Cristi,
I wondered who the cute little feller was! He is adorable! Animals seem to recognize when we are not feeling well and are the best companions.
Take care.
Love,
Mars
Medical Questions
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Hi Mars,
This is Strider..he's an 8 year old Lhasa Apso.I also have Katie...his sister. They have spent a lot of time on the couch with me lately. They are great little dogs but have health problems also as a lot of pure breed dogs seem to have. The first dog I got after I was married was a dog pound rescue...and she was healthy as a horse until she died at 18 years old. Unfortunately she shed so much that I joked that she replaced every hair on her head every 24 hours. That's what lead me to get the lhasa...they don't shed. They are very sweet and I love them dearly...but it breaks my heart when they are sick so next time I'm going back to the pound for a healthy mutt.
Love,
Cristi
This is Strider..he's an 8 year old Lhasa Apso.I also have Katie...his sister. They have spent a lot of time on the couch with me lately. They are great little dogs but have health problems also as a lot of pure breed dogs seem to have. The first dog I got after I was married was a dog pound rescue...and she was healthy as a horse until she died at 18 years old. Unfortunately she shed so much that I joked that she replaced every hair on her head every 24 hours. That's what lead me to get the lhasa...they don't shed. They are very sweet and I love them dearly...but it breaks my heart when they are sick so next time I'm going back to the pound for a healthy mutt.
Love,
Cristi
Tex,
You know, there are so many different opinions about treatment. I am sure that you can find something contrary to anything I suggest. The good vs. bad ratio is not strictly from Dr. Sherry Rogers, but from any number of experts as you say yourself. I think it might even be mentioned in the leaky gut article you posted in the forum. I don't know why I would trust one website that quotes the contrary when I've read so much evidence in the other direction. But in the end, and in the face of often contrary information, we each need to make our own choices. Not everyone agress with her advice, but Dr. Sherry Roger's advice has been consistently helpful to me, and she has more than 20 years of clinical experience. She isn't selling supplements. I put stock in her well researched information, but we all need to make our own decision in that regard.
I do have experience with the test in question, and the numbers they indicate (0 - 4+) are indicative of the number of that particular pathogen or good bacetria found in the sample.
According to this lab, 'bad' bacteria can move from a state of being non-pathogenic, to being potential pathogens, and ultimately to being pathogenic depending upon their numbers. This may not apply to even single type of bacteria, but it applies to the bacteria they are describing in this particular test. Maybe they have it wrong too, but it's very much the basis of the test!
As to FOS, it works fine for some people, but not for me. Again, I think it's very individual.
Guess we just need to agree to disagree again!
Be well, Celia
You know, there are so many different opinions about treatment. I am sure that you can find something contrary to anything I suggest. The good vs. bad ratio is not strictly from Dr. Sherry Rogers, but from any number of experts as you say yourself. I think it might even be mentioned in the leaky gut article you posted in the forum. I don't know why I would trust one website that quotes the contrary when I've read so much evidence in the other direction. But in the end, and in the face of often contrary information, we each need to make our own choices. Not everyone agress with her advice, but Dr. Sherry Roger's advice has been consistently helpful to me, and she has more than 20 years of clinical experience. She isn't selling supplements. I put stock in her well researched information, but we all need to make our own decision in that regard.
I do have experience with the test in question, and the numbers they indicate (0 - 4+) are indicative of the number of that particular pathogen or good bacetria found in the sample.
According to this lab, 'bad' bacteria can move from a state of being non-pathogenic, to being potential pathogens, and ultimately to being pathogenic depending upon their numbers. This may not apply to even single type of bacteria, but it applies to the bacteria they are describing in this particular test. Maybe they have it wrong too, but it's very much the basis of the test!
As to FOS, it works fine for some people, but not for me. Again, I think it's very individual.
Guess we just need to agree to disagree again!
Be well, Celia
I beleive in magic!
Hi Celia,
I meet with my naturopath next Tues. She is very familiar with me and my system, so I'm going to run all of this by her. A big part of my decision was based on the fact that I need to start my thyroid medication soon. For me, I need to address one thing at a time to know what exactly is helping and what is not. I enjoy and value hearing different views and experiences. I learn something new from all of you who have gone down this path before me.
If after going on the thyroid medication and all is going well...I may try to address this... but I would probably try to just introduce the one good bacteria that I don't have and see if my body can do the rest. I'm feeling well enough that I want to go slow with all of this.
Hope your packing is going well.
Love,
Cristi
I meet with my naturopath next Tues. She is very familiar with me and my system, so I'm going to run all of this by her. A big part of my decision was based on the fact that I need to start my thyroid medication soon. For me, I need to address one thing at a time to know what exactly is helping and what is not. I enjoy and value hearing different views and experiences. I learn something new from all of you who have gone down this path before me.
If after going on the thyroid medication and all is going well...I may try to address this... but I would probably try to just introduce the one good bacteria that I don't have and see if my body can do the rest. I'm feeling well enough that I want to go slow with all of this.
Hope your packing is going well.
Love,
Cristi
After doing extensive web research on this, and reading everything that appeared releveant, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Virtually everyone who is selling or promoting probiotics, (and there are a heck of a lot of them), claims that the ideal ratio of probiotic bacteria to pathogenic bacteria is 85% to 15%. They all seem to quote the exact same figures. The original source of those numbers doesn't seem to be available, as I can't find a single site that references a source for that information, interestingly enough.
2. Many of these same sites point out that in reality, a typical human gut contains just the opposite of of those numbers, namely 15% probiotic bacteria, to 85% pathogenic bacteria.
IOW, we are supposed to take their word that just because we are all runnig around with only 15% "good" bacteria in our colons, we need to boost that figure to 85%, by taking probiotics, or eating foods that stimulate probiotic populations. Well, maybe we should, in a perfect world. But that doesn't mean that we can't continue to survive with our current "undesirable" gut bacteria ratios.
If anyone knows of any scientific data on this issue I would love to see it. I would also love to see any scientific research data where test populations have been studied to compare the general overall health of individuals with the "ideal" ratio of bacteria in their guts, with normal people, who have the opposite, (supposedly unhealthy), ratio. I wonder if they would prove to actually be less disease prone. One would certainly hope so, but why can't I find any documented research on this? Maybe I'm just using the wrong key words in my searches.
Incidentally, Celia, are you sure that you're not misunderstanding and misquoting the lab's description, (concerning the definition of pathogenic). Look it up.
Pathogenicity implies that a bacterium is capable of producing disease--nothing more, and nothing less. That never changes for any specific bacterium. To be pathogenic, all that is required is that the bacterium exist, and have the potential to cause disease. Some sources reather inelegantly use the term as though it implies the creation of disease, which of course would simply be a realization of the pathogen's potential. That definition is entirely redundant though, since the bacterium meets the definition of a pathogen whether it actually causes any disease or not. IOW, a bacterium that is generally classified as pathogenic can never be non-pathogenic, just because in a given instance, it has not yet caused any disease.
Tex
1. Virtually everyone who is selling or promoting probiotics, (and there are a heck of a lot of them), claims that the ideal ratio of probiotic bacteria to pathogenic bacteria is 85% to 15%. They all seem to quote the exact same figures. The original source of those numbers doesn't seem to be available, as I can't find a single site that references a source for that information, interestingly enough.
2. Many of these same sites point out that in reality, a typical human gut contains just the opposite of of those numbers, namely 15% probiotic bacteria, to 85% pathogenic bacteria.
IOW, we are supposed to take their word that just because we are all runnig around with only 15% "good" bacteria in our colons, we need to boost that figure to 85%, by taking probiotics, or eating foods that stimulate probiotic populations. Well, maybe we should, in a perfect world. But that doesn't mean that we can't continue to survive with our current "undesirable" gut bacteria ratios.
If anyone knows of any scientific data on this issue I would love to see it. I would also love to see any scientific research data where test populations have been studied to compare the general overall health of individuals with the "ideal" ratio of bacteria in their guts, with normal people, who have the opposite, (supposedly unhealthy), ratio. I wonder if they would prove to actually be less disease prone. One would certainly hope so, but why can't I find any documented research on this? Maybe I'm just using the wrong key words in my searches.
Incidentally, Celia, are you sure that you're not misunderstanding and misquoting the lab's description, (concerning the definition of pathogenic). Look it up.
Pathogenicity implies that a bacterium is capable of producing disease--nothing more, and nothing less. That never changes for any specific bacterium. To be pathogenic, all that is required is that the bacterium exist, and have the potential to cause disease. Some sources reather inelegantly use the term as though it implies the creation of disease, which of course would simply be a realization of the pathogen's potential. That definition is entirely redundant though, since the bacterium meets the definition of a pathogen whether it actually causes any disease or not. IOW, a bacterium that is generally classified as pathogenic can never be non-pathogenic, just because in a given instance, it has not yet caused any disease.
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.