• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rectal Bacteria

casebro said:
Somebody up-thread said the bacterias don't contribute to digestion, but that's not true. True, humans don't have the critters that cows have to digest cellulose, but we do have many that do neccessary processes. Like yeasts that make B vitamins. Or lacto-bacillus that digest milk components. Ever know anybody that needed to take one of those strong intestinal anti-biotics? Flagyl, I think is one. It probably took them months to get their digestion back to normal after killing everything inside.
Click to expand...

I didn't say bacteria doesn't contribute to digestion. I said that we don't need bacteria to digest food, as opposed to the poster that I was responding to that said we cannot live without bacteria to help us digest.

If you have insufficient lactase to break down all the lactose, you don't die. The extra is simply excreted as waste. There are B vitamins in food, they don't have to be produced in the gut by microbes in order for them to be available for absorption. Etc.

The problem with antibiotics is that they can allow one or a few types of bacteria to dominate and lead to infection, not that bacteria necessary for digestion are gone.

Linda
 
From the subject, I was expecting another discussion of the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

Then I realized that this isn't the CT forum.

Oh well!
 
once upon a time I was a microbiologist so I thought I'd take the opportunity to up the ick factor of this thread.

Sometimes the healthy gut flora get overwhelmed by a single species of bacteria. This interferes with digestion in many nasty ways. This infection is usually eradicated with powerful antibiotics.

The reason I bring this up is that after treatment the patient needs to have a healthy set of microbes re-introduced. This is achieved by a 'feacal transplant'.

Aren't you glad you now know that?
 
huw-l said:
once upon a time I was a microbiologist so I thought I'd take the opportunity to up the ick factor of this thread.

Sometimes the healthy gut flora get overwhelmed by a single species of bacteria. This interferes with digestion in many nasty ways. This infection is usually eradicated with powerful antibiotics.

The reason I bring this up is that after treatment the patient needs to have a healthy set of microbes re-introduced. This is achieved by a 'feacal transplant'.

Aren't you glad you now know that?
Click to expand...
"You're gonna put what where?":jaw-dropp
 
I have heard that within a day any bacteria placed at one or the other side of the digestive tract will show up at the opposite end. Basically your digestive tract is a tube through the middle of your body which is continuous with your skin. The bacteria which inhabit your digestive tract are found in lots of places other than your digestive tract so chance encounters suffice to introduce them. In the case of an infant likely the mothers skin and mouth will have these bacteria and inoculate the infant (my guess since I don't really know)
 
You have to admit, the title is something else again. And I confess a certain admiration for anyone who can start a thread with that title and not say "no, really" in the IP.
 
It's been answered but let me add, amniotic fluid is sterile. If it weren't then we'd all be born with pneumonia.

Breast milk does not require e-coli for digestion and the infant is born with enough reserve of vitamin K and e-coli is not required for some time. (But vitamin K is also given via injection to newborns as standard postnatal care in the US because there is some danger it will not be produced in time to prevent bleeding.)The bacteria we use in our digestive cycle has several months to be introduced before it matters. Moms are the likely source for both gut bacteria and mouth bacteria. Those who inherit the right mouth bacteria have less cavities in childhood provided they are not given bottles of juice or other sugars to sleep with.
 
Last edited:
Dogdoctor said:
I have heard that within a day any bacteria placed at one or the other side of the digestive tract will show up at the opposite end. Basically your digestive tract is a tube through the middle of your body which is continuous with your skin. The bacteria which inhabit your digestive tract are found in lots of places other than your digestive tract so chance encounters suffice to introduce them. In the case of an infant likely the mothers skin and mouth will have these bacteria and inoculate the infant (my guess since I don't really know)
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The acid in the stomach kills a lot of microbes so they do not all pass so easily through the tube.
 
fls said:
I didn't say bacteria doesn't contribute to digestion. I said that we don't need bacteria to digest food, as opposed to the poster that I was responding to that said we cannot live without bacteria to help us digest.

If you have insufficient lactase to break down all the lactose, you don't die. The extra is simply excreted as waste. There are B vitamins in food, they don't have to be produced in the gut by microbes in order for them to be available for absorption. Etc.

The problem with antibiotics is that they can allow one or a few types of bacteria to dominate and lead to infection, not that bacteria necessary for digestion are gone.

Linda
Click to expand...
Microorganisms play a similarly critical part in animal and human bodies. Bacteria, for example, play an important role in digestion; they help synthesize vitamin K and absorb certain nutrients, and they help convert bile and acids in the intestines. Some bacteria also help to prevent other, harmful bacteria from invading the intestines.
Click to expand...
Actually B vitamins are used by bacteria and if we don't have intrinsic factor to absorb B12, the bacteria take it all for their greedy little selves.

Many people do not produce lactase into adulthood so they don't digest lactose. It merely leads to gas and discomfort but certainly not to malnutrition.

I can't find a source on the cavity preventing oral flora so I'll have to keep looking to see if that hypothesis is still accepted.
 
Maybe some of you saw this news article on evolution of the gene producing lactase.
Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe (Nature Genetics) A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.


The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice — the raising of dairy cattle — feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.
Click to expand...
 
On a not unrelated note, I've read the lactobacillus acidophilus that makes up much of the natural bacterial "feminine flora" gets there from the mouth, down and out the digestive system and... uh... travels across and sets up home.

Not sure if it's true.
 
wipeout said:
On a not unrelated note, I've read the lactobacillus acidophilus that makes up much of the natural bacterial "feminine flora" gets there from the mouth, down and out the digestive system and... uh... travels across and sets up home.

Not sure if it's true.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that, But I did find it amusing to see in forum page..
Rectal Bacteria---wipeout
 
Aside from the obvious association, that also sounds like an ultra-heavy rock band and their album title. :D
 
There is also symbiosis, the bacteria in our gut produce vitamin K that we absorb, call it physiological ecology if you will.
 
RandFan said:
I was raised on a farm across from a dairy. My experiences are purely anecdotal and subjective so take them as you will.

This is a subject that comes up frequently with farmers and from my experience there is no controversy to the list. My family raised chickens and rabbits and I worked at the dairy and had friends with horses and pigs. I've mucked out pens, coops, cages and barns. IMO, From least offensive to worst.
  1. Horse
  2. Cow
  3. Human
  4. Chicken
  5. Pig
For the record, 4 & 5 are orders of magnitude worse than the rest.
Click to expand...
Never let it be said that RandFan doesn't know [Rule8].

:boggled:
 
skeptigirl said:
It's been answered but let me add, amniotic fluid is sterile. If it weren't then we'd all be born with pneumonia.
Click to expand...

Well, AREN'T we all born with pneumonia?

Some medical professional correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pneumonia the condition of having excess liquid in the lungs, not the infection nor disease that induces that condition? That is, bacterial and viral infections are effective ways to get pneumonia; alternatives include inhalation or water or gasoline or amniotic fluid, sterile or not.

Of course, even if I'm right (for a change), that doesn't change the gist of skeptigirl's assertion: Bacteria-laden amniotic fluid might pose a neonatal health hazard. I say *might* because if that were the norm the survival of the species would probably depend strongly on our evolutionary adaptation to resist pathological infection by those bacteria. I attribute our existence today to either the sterility of normal amniotic fluid or its typical bacteria's inability to harm a reasonably healthy infant.

The hypothesized benign bacteria's apparent inability to give poop a more mature aroma doesn't really count. I mention this only to maintain pretense of posting on-topic.
 
DavidS said:
Well, AREN'T we all born with pneumonia?

Some medical professional correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pneumonia the condition of having excess liquid in the lungs, not the infection nor disease that induces that condition? That is, bacterial and viral infections are effective ways to get pneumonia; alternatives include inhalation or water or gasoline or amniotic fluid, sterile or not.

Of course, even if I'm right (for a change), that doesn't change the gist of skeptigirl's assertion: Bacteria-laden amniotic fluid might pose a neonatal health hazard. I say *might* because if that were the norm the survival of the species would probably depend strongly on our evolutionary adaptation to resist pathological infection by those bacteria. I attribute our existence today to either the sterility of normal amniotic fluid or its typical bacteria's inability to harm a reasonably healthy infant.

The hypothesized benign bacteria's apparent inability to give poop a more mature aroma doesn't really count. I mention this only to maintain pretense of posting on-topic.
Click to expand...
No babies aren't born with pneumonia. Their lungs are not inflated so pneumonia does not apply until the first breath. The chest is compressed passing through the birth canal squeezing excess amniotic fluid out. And a C-section baby doesn't have that much fluid in the lungs normally either though it is a tad more than a regular birth.

There are times the amniotic fluid becomes infected before the baby's born. It's one reason when membranes rupture > 24 hours before delivery problems ensue. There are no typical bacteria in the womb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom