Ad Widget

Collapse

Fiber sources

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fiber sources

    In Mark's article on grains, he addresses the fiber issue. Regarding grains, he says "I don't [need the fiber]."

    He quotes research that found that high-fiber foods "bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering” which “increases the level of lubricating mucus".

    "Err, that sounds positively awful. Banging and tearing? Rupturing? These are not the words I like to hear. But wait! The study’s authors say, “It’s a good thing.” Fantastic! So when all those sticks and twigs rub up against my fleshy interior and literally rupture my intestinal lining, I’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s all part of the plan, right?"

    He concludes with

    "Anyway, there’s plenty of fiber in the vegetables and fruit I eat."

    Now, there's an obvious logical inconsistency here. The implication is that
    - by eating the proper diet that humans evolved to eat (before agriculture), we get plenty of fiber
    - we don't need fiber
    - fiber bangs and tears and damages our digestive organs

    In other words, even before agriculture, we still hadn't evolved to deal with all that nasty, damaging fiber, nor found a way to get the nutrition we need and still avoid it.

    Now, you can call it semantics and point to phrases he uses like "sticks and twigs" (perhaps he's referring to soluble vs. insoluble fiber??) or whatever he means by "high" fiber. But the fact remains, this issue really was not addressed fully by this article.

  • #2
    Source?

    Have you read recent articles?

    Don't miss the forest for the trees...

    Comment


    • #3
      The forum won't allow me to post the link. The source is the article called "Why Grains Are Unhealthy". I'm sure you can find it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jeffnc View Post
        The forum won't allow me to post the link. The source is the article called "Why Grains Are Unhealthy". I'm sure you can find it.
        Sure could...other question stands.

        Nothing is generally "fully addressed" by one article. Dig deeper.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
          Nothing is generally "fully addressed" by one article. Dig deeper.
          You misunderstand me. You seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. I'm not asking a question, and I'm not asking for someone to do research for me, and I don't have anything against grain bashing, necessarily.

          You don't like the term "addressed fully"? Fine, I was being nice. Here's what I'm saying. There's a *gaping hole* in that article. Best case, it's poorly worded and confusing. I'm pointing this out to other readers as well as being open to a conversation about it.

          Mark seems to like some humor in his writing. Sometimes it serves him well, and sometimes it doesn't. He definitely got pretty far off course in this article, whether he was trying to be facetious or not. If you're looking for information about fiber, or if you're looking for a reason to avoid grain or eat grain, I'd avoid this article.

          If Mark wants to go back and make comments on old articles to the effect of "We've learned more since this article was written, please see....", that's fine. But if I have to look at the date of every article here and then cross reference it with anything newer, that might make this site more trouble than it's worth.
          Last edited by jeffnc; 09-11-2016, 07:40 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jeffnc View Post
            ...
            Hey Jeff,

            Yeah, I see what you're saying. That's unavoidable and should tell you something about what is truly going on with diet and health promoters such as Sisson et al that started many years ago (I don't imply anything bad, it's just the logic of commerce really). For example, you should see how Richard Nikolei at freetheanimal.com has evolved in the diet arena. There are still people buying his paleo book written at a time when he was under the heavy influence of Taubes and Cordain. When these new readers come to his blog these days, they are in for a shock

            That's how it goes. As a business, you have to keep making yourself relevant. If grains aren't so "bad" any longer, you have to write about it and hope that people forgot your former opinion

            But to Sisson's credit, he got a few points that are still relevant and will remain so, just not so much in the nutritional debate

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jeffnc View Post
              But if I have to look at the date of every article here and then cross reference it with anything newer, that might make this site more trouble than it's worth.
              Yes...reading a date can be ever so tiresome. lol. But since you find posting links and looking at dates so troublesome allow me to help a bit.

              http://lmgtfy.com/?q=grains+and+marks+daily+apple
              Last edited by Neckhammer; 09-12-2016, 08:19 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                Yes...reading a date can be ever so tiresome. lol. But since you find posting links and looking at dates so troublesome allow me to help a bit.

                http://lmgtfy.com/?q=grains+and+marks+daily+apple
                Wow that was an amazing link. Not sure how you did that but very cool!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jeffnc View Post
                  Now, there's an obvious logical inconsistency here. The implication is that
                  - by eating the proper diet that humans evolved to eat (before agriculture), we get plenty of fiber
                  - we don't need fiber
                  - fiber bangs and tears and damages our digestive organs. ...
                  Possibly but not necessarily.

                  There are two types of fibre. Here I just googled a reference for you:

                  http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/i...-soluble-fiber

                  Mark probably meant that he got plenty of soluble fibre from the vegetables and low-sugar fruit he ate (and that he was thinking a person in the Palaeolithic might have eaten).

                  Whether he would also need the (very large) amount of insoluble fibre that one tends to get from eating appreciable amounts of cereal grain is another matter.

                  I think Mark's view on dietary fibre has probably changed over time. I know at one time he was recommending supplementary potato starch (in effect a kind of fibre)—an idea that went through the Paleosphere but that has now been decisively debunked:

                  http://thegutinstitute.com/2014/12/h...rprint-pa.html

                  I doubt he would recommend it now. His views, like those of most people, change over time.


                  I do recall an old article wherein he does talk about damage to the intestinal tract caused by cereal fibre. He referred to a book by Konstantin Monastyrsky, whom he described as a friend, called Fiber Menace:

                  https://www.amazon.com/Fiber-Menace-...dp/0970679645/

                  He may very well still hold that view. It's certainly plausible.

                  ______________________________

                  As for people in the Palaeolithic … well, there must have been times when plant-fibre of any sort wasn't in great supply in the diet—at any rate for people at some times in some latitudes. Peri-glacial environments can actually be extremely rich in food, but you'll not generally be able readily to harvest many plant-foods in them.

                  In warmer climes, on the other hand, not only will you be able to get vegetable-foods but you may find fruit seasonally. And then again—which is unfortunate for the Paleo view—you might also find and exploit extensive stands of wild grain. For example, exploitation of seed-foods by Australian Aborigines seems to go back a loooong way:

                  http://australianmuseum.net.au/blogp...original-bread

                  So it's difficult to get a firm answer out of the archaeological/anthropological evidence one way or the other.
                  ______________________________


                  But to rely on vegetables (and some fruit) for your fibre intake and eschew cereals is not a bad strategy given the uncertainty—and there are other reasons to avoid, or at least minimise, cereals anyway.

                  If someone on a Paleo/Primal Diet thinks they're not getting enough fibre there's always the option of taking a little psyllium and/or inulin. You could make a reasonable argument that many wild plant foods are a lot more fibrous than cultivated ones. IIRC, some Bushmen in Namibia eat at a certain the of year a fruit that's not only very low-sugar but so fibrous they actually have to spit out some of the fibre as they chew. (This is far cry from giant, sugar-rich, and not particularly fibrous bred-up fruits in the supermarket.) But then again, as I said, in some environments there likely weren't many plants of any sort in the diet … except in the form of the part-digested grasses in the stomachs of kills, which hunter-gatherers, strange as it may seem, are known to eat.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If you want to critique Mark's writing style, fine. I am pretty sure that he doesn't spend much time on the forum.

                    Grains, except white rice and wild rice, are still on Mark's shit list. Others in the wider ancestral health community (e.g., Weston A Price Foundation) have a more tolerant stance, given certain conditions such as proper preparation. AH people are least likely to endorse gluten grains (wheat, barley, and rye). Some research suggests that we should prefer cellular over acellular forms of food, which should bias us against flour.

                    Fiber is now considered part of a wider group of plant substances that can be fermented by our gut microbes. Research on the microbiome is very young, but the consensus is that we should be supporting a diverse set of microbes. In practical terms, don't let the meat crowd out plant foods.
                    I moved to primalforums.com to escape the spam.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Yes...reading a date can be ever so tiresome. lol.[/url]
                      Oh, you're one of *those* guys.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                        There are still people buying his paleo book written at a time when he was under the heavy influence of Taubes and Cordain. When these new readers come to his blog these days, they are in for a shock
                        Yeah, well web sites are dynamically updateable, books, not so much

                        Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                        But to Sisson's credit, he got a few points that are still relevant and will remain so, just not so much in the nutritional debate
                        I'm enjoying thinking about and researching a lot of ideas in the book and on this site. Are you saying his ideas on diet are genereally considered "passe" for lack of a better word? Or paleo in general?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                          There are two types of fibre. Here I just googled a reference for you:
                          I specifically mentioned that in my OP.

                          Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                          I think Mark's view on dietary fibre has probably changed over time. I know at one time he was recommending supplementary potato starch (in effect a kind of fibre)—an idea that went through the Paleosphere but that has now been decisively debunked:

                          http://thegutinstitute.com/2014/12/h...rprint-pa.html

                          I doubt he would recommend it now.
                          Interesting.

                          Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                          In warmer climes, on the other hand, not only will you be able to get vegetable-foods but you may find fruit seasonally. And then again—which is unfortunate for the Paleo view—you might also find and exploit extensive stands of wild grain. For example, exploitation of seed-foods by Australian Aborigines seems to go back a loooong way:

                          http://australianmuseum.net.au/blogp...original-bread

                          Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                          You could make a reasonable argument that many wild plant foods are a lot more fibrous than cultivated ones.
                          Yes, it's the relatively very recent (in evolutionary terms) changes to food due to high cultivation/farming practices that really concerns me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sharperhawk View Post
                            If you want to critique Mark's writing style, fine. I am pretty sure that he doesn't spend much time on the forum.
                            Hmmm. First of all, I don't "want" to critique Mark's writing style. I just threw that out there as a possible explanation for his mistake, to see what others had to say. To say that he "doesn't spend much time here" wasn't exactly a response I was hoping to see.

                            It's NOT his writing style. And it's not the fact that it was based on outdated research - research changes, we change opinions, life moves on.

                            It was the fact that his conclusion was ill founded. Logic and deductive reasoning never gets "outdated".

                            To say, effectively, "fiber is bad, therefore don't eat grains, and anyway I get plenty of fiber in my fruit/vegetable diet" is such a ridiculous non sequitur that it makes me wonder about how the rest of "Primal" was arrived at as well....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sharperhawk View Post
                              Grains, except white rice and wild rice, are still on Mark's shit list.
                              I was going to put wild rice on my personal (good) list anyway. Didn't know that regular rice was off his (bad) list though, interesting.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X