93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
16

What do you think of Epimicrobiomics?

by (10497)
Updated September 16, 2014 at 7:13 PM
Created June 06, 2010 at 11:50 PM

What is epimicrobiomics? Read on and find out...(prepare for a circuitous explanation)

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of having lunch with Richard from Free The Animal. As we were talking, Richard mentioned the tendency of some bacteria/viruses to actively alter their immediate environment to their benefit ??? potentially to the detriment of us and/or our beneficial-symbiote-bacteria.

Richard specifically mentioned that H. pylori actively increases pH in the stomach (making it less acidic) as H. pylori does not tolerate ???normal/natural??? stomach pH levels very well. I didn???t know this and found it quite interesting as the ramifications are interesting.

H. pylori does this, presumably, for two reasons:

1) ???Climate-control??? the environment for its own benefit

2) Perhaps injure/kill competing bacteria, which we might have a symbiotic relationship with (they, again, presumably, would likely be better off at lower pH levels) - again to its benefit, and to our potential detriment.

A bit more background: Some of the evolutionary psychology folks posit that diarrhea may not be induced by the human body to discharge bacteria/viruses but the other way around --- that some micro-organisms may induce diarrhea in our bodies to help them spread to other hosts. That is to say, a micro-organism radically shapes and alters its hosts behavior to its benefit.

Another vivid example, I recall reading about is ???brain-jacking??? and Thorny-Head Worms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthocephala

[More interesting examples of this here: http://www.dawntoduskpublications.com/html/Brain_Robbery_Long.htm -- however, please ignore the ???Intelligent Design??? angle of the article. The examples, without the author???s commentary, are actually quite good.]

What I am driving at is the following thought-experiment (I am painting with a very broad brush here):

What if recent years of eating low-fat SAD has altered the micro-biota landscape of our collective GI tracts such that evolutionary processes have brought about micro-biota that not only alter their immediate environment (e.g. the GI tract???s pH levels), but also actively affect their hosts??? behavior to the bacteria???s benefit. i.e. bio-chemically and metabolically encourage their hosts to continue eating SAD, by making them crave carbs/wheat/sweets/whatnot and ???punish??? their hosts for not doing so.

If this idea holds any water at all, the ramifications are tremendous. When you bite into a piece of white bread at a restaurant, and it pops your insulin, and you crave more carbs/sweets. It may not just be a function of the bread sugars hitting your metabolism ??? it may also be our micro-biotal puppet-masters also pulling the strings as well....which suggests that tackling this (if it even exists) is paramount and underpins all of Paleo eating.

Maybe the "Carb Lust" referred to here: http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/6210-some-tul-intensive-vertical-pushing-and-pulling-and-severe-case-of-carb-lust-wtf/

is a function of micro-biota manipulating us to their own benefit!?!

This is what Brent Pottenger has termed "epimicrobiomics" -- to wit, epigenetics meets our GI micro-biota. In plain English, maybe we should be feeding our micro-biota such that they express their genes in a way that is mutually beneficial to us and them.

PS See Brent Pottenger's post on this here:

http://epistemocrat.blogspot.com/2010/05/nutrimicrobiomics-epimicrobiomics-two.html

I also found this fascinating NYT piece from 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13obesity.html?ei=5090&en=9843a5a86ff263f8&ex=1313121600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

F5f742cc9228eb5804114d0f3be4e587
7660 · June 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Have just been circling around this myself. Been having sugar cravings lately, which has been historically rare for me. Thanks for opening up this fascinating discussion.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b
24528 · October 08, 2011 at 7:14 AM

Is it too soon to order an "I Heart Nutrimicrobiomics" bumper sticker?

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
10768 · June 20, 2010 at 1:13 AM

oooh, nice links! thanks!

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM

"Tried and true" is a pithy phrase I intended to imply "ubiquitous and well known". Also, skepticism doesn't mean a refusal to ever accept any theory, but it does mean that one must be uncharitable when examining theories which add no explanatory power. And if my argument is flawed, but you can't address it in the comments, you should up the character limit on the comments so we can have a discussion rather than a hit and run ;)

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 17, 2010 at 8:09 PM

@pfw --- I think it is ironic that you consider yourself a skeptic, yet accept existing carb-jones explanations as "tried and true". Your argument from evolution is flawed, but unfortunately this comment section is not the best place for me to address it.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 09, 2010 at 10:41 AM

1) people rarely choose not to eat a lot of carbs, thus there is little chance for this evolutionary event to take place. 2) if they did stop eating carbs and there did happen to be a bacteria which released some chemical which caused them to specifically want carbs, all carb-loving bacteria would benefit, not just the manipulator (thus no selection for the manipulator) and 3) the strain would have to spontaneously evolve everywhere people generated these conditions, despite the fact that these conditions are rare and intermittent. Japanese seaweed consumption is common and constant. Different

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 09, 2010 at 10:39 AM

I know bacteria evolve quickly and I know that there exist bacteria which affect behavior. However, in order to evolve a mechanism to cause a host to eat a certain food (something which to my knowledge has never been observed) requires a specific environmental pressure - the host choosing not to eat that food, and the bacteria having some way of making them want to, and that strain being selected for over the others. It would then have to spread to all humans. And there lie three problems with the hypothesis:

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 09, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Existing explanations for the carb-jones are the tried and true: metabolic adaptation to a high fat diet, psychological dependencies on food (social structures). They're adequate to explain the phenomenon and do not multiply entities unnecessarily, thus they pass the Razor. Adding in behavior modification via an unknown mechanism in gut bacteria DOES unnecessarily multiply entities - you add no explanatory power but increase the complexity of your explanation, all on the basis of no direct evidence. Hence my skepticism.

7bea72ef073e8f76b5828727f1460900
2713 · June 09, 2010 at 6:22 AM

Awesome links. Thanks!

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
10768 · June 08, 2010 at 10:54 PM

I'd have to agree, I'm thinking about writing an article about EM effective microbes on this very subject.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:22 PM

After viewing Bonnie's talk, I think my little thought experiment is more right than wrong. :)

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:17 PM

@pfw -- we know that toxoplasma protozoa dramatically affect mammalian behavior -- given that they are unicellular, it is hardly a stretch to imagine micro-flora in our gut manufacturing a carb-jones.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:13 PM

@pfw -- here is my analog wrt to carb-loving bacteria: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125675700

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:12 PM

@pfw -- first off, as I wrote above, this is a thought-experiment and I have no idea whether it is right or wrong. But it is certainly plausible. So, what are the current explanations for "carb-jones"? WRT selection pressure, could be a function of low-fat SAD eating over the last 30 years has selected for bacteria that do better with SAD than anything remotely approaching Paleo. 30 years is plenty of time for millions of bacterial generations to evolve.

0d821bf7d4028b84a6838062db0e9ce0
754 · June 08, 2010 at 6:00 PM

just for the heck of it I'm actually trying an anti biofilm regiment this week as a kickstart to getting back into full paleo/primal (just back from vacation caught a flu and ate bad food so double trouble) so far it seems to be working (start the day off with a IF + pre/probiotics (including citrus pectin), komboucha, digestive enzymes). Its been 2 days and i feel just like I do after a 48 hour fast without the fast so its nice... less harsh than I thought it would be too.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 7:50 PM

AND I'll add again that I agree with the underlying point: feed your gut in such a way that your gut bacteria act in a manner that is net beneficial rather than net negative. That's eminently supportable and a good idea all around. I'm skeptical of the suggestion that pathogenic bacteria actively manipulate the endocrine system or otherwise directly manipulate host behavior in the manner proposed.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 7:47 PM

I would add that I don't see any selection pressure on carb loving bacteria that would cause them to develop any capacity for behavior modification - for most of human history, even human agricultural history, refined carbs simply weren't in supply and thus couldn't be adapted to, and for the past say 100 years, most people eat so much that there'd be no pressure for a bacteria to develop the capacity to drive their host to eat more. Up until recently, diet wasn't something that varied much because people lacked the ability to vary it, and so bacteria evolved to varying diet are a hard sell.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Semmelweis also elegantly proved his theory by experiment. Proving that carb-loving bacteria are acting like behavior changing parasites, given the complexity of metabolism, is a somewhat more difficult task, and the hypothesis is not more compelling or comprehensive than extant explanations for the carb-jones. So I'll remain skeptical for now. I certainly agree that bacterial populations shift as diet changes, and in fact that's what lead me to paleo. I'm just a skeptic by nature and think there's a lot of science to be done before this becomes more than an intriguing idea.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 7:11 PM

@pfw --- take a look at this article http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16271339

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Great links. Thanks very much.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 6:07 PM

@pfw --- Of course, I am not suggesting that bacteria sit around and conspire before they take action. But they are respond to their environment in such a manner that is a net benefit to them. And yes, I agree I have no mechanism to describe what I posit BUT that certainly should not stop this from being considered plausible. Semmelweis didn't know the actual mechanism, but was able to stop the effect.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I completely agree.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 5:59 PM

@Quik77 --- someone just sent me Cooling Inflammation and Ayers is all over this stuff. Peter's Hyperlipid blog is also awesome.

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
10768 · June 07, 2010 at 4:54 PM

You are thinking of Toxoplasma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii and recent reports are outlining how it affects humans in greater detail. check this: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16271339

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e
10294 · June 07, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Andrew, that is indeed a scary perspective. Check out this interview with the always fantastic Robert Sapolski on Edge.com: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html

Total Views
1.9K

Recent Activity
65d7687f43de7806b6bd9b81d1d5d086

Last Activity
32D AGO

Followers
0

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

9 Answers

best answer

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
4
10768 · June 07, 2010 at 5:08 PM

I believe that there is something to what you are describing.

I would encourage everyone to check out Bonnie Bassler on this subject. http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html

I'm also intrigued by the section of the Japanese population that carry gut flora that can Digest seaweed, a trick that the rest of humanity is missing. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125675700

But an even better artcile discussing what you are trying to point out is at NPR: The Gut Response To What We Eat by Nell Greenfieldboyce http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120318757&ps=rs -=- I think that is also a part of why it takes some people langer than others to adjust from SAD to Paleo. If you already have the 'right' bacteria on board, your jump to a keto-adapted paleo diet would be smoother.

Hmm, it this plays out well, there might someday be a targeted probiotic capsule to make for an easier transition to Paleo eating.

7bea72ef073e8f76b5828727f1460900
2713 · June 09, 2010 at 6:22 AM

Awesome links. Thanks!

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
10768 · June 08, 2010 at 10:54 PM

I'd have to agree, I'm thinking about writing an article about EM effective microbes on this very subject.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:22 PM

After viewing Bonnie's talk, I think my little thought experiment is more right than wrong. :)

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Great links. Thanks very much.

0d821bf7d4028b84a6838062db0e9ce0
6
754 · June 07, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Both the cooling inflamation and hyperlipid blogs have covered this in passing but yes its scarey that our gut bacteria can be puppet masters.

the series on hyperlipid about FIAF I believe covers the most but the idea is this: when we aren't eating carbs that bad gut bacteria crave, they send signals to the body saying "we are starving! release the fat stores, and tell the brain to gets some carbs STAT!". When we are eating carbs they basically say to your body and brain "store fat! we are getting fed! and keep sending the carbs!"

Part of the adjustment period to full paleo or a keto diet is apparently passing out/replacing this part of you gut flora which can take 1-2 weeks. In the case of people who still have massive cravings some of the carb hungry gut flora could be hiding out in gut biofilms (covered in great detail at cooling inflammation as well, also has implications in autisim treatment as they can be reservoirs of ingested heavy metals ).

The good news is going paleo and/or using avc/komboucha/fermented foods, pre and probiotics, and pectin from fruits tends to all be things that can get your gut health back into balance and degrade gut biofilms as well.

0d821bf7d4028b84a6838062db0e9ce0
754 · June 08, 2010 at 6:00 PM

just for the heck of it I'm actually trying an anti biofilm regiment this week as a kickstart to getting back into full paleo/primal (just back from vacation caught a flu and ate bad food so double trouble) so far it seems to be working (start the day off with a IF + pre/probiotics (including citrus pectin), komboucha, digestive enzymes). Its been 2 days and i feel just like I do after a 48 hour fast without the fast so its nice... less harsh than I thought it would be too.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 5:59 PM

@Quik77 --- someone just sent me Cooling Inflammation and Ayers is all over this stuff. Peter's Hyperlipid blog is also awesome.

65d7687f43de7806b6bd9b81d1d5d086
4
80 · June 16, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Functional intestinal microbiome, new frontiers in prebiotic design. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471127

The effect of diet on the human gut microbiome: a metagenomic analysis in humanized gnotobiotic mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368178

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
10768 · June 20, 2010 at 1:13 AM

oooh, nice links! thanks!

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e
4
10294 · June 07, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Really interesting and a bit scary as well!

This great interview with the always fantastic Robert Sapolski will probably interest you too (on Edge), on the effects of toxo on behaviour:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html

Not only are our own genes using us as a survival machine (dixit Richard Dawkins), but genes of other organisms could be as well.

People finally have come to accept that our genes have a major influence on us, that we're not born blank slates. And now we have to take this one step further.

Daniel Dennet also talks about this in his famous TED-talk and he links it to memes:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

Nice topic! Nice expansion into other aspects of evolutionary medicine. The paleo diet is all about the mismatch between the present and the past, but there are other really interesting things about evolutionary medicine.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921
4
4936 · June 07, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I heard a programme on the radio some time ago related to this. It mentioned a parasite that lives in rats, and makes them go seeking cats in order to get eaten, as the 2cnd part of the parasites life cycle takes place after being eaten by the cat! I don't remember the details, but it sounds as though the concept of "free will" may have to be modified to allow for manipulation by microbes / parasites!

"I didn't mean to do it, officer - it was the parasites made me!"

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded
10768 · June 07, 2010 at 4:54 PM

You are thinking of Toxoplasma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii and recent reports are outlining how it affects humans in greater detail. check this: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16271339

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e
10294 · June 07, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Andrew, that is indeed a scary perspective. Check out this interview with the always fantastic Robert Sapolski on Edge.com: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
3
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I'd be a little cautious when using terms that ascribe conscious purpose or intent to the actions of a bacteria. They aren't doing things for their benefit any more than they're doing things for any reason at all - bacteria act the way they do because they evolve to respond to environmental stimuli in certain ways. There is no intention or thought or pulling strings, etc. It's not like they get together and plan anything. So, yeah, beware the metaphor used to describe what's going on lest it convey something more than what you intend.

That said, I would agree with the basic thesis that eating SAD alters your gut bacterial balance over time, and that righting that balance can be a slog. Bacteria are pernicious little bastards. Many bacteria actively alter their environment to be more suitable to them - see all cultured foods - and the pathogenic ones are likely no different.

Bacteria causing people to crave something seems a bit far fetched. I'm not sure how they would accomplish this. A bacteria which absorbs much of what you eat might make you crave food as a side-effect (your body feels as if it is being starved), which helps feed the bacteria, or it might change the pH of its environment, but that's a far different claim from them actively interfering with the endocrine system or somehow altering your brain. There are parasites which do that, of course, but I'm not aware of any that act in humans in the manner described. A mechanism for their action would need to be found before it could be considered plausible.

I think a lot of people probably experience the effects of gut flora rebalancing/dieoff if they radically alter their diet, and that this probably contributes to diet failures as they think, "ick, this isn't working." It's a shame there hasn't been more research done on gut bacteria to create a narrative helpful for those feeling such symptoms.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 17, 2010 at 8:31 PM

"Tried and true" is a pithy phrase I intended to imply "ubiquitous and well known". Also, skepticism doesn't mean a refusal to ever accept any theory, but it does mean that one must be uncharitable when examining theories which add no explanatory power. And if my argument is flawed, but you can't address it in the comments, you should up the character limit on the comments so we can have a discussion rather than a hit and run ;)

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 17, 2010 at 8:09 PM

@pfw --- I think it is ironic that you consider yourself a skeptic, yet accept existing carb-jones explanations as "tried and true". Your argument from evolution is flawed, but unfortunately this comment section is not the best place for me to address it.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 09, 2010 at 10:41 AM

1) people rarely choose not to eat a lot of carbs, thus there is little chance for this evolutionary event to take place. 2) if they did stop eating carbs and there did happen to be a bacteria which released some chemical which caused them to specifically want carbs, all carb-loving bacteria would benefit, not just the manipulator (thus no selection for the manipulator) and 3) the strain would have to spontaneously evolve everywhere people generated these conditions, despite the fact that these conditions are rare and intermittent. Japanese seaweed consumption is common and constant. Different

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 09, 2010 at 10:39 AM

I know bacteria evolve quickly and I know that there exist bacteria which affect behavior. However, in order to evolve a mechanism to cause a host to eat a certain food (something which to my knowledge has never been observed) requires a specific environmental pressure - the host choosing not to eat that food, and the bacteria having some way of making them want to, and that strain being selected for over the others. It would then have to spread to all humans. And there lie three problems with the hypothesis:

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 09, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Existing explanations for the carb-jones are the tried and true: metabolic adaptation to a high fat diet, psychological dependencies on food (social structures). They're adequate to explain the phenomenon and do not multiply entities unnecessarily, thus they pass the Razor. Adding in behavior modification via an unknown mechanism in gut bacteria DOES unnecessarily multiply entities - you add no explanatory power but increase the complexity of your explanation, all on the basis of no direct evidence. Hence my skepticism.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:17 PM

@pfw -- we know that toxoplasma protozoa dramatically affect mammalian behavior -- given that they are unicellular, it is hardly a stretch to imagine micro-flora in our gut manufacturing a carb-jones.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:13 PM

@pfw -- here is my analog wrt to carb-loving bacteria: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125675700

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 08, 2010 at 10:12 PM

@pfw -- first off, as I wrote above, this is a thought-experiment and I have no idea whether it is right or wrong. But it is certainly plausible. So, what are the current explanations for "carb-jones"? WRT selection pressure, could be a function of low-fat SAD eating over the last 30 years has selected for bacteria that do better with SAD than anything remotely approaching Paleo. 30 years is plenty of time for millions of bacterial generations to evolve.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 7:50 PM

AND I'll add again that I agree with the underlying point: feed your gut in such a way that your gut bacteria act in a manner that is net beneficial rather than net negative. That's eminently supportable and a good idea all around. I'm skeptical of the suggestion that pathogenic bacteria actively manipulate the endocrine system or otherwise directly manipulate host behavior in the manner proposed.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 7:47 PM

I would add that I don't see any selection pressure on carb loving bacteria that would cause them to develop any capacity for behavior modification - for most of human history, even human agricultural history, refined carbs simply weren't in supply and thus couldn't be adapted to, and for the past say 100 years, most people eat so much that there'd be no pressure for a bacteria to develop the capacity to drive their host to eat more. Up until recently, diet wasn't something that varied much because people lacked the ability to vary it, and so bacteria evolved to varying diet are a hard sell.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff
7821 · June 07, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Semmelweis also elegantly proved his theory by experiment. Proving that carb-loving bacteria are acting like behavior changing parasites, given the complexity of metabolism, is a somewhat more difficult task, and the hypothesis is not more compelling or comprehensive than extant explanations for the carb-jones. So I'll remain skeptical for now. I certainly agree that bacterial populations shift as diet changes, and in fact that's what lead me to paleo. I'm just a skeptic by nature and think there's a lot of science to be done before this becomes more than an intriguing idea.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 7:11 PM

@pfw --- take a look at this article http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16271339

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 6:07 PM

@pfw --- Of course, I am not suggesting that bacteria sit around and conspire before they take action. But they are respond to their environment in such a manner that is a net benefit to them. And yes, I agree I have no mechanism to describe what I posit BUT that certainly should not stop this from being considered plausible. Semmelweis didn't know the actual mechanism, but was able to stop the effect.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1
3
22913 · June 06, 2010 at 11:59 PM

This would also explain why forced healthy eating both adapts our systems to not have the carb craving, as well as why we feel really bad if we do cheat, our good bacteria "punish" us for giving ammo to the enemy. The "fight of good vs evil" is not fun in my gut...

I plan on reading Alot more about this... Thanks for sharing!!!

I believe gut balance is of utmost importance to health

97afe73c4040ac0256466794436643aa
2
118 · June 07, 2010 at 10:49 AM

The gut flora and/or infectious theory of calorie partitioning may just be one answer to the phenomena of the Paleo non-responder. Fascinating area of study.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13
10497 · June 07, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I completely agree.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account