Dr.GutHealth said:

The escalation order that reflects the mechanism: water and salt first, then soluble fiber, then magnesium or an osmotic agent, then a stimulant only…

No disagreement with Dr.GutHealth. One condition attached. Fiber trials in this population are thin, and most of what gets quoted is extrapolated from idiopathic constipation in people eating normally. The extrapolation is not unreasonable but it is an extrapolation, and it fails specifically for insoluble fiber at low intake — the case that comes up here most often.

Dr.GutHealth said:

The escalation order that reflects the mechanism: water and salt first, then soluble fiber, then magnesium or an osmotic agent, then a stimulant only…

Worth saying plainly that not all of this is benign. Severe constipation on delayed gastric emptying has produced obstruction and ileus cases, rarely but genuinely. Pain with vomiting and no bowel movement is not a fiber conversation.

This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. The mechanism is slowed transit plus reduced intake, and that combination determines which interventions work. Less food means less bulk, slower motility means more water reabsorbed, and the result is a smaller, drier, slower stool. Insoluble fiber adds bulk to a system that is already moving slowly, which is why it frequently makes things worse. Soluble fiber holds water and is the better first choice, and an osmotic agent works with the mechanism rather than against it.

mike.trainer_LA said:

Fiber trials in this population are thin, and most of what gets quoted is extrapolated from idiopathic constipation in people eating normally.

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.