Summary: Some probiotics help cancer grow. Dietary fiber helps retard cancer.
do people want an o3 summary?
1 Like
You can provide an o3 summary in this resources section.
1 Like
Cleaned-up transcript (≈0:00 – 9:12)
| Time | Speaker | Tidied wording |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00 – 0:38 | Narrator | Imagine someone spoon-feeding themself yogurt and lecturing everyone that the probiotics it contains are essential for a healthy diet. The rest of the table tuned out long ago and is now talking about the weather, but the yogurt evangelist keeps preaching the gut-health gospel. You finally snap and blurt out, “Probiotics aren’t that great—they can actually be harmful!” The table falls silent. |
| 0:38 – 0:55 | Narrator & “Yogurt evangelist” | The evangelist fires back: “That’s crazy—my yoga-podcast nutritionist says probiotic yogurt is incredible for you.” You answer, “Then watch this video, yogurt-fiend.” |
| 0:55 – 1:13 | Narrator | What if probiotics were linked to worse cancer outcomes, and another gut-health product were linked to better ones? Let’s look at the study instead of a random podcast. |
| 1:13 – 2:00 | Narrator | Researchers recruited late-stage cancer patients, most receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy (an antibody that keeps immune cells attacking tumours). Patients were classified as responders (no progression) or non-responders (disease progressed). |
| 2:00 – 2:35 | Narrator | Faecal analysis focused on two bacterial taxa (one family, one genus) previously linked to immunotherapy response and lower inflammation. Responders had significantly higher levels of both. |
| 3:03 – 3:41 | Narrator | Next the team asked about probiotic use in the preceding month. Kaplan-Meier curves hinted that probiotic users fared worse (higher progression risk), although this crude association did not reach statistical significance. |
| 3:41 – 4:53 | Narrator | To probe causality they transplanted stool from human responders into germ-free mice, then gavaged the mice with water (control) or one of two commercial probiotics before injecting melanoma cells. Both probiotic groups developed tumours almost ten-times larger than controls. |
| 5:05 – 5:59 | Narrator | The second gut-health habit was dietary fibre. When patients were split into low- vs high-fibre intake, the high-fibre group showed significantly less cancer progression. |
| 6:30 – 7:10 | Narrator | A parallel mouse experiment fed ordinary mice a low- or high-fibre diet alongside anti-PD-1 therapy. Only the high-fibre + therapy group halted tumour growth; low-fibre mice did as badly as untreated controls. |
| 7:16 – 8:36 | Narrator | Caveats: the human data are observational; bacterial families, fibre cut-offs and probiotic brands were researcher-defined; the probiotic- and fibre-mouse studies differed slightly in design. The findings are compelling but exploratory—more work is needed before condemning all probiotics or canonising fibre. |
| 8:41 – 9:12 | Narrator | Bottom line for melanoma patients on anti-PD-1: this study suggests probiotics may hinder, while dietary fibre may boost, treatment efficacy. So tell “yoga-podcast Mark” that probiotics aren’t always wonderful—then watch the next video. |
Video at a glance
- Title & channel: How “Healthy” Gut Habits Are Making Cancer Worse – Physionic (posted 7 July 2025, 10-min video) (youtube.com)
- Core claim: A 2021 Science study shows probiotic use is correlatively linked to poorer outcomes in late-stage melanoma patients on anti-PD-1 therapy, while higher dietary fibre intake is linked to markedly better outcomes. Mouse follow-ups strengthen the fibre-good / probiotic-bad narrative. (science.org)
Concise summary
- Set-up: The presenter pokes fun at “probiotic evangelists,” then introduces evidence that probiotics might backfire in cancer.
- Human cohort: 128 late-stage melanoma patients on PD-1 blockade were stratified as responders vs non-responders. Responders harboured more Ruminococcaceae family and Faecalibacterium genus bacteria.
- Probiotic correlation: Self-reported probiotic use trended toward higher disease-progression rates, but the association was not significant after adjustment.
- Mouse test #1: Germ-free mice given responder faeces stalled tumour growth—unless a commercial probiotic was added, which drove tumours ~10× larger.
- Fibre correlation: High-fibre eaters (> 20 g day⁻¹) had significantly less progression.
- Mouse test #2: A high-fibre diet synergised with anti-PD-1 to stop tumour growth; low-fibre erased the drug’s benefit.
- Take-home: For patients on checkpoint inhibitors, the study tentatively cautions against generic probiotic supplements and supports ample dietary fibre.
Critique
| Aspect | Strengths | Limitations / counter-points |
|---|---|---|
| Study design | Combines human observational data with mechanistic mouse models—more persuasive than correlation alone. | Small human sample (≈128), single centre; self-reported diet and supplement use prone to error. Fibre cut-off and probiotic definitions were arbitrary. |
| Causality | Germ-free-mouse FMT experiment elegantly tests cause-and-effect for probiotics. | The probiotic cocktails given to mice may not mirror what patients took. Germ-free mice differ immunologically from humans. |
| Generalisability | Highlights a plausible microbiome–immunotherapy interaction; echoes other work linking Faecalibacterium to checkpoint-blockade success. (nature.com) | Findings are melanoma- and PD-1-specific; other cancers, drugs, probiotic strains or doses could behave differently. Numerous clinical trials report benefits of certain probiotics as adjuncts to chemo- or radiotherapy. (nature.com) |
| Interpretation in the video | Presenter openly lists caveats and stresses nuance (“not all good things are universally good”). The satire makes the science engaging. | The title (“Healthy gut habits are making cancer worse”) is click-bait and overstates certainty. The video downplays the non-significant probiotic association in humans and omits positive probiotic trials, which could mislead casual viewers. |
| Clinical relevance | Encourages oncologists and patients to discuss diet and supplement use—an important, often-ignored variable in immunotherapy. | No clinical guidelines recommend abandoning probiotics solely on this evidence. Patients should not modify therapy without medical advice; randomised trials are needed. |
Bottom line:
The Spencer et al. Science paper suggests that, in advanced melanoma treated with PD-1 blockade, high dietary fibre may enhance—and broad-spectrum probiotic supplements may blunt—antitumour immunity. The Physionic video captures the essence but oversimplifies; probiotics remain context-dependent tools, and fibre is only one piece of a complex dietary puzzle. Use the findings as a conversation starter with qualified clinicians, not a standalone prescription.
3 Likes
Omega 3s change arterial plaque composition.
2 Likes
A 12-minute video which is just an intro to another video.
2 Likes
He mentions how stearic acid can paralyze the immune system. It isn’t just in butter, though. One overlooked source is that it is in a fair number of nutritional supplements as an one listed in “other ingredients” (read the fine print). So, if you take a lot of them at once, you could be loading up your body with hundreds of milligrams or more of stearic acid. That would still be a low amount, overall probably; but I’d be careful and check how much is in supplements.
According to a Google search:
Nutritional supplements contain stearic acid primarily as a manufacturing lubricant and binder, most commonly in the form of magnesium stearate, to prevent ingredients from sticking to machinery and each other during production. It acts as a “flow agent” to ensure consistent and high-quality capsules and can also delay the breakdown of supplements in the stomach so they are absorbed in the correct part of the bowel.
3 Likes
Oh, one more thing about stearic acid (and magnesium stearate): have you ever bought supplement pills and tried to dissolve them in water, and found it doesn’t work, even though you know the supplement is supposed to be water soluble??
Often, it’s due to magnesium stearate that they add to the mix. And you can’t easily remove it! You’re better off buying the powder form, which usually doesn’t contain as many additives like that.
2 Likes
New video where he discusses the benefits of berberine against colon cancer and how it improves the gut microbiome:
I had said before that I take it, myself, because of its gut health effects (not for the blood sugar-lowering effects).
1 Like
In which amounts do you take it for that purpose? I tried it out to lower FBG but at 1000 mg it lowered my appetite so much that I had to discontinue it. I may try and resume at 500 mg/d.
By the way, FBG lowered by simply eating by instinct (neurological demand), lowering protein and increasing carbs. But with an overall decrease in calories.
2 Likes
I take 500 mg in the morning and 500 mg in the early evening. Oops, it was 750 mg in the morning, and 750 mg in the early evening, not 500 mg like I wrote before. I don’t notice any change in appetite. The only obvious thing I notice is that it seems to sharpen my perception of red light – “colorfulness”, saturation, whatever you want to call it:
2 Likes
The Physionic guy now takes 40 grams per day of resistant starch, following mention of its effects on visceral fat by Carvalho (Nutrition Made Simple) and then also his own further research on its health-promoting effects.
Perhaps inulin and resistant starch synergize, with inulin maybe increasing butyrate-producing bacteria and then resistant starch supplying the fuel.
2 Likes
Executive Summary: Resistant Starch & Metabolic Hepatology
The provided transcript is a layman’s synthesis of recent high-impact clinical trials regarding Resistant Starch (RS) supplementation, specifically targeting Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD/NAFLD). The core data rests heavily on a landmark 2023 study published in Cell Metabolism (Ni et al.), which demonstrated that 40g/day of Type 2 Resistant Starch (High-Amylose Maize) significantly reduced intrahepatic triglyceride (IHTG) content and visceral adiposity over a 4-month period compared to placebo.
The biological mechanism is validated as microbiome-dependent. RS resists digestion in the small intestine, fermenting in the colon to produce Short-Chain Fatty Acids (SCFAs), specifically butyrate and acetate. This fermentation alters the gut microbiota composition—specifically reducing branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) producing bacteria (like Bacteroides stercoris)—which in turn downregulates hepatic lipogenesis and systemic inflammation.
While the speaker’s enthusiasm is supported by Level B (RCT) evidence, the translation to the general population requires nuance. The “300% improvement” metric is a relative risk reduction in a diseased cohort, not necessarily applicable to healthy phenotypes. Furthermore, the 40g/day dose is clinically significant and likely to induce substantial gastrointestinal distress (bloating, flatulence) without careful titration. The intervention is highly promising for liver fat reduction, but its efficacy as a standalone weight-loss tool for non-steatotic individuals remains less established.
Insight Bullets
- Primary Indication: Efficacy is highest for reducing Intrahepatic Triglycerides (IHTG) in patients with MASLD/NAFLD; general weight loss effects are secondary to metabolic repair.
- Dosing Threshold: The specific efficacy signal in cited literature (Ni et al., 2023) requires a high dose of 40g/day. Lower doses (e.g., <15g) act as prebiotic fiber but may not trigger the same lipolytic magnitude.
- Mechanism of Action: Efficacy is not caloric restriction, but the fermentation of RS into SCFAs (butyrate/acetate) and the subsequent modulation of the Gut-Liver Axis.
- BCAA Correlation: High circulating Branched-Chain Amino Acids (Valine, Leucine, Isoleucine) are biomarkers for insulin resistance; RS supplementation reduces plasma BCAAs by altering the microbiome profile.
- Visceral vs. Subcutaneous: The protocol specifically targets visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and liver fat, with less impact on subcutaneous fat stores.
- Fecal Transplant Validation: Human-to-mouse fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) studies confirm the phenotype is transmissible, proving the microbiome is the causal vector, not the starch itself.
- Responder Status: Efficacy varies based on baseline microbiome. “Low responders” likely lack specific RS-degrading commensals (e.g., Ruminococcus bromii or Bifidobacterium adolescentis).
- Source Specificity: The primary trials utilized High-Amylose Maize Starch (HAMS). Green banana flour and raw potato starch are chemically similar (Type 2 RS) but have different granular structures and fermentation rates.
- Thermal Degradation: Heating RS (e.g., cooking potato starch) destroys the crystalline structure, rendering it digestible (glycemic). It must be consumed raw or retrograded (cooked then cooled for 12-24 hours).
- Adverse Events: High-dose RS is notorious for GI distress. The “titration strategy” (5g → 40g over weeks) is a mandatory clinical practice to prevent non-compliance.
- Incretin Mimetics: RS fermentation stimulates L-cells in the gut to secrete GLP-1 and PYY, theoretically mimicking semaglutide mechanisms endogenously, albeit at much lower potency.
- Lipid Droplet Dynamics: The reduction in liver fat manifests physically as a decrease in the size and number of lipid droplets within hepatocytes, mitigating lipotoxicity.
Adversarial Claims & Evidence Table
Search Query: Resistant starch NAFLD randomized controlled trial meta-analysis 2023 2024 / Ni et al Cell Metabolism resistant starch
| Claim from Video | Speaker’s Evidence | Scientific Reality (Current Data) | Evidence Grade | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Slashes liver fat… confirmed across several RCTs.” | Cites Cell Metabolism & Nature Metabolism. | Verified. A 2023 RCT (Ni et al.) showed ~5.89% absolute reduction in liver fat vs 1.0% in placebo. Meta-analyses confirm RS improves liver enzymes and steatosis. | Level A/B (RCT & Meta-analyses) | Strong Support |
| “300% increased elimination of visceral fat.” | Graph comparison (Blue vs Red line). | Contextual. In Ni et al., the RS group lost significantly more visceral fat than controls. The “300%” is relative math (e.g., -25cm² vs -5cm²). Absolute reduction is significant but “300%” is marketing language. | Level B (Specific RCT) | Plausible (In context) |
| “40g is the target dose.” | References consistent use across studies. | Accurate. The landmark trial used 40g/day. Lower doses (10-20g) show prebiotic benefit but may lack the “liver slashing” potency observed in the primary study. | Level B | Strong Support |
| “Resistant starches are never absorbed.” | “Kick and scream… against being absorbed.” | Mostly True. By definition, RS escapes small intestine digestion. However, fermentation products (SCFAs) are absorbed in the colon and provide ~2 kcal/g. | Level A (Physiology) | Strong Support |
| “Heating it is a no-go.” | General advice on consumption. | Nuanced. Heating Type 2 RS (raw potato/maize) destroys resistance (gelatinization). However, cooling it retrogrades it into Type 3 RS. The speaker is practically correct for powder supplements. | Level A (Food Chemistry) | Strong Support |
| “Microbes bully beneficial microbes out.” | Explanation for “Low Responders.” | Plausible mechanism. Dysbiosis (e.g., B. stercoris dominance) can prevent RS fermentation or favor methanogenesis over acetogenesis, blunting efficacy. | Level C (Mechanistic) | Plausible |
- Primary Source Identification: Ni et al., “Resistant starch decreases intrahepatic triglycerides in patients with NAFLD via gut-liver axis,” Cell Metabolism (2023)
- Supporting Meta-Analysis: Vahdat et al., “Effects of resistant starch on metabolic parameters,” Lipids in Health and Disease (2020)
Actionable Protocol (Prioritized)
1. High Confidence Tier (Clinical Efficacy)
Target: Individuals with elevated Liver Enzymes (ALT/AST), NAFLD/MASLD, or High Visceral Adiposity.
-
Compound: High-Amylose Maize Starch (Type 2 RS) or Green Banana Flour.
-
Dosage: Titrate to 40g/day.
-
Week 1: 5g daily (morning).
-
Week 2: 10g daily.
-
Week 3: 20g daily (split dose: 10g AM / 10g PM).
-
Week 4: 40g daily (split dose: 20g AM / 20g PM).
-
Administration: Mix into cold water, almond milk, or yogurt. DO NOT HEAT. Heating above 60°C (140°F) gelatinizes the starch, converting it into a rapid-absorbing glucose spike.
-
Duration: Minimum 4 months for liver fat mobilization.
2. Experimental Tier (General Health)
Target: Metabolic optimization, satiety, glycemic control.
- Protocol: “Retrograde Cycling.”
- Method: Cook potatoes, rice, or oats, then cool in the refrigerator for 12–24 hours. Eat cold or reheat gently (do not boil).
- Yield: Increases RS content from <1% to ~3-5%.
- Supplementation: 15-20g Raw Potato Starch (Bob’s Red Mill or similar) added to smoothies. Note: Raw potato starch is cheaper but settles/clumps rapidly in liquid.
3. Red Flag Zone (Safety & Inefficacy)
- Contraindication: Patients with SIBO (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth) or IBS-D (Diarrhea-predominant). 40g of fermentable substrate can cause severe distension, pain, and worsening of dysbiosis in these populations.
- Safety Data Absent: “Resistant Starch” cookies/crackers. Processed foods claiming RS content often lose efficacy due to thermal processing during manufacturing. Stick to raw powders or whole food retrogradation.
Technical Mechanism Breakdown
1. The Gut-Liver Axis & SCFA Production:
The primary mechanism is fermentation, not caloric restriction. RS reaches the cecum/colon intact, where specific phyla (Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes) ferment it into Short-Chain Fatty Acids (SCFAs): Acetate, Propionate, and Butyrate.
- Butyrate: Acts as an HDAC inhibitor and binds to G-protein coupled receptors (GPR43/GPR41), improving gut barrier integrity (reducing LPS translocation).
- Acetate: Crosses the blood-brain barrier to signal satiety and is a substrate for hepatic lipogenesis downregulation.
2. BCAA-Mitochondrial Interaction:
The Ni et al. (2023) study identified a specific correlation with Branched-Chain Amino Acids (BCAAs). Dysbiotic microbiomes (high Bacteroides stercoris) produce excess BCAAs.
- High plasma BCAAs inhibit TRIC-B (trimeric intracellular cation channel type B) in the liver.
- RS supplementation suppresses BCAA-producing bacteria.
- Result: Lower circulating BCAAs → Restoration of mitochondrial oxidation → Reduction of de novo lipogenesis (DNL) in the liver.
3. Incretin Hormone Secretion (The “Natural Ozempic” Pathway):
Fermentation byproducts stimulate colonic L-cells to secrete:
- GLP-1 (Glucagon-like Peptide-1): Increases insulin sensitivity, delays gastric emptying.
- PYY (Peptide YY): Signals anorexigenic (anti-hunger) pathways in the hypothalamus.
- Note: While mechanistically similar to GLP-1 agonists, the magnitude of effect is significantly lower (physiological vs. pharmacological).
Related Reading:
2 Likes
Top Sources for High-Amylose Maize (Type 2 Resistant Starch)
Executive Summary:
Pure “High-Amylose Maize” (HAM-RS2) is a specialized industrial ingredient (specifically Ingredion’s Hi-Maize® 260). It is rarely sold under its own name in retail stores. The market is dominated by bulk repackagers (Honeyville, MyWorldHut) or branded specialized fiber supplements (Sukrin).
The lowest cost option by a significant margin is the Honeyville 50 lb bulk bag ($0.64 per 40g dose). For consumers not wanting 50 lbs, MyWorldHut (via eBay) is the most cost-effective manageable quantity ($0.98 per 40g dose).
Top Lowest-Cost Sources
| Rank | Product/Brand Name | Vendor | Total Weight | Total Price (USD) | Cost Per 40g Dose |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hi-Maize Resistant Starch (Bulk) | Honeyville | 50 lbs (22,680 g) | $363.99 | $0.64 |
| 2 | Hi-Maize 260 Corn Starch | MyWorldHut (eBay) | 2.2 lbs (1,000 g) | $24.55 | $0.98 |
| 3 | Sukrin FiberFin | Netrition | 14.1 oz (400 g) | $12.99 | $1.30 |
| 4 | Sukrin FiberFin | Amazon | 14.1 oz (400 g) | $17.99 | $1.80 |
| 5 | *Supergut Fiber Mix (Blend) | Target | 5.7 oz (161 g) | $29.99 | $7.45 |
*Note: Supergut is a blend containing High-Amylose Maize, Green Banana, and Potato Starch. It is listed for reference but is significantly more expensive than pure sources.
Detailed Product Links & Shipping Notes
- Honeyville Hi-Maize Resistant Starch (50 lb)
- Link: Buy from Honeyville
- Stock Status: In Stock
- Shipping: Shipping costs vary by location for 50lb bags; typically adds $20-$40 unless a “Free Shipping” promo applies.
- Note: This is the industrial standard product (Ingredion Hi-Maize 260). Best for long-term use or group buys.
- MyWorldHut Hi-Maize 260 (1 kg)
- Link: Buy from eBay (Seller: myworldhut)
- Stock Status: In Stock
- Shipping: $8.65 Flat Rate (included in the Total Price calculation above).
- Note: Seller repacks the bulk Ingredion product into consumer-sized foil bags.
- Sukrin FiberFin (400 g)
- Link: Buy from Netrition
- Stock Status: In Stock
- Shipping: Flat rate often available (~$9.99) or free over a certain threshold.
- Note: “FiberFin” is the brand name for Hi-Maize Resistant Starch sold by Sukrin. It is chemically identical to the other maize sources.
- Supergut Prebiotic Fiber (Blend)
- Link: Buy from Target
- Stock Status: In Stock
- Note: Contains Soluble Corn Fiber (Resistant Maltodextrin), Green Banana Powder, and Resistant Potato Starch in addition to Maize. High markup for the blend.
Gemini clearly hallucinate here. That’s a starch (i.e. poison from a longevity POV!) not a resistant starch.
2 Likes
I bought some resistant starch at Vitamin Shoppe, and it was potato starch + some banana powder.
And according to this:
Participants consumed their habitual diet throughout the study period. During the intervention phase, raw unmodified potato starch (Bob’s Red Mill, Milwaukie, OR) was gradually added to their diet (day 1—12 g, day 2—24 g, day 3—48 g; Fig. 1). This potato starch contains approximately 50 % resistant starch (type 2) by weight.
Authors are from University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, and Wayne State University.
ChatGPT seems to agree…
Bob’s Red Mill Potato Starch (unmodified potato starch) can be a source of type-2 resistant starch (RS2) — but the manufacturer does not label or guarantee it as RS2.
Scientific / commercial classification
- RS2 is defined as native granular starch that resists digestion in the small intestine — e.g., raw potato starch, high-amylose corn starch, and unripe banana starch. RS2 loses resistance when heated above ~140–150 °F/60–65 °C.
What the research and commerce show
- Independent analyses in published research indicate that samples of raw commercial potato starch (including Bob’s Red Mill) have ~50–60% resistant starch by weight when tested as raw powder, consistent with RS2. In one rat microbiome study, Bob’s Red Mill potato starch was assayed at ~60% resistant starch.
- RS content depends on not heating the starch. If you cook/heat the starch (as in baking, thickening, or drying at high temperatures), the crystalline structure breaks down and it ceases to act as RS2.
What the manufacturer states
- Bob’s Red Mill does not market the product as a “resistant starch supplement” and in past customer service communications has indicated their potato starch is not considered a resistant starch because processing/drying affects it.
Practical summary
- Uncooked Bob’s Red Mill potato starch powder behaves like RS2 — similar in properties and fermentation outcomes to raw potato starch used in research.
- Once heat-treated, it is not RS2 and won’t deliver typical resistant-starch effects.
- The product lacks a guaranteed RS content label, so the exact amount of RS2 per serving may vary by batch and processing.
2 Likes