Guest post by Dr. Dina Gohar, University of Michigan
Hippocrates, considered to be the Father of Medicine, reportedly said, “all disease begins in the gut. ” It took doctors centuries to start studying the connection between our gut microbiota and our health, which is now well-supported by research. We can improve the health and diversity of our gut microbiota with active strategies, such as exercising regularly, eating a healthy diet, and getting enough sleep. We might also be able to improve our gut microbiota by simply consuming live “good” bacteria and microorganisms called probiotics. Probiotics are now sold as capsules, pills, and powders, added to fruit juices, granola bars, and candy, and even put into cosmetics. Fermented foods, such as cultured yogurt, sauerkraut, and kombucha, contain them too. A cloud of hype and hope surrounds probiotics, which have been touted as a treatment (and means of prevention) for everything from intestinal disorders, mood and anxiety disorders, belly fat and obesity-related disorders.
A recent article in the New York Times suggested that a probiotic of heat-killed bacteria can treat metabolic disorders like obesity. This suggestion was based on a study in Nature Medicine.The New York Times journalist summarized the study as follows:
Researchers tested the bacterium, Akkermansia muciniphila, in 32 men and women who met the criteria for metabolic syndrome by having at least three of five conditions: high fasting blood sugar, high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL (the “good” cholesterol) or excessive waist circumference.
…In a three-month trial, volunteers were randomized to one of three groups: daily tablets containing live bacteria, pasteurized bacteria [A. muciniphila] or a placebo. Compared with the placebo group, those who took pasteurized A. muciniphila had significantly improved insulin sensitivity and total cholesterol, and decreases in several blood markers of inflammation and liver dysfunction. They also had decreased body weight, fat mass and waist circumference, though those differences were not statistically significant. The live bacteria were largely ineffective.
- This study was an experiment. What is the independent variable (IV) and what are its levels? What are the dependent variables (DV)? What do you think of the outcome measures chosen for this study?
- How was the independent variable manipulated: between or within groups? Which of the four basic experiments is it probably an example of: Pretest/postttest design? Posttest-only? Repeated measures? or Concurrent measures?
- Can the results of this study be used to support the causal claim that “Taking pasteurized bacteria can improve people’s insulin sensitivity and total cholesterol?” Why or why not? (Apply the three criteria for causality.)
- Look at the sample size of this study; do you think it’s a problem? Why or why not? Which of the four big validities does the sample size best fit into?
- Do the results above support the claim that probiotics like A. muciniphila can treat obesity? Why or why not? (Is internal validity relevant here? What about construct validity?) Can you conclude that probiotics can help you lose weight? Why or why not?
- The New York Times article critically failed to mention that the researchers who conducted this study have a patent on the probiotic treatment and even started a company based on it. What do you think about this potential conflict of interest?
- Do you think it matters that this study’s somewhat promising findings were only with dead bacteria, whereas probiotics are generally defined as being live bacteria? Why or why not? (Which of the four big validities is being asked about in this question, if any?)
You might agree that the probiotic study described by this journalist has a few serious problems. For an example of probiotic research done right, check out this NPR news story on a current clinical trial examining if a specific probiotic could eliminate specific GI problems in children on antibiotics (courtesy of Dr. Jess Hartnett’s statistics blog).