• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The Guardian

I'm not entirely convinced about fibre. My body has no trouble (after a little hic up when changing over to LCHF) with ingress or egress.

Took me ages to decide on polite words.
 
Looking at the WHO study in the Lancet (online version that publishes reports at a fee, not the proper Lancet) then one interesting fact appears. The methodology that the meta study uses is the PLoS one as referenced in the abstract. Now PLos is owner of Nature magazine, and also Plos One magazine, both of which strongly support WFPB and also accept any old report so long as there is a substantial bung accompanying it. So this immediately calls rhe WHO study into question,

Nature and Plos One have long been regarded as having bias and of being a poor source for reference.
 
Any chance the confusion is due to American food labelling counting Fibre as Carb ( which cellulose technically is ).
 
All that is really goes to show is that most HCP's/Nutritionists/Dieticians are completely unaware of what a real Low Carb diet actually looks like..? Yet they all seem quite happy to spout off about them. I'd put money that most have never investigated what they pontificate on...
 
Last edited:
Very often a Low Carb diet is looked at as a "Fad Diet" when as those of us who have decided to make the life changing decision to become Low Carb know that it is a complete lifestyle change, not something that is followed for a few weeks or months until something else comes along to grab our attention.

There is no reason why a Low Carb diet should not also be balanced, and contain all the necessary nutrients and fibre.
 

In my view, a properly formulated low carbohydrate diet is more likely to be nutrient dense. People embarking on this way of life are generally doing it for a reason and are likely to be very well informed. Most people consuming the standard grain-based diet are generally grazing on carbohydrate all day long, consuming “food” that is so nutrient deficient that it has to be fortified.

There’s a reason nature always packages fat and protein from animal sources in just the right measures.

Edited to add - when people blather on about low carb being a “fad” I usually just respond with “three million years”. The fad began in in 1977 and has since killed millions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
this article is talking about the general public, not type 2 diabetes specifically.

For me, its about balancing risks. In my case, the risk of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes is greater than the perceived risk of not eating plenty of carbs.
 
"Most people around the world are eating less than 20g of fibre a day.
And in the UK, fewer than one in 10 adults eats 30g of fibre daily.
On average, women consume about 17g, and men 21g, a day"

So are all those lacking fibre in their diets low carbers I think not then why single out those following low carb diets there is obviously an agenda in play to undermine LCHF
 
A bit of a fight back going on I think
 
Rachox said:
They were talking about the lack of fibre in a low carb diet on BBC Breakfast this morning. Low carb and low fibre don’t need to go hand in hand. I make up for the loss of fibre from cereals by eating nuts, seeds and psyllium husk etc...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Same here. In that respect it's just rubbish
 
Agree 100% especially as most of us know that people who are following LCHF are way more aware of their nutritional requirements and exactly what they are eating..
 
Oh no! ITV Lunchtime News is about to cover this too.....
 
Rachox said:
They were talking about the lack of fibre in a low carb diet on BBC Breakfast this morning. Low carb and low fibre don’t need to go hand in hand. I make up for the loss of fibre from cereals by eating nuts, seeds and psyllium husk etc...
Click to expand...
Refreshingly, the guest on Breakfast summarised her message by saying ensure you eat enough fibre from any source and set your carb consumption at what ever level is appropriate for you. Advocating neither high, low or anywhere inbetween carb diet. Seemed reasonable to me.
 
Good
 
This may be the best example of conformation bias that I have seen in a while. Research published which disagrees with this forum's collective opinion, therefore it must be rubbish.
How many of the people who have rubbished the work here have actually read it?
It contains compelling statistical evidence that low fibre diets increase the likelihood of poor cardiovascular health from research spanning 50 years. If anyone has evidence that this is not true could you reference it please.
LCHF diets make obtaining fibre more difficult which is probably why the Guardian mentions them (for example it takes 850g of raw kale (44g of carbs) to reach 30g of fibre). How many people eating under 50g of carbs a day are getting 30g of fibre?
If LCHF is the only way possible to control blood sugar, then it is the best (probably the only) diet to have. If it can be controlled some other way (e.g. diet and exercise, or maybe even meds) then LCHF is probably not the healthiest option.
This report is nothing new and agrees with meta analyses done by the Cochrane organisation over many years.

[PLoS which is criticised here is, for any who don't know it, the Public Library of Science, an open access publisher which believes that research should be freely available to the public, It isn't part of a global conspiracy to make us all vegan]
 
Reactions: Yai
A Point often missed by posters on here:

Officially, and on this website info pages, Low Carb is under 100-130g of carbs a day, not 50g or under a day.

so its easy to low carb and keep fibre going. The issue is the degree of low carbing some have chosen to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…