The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
The difference is that when we put the mice on the low fiber, high fat diet, and then kept them on that for multiple generations, we saw this progressive deterioration over the course of generations whereby the fourth generation, the gut microbiome was a fraction of what it originally was. Let's say 30% of the species only remained something like 70% of the species had gone extinct, or appeared to have gone extinct.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
We then put those mice back onto a high fiber diet, and we didn't see recovery. So in that case, it's a situation where a new stable state has been achieved.
And we switched those mice, half the mice, to a low fiber diet. And we were basically asking the question that if you switch to kind of a Western-like diet, a low fiber, higher fat diet, what happens to the gut microbiota? And we saw the microbiota change, it lost diversity. It was very similar to what we see in the difference between industrialized and traditional populations.
The difference is that when we put the mice on a low-fiber, high-fat diet and then kept them on that for multiple generations, um, we saw this progressive deterioration over the course of generations where by the fourth generation, the gut microbiome was a, you know, a fraction of what it originally was. Let's say 30% of the species only remained um, something like 70% of the species had gone extinct or appeared to have gone extinct.