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?

▲

h4kr1 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

boringg an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

staticassertion an hour ago | parent [-]

> My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets.

Well, you said "can't" and I asked "why", which feels very reasonable to me. Your argument seems to be that it wouldn't account properly for the data - specifically, you're saying we would have seen colon cancer rates rise earlier.

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

I don't really buy this for a lot of reasons. Probably the two most important are (a) ability to screen historically and (b) the timing isn't particularly "off" for the fiber argument. We did see it already, we've been seeing increases in color cancer risks for decades.

Now, I'm not married to it "just" being fiber whatsoever, but if I were to "bet" on the major contributing factor, naively, that's where my money would go. I think it's very reasonable to not place your bet there.

▲

boringg an hour ago | parent [-]

Should be a betting service for this kind of thing instead of sports betting. Maybe all the men betting sports might read and change their habits based on the betting outcomes (and improve their health).

I would also bet top reason is fiber but it isn't the only reason - multiple factors at play.

	▲	staticassertion an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think that's all very fair.