Slashdot Mirror


Four Weeks Without Soap Or Shampoo

An anonymous reader writes "A biotech start-up from Massachusetts has an unusual product: a bottle full of bacteria you're supposed to spray onto your face. The bacteria is Nitrosomonas eutropha, and it's generally harmless. Its main use is that it oxidizes ammonia, and the start-up's researchers suspect it used to commonly live on human skin before we began washing it away with soaps and other cleaners. Such bacteria are an area of heavy research in biology right now. Scientists know that the gut microbiome is important to proper digestion, and they're trying to figure out if an external microbiome can be similarly beneficial to skin. A journalist for the NY Times volunteered to test the product, which involved four straight weeks of no showers, no soap, no shampoo, and no deodorant. The sprayed-on bacteria quickly colonized her skin, along with other known types of bacteria — and hundreds of unknown (but apparently harmless) strains. She reported improvements to her skin and complexion, and described how the bacteria worked to curtail (but not eliminate) the body odor caused by not washing. At the end of the experiment, all of the N. eutropha vanished within three showers."

59 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Jake from State Farm Commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    She sounds hideous.

    1. Re:Jake from State Farm Commercial by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, "Jake". That person from State Farm. We have dismissed that claim.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  2. Why make a journalist suffer? by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want subjects who don't mind not bathing for four weeks, just go to any CS lab.

    1. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by yendor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem there isn't the lack of showers but the repeated use of clothing.

    2. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why would anyone spray the Small Device C Compiler onto anyone? Even the CS lab people might find that weird.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem there isn't the lack of showers but the repeated use of clothing.

      But then you have CEO of Levi Strauss saying don't wash your jeans. http://www.latimes.com/fashion... I guess its back to nature time. I hope the windows open for a fresh breeze...

    4. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's used for de-bugging CS grad students

    5. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

      I've done this. I was working with a pair of raw denim jeans, and the advice is to not wash it until you've worn them for 6 months.

      The first month is the worst, but after that, they stop smelling like anything at all. As long as you're not doing deep lunges in the summer sun while you're going commando, it's probably fine. Actually, even that might be fine.

      Those jeans have gone their whole lives with only two full washes and that's it. They still look good and like I said, they don't smell like anything at all, even when you put your face up to them to test them. I think maybe we just have to get used to the thinking that we overwash EVERYTHING.

    6. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      pre-bugging

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it's a conspiracy by the clothes to keep us covered. Kill la kill.

    8. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Everybody tells me I'm a dirty old man, even after I have a shower!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:Why make a journalist suffer? by uncqual · · Score: 2

      they don't smell like anything at all, even when you put your face up to them to test them

      They probably don't smell to you. People become desensitized to odors after they have been exposed to them regularly (which is probably fortunate for those working in some areas of sewage treatment plants).

      In the early days, Steve Jobs was sure that he didn't have body odor and didn't need to shower because his diet cleansed him. Some of his co-workers reported disagreed with him on that point.

      Don't be a Steve Jobs WRT body odor!

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    10. Re: Why make a journalist suffer? by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      I'm absolutely positive you'd look more like a superhero (or at least special) wearing them on top of your jeans.

  3. So? by PuddleBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suspect there are slashdot readers who, uh, know someone who takes long spells between showers...

    1. Re:So? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Especially resurrection spells, I've heard, take particularly long to cast...

  4. Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most people have known this for some time. I haven't washed my face in years. It was the only thing that stopped acne. By "not wash", I mean don't use soap or cleaners. Obviously, some shampoo trickles down on it and I rinse with water each day.

    Hair can be handled the same way if you have naturally dry or frizzy hair.

    Captcha: untidy

    1. Re:Derp by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      Most people have known this for some time.

      Yeah, the soap and shampoo industry is really suffering.

    2. Re:Derp by lisaparratt · · Score: 2

      Another alternative for hair is just to condition, not shampoo.

    3. Re:Derp by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Informative

      I take a step somewhere in-between: I shower every 3-4 days, depending on how dirty I feel. Even then, I only wash my body with water, no soaps or cleansers or anything like that, though I do use some basic shampoo and conditioner on my hair. If I take showers more often my skin immediately starts to feel a lot drier and flakier. I dunno if my experiences match anyone else's, but it seems to suit my body quite fine.

    4. Re:Derp by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      that's not where it's bad actually, just a little musky. it's the coating of shit the chickens leave on me everywhere else.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Derp by sudon't · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another alternative for hair is just to condition, not shampoo.

      The introduction of conditioner is what allowed the practice of daily shampooing to become common. I can still remember the Clairol Herbal Essence commercial jingle from the late sixties / early seventies:

      "You can wash your hair, now, every night, every night...",

      Myself, I stopped shampooing daily in the eighties. I rarely shampoo more than once per month, just rinse it with water during my daily shower. My (long) hair stays clean enough, looks healthy, and is easier to manage. If you're not using shampoo, you'll have no need of conditioner, (except when you do shampoo).

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  5. More than this by koan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Scientists know that the gut microbiome is important to proper digestion

    Gut bacteria is more than proper digestion, it's a second mind.
    It's interesting as well that one of the most important parts of a cell are the mitochondria, which by all rights are their own separate critter that set up a successful house in just about everything alive.

    What a menagerie.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:More than this by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed. It's also interesting how one of the most important parts of the force are the midichlorians, which is nothing short of amazing.

  6. Poor example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A 4 week test on something related to skin and they used a female journalist? Could by chance her skin complexion improved because of her menstrual cycle? There's about a 75% chance that she wasn't coming off of her period right before application so of course she probably noticed improvements to her skin, especially her face, over a 4 week test.

    1. Re:Poor example by lanswitch · · Score: 5, Informative

      4 weeks= 1 ovary cycle. Think about it.

    2. Re:Poor example by sandytaru · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah - something men may not know, that isn't common knowledge, but is a thing. Many women who take BC pills are going for 6-8 week stretches at a time per cycle now. So you cannot assume a woman is on the standard four week cycle (with or without the pills, everyone is different) unless she says so.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:Poor example by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      That's always the problem with impression based results.

      I've seen the same with vegetarians. They'll have a cookout and then claim "I served all veggie burgers and no one even noticed!!!!". More likely, you just don't have a room full of guests who are going to take a bite, throw the burger on the floor, and scream "WHAT THE FUCK IS IN THIS NASTY BASTARD!?!?!". No, people generally just nod and put on a smile.

      Same with things like this. You can smell pretty darned bad before people are going to start coming up to you and complaining.

      Besides, where the hell is the control group in this? They need anonymously submitted ratings of the BO. 4 groups at least. 1 who doesn't wash and the responders are told this. 1 who does but the responders are told otherwise, and vice versa.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  7. Control Groups by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where are the control groups? Shouldn't there also be at least a few of these:
    1) One group that showers daily and uses the spray.
    2) One group that showers daily and sprays plain water.
    3) One group that doesn't shower for 4 weeks and sprays plain water.

    Number 3 is almost required for any accurate study and I would think it would
    the other 2 wouldn't hurt either.

    1. Re:Control Groups by SailorSpork · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where are the control groups? Shouldn't there also be at least a few of these: 1) One group that showers daily and uses the spray. 2) One group that showers daily and sprays plain water. 3) One group that doesn't shower for 4 weeks and sprays plain water.

      Number 3 is almost required for any accurate study and I would think it would the other 2 wouldn't hurt either.

      Reading the article, she was subject 26 of who knows how many. For all we know, she was in the control group, or there may have been separate control groups present. The article recaps her personal experience, not the complete conditions for the experiment. Maybe with the initial findings, they'll do multiple rounds with different variables as you suggest above.

    2. Re:Control Groups by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where are the control groups? Shouldn't there also be at least a few of these:

      Perhaps I missed this, but it doesn't seem that TFA is reporting official results of a study -- it's just the anecdotal description of somebody who participated in a study that's been going on. All she says is: "I was Subject 26 in testing a living bacterial skin tonic." I don't think there's anything in TFA that mentions what control groups there may have been, nor does it imply that there were not any.

      This is just one subject's experience that she decided to blog about... so should we really be questioning the validity of the study or its design when she doesn't even discuss methodology (and perhaps doesn't even know the details, since she was... you know... a PARTICIPANT in the study)?

      About the only thing in TFA that suggests anything about research design is this:

      A regime of concentrated AO+ caused a hundredfold decrease of Propionibacterium acnes, often blamed for acne breakouts. And the company says that diabetic mice with skin wounds heal more quickly after two weeks of treatment with a formulation of AOB.

      Soon, AOBiome will file an Investigational New Drug Application with the F.D.A. to request permission to test more concentrated forms of AOB for the treatment of diabetic ulcers and other dermatologic conditions. "Itâ(TM)s very, very easy to make a quack therapy; to put together a bunch of biological links to convince someone that somethingâ(TM)s true," Heywood said. "What would hurt us is trying to sell anything ahead of the data."

      "A hundredfold decrease," "wounds heal more quickly" -- these imply that there are comparison groups. And if they are applying to do testing with the FDA, they're going to have to do control groups.

      Seriously -- what is it with Slashdot and the "But didn't they think of doing a real science experiment, with, you know, data and stuff" comments? This is a link to a blog post by subject in a study. You want details? Wait until an actual study comes out.

      But if this company is planning on getting its stuff approved as a medical treatment or marketing it on its particular benefits, it would actually be incredibly counterproductive to design poor experiments, since they wouldn't allow them to refine or further develop their products.

      Do you really think these people are idiots?

    3. Re:Control Groups by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      There's a reason we don't trust journalists to get science stories right. They allow hedlines which ignore issues like control groups.

  8. Uh huh by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Funny

    the bacteria worked to curtail (but not eliminate) the body odor caused by not washing

    I used to work with sailors who would come back after long fishing trips. And I can assure you that they definitely did not have this bacteria present.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  9. Bathe for health by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You bathe for health. You don't bathe for an optimum natural balance; you do it so you get nasty pathogens off your body, and don't get infected wounds.

    Apparently some health comes at the expense of some other health, like how antibiotics destroy gut bacteria but save you from death by sepsis.

    1. Re:Bathe for health by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The idea here is probiotics, good bacteria outbreed and exclude the pathogens... The article even states that the byproducts of the ammonia processing by these bacteria produced nirites and nitric acid which inhibited staph growth, they even noticed reduced healing times for mice.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:Bathe for health by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's the theory, but it's a theory established back when we thought all microbes were bad, or at best harmless. Now they're re-evalutating the theory to see if perhaps it's not actually counterproductive.

      The thing is those pathogens are going to get on your skin again almost immediately after washing anyway (think of everything you touch both before and after bathing), and if you've washed away the beneficial bacteria then the more virulent ones can recolonize your skin virtually unopposed. Meanwhile all your traditional symbiotes have been washed away, so you're not getting their benefits either. Could be a recipe to make people considerably more vulnerable to infection than otherwise.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Bathe for health by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the byproducts of the ammonia processing by these bacteria produced nirites and nitric acid which inhibited staph growth,

      And this sort of thing is going to become very important once antibiotics stop working.

  10. Does shower mean soap? by yendor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I ask myself if the showers that kill the flora is just water or use soap.
    Shampoo is something I long ago stopped using and after a short period I stopped producing excessive amounts of oil. The only times I have to shampoo is when because of a skin condition.

    Using soap in general isn't something I feel is needed since a regular rinsing leaves me non smelly.

    Question is if I am actually breeding these little microbes and my lack of soaping is why I don't smell or if it's simply because I'm not a smelly person as some of my friends and family asserts?

    1. Re:Does shower mean soap? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Informative

      Using soap in general isn't something I feel is needed since a regular rinsing leaves me non smelly.

      According to your nose you may be non-smelly. Perhaps you're like a coworker of mine that could not smell BO. He didn't think he needed to wash regularly or use deodorant since he couldn't smell himself. Being an avid runner, he STANK most of the time; I mean he reeked to the point of making people's eyes water.

      You really don't want to be 'that guy'. You might want to get a second opinion from an unbiased source (not "friends and family").

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:Does shower mean soap? by TWX · · Score: 2

      I found that getting the water as hot as I could stand before rinsing out my hair seems to help rinse out excessive oil buildup. I tend to shampoo two to three times a week instead of daily, and I've noticed that when I do this with the hot water my hair looks better than when I use cooler water.

      But yeah, otherwise soap all the way.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Does shower mean soap? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      RMS don't need no stinkin' job!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. To maximize bacteria by ColoradoAuthor · · Score: 5, Informative

    IIRC from the book "The Life That Lives On Man," the skin count of undesirable bacteria is maximized by daily showering. That's just frequent enough to wash away the desirable strains, and to keep things moist enough for the undesirable strains to proliferate. That research is over 20 years old, so I'd love to see an update.

  12. Quick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ship a crate to Stallman! Along with a box of chocolate covered toenails-and-bunions.

  13. Re: "four straight weeks of no showers, no soap" by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    "She reported improvements to her skin and complexion, and described how the bacteria worked to curtail (but not eliminate) the body odor caused by not washing."

    That must have been one funky monkey...

    According to the blog linked in the article, it was apparently somewhere between cut onions and marijuana.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  14. not so bad by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've gone 10 days without washing (other than water), on a wilderness backpacking trip. Despite the fact that I was sweating a lot every day, at the end of the expedition I didn't feel as "dirty" as I would've expected. I think we could find a happy medium between our modern antibacterial-soap fetish and ye olde annual bath.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I went 2 months without showering, when I was working in the Arctic, living in a tent, etc. A snow shower at -40c didn't seem appealing.

      Then my flight out was delayed by weather. I lost the shower day I was going to have between flights.

      So took the bush plane out the next day and ran for my next flight. New sweat to freshen up 2 months of stench. After take off, everyone moved to the front of the plane and the flight attendant discreetly sprayed the entire now-empty-except-for-me rear cabin with air freshener.

      Suprisingly, I felt no embarrassment.

  15. Re: "four straight weeks of no showers, no soap" by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was the reduction of body stench independently verified? Maybe she just got used to it.

  16. I've gone without product by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At first I was stinky and greasy. Later I was just greasy. But hey, I've got greasy skin. So I went back to product, because I didn't want to be greasy. But I have hippie shampoo and soap, no patchouli involved — unscented shampoo, and peppermint soap. No deodorant, I smell at least as good now as I did when I used it in conjunction with a bunch of toxic crap.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Or by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ya know what I'm thinkin'? D&D conventions.

    Have you ever walked into a hobby store on a Saturday with gaming tables set up? Fucking unwashed pigs.

    "Shut up!!! It's Baron Harkonnen cosplay! >:-( "

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Or by fey000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Parent deserves at least a +1 for the visual of Baron Harkonnen cosplay.

  18. Re:but..but.. by fuzznutz · · Score: 2, Funny

    That must have been one foul coochie. Allow me to be the first to say, "NOT IT!"

  19. Re:PH by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Baking soda is a base, and as such converts oils into soaps on contact - my first guess would be that it's converting some of the more aromatic oils on your skin. I've heard of it used to clear up enlarged pores as well - the combination of mild abrasion and high PH do a number on the sebum (waxy oils) that otherwise build up in your pores. PH cold definitely also have an effect on your surface microbes though.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  20. Nope, I'm good. by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 2

    I'll stick with soap.

  21. Re: "four straight weeks of no showers, no soap" by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

    Was the reduction of body stench independently verified? Maybe she just got used to it.

    Absolutely possible. This is just her anecdotal report. She has other anecdotal reports in TFA, though:

    Jamas, a quiet, serial entrepreneur with a doctorate in biotechnology, incorporated N. eutropha into his hygiene routine years ago; today he uses soap just twice a week. The chairman of the company's board of directors, Jamie Heywood, lathers up once or twice a month and shampoos just three times a year. The most extreme case is David Whitlock, the M.I.T.-trained chemical engineer who invented AO+. He has not showered for the past 12 years. He occasionally takes a sponge bath to wash away grime but trusts his skin's bacterial colony to do the rest. I met these men. I got close enough to shake their hands, engage in casual conversation and note that they in no way conveyed a sense of being "unclean" in either the visual or olfactory sense.

    And, honestly, it makes some sense on an intuitive level. Perspiration doesn't really have an odor on its own -- the odor comes with the bacteria and such that start growing in the minutes and hours after perspiration.

    If we get rid of all of them every day, we're going to select for certain strains of fast-growing bacteria.

    If we instead let things "ferment" over weeks or months, we'll probably select for other types of bacteria, which tend to be adapted to our bodies, rather than whatever random fast-growing stuff happens to land there after a daily shower. Undoubtedly, the odors produced with a hygiene regimen change will be DIFFERENT.

    And, since soap and daily showers are a relatively recent invention, one would think that humans would be less likely to find the build-up of long-term bacterial colony odors offensive, since from an evolutionary perspective, natural body odor shouldn't drive potential mates away. And it's therefore more likely that we'd be adapted to not care about such odors (of even sometimes be attracted to them -- historically, we have lots of accounts of people who describe natural body odor as a significant aphrodisiac).

    I'm not saying all of this is true. But it at least makes sense that a DIFFERENCE in body odor seems likely when bacterial colonies are allowed to establish themselves over time and be selected for in daily body excretions.

    Kind of like trying to create a sourdough starter: if you just mix together flour and water and let it sit for a few days, you have a high likelihood of mold or undesirable things forming over time. If you just empty the container, scrub it out, and try again, you're likely to have similar results. But if you let it sit over a period of weeks and gradually feed it, eventually you'll select for specific bacteria and yeasts. And after a while, you end up with robust bacterial colonies that won't likely mold or grow nasty stuff -- because the microorganisms create an environment conductive to their own growth, rather than the undesirable stuff.

  22. Re:PH by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Much of body odor comes from short-chain fatty acids, produced when various bacteria break down skin oils. Baking soda turns those acids into salts, which don't smell nearly as much. However, it can also saponify your skin oils, so it's hard on your skin if you use too much.

  23. I beg to disagree by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe in taking care of myself and a balanced diet and rigorous exercise routine. In the morning if my face is a little puffy I'll put on an ice pack while doing stomach crunches. I can do 1000 now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial mask which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

    1. Re:I beg to disagree by Prune · · Score: 2

      Of course, you're quoting to opening narration from the American Psycho movie. But if you think about the described routine, it doesn't really make sense. He first applies an ice pack (which does, indeed, reduce puffiness), and then a pore cleanser. I thought everyone knew that cold constricts pores. That's why at some spas when you get a facial they start with warm steam. This opens up your pores, and the cleaning works better. Another problem with the routine described in the movie is daily exfoliation of the face. You shouldn't be doing it more than a couple of times a week. The point about alcohol-free after-shave, though, is spot on. I use witch-hazel based tonic before a moisturizing aftershave and it really takes away the irritation of shaving.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  24. Why not Probiotic moisterizer? by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

    Shower as usual to strip the skin of all microbes and then moisturize with a probiotic. Seems more logical to me.

    I declare this idea to officially be in the public domain :-)

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  25. They've been testing this for years. by drainbramage · · Score: 4, Funny

    They've been testing this for years in France.
    The research lab is on a road named something like Rue The Day.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  26. Funny / snarky / sexist comments aside ... by MyNicknameSucks · · Score: 2

    There is a lot of research to be done on human bacteria.

    I know many people here react dismissively towards wet science, but there's ample evidence that, for as long as there has been animal life, there have been closely related bacteria hitching a ride with us. And some of those bacteria have co-evolved with us to do useful things -- like termites being able to digest cellulose because of their gut bacteria.

    If we wipe out those populations of bacteria that have been evolving with us for tens of millions of years (or more), it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that there will be repercussions.

    On the more speculative side, my hay fever is largely gone now (no more runny nose, ever, during pollen season -- but my eyes still get scratchy on the worst days) since I've been dosing myself with bacteria (some commercial, made for sufferers of ileitis colitis, and some wild, homemade kefir and spontaneously pickled veg). I've talked to a researcher in the field; he said I basically hit a home run. Out of the possibly hundreds (thousands?) of species of bacteria I'm missing (sickly kid, lots of antibiotics, born by C-section, bottle-fed), I managed to load myself with probably a couple dozen strains of bacteria (mostly bifido and laco) that managed to help regulate the inflammation causing my seasonal allergies (i.e., my nose dripped like a tap).

    FWIW, yogurt as a probiotic is unlikely to do much of anything for you. Most of those bacteria have been bred to produce lactic acid, and little else, as fast and as reliably as possible. Most of them are also unlikely to take up residence in your gut; they've been bred to survive in milk.

    I, for one, really want to see more research in this field.