Lancet study in the article seems pretty comprehensive.
It’s tangential since keto isn’t specifically anti-fibre, but many people have said fibre has been a hindrance to them.
Is there anything to this? Again the study is pretty comprehensive, not just a couple of epi studies
Can you link me? I couldn’t find one on this particular article. The Guardian has run a few anti keto articles lately
I think this is one area where our individual differences can be large indeed. Some people say they need a lot of fiber, and I believe them. The same for people who say that they can easily get too much fiber - that it messes them up.
The article is saying how we are not eating enough fibre, the video shows how it is not needed.
Unless, I’m missing the details/facts somewhere, that article is complete fluff. NOT saying that what it’s saying isn’t true. It may be that higher fiber is linked to lowered mortality, heart disease, etc. I am saying that the article does nothing to support that fact.
Looking at and summarizing studies from “scientists” is not the same thing as controlled studies. It’s just taking information and compiling it, and it’s often up to the “researcher” to pick and choose what studies are included. And then, even within those studies, there can be problems. So without reporting the actual sources of the numbers used to make those claims, it’s as real as saying there are aliens. There might actually BE aliens, but there’s no proof of it as yet.
It may show that, but on the basis of very little evidence. One study of 60 odd people with ideopathic constipation, and a claim that water doesn’t get absorbed by fibre.
Again, he may be right, but I’m not sure that’s convincting. YMMV
And I did follow the link describing how they did the meta-analysis, but without going to the actual study and then reading the studies that generated the original data, it all just fluff. Even so, one statement stood to out to me:
“Our findings are limited to risk reduction in the population at large rather than those with chronic disease.”
So they intentionally threw out anyone with chronic disease. What if those people were eating high fiber diets? Then they lower the “good results.” If they’re only looking at disease free people, and they see a higher level of fiber in the diet, you still really can’t say, scientifically, that it’s due to the fiber. It could be due to genetics, environment, lifestyle, etc.
It was to show a contrast between the two views, not saying you had to believe either of them. Was just for interest, but personally I would rather believe Paul Mason than WHO.
Sure, but the study has more support than Dr Mason is providing. In lieu of anything better I’m uncertain as to what other conclusion I should dra
The “study” is only a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a lazy way to try to draw correlations and conclusions based upon the results reported from other studies. Those other studies can also be meta-analysis only or some clinical trials. But a clinical trial is only as good as the trial set-up, data collection, etc. There’s a LOT of places where a study can be skewed.
Just trying to say that anything like this should be viewed with a huge amount of skepticism. You really have to be willing to go look at the original results and even then, you have to carefully read how the study was conducted, data collected, etc.
Unfortunately, it’s a bit rampant in the scientific world to skew results. I can give you a recent example and one that hits close to home for me. My mom has extensive stage small cell lung cancer so I’ve been looking at clinical trial results. One that I recently read had a summary that made it seem like they had a good success rate.
Problem was, of the something like 13 patients, 1/2 had to drop out due to negative side effects. Of the 1/2 that were left, only 1/2 showed any improvement and only like 1 patient showed significant improvement. It just so happened, with such a small group, his results made the success rate seem high. In reality, though, for 12 of the 13 participants, either nothing happened or only a marginal improvement OR a significant negative side-effect.
Many people eating keto swear by the positive effects of fibre with a keto diet (hunger suppression and regularity) and others say that fibre causes them GI issues or that bad bacteria feed on them. If you don’t have issues with fibre then I say get it into your diet to your hearts content. You shouldn’t stress over it because everyone is different and it may make you feel ok with the way you’re eating now to get it into your diet more.
I’m sorry to hear that. Have you approached her about eating keto food as a tool against cancer? Cancer thrives on sugars. Keto might truly help her if she’s open to give it a go.
I’d love to get her to try it, but she’s firmly in the CICO world. Even after I started eating this way and felt better overall (and losing weight), she says “Well, you know it just comes down to the calories you eat.” We’ve had the conversation for years because we’ve both battled our weight for years. She’s T2D and has high blood pressure, but still considers some oatmeal (the sweetened kind) a good breakfast. With the chemo and radiation treatments, her tastes changed and she had trouble eating anything for a while…but when she did want to eat, she’d send her husband out for a fast food hamburger, or a gravy biscuit from Hardees, or ask him to fix her a PB&J sandwich.
So no, she won’t even consider it. Even my brother is trying to lose weight right now by eating 1200 cal/day…toast for breakfast, a baked potato with some chicken for dinner, maybe a salad in there somewhere…and then leaves room for a small bag of cookies or something in that 1200 cals.
Not sure it does… it’s mainly a review of epidemiological food questionnaire studies that “prove” nothing. So more puff about nothing. At least Dr Mason’s was a controlled trial.
