Stephen: Hello from Pepper Pike, Ohio. I believe N.R., my daughter, told you that I had found your natto article, which article I found to be well-written and researched, as well as entertaining. I have been taking powdered natto for several years, a couple of teaspoons a day. I have read a number of scientific studies on natto. One referred to the bacteria as "Bacillus subtilis natto", all in italics. Other articles just used Bacillus subtilis. As an aside, I got a B.S. from Indiana University, Bloomington, and worked for 5 years at St. Vincent's Hospital in Indianapolis in the mid-70s in their microbiology department -- all has changed. I've read a couple of books by Tim Spector and find the subject of gut health most interesting. I'll be reading the rest of your articles. Thank you. Linda Standish
I've read quite a bit about the benefits of natto. After reading this, I'm eating my first bowl with rice, spring onions and soy sauce. It's... interesting. This had better make me immortal.
I eat natto, but worry that when it is frozen for distribution, the Bacillus subtilis is destroyed and all the touted benefits of the natto are destroyed.
1. Gamma-polyglutamic acid, which is the main constituent of the "goop", is a fantastic cryopreservative.
2. Bacillus subtilis is a spore-former, and freezing absolutely does not kill spores.
3. Even if the microbe were totally dead by the time it got to your GI tract, you'd still be getting all the benefits of the vitamin K, PQQ, inositol from digested phytate, etc.
"Taking a large dose of PQQ is also likely a great way to selectively feed certain bacteria in your gut."
How do you generally/quickly know which molecules may **selectively** feed certain bacteria in your gut?
Also what are your thoughts on sublingual PQQ? There is at least one company selling "PQQ Lozenge", so I'm guessing it's viable? Would you spit out rather than swallow the dissolved solution after awhile?
I'm not sure if you're interested in discussing this sort of stuff, but I shall try this once
Thanks, after too long, I still struggle to grasp that biology and What Matters In The Real World are so frustratingly data driven. An isolated (and maybe intentionally obfuscated) fact annihilates any prior structure. Do you just read a billion scattered papers on mendeley and learn via word of mouth (not a series of lectures) or is there a more structured way?---to learn cutting edge stuff with context I think I mean
Though really I know its just my understanding is too basic and it takes time, but it's still so surprising to me I think and collecting data seems to take so much effort, and I wanted to voice something like this to you to see what you might say around this context
Well, think about the phrase "cutting edge". You can't have a cutting edge without having a lot of blade behind it. It's a triangle, a pyramid. And for that kind of learning there's no better place than wikipedia.
You wanna know about something in particular, you go to its page. You read until you hit a word or concept you don't understand. You click that blue link to another tab, read THAT page until you hit a word you don't understand...etc. etc. until you've got enough grasp to go back to the first page. Then you keep reading 'til the next word you don't understand. Then you click that blue link, and repeat.
This way you're not just reading a million random papers, you're building up that triangular knowledge base that's as broad as it needs to be without collecting too much excess information.
It gets easier as you go; you will come across more and more purple links the longer you spend in your particular corner of wikipedia, and you'll see parallel concepts. When I learned about the drug methotrexate, it took me an hour or so to really grasp how it works. When I learned about warfarin, it took me five minutes, because warfarin is just methotrexate but for vitamin K instead of vitamin B9.
Once I've got the knowledge base, it's google scholar. If I want to understand how e.g. the microbiome impacts hormone levels, I'll do a few tabbed searches for things like "gut bacteria steroid hormone" or "microbiome endocrinology" or "bacteria steroid intestinal enteric" (because the word "microbiome" is a pretty recent invention and you wanna pull old papers too.) These searches will yield other keywords for the next round of search.
i gotta say, this newsletter has far exceeded my expectations from when i initially subscribed. keep doin what ur doin
Stephen: Hello from Pepper Pike, Ohio. I believe N.R., my daughter, told you that I had found your natto article, which article I found to be well-written and researched, as well as entertaining. I have been taking powdered natto for several years, a couple of teaspoons a day. I have read a number of scientific studies on natto. One referred to the bacteria as "Bacillus subtilis natto", all in italics. Other articles just used Bacillus subtilis. As an aside, I got a B.S. from Indiana University, Bloomington, and worked for 5 years at St. Vincent's Hospital in Indianapolis in the mid-70s in their microbiology department -- all has changed. I've read a couple of books by Tim Spector and find the subject of gut health most interesting. I'll be reading the rest of your articles. Thank you. Linda Standish
Great and useful information. Difficult to send to friends because the word SHIT reduces credibility.
Dr Axe already grabbed Eat Dirt for his book.
Send it anyway, coward! ;D
I am happy being incredible, and plan to stay that way.
I've read quite a bit about the benefits of natto. After reading this, I'm eating my first bowl with rice, spring onions and soy sauce. It's... interesting. This had better make me immortal.
I eat natto, but worry that when it is frozen for distribution, the Bacillus subtilis is destroyed and all the touted benefits of the natto are destroyed.
Your thoughts please. Thank you
Nope, for several reasons:
1. Gamma-polyglutamic acid, which is the main constituent of the "goop", is a fantastic cryopreservative.
2. Bacillus subtilis is a spore-former, and freezing absolutely does not kill spores.
3. Even if the microbe were totally dead by the time it got to your GI tract, you'd still be getting all the benefits of the vitamin K, PQQ, inositol from digested phytate, etc.
"Taking a large dose of PQQ is also likely a great way to selectively feed certain bacteria in your gut."
How do you generally/quickly know which molecules may **selectively** feed certain bacteria in your gut?
Also what are your thoughts on sublingual PQQ? There is at least one company selling "PQQ Lozenge", so I'm guessing it's viable? Would you spit out rather than swallow the dissolved solution after awhile?
I'm not sure if you're interested in discussing this sort of stuff, but I shall try this once
>How do you generally/quickly know which molecules may **selectively** feed certain bacteria in your gut?
There's no solid rules here; this statement was derived from the facts that
1. PQQ is naturally produced by certain bacteria (but only certain ones)
2. It helps catalyze enzymatic reactions that are critical for energy utilization and growth (but again, only in certain species), and
3. It's sort of a pain to produce, for the bacteria that use it.
>Also what are your thoughts on sublingual PQQ? There is at least one company selling "PQQ Lozenge", so I'm guessing it's viable?
In my experience, whether or not something is produced or marketed has little or no relationship to whether or not it is useful.
Thanks, after too long, I still struggle to grasp that biology and What Matters In The Real World are so frustratingly data driven. An isolated (and maybe intentionally obfuscated) fact annihilates any prior structure. Do you just read a billion scattered papers on mendeley and learn via word of mouth (not a series of lectures) or is there a more structured way?---to learn cutting edge stuff with context I think I mean
Though really I know its just my understanding is too basic and it takes time, but it's still so surprising to me I think and collecting data seems to take so much effort, and I wanted to voice something like this to you to see what you might say around this context
Well, think about the phrase "cutting edge". You can't have a cutting edge without having a lot of blade behind it. It's a triangle, a pyramid. And for that kind of learning there's no better place than wikipedia.
You wanna know about something in particular, you go to its page. You read until you hit a word or concept you don't understand. You click that blue link to another tab, read THAT page until you hit a word you don't understand...etc. etc. until you've got enough grasp to go back to the first page. Then you keep reading 'til the next word you don't understand. Then you click that blue link, and repeat.
This way you're not just reading a million random papers, you're building up that triangular knowledge base that's as broad as it needs to be without collecting too much excess information.
It gets easier as you go; you will come across more and more purple links the longer you spend in your particular corner of wikipedia, and you'll see parallel concepts. When I learned about the drug methotrexate, it took me an hour or so to really grasp how it works. When I learned about warfarin, it took me five minutes, because warfarin is just methotrexate but for vitamin K instead of vitamin B9.
Once I've got the knowledge base, it's google scholar. If I want to understand how e.g. the microbiome impacts hormone levels, I'll do a few tabbed searches for things like "gut bacteria steroid hormone" or "microbiome endocrinology" or "bacteria steroid intestinal enteric" (because the word "microbiome" is a pretty recent invention and you wanna pull old papers too.) These searches will yield other keywords for the next round of search.
You will need sci-hub for this bit.