I thought it was interesting that zizzle's article stated that fibre supplements decreased intestinal permeability, and low fibre diets increased it. Would his thinking be that if the contents of your intestines are thicker they are not as apt to pass through the intestinal lining? My knowledge about all this is sadly lacking.
Jean
Detailed overview of Leaky Gut Syndromes
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Jean,
Since that didn't make sense to me, I checked out that claim, and IMO, Dr. Galland's claim that fiber decreases gut permeability in unfounded. It appears that he based his claim on old beliefs, and his primary reference is an old article published 27 years ago. If you check out the research, article, you will see that it is pretty much worthless, because the researchers made a very dumb mistake that confounded all their results. Here's the abstract of the article:
That proves virtually nothing about intestinal permeability, so the research article is virtually worthless, IMO.
Dr. Galland also forgot to mention that according to this research article, after 4 weeks, there was much less difference between the indicated permeability levels of the various test groups. This suggests that if fiber had any effect at all on permeability, it was only temporary. All in all, though, the research article doesn't really prove anything, except the naivety of the authors. It certainly doesn't prove that fiber helps to reduce intestinal permeability.
Tex
Since that didn't make sense to me, I checked out that claim, and IMO, Dr. Galland's claim that fiber decreases gut permeability in unfounded. It appears that he based his claim on old beliefs, and his primary reference is an old article published 27 years ago. If you check out the research, article, you will see that it is pretty much worthless, because the researchers made a very dumb mistake that confounded all their results. Here's the abstract of the article:
If you wish, you can read the entire article here. Note that the research subjects were rats, not humans, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the researchers failed to recognize that fiber absorbs dye. Phenol red has long been popular for use in medical research studies designed to measure intestinal permeability. And as they stated, phenol red is a poorly absorbed dye (in the gut). However, the fact that it is poorly absorbed in the gut, has nothing to do with it's absorption characteristics by other mechanisms. Primitive societies discovered early on that wool and other natural fibers had superior dye-absorbancy characteristics, and they used that knowledge to create colorfully-dyed garments. The researchers forgot that simple fact, and IMO, all that they did with their experiment was to rate how well the various types of fiber absorbed phenol red dye.Apparent intestinal permeability was determined indirectly by orally administering a poorly absorbed dye, phenol red, to rats and measuring its recovery in feces and in urine. Increased apparent permeability was recognized by increased dye recovery in urine and by an increased ratio of urinary to fecal dye recovery. Guar gum, pectin, carrageenan type I (80% kappa, 20% lambda), carrageenan type II (iota) and cellulose were each fed at levels of 5 and 15% (wt/wt) of the diet for 31 d to male Fischer 344 rats. The average initial weight of rats was 230 g. Rats fed 15% guar gum gained significantly less weight than most of the other rats (P less than 0.05). Phenol red recovery was measured at 2 and 4 wk after the beginning of the experiment. At 2 wk urinary recoveries of phenol red were high in rats fed fiber-free and carrageenan type II diets, indicating increased apparent permeability. By 4 wk, adaptation had apparently taken place. Urinary dye recoveries were lower in every diet group, and most fiber-containing diet groups gave significantly lower recoveries than did the fiber-free group. Fecal recovery of phenol red was high in the cellulose, carrageenan I, and 5% carrageenan II groups, intermediate in the 5% pectin and 15% carrageenan II groups, and low in the fiber-free, guar gum and 15% pectin groups at both 2 and 4 wk. The ratio of phenol red recovery from urine to that from feces, another index of apparent intestinal permeability, was higher in the fiber-free diet group than in all the other groups. Rats fed 15% dietary fiber had higher average ratios than those fed the same fiber at 5%. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that intestinal permeability to foreign substances may be altered considerably by diet.
That proves virtually nothing about intestinal permeability, so the research article is virtually worthless, IMO.Dr. Galland also forgot to mention that according to this research article, after 4 weeks, there was much less difference between the indicated permeability levels of the various test groups. This suggests that if fiber had any effect at all on permeability, it was only temporary. All in all, though, the research article doesn't really prove anything, except the naivety of the authors. It certainly doesn't prove that fiber helps to reduce intestinal permeability.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
The fact that virtually none of us can tolerate very much fiber while we are recovering is pretty strong evidence that the conclusions from the study are wrong, because if anyone has intestinal permeability, it's someone in an MC flare, and it sure doesn't work for most of us.
Tex
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.