9 ms·

Exposure to the bacteria in soil can be good for mental health

135 points by tenkabuto 9y ago

djr96 9y ago
Think I'll stick with the pills...
- andai 9y ago
  Why, though? (Unless, by any chance, you mean pills for enhancing gut flora? :)
contingencies 9y ago
I spent half of this week researching industrial food processing methodologies and the cleanliness you can get to is obviously unhealthy. It's like humans look at biology and see 10 major pathogens and over-optimize for that chunk of biology what-ifs they better understand due to macro effect. They then shut their eyes and bury their heads in the ... chemically clean and white fluffy pillow, eat a salad bathed in chlorine, sit inside in air conditioning, and wonder why they get ill. Let them eat dirt.
- daveguy 9y ago
  Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything was just so much more natural.
  - andai 9y ago
    You said it, brother!
  - contingencies 9y ago
    This is a flippant dismissal that is perhaps important to address. Science is not a binary thing: hackers of all audiences should know that you can respect science while admitting partial knowledge of the world and embracing holistic (or less fully informed, yet well evidenced) modes of action. In short, daveguy's argument simultaneously presents a false dichotomy and shifting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof based upon the implied assumption that formal, academic science is the only true source of evidence. In fact, there are many valid sources of information other than science, and many of its outputs are near philosophical anyway. For example, monocultures are weak would be scientifically founded, philosophical perspective for holistic thinking and against the implication. PS. In fact my comment was mostly aimed at the folly of human behavior (overoptimization for macro-visible pathogens and backslapping self-assessment of broad self-assumed understanding when mounting evidence shows just how little we know about even human biology), not claiming that industry is bad, mmkay?
    - daveguy 9y ago
      It was not a flippant dismissal. I was simply trying to make the argument that the basis of cleanliness in food processing has done pretty fucking well. You confuse monoculture with cleanliness. We don't want diverse culture soups in our processing. What we deliberately put in our body we want to be well identified culture or no culture at all. I was pointing out a serious flaw in your reasoning based on over a century of results based on scientific progress. It's easy to dismiss food safety as "industrial" when the very real alternative is pathogenic disease outbreak. There is nothing false about that dichotomy. Science is the sole source of evidence. If your woo philosophy produces better outcomes, then put up or shut up. Burden of proof has not been shifted. Burden of proof is with the challenger. Increased food safety is the status quo with a century+ of life expectancy improvements.
      - contingencies 9y ago
        Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.
        daveguy 9y ago
        By science I mean the scientific method. Again, put up or shut up. I cited the positive health effect of the last century as evidence that the scientific method has worked out well. I am not ignoring that we have imperfect knowledge. That's why science isn't over. Ignoring our evidence based understanding and health improvement outcomes over a philosophical argument that our knowledge isn't complete (it never will be) is the definition of folly. Ignorance is not an argument for more ignorance.
  - pizza 9y ago
    They're not making a naturalistic fallacy. They're saying that our understanding of environmental influence of internal makeup is incomplete. What they're saying would extend our theory, and potentially our lives, too. It could also create new inventions, pushing us to become even more artificial in a technological/medical sense.
- emmab 9y ago
  > sit inside in air conditioning What's wrong with air conditioning?
  - saiya-jin 9y ago
    apart from obvious power drain, it makes the air unnaturally dry, and if not clean super regularly many pathogens can live in there and spread. Also not sure about stuff like ions and other possible things. To my lungs and nose AC air feels unnatural, it doesn't matter if in car, airplanes or buildings.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Poorly maintained systems can germinate and spread disease. https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-disease-facts/ https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-di...
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    Nothing is wrong with it, but temperature fluctuations (particularly heat) seem to promote gene expression that is ultimately healthy. Sauna use has been shown to lower blood pressure and heart rate in the short term, and there is some correlation with longevity in the longer term.
  - j_s 9y ago
    There are definitely positives and negatives. This may have been mentioned in part due to this recent discussion: The far-reaching effects of air conditioning | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962
bmelton 9y ago
The real takeaway for me as a parent here is that the more and more we prevent our kids from being actual kids, the more subtleties we might be depriving them of. Dating myself a little, but growing up as a kid in Virginia, 'outside' play was a mainstay. We went out into the woods, we built tree forts, we dug holes, we made tire swings. Nowadays, the parents of my children's friends are completely unwilling to let their kids engage in such behavior, whether because it's potentially dangerous (it is), or dirty (that too), the kids are expected to meet up in a sanitized location, play in a playroom, or possibly on a playground with rubber mulch as the surface material, and seldom are kids allowed or expected to just go play. Meanwhile, we've got more and more kids being prescribed more and more things, and while I honestly haven't the slightest clue whether to attribute it to the lack of outdoor play or the miracles of modern medicine, it seems possibly correlated.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  It's a weird situation to be an adult. You got cautious along the years (for good or bad reasons) and somehow forgot what you did. When I remember all the crazy things we did as 5yo .. climbing trees out of the blue, alone, no supervision, no phones. We're all alive and well.
  - MikeTheGreat 9y ago
    True, we're all alive and well. Simultaneously, that's the definition of survivorship bias / selection bias right there :)
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      I hate to say it but...what about Natural Selection bias?
  - pseud0r 9y ago
    Not all kids I went to school with is alive, for example there was one guy who one day went fast down a hill on his bicycle, straight onto the road and was hit by a car. One guy I know let his four year old play outside, just for a short while without supervision, he fell into a pond and drowned. I always felt safe when I was five years old playing outside by myself though, even though I sometimes went several kilometers into the forest. There was no cars there and I was already a good swimmer, so I can't really imagine anything could have happened though.
c3534l 9y ago
This sounds like preliminary research spun into health recommendations that are unjustified and possibly dangerous. What else is new.
- cpncrunch 9y ago
  Well in this case the preliminary science looks plausible. In the 10 years since this preliminary trial nobody has bothered doing a placebo controlled trial of this bacteria for depression, so it's probably reasonable to spin it a bit.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  Are we reading the same article? I didn't see any recommendations, just some interesting info and a couple of theories that might explain the results that were seen.
sdiupIGPWEfh 9y ago
I'd rather avoid much of the residential dirt on the eastern coast of the US, especially in older towns, due the accumulation of decades, if not centuries, of lead paint in the soil. In these parts, unless you've had it tested or you're living in a newer home with virgin soil, I'd think twice before letting the kids dig around too much. Lead exposure will negate any positive psychological effects of the dirt microbiome rather quickly.
- rconti 9y ago
  Maybe don't let them dig around the foundation of a house with old paint on it... but just general dirt in the environment seems really unlikely to contain much lead. Not speaking from experience here, just speculating...
  - sdiupIGPWEfh 9y ago
    Which is fine and all if you're acutely aware of the risk, but most residential dirt readily available for digging in happens to be in the garden beds around houses and garages, right were flaking paint has been accumulating. The dirt people are likely digging in, if they're in an older community, isn't just any old random dirt. Also, most parents I've known aren't too keen on holes in the middle of the yard, away from the house. https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#soil https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#... Rather than take my word for it, there are plenty of federal, state, and county resources which can give you some idea of the likely lead levels to be found in your area and extrapolate from there. I'm not in the safest area myself, but I hope you find it's not something you yourself have to worry about.
- zkms 9y ago
  Lead (and other toxic heavy metal) contamination is so fucked up. I hate how much attention and fear has been given to nuclear power / radioactivity while we cheerfully spent the entire 20th century contaminating everything with bioaccumulative toxic metals. At least radioactive waste / fallout has the grace of fucking decaying.
  - 9y ago
killjoywashere 9y ago
Lovely, another AFB I have to memorize. Damnit!
- eicossa 9y ago
  AFB ?
  - pseud0r 9y ago
    I think he's referring to Armed Forces Bikers, a UK-based motorcycle charity to assist former members of the armed forces.
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      Nice, I'll look them up :) But, no, AFB = Acid Fast Bacillus.
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    acid fast bacillus.
jerkstate 9y ago
Finally, scientific proof that wandering barefoot is good for the soul.
- aaronblohowiak 9y ago
  And good for the Hookworm
  - misja111 9y ago
    Actually the hookworm is also good for us, it seems to reduce some allergic responses! See also: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244238.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244238.php
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
amelius 9y ago
I can feel a new startup coming up, selling packaged soil dirt on a subscription basis.
- gadders 9y ago
  My first thought was bullies making kids eat dirt and shouting "It's good for your mental health!"
pc2g4d 9y ago
In the article they cite as evidence for serotonin deficiency's depressogenic effects: "Overall, this evidence suggests that impairing serotonin function can cause clinical depression in some circumstances, but is neither necessary nor sufficient." From Wikipedia[1]: Since the 1990s, research has uncovered multiple limitations of the monoamine hypothesis, and its inadequacy has been criticized within the psychiatric community.[44] For one thing, serotonin system dysfunction cannot be the sole cause of depression; antidepressants usually increase synaptic serotonin very quickly, but it often takes at least two to four weeks before mood improves significantly. One possible explanation for this lag is that the neurotransmitter activity enhancement is the result of auto receptor desensitization rather which can take weeks.[45] Intensive investigation has failed to find convincing evidence of a primary dysfunction of a specific monoamine system in patients with major depressive disorders. The antidepressants that do not act through the monoamine system, such as tianeptine and opipramol, have been known for a long time. There has also been inconsistency with regards to serum 5-HIAA levels, a metabolite of serotonin.[46] Experiments with pharmacological agents that cause depletion of monoamines have shown that this depletion does not cause depression in healthy people.[47][48] Another problem that presents is that drugs that deplete monoamines may actually have antidepressants properties. Furthermore, some have argued that depression may be marked by a hyperseretonergic state[49] Already limited, the monoamine hypothesis has been further oversimplified when presented to the general public.[50] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression

135 points by tenkabuto 9y ago

djr96 9y ago

Think I'll stick with the pills...

andai 9y ago
Why, though? (Unless, by any chance, you mean pills for enhancing gut flora? :)

contingencies 9y ago

I spent half of this week researching industrial food processing methodologies and the cleanliness you can get to is obviously unhealthy. It's like humans look at biology and see 10 major pathogens and over-optimize for that chunk of biology what-ifs they better understand due to macro effect. They then shut their eyes and bury their heads in the ... chemically clean and white fluffy pillow, eat a salad bathed in chlorine, sit inside in air conditioning, and wonder why they get ill. Let them eat dirt.

daveguy 9y ago
Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything was just so much more natural.
- andai 9y ago
  You said it, brother!
- contingencies 9y ago
  This is a flippant dismissal that is perhaps important to address. Science is not a binary thing: hackers of all audiences should know that you can respect science while admitting partial knowledge of the world and embracing holistic (or less fully informed, yet well evidenced) modes of action. In short, daveguy's argument simultaneously presents a false dichotomy and shifting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof based upon the implied assumption that formal, academic science is the only true source of evidence. In fact, there are many valid sources of information other than science, and many of its outputs are near philosophical anyway. For example, monocultures are weak would be scientifically founded, philosophical perspective for holistic thinking and against the implication. PS. In fact my comment was mostly aimed at the folly of human behavior (overoptimization for macro-visible pathogens and backslapping self-assessment of broad self-assumed understanding when mounting evidence shows just how little we know about even human biology), not claiming that industry is bad, mmkay?
  - daveguy 9y ago
    It was not a flippant dismissal. I was simply trying to make the argument that the basis of cleanliness in food processing has done pretty fucking well. You confuse monoculture with cleanliness. We don't want diverse culture soups in our processing. What we deliberately put in our body we want to be well identified culture or no culture at all. I was pointing out a serious flaw in your reasoning based on over a century of results based on scientific progress. It's easy to dismiss food safety as "industrial" when the very real alternative is pathogenic disease outbreak. There is nothing false about that dichotomy. Science is the sole source of evidence. If your woo philosophy produces better outcomes, then put up or shut up. Burden of proof has not been shifted. Burden of proof is with the challenger. Increased food safety is the status quo with a century+ of life expectancy improvements.
    - contingencies 9y ago
      Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.
      - daveguy 9y ago
        By science I mean the scientific method. Again, put up or shut up. I cited the positive health effect of the last century as evidence that the scientific method has worked out well. I am not ignoring that we have imperfect knowledge. That's why science isn't over. Ignoring our evidence based understanding and health improvement outcomes over a philosophical argument that our knowledge isn't complete (it never will be) is the definition of folly. Ignorance is not an argument for more ignorance.
- pizza 9y ago
  They're not making a naturalistic fallacy. They're saying that our understanding of environmental influence of internal makeup is incomplete. What they're saying would extend our theory, and potentially our lives, too. It could also create new inventions, pushing us to become even more artificial in a technological/medical sense.
emmab 9y ago
> sit inside in air conditioning What's wrong with air conditioning?
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  apart from obvious power drain, it makes the air unnaturally dry, and if not clean super regularly many pathogens can live in there and spread. Also not sure about stuff like ions and other possible things. To my lungs and nose AC air feels unnatural, it doesn't matter if in car, airplanes or buildings.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Poorly maintained systems can germinate and spread disease. https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-disease-facts/ https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-di...
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  Nothing is wrong with it, but temperature fluctuations (particularly heat) seem to promote gene expression that is ultimately healthy. Sauna use has been shown to lower blood pressure and heart rate in the short term, and there is some correlation with longevity in the longer term.
- j_s 9y ago
  There are definitely positives and negatives. This may have been mentioned in part due to this recent discussion: The far-reaching effects of air conditioning | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962

bmelton 9y ago

The real takeaway for me as a parent here is that the more and more we prevent our kids from being actual kids, the more subtleties we might be depriving them of. Dating myself a little, but growing up as a kid in Virginia, 'outside' play was a mainstay. We went out into the woods, we built tree forts, we dug holes, we made tire swings. Nowadays, the parents of my children's friends are completely unwilling to let their kids engage in such behavior, whether because it's potentially dangerous (it is), or dirty (that too), the kids are expected to meet up in a sanitized location, play in a playroom, or possibly on a playground with rubber mulch as the surface material, and seldom are kids allowed or expected to just go play. Meanwhile, we've got more and more kids being prescribed more and more things, and while I honestly haven't the slightest clue whether to attribute it to the lack of outdoor play or the miracles of modern medicine, it seems possibly correlated.

agumonkey 9y ago
It's a weird situation to be an adult. You got cautious along the years (for good or bad reasons) and somehow forgot what you did. When I remember all the crazy things we did as 5yo .. climbing trees out of the blue, alone, no supervision, no phones. We're all alive and well.
- MikeTheGreat 9y ago
  True, we're all alive and well. Simultaneously, that's the definition of survivorship bias / selection bias right there :)
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I hate to say it but...what about Natural Selection bias?
- pseud0r 9y ago
  Not all kids I went to school with is alive, for example there was one guy who one day went fast down a hill on his bicycle, straight onto the road and was hit by a car. One guy I know let his four year old play outside, just for a short while without supervision, he fell into a pond and drowned. I always felt safe when I was five years old playing outside by myself though, even though I sometimes went several kilometers into the forest. There was no cars there and I was already a good swimmer, so I can't really imagine anything could have happened though.

c3534l 9y ago

This sounds like preliminary research spun into health recommendations that are unjustified and possibly dangerous. What else is new.

cpncrunch 9y ago
Well in this case the preliminary science looks plausible. In the 10 years since this preliminary trial nobody has bothered doing a placebo controlled trial of this bacteria for depression, so it's probably reasonable to spin it a bit.
pmiller2 9y ago
Are we reading the same article? I didn't see any recommendations, just some interesting info and a couple of theories that might explain the results that were seen.

sdiupIGPWEfh 9y ago

I'd rather avoid much of the residential dirt on the eastern coast of the US, especially in older towns, due the accumulation of decades, if not centuries, of lead paint in the soil. In these parts, unless you've had it tested or you're living in a newer home with virgin soil, I'd think twice before letting the kids dig around too much. Lead exposure will negate any positive psychological effects of the dirt microbiome rather quickly.

rconti 9y ago
Maybe don't let them dig around the foundation of a house with old paint on it... but just general dirt in the environment seems really unlikely to contain much lead. Not speaking from experience here, just speculating...
- sdiupIGPWEfh 9y ago
  Which is fine and all if you're acutely aware of the risk, but most residential dirt readily available for digging in happens to be in the garden beds around houses and garages, right were flaking paint has been accumulating. The dirt people are likely digging in, if they're in an older community, isn't just any old random dirt. Also, most parents I've known aren't too keen on holes in the middle of the yard, away from the house. https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#soil https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead#... Rather than take my word for it, there are plenty of federal, state, and county resources which can give you some idea of the likely lead levels to be found in your area and extrapolate from there. I'm not in the safest area myself, but I hope you find it's not something you yourself have to worry about.
zkms 9y ago
Lead (and other toxic heavy metal) contamination is so fucked up. I hate how much attention and fear has been given to nuclear power / radioactivity while we cheerfully spent the entire 20th century contaminating everything with bioaccumulative toxic metals. At least radioactive waste / fallout has the grace of fucking decaying.
- 9y ago

killjoywashere 9y ago

Lovely, another AFB I have to memorize. Damnit!

eicossa 9y ago
AFB ?
- pseud0r 9y ago
  I think he's referring to Armed Forces Bikers, a UK-based motorcycle charity to assist former members of the armed forces.
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    Nice, I'll look them up :) But, no, AFB = Acid Fast Bacillus.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  acid fast bacillus.

jerkstate 9y ago

Finally, scientific proof that wandering barefoot is good for the soul.

aaronblohowiak 9y ago
And good for the Hookworm
- misja111 9y ago
  Actually the hookworm is also good for us, it seems to reduce some allergic responses! See also: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244238.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244238.php
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

amelius 9y ago

I can feel a new startup coming up, selling packaged soil dirt on a subscription basis.

gadders 9y ago
My first thought was bullies making kids eat dirt and shouting "It's good for your mental health!"

pc2g4d 9y ago

In the article they cite as evidence for serotonin deficiency's depressogenic effects: "Overall, this evidence suggests that impairing serotonin function can cause clinical depression in some circumstances, but is neither necessary nor sufficient." From Wikipedia[1]: Since the 1990s, research has uncovered multiple limitations of the monoamine hypothesis, and its inadequacy has been criticized within the psychiatric community.[44] For one thing, serotonin system dysfunction cannot be the sole cause of depression; antidepressants usually increase synaptic serotonin very quickly, but it often takes at least two to four weeks before mood improves significantly. One possible explanation for this lag is that the neurotransmitter activity enhancement is the result of auto receptor desensitization rather which can take weeks.[45] Intensive investigation has failed to find convincing evidence of a primary dysfunction of a specific monoamine system in patients with major depressive disorders. The antidepressants that do not act through the monoamine system, such as tianeptine and opipramol, have been known for a long time. There has also been inconsistency with regards to serum 5-HIAA levels, a metabolite of serotonin.[46] Experiments with pharmacological agents that cause depletion of monoamines have shown that this depletion does not cause depression in healthy people.[47][48] Another problem that presents is that drugs that deplete monoamines may actually have antidepressants properties. Furthermore, some have argued that depression may be marked by a hyperseretonergic state[49] Already limited, the monoamine hypothesis has been further oversimplified when presented to the general public.[50] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression