4 ms·

Are we at the peak of the hype cycle for gut bacteria now?

stronglikedan 7y ago
Perhaps, perhaps. I'll ponder that question further while sipping my kombucha.
will_brown 7y ago
No, we are at peak “gut bacteria” science denial. On the other hand study of the microbiome is still in its infancy and looking very promising vis-a-vis human health.
- gubbrora 7y ago
  Replying to you since this is the top response but aimed at y'all really. At the risk of stating the obvious. Gut bacteria are bacteria... in the gut. Like if you tell me they affect the absorption of nutrients - I can see that. Maybe they make something more bioavailable or maybe they break something else down. If you tell me their involved in deficiencies and over/underweight that kinda makes sense. Tell me they affect appetite through manipulating our signals ok. Not as obvious but not implausible either. Tell me they cause highly complex behavioral differences... it just seems implausible. But maybe gaba can indeed explain it.
  - johnmaguire2013 7y ago
    People used to say the same thing about washing hands -- "little organisms on my hand are making me sick? I don't buy it." Nowadays, the gut is sometimes referred to as the "second brain" because of your enteric nervous system which is located inside the gut. It probably has more influence over you than you're aware of, as it operates independently of your CNS.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      >> People used to say the same thing about washing hands -- "little organisms on my hand are making me sick? I don't buy it." If you're talking about the time before there was strong evidence for pathogenic bacteria- then that would have been the only rational and justified behaviour. Why should anyone believe something that sounds implausible given current knowledge, before strong evidence is presented to support it?
      - johnmaguire2013 7y ago
        I'm talking about when evidence was first being discovered, as is the case in this thread. Humans have a disconfirmation bias - we have a hard time accepting new, conflicting information.
        YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        Yes, well, why should we accept new, conflicting information? The reasonable thing to do is to wait before you have a good enough reason to accept a new thing.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
The study of the interaction between microbes and the human body is not 3-d printing or SDCs. Scientific fields of research feature their share of hype, but they don't run through product cycles like tech companies deal with. This is due to a number of factors including different standards for objectivity, transparency, financial interests, and at the heart of it: we are much more likely to devoutly wish for medical breakthroughs in cancer or Alzheimer's, whereas there are relatively very few people praying for Google Glass or VR, save those trying to induce demand for such products. So, the hype cycle for tech products is not really as useful in the study of microbes in the human body.
markdown 7y ago
I heard that gut bacteria determined which type of entertainment you enjoy. HBO has been secretly subsidising fast-food chains for years in order to keep the price of burgers down and so get more people to watch violent shows like GOT.
alexandercrohde 7y ago
I feel this comment doesn't contribute. It is true there have been hype waves. But there also have been huge medicinal revolutions too (e.g. vaccines, antibiotics, etc) It sounds to me that you're just lumping all "great claims" into the "false" category with no basis. It doesn't sound like you read the studies and take issue.

Perhaps, perhaps. I'll ponder that question further while sipping my kombucha.

No, we are at peak “gut bacteria” science denial. On the other hand study of the microbiome is still in its infancy and looking very promising vis-a-vis human health.

gubbrora 7y ago
Replying to you since this is the top response but aimed at y'all really. At the risk of stating the obvious. Gut bacteria are bacteria... in the gut. Like if you tell me they affect the absorption of nutrients - I can see that. Maybe they make something more bioavailable or maybe they break something else down. If you tell me their involved in deficiencies and over/underweight that kinda makes sense. Tell me they affect appetite through manipulating our signals ok. Not as obvious but not implausible either. Tell me they cause highly complex behavioral differences... it just seems implausible. But maybe gaba can indeed explain it.
- johnmaguire2013 7y ago
  People used to say the same thing about washing hands -- "little organisms on my hand are making me sick? I don't buy it." Nowadays, the gut is sometimes referred to as the "second brain" because of your enteric nervous system which is located inside the gut. It probably has more influence over you than you're aware of, as it operates independently of your CNS.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    >> People used to say the same thing about washing hands -- "little organisms on my hand are making me sick? I don't buy it." If you're talking about the time before there was strong evidence for pathogenic bacteria- then that would have been the only rational and justified behaviour. Why should anyone believe something that sounds implausible given current knowledge, before strong evidence is presented to support it?
    - johnmaguire2013 7y ago
      I'm talking about when evidence was first being discovered, as is the case in this thread. Humans have a disconfirmation bias - we have a hard time accepting new, conflicting information.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        Yes, well, why should we accept new, conflicting information? The reasonable thing to do is to wait before you have a good enough reason to accept a new thing.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

The study of the interaction between microbes and the human body is not 3-d printing or SDCs. Scientific fields of research feature their share of hype, but they don't run through product cycles like tech companies deal with. This is due to a number of factors including different standards for objectivity, transparency, financial interests, and at the heart of it: we are much more likely to devoutly wish for medical breakthroughs in cancer or Alzheimer's, whereas there are relatively very few people praying for Google Glass or VR, save those trying to induce demand for such products. So, the hype cycle for tech products is not really as useful in the study of microbes in the human body.

markdown 7y ago

I heard that gut bacteria determined which type of entertainment you enjoy. HBO has been secretly subsidising fast-food chains for years in order to keep the price of burgers down and so get more people to watch violent shows like GOT.

alexandercrohde 7y ago

I feel this comment doesn't contribute. It is true there have been hype waves. But there also have been huge medicinal revolutions too (e.g. vaccines, antibiotics, etc) It sounds to me that you're just lumping all "great claims" into the "false" category with no basis. It doesn't sound like you read the studies and take issue.