The Guardian

Oldvatr said:

Don't you mean No 2?

Click to expand...

I did actually type a 2.... and then... something came over me.

Fibre is good for health? Maybe not:

https://www.gutsense.org/fiber-menace/about-fiber-menace-book.html

There are lots of references to scientific/medical papers.

My opinion is that the advice to consume lots of fibre for good health is in the same category as the advice to consume lots of carbs, eat margarine instead of butter, eat vegetable oil instead of animal fat, avoid saturated fat, limit dairy and red meat, consume very little salt, etc - i.e. not based on proper evidence.

JohnEGreen said:

"
What are the symptoms of too much fiber?

The recommended daily intake of fiber is 25 grams per day for women and 38 grams per day for men. However, some experts estimate as much as 95 percent of the population don’t ingest this much fiber.
While it appears most people fall short of their recommended fiber intake, it’s actually possible to have too much fiber, especially if you increase your fiber intake very quickly. Too much fiber can cause:
bloating
abdominal pain
flatulence
loose stools or diarrhea
constipation
temporary weight gain
intestinal blockage in people with Crohn’s disease
reduced blood sugar levels, which is important to know if you have diabetes
Call your doctor right away if you’re experiencing nausea, vomiting, a high fever, or a complete inability to pass gas or stool."

So it would seem you can after all have too much of a good thing.

https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/too-much-fiber

Click to expand...

Totally agree..

http://amzn.eu/8qzTPQq

Book is called fiber menace and this helped me beyond any gastrointestinal consultant and I am now off all gastro meds.....

NoCrbs4Me said:

Fibre is good for health? Maybe not:

https://www.gutsense.org/fiber-menace/about-fiber-menace-book.html

There are lots of references to scientific/medical papers.

My opinion is that the advice to consume lots of fibre for good health is in the same category as the advice to consume lots of carbs, eat margarine instead of butter, eat vegetable oil instead of animal fat, avoid saturated fat, limit dairy and red meat, consume very little salt, etc - i.e. not based on proper evidence.

Click to expand...

Snap!!! This book cured me from my chronic colonic problems!!

Brunneria said:

Yes, and I get those symptoms with less than 10g of fibre a day.

Thank you for this @JohnEGreen

It is another great example of why one portion of fibre really doesn’t fit all.

Mind you, I am perfectly happy for all those who need/flourish on 30+g of fibre to carry on doing so.
In fact, they can have mine!

Click to expand...

Me too! Well said.

This presentation does not directly concern the OP but it is pertinent (and timely) as it concerns epidemiology and CoI. Less than 18 minutes of common sense.

More on the EAT-Lancet consortium:

https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053-the-eat-lancet-commission-s-controversial-campaign.html

Brunneria said:

So you are OK telling people they shouldn’t criticise a report they haven’t read in depth (you say this in several posts on this thread).

But then you happily criticise a book you haven’t read at all? Actually, your post comes across as mocking said book.

Can’t have it both ways, or you look hypocritical.

Incidentally, I have not read the report OR the book, since I know EXACTLY how much fibre my body tolerates (very little), and I will take my own unfortunate Disaster Pants experiences over any historically questionable* study any day.

*. By historically questionable, I mean that Low Carbing as an identifiable ‘thing’ is new. So asking people decades ago how they ate, and then assuming that a contemporary low carb way of eating is comparable is just a nonsense. Smacks of grandstanding to increase pay per view.

Click to expand...

I did not criticise the book. I said very clearly that I wouldn't do so as I haven't read it.

Did you read what I said before leaping in with your criticism of my post. My very first words were "I can't criticise the book as I haven't read it". Not only do you criticise scientific research without reading it, but you can't even be bothered to read my post before criticising that.

My criticism was of preposterous statements in the sales blurb. On what evidence were humans "tall, strong and disease free" or for that matter that the "primal pattern is still there, circling like a labyrinth out of our DNA" - yes, very scientific.

Again, you are happy to dismiss proper, qualified scientific research without reading it based on your own experience.
Choosing to do that is fine but advising others to do the same is not.
As I have said many times, if LCHF is the only way to control BG then it is the right diet as uncontrolled BG are obviously extremely dangerous. However, if your BG levels are under control, a more balanced diet of unprocessed fruit, veg, grains and meat is, evidentially the most healthy.
Not sure what is controversial about this. It clearly ruffles some feathers on this forum, but in the real world not so.
This forum is becoming increasingly unpleasant to anyone who doesn't fully agree with the view of a handful of 'true believers'.
A more grown up, evidence based discussion would be good.

For those of you way want to do high fibre and low carb without getting their oats..
https://www.verywellfit.com/high-fiber-low-carb-food-list-2242216

I always treat articles in the Guardian with suspicion. Diabetic nurse in Beccles recommends low carb diet as way to stay healthy.

Indy51 said:

More on the EAT-Lancet consortium:

https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053-the-eat-lancet-commission-s-controversial-campaign.html

Click to expand...

What is your problem with EAT-Lancet?

They are reputable scientists attempting to determine what diet may be sustainable in the future. It is unlikely that 10 billion people worldwide could eat as much meat as we presently do in the west so this is probably not sustainable.
Worldwide, most calories consumed have been from plants for many centuries. With increased wealth in Asia there has been an increased demand for meat, which may cause problems of sustainability, water shortage and maybe climate related issues.

I would never advocate veganism (can't see that life would be worth living) but an overall reduction in meat consumption may be necessary in the future.

@midnightrider

(Referring to post #88)

This is getting nowhere, is it?
You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely.

We ALL make decisions on what info we accept based on subjective motives. It is human nature. Anyone who claims to be objective is kidding themselves. That is you, me, everyone.

The key (in studies, forums and generally in life) is to recognise bias, in ourselves and others. Since my post clearly did that (I spent 2 paragraphs explaining it), your subsequent declaration of it is redundant.

And as for your continued repetition that the Guardian is quoting quality scientific research... nope. I distrust decades long observational studies. I consider them unreliable. I think @Dillinger expressed it beautifully.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and have stated it repeatedly on this thread. But that does not stop other people holding different views, and also stating them. Discussion is the lifeblood of this forum. And people holding views that differ - and expressing them - adds to the forum rather than detracting from it. So long as the debate stays civil.

midnightrider said:

What is your problem with EAT-Lancet?

Click to expand...

My "problem" as you call it is that nutrition "science" based on epidemiology is essentially hocus pocus and about as accurate as astrology. Even scarier when they try to pretend they are experts in environmental science as well. I'm more persuaded by Prof John Ioannidis on the subject:

Brunneria said:

@midnightrider

(Referring to post #88)

This is getting nowhere, is it?
You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely.

We ALL make decisions on what info we accept based on subjective motives. It is human nature. Anyone who claims to be objective is kidding themselves. That is you, me, everyone.

The key (in studies, forums and generally in life) is to recognise bias, in ourselves and others. Since my post clearly did that (I spent 2 paragraphs explaining it), your subsequent declaration of it is redundant.

And as for your continued repetition that the Guardian is quoting quality scientific research... nope. I distrust decades long observational studies. I consider them unreliable. I think @Dillinger expressed it beautifully.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and have stated it repeatedly on this thread. But that does not stop other people holding different views, and also stating them. Discussion is the lifeblood of this forum. And people holding views that differ - and expressing them - adds to the forum rather than detracting from it. So long as the debate stays civil.

Click to expand...

An apology for calling me a hypocrite, based on a failure to read my post properly would not go amiss.

Moderators should perhaps avoid insulting posters, and maybe avoid taking sides in a debate. I regularly attend debates on a variety of scientific subjects and moderators are there to ensure that others can back up their assertions and follow the rules of any discussion. They generally take the heat out of any discussion. I have never known a moderator to take sides in a discussion in so obvious a way.

I have not been uncivil at all, merely suggested that people shouldn't criticise something that they haven't read. This really should not need saying.
Please, could we all just behave like grown ups.

Indy51 said:

My "problem" as you call it is that nutrition "science" based on epidemiology is essentially hocus pocus and about as accurate as astrology. Even scarier when they try to pretend they are experts in environmental science as well. I'm more persuaded by Prof John Ioannidis on the subject:

Click to expand...

As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.
Please just think what you are saying and stop insulting people. You may have a reason to dislike scientists, but the world has moved on since the enlightenment.

Another critique of nutrition "science" - recommended by Dr Vinay Prasad:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/

midnightrider said:

As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.
Please just think what you are saying and stop insulting people. You may have a reason to dislike scientists, but the world has moved on since the enlightenment.

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to stifle debate by pulling rank?

midnightrider said:

As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.
Please just think what you are saying and stop insulting people. You may have a reason to dislike scientists, but the world has moved on since the enlightenment.

Click to expand...

As you replied with 7 minutes of @Indy51 's video being posted I can fairly assume you have not watched the 37 minute video.
I would suggest that you do so as it quite neatly outlines exactly what is wrong with epidemiological studies in the field of nutrition. Interesting that you have "skin in the game" for this as I believe did Prof Walter Willetts who if I'm not mistaken was noted to leave the room during Dr Ioannides talk..maybe his conscience got pricked?

@midnightrider - I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of the usefulness of nutritional epidemiology. I don't see the point in arguing about it.

We're all entitled to select the experts we trust. Both Prof Ioannidis and Dr Vinay Prasad are highly respected scientists and I choose them to be my experts. You can choose your own.

We need honest media not just jokes