Enquiry

[a1ngel]

Why is Pernicious Anemia + Vitamin B12 so rife in the world? Was it as much in the 17/18 century? Is there written records on this awful condition?

Very curious individual!

[EllieMayNot]

I'm in the US and, seeing how far we as a society have gotten away from real food, we have destroyed our guts with poor food choices. I can only imagine that in ruining our guts we have made it very difficult to absorb nutrients (provided there are adequate nutrients in our diets to begin with) making many of us depleted in many areas. When you consider the fact that B12 is only absorbed in a tiny portion of the small intestine, and only under optimum conditions, I sometimes wonder why there aren't more instances of B12d.

That being said, there have always been instances of B12d/PA all throughout history. Often times not recognized for what it was. Those who ate "close to the farm" ate a more balanced diet as they ate organ meats rich in vital nutrients, those who did not or who were unable to absorb, probably suffered greatly from deficiencies of all kinds.

[Slothlike in reply to EllieMayNot]

Whilst I agree that mass production of food has some downsides, and USA is probably the worst offender due to its food supply being concentrated more in bigger brands rather than lots of smaller suppliers and high own label like in the EU, I don’t agree that we have ruined our guts.

As a species we are more likely to have developed an adaptive gut that has in part helped us colonise the planet. What is truly pernicious is the non scientific clap trap proliferated on the internet about what we should eat. Most of the proponents of restrictive (rather than balanced) diets seems to be about selling something (books, probiotics, religious beliefs etc). From what I can see.

There is no benefit from eating organic produce from a nutrition point of view than non organic. The research that we have depleted minerals in our vegetables is also a bit suspect since the research I’ve read was a very limited study on text book analytical values and made no adjustment to changes in analytical methodology. The results haven’t been replicated from what was a very small study.

We are an omnivore by design so veganism, paleo, gluten-free etc etc is just against our nature. These food restriction fads are as likely to be doing as much “damage” to our long term heath due to the non diverse diets limiting diversity in our biome. We have after all been eating bread for thousands of years so why now do we suddenly think we should cut it out of our diets for example.?

The truth of the matter is the rise of obesity due to eating more calories than we need and more refined starch (without fibre) in our diets is far more likely to cause bloating etc than anything to do with the small amount of protein that’s in wheat. Coeliac as a condition for example has stayed consistently at around 1% of the population (or thereabouts). Over the last 10-15 years the number of people going gluten free has increased dramatically. At the same time obesity rates have also risen dramatically.

The latest research on gut biome has so far failed to prove that probiotics do more for us than eating a healthy balanced and diverse diet. There are no indications either that for the majority of the population that our gut biome wouldn’t return to a healthy balance within 8 weeks of eating a healthy balanced diet (with reasonable fibre in it and less refined CHO).

Obviously for people with low stomach acid none of that applies ...I just felt I should challenge the general sweeping generalisation that we as a population had all destroyed our guts and things were worse than they used to be.

[EllieMayNot in reply to Slothlike]

There are many studies proving that glyphosate destroys beneficial gut microbes and most GMOs are heavily laden with glyphosate (the GMO crops designed to withstand heavy doses of Roundup/glyphosate). Unfortunately, the USA is the worst offender in that most of the food found in conventional grocery stores contains GMO ingredients and are thus contaminated with this very toxic chemical. Autoimmunity has been directly linked to the gut so I have to say that here in the US, we are very often victims of our food supply.

I believe that the fact that more and more nations are banning imports on GMO products from the US is rather telling.

[Slothlike in reply to EllieMayNot]

Unfortunately most studies on the gut biome don’t prove what is beneficial or indeed what a good microbiome looks like. We just don’t know this yet. This is one of the main reasons why the EU have banned health claims on probiotics sold commercially.

Most gut biome studies are at such early stages I find it difficult to understand how anyone can claim what agents have a beneficial or detrimental effect when we don’t know what good looks like (even at a genus level).

we have thousands of species residing in our gut. There are also many strains of species. E coli for instance has 200 strains or thereabouts...only 6 are potentially pathogenic to humans. The magnitude of understanding the gut is enormous...and you don’t get much from studying metabolites or dna in faeces . The trick is understanding how the populations work with each other and the host during digestion (I.e. in situ). We don’t even have an adequate model for this let alone know what is going on.

What we generally do know is that gut biome is important in terms of digestion, and that diversity should theoretically be a good thing. Claims to the contrary are unfortunately likely to be pseudoscience at this stage (normally with a vested interest by the author).

I do however agree that the USA could do with tightening up some areas of food regulation. Pesticide residue testing in crop foodstuffs and antibiotics in meat, heavy metals in fish etc is pretty rigorous in the EU and subject to heavy scrutiny.

A good Christmas lecture I saw once was that you would need to eat many wheelbarrows of oranges per day to touch pesticides at the toxic level. You would die of vitamin C poisoning long before you caused harm from the pesticide.

The Eu has had a ban in place on imported GMO’s on most things (tomatoes may be an exception) for many years. This was mainly due to the environmental impact not having been tested enough I believe rather than anything to do with pesticides.

[EllieMayNot in reply to Slothlike]

I agree that there is much research remaining. However, since glyphosate contained in GMOs works as an antibiotic in certain cases and also effects the Shikimate pathway of bacteria, its effects are not favorable toward healthy gut microbes and disbiosis seems to be rampant here in the States. (I work with and am related to numerous scientists and medical professionals who believe that this is the case and they have convinced me of the deleterious effects of these so called "frankenfoods".) It has now been ruled in various courts that glyphosate causes cancer and this is based on scientific testimony, not heresay. (I has also been proven that the manufacturer has left out certain facts uncovered in their studies revealing the negative health implications of their products.) Agreed, it is a balancing act, keeping the bad "bugs" in check and promoting optimal levels (yet to be determined) of the good ones. There are ample studies here showing the negative effects of GMOs so, in my opinion, we are really doing ourselves a great disservice if we indulge in those foods containing GMOs and glyphosate. I look around me and see so very many suffering from many ailments that I just didn't see growing up. Like you mentioned earlier, we have done ourselves a great disservice in opting for greater levels of processed food stuffs in our diets and, to a certain extent, this can be the cause even without tainted GMOs. However, we have also increased our toxic load exponentially on numerous fronts. A lot of influencing factors so no direct target of cause in many instances. It is just so very disheartening to see too many, especially those you know and love, who are chronically ill and dying from ailments that may very well be caused by bad lifestyle decisions.

[Slothlike in reply to EllieMayNot]

Well I would say that this is all a bit theoretical with not an awful lot of proof at this stage. I am a little cautious to attribute such convoluted arguments without any evidence. This may be my research training (I'm an ex biochemist/microbiologist).

So just to illustrate:

"glyphosate contained in GMOs works as an antibiotic in certain cases"

This statement doesn't have a lot of direct proof to the scale of the effect on gut microorganisms so is a theoretical supposition.

"its effects are not favorable toward healthy gut microbes"

As mentioned in my earlier reply there is no evidence yet as to what constitutes healthy microorganisms in the human gut since we have no conclusive evidence yet from research at a level that is useful.

"dysbiosis seems to be rampant here in the States"

whether this is or isn't the case (I would like to see something stronger than "seems"), there are many reasons for this to be the case....obesity due to the over consumption of calories (from whatever source) could equally be the reason. There is no direct causal evidence to link to this argument.

"Agreed, it is a balancing act, keeping the bad "bugs" in check and promoting optimal levels (yet to be determined) of the good ones".

There is no evidence yet that this is a valid model for how the gut biome works. Its still just a theory yet to be proven. I suspect (as someone who has studied and practiced microbiology and biochemistry during my career) that the 'Bad bacteria/good bacteria' is far too simplistic. This is what I was trying to explain using E.coli. Many bacteria can be opportunistic, so could reside in the gut doing absolutely no harm, being kept in check by the environment in which they reside. THis is the basis of food safety, not the complete removal/eradication of the 'bad guys'.

It makes sense to me that the important thing will be balance within the populations and this will be mainly affected by diet and nutrition and other metabolic/endocrine controls on digestion.

I suspect there will be more to come on this but as yet no one knows enough to make the quite convoluted claims that you seem to have picked up. I also disagree with you that processed food is bad. Unless you severely reduce the human population the only way to feed everyone is to have efficient farming and food processing and supply chains. So the key is to keep abreast of new developments and use scientific evidence to manage the regulatory side of food processing/supply chain.

Creating convoluted fantasy-based conspiracy theories is not a good basis for food regulation. In short we need an evidence based system.

[EllieMayNot in reply to Slothlike]

I am afraid that my explanation is not as thorough as it ought to be. Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Dr. Zach Bush and others have done extensive research on the effects of Glyphosate and can explain in the necessary scientific terms. Their research and the studies that they (and others) refer to do more than just speculate. Please forgive the fact that I do not have the scientific lingo nor quick references in hand. I can point toward the experts but am no expert, myself.

[fbirder]

PA would have been as common in the past as it is today. But the symptoms overlap with so many other conditions that it wasn't recognised as a distinct problem until 1822. And wasn't properly investigated until 1855. Before then deaths due to PA would have been described as being caused by such things as wasting, visitation by god, decline, cachexia, jaundice, etc.

And it would have been mainly PA that would cause low B12. We didn't have the drugs that affect its absorption and we didn't have so many people voluntarily refusing to eat meat (at least in the Western world). So iatrogenic and dietary B12 deficiencies would be very rare.

It's definitely nothing to do with changes in farming practices. PA is increasing in India and Africa, even in places where farming hasn't changed in centuries.

[Lurcher-lady in reply to fbirder]

Also in centuries past, people didn’t live as long, so there would not be the same ageing populations with their ageing guts as there are today.

[Gambit62 Administrator]

B12 deficiency is likely to be more prevalent in Western societies these days because we are living longer - and age seems to be one factor that increases the risks of B12 deficiency (due to general lowering of stomach acidity as we get older).

The name pernicious anaemia goes back to early 1800s when the effects of B12 deficiency were first observed by Thomas Addison as a type of anaemia that lead to madness and death ... which is the source of the misunderstanding that it is the anaemia that causes neurological and other problems

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

[Alfabeta]

If you read Samuel Pepys diary you will get a very clear insight into 17/18 century diets! He regularly ate a ‘barrel’ of oysters for breakfast and his Parmesan cheese was so valuable to him that he buried it to save it from the great fire. He ate a meat rich diet and, provided he could absorb the vast quantities of b12 within it, it is hard to see how he would ever be b12 deficient. However, as with many males that I see, he ate very few vegetables - at leat he didn’t mention vegetables very often. But he possibly ate quite a lot of liver so he possibly obtained enough folic acid from that.

Whether the poor ate enough meat is another matter - Pepys doesn’t mention them very often!

I often wonder, being a vegetarian, how males in particular, get enough b9 in their diets . I often hear working class males in particular saying that they hate salad and often see salad and cooked vegetables left on plates in restaurants. My father in law dined out with us the other day, ate a huge rack of ribs and the the vegetables totally untouched. When eating with my extended family, I nearly always finish off the salad as so little was eaten.

As far as I know, b9 is essential for the b12 to be used in combination - if this is true, b12 deficiency is as likely to be caused by folic acid deficiency even if one eats large amounts of meat.

[FlipperTD]

It's likely that PA was just as common in the past as nowadays, but as it was untreatable at the time, sufferers would have died within, typically, a couple of years.

The adoption of liver as a treatment made a huge difference. The discovery of 'Intrinsic Factor' from Castle's famous experiment with 'Hamburger mince' gave us more knowledge. (I can ramble on about this for hours but won't!) In the early days, what we now know as B12 was referred to as 'extrinsic factor' and it combined with what we still call 'intrinsic factor'. I hope this makes sense!

[MoKayD]

I believe vitamin b12 is a fairly recent scientific discovery. I read an article sometime ago that doctors believe Mary Todd Lincoln (President Abraham Lincoln's wife who was put away because it was believed she was mad), might've had pernicious anemia instead. I also believe that there is a hereditary factor. It seems to run in my family (lucky me!) I just found out that my cousin's daughter is B12 deficient an I strongly suspect that my grandmother had pernicious anemia. My grandmother Georgie, in addition to other symptoms, had her hair turn completely silver by the time she was 40 and she was said to have an odd gait and had early onset dementia like symptoms.