2

votes

Metametrix GI Effects interpretation question: low SCFA and 'off' percentages

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Out of curiosity (and a slight hope that I'd detect something was 'wrong') I did a GI Effects test from Metametrix.

I got relatively within-range numbers, mostly with the exception of the SCFA section. Anyone able to shed any light?

  • My total SFCA were low (38 mM/g)
  • In terms of my percentages: acetate was low (52), and butyrate/propionate/valerate were all subsequently high (25, 25, 3.6)

Not sure what to make of any of this, if at all. Any input appreciated! thank you!

Dd5531aac63bf44d641d3f6f85074bac

(10)

on August 22, 2012
at 08:42 PM

Thanks Matt. Fair enough, and I'm not really worrying. Just looking for something to fix. I suppose one of the key learnings from this test for me is -- except in the case of wild outlier results (pathogen, etc.) -- there's not much utility to a single test other than setting a (somewhat temporal) benchmark. In terms of ranges, Metametrix flags anything below 55mM/g (total SCFA) as "low" (mine was 38). They have no "high" metric, just look for a number above 35mM/g. thanks again.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:42 PM

I see you have edited your answer. Still if you had actually read the question, rather than just trolling for traffic to you blog, you would see that your blog post in no way answers the question. Also contrary to your statement there appears to be quite a decent amount of butyrate, the the 4 carbon fat to which you refer. While it is acetate (2 carbons) that is a bit lower than usual.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:13 PM

I see you have edited your answer. Still if you had actually read the question, rather than just trolling for traffic to you blog, you would see that your blog post in no way answers the question.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 03:26 PM

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? 4 carbon fats are a SCFA (short-chain fatty acid). You don't make one from the other.

Dd5531aac63bf44d641d3f6f85074bac

(10)

on August 20, 2012
at 10:51 PM

Hi, thank you. I saw that and tried to parse it... mostly unsuccessfully! Carb-wise I eat 100-150g per day pretty consistently, with a higher spike on my once-a-week lifting days. So while I have been low-carb in the past, I haven't been for many months thanks to Paul Jaminet. So this didn't seem as applicable here.

  • Dd5531aac63bf44d641d3f6f85074bac

    asked by

    (10)
  • Views
    5.9K
  • Last Activity
    1432D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

2
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 20, 2012
at 09:42 PM

Check out bacteria boss Lucas Tafur's writing on the subject: http://www.lucastafur.com/2011/10/bifidobacteria-butyrate-and.html

"Of the three main SCFA produced in the colon, only acetate has shown a correlation between fecal concentration and absorption...acetate concentration in fecal samples reflect more precisely acetate absorption rather than production. Thus, lower fecal acetate levels with reduced carbohydrate reflect more acetate absorption".

"Low carbohydrate diets seem to reduce the fecal concentration of SCFA in the short term...fecal concentrations of SCFA are not good indicators of SCFA colonic production".

Not sure how much carbs you eat, but that link has lots on reduced carbohydrate intake and gut bacteria and may give you some insight.

Dd5531aac63bf44d641d3f6f85074bac

(10)

on August 20, 2012
at 10:51 PM

Hi, thank you. I saw that and tried to parse it... mostly unsuccessfully! Carb-wise I eat 100-150g per day pretty consistently, with a higher spike on my once-a-week lifting days. So while I have been low-carb in the past, I haven't been for many months thanks to Paul Jaminet. So this didn't seem as applicable here.

1
0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:34 PM

JDC, it is difficult to say anything very meaning from a single test results like this.

SCFAs are produced and absorbed in quite a dynamic way so there are several factors that can influence the amount found in your poo on any particular day.

The lab test does not seem to provide very reliable reference ranges for what they consider normal making it difficult to interpret what they mean by a low level.

There is quite a large degree of variability between individuals in the concentration of these SCFAs found in the poo. Also it matters more how much are produced and absorbed which is not easy to determine from a fecal sample.

Personally I would not worry about these results.

Dd5531aac63bf44d641d3f6f85074bac

(10)

on August 22, 2012
at 08:42 PM

Thanks Matt. Fair enough, and I'm not really worrying. Just looking for something to fix. I suppose one of the key learnings from this test for me is -- except in the case of wild outlier results (pathogen, etc.) -- there's not much utility to a single test other than setting a (somewhat temporal) benchmark. In terms of ranges, Metametrix flags anything below 55mM/g (total SCFA) as "low" (mine was 38). They have no "high" metric, just look for a number above 35mM/g. thanks again.

-1
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 21, 2012
at 02:46 AM

It means your not making any 4 carbon fats from your the nondigestible carbs in your colon. It means your gut flora is not optimal in your anaerobic cauldron (colon) but it is fixable. Keep fighting for the knowledge that will give you the wisdom you seek.

http://jackkruse.com/brain-gut-9-what-really-killed-michael-jackson/

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 03:26 PM

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? 4 carbon fats are a SCFA (short-chain fatty acid). You don't make one from the other.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:42 PM

I see you have edited your answer. Still if you had actually read the question, rather than just trolling for traffic to you blog, you would see that your blog post in no way answers the question. Also contrary to your statement there appears to be quite a decent amount of butyrate, the the 4 carbon fat to which you refer. While it is acetate (2 carbons) that is a bit lower than usual.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:13 PM

I see you have edited your answer. Still if you had actually read the question, rather than just trolling for traffic to you blog, you would see that your blog post in no way answers the question.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!