0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
I'm used to the disbelief and rage whenever I mention that fiber isn't essential, I get it, you grew up being accosted with the "fact" that fiber is good for you and it does all these magical things.

Frankly, they are nearly all completely wrong, and you've been led up the high-fibre garden path for too long, but nobody likes the idea that fiber might not be the mystical unicorn-grade asshole cleanser with god-like powers.

Seek out the evidence for yourself - I've done tons of research and have found NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that fiber is something you should be consuming much of (if any), and almost certainly should NOT be supplementing.

Before you start a citation war with us few anti-fiber folk, please ensure it IS NOT epidemiological - you know, the same shitty "studies" that tell us fat is bad and meat is cancer etc etc.

My go-to line about it all: "Fiber is great if you live on junk food"

TL;DR - Fiber is NOT good for you in and of itself, but in naturally occurring sources (eg, leafy greens and fruits etc) it's there to help, sort of. One thing is certain - it's nothing like the health food/supplement you've been lead to believe.




« Last Edit: 03 April, 2014, 11:35 AM by AshSimmonds »



LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/


Extracted take-aways:

Quote
Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms

Kok-Sun Ho, Charmaine You Mei Tan, Muhd Ashik Mohd Daud, and Francis Seow-Choen

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the effect of reducing dietary fiber on patients with idiopathic constipation.


METHODS: Sixty-three cases of idiopathic constipation presenting between May 2008 and May 2010 were enrolled into the study after colonoscopy excluded an organic cause of the constipation. Patients with previous colon surgery or a medical cause of their constipation were excluded. All patients were given an explanation on the role of fiber in the gastrointestinal tract. They were then asked to go on a no fiber diet for 2 wk. Thereafter, they were asked to reduce the amount of dietary fiber intake to a level that they found acceptable. Dietary fiber intake, symptoms of constipation, difficulty in evacuation of stools, anal bleeding, abdominal bloating or abdominal pain were recorded at 1 and 6 mo.


RESULTS: .. At 6 mo, 41 patients remained on a no fiber diet, 16 on a reduced fiber diet, and 6 resumed their high fiber diet for religious or personal reasons.

Patients who stopped or reduced dietary fiber had significant improvement in their symptoms while those who continued on a high fiber diet had no change.

Of those who stopped fiber completely, the bowel frequency increased from one motion in 3.75 d (± 1.59 d) to one motion in 1.0 d (± 0.0 d) (P < 0.001); those with reduced fiber intake had increased bowel frequency from a mean of one motion per 4.19 d (± 2.09 d) to one motion per 1.9 d (± 1.21 d) on a reduced fiber diet (P < 0.001); those who remained on a high fiber diet continued to have a mean of one motion per 6.83 d (± 1.03 d) before and after consultation.

For no fiber, reduced fiber and high fiber groups, respectively, symptoms of bloating were present in 0%, 31.3% and 100% (P < 0.001) and straining to pass stools occurred in 0%, 43.8% and 100% (P < 0.001).


CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.



There is recent evidence that low fiber intake does not equate to constipation[9]. Patients with chronic constipation also have similar fiber intake to controls[10-13]. Patients with chronic constipation may also have worsening symptoms when dietary fiber intake is increased

...

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

...

Symptoms of abdominal pain only improved in patients who stopped fiber completely while those who continued on a high fiber diet or reduced fiber diet did not show any improvement (Table ?(Table2).2). In addition, those on a no dietary fiber diet no longer had symptoms of anal bleeding.

...

This study has confirmed that the previous strongly-held belief that the application of dietary fiber to help constipation is but a myth.

...

Constipation is often mistaken by the layman as the state of not passing stool, with the subsequent false notion that making more feces will allow easier defecation.

In truth, constipation refers to the difficulty in evacuating a rectum packed with feces, and easier defecation cannot possibly be affected by increasing dietary fiber which increases bulky feces.

...

It is well known that increasing dietary fiber increases fecal bulk and volume. Therefore in patients where there is already difficulty in expelling large fecal boluses through the anal sphincter, it is illogical to actually expect that bigger or more feces will ameliorate this problem.

More and bulkier fecal matter can only aggravate the difficulty by making the stools even bigger and bulkier.

...

The role of dietary fiber in constipation is analogous to cars in traffic congestion. The only way to alleviate slow traffic would be to decrease the number of cars and to evacuate the remaining cars quickly. Should we add more cars, the congestion would only be worsened.

...

Dietary fiber is also associated with increased bloatedness and abdominal discomfort[22].

Insoluble fiber was reported to worsen the clinical outcome of abdominal pain and constipation[18-20].

In our recent study, patients who followed a diet with no or less dietary fiber intake showed a significant improvement, not just in their constipation, but also in their bloatedness.

Patients who completely stopped consuming dietary fiber no longer suffered from abdominal bloatedness and pain.

...

It is not logical to increase both the volume and size of stool in patients with idiopathic constipation and indeed for anybody with difficulty in passing stools

...

We have shown that decreasing the bulk and volume of feces immediately enables the easier evacuation of smaller and thinner stools through the anal sphincter mechanism

...

In conclusion, contrary to popularly held beliefs, reducing or stopping dietary fiber intake improves constipation and its associated symptoms.
« Last Edit: 03 September, 2013, 01:44 AM by AshSimmonds »



LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
Full article: http://diagnosisdiet.com/food/fiber/


Extracted take-aways:

Quote
“Fiber” comes from the cell walls of plants. It provides shape and architectural support to the plant. Animals do not contain any fiber; we use bone and cartilage to support our bodies instead. Fiber is by definition indigestible by humans.

...

We are told that soluble fiber is good for us because it slows things down and we are told that insoluble fiber is good for us because it speeds things up.

...

Foods high in insoluble fiber include grains, seeds, nuts, vegetables and certain fruits. Insoluble fibers pass through our digestive system practically untouched, because even bacteria can’t easily digest them.

...

Why expose the smooth inner surfaces of our intestines to these abrasive indigestibles?

...

We are told that we need them to sweep our innards clean of potential toxins. Oddly enough, I was unable to locate a single scientific article explaining what these toxins are and how insoluble fiber removes them

...

The ability of soluble fiber to hold water is what allows fruits and soft vegetable parts to contain water and yet maintain their firm shape.

...

We are told that this swollen gel action is good for us for three reasons:

1 - Viscous soluble fiber binds some of the LDL or so-called “bad cholesterol” we eat so that less of it enters our bloodstream.
2 - When we eat something sweet along with soluble fiber, the gel will slow down the absorption of sugar into the bloodstream, which may reduce blood sugar spiking.
3 - The swollen gel helps us to feel full, so we may eat less food.

let’s take a look at each of these claims.

...

Does fiber lower cholesterol levels?

Yes. ... however ... if you’ve read the cholesterol page you know that a) LDL is not necessarily bad, and b) the most powerful way to improve your cholesterol profile is to eat a low glycemic index or low carbohydrate diet.

...

Can fiber lower blood sugar?

Yes. ... but only by 10 to 20% ... fiber slows digestion of carbohydrates by interfering with normal digestion. Of course, a much more powerful and direct way to reduce the glycemic index of the foods you eat is to…avoid high glycemic index foods.

...

Do high-fiber diets help with weight loss?

No. ... Most studies show little to no weight loss benefit ...

An interesting analysis of .. studies of the use of guar gum (fiber supplement) .. noted that it caused abdominal pain, flatulence, diarrhea and cramps, and concluded that:

“…guar gum is not efficacious for reducing body weight. Considering the adverse events associated with its use, the risks of taking guar gum outweigh its benefits for this indication. Therefore, guar gum cannot be recommended as a treatment for lowering body weight.”

...

Does fiber protect the colon from cancer, constipation, and other diseases?

No.

In the World Journal of Gastroenterology in 2007, Doctors Tan and Seow-Choen published a review of medical studies conducted over the previous 35 years about fiber and colon health and concluded:

“A strong case cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Neither has fiber been found to be useful in chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome...”

...

We cannot digest the carbohydrates that make up soluble fiber .. Undigested carbohydrate fibers arriving in the colon attract huge numbers of bacteria .. don’t exactly digest these carbohydrates, they ferment them .. give off gases, like carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane .. cause uncomfortable cramping and bloating, both common sense signs of poor digestion .. good digestion should not hurt. .. animal protein and fat are comfortably and efficiently digested by humans with virtually no gases produced.

...

Fiber requires LOTS of water to form the sticky ooze that is supposed to be so good for us. .. if you do not drink lots of water along with your soluble fiber supplement, you, too, could find yourself in need of some expensive professional assistance (clogged pipes).

We were not meant to swallow concentrated extracts of plant fiber. We were designed to eat whole foods. This is why Mother Nature designed juicy, appealing fruits complete with their own water supply.

...

Why do experts believe that fiber is essential for health?

It is a simple misunderstanding of the research. .. They assumed it was because modern diets were lacking in fiber, not because modern diets were loaded with refined carbohydrates.

..study after study has shown that adding fiber back to our modern diet does not restore us to the excellent health our ancestors enjoyed..

...

I have yet to see a single scientific study demonstrating that fiber solves any of our problems.

At worst, fiber causes constipation, irritation and damage to the inner lining of the intestine, flatulence and pain.

At best, fiber reduces blood sugar spikes by ten to twenty percent, reduces LDL cholesterol by about one-third, and promotes a “feeling of fullness”.

...

The Bottom Line about Fiber:

Fiber is not essential for human life or health.

Adding fiber to your diet cannot cure any health problem, because it doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

If you eat risky refined and high glycemic index carbohydrates regularly, soluble fiber may soften your blood sugar (and insulin) spikes and may reduce your cholesterol a little by interfering with their digestion.

If you find soluble fiber supplements useful, take care to drink plenty of water with them.

If fiber bothers your digestive system, or you don’t like eating it, you can safely avoid it, since it is not essential to your health.




« Last Edit: 03 September, 2013, 02:40 AM by AshSimmonds »



LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
A round-up by Charles on ZIOH of the chapter about Fiber in Gary Taubes's book Good Calories Bad Calories:

http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/showthread.php?tid=1418

Quote
GCBC Chapter 7: Fiber Pages 122-124

George McGovern’s Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs held its first hearing in April 1973 and the sugar and refined carbohydrates hypotheses were very much alive. None of the staff member who organized the hearing worked for the committee three years later when the Dietary Goals were drafted. More importantly, McGovern nor his congressional colleagues could reconcile what they heard from the assembled experts with what they already believed about the nutritional evils of modern diets.

McGovern’s presidential run and defeat causes plans to change on the 1972 hearing which would have dealt with dietary fat, cholesterol and heart disease but once they returned to debate these issues, John Yudkin’s book Sweet and Dangerous and its subject seemed to be the most urgent.

Aharon Cohen, George Campbell, and Peter Bennett, an NIH epidemiologist who worked with the Pima Indians of Arizona, all testified. Bennett’s research revealed the highest incidence of diabetes ever recorded at the time. Half of the Pima over thirty-five years-old were diabetic. Bennett questions whether the issue was just sugar or the amount of calories due to the excessive amounts of carbohydrates. Walter Mertz, chairman of the USDA Nutrition Institute, testified along with Carol Berdanier, who explained the particular havoc that refined sugar played with her laboratory rats, which had high blood sugar, triglycerides, diabetes, and they died at an early age.

The committee found the sugar and diabetes arguments compelling and requested suggestions on how American could lower the 120 pounds of sugar consumption down to the 70 pounds in accordance with George Campbell’s research.

When the subject went to heart disease, controversy arrived. Aharon Cohen, Peter Cleave and John Yudkin all testified that there was no direct relationship of dietary fat to heart disease. McGovern questioned whether people with high cholesterol were even at risk. He found it hard to believe because this information contradicted that which he learned from his doctor!

This exchange was instructive:

McGovern: “Are you saying that you don’t think a high fat intake produces the high cholesterol count? Or are you even saying that a person with high cholesterol count is not in great danger?

Yudkin: “Well, I would like to exclude those rare people who have probably a genetic condition in which there is an extremely high cholesterol. If we are talking about the general population, I believe that decreasing the fat in the diet is not the best way of combating a high blood cholesterol…I believe that the high blood cholesterol in itself has nothing whatsoever do to with heart disease.”

McGovern: “That is exactly opposite what my doctor told me.”

Sociologist William Isaac Thomas observed in the 1920s that “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” It’s basically difficult to entertain an alternative view if you have already convinced yourself that something is undisputable. By the early 1970s any potential cause of chronic disease had to be reconciled with the existing belief that dietary fat was the primary cause of coronary heart disease. The “refined carbohydrates” hypothesis could not be reconciled with the dogma.

This attempt to reconcile the evidence that diseases of civilizations did not appear in populations relatively free of Western influences, with Keys’ hypothesis was the platform for the fiber hypothesis of Dennis Burkitt.


Quote
GCBC Chapter 7: Fiber, pages 125-128

Denis Burkitt was a former missionary surgeon in Uganda in 1947. In the early 1960s he earned his renown. The Washington Post called him “one of the world’s best known medical detectives” for his studies of a fatal childhood cancer that came to be known as Burkitt’s lymphoma and would be the first human cancer ever linked to a viral cause. In 1966, Burkitt returned to England and worked as a cancer epidemiologist for the Medical Research Council. Richard Doll told him about Cleave and his saccharine-disease hypothesis. Burkitt met with Cleave and read Diabetes, Coronary Thrombosis and the Saccaharine Disease which he found revolutionary. He toured the United States and found American blacks in hospitals who were often obese, diabetic, or atherosclerotic and noted that these conditions were nonexistent in the Ugandans Burkitt treated.

Burkitt used his own network of 150 African rural hospitals that mailed him monthly cancer reports. He asked them about the appearances of chronic diseases and the results of his surveys confirmed the basics of Cleave’s hypothesis. Because of the scale of his inquiry he was able to amass “anecdotal multiplied by a thousand” compared to Cleave. Burkitt also had the necessary reputation that Cleave did not.

Burkitt’s fiber hypothesis was based originally and in its entirety on Cleave’s saccharine-disease hypothesis but rather than claiming that the diseases of civilization were based on an addition to our diet, he argued that they were based on the subtraction of the fiber from those evolutionarily ideal diets. This subtraction led to constipation and ultimately to the diseases of civilization. This fiber deficiency was caused by either the removal of fiber during the refining of carbohydrates or by the consumption of refined-carbohydrates in lieu of the fibrous bulky roughage we should have been eating.

The fiber and refined carbohydrate hypotheses were photographic negatives of each other but the fiber hypothesis caught on immediately upon appearing in the journals even though the refined-carbohydrate hypothesis was the only one of the two capable of explaining the actual evidence. The fiber hypothesis was consistent with Keys’ hypothesis whereas Cleave’s and Yudkin’s was not. It resonated with the nation’s countercultural leanings toward diets heavy in vegetables, legumes and cereal grains.

Burkitt believed he could draw a direct line of causation from the absence of fiber in refined carbohydrates to constipation, hemorrhoids, appendicitis, diverticulitis, polyps, and finally malignant colon and rectal cancer.

Burkitt theorized that removing the fiber from cereal grains would slow the “transit time” through the colon thus providing more time to inflict damage on the surrounding cells but it was conceivable that the over consumption of refined carbohydrates would increase the bacterial flora of the stool and that in turn could lead to carcinogens being metabolized by the bacteria out of “normal bowel constituents.” Burkitt could offer no explanation for why this might cause appendicitis but he was confident (read: believed) that some combination of all these factors played a role.

In July 1969, Burkitt was studying stool characteristics and he visited Alec Walker, a fellow stool examiner, who ran the human biology department at the South African Institute of Medical Research. He studied the rising tide of chronic diseases in urban Bantus in South Africa. Walker dismissed the refined-carbohydrates hypothesis and simultaneously acknowledged that Bantus developed chronic disease only after they moved into the city and began consuming “more white bread, sugar, soft drinks and European liquor.” He linked the rural Bantus low mortality rate to their low bowel motility, a characteristic “largely lost” among Western societies. Burkitt was emboldened by this and devoted his efforts to stool characteristics and bowel behavior hoping to scientifically associate fiber deficiency, constipation and the presence of chronic diseases.

This is the work that led to the fiber hypothesis and its present place in our national consciousness. In 1972, Burkitt and Walker published an article in the Lancet supporting their theory and discussing their measurements of transit time and stool characteristics in twelve hundred people. As you can imagine, the diets of rural people where the “natural amount of fiber” was present, lead to large, soft stools traversing the colon rapidly. However, in industrialized areas, they found small hard stools which according to them played a causative role in bowel-related disorders.

Within two years, Burkitt extended his hypothesis from appendicitis, diverticulitis and colon cancer to all chronic diseases of civilization. In the process, Cleave’s refined-carbohydrate hypothesis of saccharine diseases was transformed into Burkitt’s fiber hypothesis of Western diseases.

Burkitt had a close association with Harold Himsworth who you’ll remember was responsible for Elliott Joslin’s belief that sugar and other carbohydrates were not responsible for diabetes. Himsworth related a Sherlock Holmes story where Holmes stated “The whole clue, as I see it, to this case lies in the behavior of the dog.” And Watson said, “But sir, the dog did nothing at all.” “That,” said Holmes, is the whole point.” In this case, fiber was not there so Burkitt became motivated by the simple expediency of emphasizing the positive benefits of fiber rather than the negative effects of sugar and flour which seemed like a hopeless cause. As Alec Walker said, “Sugar is simply an integral part of the daily diet and emphatically is here to stay.” It was easier to say “Don’t forget fiber in your diet than to say “Don’t eat sugar, flour, white rice and drink less beer.”

Now this is the thing that made me quite angry to read. How did you feel when you read this portion? How many times have I seen something on television or in print espousing the goodness of fiber and its importance in our diet? If you get rid of refined carbohydrates, you don’t need this stupid fiber. It’s indigestible so why bother? These guys, Burkitt and Walker, basically robbed Peter Cleave’s hypothesis just because they had big reputations in the medical community. The work Burkitt did with lymphoma can’t be understated, but this is ridiculous. Perhaps if he researched that lymphoma a little further, he might have found that the cancer he studied was also caused by refined carbohydrate consumption. He built a great reputation by coming up with a novel way to treat and detect a symptom but he failed to recognize the cause which was staring him in the face. Instead, he changed it to suit his own purposes. His own quote is instructive: “Cleave, Campbell and others had been written off as cranks. Now, just because there happened to be a Burkitt’s lymphoma, when I said ‘What about looking at this’ people listened to me when they hadn’t listened to far better guys.”

It’s important to remember while reading this book that science and the scientific method have been invoked to show how unscientific this whole business is. The conventional wisdom on diet and nutrition is based on such flimsy evidence and golf course deals over lunch. It’s built on observations in the market place and assumptions and pure dogma. It is hardly based on anything scientific. It gets me riled up each time I review this chapter.


Quote
If yesterday’s post wasn’t bad enough, it gets worse. Hugh Trowell was also a missionary physician who spent thirty years in Kenya and Uganda. He was part of a number of British doctors who watched three million people undergo rapid “westernization.” Just as in all isolated populations, the diseases of civilization were noticeably absent. Trowell noted in 1929 Kenya that the people were as thin as “ancient Egyptians” (at least the pictures on their hieroglyphs). However, when they dined with the native tribes, they always left food at the end of the meal and fed it to their domestic animals suggesting that their emaciated appearance was not caused by food shortages or low-calorie diets.

During World War II, Trowell noted that British nutritionist tried to fatten Africans in the British Army but were unable to do so. It remained a mystery. However, by the 1950’s, fat Africans were common. Trowell himself noted the first clinical disease of coronary heart disease in 1956, in an African living in England who ate a Western Diet for twenty years. (This reminds me of what Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!”) In 1970 Trowell returned to East Africa and described “an amazing spectacle.” The towns were full of obese Africans and there was a large diabetic clinic in every city. The twin diseases (obesity and diabetes) were born about the same time and were then growing together.

Burkitt and Trowell were friends since the 1940s in Uganda. In 1970, they worked on Burkitt’s fiber hypothesis and a textbook called “Western Diseases.” According to them, obesity could be induced by the fiber deficiency in the Western Diet. Over the course of a few decades we unknowingly eat 4 percent more calories than the natural inherited evolutionary figure and therefore gain weight. Later investigators added on to this idea suggesting that fibrous bulky foods were more filling and they took longer to chew and digest which supposedly led to a decrease in calories consumed. Today, we’re told to increase our fiber so that we’re fuller longer and we’re encouraged to eat “complex carbohydrates” which supposedly raises our blood sugar slowly and aids digestion. Don’t be fooled by this nonsense.

For heart disease, Trowell borrowed Keys’ notion that carbohydrates protect against heart disease. However, to be fully protective they must have the full compliment of fiber. (Isn’t that the dumbest thing you’ve ever read?)

Trowell explained that more attention would have been paid to Cleave’s hypothesis had he “not dismissed completely the role of saturated fats” in heart disease (Burkitt later said as much). So both fat and fiber could now be blamed. Cleave and Yudkin told us the same evidence could implicate refined carbohydrates and sugar. Burkitt and Trowell called their fiber hypothesis a “major modification” of Cleave’s work but they never actually addressed the reasons Cleave identified refined carbohydrates as the problem to begin with. Why did the Masai, Samburu, the Native Americans of the Great Plains and the Inuit not have these chronic diseases when they clearly ate no fiber prior to their nutrition transition?

Trowell relied on an old faithful, “Special ethnic groups like the Eskimos adapted many millennia ago to special diets, which in other groups not adapted, might induce disease.” Of course they did! Guess they never heard of Vilhjalmur Stefansson who adapted to the Inuit quite quickly – that’s for later…




LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
Full article: http://chriskresser.com/myths-and-truths-about-fiber

Extracted tidbits:

Quote
Many studies have demonstrated that excess intake of fiber may actually be harmful, particularly for gut health

...

when tested in the lab, controlled intervention trials that simply add fiber supplements to an otherwise consistent diet have not shown these protective effects

...

A recent report by NPR commented that despite the lack of significant evidence linking fiber intake to health outcomes such as reduced heart disease or cancer, many consumers are buying foods that are fortified with synthetic fiber additives under the guise of health promotion

...

Tan and Seow-Choen, in their 2007 editorial on fiber and colorectal disease, call insoluble fiber “the ultimate junk food”, as “it is neither digestible nor absorbable and therefore devoid of nutrition.”

...

The addition of insoluble and soluble fibers to processed foods may actually cause these foods to be even less nutritious than if they were not enriched with any fiber at all.

...

when researchers tested the theory that a high-fiber diet prevented diverticulosis, they not only found that a high intake of fiber did not reduce the prevalence of diverticulosis, but that a high-fiber diet and greater number of bowel movements were independently associated with a higher prevalence of diverticula





LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
Full article: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fiber/a-cautionary-tale-of-mucus-fore-and-aft/

Extracted minutia:

Quote
A cautionary tale of mucus fore and aft

Let’s engage in a sort of thought experiment. .. mucus is a kind of breeding ground for all kinds of nasty bacteria, it would make sense .. to want patients to hack up as much of this stuff as possible to get it out of the body .. excess mucus was the body’s way of ridding itself of something foreign .. imagine these doctors supposing that if they could get their patients to cough up stuff all the time, the respiratory system would stay clear of the mucus that harbors all the pathogens that cause lung problems.

.. If they don’t cough as much or as productively as they perceive those around them are doing, they go to their doctors who prescribe a sputum inducing medicine for them.  .. I’ve got the perfect product to keep everyone coughing productively. .. It’s called a cigarette.

...

We know what happens to the lungs with smoking. We know that all the coughing and mucus production isn’t a good thing–it isn’t protecting us from disease; it is the result of disease. But if we lived in a society that worshipped bringing up mucus every day, how long would it take us to figure out that smoking wasn’t particularly good for us?

...

We live in a society that worships regular bowel movements .. people, the elderly especially, are obsessed with moving their bowels daily .. animals in the wild don’t bring up copious amounts of mucus daily, it has escaped the notice of doctors today that animals in the wild, especially carnivorous animals, don’t always have daily bowel movements, and that when they do, such BMs aren’t always huge and loose

...

Into our bowel-regularity-worshipping society there has come a substance that ensures regularity. It’s called fiber.

...

If we can’t get enough from the foods we eat to achieve regularity, we are encouraged to buy supplements

...

despite numerous studies showing that fiber doesn’t really do squat for us healthwise, everyone continues to recommend it

...

When you eat high-fiber foods, they bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering. What we are saying is this banging and tearing increases the level of lubricating mucus.

...

These cells are a biological boundary that separates the inside world, if you will, from this nasty outside world. On the cellular scale, roughage, such as grains and fibers that can’t be completely digested, are a mechanical challenge for these cells.

...

most of these cells rapidly repair damage and, in the process, excrete even more mucus, which provides a bit of cell protection as it eases food down the GI tract.

...

In research published in 2003 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. McNeil showed proof of his then decade-old hypothesis that cells with internal membranes use those membranes to repair potentially lethal outer-membrane injuries.

...

An outer membrane tear is like an open door through which calcium just outside the cell rushes in. Too much calcium is lethal but that first taste signals the vulnerable cell it better do something quick. With epithelial cells, several of the internal mucus-filled compartments fuse together within about three seconds, forming a patch to fix the tear.

...

The scientists aren’t certain how many times cells can take a hit, but they suspect turnover is so high because of the constant injury.

...

So, we have a situation where a product causes damage to the cells lining a tube, causing them to produce a lot of mucus in an attempt to protect themselves. In the process many of these cells die and are replaced by new cells. And this is perceived as a good thing.


In the comments:

Quote
It is amazing that people are being encouraged to take a pill to replace healthy eating. What’s even more amazing is that in this case the pill is replacing something that has never been shown to have health benefits in the first place.


« Last Edit: 04 September, 2013, 03:05 AM by AshSimmonds »



LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
Full post: http://highsteaks.com/carnivores-creed/owsley-the-bear-stanley/bears-words-of-wisdom/fiber-fibre/

Bits and bobs:

Quote
The cellulose and fibre which form the bulk of the plant-sourced food are of no use, but must pass through and be discarded.

...

the rough cellulosic fibre (most of the vegetable’s mass/volume) scratches and irritates the delicate intestinal lining as it passes through, and causes first, mucus secretion followed by scarring (callous formation). Both limit the intestine’s ability to absorb nutrients. This damage is universal over time .. and is the cause of the ‘perplexing’ malnourished condition common in older people.

...

This inside-callous is not necessary, it is a choice you make.

...

Let’s put it like this, if you use something abrasive on ANY surface ANYWHERE in or on your body, you WILL cause a callous to form.

...

For anyone who is not up on this, ‘good fibre’ is the result of ‘studies’ commissioned by ‘big ag’ i.e. grain growers and cereal manufacturers, to convince people to eat material which is a byproduct of refining grain: Masses of indigestible cellulose, which were formerly sold as waste to cardboard manufacturers. Added to food, and sold at human food prices, it has been a fantastic boost to the cereal industry’s bottom line. Enough said.




LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
Full article: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dietary-fiber-is-bad-for-sex-thats-the-only-claim-about-it-that-isnt-a-myth/

Random snippets:

Quote
Dietary Fiber Is Bad for Sex – That’s the Only Claim About It That Isn’t a Myth

Does dietary fiber contain anything of nutritional value? No, it doesn’t. Zero vitamins… Zero minerals… Zero protein… Zero fat… Nothing, zilch, not even digestible carbohydrates. Why, then, is it considered a healthy nutrient? As the story goes, you can thank Dr. John Harvey Kellogg for that:

...

To “remedy” the sin of masturbation, he advocated circumcision without anesthetic for boys, and mutilation of the clitoris with carbolic acid for girls. He blamed constipation for “nymphomania” in women, and lust in men, because, according to Kellogg, impacted stools inside one’s rectum were stimulating the prostate gland and the female vagina into sexual proclivity

...

To fix these “ailments,” Dr. Kellogg was prescribing a coarse vegetarian diet along with 1 to 3 ounces of bran daily, and mineral oil with every meal. As any nutritionist will tell you, the decline of libido and infertility are among the very first symptoms of malnutrition prevalent among ardent vegans.

...[Corn Flakes] ... relentless brainwashing to turn what once used to be a dirt-cheap livestock feed into a premium health food.

...

Myth #1: For maximum health, obtain 30 to 40 g of fiber daily from fresh fruits and vegetables.

Myth #2: Fiber reduces blood sugar levels and prevents diabetes, metabolic disorders, and weight gain.

Myth #3: Fiber-rich foods improve digestion by slowing down the digestive process.

Myth #5: Fiber promotes a healthy digestive tract and reduces cancer risk.

Myth #6: Fiber offers protection from breast cancer.

Myth #7: Fiber lowers blood cholesterol levels, triglycerides, and prevents heart disease.

Myth #8: Fiber satisfies hunger and reduces appetite.

Myth #9: Fiber prevents gallstones and kidney stones.

Myth #10: Fiber prevents diverticular disease.

Myth #11: Fiber is safe and effective for the treatment and prevention of diarrhea.

Myth #12: Fiber relieves chronic constipation.





LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
http://www.ketotic.org/2013/11/similarities-between-germ-free-mice-and.html

Quote
Similarities between germ-free mice and ketogenic humans


From the title this might not seem relevant to this thread, but trust me, it is...


Quote
Quote
Maybe some of the health benefits a ketogenic diet are due, not just to the diet being low in digestible carbohydrate and thus leading to ketosis, but also to being low in indigestible fiber and thus starving certain gut bacteria.


Or, to phrase the same hypothesis differently, maybe one mechanism by which a glycolytic or high-fiber diet causes health problems is that it feeds harmful gut bacteria, and the presence of those bacteria causes the health problems.

If that hypothesis were true, it would imply that if you are eating a low-carb diet, then including a lot of low-carb vegetables would feed these hypothesized harmful gut bacteria and reduce some of the potential health benefits of a low-carb diet.

...

Are some of the benefits of a ketogenic diet mediated by starving gut bacteria, and if so, does eating fiber (i.e. low-carb vegetables) reduce some of the health benefits of a keto diet?

...

Epidemiological studies have found correlations between high fiber intake and relatively less disease. However, randomised controlled trials have repeatedly failed to confirm the hypotheses that the fiber intake was actually protective.

...

Quote
"[Germ-free] mice must consume 10–30% more food to maintain the same body weight as conventional controls. Despite this increased food intake, germ-free mice are leaner with a ~40% decrease in the size of their epididymal fat pads. They have a similar decrease in liver glycogen levels. [Germ-free] mice also have lower blood glucose and insulin levels and are resistant to obesity induced by a high-fat diet." — from Donohoe-2011


...the germ-free mouse sounds like the healthier mouse!

...

germ-free animals have increased lifespans [15]. (They also show decreased anxiety [16] and increased bone mass [17]. Once again, to us this sounds like a better kind of mouse to be!)

...

Given this observation — that some of the benefits of ketogenic diets are present in mice that don't have gut bacteria which process dietary fiber, even though the mice are not in ketosis — it raises the following questions:

 1. Could the starvation of gut bacteria be a part of the mechanism of the benefits of ketogenic diets?

 2. ...could fiber be actually counter-productive to a ketogenic diet?

 3. In analogy to the way the putative benefits of fiber may simply be that they displace refined carbohydrates in the diet, could the reason probiotics can lead to improved health be not because they are beneficial, but because they push out more harmful strains [18]?

 4. Could a diet free of carb and fiber (i.e. one extremely low in plants) have benefits independent of its tendency to be ketogenic?




Plenty of great citations at the end of the article, go read it for yourself.





LCHF Keto Science

  • Posts: 891
http://authoritynutrition.com/why-is-fiber-good-for-you

Quote
Why is Fiber Good For You? The Crunchy Truth

...

The health authorities constantly tell us to eat fiber.

...

Doing this, they say, will help lower cholesterol, relieve constipation and prevent all sorts of diseases.

But the actual research doesn’t back up many of these claims.

...

Put simply… dietary fiber is indigestible carbohydrate found in foods

...

Another more useful way to categorize fiber is “fermentable vs non-fermentable” – that is, whether the friendly bacteria in the gut can use it or not

...

Some of them have important health benefits, while others are mostly useless

...

The Main Reason Fiber is Beneficial, is That it Feeds The “Good” Bacteria in The Intestine

...

The problem is that most carbs, proteins and fats get absorbed into the bloodstream before they make it to the large intestine. There is nothing left for the gut flora.

This is where fiber steps in… This is the most important reason that (some) dietary fibers are important for health. They feed the “good” bacteria in the intestine, functioning as prebiotics

...

bacteria produce nutrients for the body, including short-chain fatty acids like acetate, propionate and butyrate, of which butyrate appears to be the most important

...

Fiber Can Reduce Blood Sugar Spikes After a High-Carb Meal

Foods that have fiber in them tend to have a lower glycemic index

...

This can be important… but only if you’re eating a high-carb diet.

...

One of the main purported benefits of fiber is reduced constipation

...

Given how almost every health professional believes that fiber can help with constipation, you would think that there was strong evidence behind it.

...

The evidence about fiber helping with constipation is surprisingly weak and the studies do not agree. This appears to depend on the individual, as well as the type of fiber.

...

There is no Evidence That Fiber Protects Against Colorectal Cancer

...

The recommended amount of 25-38 grams of fiber per day may be excessive. There is no evidence that eating less fiber than that has any harmful effects

...

eating plenty of vegetables (and maybe some fruit) should be more than sufficient

...

At the end of the day, fiber appears to be overrated.









 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4