The age of the rage: why are we so angry?

Carol Midgley

Did you know that one person in 20 has had a fight with a next-door neighbour? That one driver in four admits to committing an act of road rage? That cases of “air rage” rose by 400 per cent between 1997 and 2000? That stress has overtaken the common cold as the main reason for taking time off work?

We appear to be living in an age of rage. Earlier this week there seems to have been an incidence of “queue rage” in a supermarket during which a man was punched - and later died. The death raises the whole issue of apparently random acts of violence that are often the product of momentary losses of self-control.

“Check-out rage” is just one more to add to our already long long list of road, air, trolley, parking space and cyclist rage. It is why a motorist will follow a pedestrian on to a bus and stab him; why a shopper will break another shopper's nose for something as trivial as bumping into his or her trolley. When I was riding in a taxi in London recently a cyclist hammered on the window in fury at a perceived (imagined, in my view) transgression by the driver. In a flurry of F-and-C-words he threw a fistful of coins at the taxi. As far as I could see nothing had happened.

Anger, humankind's natural and healthy reaction to stressful situations, is increasingly being acted out via physical violence - even though we are richer, take more holidays and lead more comfortable lives than ever before. There are several theories as to why our society is becoming ever more infuriated. The fast pace at which we live our lives - “hurry sickness”, for instance, has taught us to desire and demand instant gratification.

If something or someone delays us, we see it as a threat to our precious, finite time. There is also huge pressure to deliver at work in jobs that are increasingly insecure, competitive and ruthlessly based on performance.

Dr Michael Sinclair, a consultant psychologist in London specialising in anger management, says that, generally, people who grossly overreact to trivial events with violence are suffering from a central lack of confidence. The normal reaction, he says, when someone bumps into you is to think “that was a bit rude” and move on.

But angry people interpret everything as a personal slight, an insult to their already fragile egos. “Being bumped into will make the inadequate person feel even more inadequate,” Sinclair explains. “It exacerbates their sense of vulnerability.”

Times of economic gloom can exacerbate the problem. Sinclair says that he has recently seen his referrals increase as people battle to cope with the angry emotional fall-out from redundancy, heightened job insecurity or a suffocating mortgage. A person lacking in self-esteem can be driven to the edge by just a clipped letter from a bank.

Experts have said that in decades such as the 1960s and 1970s people tended to turn their frustration inwards, perhaps taking their anger out on their spouses behind closed doors. The tendency now is to turn it outwards: to externalise the problem to a complete stranger.

When people feel under threat they undergo physical and mental changes. Their heart rate, blood flow and tension rises as the body prepares for action. The mind goes into tunnel vision as it focuses on the threat and loses the bigger picture. Various factors will then inhibit the average person from acting upon it, such as not wanting to behave violently in public. But with more people behaving aggressively in public there is an unspoken “social permission” to do so.

And yet it is not as though everyone is walking around like a ticking hand grenade. Most of us - even though we may feel a surge of spleen when someone blocks our way - simply curse under our breath and walk away.

Sinclair says that anger is a process involving different stages: the environmental trigger, the interpretation of the trigger (“This person is disrespecting me”) and the physical arousal - the adrenalin rush that defends the threat to self-esteem.

The British Association of Anger Management has produced a six-point plan to help people to manage anger:

1. Stop, think and look at the bigger picture. Consider the consequences between the event and the reaction.

2. It's OK to have a different opinion. Opinions are not facts - they are only what you think.

3. Listen carefully. Learn to listen. Observe the other person's body language. Verify: clarify information. Empathise: keep your heart open at all times.

4. Use your support network, a group of people on whom you can call when you need to talk to someone so that your anger doesn't get out of control.

5. Keep a journal. This is a powerful way of not internalising your anger. Your journal can be used as and when you need to. Record how you feel about what happened, and your views on a problem. Using your journal will bring clarity to the situation.

6. Don't take anything personally. Nothing that others do or say is because of you. What others do and say is a projection of their own reality on to you. When you are immune to the opinions, projections, behaviours and actions of others, you will not be a victim of needless suffering any longer.

Original here

Can Technology Improve Your Memory?

(NaturalNews) You have everything you need to keep you informed. Technology provides you with answers to almost any question instantly. If you need reminders, you can program devices to prompt you to remember your appointments and to-do list. Yet, you keep forgetting things. Right now you may not be sure where you put your BlackBerry charger or whether you took your vitamins that morning. You also may not be sure if it's your turn to pick up the kids today.

While technology saves us the burden of remembering endless details, it also adds to our memory problems. In part, that's because we need to remember random codes like passwords, logins and user names. These strings of numbers and letters become useful as codes precisely because they are confusing and meaningless. But that's also what makes them hard for our brains to access.

Memory works best when it interconnects. We create neural pathways in our brains as we connect a new piece of information with sensory details, recollections and knowledge -- forming a meaningful memory that we can easily retrieve. For example, you may be standing outside and notice a bird you haven't seen before. Someone tells you the tiny songbird is a barn swallow known as a traveler. It flies hundreds of miles a day in search of food, and each year migrates up to 14,000 miles. You may feel a sudden kinship with this energetic creature since your life keeps you constantly busy as well. When and where you hear facts, how you feel at the time, and the way you link the details with other information in your mind -- this all plays a part in memory. Chances are you will remember the sunny warmth of the day when you first saw the barn swallow and the insight gained as you thought about your own life 'on the fly.'

Another problem with technology is the obvious way that it interrupts us. Details are locked into our memories when we pay careful attention to them. That makes them more easily retrieved as well. How often do you have a full half hour, let alone a full five minutes to concentrate on any one thing without email, text messages or other distractions? Yet without concentration, recall is challenged. A meal is much more memorable at a new elegant restaurant because of the attention paid to it and the time devoted to it. You are fully aware of the novelty as you savor each mouthful, and thus remember the experience. Contrast that with a meal eaten at your desk while finishing a project. The food you ingest is hardly tasted let alone memorable. A few weeks later you can recall one meal while the other has been completely forgotten. It isn't the food eaten quite so much as the attention you paid to it that made the difference.

We also have to admit that technology removes some of the mental discipline that every generation before us had to practice. We may be weakening ourselves over time because we don't have to do the work of memorizing information, navigating roads or keeping track of upcoming events now that digital devices handle those tasks for us. What evidence do we have? Technology not only affects the way we process information, taken to an extreme it may also diminish memory. In the book, "Carved in Sand: When Attention Fails and Memory Fades in Midlife," author Cathryn Jakobson Ramin says that there's a name in Japan for those who constantly click away at keypads. They're called "oyayubizoku," or "thumb tribe." Researchers at Japan's Hokkaido University School of Medicine studied a group of oyayubizoku whose lives are consumed by electronic organizers, cell phones and laptops. They found that about ten percent of them had lessened the brain's capacity to learn and store information. One neurobiologist commented that these individuals had "lost the ability to remember new things, to pull out old data or to distinguish between important and unimportant information."

Of course, when you are concerned about your memory you're often told that the remedy is more technology. To some extent that may be helpful if you use reminder and calendar functions. As baby boomers approach the geriatric decades, the market is filling with technology promoted to enhance memory. Video "brain games" are said to guarantee results in a few minutes a day. There's not much solid research to back up these claims. Some of these products are engaging and could do a passable job of stimulating thinking, especially if used more than a minute or two. But building mental fitness requires the same kind of practice and dedication as physical fitness. Long-term use of such games may be useful, yet there are many other ways to improve your memory without spending time and money on mental gymnastics.

Attitude

It's common to notice an occasional lapse in memory, after all, forgetfulness isn't something you appreciate. You may even begin to humorously identify yourself as someone with a failing memory. But when you highlight these very normal mistakes, you aren't helping the problem. That's due to what psychologists call "self-talk," the ongoing internal conversation we have with ourselves. If your self-talk includes the idea that you have a "brain like a sieve" or "error -- memory leak" is your mode of operation, you will notice more and more evidence that supports this negative concept. Unintentionally you are reinforcing traits like inattention and confusion. Instead, cultivate an attitude of appreciation for your mind and body. Notice the amount of high-level thinking that you do. Adopt a healthier mindset by regarding memory lapses as incidents which are warning that it's time to slow down and start savoring your life more.

Meditation

Studies indicate that people who meditate have an improved outlook and increased concentration. They also have somewhat better memories. Research at Massachusetts General Hospital shows that regular meditation increases blood flow to the cerebral cortex, thickening that area of the brain. It's thought that this physical change enhances focus, memory and attention span. Meditation allows you to access the stillness beyond your thinking mind, to enter a state of peaceful awareness that simply observes. There are many forms of meditation. Develop a practice that fits into your life and enjoy benefits that go well beyond improved memory.

Movement

When we exercise, our muscles generate proteins that enter the brain. These proteins support learning and recall. One such protein is called brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which promotes the sort of brain development necessary for long-term memory and higher-level thinking. Exercise also increases blood flow to the brain, essential to thought processes. And we know that an active lifestyle stimulates neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine that are essential to attention, learning and positive emotions.

As Dr. John J. Ratey explains in Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, " In addition to priming our state of mind, exercise influences learning directly, at the cellular level, improving the brain's potential to log in and process new information." That means when we play a fast paced game of tennis or master complex yoga moves, our brains are improving along with the rest of our bodies. So build regular, sustained movement into your daily life. Try varying your activities to keep up your interest level and provide continuing challenges.

Nutrition

Adequate water intake is essential for proper brain function. Take water along in your own water bottle so you don't need to resort to soda, energy drinks or other less healthful liquids. A healthy diet is also vital. Food containing adequate omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants have been shown to support concentration and recall. It's best to avoid spikes and dips in blood sugar, as this has a negative effect on brain function. Eating smaller amounts in regularly spaced snacks, choosing whole foods, avoiding sugars and refined grains, paying attention to food intolerances and eating a wide variety of foods are helpful strategies. Some studies have shown that the supplements ginkgo biloba and phosphatidylserine may improve memory.

Timing

Each person has an optimal time of day for thinking and functioning. Rob West, director of the Cognitive Psychology Program at Iowa State University, says research has determined that this time period changes as people get older. When younger adults are tested it's found that their optimal time tends to be late afternoon or early evening. Beginning around the age of 50, this optimal time shifts to a much earlier part of the day, normally from eight a.m. to noon. According to West, one test to assess an individual's optimal thinking time is the Morningness-Eveningness Scale (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bjlogie/test.htm) . Be sensitive to when you function best, and perform more challenging mental tasks during that time. You shortchange your abilities if you overload yourself with studies, work or competing obligations exactly at the time of day when you are at the lowest ebb.

Writing

Writing supports memory. Yes, writing things down provides a helpful reminder. But it has also been found that the effort involved helps us organize our thoughts. Taking notes, making a list, drawing up an agenda, penning a letter, or keeping a diary stimulates the sort of thinking that is good for memory. When we do this our ideas and feelings are not just a jumble of indistinct impressions, they are clearer and more accessible for recall. Over time, people who purposefully write things down tend to concentrate better. Interestingly, people who write about upsetting events also experience improved function and find themselves more emotionally stable.

Incorporate the habit of writing in your daily life. Keep a regular journal. Maintain a diary for travel and special events. Print out photos and attach notes. Make regular lists and enjoy crossing items off as you accomplish them. Maintain a gratitude log, noting one or more things you are grateful for each day. Write down your comments and impressions as you read a good book and tuck the notes amongst the pages, this is useful when re-reading or sharing the book with others. Revive the art of writing letters and thank you notes, perhaps making a copy to keep for yourself as an ongoing epistolary scrapbook. Consider joining a public speaking group such as Toastmasters to ramp up the challenge of organizing and presenting your thoughts.

Variety

Our brains are attracted to novelty. Rote tasks don't stimulate thinking and memory even when the activities are enjoyable. If you play a game of squash every week with the same friend, chances are very few that these games stand out in your mind. It's great to keep up regular rituals that you enjoy. But add variety on a regular basis. Doing something different creates new circuitry in your brain. Every day you can make a small change such as taking a new route to work, trying a new recipe or listening to a different genre of music. You can also add bigger challenges that ramp up brain function. Learn a new language, take dance lessons, tutor a student, try your hand at sculpting, take a trip, join a club or volunteer.

About the author

Laura Weldon is a writer with a book called Free Range Learning coming out in 2008. She lives on an organic farm and believes in bliss.

Original here

Pondering Probiotics

Author: Amy Proal

What if, rather than conferring a benefit to the digestive tract, probiotics worked by slowing the pace of bacterial die-off in organs near the gut, or even in other areas of the gut itself?

Many people go out of there way to buy probiotics, which can be purchased in myriad forms.There’s been some discussion on the Marshall Protocol study site about how probiotics, or bacteria that are believed to beneficially improve bacterial composition in the gut, may be palliating symptoms but not improving overall health. This probably seems ludicrous to people who go out of their way to buy yogurt with “friendly” bacteria such as acidophilis, or people who dig into their savings to buy probiotics in numerous forms including little silver pearls.

And yet consider this hypothesis. Whereas it used to be believed that the adaptive immune system dictated the immune response in the gut, recent research has made it clear that the innate immune system - which is active inside the villi of the intestines and stomach - is actually largely responsible for keeping gut bacteria in check.

The innate immune system mounts a response to every pathogen that enters the body, whether “friendly” or harmful.So when bacteria enter the body – whether described as “friendly” or pathogenic – the innate immune system mounts a response to their presence. That’s its job. It’s as if the innate immune system is a bouncer at a club who must check the ID of each person who wishes to enter.

The response or challenge that the innate immune system mounts towards every bacterium entering the GI track causes the production of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. According to Marshall, part of this inflammatory response may cause a migration of white blood cells called monocytes from nearby organs of the body, or other parts of the gut, to the area of the GI track where they can face incoming probiotics.

Think about how this response might affect the liver, the pancreas, the kidneys, or even different areas of the gut. Since monocytes engulf bacteria and play an important role in killing the chronic intraphagocytic bacteria that cause inflammatory disease (collectively called the Th1 pathogens), if the white blood cells leave these organs in order to face probiotic bacteria entering the gut, the rate of bacterial die-off in these nearby organs should tone down or subside.

Monocytes may migrate from other organs near the gut in order to face incoming probiotics.Since we now understand that it is the death of the Th1 pathogens that cause the bulk of a person’s symptoms (inflammatory cytokines and toxins are released when they die), the result of this reduced bacterial die-off should generate a feeling of temporary wellness in these other organs, organs that also affect digestion and detoxfication.

In the same sense, if a patient’s immune system is working to target a pocket of bacteria in one area of the gut, new probiotic bacteria may divert its attention from that area of infection to a different area of the gut, diminishing bacterial die-off in the original area.

Besides slowing the body’s response to bacterial death (known as immunopathology) in organs near the gut or areas of the gut itself, the above scenario unfortunately places an extra load on the innate immune system, which is the same branch of the immune system that works to try to keep the Th1 pathogens under control.

As previously discussed, in cases where patients are infected with Th1 pathogens, the innate immune system is constantly working hard in an attempt to kill them. But because the system must work to mount an inflammatory response each time probiotics enter the body, the ingestion of probiotic bacteria gives the already over-worked system another task, which at the same time diverts its attention away from killing the Th1 pathogens.

If the innate immune system is forced to manage incoming probiotics, then the rate of bacterial die-off in organs near the gut, or other areas of the gut, may slow.Even in people considered healthy, overloading the innate immune system is still a problem, since if its focus is diverted to dealing with probiotics, it may be less effective at targeting other pathogens that enter the body. Also, since people often begin to harbor the Th1 pathogens well before becoming symptomatic, any feelings of “wellness” they experience after taking probiotics may be due to the same mechanisms described above.

“We now know that the GI tract relies on the innate (Th1) immune system, and the VDR, to deal with intestinal flora,” states Marshall. “A decade ago it was thought that antibodies (the Th2 adaptive immune system) were involved. So it is certain that ingesting probiotics will place a load on the very part of the immune system already weakened by fighting Th1 inflammation in the major organs. Whether this is good or bad is open to interpretation.”

According to chronic disease physician Dr. Greg Blaney, concentrated probiotics, especially if they contain the artificial sugar Fructooligosaccharides (FOS), are most likely to affect the GI tract and surrounding organs in the manner described above. New probiotic blends with extra ingredients added may also be particularly unhelpful.

Indeed, a recent study by researchers at the University of Newcastle in Australia found that treatment with probiotics doubles levels of the inflammatory cytokine Interferon-gamma,^[1] confirming that the bacteria do create a Th1 inflammatory reaction upon their entry into the gut.

“ We now know that the GI tract relies on the innate (Th1) immune system, and the VDR, to deal with intestinal flora.”Interferon-gamma also catalyses (by the action of the enzyme CYP27B1) the production of the 1,25-D – the active form of vitamin D that functions as both a hormone and a cytokine. Since the Th1 pathogens create ligands that block the VDR and subsequently dysregulate the pathway that controls CYP27B1,^[2] this implies that healthy people might react differently to probiotics than people with Th1 disease, or at least be more negatively impacted by their ability to produce an inflammatory response.

This is because when enzymes such as CYP27B1 are dysregulated by VDR blockage, the body is unable to keep 1,25-D levels in the correct range. As the hormone starts to rise to unnaturally high levels, it binds many of the nuclear receptors – including the glucocorticoid receptor, the alpha/beta thyroid receptors, and the adrenal receptors - displacing the metabolites that are meant to be in the receptors under normal conditions.^[3] This upsets the balance of several critical hormonal feedback pathways.

Here at Bacteriality our favorite hormone to scrutinize goes by the name of 1,25-D. So, you can understand our disappointment when we relate that, yet another group of researchers, these from U. of Newcastle, didn’t measure the 1,25-D levels of their subjects. It would have been quite interesting to note if the levels of the hormone/cytokine was higher among those subjects taking probiotics.

The above hypothesis would explain why Dutch researchers recently published a study in the Lancet which found that among patients with predicted acute pancreatitis, more than twice as many patients given probiotic supplements to prevent infection died compared to those who received placebos.^[4]

The Lancet study found that among patients with predicted acute pancreatitis, more than twice as many patients given probiotic supplements to prevent infection died compared to those who received placebos.

“The adverse effects of probiotics noted here were unexpected,” Hein Gooszen and colleagues at the University Medical Centre Utrecht in the Netherlands wrote.

In the study of 296 people with similarly acute forms of pancreatitis, one group received a placebo and the other a mixture of probiotic supplements, some commonly available (the probiotics were administered via the mouth by a tube headed directly into the bowels). The number of people who developed infections was similar, but 24 volunteers died in the probiotic group compared to nine in the placebo group. 8 of the subjects in the group given probiotics died from bowel ischaemia, while the others succumbed to pancreatitis.

One must admit that a logical explanation for the deaths described above could be that in the case of the patients given probiotics, macrophages were diverted from areas of the bowel or pancreas where they were striving desperately to fight infection (let’s assume here that bowel ischaemia and pancreatitis are bacterial diseases). Furthermore, when the probiotics reached the GI tract, they may have put such a load on the patients’ innate immune systems that it was otherwise unable to keep their disease states under control. This study at least causes one to raise an eyebrow about the possibility that an alternate hypothesis for probiotics isn’t far fetched.

One must also consider that other explanations for how probiotics improve health remain largely speculative. For the most part, probiotics are assumed to be helpful because they offer some people temporary symptomatic relief – but as high levels of vitamin D or corticosteroids demonstrate, palliation does not always indicate improvement.

Elie MetchnikoffThe first researcher to hypothesize that certain bacteria might play a positive role in the gut was Russian scientist and Nobel laureate Elie Metchnikoff, who, in the beginning of the 20th century, suggested that it might be possible to replace harmful microbes in the gut with useful microbes. He hypothesized that bacteria such as clostridia, which are part of the normal gut flora, produce toxic substances from the digestion of proteins. He believed these compounds were responsible for what he called “intestinal auto-intoxication”, which he linked to physical changes associated with old age.

This led him to propose that milk fermented with lactic-acid bacteria could inhibit the growth of these “toxic” bacteria because of the low pH produced by the fermentation of lactose. Soon, he introduced the idea that a diet high in sour milk fermented with the bacteria he called “Bulgarian Bacillus” could improve digestive health. Friends in Paris soon followed his example and physicians began prescribing the sour milk diet for their patients.

But in 1920, Rettger demonstrated that Metchnikoff’s “Bulgarian Bacillus”, later called Lactobacillus bulgaricus, is actually unable to live in the human intestine. Naturally, the fermented food hypothesis petered out.

After that point, research on probiotics focused on the idea that scientists could isolate bacteria that seemed to be involved in a positive process and add extra amounts to the gut, with the hope of displacing other less desirable pathogens.

For example, Henry Tissier, a researcher at the Pasteur Institute, isolated a bacterium from breast-fed infants and named it Bacillus bifidus communis. He recommended that doctors give bifidus communis to babies suffering from diarrhea in the hopes that it would displace other species that might be causing the problem in the first place. Yet benefit from the treatment remained dubious.

The benefits of giving Bacillus bifidus communis to infants remains dubious.Later, it was reasoned that “helpful” bacteria should be isolated directly from the gut, and in 1935, certain strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus were found to be very active when implanted in the human digestive tract. Trials were carried out using this organism, and encouraging results were obtained, especially in the relief of chronic constipation. Yet since the liver, kidneys, and parts of the gut not affected by probiotics are involved in the constipation process, one could argue that such benefits are also explained by Marshall’s hypothesis.

In these and other cases, one must question – how can we assume that bacterial species such as those isolated from breast-fed infants or from the digestive tract are necessarily “good”? Can we simply assume that a bacterial species is beneficial because it appears at face value not to be causing any harm?

It’s true that certain bacterial species are competitive, meaning that one species may be able to kill another. Take, for example, Streptococcus, which has been shown to effectively kill Staphylococcus bacteria. In fact, the antibiotic demeclocycline, which was derived from a strain of Streptococcus bacteria, is particularly effective at quelling Staphylococcus infections.

Yet do the bacterial species in common probiotic products possess such competitive properties? To date, there has simply been no evidence or laboratory studies showing that they do. Plus, if probiotic strains are indeed killing other more virulent pathogens, wouldn’t the death of such strains cause a rise in immunopathology rather than a feeling of relief?

“Can we simply assume that a bacterial species is beneficial because it appears at face value not to be causing any harm?”Another reality that probiotic enthusiasists often fail to consider is how horizontal gene transfer affects probiotic bacteria in the gut. Horizontal gene transfer is a process in which organisms swap genetic material by trading plasmids, or circular molecules of DNA that can replicate independently of a pathogen’s other genetic material.

This means that even if a species of bacteria considered to be “helpful” enters the gut, it can easily trade plasmids with other disease causing pathogens – quickly changing it from a potentially harmless organism to yet another pathogen contributing to disease.

This may be especially true for people with high loads of Th1 bacteria in the gut that can all too easily swap their genetic material with probiotic bacteria, rendering them part of the disease process rather than the “cure.”

Horizontal gene transfer allows bacteria to share genetic material“Increasingly, studies of genes and genomes are indicating that considerable horizontal gene transfer has occurred between bacteria,” states James Lake of the Molecular Biology Institute at the University of California. In fact, due to increasing evidence suggesting the importance of the phenomenon in organisms that cause disease, molecular biologists such as Peter Gogarten at the University of Connecticut have described horizontal gene transfer as “a new paradigm for biology.”

Gorgarten insists that horizontal gene transfer is “more frequent than most biologists could even imagine a decade ago.” In the face of such statements, we may want to reconsider ingesting large loads of extra bacteria that inevitably become part of a pool of pathogens trading genetic material when they actually enter the body.

Indeed, one of the largest meta-analysis studies on probiotics, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by researchers at the Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences in the Netherlands, reviewed 49 studies on probiotics with lackluster results.^[5] 26 of the studies dealt with the prevention or treatment of diarrheal disease, 9 with the prevention of cancer or of the formation of carcinogens, 7 with the lowering of serum cholesterol, and 7 with the stimulation of the immune system. The most widely studied probiotic bacteria were Lactobacillus GG (22 studies), Lactobacillus acidophilus (16 studies), Bifidobacterium bifidum (6 studies), and Enterococcus faecium (7 studies). The team concluded that intake of Lactobacillus GG did shorten the diarrheal phase of rotavirus infection, but that “evidence for the prevention by Lactobacillus GG and other probiotics of diarrhea due to viral or bacterial infections was less strong.” The effects of probiotics on the immune system were “inconclusive” because of the variety of outcome variables reported.

The largest meta-analysis on probiotics reviewed 49 studies on the bacteria with lackluster results.The team also reported that cholesterol-lowering abilities of probiotics “seem to be transient”, and found that production of mutagens after a meal might be reduced by intake of probiotics, but the relevance of the finding “was unclear”. The study finally concluded that while probiotics may have some effect on rotavirus infection, “other health effects of probiotic bacteria have not been well established.”

A 2005 study by the Food Standards Agency on 11 different types of probiotic bacteria attempted to determine where the pathogens break down as they pass through the digestive system. While the researchers were able to determine that most strains of probiotics survive past entry into the stomach, the data failed to show “if or where probiotics might have an effect,” meaning that mainstream researchers aren’t even sure where probiotics take effect, let alone what they do when they get to their target destination.

Despite doubt cast on the benefits of probiotics, it’s doubtful that Marshall’s hypothesis will gain any credence in the near future. There’s simply too much money at stake, and according to the Associated Press, “the market is ahead of the science. It’s all part of a burgeoning effort to capitalize on an obsession with health foods.” Over 150 food products that have probiotics have been introduced in the market this year - compared to about 100 last year and just 40 the year before that.

In fact, probiotics are a multibillion-dollar global industry. In the United States alone, retail sales of probiotic-containing foods and supplements totaled an estimated $764 million in 2005 and are projected to reach $1 billion in 2010, according to market research firm BCC Research.

Dannon’s Activia yogurt, introduced last year, is among the best known U.S. products. Its first-year U.S. sales totaled more than $100 million. General Mills introduced its competitor, Yo-Plus, under the Yoplait yogurt brand this year.

Other 2007 products include: Kraft Foods Inc.’s LiveActive prebiotic cottage cheese and probiotic cheddar cheese; Nestle’s probiotic Good Start Natural Cultures baby formula; Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.’s Good Evening prebiotic baby food; and the Swiss firm Barry Callebaut’s probiotic chocolate.

Probiotics have been added to a vast array of productsProbiotic manufacturer Nutraceutics just targeted $100 million in probiotic sales. Meanwhile, New Zealand oral probiotics developer BLIS Technologies is planning to issue new shares to fund an expansion of its business into new international markets in order to boost development efforts that will benefit shareholders if the products take off.

A continent away, dietary supplements with Probi’s healthy bacteria Lp299v will be launched in China in conjunction with the leading domestic health food company Biostime Inc. The list goes on as probiotics continue to be added to a mind-blowing number of new foods and products. As with vitamin D and most other supplements available in dietary form, the mistaken notion that “more is always better” seems to reign supreme.

As stated in a recent article on probiotics in Time Magazine, “Whether or not you’ve ever developed a taste - or even a tolerance - for living things in your lunch, more are on the way. Food companies have been coming to the conclusion that if a few of these superstar bacteria are good for you, then more will be even better.”

Also unnerving is that the FDA hasn’t set any upper limit for probiotic consumption, largely because nobody really knows exactly what they do upon entering the body, so recommending a “desirable” dose is impossible. This means that a person can guzzle tremendous loads of probiotic supplements without ever consulting the advice of a doctor.

When it comes to probiotics, the mistaken notion that “more is always better” seems to reign supreme.At least, according to Time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is “relatively neutral, using the growing popularity of probiotics to caution manufacturers not to pitch the foods as some sort of panacea for any specific disease.” Whether food companies actually follow such advice remains to be seen.

The NIH has declared the study of gastrointestinal bacteria and probiotics a major research initiative. “The fact that there are a number of health implications and a lack of understanding associated with the use of probiotics makes this a very interesting subject to study,” said Crystal McDade-Ngutter, who heads an NIH working group on the topic.

The skeptic in me can’t help thinking that a lot of companies are making a pretty penny off simple palliation. At the very least, the fact that probiotics possess the ability to modulate where and when the innate immune system is activated should give one pause. In the meantime, Marshall prefers not to give advice about probiotics.

“I haven’t stated a position on probiotics,” states Marshall. “There are many on the [Marshall] protocol who are convinced they are helpful, and I would prefer to concentrate on the key issues that folk really need to solve – no vitamin D, plenty of Benicar, and a supportive family/medical environment. Probiotics are a second-order effect, I think (less important).”

“So I tend to leave it to the individual. Most Th1 patients have severe GI tract involvement, and dealing with that takes just about every tool in their arsenal. If probiotics seem to help, then who am I to say no? On the other hand, they do not form part of the base protocol, as any benefit is not obvious to me, whether based on personal experience, or biological knowledge.”

Original here