4 ms·

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

• 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.