Re: A thought on LF

It's okay, we all make mistakes. You assumed that because the small intestine is much longer than the large intestine, it would have more bacteria. It doesn't. And you assumed that the folds in the small intestine are there to provide a habitat for bacteria. They are not, they are there to maximize surface area for digestion and ABSORPTION. See villi, microvilli.

You misunderstood this statement: "The bacteria numbers and composition in the large intestine is effectively that of fecal material.".. When they say "bacteria numbers," they mean how many millions or billions per milliliter. When they say "composition" they mean how many different species/strains, and which ones. What this means is that if I took a plastic 5 milligram scoop and scooped mucous out of your large intestine, the population density and the different strains present would be comparable to a 5 milligram scoop of fecal matter. They did not mean that the population of bacteria in the colon is equivalent to whatever is in the fecal matter at that time.

How would you feel about a website called "Textbook of Bacteriology?"

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora_3.html

Follow this link and you will find this quote: "The proximal small intestine has a relatively sparse Gram-positive flora, consisting mainly of lactobacilli and Enterococcus faecilis. This region has about 10⁵ - 10⁷ bacteria per mL of fluid. The distal part of the small intestine contains greater numbers of bacteria (10⁸/mL) and additional species, including coliforms (E. Coli and relatives) and bacteroides, in addition to lactobacilli and enterococci.

"The flora of the large intestine (colon) is qualitatively similar to that found in feces. [meaning: similar strains are present. How could it be otherwise?] Populations of bacteria in the colon reach levels of 10¹¹/mL feces. Coliforms become more prominent, and enterococci, clostridia and lactobacilli can be regularly found, but the predominant species are anaerobic Bacteroides and anaerobic lactic acid bacteria in the genus Bifidobacterium (Bifidobacterium bifidum). ... Sometimes, significant numbers of anaerobic methanogens (up to 10¹⁰/gm) may reside in the colon of humans."

So in other words the population density of methanogens alone in the colon can be higher than that of any part of the small intestine.

How about "EndFatigue.com?"

"The 1 to 10 trillion bacteria that live in our colon serve a vital function and are considered by some to be the largest organ in the body by weight... The bacteria are supposed to be in the colon (large intestine)."

How do you feel about Wikipedia? Let's check out the Wiki entry for "Large Intestine:" Hmm, I see it has a giant section called "Bacterial Flora." Goes on for many sentences. Now, let's check out the Wiki entry for "Small Intestine:" Hmph, funny thing. Not a single mention of bacteria in the whole entry. No wait, I take it back. Down at the bottom there: a disorder called Small Bowel Bacterial Overgrowth Syndrome.

I am holding in my hands an anatomy textbook called "Introducton to the Human Body" by Tortora and Grabowski, 6th edition, 2004. Discussion of the small intestine begins on page 493. It goes on for 5 pages. Nice photo of the circular folds. You know what isn't mentioned in this section? Good bacteria. You know what the name of the next section is, where good bacteria are mentioned? You guessed it: "Large Intestine."

Care to share any medical resources that clearly support what you are claiming? There are people in the middle, undecided. You could win a lot of them over by providing a link.

Lastly, if you think the references to the enormous bacteria populations in the colon are references to the fecal matter passing through, I have a question for you: how did the fecal matter become so quickly saturated with bacteria? Are they in your food?

One would think that a CZ user with a photo of a smiley face made out of fecal matter would know his sh*t. I look forward to the humor of your next post.