Blood sugar, gut bacteria

[flyingiguana]

Are we talking about this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119143445.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

"Scientists have released new results underscoring the importance of a personalized diet, prepared based on complex factors such as your gut microbes and lifestyle. Surprisingly, the foods that raise blood sugar levels differ dramatically from person to person."

 

A bit more info here: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_155817.html

 

 

Edited November 23, 2015 by flyingiguana

[JoJosMom]

Oooo, this looks fascinating.  Thanks for sharing!

[Guest]

I'm not terribly surprised. This would be why I focus on meat, added fat, nuts, and green leafies. They're pretty much universally nutritious and safe! Everything else is very individual and tolerance varies white a bit - mine is low :(

[momacacia]

Microbiome and digestive ability generally are everything it seems.  What they need to do is not focus so much on that tailored diet to each person but to improving each person's gut bacteria and digestion.

[Guest]

Microbiome and digestive ability generally are everything it seems. What they need to do is not focus so much on that tailored diet to each person but to improving each person's gut bacteria and digestion.

Bingo. Even among my kids I have seen vast improvements in their health and tummy complaints from adding in some properly fermented food. It's also a factor in improving my own leaky gut.

 

Recolonizing with the right stuff is a big factor and then not exacerbating it again with a diet that is suited to your individual body is crucial.

[Soror]

I don't think this is entirely new info, as with anyone watching bg levels the first advice is to test everything but I think that it is revolutionary in that these are "normal" people here. I think individualized health and nutrition info is the future. Unfortunately so many are still so hung up on general prescriptions based on what works for them and what they think works for everyone when it doesn't really work that way. 

[Soror]

Microbiome and digestive ability generally are everything it seems.  What they need to do is not focus so much on that tailored diet to each person but to improving each person's gut bacteria and digestion.

I think there should be a focus on both the gut biome and individualized diets. I don't think adding in good bacteria to the gut is the only factor as to why some people do better with certain foods. Why is the biome different in the first place? Is it just a lack in the bacteria and what causes that in some and not others, too many genetic and lifestyle factors, I don't believe fermented foods are some magic fix for this complex problem(certainly haven't been for me).

[Guest]

I think there should be a focus on both the gut biome and individualized diets. I don't think adding in good bacteria to the gut is the only factor as to why some people do better with certain foods. Why is the biome different in the first place? Is it just a lack in the bacteria and what causes that in some and not others, too many genetic and lifestyle factors, I don't believe fermented foods are some magic fix for this complex problem(certainly haven't been for me).

Did you try wiping out your entire gut with antibiotics first? I hate to say it but sometimes that is necessary. They haven't been a magic fix for me either - that would be enormous quantities of l-glutamine and low dose naltrexone. But they are certainly a help and I've seen positive changes in the kids who, I assume, have inherited my disbiosis.

 

They are beginning to study the causes but it seems a bit chicken and egg - genetic predisposition or early life factors exacerbated by ongoing dietary fuel. Once a gut has been corrected by fecal transplant or other means it does seem at this point like the changes in bacterial population are holding. More time is needed on that topic :)

[JoJosMom]

Interesting study.  I found the change in composition of the individuals' gut biomes in response to the "good" and "bad" diets particularly intriguing.  I do agree, however, that the conclusion that "one size fits all" doesn't work-even in the realm of human nutrition- to be not at all surprising.

 

Thanks again, OP, for sharing.  Good stuff.

Edited November 23, 2015 by JoJosMom

[Soror]

Did you try wiping out your entire gut with antibiotics first? I hate to say it but sometimes that is necessary. They haven't been a magic fix for me either - that would be enormous quantities of l-glutamine and low dose naltrexone. But they are certainly a help and I've seen positive changes in the kids who, I assume, have inherited my disbiosis.

 

They are beginning to study the causes but it seems a bit chicken and egg - genetic predisposition or early life factors exacerbated by ongoing dietary fuel. Once a gut has been corrected by fecal transplant or other means it does seem at this point like the changes in bacterial population are holding. More time is needed on that topic :)

No, no antibiotics, although my Integrative Med Dr did do excessively high doses of difulcan. I've used glutamine and thought I seen some help, although who knows. I go in tomorrow to get my vitamin levels, thyroid etc retested for the first time in 3 months, I've still not fully recovered from my last crash so I'm anxious to see where everything is. Interestingly I was just talking to a friend today about vit D and she was talking about some genetic deffects interfering with the bodies ability to absorb d from food and some from the sun even, which is interesting to me when thinking about something like Celiac's- is it the gut absorption issues simply from harm done by Celiacs or is there separate genetic causes that perhaps just tend to coincide with Celiac's so even in a person that is following a gf diet it is not enough to prevent and reverse deficiencies. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg on learning about personal genetics and the effect on health and I will be interested to see in my lifetime what we learn because I think it will answer many questions(and I'm sure raise many more)

 

(I'm personally anxious to see if/how my vit D levels have risen, given the time and supplements I've taken I should be decent now but we'll have to see)

Edited November 23, 2015 by soror

[Guest]

Careful with D - it is immunosuppressive in high doses, I notice an uptick in colds and sinus infections when I'm on more than 1000 iu daily and I live very far north.

 

The glutamine is extremely healing for damaged intestinal lining and inflammation, if you google l glutamine and celiac there is lots of good info. The doses that seem effective are anywhere from 20-40 grams per day, ramped up gradually.

[Soror]

Careful with D - it is immunosuppressive in high doses, I notice an uptick in colds and sinus infections when I'm on more than 1000 iu daily and I live very far north.

 

The glutamine is extremely healing for damaged intestinal lining and inflammation, if you google l glutamine and celiac there is lots of good info. The doses that seem effective are anywhere from 20-40 grams per day, ramped up gradually.

Yes, I've read the studies on glutamine, it does seem like it has some good science behind it. 

 

 The science from d is still very lacking, too much back and forth and too much that we don't know how it will effect us without knowing our personal genetic make-up. I very much agree it is the chicken and the egg when it comes to too much of this.

[gardenmom5]

Careful with D - it is immunosuppressive in high doses, I notice an uptick in colds and sinus infections when I'm on more than 1000 iu daily and I live very far north.

 

The glutamine is extremely healing for damaged intestinal lining and inflammation, if you google l glutamine and celiac there is lots of good info. The doses that seem effective are anywhere from 20-40 grams per day, ramped up gradually.

 

that also varies in how people absorb vitamin d. not just at what latitude you live.

we have to take mega doses just to absorb enough to get the levels to climb.  I probably should switch to drops - they are better absorbed.  dd was on 10,000 IUs daily, and her levels barely budged. they should have been climbing fast -  she was at 10 when she started.

I've been supplementing for five years - and I still haven't hit 50. . . . .

[JumpyTheFrog]

I'm not terribly surprised. This would be why I focus on meat, added fat, nuts, and green leafies. They're pretty much universally nutritious and safe! Everything else is very individual and tolerance varies white a bit - mine is low :(

 

One thing that surprised me was that one person in the study had high blood glucose after eating buttered bread than when they ate plain bread. Another woman was having blood sugar spikes from tomatoes, but presumably not other foods traditionally thought to raise bg levels.

[JumpyTheFrog]

What I want to know is how the computer algorithm worked. I'd love for some computer to help me figure things out.

[Guest]

that also varies in how people absorb vitamin d. not just at what latitude you live.

we have to take mega doses just to absorb enough to get the levels to climb. I probably should switch to drops - they are better absorbed. dd was on 10,000 IUs daily, and her levels barely budged. they should have been climbing fast - she was at 10 when she started.

I've been supplementing for five years - and I still haven't hit 50. . . . .

Yeah at those doses I had fairly low blood concentration (38) but what getting infections out the wazoo. It turns out I have to eat my D in food or get it in sunlight, or it just messes me up and isn't very effective.

 

What I'd like to see is more research into why 50 is the recommended blood level. It's arbitrary and they haven't actually proven that slight deficiencies or natural higher saturation is problematic. There seems to be this school of thought that if some is good then more is better and with D that ignores the research to the contrary, especially at higher doses. I think basing it off individual symptoms is a better way to go - if you're asymptomatic then why supplement? When I lowered my dose from the divided 5k to less than 600 iu daily I stopped getting sick and had no issues except low serum values. We just ignore it now ;)

 

ETA - I still cannot meet 50 to save my life but I double checked my docs and the concerning levels were near and exceeding 100, not 50.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[Laurie4b]

Yeah at those doses I had fairly low blood concentration (38) but what getting infections out the wazoo. It turns out I have to eat my D in food or get it in sunlight, or it just messes me up and isn't very effective.

 

What I'd like to see is more research into why 50 is the recommended blood level. It's arbitrary and they haven't actually proven that slight deficiencies or natural higher saturation is problematic. There seems to be this school of thought that if some is good then more is better and with D that ignores the research to the contrary, especially at higher doses. I think basing it off individual symptoms is a better way to go - if you're asymptomatic then why supplement? When I lowered my dose from the divided 5k to less than 600 iu daily I stopped getting sick and had no issues except low serum values. We just ignore it now ;)

 

The only supplement I take is Vitamin D. That's because even with a diet high in Vit D AND spending 20 min outside without sunscreen on every sunny day for a summer only raised mine 7 points and it was still below 30.

 

I typically resist taking supplements and prefer to get my blood levels where they need to be through food, but that didn't work for me. I am currently supplementing at a high level to get mine over 50 because there is significant research correlating lower blood levels of Vit D with a couple major diseases that I am high risk for. So I supplement to avoid really bad diseases. I have no "symptoms." By the time I had them, it would be too late. It's possible that there is a common cause of both the low D and the high risk for the diseases, and it's possible that the diseases cause the low D. I am not entirely sure. But it's enough data to make it a reasonable thing to do in my situation, even for a non-taker of supplements. 

 

What is the research to the contrary in terms of Vit D levels over 50? I haven't seen it. 

[Guest]

The only supplement I take is Vitamin D. That's because even with a diet high in Vit D AND spending 20 min outside without sunscreen on every sunny day for a summer only raised mine 7 points and it was still below 30.

 

I typically resist taking supplements and prefer to get my blood levels where they need to be through food, but that didn't work for me. I am currently supplementing at a high level to get mine over 50 because there is significant research correlating lower blood levels of Vit D with a couple major diseases that I am high risk for. So I supplement to avoid really bad diseases. I have no "symptoms." By the time I had them, it would be too late. It's possible that there is a common cause of both the low D and the high risk for the diseases, and it's possible that the diseases cause the low D. I am not entirely sure. But it's enough data to make it a reasonable thing to do in my situation, even for a non-taker of supplements.

 

What is the research to the contrary in terms of Vit D levels over 50? I haven't seen it.

It has to do with the toxicity of the synthetics. Food based and light based vitamin d avoids these problems.

 

If you're in a particular risk pool go with it! I'm personally amazed at how many doctors and nurses don't tell folks suffering from colds, sinus infections, yeast overgrowth, and muscle pain that their enormous D doses are likely making things worse than better. It's common knowledge.

 

For some it may be that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. I wasn't one of those :). Be well!

 

ETA - this is a great article on why you may want to avoid or utilitize the immune effects of synthetic D. It very much depends on your personal chemistry and what conditions matter most to you. Even with my inflammatory and autoimmune issues the D was more damaging that helpful to me:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955167/#!po=0.568182

 

My bad, ladies! The levels that were associated with increased risk WRT cardiovascular health and neurological side effects were those meeting and exceeding 100 ng/ml blood concentration. I mixed up my tables. (Whoops :) )

Edited November 23, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[wapiti]

What is the research to the contrary in terms of Vit D levels over 50? I haven't seen it. 

 

FWIW, I don't know about research and levels, but just wanted to pipe in that the function of vitamin D may be more complex than previously thought.  In my ds's case, his regular vitamin D is low, but the other form, calcitriol, is high.  This is a marker of inflammation but little is known beyond that.   In his case, he also has the VDR taq mutation, a defect with the vitamin D receptor, so it's especially unclear whether adding vitamin D will do anything helpful.