Diabeties v fibre

Goonergal said:

This is an interesting study on fibre - fits with my personal experience too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/

Click to expand...

The problem with that study, unless I completely missed it, is that they don't seem to make any distinction between soluble and insoluble fibre. Foods that are dominant insoluble fibre, such as grains, will likely bulk up the stool too much which can cause issues for many people. Fruit, which has a good mix of both types of fibre, is normally much easier to pass and many people who have been long-sufferers of issues at the back-end.

Won't help those with diabetes who are avoiding fruit, but just making a general point about fibre.

bulkbiker said:

There are no essential dietary carbs so there isn't really any essential dietary fibre.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're putting the cart before the horse

Beating-My-Betes said:

Perhaps you're putting the cart before the horse

Click to expand...

Ok how about there is no essential dietary fibre as there are zero essential carbs.

Fruit is indeed easier to pass... just brings along a nice dose of NAFLD if eaten to excess.
And of course looses most of the fibre if juiced.

bulkbiker said:

Fruit is indeed easier to pass... just brings along a nice dose of NAFLD if eaten to excess.
And of course looses most of the fibre if juiced.

Click to expand...

Not sure I was talking about juice, but it does indeed lose most of its fibre when juiced.

As to whether fruit causing NAFLD, you've yet to provide any evidence that fruit in its natural state causes these issues. The only references I ever found were from isolated, high-fructose syrups or pure fructose. Moreover, the other tighter association seems to be with meat (Not that I'd necessarily trust that, either.). There are tests done on chimps, however. To induce NAFLD, they had to feed the monkeys with, if I remember correctly, was a standard Western diet. This points to the fact that our closest animal cousins were not already suffering the condition, despite their huge reliance on fruit.

Fruit may contain fructose, but whole fruit also contains vitamins, minerals, a lot of water and fibre. Even the big anti-sugar kahuna, Robert Lustig, understands the distinction that should be made between refined/processed sugars and whole fruit.

So, yeah...Some studies, perhaps (If it is deemed off-topic for this thread, then just send them to me by 'pm)


(Edited by moderator)

Beating-My-Betes said:

The problem with that study, unless I completely missed it, is that they don't seem to make any distinction between soluble and insoluble fibre. Foods that are dominant insoluble fibre, such as grains, will likely bulk up the stool too much which can cause issues for many people. Fruit, which has a good mix of both types of fibre, is normally much easier to pass and many people who have been long-sufferers of issues at the back-end.

Won't help those with diabetes who are avoiding fruit, but just making a general point about fibre.

Click to expand...

the study is examining the effect of removing all fibre from the diet, therefore distinguishing between different types of fibre is unnecessary - since it was all removed.

These are direct quotes from the study addressing bloating and straining:

For symptoms of bloating, all of those on a high fiber diet continued to be symptomatic, while only 31.3% in the reduced fiber group and none of the no fiber group had symptoms (0%, P< 0.001) (Table (Table22).

With regards to straining, all those on a no fiber no longer had to strain to pass stools. Of those who reduced dietary fiber, 7 of 16 showed improvement while the symptoms remain unchanged in those who remained on a high fiber diet (P < 0.001 between groups).

Brunneria said:

the study is examining the effect of removing all fibre from the diet, therefore distinguishing between different types of fibre is unnecessary - since it was all removed.


These are direct quotes from the study addressing bloating and straining:

For symptoms of bloating, all of those on a high fiber diet continued to be symptomatic, while only 31.3% in the reduced fiber group and none of the no fiber group had symptoms (0%, P< 0.001) (Table (Table22).

With regards to straining, all those on a no fiber no longer had to strain to pass stools. Of those who reduced dietary fiber, 7 of 16 showed improvement while the symptoms remain unchanged in those who remained on a high fiber diet (P < 0.001 between groups).

Click to expand...

I understand what it set out to do. I just think that in not making the distinction we end up in a situation where it's easy to demonise all fibre.

bulkbiker said:

Ok how about there is no essential dietary fibre as there are zero essential carbs.

Click to expand...

The issue for me is that you're starting from a premise that I don't think has a foundation either in current-day science, nor in evolutionary science. Not that I believe science is the final arbiter of everything. But rather than starting from a position that a zero-carb (Carnivore, I guess) diet is the default position, and therefor efibre 'must' be unnecessary, that perhaps it is the necessity of fibre (at least in some quantity) that undermines the position of carnivory.

Just as with vegansim, the carnivore diet is only something that can be sustained due to our current systems and affluence. We don't have to worry about running out of stored fat 'cause we can buy it everywhere. I don't believe early humans had the kind of 'luxury' to turn down whatever food they found, whether fruit, starches, meat or tree-bark

Edited: for grammar and spelling

Beating-My-Betes said:

I understand what it set out to do. I just think that in not making the distinction we end up in a situation where it's easy to demonise all fibre.

Click to expand...

I don’t think the study or anyone here is demonising fibre. Rather, it’s a challenge to accepted wisdom that it’s essential.

Beating-My-Betes said:

The issue for me is that you're starting from a premise that I don't think has a foundation either in current-day science, nor in evolutionary science. Not that I believe science is the final arbiter of everything. But rather than starting from a position that a zero-carb (Carnivore, I guess) diet is the default position, and therefor fibre 'must' be unnecessary, the perhaps it is the necessity of fibre (at least in some quantity) that undermines the position of carnivory.

Just as with vegansim, the carnivore diet is only something that can be sustained due to our current systems and affluence. We don't have to worry about running out of stored fat 'cause we can buy it everywhere. I don't believe early humans had the kind of 'luxury' to turn down whatever food they found, whether fruit, starches, meat or tree-bark

Click to expand...

Fibre really only comes from carbohydrate rich foods ergo..

Goonergal said:

I don’t think the study or anyone here is demonising fibre.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not. Maybe I'm attributing something that isn't here, at least in this thread or community. But there are certainly those within the online carnivore community who do demonise fibre, not only as a distinct entity, but also within the larger position of the demonisation of all plant-matter. Again, I'm not specifically referring to those in this community.

Goonergal said:

Rather, it’s a challenge to accepted wisdom that it’s essential.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with challenges. Whether fibre is essential is a question that would seem to require much greater scope than this experiment could meet, as the long-term implications of 'going' (or not) could not be neasured.

Beating-My-Betes said:

Perhaps not. Maybe I'm attributing something that isn't here, at least in this thread or community. But there are certainly those within the online carnivore community who do demonise fibre, not only as a distinct entity, but also within the larger position of the demonisation of all plant-matter. Again, I'm not specifically referring to those in this community.



Nothing wrong with challenges. Whether fibre is essential is a question that would seem to require much greater scope than this experiment could meet, as the long-term implications of 'going' (or not) could not be neasured.

Click to expand...

This guy knows a lot more about it than me..

bulkbiker said:

This guy knows a lot more about it than me..

Click to expand...

Will try to watch it later. I'm supposed to be out walking

Pamstrachan said:

Very interesting and such a head shift.

Click to expand...

Certainly not what "we have all been told"!