4 ms·
Three days? Three weeks would be more noteworthy, but really get back to me after three months or three years.
by notadoc 9y ago
Three days?
Three weeks would be more noteworthy, but really get back to me after three months or three years.
- onychomys 9y agoThree days is a long time to a bacterium. E coli has a generation time of 20 minutes, Staph aureus is about 30. So we're looking at a hundred generations or so. It's not nothing.
- xaedes 9y agoIt is certainly something when only focused on individual bacteria. But the whole system including gut flora and human body changes. And that takes more time. 3 days a different diet? Not a lot to see much change in the body. Would you trust any diet related study that only lasts three whole days?
- TheRealPomax 9y agoThe test is to see the impact on whole system health, which is determined by the slowest constituent parts, not the fastest. Certainly, colonic flora has super high generation time, but the health of the system cannot measurably change over a three day period without changes in measurements falling well within error tolerance. Even if health did improve, the time span chosen is not long enough to sufficiently determine correlation, let alone causation.
- ourmandave 9y agoAnd 3 minutes is a really long time when you're driving the porcelain bus because of sudden changes in your gut bacteria.
- eximius 9y agoSure, but that just means there are several generations around to digest each meal. You're looking at very few meals over 3 days.
- 23443463453 9y agoNot long enough for a new bacterial balance to develop and establish itself in your whole intestinal system.
- wmccullough 9y agoYep, fuck that guy right? I can't believe he'd even try at all!