Skip to content

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few years of our gut bacteria (hundreds of species), the microbiome (the community of microbes living within and on a person (gut, nasal cavities, mouth, sinuses, etc.), probiotics, the finding of a link between bacteria and some chronic diseases, and how the modern lifestyle and antibiotics are wiping out our beneficial gut microbes. I am frequently asked how one can improve or nurture the beneficial bacteria in our bodies.

While no one knows what exactly is the "best" or "healthiest" microbial composition of the gut, it does look like a diversity of bacteria is best (may make you healthier and more able to resist diseases). Research also suggests that the diversity and balance of bacteria living in the body can be changed and improved, and changes can occur very quickly. And that the microbial communities fluctuate for various reasons (illness, diet,etc.). Diet seems to be key to the health of your gut microbial community. Prebiotics feed the beneficial bacteria in the gut, probiotics are live beneficial bacteria, and synbiotics are a combination of prebiotics and probiotics. But don't despair - you can improve your gut microbial community starting now. The following are some practical tips, based on what scientific research currently knows.

SOME STEPS TO FEED AND NURTURE YOUR GUT MICROBES:

Eat a wide variety of foods, especially whole foods that are unprocessed or as minimally processed as possible. Eat everything in moderation.

Eat a lot of plant based foods: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes. Think of Michael Pollan's advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Eat more washed and raw fruits and vegetables (lots of bacteria and fiber to feed and nurture the bacteria). Some every day would be good.

Eat more soluble and insoluble types of fiber, and increase how many servings you eat every day. A variety of  fiber foods every day, and several servings at each meal, is best. Think fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds. (See How Much Dietary Fiber Should We Eat? - also has a chart with high fiber foods, and Recent Studies Show Benefits of Dietary Fiber)

Eat as many organic foods as possible. There is much we don't yet know, and pesticides are like antibiotics - they kill off microbes, both good and bad. Somehow I think that lowering the levels in your body of pesticides (as measured in blood and urine) can only be beneficial. Also, organic foods don't contain added antibiotics and hormones. (Eat Organic Foods to Lower Pesticide Exposures).  But even if you can't or won't eat organic foods, it is still better to eat non-organic fruits, vegetables, and whole grains than to not eat them.

Eat some fermented foods such as kimchi and sauerkraut (they contain live bacteria), kefir, and yogurts with live bacteria. Eat other bacteria containing foods such as cheeses, and again a variety is best (different cheeses have different bacteria).

Try to avoid or eat less of mass-produced highly processed foods, fast-foods, preservatives, colors and dyes, additives, partially hydrogenated oils, and high-fructose corn syrup. Read all ingredient lists on labels, and even try to avoid as much as possible "natural flavors" (these are chemicals concocted in a lab and unnecessary). Even emulsifiers (which are very hard to avoid) are linked to inflammation and effects on gut bacteria.

Avoid the use of triclosan or other "sanitizers" in soaps and personal care products (e.g., deodorants). Triclosan promotes antibiotic resistance and also kills off beneficial bacteria. Wash with ordinary soap and water.

Avoid unnecessary antibiotics (antibiotics kill off bacteria, including beneficial bacteria).

Vaginal births are best - microbes from the birth canal populate the baby as it is being born. If one has a cesarean section, then one can immediately take a swab of microbes from the mother's vagina (e.g., using sterile gauze cloth) and swab it over the newborn baby. (See post discussing this research by Maria Gloria Dominguez Bello )

Breastfeeding is best - breastfeeding provides lots of beneficial microbes and oligosaccharides that appear to enrich good bacteria in the baby’s gut.

Live on a farm, or try to have a pet or two. Having pets, especially in the first year of life,  ups exposure to bacteria to help develop and strengthen the immune system, and prevent allergies. Pets such as dogs and cat expose humans to lots of bacteria.

Get regular exercise or physical activity. Professional athletes have more diverse gut bacterial community (considered beneficial) than sedentary people.

Can consider taking probiotics - whether in foods or supplements. They are generally considered beneficial, but not well studied, so much is unknown. The supplements are unregulated, and the ones available in stores may not be those that are most commonly found in healthy individuals. Research the specific bacteria before taking any supplements. Researchers themselves tend to stay away from probiotic supplements and focus on eating a variety of all the foods mentioned above (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, legumes, fermented foods) to feed and nurture beneficial bacteria.

The statements in this editorial may be obvious to many, but it is nicely written and needs to be said. Basically it says that exercise will not help you overcome the ill effects of a poor diet. I agree with what was said, but felt that what was missing was mention that a poor diet also has negative effects on the microbiome (the community of microbes living within the person) - which we know is linked to health problems.

From Medscape: Workouts Do Not Work Off Ill Effects of Poor Die

Exercise enthusiasts cannot work off the ill effects of an unhealthy diet, say the authors of an editorial published online April 22 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. "Let us bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity," the authors write. "You cannot outrun a bad diet."

Physical activity levels in Western nations have remained flat during the past 3 decades, even as obesity rates have exploded. That observation is just one sign that calories, not lack of exercise, are driving the obesity crisis, argue Aseem Malhotra, MD, honorary consultant cardiologist at Frimley Park Hospital, United Kingdom, and science director for Action on Sugar, United Kingdom, and colleagues.

"However, the obesity epidemic represents only the tip of a much larger iceberg of the adverse health consequences of poor diet," the authors write. They say that the Lancet global burden of disease reports concluded that poor diet contributes to more disease than a combination of inadequate physical activity, alcohol, and smoking. As many as 40% of people with normal body weight will suffer from metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, the authors write, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease.

Dr Malhotra and colleagues blame food industry marketing for promoting exercise over diet, comparing food industry public relations with discredited tactics used by the tobacco industry in the past. They say Coca Cola "pushes the message that 'all calories count'; they associate their products with sport, suggesting it is ok to consume their drinks as long as you exercise. However science tells us this is misleading and wrong."

The kind of calorie matters too, they emphasize. Calories from sugar promote fat storage and hunger; fat calories induce satiety. For every 150 calories consumed from sugar, there is an 11-fold increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes independent of weight or physical activity levels compared with consumption of 150 calories of fat or protein.

More good news for coffee drinkers! A number of studies have found that coffee drinking is protective against breast cancer (coffee inhibits the growth of tumors), but now research finds it is also protective against breast cancer recurring. The beneficial effects are seen with 2 or more cups of coffee per day. Other studies have found that lifestyle changes (such as weight loss, healthy eating, and exercise) are linked to lower rates of recurrence, but apparently coffee drinking can also be added to the list. This research found that not only is coffee drinking linked to smaller tumors in the first place, but it is also linked to lower rates of recurrence in women also taking tamoxifen. The researchers said: "In summary, this study shows inhibitory effects by caffeine and caffeic acid on breast cancer cell growth." Both caffeine and caffeic acid are present in coffee. From Science Daily:

Coffee protects against breast cancer recurrence, detailed findings confirm

A number of research studies have shown that coffee helps to protect against breast cancer. A new study led by Lund University, has confirmed that coffee inhibits the growth of tumors and reduces the risk of recurrence in women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and treated with the drug tamoxifen.

The study, which is a follow-up of the results the researchers obtained two years ago, was carried out at Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, in collaboration with researchers in the UK. "Now, unlike in the previous study, we have combined information about the patients' lifestyle and clinical data from 1090 breast cancer patients with studies on breast cancer cells. The study shows that among the over 500 women treated with tamoxifen, those who had drunk at least two cups of coffee a day had only half the risk of recurrence of those who drank less coffee or none at all," explain researchers Ann Rosendahl and Helena Jernström, who obtained the results in collaboration with Jeff Holly and his research team at University of Bristol.

"The study also shows that those who drank at least two cups of coffee a day had smaller tumors and a lower proportion of hormone-dependent tumors. We saw that this was already the case at the time of diagnosis."

In the cell study, the researchers looked more closely at two substances that usually occur in the coffee drunk in Sweden -- caffeine and caffeic acid.

"The breast cancer cells reacted to these substances, especially caffeine, with reduced cell division and increased cell death, especially in combination with tamoxifen. This shows that these substances have an effect on the breast cancer cells and turn off signalling pathways that the cancer cells require to grow.

More details are needed about this specific research, but this has been said before: foods are good, but supplements can be problematic. Here extra vitamins and minerals are linked to higher rates of cancer. From Science Daily:

Excessive use of dietary supplements linked to increase cancer risk

While dietary supplements may be advertised to promote health, a forum at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2015 by University of Colorado Cancer Center investigator Tim Byers, MD, MPH, describes research showing that over-the-counter supplements may actually increase cancer risk if taken in excess of the recommended dietary amount.

"We are not sure why this is happening at the molecular level but evidence shows that people who take more dietary supplements than needed tend to have a higher risk of developing cancer," explains Byers, associate director for cancer prevention and control at the CU Cancer Center.

The line of research started 20 years ago with the observation that people who ate more fruits and vegetables tended to have less cancer. Researchers including Byers wanted to see if taking extra vitamins and minerals would reduce cancer risk even further. "When we first tested dietary supplements in animal models we found that the results were promising," says Byers. "Eventually we were able to move on to the human populations. We studied thousands of patients for ten years who were taking dietary supplements and placebos."

The results were not what they expected."We found that the supplements were actually not beneficial for their health. In fact, some people actually got more cancer while on the vitamins," explains Byers. One trial exploring the effects of beta-keratin supplements showed that taking more than the recommended dosage increased the risk for developing both lung cancer and heart disease by 20 percent. Folic acid, which was thought to help reduce the number of polyps in a colon, actually increased the number in another trial.

"This is not to say that people need to be afraid of taking vitamins and minerals," says Byers. "If taken at the correct dosage, multivitamins can be good for you. But there is no substitute for good, nutritional food." Byers says that people can get the daily recommended doses of vitamins and minerals in their diets by eating healthy meals and that many adults who take vitamin supplements may not need them."

The Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organization has just published a number of articles about how companies have added thousands of ingredients to foods with little or no government oversight. This loophole is a decades old law that allows an additive to be "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS without the FDA getting involved. This is why there are some additives in American foods that are NOT allowed in Europe or other countries. And that is why I always read the ingredient lists of foods. I even hate to buy foods that have the nice sounding "natural ingredients" in the ingredient list. What are these so-called natural ingredients that have been concocted in some lab and added to our foods? Does anyone know?  Some earlier posts on this issue: August 19, 2014 and June 16, 2014 . The following are excerpts from the April 14, 2015 story from NPR:

Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food

Companies have added thousands of ingredients to foods with little to no government oversight. That's thanks to a loophole in a decades-old law that allows them to deem an additive to be "generally recognized as safe" — or GRAS — without the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's blessing, or even its knowledge.

The loophole was originally intended to allow manufacturers of common ingredients like vinegar and table salt — when added to processed foods — to bypass the FDA's lengthy safety-review process. But over time, companies have found that it's far more efficient to take advantage of the exemption to get their products on shelves quickly. Some of these products contain additives that the FDA has found to pose dangers. And even ingredients the agency has agreed are GRAS are now drawing scrutiny from scientists and consumer groups that dispute their safety.

Critics of the system say the biggest concern, however, is that companies regularly introduce new additives without ever informing the FDA. That means people are consuming foods with added flavors, preservatives and other ingredients that are not reviewed at all by regulators for immediate dangers or long-term health effects. The vast majority of food additives are safe. Some, however, have proved to cause severe allergic reactions or other long-term health effects. Scientists and advocates worry about the growing number of ingredients that the FDA doesn't know about and is not tracking.

Rather than going through the painstaking FDA-led review process to ensure that their new ingredients are safe, food companies can determine on their own that substances are "generally recognized as safe." They can then ask the FDA to review their evaluation — if they wish. Or they can take their ingredients straight to market, without ever informing the agency."FDA doesn't know what it doesn't know," said Steve Morris of the Government Accountability Office, which published a report in 2010 that found that "FDA's oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations."

For a company to determine that an ingredient is "generally recognized as safe," it must establish that the additive's safety is commonly understood by qualified scientific experts. But some ingredients defy consensus, as consumers, scientific groups and sometimes even the FDA have pointed out. Even GRAS additives that have been used in food for decades are now coming under fire as their uses expand and scientific research emerges that casts doubt on their safety. This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.

But it's the ingredients the public doesn't know about that have critics of the GRAS system most worried. Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.

Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.

The GRAS loophole was born in 1958. Americans were growing concerned about the increased use of preservatives and other additives in food, so Congress passed — and President Dwight Eisenhower signed — the first law regulating ingredients added to food.

To restore confidence, the law set up a system requiring companies to submit new ingredients to an extensive FDA safety review before going to market..."There are plenty of ingredients that are receiving GRAS status the safety of which are in dispute.In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.

For the full investigation, head to the Center for Public Integrity's site. 

Interesting findings - that squirming and fidgeting in ADHD children may be how they learn best and actually aids them in learning. So don't try to stop or suppress the fidgeting and squirming, but instead embrace it. I know of an excellent science teacher who would hand out small chunks of beeswax modeling clay to children who couldn't stop squirming and fidgeting in class - and this helped them focus and learn. From Science Daily:

Kids with ADHD must squirm to learn, study says

For decades, frustrated parents and teachers have barked at fidgety children with ADHD to "Sit still and concentrate!" But new research conducted at UCF shows that if you want ADHD kids to learn, you have to let them squirm. The foot-tapping, leg-swinging and chair-scooting movements of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are actually vital to how they remember information and work out complex cognitive tasks, according to a study published in an early online release of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

The findings show the longtime prevailing methods for helping children with ADHD may be misguided. "The typical interventions target reducing hyperactivity. It's exactly the opposite of what we should be doing for a majority of children with ADHD," said one of the study's authors, Mark Rapport, head of the Children's Learning Clinic at the University of Central Florida. "The message isn't 'Let them run around the room,' but you need to be able to facilitate their movement so they can maintain the level of alertness necessary for cognitive activities."

The study at the UCF clinic included 52 boys ages 8 to 12. Twenty-nine of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD and the other 23 had no clinical disorders and showed normal development. Each child was asked to perform a series of standardized tasks designed to gauge "working memory," the system for temporarily storing and managing information required to carry out complex cognitive tasks such as learning, reasoning and comprehension... A high-speed camera recorded the kids, and observers recorded their every movement and gauged their attention to the task.

Rapport's previous research had already shown that the excessive movement that's a trademark of hyperactive children -- previously thought to be ever-present -- is actually apparent only when they need to use the brain's executive brain functions, especially their working memory.The new study goes an important step further, proving the movement serves a purpose. "What we've found is that when they're moving the most, the majority of them perform better," Rapport said. "They have to move to maintain alertness." By contrast, the children in the study without ADHD also moved more during the cognitive tests, but it had the opposite effect: They performed worse.

The science world has recently been abuzz with the results finding that an isolated American Indian group (the Yanomami) in the Venezuelan  Amazon have the most diverse microbiome (microbial community) ever discovered in humans.About double those found in humans living in the U.S. The scientists suggest that our Western lifestyle with processed foods, antibiotic use, sanitation, use of antibacterials, Cesarean sections, bottle-feeding (instead of breastfeeding) all have reduced microbial diversity in humans living in developed countries such as the United States. It is currently thought that reduced diversity is linked to some chronic diseases and even some cancers.From Nature:

Bacteria bonanza found in remote Amazon village

An isolated American Indian group in the Venezuelan Amazon hosts the most-diverse constellation of microbes ever discovered in humans, researchers reported on 17 April in Science Advances1.Surprisingly, the group's microbiome includes bacteria with genes that confer antibiotic resistance — even though its members, part of the Yanomami tribe, are not thought to have been exposed to the drugs.

But scientists still do not understand all the factors that determine the make-up of a person's microbiome. “We do know that food, environment and chemicals play the big roles,” says Sarkis Mazmanian, a microbiologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The wide adoption of antibiotics, rigorous hygiene and processed diets is thought to have have cut down the genetic diversity of microbiomes in the developed world.

This makes the microbiomes of individual Yanomami particularly interesting, Dominguez-Bello says. The researchers took oral, faecal and skin samples from 34 people in a small Yanomami community that was unknown to the Western world until 2008, when it was spotted by helicopter....When researchers analysed the microbial DNA in those samples, they found that the average Yanomami's microbiota had twice as many genes as that of the average US person. More surprisingly, the Yanomami microbiome was even more diverse than those reported for other indigenous groups in South America and in Africa.

From New Scientist: Is super-diverse Amazon microbiome something to strive for?

The Yanomami people in the Venezuelan rainforest have the most diverse population of gut microbes ever seen, far more varied than Western guts. Does it matter?

Hunter-gathering in the rainforests and mountains of northern Brazil and southern Venezuela, the Yanomami eat a high-fibre diet based largely on cassava. For thousands of years, some groups have lived without contact with the rest of the world and are thought to be some of the few remaining communities never to have been exposed to antibiotics, which can wipe out the microbes in your gut.Sequencing the genes in the faecal samples revealed that the Yanomami carried nearly double the diversity of microbial species in their intestines compared with people living in the US. They also had about 30 to 40 per cent more diversity than a less isolated group of Venezuelan hunter-gatherers that has largely maintained its traditional lifestyle but has occasionally used antibiotics and eaten processed foods.

"Our results suggest that Westernisation leads to the reduction of diversity, to different microbiota compositions," Maria Dominguez-Bello of the New York University School of Medicine, who led the research, told a teleconference on Wednesday. Her colleague Jose Clemente of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the results suggest that even minimal exposure to modern lifestyle practices such as using antibacterial soaps and cleansers, taking antibiotics and having Caesarean sections, which mean babies don't pass through their mother's birth canal and pick up her microbes, can result in a dramatic loss of microbial biodiversity.

So does a more diverse microbiome make for a healthier person? Possibly. Healthier people do seem to host a more diverse array of microbes but it's hard to know whether one causes the other. There is some evidence that losing certain microbial species is linked to some cancers, plus giving mice antibiotics can make them gain weight, so perhaps a good mix of microbes in your gut can keep you from piling on the pounds.

Walter doesn't recommend striving drastically to make the paltry Western gut look more Yanomamian. Poor sanitation is probably one factor contributing to the Papua New Guinean's high microbial diversity, but they have high levels of infectious diarrhoea as a result – not a situation that Western urbanised nations would want to return to.

Well worth reading in its entirety. In summary: Anyone who is physically capable of activity should try to reach at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week (walking is good) and have around 20 to 30 minutes of that be vigorous activity. This significantly lowers the risk of dying prematurely. (NOTE: the second study mentioned was in the April 8, 2015 post: Physical Activity That Makes You Sweat Is Good ) From the New York Times:

The Right Dose of Exercise for a Longer Life

Exercise has had a Goldilocks problem, with experts debating just how much exercise is too little, too much or just the right amount to improve health and longevity. Two new, impressively large-scale studies provide some clarity, suggesting that the ideal dose of exercise for a long life is a bit more than many of us currently believe we should get, but less than many of us might expect. The studies also found that prolonged or intense exercise is unlikely to be harmful and could add years to people’s lives.

The current broad guidelines from governmental and health organizations call for 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week to build and maintain health and fitness. But whether that amount of exercise represents the least amount that someone should do — the minimum recommended dose — or the ideal amount has not been certain.

In the broader of the two studies, researchers with the National Cancer Institute, Harvard University and other institutions gathered and pooled data about people’s exercise habits from six large, ongoing health surveys, winding up with information about more than 661,000 adults, most of them middle-agedUsing this data, the researchers stratified the adults by their weekly exercise time, from those who did not exercise at all to those who worked out for 10 times the current recommendations or more (meaning that the exercised moderately for 25 hours per week or more). Then they compared 14 years’ worth of death records for the group.

They found that, unsurprisingly, the people who did not exercise at all were at the highest risk of early death. But those who exercised a little, not meeting the recommendations but doing something, lowered their risk of premature death by 20 percent. Those who met the guidelines precisely, completing 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, enjoyed greater longevity benefits and 31 percent less risk of dying during the 14-year period compared with those who never exercised.

The sweet spot for exercise benefits, however, came among those who tripled the recommended level of exercise, working out moderately, mostly by walking, for 450 minutes per week, or a little more than an hour per day. Those people were 39 percent less likely to die prematurely than people who never exercised. At that point, the benefits plateaued, the researchers found, but they never significantly declined. Those few individuals engaging in 10 times or more the recommended exercise dose gained about the same reduction in mortality risk as people who simply met the guidelines. They did not gain significantly more health bang for all of those additional hours spent sweating. But they also did not increase their risk of dying young.

The other new study of exercise and mortality reached a somewhat similar conclusion about intensity.  {NOTE: SEE APRIL 8, 2015 POST FOR DETAILS}

The following is a list of nutrients that some researchers (from the Institute of Food Technology) think of as especially beneficial to the brain. Other researchers may (or probably will) focus on other nutrients. I am posting it even though I generally dislike articles that talk about "superfoods" or an itemized list of foods that one should eat to the exclusion of others. Because, of course, focusing on some nutrients may leave out many just as important nutrients.

Also, medical thinking changes over time and what was once considered "unhealthy" may later be considered a wonderful food (remember when eggs, nuts, and coconuts were almost considered evil?). And vice versa (remember when margarine with partially hydrogeneated oils and trans-fats was considered healthier than butter?) And study after study says it is better to eat the foods, rather than take supplements. So keep in mind that the following nutrients are found in whole foods and in a varied diet. And when they mention a specific food such as blueberries, remember that ALL berries have benefits (though they vary), so eat a variety of berries. Same with nuts - eat a variety and not just walnuts. From Science Daily:

Eight nutrients to protect the aging brain

Brain health is the second most important component in maintaining a healthy lifestyle according to a 2014 AARP study. As people age they can experience a range of cognitive issues from decreased critical thinking to dementia and Alzheimer's disease. In the March issue of Food Technology published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), contributing editor Linda Milo Ohr writes about eight nutrients that may help keep your brain in good shape.

1. Cocoa Flavanols: Cocoa flavanols have been linked to improved circulation and heart health, and preliminary research shows a possible connection to memory improvement as well. A study showed cocoa flavanols may improve the function of a specific part of the brain called the dentate gyrus, which is associated with age-related memory (Brickman, 2014). {NOTE: good sources are cocoa and dark chocolate}

2. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Omega-3 fatty acids have long been shown to contribute to good heart health are now playing a role in cognitive health as well....Foods rich in omega-3s include salmon, flaxseed oil, and chia seeds.

3. Phosphatidylserine and Phosphatidic Acid: Two pilot studies showed that a combination of phosphatidylserine and phosphatidic acid can help benefit memory, mood, and cognitive function in the elderly (Lonza, 2014). {NOTE: good sources are fish and meat}

4. Walnuts: A diet supplemented with walnuts may have a beneficial effect in reducing the risk, delaying the onset, or slowing the progression of Alzheimer's disease in mice (Muthaiyah, 2014).

5. Citicoline: Citicoline is a natural substance found in the body's cells and helps in the development of brain tissue, which helps regulate memory and cognitive function, enhances communication between neurons, and protects neural structures from free radical damage.... {NOTE: Citocoline is synthesized in the body from choline, so see foods high in choline}

6. Choline: Choline, which is associated with liver health and women's health, also helps with the communication systems for cells within the brain and the rest of the body. Choline may also support the brain during aging and help prevent changes in brain chemistry that result in cognitive decline and failure. A major source of choline in the diet are eggs. { NOTE: Good sources of choline are eggs, meat, fish, beans, and cruciferous vegetables.}

7. Magnesium: Magnesium supplements are often recommended for those who experienced serious concussions. Magnesium-rich foods include avocado, soy beans, bananas and dark chocolate.

8. Blueberries: Blueberries are known to have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity because they boast a high concentration of anthocyanins, a flavonoid that enhances the health-promoting quality of foods. Moderate blueberry consumption could offer neurocognitive benefits such as increased neural signaling in the brain centers.

This research found that the beneficial gut bacteria Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) interacts and facilitates (modifies the activity) of other gut bacteria. This isn't surprising. All our microbiomes are communities or ecosystems of microbes. But the really important bacteria have been called keystone species by other researchers. From Medical Xpress:

New research sheds light on how popular probiotic benefits the gut

In recent years, research into the benefits of gut bacteria has exploded. Scientists across the globe are examining how these microbes can help improve health and prevent disease. One of the most well-known of these is Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG). This strain of bacteria, which is part of many popular probiotic products, has a reputation as a helpful microbe. Researchers have found evidence that it can help with intestinal problems, respiratory infections and some skin disorders. Some research suggests that it may even help with weight loss. But a key question has remained unanswered: How does LGG actually produce benefits?

Now, researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UM SOM) have come up with an explanation. It appears that LGG may act as a facilitator, modifying the activity of other gut bacteria....Claire M. Fraser, PhD, professor of medicine at the UM SOM, as well as director of the Institute for Genome Sciences, studied the effect of LGG on a group of elderly subjects.

She and her collaborator, Dr. Patricia Hibberd at Massachusetts General Hospital, tested 12 subjects, who ingested LGG twice a day for 28 days. She analyzed gut bacteria before and after this regimen, and found that ingesting LGG led to increases in several genes that foster several species of gut bacteria, including Bacteroides, Eubacterium, Faecalibacterium, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. These microbes have been shown to have a range of benefits in humans, including the promotion of a healthy immune system. (Fraser notes that LGG may also have direct effects, in addition to its ability to modify the overall ecosystem.)

"This is a new idea, that some probiotics may work by affecting the overall ecosystem of the gut," said Prof. Fraser. "Previously we tended to think that LGG and other probiotics worked directly on the host. I think this finding has many exciting implications." For one, Fraser says, it lends support to the idea that we need to look at the microbes in the gut as an interconnected ecosystem rather than a series of solitary bacteria. Modifying the behavior of microbes already in the gut may be just as important as adding any single species to this population.