Slashdot Mirror
The Effect of Internal Bacteria On the Human Body
meckdevil writes with this excerpt from the Miller-McCune magazine:
"In a series of recent findings, researchers describe bacteria that communicate in sophisticated ways, take concerted action, influence human physiology, alter human thinking, bioengineer the environment and control their own evolution. ... The abilities of bacteria are interesting to understand in their own right, and knowing how bacteria function in the biosphere may lead to new sources of energy or ways to degrade toxic chemicals, for example. But emerging evidence on the role of bacteria in human physiology brings the wonder and promise — and the hazards of misunderstanding them — up close and personal. ... Because in a very real sense, bacteria are us. Recent research has shown that gut microbes control or influence nutrient supply to the human host, the development of mature intestinal cells and blood vessels, the stimulation and maturation of the immune system, and blood levels of lipids such as cholesterol. They are, therefore, intimately involved in the bodily functions that tend to be out of kilter in modern society: metabolism, cardiovascular processes and defense against disease. Many researchers are coming to view such diseases as manifestations of imbalance in the ecology of the microbes inhabiting the human body. If further evidence bears this out, medicine is about to undergo a profound paradigm shift, and medical treatment could regularly involve kindness to microbes."
Wild (and almost certainly wrong) speculation here ...
But, anyway, one often experiences intestinal upheaval when travelling in other parts of the world. I tend to imagine that the new foreign bacteria are engaged in an epic battle with the original bacteria for supremacy (e.g. of the colon).
But what if different bacteria release different hormones and chemicals. Is there any chance that the bacteria that is prevalent in one part of the world nudge people in that part of the world to act in certain ways?
For example, what if a particular type of bacteria secreted hormones to make people feel hungry? Could that be a partial explanation of why people in certain parts of the world are heavier than in other parts. Realistically, probably not - but it would be pretty funny if the real reason Americans are overweight is because of the sub-species of bacteria prevalent in the USA.
And ulcers did eventually turn out to have a bacterial origin - so you just never know.
Research may be about to undergo a paradigm shift, but new, actual treatments, seem to run many years behind, if they see the light of day at all.
I'll grant you this point, but it's probably for the better. Would you rather new treatments were rushed to market without real science to back them, and let patients discover the side effects for themselves?
Need proof? Read Enzyme Nutrition, by Dr. Edward Howell:
No thanks. Howell's theories are outdated and largely unsupported by modern food science.
Antibiotics kill off all the bacteria, good and bad.
This is a popular fallacy, but not all antibiotics are effective on all forms of bacteria -- as anyone who has had to get a prescription for antibiotics from a doctor knows. Doctors choose the antibiotics to use based on the family of bacteria they want to destroy.
Cooking and over processing kill off natural enzymes that would help digest the food.
That might be true, but enzymes are best understood as catalysts for digestion, not essential parts of the process. They can help speed digestion, but their lack won't prevent it. Your stomach is full of hydrochloric acid -- that's going to break down most any food you throw in there. In addition, digestive enzymes don't have to come from food; they are secreted by the salivary glands, the stomach, the pancreas, and glands in the intestines. What's more, there are other ways to make nutrients from food more accessible, and one of them is cooking -- something humans have done to their food since the dawn of human history. The idea that humans should stamp out the fire and go back to eating raw vegetables now is pretty silly, and is based more on modern reactionary vegan movements than on science.
Breakfast served all day!
Kimchi, a traditional Korean food, is a well-known lactic acid-fermented vegetable product, and is a good source of industrially useful lactic acid bacteria (LAB). The microorganisms involved in the fermentation of kimchi include approximately 200 species of bacteria and several yeasts. The LAB involved in this fermentation continuously produce organic acids after an optimum ripening time, and cause changes in the composition of the product, referred to as the over-ripening or acid deterioration of kimchi.
The over-ripening of kimchi is the most serious concern when it is in storage. Since the over-ripening is mainly due to acid-forming LAB, the best way to overcome this issue is to control the growth of LAB without destroying the quality of the end product. The LAB play an important role in the taste of kimchi, and many LAB from kimchi have antimicrobial activity in addition to other useful properties.
Recently, scientists at Chosun University investigated LAB from kimchi as molecular sources for various end products, including antimicrobial compounds. Antimicrobial compounds are relatively abundant in traditionally fermented foods, in which they may play an important role as competitors with natural microflora during fermentation. Antimicrobial compound-producing LAB may be useful in preserving kimchi. This can be done by either directly applying the LAB to the culture or by adding LAB-produced antimicrobial compounds as natural bio-preservatives.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/193478661.html
Kimchi's probably the best example of the benefits of fermented food, but more familiar foods like yoghurt and sauerkraut are also good to eat.
The thing is, the parts of those views that we actually took away and which are well-supported aren't wrong at all - despite the fact that Newtonian gravity was superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it's still a useful tool. Thus, looking at the human body as a machine is useful sometimes, looking at it as a chemical system is useful other times, and looking at it as an ecology is useful as well. This is basic relativity of wrong stuff.
Furthermore, it's kind of funny (and I don't know if it was intentional) but the models of the human body you describe increase in complexity - from a complex mechanical machine to a chemical system to a full-blown ecology. I would argue, in fact, that we used those models because they were what was available at the time, more than because that's how we looked at everything. After all, you wouldn't have been able to do what the scientists did in this article just ten years ago (at least, not economically enough to justify it).