nor register to get access to all the material on the site.
Most of the videos are basically him summarizing a large number of papers on a specific subject. Each video is accompanied by a transcript, and sources.
If the guy turns out to be a quack after all, I'd like to know why, not just be passive-aggressively told I'm wrong.
From the Wikipedia article on Greger, it looks like he may be cherry-picking his evidence or overstating his claims in some cases. Speculation, but that might be a reason people would disagree that nutritionfacts.org is a good source:
> Retired physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims, has written that, while it is well accepted that it is more healthy to eat a plant-based diet than a western pattern diet, Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims.
Well, I suppose. Ariely has a good video on that people getting irrational as the topic moves closer to the body[0].
It's still pretty ridiculous given that just about everyone else is replying with their unsourced opinions.
And that's basically one guy whose critique is "he's a bit too enthusiastic about the plant-based diet." Given how attached people are to meat, that's hardly a strong counter-argument.
High fiber, high fat, moderate protein, as few carbs as possible. Water whenever you're thirsty.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15802745-the-immune-syst...
in america, there is almost a shaming done if you do not eat other cultures foods, but other cultures mostly stick to their own food (and there is a good reason for that).
There was another intriguing connection: Acinetobacter are molecular mimics of proteins found in myelin, the nerve cell coating that the immune system attacks in MS.
It sounds like a very similar situation to PANDAS and PANS: http://www.pandasnetwork.org/understanding-pandaspans/what-i...
Some bacteria have evolved to trick our immune system into ignoring them, but an overactive immune system will attack that bacteria and the human cells they're trying to mimic.
To learn more about auto-immune diseases and gut bacteria, I highly recommend the book An Epidemic of Absence [2]. It's an impressively well researched book that doesn't skimp on the science.
I managed to get my eczema under control by learning about the relationship between gut, food, inflammation, and auto-immunity.
[1]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=multiple+sclerosis+gut+...
[2]: https://www.amazon.com/Epidemic-Absence-Understanding-Allerg...
And what did you do? Everyone seems to agree that dietary changes are the answer. What exact seems to vary.
That said, the biggest factor for me was eliminating dairy. I used to drink more than a gallon of milk a week. I saw results after about two weeks of eliminating dairy. My dermatologist was shocked. She refused to believe there's any correlation between diet and eczema. Patches didn't start completely going away until I also eliminated wheat. They are basically gone when I regularly eat fermented foods, take a soil-based probiotic, and get good sleep.
You might want to try an elimination diet (starting with dairy, then wheat/gluten). If you want something more structured check out an auto-immune paleo protocol like Whole30. I wish that existed when I got started. Had to learn the hard and slow way on my own.
I also recommend a gut bacteria test like uBiome to see how it alters your composition. Do a before test, then another one after a month or two of use.
I have an aunt with MS and got excited by this article, but still wasn't aware that it might be limited to a subset?
> They put Acinetobacter and Akkermansia bacteria into samples of healthy blood. The microbes increased the kind of cells that activate immune attack (they’re called T helper cells) and decreased the kind (regulatory T cells) that suppress excessive immune responses, including autoimmune attacks as in MS.
As far as I understand the article it seems like they have replicated the effect MS has on the T-cells, and that is not subtype spesific. If they could inhibit this effect it would be a fix across all subtypes, even if it doesn't fix the underlying problem.
More information: https://youtu.be/aTPU87CKQLQ?t=6m30s
If this proves to be the case for your aunt, the good news is that anti-helmintics like Ivermectin, could efficiently treat the underlying cause.
You also might benefit from performing Metagenomic tests ( such as Digital Culture by Karius - kariusdx.com) to look for insidious pathogens that might play a role in her illness.
In other words, there are many different things that might cause the symptomatology described as "Multiple Sclerosis", Lyme disease actually being one of them, https://youtu.be/Fy0ViOX7xNk?t=9m37s
I have an auto-immune disease (ulcerative colitis) and the situation is the same for me. Doctors always tell me they can never be entirely sure that's what it is. But I'm sure there are plenty of diagnosis are generalizations about symptoms rather than root cause.
We simply don't know what causes plenty of diseases.
Side-note: given that my aunt has MS while me and multiple of my other aunts have an IBD (irritable bowel diseases: chrohns, colitis) on one side of the family, there seems to be a connection between UC and MS as both are auto-immune related:
The problem here seems to be that this doesn't measure how feasible it is to reverse the tendency for the immune system to attack the nerves. Even if you erradicate the causative bacteria, once the immune system has started to attack the nerves, it's possible that it won't stop. Maybe the presence of the antigens (the proteins that are attacket) in the bacteria is needed as the trigger that starts the attack, but once that's gone, the low level presence of the same antigens in the nerves might be enough to sustain the attack. On a more optimistic note, maybe the erradication of the bacteria leads to a lack of simulation that causes the aggressive cells tow ither and die. This must be tested experimentally.
If the autoimmune ttack doesn't stop after erradication of bacteria, maybe a case can be made for aggressive prevention with testing for those bacteria periodically, ,especially in families predisposed to the disease, and prompt erradication once they appear. Maybe there are correlations between diet and the presence of such bacteria, which we can exploit.
I think the long term impact of these studies will depend on how reversible the "state of war" between the immune system and the nerves is.
If this is true, could high dose antibiotics eliminate the gut bacteria and thereby halt the immune reaction associated with that type of MS?
Gut, by Giulia Enders
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23013953-gutNot to downplay this data, but caution is required not to over interpret the results, and avoid making the sane mistakes over and over again.
We also know that antibiotics that kill gut flora lead to health/digestion issues until the gut flora is replenished.
It doesn't take nearly as many why questions to get to a "we don't know" answer with biology versus physics. There's lots of stuff about biology we can observe but do not understand the why as well as we understand something like the physics behind a microprocessor.
There are even theories that gut bacteria can drive human behavior at some level. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacte...
Normal gut bacteria also coat the GI tract, preventing pathogenic bacteria from sticking to the surface of the intestines. This is part of the reason babies under 1 should not eat raw honey (which has C. botulinum spores that can stick to the intestines and produce botulinum toxin), while older kids and adults have no trouble with it.
Along the same lines, a hot (though, admittedly disgusting) area of research in medicine now is fecal transplant for people with a particularly aggressive form of colitis. I believe that the research on glut flora transplantation is also being expanded to weight loss, but I'm not very familiar with the studies.
If you're talking about a neutral pH as in pH = 7.0 (the usual accepted definition of neutral), these claims are contradictory. The pH of the human blood is usually between 7.35 and 7.45. This is usually way less acicic than the neutral pH of 7.0. Furthermore, a pH of 7 is usually associated with very serious disease (and yes, it is causal: if you inject/ingest enough acid to make the pH drop to 7.0 you're in pretty bad shape, especially because it means the regulatory mechanisms aren't working as they should). I don't know who that "professional nutritionist" is, but this sounds like crackpot-level science.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, it's extremely hard to change the blood's pH with diet... The body has a multi-layered system specifically dedicated to keeping the pH in the normal range (7.35-7.45), and that's independent of what you eat. Maybe you're mistaking it for changing the urine's pH, which is much easier to do, and can be achieved through diet alone. Unfortunately, changing the urine's pH doesn't seem to achieve much beyond preventing some inds of kidney stones...
I'm not really equipped to review, but it does make some interesting points that while the body strongly maintains blood PH of between 7.35 and 7.45 the mechanisms of doing this can cause more stress on other systems in the body depending on your diet. It's also interesting that we used to have pre agriculture a 10:1 rather than a 1:3 K:Na balance.
Anyway, the article is an interesting read - maybe supply some counter evidence that Alkaline diets have zero supporting evidence.
I haven't read the study, and I don't want to claim that Alkaline diets have zero supporting evidence. I just wanted to argue against the claim that your pH is "too acidic" or "too alkaline" or whatever. Any potential benefits of an alkaline diet are surely independent of the pH variation they induce, because the variation will be close to 0 in any case, if your body's working properly. The stress hypothesis is interesting (I'm not saying it's even remotely correct! only that it's an interesting twist on the crackpot claims I've heard elsewhere), but you'll never be able to gauge how stressed your regulation mechanisms are just by measuring the blood's pH. You'll have to find some upstream biomarker that measures "stress" directly.
- Part 1. Background
> Life on earth depends on appropriate pH levels in and around living organisms and cells.
I take issue with this sentence. This is obviously true, as life must carefully control the concentrations of some substances inside and outside the cell. However, this makes it seem like pH is uniquely special. This is not true: pH is merely a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. If this is meant to address the layman, as it's supposed to, such clarification is important. In fact, I think many of the myths around pH would be better addressed by making the pH concept taboo, and talking instead of "the concentration of H+ ions in solution".
> As a comparison, in the past 100 years with increasing industrialization, the pH of the ocean has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 because of increasing CO2 deposition.
This is very important for the bisphere as a whole, but useless to understand the impact of pH changes in the body. I don't understand the reason for this section.
> This results in a diet that may induce metabolic acidosis which is mismatched to the genetically determined nutritional requirements
No. This is not true. Such diet may wreck your kidneys due to hypertension, and the kidney damage will give you metabolic acidosis. The diet itself will not give you metabolic acidosis, as long as your lungs and kidneys are fine. This is written in a very misleading way.
> With aging, there is a gradual loss of renal acid-base regulatory function and a resultant increase in diet-induced metabolic acidosis while on the modern diet
Now we're talking. I don' know if this is exactly true, but at least it makes sense.
- Part 2. The Role of pH in Various Cells, Organs, and Membranes
None of the mechanisms described here have anything to do with the systemic blood pH. The author doesn't say it, and he should. This section adds confusion and very little understanding
- 3. Chronic Acidosis and Bone Disease
This section is a little confusing. Many studies, little understanding.
The interesting part is this:
> There is evidence that in healthy humans the increased sodium in the diet can predict the degree of hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis when consuming a net acid producing diet
The study this is taken from has does have some regressions that advance this point, but the correlation is so weak I'm not sure we should take the results at face value.
- 4. Alkaline Diets and Musce
> Conditions such as chronic renal failure that result in chronic metabolic acidosis result in accelerated breakdown in skeletal muscle [40]. Correction of acidosis may preserve muscle mass in conditions where muscle wasting is common such as diabetic ketosis, trauma, sepsis, chronic obstructive lung disease, and renal failure
While you can manipulate the pH f patines with no functioning kidneys by giving them tablets with NaHCO3 (an alkali), you should never, ever extrapolate this to the diet of healthy people. Even in patients with kidney failure, doctors don't try to correct the pH with diet alone.
- 5. Alkaline Supplementation and Growth Hormone
> It has long been known that severe forms of metabolic acidosis in children, such as renal tubular acidosis,
No, no, no... Again, don't extrapolate from serious kidney diseases to healthy subjects.
- 7. Alkalinity and Chemotherapy
Some drugs work better with low pH and some work better with high pH. Again, you won't change the pH with diet, so this is useless to a discussion of Alkaline diet
> It has been suggested that inducing metabolic alkalosis may be useful in enhancing some treatment regimes by using sodium bicarbonate, carbicab, and furosemide
As you can see, even when you cant to induce alkalosis, you sue actual drugs, and not dietary changes (one of these drugs, furosemide, works by manipulation kidney function, it's not merely an alkali concentrate).
The discussion and conclusion say that the evidence is weak for lots of things. The only stroong part is the K/Na ratio. If the Alkali diet does this, then its benefits have nothing to do with blood alkalinization per se.
Was pretty sure this was going to be followed up with nonsense.
>>Apparently at the current moment the best is to keep your PH value in the body neutral
Right, it was.
If that was best, then why has the body not evolved into this pattern after millions of years, especially considering that diet prior to the agricultural revolution was almost certainly more acidic than ours today?
Read Alan Aragon's monthly research review for data-driven ideas on nutrition and exercise. A "professional nutritionist" is almost certainly going to have - at the very best - outdated ideas from decades ago seared into their brains. The truth is that we know vanishingly little about nutrition from a micro perspective; any strong claims beyond that are exceptionally suspect.