Now, of course, this had no scientific basis. But it would be interesting if what they thought was the "water", was actually the microbial composition of the traditional water sources there.
Full disclosure: I don't recall if this jumped the gap between correlation and cause.
Different water softness, different strains of bacteria. Back to step one.
The situation is miles better than it was in the 1950s thanks to those regulations.
You probably mean- I haven't seen any research that tries to associate water impurities as parameters to human behavior as parameters.
Why do Indians always sound so defensive about their practices? As someone whose parents spent a decade in india- they attributes their happiness to the lifestyle they learnt in india. None of which had a clear basis in modern science.
That's what I mean, but I put it more succinctly.
> Why do Indians always sound so defensive about their practices?
Um... because I'm a scientist, and I haven't seen any peer-reviewed scientific articles on this subject?
Why do (some) Indians always have a chip on their shoulders? See, both of us can play silly question games.
I'd be tempted to sound defensive on scientific subjects if my country were taking this route: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46778879
I feel like that's a broad overgeneralization, but regardless I'd wager a guess that it would have something to do with not wanting to sound like a charlatan or a fool. Even if it works for them, people can be awfully bristly about health and lifestyle practices when it comes from someone they don't know.
If a relative of yours moves to a far away town and comes back for visit and he acts very differently from how he used to, you might say to him: "oh that place's water has changed you".
Consider this to the relationship between climate/location/genes/culture.
> When the researchers investigated the microbiomes of [mice who avoid social contact], they found the animals lacked a common species called Lactobacillus reuteri. When they added a strain of that bacteria to the diet, the animals became social again.
Dr. Costa-Mattioli found evidence that L. reuteri releases compounds that send a signal to nerve endings in the intestines. The vagus nerve sends these signals from the gut to the brain, where they alter production of a hormone called oxytocin that promotes social bonds.
Other microbial species also send signals along the vagus nerve, it turns out. Still others communicate with the brain via the bloodstream.
There are at least 400 different species living in a healthy person's gut (it's difficult to define a species, since they transfer dna between themselves.) Many of these we haven't been able to successfully grow in a lab. Their primary food is resistant starch, which is starch that your small intestines can't split apart and absorb. There are a number of different types of resistant starch, which basically comes down to how the chains of glucose and fructose molecules are arranged. Different bacteria prefer different types of resistant starch, and thus you can majorly influence your biome just by changing your diet. There's a special diet called FODMAP which supposedly helps with IBS and related diseases. I also think that a number of fad diets main benefit is influencing your gut bacteria.
But sure, I have also gotten quite the negative reactions but it tends to be the same monkeys who dismiss anthropogenic climate change in the face of decades of evidence.
Not denying anthropogenic climate change but until recently fat was dangerous and sugar was less dangerous. This goes back to the thirties, so definitely decades.
Worse, when some of the loudest voices in the climate camp not only fly across the globe to climate conferences but in private jets, then you can understand why people are sceptical. (1400 private jets this year?)
Same with the EAT campaign: travelling around the world in luxury, telling other people they can basically forget their current lifestyle.
I'm not saying it isn't right.
Personally I travel with public transit (bus, train, bus or walk) for a good hour to work and the same back home. I try to do reuse, repair and recycle in my household. We coordinate with 4-5 other families to get kids to soccer / other activities 3 times a week with as few cars as possible. It actually makes a lot of sense too.
But it is not like we get any support from the thought leaders who fly around in a luxury we have a hard time imagining even. I can very well understand why people don't believe.
So can we stop calling other people monkeys? If your are going to make a change you have to learn to make those people care. And you don't do that by calling them names.
Maybe moving to a city with better drinking water is the best move for a small subset of the population. There's no sinister cabal trying to hide this, there's just no incentive for anyone figure this out for you in an individual basis.
I could see pharma working the other way though. If you could identify a location with a population who exhibit a deficiency and your drug is more effective there, there's an incentive to better promote it there. I don't think the industry is sophisticated enough at this point to accurately track this though, as individual patient response is difficult to measure and report on.
Source: dated someone that did marketing for one if the top 5 pharmas.
> Less than 3% of Americans get even the recommended minimum adequate intake of fiber. On average, we get only about 15 grams a day. The minimum daily requirement is 31.5, so we get less than half the minimum. Men are particularly deficient. If we break down intake by age and gender, after studying the diets of 12,761 Americans, the percent of men between ages 14 and 50 getting the minimum adequate intake is zero.
I think we'd get fiber cravings if we were truly deficient.
Another major benefit of fiber is that is slows down the breakdown of long-chain carbohydrates because you dilute them with long-chain cellulose carbohydrates that our body can't breakdown. This slows their absorption into the blood thus smoothing out sugar entry and subsequent insulin increases. Insulin sensitivity is a major health issue, typically showing up as diabetes and other metabolic disorders.
The problem was these were often not actually available on their voyages.
Alas, the human body rarely if ever communicates useful solutions in this way.
That's interesting, but yeah, I'm not sure either. I've managed to ignore my body's signals regarding food in all sorts of destructive ways.
One of the reasons we might not be having fiber cravings is, we don't need it for ourselves per se, but foreign, albeit friendly gut bacteria. It is possible for bacteria to manipulate its hosts ie by releasing some enzymes, but maybe we didn't evolve our symbiosis that far yet. Or we're drowning those cravings into more intense ones like sugar or other addictions.
I badly crave donuts, especially on weekends; I can't come to the conclusion my body requires more donuts.
We have "smørrebrød" which is quite delicious, and there is something for everyone. One particular famous smørrebrøds restaurant has a list of over 200 different kinds to choose from.
- if not fed right, these bacteria may consume gut mucus, causing inflammation
- when fed right, they actually improve digestion efficiency
thus, in theory, proper diet can get you from chronic diseased [with the usual western medicine prescriptions] to healthier+more energetic
Well, not that it matters for me since I have Crohn's and can't really eat fiber at all.
- Fiber doesn't ward off colon cancer, according to the Harvard School of Public Health: "For years, Americans have been told to consume a high-fiber diet to lower the risk of colon cancer [...] Larger and better-designed studies have failed to show a link between fiber and colon cancer."
- Fiber doesn't reduce the risk of heart disease, according to the American Heart Association: "A fiber supplement added to a diet otherwise high in saturated fat and cholesterol provides dubious cardiovascular advantage." Furthermore, these supplements caused "reduced mineral absorption and a myriad of gastrointestinal disturbances" - factors that in fact, contribute to heart disease.
- Fiber doesn't prevent breast cancer either, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, it's the complete opposite: "Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with breast cancer risk." Fiber happens to be a carbohydrate too, and carbohydrates are the only food that contains fiber.
- Fiber doesn't counteract diabetes, according to the Harvard School of Public Health: "Fiber intake has also been linked with the metabolic syndrome, a constellation of factors that increases the chances of developing heart disease and diabetes." Truth is, fiber requires more insulin or drugs to control blood sugar, and makes diabetes even more devastating.
(excerpts from Fiber Menace by Konstantin Monastyrsky)
Your third point is probably misleading as you can get enough fiber with very modest carb intake
The fourth follows what seems like a similar dubious path to the third
> He hasn’t found those microbes, let alone that chemical. But “there’s something’s in there,” he said. “And we have to figure out what it is.”
This entire article has many facets that are quite interesting, and we just can't wait for substantial research in this area to reach well supported conclusions and remedies for people with different conditions.
How do I summon Gwern to do some self-experiments?