Peter Attia

And of course, just because epidemiologic studies point to something being the way to do it doesn't mean it's wrong either.

But basically, we just don't have as much clear causal evidence as we would like to make the type of recommendations that we're making.

Now, I would say historically, it's not that I haven't known this.

I've just let it slide because my view has been, what is the harm?

So what if the epidemiology says you should be eating whatever, 50 grams or 30 grams a day?

What's the downside in that?

But look, there's been some polarizing discussions on this topic lately, and you seem to have people accumulating on either sides of this debate.

You've got the, you need zero fiber crowd, obviously more on the carnivore side of the diet landscape.

And then you've got the, if you're not getting 50 grams a day, you're probably going to die.

in the next week or so.

Obviously, I'm being facetious, but that's basically the way the discussion is sort of shaping out.

So I think with that said, we need to take a closer look at the data so that an individual who is in the 97% of the population who chooses not to be completely dogmatic and extreme can make a well-informed decision.

And frankly, that starts with me.

I actually care deeply about this topic on a personal level because I'm actually not sure how much fiber I should be eating.

Yes.

Apologies in advance to the veteran listener who's heard me talk about this at length.

I think it's always worth spending a moment on this because I also realize there are people that might be new to this.

So epidemiology, in particular nutritional epidemiology, tends to be heavily confounded by healthy user bias.

And that means that people who are doing one healthy thing, for example, like eating a high-fiber diet,

tend to be doing many other healthy things.