Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by damnesian 96 days ago
lack of fiber is a biggie too. Foods too highly processed. too many oils.
4 comments

I don’t know. Something about eating a lot of fiber. I cant do it for example. I eat some veggies, but probably not “enough” fiber compared to modern recommendations and i cant process it. I am doing OK without it from subjective perspective. Also i am interested how much nonsoluble fiber did regular people eat before modern vegetable and fruits. Potatoes and cabbage, wheat and some roots and max some berries max.

Like where would the need for the fiber come from evolutionary.

For most of humanity, humans are mostly plants and seeds. Meat was rare, because hunting is hard, and domesticated crops like grain are a new invention. Like, very new - 10,000 years.

All those were very high in fiber. I believe it's estimated paleolithic humans are over 100 grams of fiber a day, whereas I believe the recommended intake today is 35 grams, which less than 2% of Americans meet.

So yes, the Paleo diet is largely bullshit. No, humans did not eat fatty farmed meats. They barely ate meat at all.

I usually stay out of health convos because it's just not my wheelhouse, but I think most people would benefit from extra fiber. It has an obvious direct benefit to your life the very next time you use the bathroom. I don't know if it is the answer to the rise of colon cancer; this is well studied and seems really easy to work with? We would surely know already. But I do know it's worth doing irrespective of that.
Maybe instead of processing food to add more protein into it — even Starbucks sells "protein drinks" now — they should process food to have more fiber instead.
This is my personal bet. It's just low fiber diets.
It can't just be low fiber diets - there has to be some other exposures involved.
I mean, there's a well-documented link between colon cancer and inadequate fiber intake.

And it's also well-documented that the average Western diet is highly deficient in fiber and that this is a thing which has gotten much worse in the last 75 years.

There also seems to be at least some light evidence that there may be generational effects - that the starting point of your gut is already bad if your mother's was.

Why?
Apt username from a person suggesting that non edible fiber is the nutrient causing illness and thats the presupposition we should argue against.

Why would more fiber help?

The mechanism behind why more fiber helps is pretty straightforward:

Insoluble fiber speeds up gut motility. Faster gut motility means less time for toxins to sit and absorb in your gut.

Also, fermentable fibers serve as substrate for gut microbes, producing short-chain fatty acids (butyrate is one - a primary fuel source for colonocytes - the cells that line your colon).

It also lowers colonic pH, inhibiting pathogenic bacteria.

Lastly, (although there are tons more benefits I'm not listing), soluble fiber is incredible for people trying to lose weight, as highly fibrous foods increase satiety, keeping you fuller for longer.

Uh, what? I have not made a presuppositional argument (I made no argument at all...). I made a statement about my epistemic state - ie: that I would "bet" on low fiber being the major contributor to colon cancer rates. Someone then asserted that it can't be that, and I asked "why?".

> Why would more fiber help?

Because there is an incredible amount of research into high fiber diets being good for your gut, including reduced colon cancer rates. This is the consensus of various organizations such as WHO - high fiber diets have lower risks of colon cancer.

My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets. There are a lot of other risk factors involved. Will high fiber help - absolutely. Is it the be all end all - no I doubt it.

Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.