Skip to content

Category: healthy living

Published on Leave a comment on Research Suggests Not Taking Probiotics After Antibiotics

Many people take probiotics in the belief that the probiotics will help their gut microbiome (microbial community) recover after taking antibiotics. This is because antibiotics kill both beneficial and pathogenic bacteria, and research shows it may take months for the gut to recover (it depends on the antibiotics taken). However, 2 studies (in both mice and healthy humans) conducted by a group of researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel challenge that belief. The researchers used both mice and healthy humans in both well-done studies. They found that taking probiotics after a week of antibiotics actually delayed recovery of the gut microbial community in humans - months longer!

In summary: As expected, taking antibiotics had a big effect on the gut microbiome - the researchers wrote "a dramatic impact"  and "profound microbial depletion" (after taking one week of standard doses of "broad-spectrum antibiotics").  However, they found large differences among the 3 groups in gut microbial recovery after antibiotics. The spontaneous recovery group (they did not take probiotics after antibiotics) showed recovery of gut microbes within 3 weeks. The fecal transplant group (of their own fecal microbes which was collected before they took antibiotics) showed gut microbial recovery within 1 day of the fecal microbial transplant. In contrast, the group taking daily  probiotics for 28 days did not show full recovery (to where they were before antibiotics) by day 28, and the gut microbial community was still out of whack (dysbiosis) even 5 months after stopping probiotics (actually even at 180 days when the study ended).

What species were in the probiotics? Eleven species commonly found in ordinary probiotics: Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, L. casei subsp. paracasei, L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium longum, B. bifidum, B. breve, B. longum sbsp. infantism, Lactococcus lactis, and Streptococcus thermophilus.  These are all considered beneficial species. But keep in mind that the human gut has hundreds of microbial species - not just the few found in probiotics.

Bottom line: Eat well after taking a course of antibiotics so as to feed beneficial microbes, and do not routinely take probiotics thinking it will help the microbes in the gut.

What was also interesting was that in the first study where healthy individuals took the probiotics (and no antibiotics), they found that the probiotic species did not colonize the gut in everyone - only some species and in some people. It's as if there is a "resistance to colonization". This resistance is perhaps what other studies show - that within one week of discontinuing probiotics, they are gone from the gut.

From Science Daily - Human gut study questions probiotic health benefits  ...continue reading "Research Suggests Not Taking Probiotics After Antibiotics"

Published on Leave a comment on Diet And The Breast Microbiome

Is the Mediterranean style diet the future in breast cancer prevention? The following study was done in primates, but it makes sense that the results would also be true for humans: that the type of diet eaten influences the breast microbiome. This means the community of microbes that live in the breast. Yes, it's true - studies show that there is a breast microbiome and it varies between those who have breast cancer and those who don't (healthy breasts).

The study looked at macaque monkeys who were fed either a Mediterranean style diet or a Western style diet for 31 months, and then their breast tissue was examined. They found microbial differences in the breast tissue among the 2 groups, including  greater numbers (abundance) of Lactobacillus species in the primates that had been eating the Mediterranean diet.

Lactobacillus species are generally considered beneficial to humans (which is why they are added to many foods and supplements) and studies suggest they may have anti-tumor effects. Some research has found microbial differences between healthy and malignant (cancerous) human  breast tissue  - including lower Lactobacillus numbers or "abundance" in the malignant breast tissue (compared to those with benign breast lesions). Researchers say it suggests that microbial imbalances (dysbiosis) of breast tissue could be a possible driver of breast cancer .

Studies already show that a person's diet influences the gut microbiome. This study shows diet directly influences microbial communities far away from the gut - in the breasts. Unfortunately it is not stated in the study what Lactobacillus species increased in the breast tissue of primates fed a Mediterranean diet. There are many Lactobacillus species, and they are not equal in their effects (as our experiences with Lactobacillus sakei and sinusitis has shown).

Of course more studies are needed, but in the meantime - eat a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes (beans), nuts, and seeds. There are many other documented health benefits from a diet rich in those foods (frequently referred to as a Mediterranean diet). The diet is low in processed foods and high in fiber, and rich in "real foods". From Science Daily:

Diet affects the breast microbiome in mammals

Diet influences the composition of microbial populations in the mammary glands of nonhuman primates, researchers report October 2 in the journal Cell Reports. Specifically, a Mediterranean diet increased the abundance of probiotic bacteria previously shown to inhibit tumor growth in animals.  ...continue reading "Diet And The Breast Microbiome"

Published on Leave a comment on There Is A Personal Cloud Around Each Person

There's a microbial, particulate, and chemical cloud surrounding each one of us that is like the one around Pig Pen in the Peanuts comics. It's called the exposome. Researchers from the Stanford University of Medicine found that we each have our own distinct  personal cloud - which is everything we're exposed to both indoors and outdoors (pets, rain, household chemicals, air pollution, pesticides, etc.), and what we use on our bodies. It is influenced by geographical regions of where a person lives, works, and travels, as well as a person's lifestyle.

The study followed the personal exposomes of 15 individuals for varying times and over 66 geographical locations (one of the researchers was followed for more than 2 years, during which time he traveled extensively). This was done by having the individuals wear a sensitive air filtering device - which collected what was in the air (environmental airborne exposures). The results showed that each person is exposed to thousands of species (plant pollen, bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc.) and chemicals. From Science Daily:

We are bombarded by thousands of diverse species and chemicals

We are all exposed to a vast and dynamic cloud of microbes, chemicals and particulates that, if visible, might make us look something like Pig-Pen from Peanuts.

Using a re-engineered air-monitoring device, scientists from the Stanford University School of Medicine have peered into that plume and discovered a smorgasbord of biological and chemical minutia that swirl in, on and around us. Their findings show, in unprecedented detail, the variety of bacteria, viruses, chemicals, plant particulates, fungi, and even tiny microscopic animals that enter our personal space -- a bombardment known as the human "exposome."  ...continue reading "There Is A Personal Cloud Around Each Person"

Published on Leave a comment on What Are Household Disinfectants Doing To Our Gut Microbes?

An interesting study about exposure to household cleaning products (regular cleaning products compared to eco-friendly products) and the gut microbiomes of young children was recently published. Canadian researchers found that the use of household cleaning disinfectants in the home was associated with changes in gut microbial communities in infants (more of some bacteria and less of others) - when compared to infants living in homes where eco-friendly cleaners were used. These changes occurred in a dose dependent manner (the more they were used, the bigger the changes).

Also interesting was that the more disinfectants (which are antibacterial) were used in a home, the more Lachnospiraceae was found in the infant's gut microbiota in infancy (age 3 to 4 months), and this was associated with a higher body mass of the child at 1 and 3 years, and increased odds of being overweight or obese at age 3. Use of eco-friendly products was associated with decreased odds of the child being overweight or obese at age 3. What was heavy use of household disinfectants? Daily or weekly. Just keep in mind that these are associations - not a definite cause and effect. But animal studies find similar results. And I wonder - what is frequent use of disinfectants doing to adult gut microbiomes? From Medical Xpress:

Household cleaning products may contribute to kids' overweight by altering their gut microbiota

Commonly used household cleaners could be making children overweight by altering their gut microbiota, suggests a Canadian study published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). The study analyzed the gut flora of 757 infants from the general population at age 3-4 months and weight at ages 1 and 3 years, looking at exposure to disinfectants, detergents and eco-friendly products used in the home. 

...continue reading "What Are Household Disinfectants Doing To Our Gut Microbes?"

Published on Leave a comment on Diet, Inflammation, and Health

Many people have chronic low-grade inflammation, which is associated with a number of chronic diseases, and increased risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and early death. Thus there is a lot of interest in things a person could do to lower the inflammation.

A number of studies have found a person's general diet may influence chronic low-grade inflammation - either increase it or decrease it, as well as whether they smoke or not. A recent large Swedish study found that persons who ate an anti-inflammatory diet for at least 16 years had a lower risk of dying early from any cause (all cause mortality), as well as dying from cancer, or dying from heart (cardiovascular) disease.

In the study an anti-inflammatory diet was a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grain cereals, whole grain bread, coffee, tea, red wine (low to moderate levels), beer (low to moderate levels), chocolate, nuts, olive and canola oils. These foods are both anti-inflammatory and also rich in anti-oxidants. Pro-inflammatory foods were: red meat, processed red meat, offal, chips, soft drinks. In other studies a pro-inflammatory diet was also one with lots of processed foods, low fiber, and refined grains.

From Science Daily: Anti-inflammatory diet linked to reduced risk of early death

Adhering to an anti-inflammatory diet was associated with lower risks of dying from any cause, dying from cardiovascular causes, and dying from cancer in a recent Journal of Internal Medicine study. ...continue reading "Diet, Inflammation, and Health"

Published on Leave a comment on Exposure to BPA Has An Effect on Insulin Levels

Studies finding health effects from BPA keep appearing. BPA (bisphenol-A) is a chemical used in many everyday products (e.g. the lining of soda and food cans, store receipts) and so almost all humans are exposed to it daily. Researchers are getting increasingly worried about BPA and related chemicals (including substitutes for BPA such as BPS) because they are endocrine (hormone) disruptors with health effects in humans and animals. This chemical is so widely used that more than 7 billion metric tons of it are produced annually throughout the world.

Unfortunately the US government keeps agreeing with the chemical industry that the chemical is "safe", and disregarding the results of studies finding health effects (reproductive effects, obesity, etc). Of course the chemical industry is fighting tooth and nail to discredit studies done by independent researchers - a lot of money is at stake.

The following are excerpts from an article describing the latest study finding health effects from low dose exposure from BPA - it altered the amount of insulin released by the person (and so perhaps influencing the development of type 2 diabetes). What was worrisome is that the dose is considered "safe" by the US government - and in the study people were exposed to it once, while in real life humans are exposed to such doses multiple times daily.

The good news is that BPA is excreted within a day, but the bad news is that we the keep being exposed to it. By the way, substitutes for BPA (such as BPS) are just as bad, and are also endocrine disruptors - after all, they're all related chemically. So buying BPA-free canned food or plastic won't help a person avoid endocrine disruptors - these also leach into food. From an article written by Lynn Peeples at Environmental Health News:

In a scientific first, researchers gave people BPA — and saw a link to precursor of type 2 diabetes

In a scientific first, researchers gave people BPA — and saw a link to precursor of type 2 diabetes. The controversial study suggests that BPA exposure deemed safe by the feds could alter the amount of insulin released and elevate people's type 2 diabetes risk. 

A first-of-its-kind study of a small group of people exposed to a very small amount of bisphenol-A (BPA) is raising questions about the federal government's stance that low doses of the common chemical are safe — as well as the ethics of conducting such an experiment on humans.

...continue reading "Exposure to BPA Has An Effect on Insulin Levels"

2

Published on 2 Comments on Will All Men Eventually Be Infertile?

The following article in a popular magazine follows up on research that came out last year about the alarming steep decline in male sperm counts and sperm concentration over the past few decades. This is true for the U.S., Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and it is thought world wide. The article discusses the causes: environmental chemicals and plastics, especially those that are endocrine disruptors (they disrupt a person's hormones!). These chemicals are all around us, and we all have some in our bodies (but the amounts and types vary from person to person). Some examples of such chemicals are parabens, phthalates, BPA and BPA substitutes.

Even though there are effects from these chemicals throughout life, some of the worst effects from these chemicals seem to be during pregnancy - with a big effect on the developing male fetus. Testosterone levels in men are also dropping. Bottom line: males are becoming "less male", especially due to their exposure to all these chemicals when they are developing before birth (fetal exposure). Since it is getting worse with every generation of males, the concern is that soon males may be unable to father children because their sperm count will be too low - infertility. Dogs are experiencing the same decline in fertility!

Why isn't there more concern over this? What can we do? We all use and need plastic products, but we need to use safer chemicals in products, ones that won't mimic hormones and have endocrine disrupting effects. Remember, these chemicals have more effects on humans than just sperm quality (here and here). While you can't totally avoid plastics and endocrine disrupting chemicals, you can definitely lower your exposure. And it's most important before conception (levels of these chemicals in both parents), during pregnancy, and during childhood.

Do go read the whole article. Excerpts from Daniel Noah Halpern's article in GQ: Sperm Count Zero

A strange thing has happened to men over the past few decades: We’ve become increasingly infertile, so much so that within a generation we may lose the ability to reproduce entirely. What’s causing this mysterious drop in sperm counts—and is there any way to reverse it before it’s too late? 

Last summer a group of researchers from Hebrew University and Mount Sinai medical school published a study showing that sperm counts in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand have fallen by more than 50 percent over the past four decades. (They judged data from the rest of the world to be insufficient to draw conclusions from, but there are studies suggesting that the trend could be worldwide.) That is to say: We are producing half the sperm our grandfathers did. We are half as fertile.

The Hebrew University/Mount Sinai paper was a meta-analysis by a team of epidemiologists, clinicians, and researchers that culled data from 185 studies, which examined semen from almost 43,000 men. It showed that the human race is apparently on a trend line toward becoming unable to reproduce itself. Sperm counts went from 99 million sperm per milliliter of semen in 1973 to 47 million per milliliter in 2011, and the decline has been accelerating. Would 40 more years—or fewer—bring us all the way to zero? 

I called Shanna H. Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist at Mount Sinai and one of the lead authors of the study, to ask if there was any good news hiding behind those brutal numbers. Were we really at risk of extinction? She failed to comfort me. “The What Does It Mean question means extrapolating beyond your data,” Swan said, “which is always a tricky thing. But you can ask, ‘What does it take? When is a species in danger? When is a species threatened?’ And we are definitely on that path.” That path, in its darkest reaches, leads to no more naturally conceived babies and potentially to no babies at all—and the final generation of Homo sapiens will roam the earth knowing they will be the last of their kind.

...continue reading "Will All Men Eventually Be Infertile?"

Published on Leave a comment on Increasing the Length of the Nighttime Fast May Have Health Benefits

Lately there has been discussion about "intermittent fasting" (on some days or time periods) and possible health benefits. Now an interesting small study has been published that found health benefits to eating as usual, but only within a restricted time frame.

Thirteen healthy, but overweight individuals were either assigned to an "eat normally as usual" group or a group that "ate only within a restricted time frame" - that is, they ate breakfast 1.5 hours or more later and supper 1.5 hours earlier (this was their last food of the day). After 10 weeks those eating only within the restricted time frame had lost body fat ( a health benefit), but not weight. However, there were complaints that eating within a restricted time frame was hard to do because it interfered with social events and family meals. Bottom line: lengthening the daily fast (from dinner to breakfast) without changing foods eaten appears to have health benefits. (Posts on "minifasting", Fasting Mimic Diet, fasting, 5 day calorie restriction). From Science Daily:

Changes in breakfast and dinner timings can reduce body fat

Modest changes to breakfast and dinner times can reduce body fat, a new pilot study in the Journal of Nutritional Sciences reports. During a 10-week study on 'time-restricted feeding' (a form of intermittent fasting), researchers led by Dr Jonathan Johnston from the University of Surrey investigated the impact changing meal times has on dietary intake, body composition and blood risk markers for diabetes and heart disease.  ...continue reading "Increasing the Length of the Nighttime Fast May Have Health Benefits"

Published on Leave a comment on We Are Eating and Breathing In Tiny Plastic Particles?

Most people have heard about the three huge "garbage patches" in the ocean - where tiny pieces of plastic are floating and unfortunately also being eaten by fish and birds. But the story doesn't end there - we, all humans, are also ingesting tiny pieces of plastic, for example when we breathe and eat food (e.g tiny pieces are now in fish and shellfish, so we're also eating tiny pieces of plastic). How much are we inadvertently ingesting?  What is it doing to us? 

These tiny pieces of plastic less than 5 mm in size are called microplastics. As we know, plastic doesn't break down like food and wood (into compost, soil), but it does break apart into tiny particles (from friction, heat, and light). Right now research suggests that we are exposed to more microplastic particles in indoor air then outdoor air - for example, it's in the dust from breakdown of textiles used in our furniture and synthetic fabrics in the clothing we wear and wash. (Fleece especially sheds a lot into the air when worn and into our water when washed.)

There are plastic microparticles in the air, in the wind, in our street dust. Examples of microplastics in outdoor air are from the use of vehicles, such as tire abrasion, construction activities, from artificial turf, and plastic litter. It's in our water - in rivers and lakes (and our drinking water), oceans, and in our soil.

Right now no one knows what the effects of ingesting these plastic microparticles are to humans (as pointed out in a 2017 study of urban dust by  Sharareh Dehghani et al) and whether we get rid of them or whether they persist in the body. Or even how much we're ingesting and breathing in. Another concern is whether there is an effect on developing children. Some research finds that microparticles can persist in the lungs.

The good news is that there are things one can do to lower the microplastic amounts in indoor air. Can do: open up your windows to vent the air (outdoor air is less polluted generally than indoor air), vacuum frequently, use a good filter on forced air heating systems and central air conditioning systems. Perhaps use a good air purifier.

Also do: reduce the amount of plastics in your indoor environment by buying fewer items made from plastics (from furniture to ordinary household goods to toys to synthetic clothing, especially fleece). Try to buy "natural" as much as possible - especially natural fibers such as cotton, wool, linen, hemp.

Recently there have been a number of articles written about this issue for the general public. Well worth reading is: C. Joyce's article for NPR: Beer, Drinking Water And Fish: Tiny Plastic Is Everywhere  ...continue reading "We Are Eating and Breathing In Tiny Plastic Particles?"

2

Published on 2 Comments on Sitting For Long Periods and Reduced Blood Flow To the Brain

Nice study that explains why sitting for long periods is so unhealthy - it reduces blood flow to the brain (cerebral blood flow) . The results from a study conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) found that prolonged, uninterrupted sitting (4 hours in the study) in healthy office workers reduced cerebral blood flow. However this was offset when frequent, short-duration walking breaks were taken - about 2 minutes of walking every 30 minutes. However, taking a 8 minute walking break every 2 hours did not have the same positive effect - even though that was the same amount of walking over the 4 hour period.

Maintaining good blood flow to the brain is a great reason to stretch your legs and walk a few minutes whenever possible, preferably at least every 30 minutes - whether at work or at home. From Medical Xpress:

Sitting for long hours found to reduce blood flow to the brain

A team of researchers with Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K. has found evidence of reduced blood flow to the brain in people who sit for long periods of time. In their paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, the group outlines the experiments they carried out with volunteers and what they found.  ...continue reading "Sitting For Long Periods and Reduced Blood Flow To the Brain"