Hunter-gatherer lifestyle fosters thriving gut microbiome

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02065-y

by Bender • 3 years ago

111 140 3 years ago

hirundo• 3 years ago

This gives them an advantage in the supply of material for fecal microbiota transplant bacteriotherapy. Unless they use the proceeds to stop eating like hunger-gatherers, which seems to be the usual path.

I know some modern Californians who eat like hunter-gatherers. I wonder if they might be able to monetize their gut flora.

Y_Y• 3 years ago

I hope the trade-off is worth it for them

OldManRyan• 3 years ago

What trade-off specifically?

ramesh31• 3 years ago

What trade-off specifically?

Not starving to death when there's a drought

AndrewKemendo6• 3 years ago

Yet another unambiguous data point that modern life is measurably worse for your body, and with less diversity, than tens of thousands of years ago.

r3trohack3r• 3 years ago

Yet another unambiguous data point that modern life is measurably worse for your body

I’m not sure this is the takeaway.

I feel there are many unambiguous data points that modern life is measurably better for your body.

Infant mortality rate. Average life expectancy. The mortality rate for mothers during pregnancy. The mortality rate for random injuries (cuts, breaks, etc.). Death by food poisoning. Quality of life, and mortality rates, for mental and physical disabilities.

It seems like, in nearly any circumstance, the modern human body is at considerably less risk than our ancestors.

But there are trade-offs and missteps. It seems we’ve tossed the baby with the bath water in some cases. And getting the baby back further improves modern life.

martythemaniak• 3 years ago

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

AndrewKemendo6• 3 years ago

Obviously we don’t have records for the majority cause of death in 100,000BC, however I see no reason to believe that compared to Paleolithic man there are fewer risks now.

Consider the top youth killers today: drug overdoses, automobile accidents, firearms, household accidents. These were just not possible ways that people could die in 100,000BC. Yet heart attack and cancer have always led death rates for as long as humans have been counting.

My hunch is that people for the most part have always mostly died of “old age” (cancer, heart attack, pneumonia, infection) for all of human history and while overall rate had dropped - the type has changed to be less random biology and more social-cultural (which is worse IMO)

asdff6• 3 years ago

Our injury prevention and treatment is better. Our knowledge of kinesiology is better. However, how many people even care about the findings of kinesiology or public health? Not a lot as it were if you were to go out in public and observe the average state of health for most people, some people take good health advice and straight up take offense to it. People made political campaigns out of it not long ago with the pandemic.

That being said, if you were to take your average hunter gatherer who is not ill or infected, compare them to your average american office worker, I'd guess you are comparing a slender low bmi person with great endurance, functional strength, and practical knowledge on survival to one who is overweight, doesn't know how to feed themselves without a modern grocery store, only walks to the car, and will probably end up dying sooner due to health issues stemming from being overweight, a poor diet, and general inactivity.

Aerbil3133• 3 years ago

Stop saying that life expectancy thing. Old people _lived_. Modern people suffer a lifetime physically, mentally, and spiritually.

ramblenode• 3 years ago

It seems like, in nearly any circumstance, the modern human body is at considerably less risk than our ancestors.

I don't think so. I think the risk is just flattened. We've quashed deaths from injuries and trauma, but chronic disease has been getting worse, due in part to our diet and lifestyles. I'd be surprised if modern people have better vitality and stamina over their lifetime than our pre-agrarian ancestors did.

chomp• 3 years ago

I don't think this is right, hunter-gather diets were largely restricted to the area they lived, you can't across the board call them diverse. It depends if you lived in an area that was blessed with diversity, or if you were forced to eat the same seeds/nuts constantly.

Malnutrition plagued the Neanderthals by the way. We have skeletons and teeth that show disruption to growth. There's evidence of some groups of gatherers that subsisted on local flora that caused excessive amounts of tooth decay. Modern living results in way healthier people (for the most part).

AndrewKemendo6• 3 years ago

Point is well taken that I shouldn’t generalize and that it’s likely been a trade off.

I suppose my rebut would claim that the diet of the average US adult today is worse than the average Paleolithic person, but that the healthiest US adult would be healthier than the healthiest Paleolithic person.

carabiner• 3 years ago

Reminds me of cats living in the wild vs. domestically... Wild cats are known to be riddled with disease and starvation, and that's why they evolved to have large litters. Domestic cats live much longer, healthier lives, even though they're generally eating the same stuff every meal, every day.

jandrese• 3 years ago

I'm not sure "diversity of gut flora" is a good indicator of quality of life. It might just mean you have less dirt in your diet.

1970-01-01• 3 years ago

Yet another unambiguous data point

I checked. It's ambiguous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Health_effect...

myshpa2• 3 years ago

I don't think a modern paleo "fad" diet has anything to do with the real diet of that times.

Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs

AndrewKemendo6• 3 years ago

To be clear I think there’s a significant difference between “What people ate in the Paleolithic“ and “The Paleo Diet” TM

fasterik• 3 years ago

I doubt this is true if you factor in the positive effects of medical care, safer living conditions, sanitation, etc. that are available in modern developed countries.

xenonite2• 3 years ago

The analysis suggests that the average Hadza adult gut microbiome contains 730 species (standard error [SE] of 14.5 species), compared with 277 species (SE of 32 species) in the average adult Californian gut microbiome, 317 species (SE of 32 species) for the Nepali foragers, and 436 species (SE of 106 species) for the Nepali agrarians.

beezlebroxxxxxx• 3 years ago

In what sense are hunter-gatherer diets "more diverse"? Are they eating a lot of different things? Is the food they're eating simply better on a microbiome improving level regardless of whether they have more variation or less, or is it more to do with preparation/cooking?

2OEH8eoCRo0• 3 years ago

Exercise, lots of plants, variety.

neves• 3 years ago

probably eating more dirt

mstipetic• 3 years ago

If you look at any modern supermarket and strip out all the processed junk, you’re left with a few types of meat, few types of vegetables and maybe some mushrooms. Most of our dishes are a combination of maybe 25 items of which 6,7 are heavily used.

GordonS• 3 years ago

Would your typical hunter-gatherer have more than 25 edible items regularly around them? I'm not so sure.

comte7092• 3 years ago

Are they eating a lot of different things?

This is a generalization/simplification on my part, but yes.

Hunter gatherers at a minimum are eating different foods throughout the year as seasons change, but even within seasons as different foods become available.

Waterluvian• 3 years ago

I have a hard time believing they would have a greater variety than a reasonable modern day person.

Reflecting on today, I’ve had four different species of fruit, three different vegetables, and two different subspecies of Cheerio. Not to forget the different meats, nuts, and dairy.

4b11b4• 3 years ago

You also have to consider all of the invisible (to the naked eye) stuff you get from eating plants in the wild.

When I graze in the backyard... I don't brush off all the dirt. If there are small bugs on a leaf, I might eat em.

ozim2• 3 years ago

Yeah tapeworms, pinworms all super healthy and tasty.

CrHn34• 3 years ago

From the publication, their diet "includes foraged tubers, berries, honey, and hunted animals."[1]

Their microbiome is more diverse, with "23.4% of microbial species detected in the Hadza infants represent[ing] novel species"[2].

1. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00597-4

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894631/

codersfocus• 3 years ago

Rotten meat is also considered a delicacy by people in the bush. Apparently it’s a bit like cooking it.

jinjin22• 3 years ago

There is a super interesting interview with Jeff Leach, a guy who actually went to live with hunter-gatherers, studying how they live and how it influences their microbiome:

https://chrisryan.substack.com/p/307-jeff-leach-microbiome-e...

Sounds like a large part of the reason for their gut diversity seem to be from not just what they eat, but how they eat it (taking in lots of dirt along with their food).

doitLP• 3 years ago

As another commenter mentioned read “against the grain” by James c Scott. Also “eat on the wild side” is another. Today we may eat 20 different kinds of plants. Hunter gatherers ate somewhere like 80-120 different kinds.

pj_mukh• 3 years ago

Dumb question: After the 8473628484th study confirming how important the gut micro biome is, why isn’t there a pill to build it up?

Like a multi-vitamin that just boosts the diversity in the gut?

Are processed diets changing the physical makeup (thermal?, acidic?) of the gut as well and therefore a pill won’t work?

edgyquant• 3 years ago

Isn’t this exactly what a probiotic is?

jjtheblunt• 3 years ago

I think this is an example of such probiotic pills.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002NL165W

HumanOstrich• 3 years ago

Not exactly. Probiotics tend to have transitory effects, so you have to keep taking them to see the benefits.

You'd need to significantly change your diet and lifestyle to have a chance at generating any positive changes to your gut microbiome that will persist.

Even then, it seems to be much more difficult to change things after an early age. Unless you get some magic fecal pills.

notaustinpowers• 3 years ago

We all have a different micro biome. While humans are only .01% different from each other, our micro biomes can vary wildly based on diet, lifestyle, environment, etc. There's no one size fits all pill we could take.

blacksmith_tb• 3 years ago

True, though it might be possible to make a more one-size-fits-all pill that targeted species which correlate with worse health (say, a bunch of bacteriophages).

JPws_Prntr_Fngr• 3 years ago

As edgyquant says, these pills are called probiotics, and they're readily available. The problem is that the gut biome is composed of 16 gajillion types of microbes, and understanding their individual & synergistic effects is nearly impossible currently. I do self-treat with probiotics periodically, but I see it as basically a leeching- or bloodletting-tier technique.

See fecal matter transplantation - we're still in the dark ages here.

dmbche4• 3 years ago

Just a quick note: You have to see your gut flora as an actual flora - like a forest. It doesn't get sunlight, you feed it nutrients. Whatever doesn't get fed dies, and what gets fed multiplies.

Now the more wishiwashi things is that some effects have been noticed, like if you have a biome that loves straight sugars, it will lead you to want to keep feeding it sugars, since you're very efficient at getting energy out of it, since you've cultivated a large amount of bacteria that does that well. Some can also affect their environnement to help themselves and damage others.

So it's tough to starve the "bad" and feed the "good".

Ideally, your gut would be used (and optimised) to a whole and full diet that gives you all nutrients.

All this to say - you can take probiotics if you want, but if you don't feed the bacteria you put in there, it's gonna die. So you have to both change your diet AND take probiotics.

A way to do both? Lactofermenting! Just take some foods you like, lactoferment them and eat the non pasturised food. You are selecting for bacteria that feeds on foods you like, and putting both them and their food in your gut. They are going to thrive, while your old flora won't like it.

I recommend making your own sauerkraut or kimchi to start, takes 10 minutes and 5 days of waiting. Costs 2$. Expext to get farty - that's the bad stuff dying and releasing gas.

That just my ramblings and I don't have solid sources on hand, but if you read up on poop transplants this kind of makes sense.

Edit: If you're into sourdough, making a starter is basically selecting for wheat digesting bacterium. So you're kinda doing the same with your flora! (Sourdough isn't a source of probiotics since it's cooked, it's just an analogy)

RamblingCTO2• 3 years ago

You can add more fermented foods and drinks in general: Sauerkraut, kombucha, kefir, kimchi etc. etc.

woeirua• 3 years ago

How long before we see a SaaS (s*t-as-a-service) startup where you can get fecal transplants sourced from people who only forage for their food?

eganist• 3 years ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=fecal+transplant+as+a+servic...

halfway there

blitzar• 3 years ago

Donors needed

A call to action, just the kind I have been looking for. It is my duty to give a shit.

freitzkriesler2• 3 years ago

Last I checked, the FDA approved fecal transplant pills so you can swallow capsules of verified safe poop instead of having to inject poo up your bum.

yCombLinks• 3 years ago

Why skip the good part

dheera2• 3 years ago

That sounds more disgusting, not less.

The mouth is for clean stuff. The bum is for dirty stuff.

cesarvarela• 3 years ago

Agriculture was a mistake.

myshpa2• 3 years ago

Our biggest mistake.

anthk3• 3 years ago

The big three religions of Middle East were built around praising sun and wheat harvesting.

Barrin92• 3 years ago

Yuval Noah Harari had a good quote on wheat farming in Sapiens

Think for a moment about the Agricultural Revolution from the viewpoint of wheat. Ten thousand years ago wheat was just a wild grass, one of many, confined to a small range in the Middle East. Suddenly, within just a few short millennia, it was growing all over the world. According to the basic evolutionary criteria of survival and reproduction, wheat has become one of the most successful plants in the history of the earth. In areas such as the Great Plains of North America, where not a single wheat stalk grew 10,000 years ago, you can today walk for hundreds upon hundreds of miles without encountering any other plant. Worldwide, wheat covers about 870,000 square miles of the globe’s surface, almost ten times the size of Britain. How did this grass turn from insignificant to ubiquitous? Wheat did it by manipulating Homo sapiens to its advantage. This ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn’t easy. Wheat demanded a lot of them. Wheat didn’t like rocks and pebbles, so Sapiens broke their backs clearing fields. Wheat didn’t like sharing its space, water and nutrients with other plants, so men and women laboured long days weeding under the scorching sun. Wheat got sick, so Sapiens had to keep a watch out for worms and blight. Wheat was attacked by rabbits and locust swarms, so the farmers built fences and stood guard over the fields. Wheat was thirsty, so humans dug irrigation canals or lugged heavy buckets from the well to water it. Sapiens even collected animal faeces to nourish the ground in which wheat grew.

mandmandam• 3 years ago

Hmm.

I feel like if we moved to sustainable permaculture, and made the rules of land ownership more equitable, we'd solve a lot of the problems that get blamed on 'agriculture'.

Seems we either manage to do that, or we become a permanent underclass in a toxic dustbowl within decades.

thworp• 3 years ago

Would you say the same about all the other benefits of modern life (especially medicine, on-demand energy supply and the degrees of freedom)? Because those are a direct consequence of the kinds of social organization that followed from agriculture.

You might think differently if someone teleported you into a Papuan clan whose patriarch/matriarch exiled you for some arbitrary reason.

clydethefrog• 3 years ago

See this book for an argumentation for this claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...

n8henrie• 3 years ago

All of the commenters so far (and the article's title) seem to assume that this is causative of good health. Why is that?

I'm aware that fecal transplants can help cure C diff infections.

Do we have randomized, placebo-controlled evidence that suggests that gut biodiversity is causative of (and not just associated with other lifestyle features causing) good health? It's hard for me to imagine a good way to design such a study.

I thought the rigorously performed research regarding eg probiotics had mostly been disappointing.

Is there any reason to think that food that is good for human health would not also be good for gut flora health, thus heavily confounding much of the non-interventional research?

CrHn34• 3 years ago

The IMPRINT study has given us a lot of information using shotgun metagenomic sequencing of longitudinal fecal samples: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00660-7

There seem to be windows where bacterial populations are in flux until the microbiome stabilizes around 3 years of age. It is difficult to modify the microbiome after that. I think our models have to shift so that we prioritize early intervention, especially for those at risk for dysbiosis (like premature and c-section babies).

AndrewKemendo6• 3 years ago

Study after study fail to disprove the hypothesis that gut microbiome diversity is a strong correlate with longevity.

Here's a meta study for you:

Here we introduce the MicrobiomeHD database, which includes 28 published case–control gut microbiome studies spanning ten diseases. We perform a cross-disease meta-analysis of these studies using standardized methods. We find consistent patterns characterizing disease-associated microbiome changes.

What more do people want? Why is this something people fight?

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01973-8

CrHn34• 3 years ago

I’m not sure what you take away from that meta analysis, but to me it does not seem to be about diversity as much as which groups of bacteria are associated with general improved health outcomes and disease. If you have more alpha diversity because you have more pathogenic strains, it does not necessarily mean it’s better.

Some studies have found no differences in alpha diversity[1] when looking at outcomes like longevity. Maybe alpha diversity is the byproduct of healthy flora but it could be possible to engineer a microbiome that was more advantageous for a given population that was less diverse.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7762384/

jinjin22• 3 years ago

A recent study of centenarians seemed to indicate a correlation between a diverse gut biome and long life: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01370-6

CrHn34• 3 years ago

This article conflates diversity with gut health. It has not been proven that more diversity is necessarily better[1]. In fact, in infants a less diverse b. infantis dominant environment is probably advantageous[2].

If you're having a baby, the best thing you can do is to supplement b. infantis, especially the robust strain from Evolve Biosystems[3]. The Hadza have more b. infantis[4] which kicks off a set of immune host interactions that have positive effects on inflammation during the critical period after birth[5].

"After around 3 years, the gut microbiota stabilises retaining relative proportions of taxa with adaptations to composition harder to impose,"[6] so I doubt it's diet as much as it is vertical transmission of the right kinds of bacteria that set the infants up for a lifetime of healthy immune response.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5103657/

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6177445/

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7352178/

4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894631/

5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...

6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6950569/

dmbche4• 3 years ago

I'm surprised you're downvoted, you liked 6 papers and are just stating that the link is tenuous, I think that's fair.

Fricken• 3 years ago

The parent opened their comment with a false claim. At no point did the article conflate gut diversity with gut health.

FollowingTheDao• 3 years ago

Also, never ever ever do they mention anything about human genetics. There are people who carry more hunter-gatherer traits than others. So who is this diet really for?

Genetics matter. I am a FUT2 non-secretor and this effects my gut health tremendously. I had IBD-D for years before I found this out. Before then if I took any pre or pro-biotics it was a nightmare, but that was supposed to be the healthy thing to do.

So sorry, but I do not listen to any nutritional research anymore that over generalizes a genetically diverse population.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201464

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9866411/

lucidguppy• 3 years ago

I think they should call them gatherer-hunter lifestyles. The bulk of calories for paleo/neo-lithic people came from stuff that didn't run away.

bmitc2• 3 years ago

I think the left most adjective is a modifier of the right most. So hunter gatherers are primarily gatherers that also hunt.

joker_minmax• 3 years ago

Lifestyle is more than just diet, there's the activity level, sun exposure, and different things in the water. I think we should just start saying that gray cubicles are bad for the microbiome and roll with that.

asdff6• 3 years ago

You'd have to uproot how the western world works to get us back to how we evolved to be healthy and survive on this planet. Finding time to get your 8 miles of walking a day in would be hard enough. We probably spend way too much time thinking a day as well with the 8 hour day. Think about how often a white collar worker does nothing but sit all day and gets home exhausted from the mental drain and stress: that can't be very healthy and is really far off from early modern human behavior as well. Stuff like a deadline you are stressing over is a very modern concept too, probably takes years off your life but what do you know we live by them and pretend like we are being productive and healthy while burning the wick at both ends.

By the time you actually get the time to live like how you are supposed to live, you are old, in retirement, fragile from a lifetime of inactivity, and can't make up for your years lost of good physical health that you had to spend at a desk growing lethargic instead.

AnIdiotOnTheNet2• 3 years ago

Finding time to get your 8 miles of walking a day in would be hard enough.

I frequently do 6 mile walks with my dog, 8 miles would only be about 3 hours. Considering how much time people spend planted in front of a TV each day on average that shouldn't be that hard to hit. Tell you what, have the corpos give me an extra 1.5hrs each day and I'll give up 1.5hrs of TV and then we'll have enough for that 8 miles.

We really need to take back our time from the exploitation class. A lot of problems go away if you work fewer hours a week, but there exist very few jobs that will pay anywhere near a livable wage for that. Like, I could easily survive on half my income if only someone would give me back half my time for it, but that just isn't an option.

StopTheWorld• 3 years ago

You'd have to uproot how the western world works to get us back to how we evolved to be healthy and survive on this planet.

To take it literally, it is impossible for eight billion humans (current world population estimate) to live as migratory hunter-gatherers on earth, even if the planet was terraformed back to how it was ten thousand years ago. It's highly unlikely even eight hundred million people people can live like this. In fact, it's possible there are not enough resources that even eighty million can live like this.

So aside from the terraforming, world population would probably have to shrink to less than 1% of what it is currently.

paulcole2• 3 years ago

You'd have to uproot how the western world works

This is one of the things a lot of people say they want but almost nobody really wants. But the truth is that we like the way the western world works too much to give it up.

We like getting Amazon packages the same day we order. We like TikTok. We like pushing a button and getting a car to come pick us up. We like making a ton of money for stressing over deadlines and sitting in meetings run by pointless MBAs.

cyberneticist• 3 years ago

I have been walking 90 minutes a day for a month and feel amazing. I just realized that with remote work, 30-60 minutes a day is just not enough activity.

Of course, we can't realistically go back to the paleolithic but there is a sense that you can't afford to not get a baseline of physical activity in.

No one is more productive being out of shape. You don't get less stressed from being less physically capable.

If a person can't find time in a day for enough physical activity but they are reading this then maybe they are making a poor trade off with their time.

bmitc2• 3 years ago

Hunter gather societies were healthier and had more leisure time than the early agrarian societies. See *Against the Grain".

tuukkah3• 3 years ago

I wonder what the result looks like if you test people who eat produce from a home garden or if it's typically not enough to make a difference and you'd have to live outdoors. Similarly, people still eat significant amounts of foraged berries and mushrooms in some places - it does not have to be all industrial even if you live in a city.

chrisbuc2• 3 years ago

A forager friend of mine has just completed participating in a gut biome study (in conjunction with the UK Zoe project), where he and other foragers have been only eating wild foraged food for 3 months. A pretty good achievement for him (although he lost about 20kg over the 3 months). He blogged daily photos of what he ate on insta: https://www.instagram.com/rural_courses/

xenonite2• 3 years ago

So what was the result?

tuukkah3• 3 years ago

That would be an interesting data point in the higher end.

DoreenMichele• 3 years ago

Previously:

The Gut Microbes of African Hunter-Gatherers

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7599422

roody15• 3 years ago

“ The team suspects chronic inflammation in the gut could trigger such damage, creating a selective pressure for those genes, says study co-author Matthew Olm, a microbiologist at Stanford. “If you have a state of chronic inflammation, it would make sense that your gut microbiome has to adapt,” he says. These genes were not detected in the Hadza microbiomes.”

Think we are learning that a major key to overall health is minimizing the state of inflammation. Poor eating choices, lack of exercise, stressful job / life in general many urban environments tend to promote lifestyles where you could live in a state id constant inflammation.

lumb63• 3 years ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, since I’m not an expert in this area, but I think lowering inflammation is not really the goal? Inflammation as I understand it is just a marker for stress (in the broadest sense of the word). I understand that inflammation is the body attempting to heal from said stress. So really, the goal is to remove chronic stressors, of which you listed many. I think you got most of the big ones, maybe missing toxic chemical exposure in food/air/water depending on locale, and mental stress due to a lack of societal cohesion, across a lot of the US at least.

yeouch• 3 years ago

Fermented foods, psyllium husk, non-strict intermittent fasting and strength training will get you like 80% of the way there while still being able to enjoy sitting at your computer for 8+ hours a day.

Aromasin• 3 years ago

This is the sort of advice people need to hear more of. Almost none of us are ever going to realistically adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle again. We need more data on how to get close to that within the confines of modern life. There's some great material out there now, but only very recently.

I personally really enjoyed this discussion on this between Andrew Huberman and Justin Sonnenberg (Professor of Microbiology & Immunology at Stanford University): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCWNRvPk20

Huberman's prior episode is also great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15R2pMqU2ok

Basic takeaway was low sugar fermented food 4-6 times daily. Doable for almost everyone, palate aside.

lkuty2• 3 years ago

The book "Fiber Fueled" by Will Bulsiewicz is an excellent source of information regarding the gut microbiota and its importance. I highly recommend it.

Biologist123• 3 years ago

I know some Hadza. I told them a little while ago they’d be able to sell their bowel movements to westerners for cash. They didn’t believe me.

Hunter-gatherer lifestyle fosters thriving gut microbiome

Related Stories