Re: Intestinal Health / Inulin

[Guest guest]

> The science of inulin and probiotic bacteria is here:

> http://tinyurl.com/2m29z

>

> regards,

>

> Duncan Crow

Hi Duncan,

I posted your info on another board and got both barrels over

inulin...I post the 'rebuttal' below...

Can you comment? I know you say your inulin is different; but can

you address the point made about chemically manufactured inulin (#1

below) and the point about proving that inulin works with the

product provided (#6 below)?

Thanks,

-Blair

The double-blind study I mentioned in the nutraceutical post doesn't

support Inulin being of benefit to IBS sufferers. There were some

benefits to other disorders, but the specific double-blind study I

quoted doesn't generally support the wide-spread " health " claims

that are being made for Inulin.

I admire the thinking and concerns that are addressed in the other

article I quoted and I do believe we'll see more of this:

http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.asp

Prebiotics change the metabolic activity of the colon through

selective fermentation by resident bacteria. Abnormal functions may

occur. Research undertaken by the University of Helsinki and the

University of Montana studied mice fed with inulin diets and

discovered shifts in the total bacterial community, including

previously unknown bacterial categories. There were significant

chemical changes with higher levels of residual lactic acid. Other

studies have reported increased potential for intestinal tumors and

colon cancer in mice fed on inulin supplemented diets. These pose a

negative aspect to the use of inulin as a prebiotic…..

Safety on the usage of oligosaccharides is an issue. FOS and inulin

influence many aspects of bowel function through fermentation.

Consumption of FOS causes rapid fermentation in the colon and

produces adverse effects such as fullness (bloating), abdominal pain

and meteorism (production of copious amounts of gas) and production

of loose stools. As a result of concerns raised by the U.K. and

other European Member States, the European Commission initiated an

investigation into the safety of FOS and GOS

(Galactooligosaccharide) in infant formula. The conclusion made by

the Scientific Committee on Food was that:

" There are insufficient data to establish safe use of FOS and GOS as

ingredients of infant formulae, which serve as the sole diet of

infants during the first months of life. Appropriate studies should

evaluate the potential adverse effects, particularly with respect to

water balance and nutrient bioavailabilty. "

With this in mind, Natren has chosen not to include Inulin and FOS

in its products for these reasons:

1. Chemically manufactured FOS*** is a synthetic product. Because it

is not naturally occurring, there may be effects that have not yet

been determined.

2. Inulin and FOS are inert in the mouth, stomach and small

intestine because they are non digestible carbohydrates (similarly,

olestra is a non digestible fat - adding no calories to the diet;

inulin, FOS and olestra cause undesirable side effects in the

gastrointestinal tract).

3. Inulin and FOS alter the metabolic activity of the colon by

fermenting selected species of bacteria. Abnormal functions may

occur.

4. Safety on the use of prebiotics could be an issue as they rapidly

ferment in the colon and stimulate selective species and strains of

bacteria. Intestinal problems such as altered bowel habits,

flatulence, bloating and abdominal pain may result.

5. Inulin and FOS could easily influence the growth of yeast,

Klebsiella, or possibly other pathogenic organisms. This may

counteract any help the probiotics may provide.

6. You must know if the prebiotic will nourish and stimulate the

growth of the particular bacteria present in the product. Why should

the manufacturer include FOS or inulin in their product if they

cannot prove that the bacteria included in their product will

utilize it?

7. Bacteria are not simple organisms. They are very adept in using

sources of nourishment if it benefits their dominance amongst the

other resident microflora. Using direct substrates such as inulin or

FOS changes the normal balance of resident bacteria and may lead to

unhealthy distortions in the bacterial composition of the host

microflora.

Again, here is a company that COULD have profited from the media

hype – the current day trend toward food companies to clearly insert

themselves into a pharmaceutical position in the food distribution

chain. That scares the h-e-double-popsicle sticks out of me.

There's enough information out there, on the chemical supplements,

which in my mind, Inulin clearly is, to make me be wary and

concerned. I don't want " medicinal " values in my food that are

isolated from their natural components.

Maybe I'm wrong? Would love to have clarification if I am

displaying fuzzy logic.

[Guest guest]

> > The science of inulin and probiotic bacteria is here:

> > http://tinyurl.com/2m29z

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > Duncan Crow

>

> Hi Duncan,

> I posted your info on another board and got both barrels over

> inulin...I post the 'rebuttal' below...

> Can you comment? I know you say your inulin is different; but can you

> address the point made about chemically manufactured inulin (#1 below)

> and the point about proving that inulin works with the product

> provided (#6 below)? Thanks, -Blair

Blair, the post mentions chemically-derived FOS, not inulin. While

most FOS is chemically derived, some occurs naturally in native

inulin. Inulin is a water extraction from chicory roots, jerusalem

artichoke roots, dahlia roots, elecampagne roots....

>

> The double-blind study I mentioned in the nutraceutical post doesn't

> support Inulin being of benefit to IBS sufferers. There were some

> benefits to other disorders, but the specific double-blind study I

> quoted doesn't generally support the wide-spread " health " claims that

> are being made for Inulin.

>

> I admire the thinking and concerns that are addressed in the other

> article I quoted and I do believe we'll see more of this:

> http://www.natren.com/pages/healthyliving/beware.asp

>

> Prebiotics change the metabolic activity of the colon through

> selective fermentation by resident bacteria. Abnormal functions may

> occur. Research undertaken by the University of Helsinki and the

> University of Montana studied mice fed with inulin diets and

> discovered shifts in the total bacterial community, including

> previously unknown bacterial categories. There were significant

> chemical changes with higher levels of residual lactic acid. Other

> studies have reported increased potential for intestinal tumors and

> colon cancer in mice fed on inulin supplemented diets. These pose a

> negative aspect to the use of inulin as a prebiotic…..

Lactic acid is produced by lactobacilli, which do a little better on

native inulin than long-chain inulin. The acidity is what we're

looking for. Most studies show a tumour (aberrant crypt foci)

reducing effect.

Remember, we are not eating inulin as a staple food like the mice do,

we are replacing a component that was historically in better supply

in the diet, just a few teaspoons, or even getting closer to that

diet.

>

> Safety on the usage of oligosaccharides is an issue. FOS and inulin

> influence many aspects of bowel function through fermentation.

> Consumption of FOS causes rapid fermentation in the colon and produces

> adverse effects such as fullness (bloating), abdominal pain and

> meteorism (production of copious amounts of gas) and production of

> loose stools. As a result of concerns raised by the U.K. and other

> European Member States, the European Commission initiated an

> investigation into the safety of FOS and GOS (Galactooligosaccharide)

> in infant formula. The conclusion made by the Scientific Committee on

> Food was that:

>

> " There are insufficient data to establish safe use of FOS and GOS as

> ingredients of infant formulae, which serve as the sole diet of

> infants during the first months of life. Appropriate studies should

> evaluate the potential adverse effects, particularly with respect to

> water balance and nutrient bioavailabilty. "

It's well known that FOS appeals to a wide range of bacteria. One

would think native inulin, which contains about 3% FOS, would be a

bit less popular than it is, considering FOS-free inulin is now

available. It's actually a function of what digestive enzyme they

exude and in what quantities. This information is in the first couple

of pages of the Scientific Review by Tungland.

With regard to the gas, lactobacilli produce gas; Bifidobacteria

produce short chain fatty acids.

> With this in mind, Natren has chosen not to include Inulin and FOS in

> its products for these reasons:

I've seen this before; this is where the sales spin to distinguish

between their product and the rest of the pack starts by not

mentioning to the buying public that sugar, inulin and FOS have

different attributes, and sugar-free FOS-free inulin is an extremely

selective feed that produces very little transient gas. Everyone has

access to the same data so one can assume they know about it.

Further on the spin, the 1/4 gram or so that the company is leaving

out of a dose of its probiotic formula is practically inconsequential

anyway. We are about 12 grams deficient. 12 grams might produc gas,

but under a couple of grams or so you wouldn't notice.

> 1. Chemically manufactured FOS*** is a synthetic product. Because it

> is not naturally occurring, there may be effects that have not yet

> been determined.

I don't know anything about chemically derived FOS, but I did turn

this quote up: " FOS (fructo-oligosaccharides) is a term used almost

universally when describing the prebiotic category. Fructo-

oligosaccharides are composed of glucose-terminated fructose chains

of 3 to 5 units in length. They are mainly derived from sugar cane

via a natural fermentation process. "

Note the mistake that using FOS as a term for all prebiotics would

be? All the prebiotics have slightly different fermentation

characteristics, so doing that might thwart further investigation.

>

> 2. Inulin and FOS are inert in the mouth, stomach and small

> intestine because they are non digestible carbohydrates (similarly,

> olestra is a non digestible fat - adding no calories to the diet;

> inulin, FOS and olestra cause undesirable side effects in the

> gastrointestinal tract).

>

> 3. Inulin and FOS alter the metabolic activity of the colon by

> fermenting selected species of bacteria. Abnormal functions may

> occur.

>

> 4. Safety on the use of prebiotics could be an issue as they rapidly

> ferment in the colon and stimulate selective species and strains of

> bacteria. Intestinal problems such as altered bowel habits,

> flatulence, bloating and abdominal pain may result.

>

> 5. Inulin and FOS could easily influence the growth of yeast,

> Klebsiella, or possibly other pathogenic organisms. This may

> counteract any help the probiotics may provide.

See how they're trying to scare people off using a prebiotic, which

would mean reliance on their probiotic? Without feeding them,

probiotics only work until you stop taking thm, so this would be a

permanent arrangement. Conversely, actual studies rather than the

guessing above even resolved existing bowel dysbiosis including

salmonella and antibiotic-associated diarrhea with prebiotics and no

probiotic at all.

OK, back to the klebsiella, see the chart on my inulin page. It was

based on several experiments, and note that a few cultures when

incubated for an extra seven days did grw a couple of strains. The

rest -- all zeros. Similar research turns up the fact that problem

yeasts don't grow on inulin either.

> 6. You must know if the prebiotic will nourish and stimulate the

> growth of the particular bacteria present in the product. Why should

> the manufacturer include FOS or inulin in their product if they cannot

> prove that the bacteria included in their product will utilize it?

This either means that Natren doesn't know which bacteria in their

product can use FOS, or that they don't know which bacteria in the

gut will use it first if they do include it.

Assuming its the second, the amount of FOS they'd include would be

spread throughout the bowel. Their capsules would only be a few

billion per dose, or about enough to cultivate three or four CCs of

stool. I think it would be logical to assume that some of the

bacteria in the other 1,000 CCs of stool would get most of that FOS.

But if one used FOS-free inulin you could almost guarantee that

bifidobacteria and lactobacilli would get the majority because most

of the others can't use it anyway, and when the population is better,

the bifidobacteria and lactbacilli would get nearly all of it.

> 7. Bacteria are not simple organisms. They are very adept in using

> sources of nourishment if it benefits their dominance amongst the

> other resident microflora.

The company doesn't know which bacteria can use which substrate.

Changing to a different substrate is not a learned activity; it's

solely a function of which enzymes the bacteria exudes.

> Using direct substrates such as inulin or

> FOS changes the normal balance of resident bacteria and may lead to

> unhealthy distortions in the bacterial composition of the host

> microflora.

The statement assumes we have a normal balance of gut bacteria. No,

we don't for the most part, and when we replace the amount of inulin

that is missing from the diet we evolved with, we will see the normal

balance return. All you have to do is figure out what the approximate

content of your current diet is. The average is 2.6 to 3.6 grams in

North Amrica rather than 12-15 grams because we aren't eating the

main inulin-containing foods as staple foods any more.

> Again, here is a company that COULD have profited from the media hype

> – the current day trend toward food companies to clearly insert

> themselves into a pharmaceutical position in the food distribution

> chain. That scares the h-e-double-popsicle sticks out of me.

> There's enough information out there, on the chemical supplements,

> which in my mind, Inulin clearly is, to make me be wary and concerned.

> I don't want " medicinal " values in my food that are isolated from

> their natural components.

As I explained, what they're doing is encouraging permanent reliance

on their product by confusing, then scaring the public. The choice is

yours, but I think you understand what they did and why.

> Maybe I'm wrong? Would love to have clarification if I am

> displaying fuzzy logic.

>

Here's another thing; if you don't feed the beasts they can't

cultivate the bowel lining. This is where the anticancer enzymes, the

bacterocins, the necessary acid production, the short-chain fatty

acids, all come into play. Whether you take a probiotic or not you

need to feed them to do that.

If you do choose to take a probiotic, do the math and find out like I

did that along the lines of 200 capsules puts a realisticly healthy

number of organisms into the gut. We need roughly a couple of billion

bifidobacteria of a few types per ml. About a liter is an average

bowel size, 1000 ml, you have to encourage probiotic bacteria by 50%,

and each capsule you take will do that to 5 ml of stool, unless there

are other strains, then more capsules would be needed.

Duncan Crow