6 ms·

Fiber reduces overall mortality by 23%

• fuckinpuppers 1y ago
  Fiber internet? Much happier outcomes, less stress, probably less death? :)
• jad9m 1y ago
  am I the only one who thought this article was about fibre internet (from the title)?
  • canadiantim 1y ago
    yes
  • jayd16 1y ago
    No but I was hoping it was. Then insurance would pay for the roll out.
  • re-thc 1y ago
    Back to the Dotcom bubble instead of AI?
• sleepytimetea 1y ago
  And here I am, stuck with only cable modem connectivity.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • m463 1y ago
    that's unfortunate since fiber has better bandwidth, congestion control and large packet support.
    • gpi 1y ago
      Digestion control
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• Noaidi 1y ago
  For who? The Inuit? The Chinese? Europeans? People with my ice age genetics? (Nope) I despise studies that do not take genetics into account. Fiber made my cholesterol worse! The only thing that lowered my LDL and riased my HDL was a seafood only diet. Fiber flares my IBD, most likely from my NOD2 genetics[1][2]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/35079107 https://www.nature.com/articles/35079107 [2] https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/22/4775 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/22/4775 "IBD patients show that microbiota dysbiosis and diet, especially dietary fiber, can modulate its composition. These patients are more at risk of energy protein malnutrition than the general population and are deficient in micronutrients"
  • thisislife2 1y ago
    If you don't mind telling us, what fiber-rich food did you consume?
    • Noaidi 1y ago
      Pretty much none, and I poop like clockwork now. Maybe some sourdough crisp breads every now and then, and some white rice. But I avoid most plant foods but frop seaweed and mushrooms (they contain Fucose (not fructose!) which helps my gut becasue I am a FUT2 non-secretor [1] as well. In my late 20s and 30's I was going to the bathroom (urgently) at least twice a day if not more. My gut was bloated and my mental health was much much worse. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.940196/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/1...
  • aeturnum 1y ago
    I mean, if you click on the first link you will open the paper they are summarizing[1]. It's a meta analysis of 64 studies, so you could certainly go through the studies and look at each population. However, the actual answer is that all population studies are only gross generalizations that may not apply to you. They are often quite useful because the odds are generally good that they do apply...but it's never certain. Even if you are a member of the studied population your specific circumstances may overwhelm your populations norms. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38011755/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38011755/
• 1121redblackgo 1y ago
  Olipop ad?
  • brandonb 1y ago
    (OP here) - no affiliation with Olipop. But we've tried all the fiber supplements around the office, and we found Olipop is a pretty palatable option compared to, say, psyllium husk (which forms a gel when combined with water).
    • slabity 1y ago
      Looks more like an ad for your app though... Which for some reason collects tons of data unrelated to health, like messages, location data, and photos/videos/files?
      • brandonb 1y ago
        Photos are used to track nutrition -- you choose each photo to upload within the app. Location is only used, in context, to help find healthy meals near you. (You can use the app with or without enabling this location-based feature; if you don't use it, then we don't ask for location.) Where are you seeing messages? We don't track messages, so this is probably a mistake in our metadata.
        • slabity 1y ago
          https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.empiricalhealth.EmpiricalHealth https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.empiric... Sorry for being pessimistic, it's just whenever I see a health related app I immediately look at the data collected and data shared sections and get concerned. Especially if it's being shared with insurance companies. Quick edit: That "messages" part might be only in-app ones. Google does not word that well in the summary.
          • brandonb 1y ago
            I see -- yeah, the Android metadata says "in-app messages". That refers to features where you can message support or a doctor within the app. We don't attempt to read your text messages or anything like that. Your data isn't shared with insurance companies.
• loloquwowndueo 1y ago
  Oh, way to bury the lede. > You can’t improve what you don’t measure. If you’re trying to get more fiber—or to optimize other heart health nutrients like saturated fat, sodium, and potassium—Empirical Health is designed to make tracking very easy. You can’t improve what you can’t measure and our product coincidentally helps you measure this.
  • NotMichaelBay 1y ago
    That's good that they "buried the lede", isn't it? Better than the product being mentioned early and often throughout the article.
    • WrongOnInternet 1y ago
      Or the price of said product ($190)
      • brandonb 1y ago
        FYI: $190 is the price for the comprehensive health panel which includes a blood test and video visit with a doctor. You can track nutrition for free within the iPhone/Android apps.
    • brandonb 1y ago
      (OP) Yep--this is my philosophy. Obviously I'd love it if everybody used our product to improve their heart health, but I think it's better to write stuff that's informative and if people genuinely have the problem, then they can try us out.
    • BigTTYGothGF 1y ago
      No, because then you'd have wasted time reading what turned out to be ad copy.
      • NotMichaelBay 1y ago
        You're implying that the article has no value because its purpose is to attract readers to ultimately make a purchase. But if you're trying to attract readers, arguably the best way to do that is to provide something of value to them. If the goal is to attract readers without providing any value at all, it's extremely easy to do that nowadays with AI. And luckily it's just as easy to identify low-effort articles written by AI.
• jimkri 1y ago
  Super interesting to read! I have noticed a huge benefit from just adding Metamucil to my diet. The following lines from the article really resonate. >Insoluble fibers have fecal-bulking characteristics that may promote regular bowel movements and avoid constipation. >"Specifically, soluble fiber binds to bile acids in the intestine" I have started to take Metamucil more frequently because I was taking an algae supplement, Spirulina & Chlorella, and it was moving through me so fast because I noticed I had no bulk from a low fiber diet. It made a huge improvement in bulking and slowed my bowel movements. I also noticed before adding the fiber that I just would feel acidic, rude, or short-tempered in a different way, and my stomach was really acidic. Adding the fiber really did help, and it's cool to see articles and research backing it up.
  • wil421 1y ago
    Did you have heartburn? I’m curious if adding Metamucil would help with that after hearing you feel less acidic.
    • InMice 1y ago
      I think it can help for some. You have to be careful which brands, CR did tests for lead. yerba prima organic was the best
    • jimkri 1y ago
      I do, and when I actively and consistently take Metamucil or a psyllium husk, it has helped. I recently stopped because I ran out and forgot to buy more, and I have noticed the heartburn again.
  • m463 1y ago
    I kind of wonder what the best form of added fiber should be. The thing about metamucil is that it has either added sugar or artificial sweeteners. the main ingredient is psyllium husk. I like benefiber better - no taste, just sprinkle on food. But I don't know how wheat dextrin compares to psyllium husk (or other fibers) A nurse I talked to takes psyllium husk by itself, and I wonder if that is better than metamucil.
• panarky 1y ago
  Does eating fiber by itself reduce mortality? Or do healthy and wealthy people with active lifestyles and excellent healthcare happen to also eat more fiber?
  • e584 1y ago
    Oh wow, I'm sure the authors of the meta study never considered that...
  • brandonb 1y ago
    This is honestly a limitation of nearly all nutrition research -- it's based on observational data. Part of the reason we expect fiber to reduce mortality, rather than simply being a marker of other factors correlated with mortality, is that we can identify physiological mechanisms. For example, for cardiovascular mortality, fiber reduces LDL cholesterol / ApoB which lowers heart attack and stroke risk.
  • tanseydavid 1y ago
    Ask your doctor.
• thisislife2 1y ago
  I don't know about my physical health, but mentally I feel more calm / content when I eat fiber rich food. I partly understand that this is because fiber rich food ensures slower release of sugar, from the food you eat into your blood, preventing the sudden spike and fall you get in sugar levels from food with low fiber (most retail snacks and junk food). I can also assert that bowel movement does feel "good" with fiber in your diet. And you feel satiated faster, and for a longer period of time, with it.
  • crdrost 1y ago
    Yep! Lustig has a book, Metabolical, that goes into kind of a simple explanation of the underlying mechanism here, and it's roughly like this: fiber-rich foods contain a combination of soluble and insoluble fiber, the insoluble fiber basically forms a sort of "net" of chunks and strings and such that you can't digest, and the soluble fiber forms a "gel" which gets stuck in the net and traps other foods. This gel is infused with various enzymes to break down foods in the duodenum, and then passes to the first and second half of the "zig-zag" parts of the small intestine -- the jejunum and the ileum. The combination of fibers then leads to a given packet of calories traveling further down the jejunum as it gets absorbed, which makes more of the bacteria living along the length of the intestine happy with you, as well as protecting from blood glucose spikes that come with concomitant "crashes".
    • bjoli 1y ago
      I am not saying that is wrong, but there are many mysterious claims in that book. I especially found the claim that "the most expensive burden to society is sugar" by a large margin was pretty astonishing. It lacks wide support in literature. As do many other claims in the book. Like refined carbohydrates being the main cause of weight gain through a rise in insulin. That is - at best - generally disputed, but is touted as fact. I mean, what he prescribed is fine. Eat "real food". But how he comes to that stance is rather opaque to me. He is obviously literate, but checking some sources in the book very few of them strongly supported the claims he made with that reference.
      • 1y ago
• hinkley 1y ago
  It was only about five years ago I realized that pectin is a soluble fiber. My entire childhood is a lie. All that lovely jam and jelly was a delivery mechanism.
• stabbles 1y ago
  Funny how the first suggestion is supplements, the second whole foods.
• qoez 1y ago
  Just eat lots of beans and lentils. No need for an app or 'fiber gummies'
  • ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    anything leafy as well, though those won't have the protein boost of legumes
  • InMice 1y ago
    I like to pair those with rice so their amino acids compliment each other.
  • cassepipe 1y ago
    Lettuce because I am lazy
• ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  what do I need to get my mortality up to 123%? I'm deadmaxxing
• kristianp 1y ago
  I've started eating more avocado for its good oils, turns out it is high fibre too. My cholesterol readings have improved marginally, HDL slightly higher, LDL slightly lower.
• endoblast 1y ago
  Relatedly, microdosing with lactulose (which is very cheap) has a probiotic effect. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8353095/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8353095/
  • cassepipe 1y ago
    I personally macrodose on lettuce. Real cheap and easy to source. Some of the most beautiful turds ever made, some would even the most beautiful
• pinkmuffinere 1y ago
  > You can’t improve what you don’t measure I hate the way this saying is commonly used today. I think a literal interpretation is untrue, but many people feel that a literal interpretation is true. For instance, humans get better at speaking whatever language they are surrounded with, even though that is not being actively measured by some metric. It is probably being measured by some implicit cycle in the human brain, but that is not the kind of explicit measurement that people would demand based on this saying. Some other examples that you can improve without an explicit measurement: - Camera stability (you can usually "see" it immediately, without an engineering metric) - Large changes in customer satisfaction (for fine tuning you probably need a metric, but for large changes, it will be obvious) - Kindness I'm not saying that measurement is purposeless. Just that it is not always necessary. Not everything needs to be measured. Also, why do generally smart people buy this platitude, when others will obviously not be taken as law? I don't see engineering orgs living by "closed mouths don't get fed", or "tidy desk, tidy mind", or "if momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy". But somehow "You can't improve what you don't measure" became law. I realize this is only tangential. I guess I've been saving this rant for a while.
  • arp242 1y ago
    I agree with what you're saying; in the most extreme scenario you end up with the McNamara fallacy, and it's bizarrely common on e.g. HN. But I also think the platitude is appropriate in this case – I probably eat a decent amount of fibre, but is it enough? I don't really know. I'd need to measure it (and it's very possible I could be vastly under- or overestimating some things about my diet).
    • pinkmuffinere 1y ago
      Actually I don't even think the platitude is appropriate in this case, although perhaps this is due to differences in acceptable performance. Do you really need to measure the health impact directly on your body to be satisfied that you are doing something right? I think you can take studies that say "X mg of fiber a day improves outcomes", eat slightly more than X mg of fiber, and likely get 90% of the benefit as compared to the "ideal" amount of fiber, all without a personalized measuremnet. Even if you did have a measurement, there would be confounding factors like "how much did you exercise?" / "how stressed were you?" / "is your body 'just getting old'?"
• delichon 1y ago
  The meta-analysis is of epidemiological data, which shows association, but since there is no intervention, cannot show causation and does not claim to. It does not distinguish an effect of fiber from healthy user bias. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3077477/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3077477/
  • brandonb 1y ago
    Unfortunately, this is a limitation of nearly all nutritional studies. Partly we use mechanistic evidence to separate cause from effect--that's part of why the article goes into detail about, e.g., how soluble fiber binds to bile in the liver. If there's an association between A and B, and a known physiological mechanism where A causes C which causes B, it makes it more likely that ultimately A is the cause of B.
    • delichon 1y ago
      It's a limitation of all epidemiological studies. These are a great way to target more expensive randomized controlled trials that are also more invasive by definition. Nutrition science has lots of those and needs more. In an N=1 intervention study, I too found fiber to be health supporting, but that wasn't randomized or controlled.
  • sarchertech 1y ago
    It doesn’t, but we do have plausible mechanisms to explain the effect. Fiber lowers LDL cholesterol, slows digestion, makes you feel full longer, and helps with regularity, so increasing your fiber intake is probably worth it anyway.
• fellowniusmonk 1y ago
  Literally grind up 2 tbps of Hulled Barley, take 2 mins to boil it in a microwave with a bunch of water, drink your barley water and call it a day. Humans effectively co-evolved with Barley drink, it's insane we try all this other stuff. The benefits of barley and beta glucan are well established. People don't seem to appreciate that it aids in more thorough digestion while protecting your digestive tract. Eat roughage and greens all you want, but barley in a spice grinder is 100% the base layer for everything else and it takes 3 mins a day to microwave and drink. Incidentally this also helps regulate the water content in your colon, so hydration curves improve as well. Bulking with greens without laying down a soluble fiber base is why people get the salad shooter expierence, the greens don't stay in your digestive tract long enough. All these lesser grains have to have ad campaigns and health fads, barley is the goat and always in demand and so people over look it.
• dizlexic 1y ago
  To be slightly obtuse, I've never understood these studies because overall mortality is 100%.
  • crdrost 1y ago
    Yes, here "overall" is being used as a synonym for "from all causes" not "over the full length of your life," and there's this frustrating thing for those of us with physics educations where people frequently leave off a unit of time: so like if it's a 5 year study, and your all-cause mortality is lower by a factor of 20% over those 5 years, that means 80% survived and you should compute the fifth root 0.8^(1/5) to find that 95.6% survived per year on this account, and then you can say "reduces mortality by 4.4% per year," and that sounds much more reasonable. This happens all over the place. You're just supposed to know in investment that a price-to-earnings ratio is measured in years, or people will say "the Buffett indicator is 200%" not "the Buffett indicator is 2 years."