The Surgeon Who Measured Stool and Rewrote Nutrition

Your body cannot digest it. It enters your mouth, travels the length of your gut, and leaves almost untouched by the enzymes that dismantle everything else you eat. By the strict accounting of mid-century nutrition science, this made it worthless. Protein built muscle. Fat stored energy. Vitamins ran the machinery of metabolism. Fiber did none of these things. It was called roughage, filler, padding, the part of the plant you tolerated rather than valued.

This turns out to be one of the more consequential misjudgments in the history of human nutrition. The thing we threw away was not waste. It was the single most important meal we serve to the trillions of organisms that live inside us, and that those organisms, in return, use to keep us alive. The story of how science arrived at this understanding begins not in a laboratory but in a hospital in colonial Uganda, with a surgeon who became obsessed with the most unglamorous evidence imaginable.

The Diseases That Were Not There

Denis Burkitt was an Irish surgeon, blind in one eye from a childhood accident, who spent much of his career in East Africa in the 1950s and 1960s. He is best remembered for identifying the cancer that bears his name, Burkitt lymphoma, a feat of geographic detective work that mapped a tumor to the distribution of malaria-carrying mosquitoes. But his second great obsession was stranger and, in the long run, more important to the diet of ordinary people.

Burkitt noticed something about his African patients by its absence. The diseases that filled the wards and obituaries of London and New York were, in rural Uganda, almost nowhere to be found. There was very little appendicitis. Bowel cancer was rare. So were diabetes, heart disease, diverticular disease, gallstones, and varicose veins. These were precisely the conditions that the industrialized West had come to regard as the inevitable wages of getting older. Burkitt began to suspect they were nothing of the kind. They were, he argued, diseases of a particular way of eating, and that way of eating had stripped something out.¹

What followed is one of the more unusual research programs in modern medicine. Burkitt and a network of colleagues across Africa began collecting and weighing stool. He compared the bowel habits of rural Africans, British schoolchildren, naval personnel, and vegetarians. The numbers were dramatic. Rural Africans eating unrefined diets passed far larger stools and passed them far faster. Where a Briton on a refined Western diet might take three days for food to traverse the gut, a rural African on a diet of beans, maize, millet, and vegetables might take a day and a half, and produce four times the volume.¹ Burkitt was unembarrassed by the subject and even relished it. He liked to say, with the directness of a man who had stopped caring about polite company, that the health of a nation might be judged by the size of its stools.

The missing ingredient, he and his colleague the physician Hugh Trowell came to argue, was fiber. Trowell, who had spent decades in Africa and had himself documented the near-absence of these conditions, helped formalize the concept and give it a name: dietary fiber, the structural carbohydrate of plants that human digestion leaves intact.² Together they advanced what became known as the fiber hypothesis, the proposition that the refining of grains and the depletion of plant matter from Western diets was a direct cause of the chronic diseases of affluence. It was a radical claim, and for years the medical establishment treated it as the eccentric crusade of two old Africa hands. They were, it would turn out, decades ahead of the evidence that could explain why they were right.

Two Kinds of Indigestible

To understand what Burkitt had stumbled onto, it helps to be precise about what fiber actually is. Fiber is not a single substance but a category, defined less by chemistry than by fate: it is the portion of plant food that the enzymes lining the human small intestine cannot break apart. Everything else we eat, the starches and sugars and proteins and fats, is dismantled into small molecules and absorbed through the gut wall. Fiber passes through that gauntlet unchanged.

For a long time, the textbook account divided fiber into two functional types, and the division remains useful. Soluble fiber, found in oats, beans, apples, and psyllium, dissolves in water and forms a viscous gel as it moves through the digestive tract. That gel slows everything down. It traps sugars and slows their entry into the bloodstream, blunting the spikes in blood glucose that follow a meal, and it binds bile acids, which the body must then replace using cholesterol, lowering the cholesterol circulating in the blood. This is the mechanism behind the long-standing advice that oats are good for the heart.

Insoluble fiber, abundant in wheat bran, whole grains, nuts, and the skins and stalks of vegetables, does not dissolve. It behaves more like a scrub brush, adding bulk to the contents of the gut and accelerating their passage. This was Burkitt’s territory, the explanation for the larger, faster stools he had measured. For decades, this was understood to be more or less the whole story of fiber. It was plumbing. It kept things moving, it smoothed out the absorption of sugar and cholesterol, and it bulked out the stool. Useful, certainly, but mechanical and somewhat dull, a matter of regularity rather than biology.

Then scientists looked harder at what happened to fiber once it reached the large intestine, and found that the plumbing metaphor had missed the most important thing in the building.

The Civilization in the Colon

The human large intestine is one of the most densely populated environments on Earth. It is home to something on the order of thirty-eight trillion bacterial cells, a figure that, by recent estimates, roughly equals or modestly exceeds the number of human cells in the entire body.³ These microbes are not passengers. They are a functioning organ in their own right, collectively carrying far more genes than the human genome and performing chemistry that our own cells cannot. They synthesize certain vitamins, train and regulate the immune system, and shape the lining of the gut itself. And they are perpetually, relentlessly hungry.

What they are hungry for is fiber. The carbohydrate that human enzymes could not touch is, to the bacteria of the colon, a feast. They possess the enzymatic machinery, tens of thousands of varieties of it, to break apart the complex structures of plant fiber that defeated our small intestine. The fiber we cannot digest, in other words, was never really food for us at all. It was food we were delivering, unwittingly, to the organisms living downstream.

The scientist who did more than anyone to reveal this hidden economy was the microbiologist Jeffrey Gordon, whose laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis pioneered the modern study of the gut microbiome. Gordon’s most striking experimental tool was the germ-free mouse: an animal raised in a sterile bubble, its gut entirely devoid of bacteria. These mice were not simply normal mice missing a few microbes. They were profoundly different animals. They needed to eat more calories to maintain their weight, their immune systems were stunted, the architecture of their intestines was malformed, and their behavior was altered.⁴ Gordon’s work, including landmark experiments in which the gut bacteria of obese and lean mice could be transferred and would carry the trait with them, demonstrated that the microbiome was not a bystander to health but an active participant in it.⁵ And the engine that ran this organ was the fiber arriving from above.

What the Bacteria Make

The reason fiber matters so much becomes clear when you follow what the bacteria do with it. As they ferment fiber, they release a class of compounds called short-chain fatty acids: acetate, propionate, and, most importantly, butyrate. These are not waste products. They are some of the most useful molecules in human physiology, and the body cannot easily get them any other way.

Butyrate is the principal fuel of the cells lining the colon. The colonocytes, the cells of the colon wall, draw the majority of their energy not from the bloodstream but from the butyrate produced by bacteria fermenting fiber a few microns away. It is a remarkable arrangement: the cells of your own gut are fed by the metabolic output of organisms that are not you. Butyrate does more than fuel. It calms inflammation, it strengthens the tight junctions between gut cells that keep the contents of the intestine where they belong, and it appears to play a role in regulating the immune system and even in suppressing the growth of cancerous cells in the colon. When fiber is plentiful, butyrate is plentiful, and the gut wall is fed, sealed, and quiet.

What happens when fiber is scarce is where the story turns unsettling. At Stanford, the microbiologists Justin and Erica Sonnenburg have spent years studying the consequences of fiber deprivation. In a 2016 study published in the journal Cell Host and Microbe, the Sonnenburg team fed mice a low-fiber diet and watched the diversity of their gut bacteria collapse. More striking still, when they bred these mice across generations on the same depleted diet, certain bacterial species did not merely decline. They vanished, and they did not return even when fiber was restored. Over four generations, the microbiome grew progressively poorer, and the lost species had to be physically reintroduced to come back at all.⁶

The Sonnenburgs offered a chilling image for what occurs when the bacteria run out of fiber. Faced with nothing to ferment, the hungry microbes do not simply starve quietly. They begin to consume the next available source of nourishment: the layer of protective mucus that lines the gut wall.⁷ The civilization that, when fed, builds and maintains the barrier between you and the contents of your intestine, when starved, begins to eat that barrier down. A thinner mucus layer means a gut wall more exposed to inflammation and to the bacteria themselves, a plausible mechanism linking low-fiber diets to the inflammatory and metabolic diseases Burkitt had catalogued half a century earlier.

The Twist Burkitt Could Not See

Here, then, is the reversal at the heart of the matter. For most of the twentieth century, the debate about fiber assumed it was a nutrient for the person eating it, even if a peculiar one that passed through undigested. The deeper truth is that fiber may not be your nutrient at all. You do not absorb it; you cannot use it directly. What you are doing when you eat a bowl of beans or a handful of oats is feeding the trillions of organisms that keep your gut wall intact, your immune system calibrated, your blood sugar steadier, and your inflammation in check. You are not nourishing yourself so much as provisioning a hidden population that, in return, quietly maintains the conditions for your own survival.

The epidemiology, when it finally caught up to Burkitt, vindicated him with unusual force. In 2019, a systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet pooled data from 185 observational studies and 58 clinical trials, covering nearly four decades of research. The findings were stark. People who ate the most fiber had substantially lower rates of death from all causes, lower rates of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and colorectal cancer. The authors estimated that for every additional eight grams of fiber consumed per day, the risk of these outcomes fell measurably further, with the strongest protection seen in those eating between twenty-five and twenty-nine grams a day, and signs that even more might be better.⁸ It was, in effect, a quantitative confirmation of the hypothesis that two doctors had built decades earlier out of careful observation and weighed stool.

How to Feed the Things Inside You

If the lesson is that you are feeding a microbial ecosystem, the practical implications follow. The fix is not a single supplement or a magic food. A capsule of one isolated fiber feeds only the bacteria that happen to specialize in that particular molecule. What a healthy microbiome appears to want is variety, because different species ferment different fibers, and a more diverse menu sustains a more diverse and resilient community. Research from the American Gut Project, a large citizen-science survey of thousands of participants, found that the single dietary factor most strongly associated with a diverse microbiome was not whether a person ate meat or followed any particular diet, but the number of different plant species they ate. People who consumed thirty or more types of plants per week had markedly more diverse gut microbiomes than those eating ten or fewer.⁹

Thirty plants a week sounds daunting until you realize how it accumulates: every herb, spice, nut, seed, grain, legume, fruit, and vegetable counts. A handful of mixed nuts is several. A pot of vegetable soup is a dozen. The targets are modest and achievable. Most guidelines recommend roughly twenty-five to thirty grams of fiber a day. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people in industrialized countries fall far short, eating around half that, which is why public health bodies describe fiber as a nutrient of concern. Beans, lentils, oats, whole grains, berries, nuts, seeds, and leafy greens are the densest sources, and they are, conspicuously, among the cheapest things on the plate.

One caution is worth stating plainly: add fiber gradually. A microbiome accustomed to a depleted diet needs time to rebuild the populations that ferment fiber efficiently, and flooding a starved gut with a sudden load of plant matter produces predictable discomfort. The bacteria, like any population recovering from famine, repopulate at their own pace.

Denis Burkitt died in 1993, before the microbiome could be sequenced, before butyrate was understood as the fuel of the colon, before anyone could explain in molecular terms why the rural diets he admired protected the people who ate them. He saw the pattern decades before science could account for it, and he saw it by paying attention to the least dignified evidence available. The cheapest, least glamorous part of the plate, the part we long dismissed as filler, turns out to be the part that feeds a civilization. The next time you eat something your own body cannot break down, it is worth remembering that you are not only feeding yourself. You are feeding everyone inside you, and they are the ones, in the end, keeping the lights on.

Sources

1. Burkitt, D. P., Walker, A. R. P., Painter, N. S., ‘Dietary Fiber and Disease,’ JAMA, 1974. — https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/358638
2. Trowell, H., ‘Definition of dietary fiber and hypotheses that it is a protective factor in certain diseases,’ American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1976. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/183803/
3. Sender, R., Fuchs, S., Milo, R., ‘Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body,’ PLOS Biology, 2016. — https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533
4. Backhed, F., et al. (Gordon lab), ‘The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage,’ PNAS, 2004. — https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0407076101
5. Turnbaugh, P. J., et al. (Gordon lab), ‘An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest,’ Nature, 2006. — https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05414
6. Sonnenburg, E. D., et al., ‘Diet-induced extinctions in the gut microbiota compound over generations,’ Nature, 2016. — https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16504
7. Desai, M. S., et al., ‘A Dietary Fiber-Deprived Gut Microbiota Degrades the Colonic Mucus Barrier and Enhances Pathogen Susceptibility,’ Cell, 2016. — https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31464-7
8. Reynolds, A., et al., ‘Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses,’ The Lancet, 2019. — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31809-9/fulltext
9. McDonald, D., et al., ‘American Gut: an Open Platform for Citizen Science Microbiome Research,’ mSystems, 2018. — https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSystems.00031-18

Related reading

• The Drug That Learned to Be Dessert
• The Pepper's Beautiful Lie

More from the Plate edition →