> Additionally, dietary fiber from whole grains, cereals, and vegetables was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, while dietary fiber from nuts and seeds reduced the risk of CVD-related death by 43%<p>Importantly, as HN folks seem to like supplements, you should be aware that most fiber supplements and additives are soluble [edited -- originally said "insoluble"] fiber, while all of these sources give you a mixture of soluble and insoluble fiber. This mixture appears to be necessary to get the full benefit from fiber—Dr. Lustig describes it very memorably as saying that the insoluble fiber creates a sort of “mesh net” and the soluble fiber “plugs the holes” in that net, which combine together to coat the inside of the upper intestine (the duodenum) and reduce early absorption of calories, so that they ferment more and feed your gut microbiome.<p>So, to supplement, supplement with snack-sized bell peppers or mixed nuts or fresh green beans or so, rather than a pill or a fiber shake.<p>This also means that it is very hard to actually control for and isolate that this was due to the fiber rather than the lifestyle. So maybe just find produce that you find delicious and eat it for deliciousness’ sake, trusting the fiber thing to work itself out?
…higher consumption of total dietary fiber, significantly decreased the risk of all-cause mortality, CVD-related mortality, and cancer-related mortality by 23, 26 and 22 % (HR:0.77; 95%CI (0.73,0.82), HR:0.74; 95%CI (0.71,0.77) and HR:0.78; 95%CI (0.68,0.87)), respectively. The consumption of insoluble fiber tended to be more effective than soluble fiber intake in reducing the risk of total mortality and mortality due to CVD and cancer. Additionally, dietary fiber from whole grains, cereals, and vegetables was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, while dietary fiber from nuts and seeds reduced the risk of CVD-related death by 43 % (HR:0.57; 95 % CI (0.38,0.77)).
Am I missing something, or are all these effect sizes just shockingly improbably large? "decreased the risk of all-cause mortality, CVD-related mortality, and cancer-related mortality by 23, 26 and 22 % "<p>1/4 drop in mortality just from fiber seems...like too much? Am I missing something subtle about how these mortality reduction effects are defined? Or perhaps these are conditional expectations but not causal effects? (Example: if eating fiber is negatively correlated with binge drinking alcohol, then P(death|fiber) probably << P(death|~fiber), but it's unclear a priori how much of that difference is due to alcohol)
I may be being dense, and I realise this is a meta analysis, but the abstract doesn’t explain how much fibre one needs to eat to reduce all-cause mortality by the amount they claim?
One thing stands out to me:<p>>The consumption of insoluble fiber tended to be more effective than soluble fiber intake in reducing the risk of total mortality and mortality due to CVD and cancer.<p>My hunch is that this is an epiphenomenon, and that what's actually happening is:<p>1. people eating large amounts of soluble fiber are consuming <i>fiber supplements</i> (e.g. psyllium husk); and,<p>2. people eating large amounts of insouable fiber are eating salads, etc.
Pollan said once:<p>> Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants<p>And as near as I can tell, that is basically the way forward, plus remembering to eat enough protein.<p>There's a steady drip of how this additive or that replacement has a knock on negative effect. So I think at the end, making sure to make your own food, mostly plants, manage protein, with carbs for fun pretty much covers it.
Documented by Denis Burkitt[0] in his 1979 book "Don't forget fibre in your diet" (he came to be known as "fibre man" as a result)<p>[0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Parsons_Burkitt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Parsons_Burkitt</a>
This meta-analysis seems to have the usual flaw: Most diet regimens studied are minor variations of common, standard diets. As a result this shows the result of including fiber in a standard diet. Diets that vary significantly from standard such as vegan diets or so-called paleo or carnivore diets appear in some studies to generate very different results from additional fiber ingested with a standard diet. In short, fiber is great if you are eating a standard diet, but if you ingest a particular selection foods then the observed positive effects from fiber may disappear.
So I was actually healthier before I cut out peanut m&ms?<p>(My diet is better than it was, but still garbage. I have a mix of fibres that I take daily with psyllium husk, chia seeds, and glucomannan)
If you haven’t, do read Outlive by Peter Attia. It discusses what we know about nutrition for certain (very little).<p>This yet another correlation not causality result.
What are all the comments regarding fiber supplements about? Why would you ever take fiber supplements? How about whole-weat bread and veggies?<p>Isn't the point of fibers that they're healthy in the sense that they can't be digested but they contribute to feeling full, so it's just about reducing caloric intake?