You no longer have to blame the chocolate addiction. It turns out that bacteria can also cause obesity, and these are the intestinal bacteria
Dror Bar-Nir Galileo
overweight, or Obesity, is one of the central problems of the Western world. The amount of food, its composition, physical activity (or lack thereof), feelings of hunger and satiety, eating as compensation for other deprivations - all of these have their own contribution to the phenomenon. But it turns out that there are also other players in the game, and they are the gut bacteria.
Transferring the intestinal bacterial content of normal mice to bacteria-free mice early in their lives caused the latter to gain weight without an increase in the amount of food eaten. This indicates that the bacteria help in some way to digest the food.
The effect of bacteria on weight
We have previously mentioned 10 to the power of 14 The bacteria that inhabit our digestive tracts and those of other animals. These bacteria have other important roles: they provide vitamins, block access to disease-causing bacteria and "train" the immune system, and in their absence it will be difficult for us to exist. In recent years it turns out that the composition of the bacteria in the intestines also affects the efficiency of energy utilization from food, and possibly also on our body circumferences.
Recently, studies have been published in the scientific press that statistically link the relative amounts of certain bacteria to the "nutritional" state of the host. There are two groups of intestinal bacteria: Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes.
Recently, a study was done on the subject by the group of Jeffrey Gordon (Gordon), from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. 12 overweight people were randomly divided into two eating groups: one ate fat-restricted food, and the other ate carbohydrate-restricted food. For a year, the researchers followed the composition of their intestinal bacteria, using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for 16S rRNA of both groups of bacteria, on stool samples.
Despite the individual differences in terms of the species of intestinal bacteria in the subjects who participated in the experiment, an increase in the amount of Bacteroidetes and a decrease in the amount of Firmicutes was observed over time in all of them.
A similar phenomenon was also observed in obese mice (as a result of a mutation in a certain gene). A high amount of firmicotes was also observed in them, relative to their counterparts from the wild variety. According to the researchers, the bacteria are the ones that optimize the production of energy from the food in the obese mice.
Drawing conclusions from such experiments can be problematic. Is it possible that the changing composition of the bacteria in the intestines is a result of the excess weight and not necessarily the cause of it? And if this is indeed the case, will these results have medical and therapeutic consequences?
time will tell!
15 תגובות
Ami:
Maybe you propose to conduct invasive tests on subjects (including the healthy ones, and maybe even to the point of surgery) for the purpose of obesity research, but don't expect such an experiment to be approved.
Therefore, the choice is between a test of the type that was carried out and waiting until a technology is developed that will allow a more accurate test that will receive the approval of the subjects and the approval of the Helsinki Committee.
Your proposal is considered - to a certain extent, for the proposal not to analyze the composition of the stars by examining their spectra but to fly there and take material samples.
One does not learn from such a different and complex environment as the colon on another environment.
The previous comment just proves it.
What about oral bacteria? Are they also found in the large intestine?
I don't accept the method and in my opinion this easy way is wrong.
Want to learn about small intestine bacteria? Test bacteria only in the small intestine.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Michael is actually right. The presence of Helicobacter pylori, which is a bacteria that resides in the stomach, can even be found in a stool PCR test. And it is not at all mandatory that the bacteria survive the passage through the intestine - all that is required is that part of their DNA and RNA is not destroyed during the passage.
No.
Ami:
From this paragraph you can only learn that these are bacteria that survived the passage through the large intestine and not that these are large intestine bacteria.
Michael R. (formerly Michael),
See the end of the fifth paragraph in this article, where it says that PCR was done on stool samples.
From here I learned that it is colon bacteria.
Best regards,
Ami Bachar
Ami:
How did you conclude that it was colon bacteria?
The main problem with the article is that it deals with colon bacteria. There is no absorption of food in the large intestine. The only thing that is absorbed in the large intestine is water, which hardens the mixture that comes from the small intestine to the faeces we know in the format in which it comes out. I find the research out of touch with reality and the interpretation of it even more out of touch - if I can put it that way.
Following on from 4. You can simply use laxatives,
which cause the bowels to be emptied of food and food-decomposing bacteria
- but also for hemorrhoids - when insufficiently digested food is pressed into the anus...
In my humble opinion, the question can be solved by a simple experiment, as far as I know in the US there is a phenomenon of bowel cleansing by introducing water into the intestines with a tube and then emptying them the natural way, by following up on those who have undergone the treatment regularly it will be possible to see If there is a decrease in their weight due to the lack of those germs.
Night watchman:
"More logical" does not mean "less assumptions".
In order for a scientific claim to be logical, it must first correspond to reality.
The reality is that different people who eat the same amounts and expend the same energy gain weight in different ways.
Your assumption 1 does not address this reality.
That is - the fact is clear that a person who eats less will gain less weight than *the same person* if he eats more and the article does not claim otherwise.
The article only expands the explanation for the differences between different people.
The article also does not add any discount beyond those already proven! After all, it has long been known that the intestinal bacteria play a central role in digestion and the article only raises the possibility (the most likely!) that not all bacteria do this with the same efficiency.
To the night watchman: The assumption of the researchers is that a certain type of bacteria breaks down the food more efficiently and therefore the body receives more than it needs and less waste (faeces) comes out.
If the researchers are right, if you reduce the type of bacteria in your intestines, you will digest your food less well and lose weight.
This is an idiotic study that ignores one of the foundations of science - Ockham's Razor.
Which of the solutions seems more logical (requires fewer assumptions):
1. A change in eating habits and/or caloric intake changes the flora in the stomach.
2. A miraculous bacterium (the end of proof of its existence has not been discovered) releases hormones that cause an increased feeling of hunger (*in the brain* as we know, not in the stomach and as a bonus the hormones must pass through the BBB) and he - he is the culprit.
For some reason the writers chose the second.
Watson once said that doctors should not be allowed to do basic research. End, end - the proof.
To the point, just a slight correction, the advertisements do not appear on the site directly but in Google strips, over which we have no control, and tomorrow if another party orders on the Google site, it will also appear in the same place. And besides that there are also other parties that are more loyal to the citizen. Unfortunately, the media's ignoring them is intentional, because it is difficult for honest people to sell their wares to the daily press, which is influenced by the amount of the party's advertising budget.
On the website from Kadima's advertisement here on the website it appears:
"He who does not choose, lets people he does not believe in, determine his life"
So what's worse?
* Not choose and let people we don't trust run our country?
* Or let people we don't believe in either them or them (politicians and advertisers) decide for us if we should even go to the polls and run the country.