Diet Friendly Fast Food

Are Biofilms Healthy Extensions of Intestinal Villi?

If soil is the stomach of the earth, then plant roots and mycorrizal fungi must be the intestines.

Mycorrhizal fungal hyphae extend from root hairs of plants into surrounding soil and enhance the uptake of phosphate and other nutritents.  Many plants cannot colonize new soil without taking their fungal partners with them.  It would seem obvious that the highly adapted human gut flora would include bacteria and fungi that actively communicate with intestinal epithelial cells.  Perhaps that communication includes both nutrients, e.g. hydrogen, ammonia, etc., vitamins and bacterial wall components, e.g. LPS.

Plants Sit and Mine Soil, Humans Mine Nutrients Passed through Their Gut

I want to try to give a plant’s view of human digestion.  Plants elaborate roots that branch repeatedly and the final extensions sprout hairs from individual epithelial cells.  Mycorrhizal fungal hyphae further extend the reach of the plant into the soil for nutrients. 

I think that a plant would look at us and see us stuffing soil/food into our mouths and watch it come out the other end.  It would then try to figure out where are roots are, i.e. how we absorb the water and minerals from our moving internal stream of soil.  The villi of the small intestines would look like root hairs, but where are the mycorrhizal fungi?  Another problem is that the soil keeps moving past the root hairs and would break off fungal hyphae extending into the soil.  Still another problem is the constant shedding of epithelial cells from the tips of the villi.  The plant would be perplexed, but closer inspection would reveal that biofilms could solve the problems.

Biofilms Coat the Intestinal Villi

Biofilms coating and perhaps spanning the villi of the small intestines may enhance the transport of nutrients into the villi.  This may be controversial and the biofilms may be more commonly limited to the smoother surface of the colon.  The point here is that biofilms may enhance the intestinal uptake of nutrients from food.  Biofilms may, therefore, be essential for health and extend the reach of the intestinal epithelial cells.

Bacterial Community Composition May Be Determined by Diet

A biofilm is composed of some type of linear polymer, such as DNA, heparan sulfate or bacterial acidic polysaccharides, with bacteria that bind to the polymer and to the intestinal epithelium.  Diet determines the bacterial composition of the biofilm.  Thus, the newborn starts without biofilms, gut development is finished by growth hormones in milk and a single species of Bifidobacteria excludes biofilm production, until solid food or formula initiates adult biofilms.  The bacteria in the biofilm depend on diet, so the biofilms can be either beneficial or pathogenic.

Communication within Biofilms and with the Intestines

The bacteria respond to the presence of other bacteria by quorum sensing, which involves release of small molecules that alter the gene expression of other bacteria in the community.  As a consequence, genes, e.g. antibiotic resistance, are exchanged and metabolism is altered.  This is how Klebsiella nitrogenase and hydrogen production is controlled.  The biofilm bacteria also produce compounds, e.g. vitamin D (?), that alter the behavior of the intestinal epithelial cells.  The intestines can respond with inflammation to recognized pathogen components or by triggering development of cells of the immune system.  The intestines are the home of most of the body’s immune cells.

Stimulation of Tregs

Helicobacter pylori adhering to the stomach lining increases the stomach’s quota of regulatory T cells that are involved in immunological tolerance.  Presumably, the supply of Tregs in the intestines is also regulated by biofilms.  Disruption of this system by chronic inflammation can deplete Tregs and lead to unrestrained immune attack that is observed as inflammatory bowel disease.  Thus, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis may be triggered by damaged biofilms.

This image of heavy sled pulls was taken during one of the strongmen training sessions in the study at hand - for the full protocol see Table 1 (Winwood. 2014)

Brad Schoenfelds recent study on the differential effects of 3x10 vs. 7x3 rep x set resistance training regimen (reread corresponding SuppVersity Article) took much of the wind óut of the sails of the proponents of classic hypertrophy training (3-4 sets of 8-12 reps) as the one and only training method for anyone thriving for maximal muscle gains.

An even more recent study by Paul Winwood et al. thats about to be published in the upcoming issue of the #1 journal for everything strength training, i.e. the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, does not just support the findings of Schoenfeld et al. it claims "that short term strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition, muscular function and performance." (Winwood. 2014)
Next to the fact that the two protocols in the study at hand were neither volume-matched nor based on the same exercises, there is yet another highly significant difference between the study at hand and the aforementioned powerlifting vs. classic resistance training study by Schoenfeld et al. the conclusion of the Winwood study is only "statistically correct". From a practical point of view, on the other hand, the body composition part of it is total bullshit.

If you take a look at the actual "body composition" data, even a blind man sees that the strongman protocol that consisted seven weeks /two obligatory training sessions per week) of the resistance training protocols outlined in Table 1 and two facultative, non-supervised and recorded sessions of prehabilition exercises, as well as two cardiovascular training sessions per week.

Table 1: Outline of the training protocols; * indicates that the exercise is performed explosively (Winwood. 2014)

The first thing you should realize after taking a look at the "traditional" protocol is that its traditional, but not the protocol you would traditionally use if your main goal was to build muscle. The number of repetitions is too low there is no individual training for the arms - both of which are characteristics most hypertrophy regimens share.
This alone wouldnt be that bad, if the conclusion that both training regimen had identical effects on the body composition of the subjects wasnt simply flawed.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition and strength (Winwood. 2014)

Ok, the differences may not be statistically significant, but if one regimen, i.e. the "traditional" training improves, while the strongman training compromises the body composition of young men, I would be very hesitant to state that "strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition" (Winwood. 2014).

If the trend the researchers must obviously have overlooked (or ignored) continues, the guys in the "traditional group" will soon look like ripped mens fitness cover models, while the guys in the strongmen group will develop a pot belly. Not exactly what anyone could want. Even if you dont care about being jacked, looking at the effects on body fat, the "traditional" strength training protocol would also classify as the healthier training regimen.
Reference:

• Winwood, PW, et al. "Strongman  versus  traditional  resistance  training  effects  on  muscular  function  and  performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000629

What could be better than starting your day with the first rays of the sun? Doing this with a person you love, I suppose.

If you have listened to Super Human Radio earlier this week (download episode), you will have heard that Carl "caught" me off guard calling me without prior notice during the live show. We ended up talking about the use of melatonin and my beloved "daylight lamp" (light therapy lamp), which kept my energy levels up even at the darkest winter mornings over the past couple of months.

If you listened to the show, you may also remember that Carl mentioned that it would be great to have a light-based alarm clock - something like a light therapy lamp that increases its intensity gradually at a given time and will thus wake you up from a deep slumber.
Well, I already mentioned during the show that a corresponding device is already available, but pretty useless for someone who usually uses blindfolds to get a good nights sleep. For the rest of you, who are sleeping in a pitch black room without covering their eyes with a blindfold, on the other hand, Carls suggestion could be a viable means to "improve both cognitive and physical performance after waking." (Thompson. 2014).

This is at least what a recent study from the University College London would suggest. For the corresponding experiment, the researchers from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health recruited 8 young adults (four males; four females) with a mean age of 24 ± 9 years who had not been involved in nocturnal shift work or undertaken transmeridian travel during the past 30 days (thats important to ensure that their circadian rhythm was not messed up in the first place).
The trials themselves were ordered in a counterbalanced fashion and were separated by 5–9 days. In the two days leading up to the tests, the participants were asked to sleep the exact times in their own homes that they would in the laboratory. to monitor compliance wrist accelerometers were issued.

Did you know that previous studies support the use of dawn simulations to tread seasonal effective disorder, where it was on top of that associated with lower remission rates than regular light therapy (Avery. 1993 & 2001). In addition, dawn simulations have been shown to have beneficial effects on the necessary and natural and healthy (Clow. 2010) early morning increase in cortisol (Thorn. 2004)?

"The experimental trials were identical with the exception of the 30 min prior to waking. During this time par ticipants either slept normally in complete darkness, the control condition (c), or were exposed to dawn simulation (DS).

Each night’s sleep ended with an audible alarm. At the same moment, a researcher entered the room to ensure that the participant was awake. Participants were then allowed to attend the bathroom if required.

After waking, a 75 min testing protocol commenced which consisted of: three bouts of cognitive assessment, one physical performance test and monitoring of physiological and subjective variables." (Thompson. 2014)

In view of the fact that I already gave away the results, its probably not really surprising that the data in Figure 1 confirms that being waken up by artificial sunlight had significant beneficial effects on the cognitive and physical performance of the subjects.

Figure 1: Changes in number of total additions and reaction time in cognitive tests (Thompson. 2014)

What did not differ, though, were the sleep efficiency, sleep latency, and the total sleep time. In a similar vein, the differences in perceived sleepiness and body temperature were visible, but not statistically significant.
References:

• Avery, David H., et al. "Dawn simulation treatment of winter depression: a controlled study." American Journal of Psychiatry 150 (1993): 113-113.
• Avery, David H., et al. "Dawn simulation and bright light in the treatment of SAD: a controlled study." Biological psychiatry 50.3 (2001): 205-216.
• Clow, Angela, et al. "The cortisol awakening response: more than a measure of HPA axis function." Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 35.1 (2010): 97-103.
• Thompson, Andrew, et al. "Effects of dawn simulation on markers of sleep inertia and post-waking performance in humans." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-8.
• Thorn, Lisa, et al. "The effect of dawn simulation on the cortisol response to awakening in healthy participants." Psychoneuroendocrinology 29.7 (2004): 925-930.