The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
what they found in that study if you read it carefully again this was a mouse study in which they infused a quote human-like microbiome of 14 microorganisms that liked fiber what they found was a small change in the amount of mucus without any histopathologic changes suggestive of inflammation in the gut
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.
so what they're saying is that there was a small decrease in the mucous layer of the guts of these mice that were fed very low fiber diets but there was no change in the histopathology which could indicate any real path in any real pathogenesis
when they actually looked at the histology of that study they didn't see inflammation in the gut the nucleus layer decreased a little bit because they introduced a fake human microbiome into these mice and the microbiome was a microbiome that loved fiber