Some scientists or shall we say experts on ancient diets estimate that prehistoric man ate as much as 100 to 200 g of fiber a day... Which could make sense because the vegetables we eat these days have been so domesticated that their starch content is far higher than it was in the past.. people ate a lot of different plant items from undomesticated plants, these plant parts were not high starts they were like low starts but they had some starch and some protein and some fat... But the fiber part of it was much greater because it was hard to separate the fiber from the starch.. so it's quite possible that these prehistoric people say 20,000 years ago 30,000 years ago whatever ate well over 100 g of fiber a day..

The fiber requirement today is supposed to be 23 g of fiber, maybe 24.. the average American eats maybe 20 grams of fiber a day..

But we need to know if those hundreds of grams of fiber have value or not. The prehistoric man on average also ate many less pineapples than us - does that mean pineapples are bad?

I'd recommend upping you fiber intake, the results are almost instantaneous. 99% chance you don't eat enough of them

That's not really a response to my question - what results are expected? What are the long term impacts? I believe it's probably good for you, but I don't like claims about health that only appeal to popular wisdom, feel, or "our ancestors did this".

Also, I'd love for the "more fiber" proponents to have talks with the "only eat meat" proponents.

> prehistoric man ate as much as 100 to 200 g of fiber a day

Not all prehistoric men. The Inuit around the world have a very low fiber diet and the difference is reveled in their genetics.

https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...

It would be best to know your genetics before jumping any dietary bandwangon.

I have Sami heritage and I cannot eat a high fiber or anything close to a southern world high vegetable diet.

There seems to be a segment of the population that has the rosiest glasses possible for the past and actively tries to get us to go back Personally I don't understand it, we have made so much progress in nearly every area

We all know exactly what I meant... people jumping to "muh famine" &co are arguing in bad faith

The bottom line is: if you couldn't grow it/make it/process it a hundred years ago you most likely don't want to ingest that every day

If what you eat contain 50 ingredients, 45 of which you can't identify, and you couldn't make it yourself at home with basic ingredients and utensils it most likely isn't any good for you

> regular people ate a lot of junk as well. If they could afford to.

20% of the population is obese before hitting adulthood, 70% of americans are obese or overweight, the leading cause of death is cardiovascular disease, lifestyle related cancer show no sign of decline quite the opposite, &c.

We came a long way, we now know what kill us, people don't die of starvation, but they still die of malnutrition. There is a systemic, world wide issue with food, a very very bad one

What you meant is probably more complex and needs more context than you are giving credit to.

You probably have a very specific image of what people ate a century ago, but I wouldn't expect that you assumed rice, beans and fish, with as much fat as affordable. For better or worse, there's little "you know what I mean" culture common ground on HN I think.

> The bottom line is: if you couldn't grow it/make it/process it a hundred years ago you most likely don't want to ingest that every day

That's kind of an amish approach to food. I'd prefer to benefit from better food than a century ago (we have a ton of better crops, better processed products, tastier varieties etc .), but at least it's a pretty clear position you have.