The next wave will be "fiber-maxxing", with the increased rate of colon cancer in millenials and gen z. Seriously guys, get your fiber intake.
You can get beans anywhere. If they are not available fresh, they are equally nutritous when dried or in a can. They are tasty, easy to cook, and an excellent source of fiber and protein.
If you don't like beans, how about a peanut butter sandwich. If you lack the requisite kitchen skills, ask a six year old to make you one.
The fact is that most people just prefer to eat other stuff. We prioritize convenience over health, enabled by food industries that profit from selling us junk.
This highly depends on location
If you buy fresh vegetables, I don't necessarily think they're pricier but they do require more planning. You need to buy what is in season, which means planning meals around what is in season and cheap to buy, which changes on the season.
For certain staples, buying frozen is extremely cheap, can be cheaper than fresh, can be better than buying fresh as frozen as soon as picked, and extremely easy to cook. I've always got frozen broccoli, carrots, peas, green beans, spinach in the freezer. Three minutes in a microwave steamer and it's an easy side, or add in to meals near the end of cooking.
I also always have a bag of potatoes in the house, cheap, keep well, easy to steam in microwave, can mash, can bake, pop in the airfryer etc.
Also, they're not more expensive for seasonal produce, last for ages frozen. Yes, requires more skill, but there are so many quick simple recipes anyone can learn. It's really a failing of the education system if people can't cook a couple of simple, tasty, healthy meals.
Psyllium husk is a great blend of both, but it’s not very palatable because the insoluble fiber makes it gritty. It also tastes like dirt which is why Metamucil smothers it in orange flavoring.
It's great that beans look kind of gross because otherwise people would learn they taste really good and are healthy at the same time.
Cow “farts” (actually rumen belches) are something else entirely.
Some humans have methanogens in their gut and these people exhale methane (gut->bloodstream->lungs) and they can emit quite a lot, at least enough to completely fuck up our lab work. Our lead scientist is such a person, and the effect is so bad that he exhales into a bin liner when setting up an experiment.
Or he did: this was so inconvenient that we automated all our instruments, valves, etc so we could run experiments from the kitchen or even at home (lots of RPis which I wouldn’t normally use for anything important). Fortunately this also automated all the data collection.
But now I have to run a trial to see if my diet modulates anal CH4 emissions. Thanks HN!
When people talk about eating more beans, or when people talk about using it as an ingredient, it usually only mean dry beans.
Getting your fiber from whole food products is definitely the way to go.
Use a conventional search not an ai-generated summary as that will have influencer slop mixed in. Though oddly, I’ve never seen an anti-fibre influencer, but have seen lots of pro-fibre influencer posts!
FWIW, the evidence demonstrating that fibre is protective against colon cancer is limited, and when studies try to adjust for behavioural differences, the colon cancer reduction disappears.
Actual RCTs that randomly assigned subjects found no difference in polyp rates between high and low fibre diets.
For decades it was indeed widely observed that the people who ate a lot of fibre tended to have a lower incident rate. But the sort of person who has a high fibre diet almost always has a lot of other protective habits and norms: They're less likely to smoke, less likely to drink to excess, they tend to eat less red meat, they eat less sugar and UPFs, and so on.
As is often the case, these habits don't tend to happen in isolation, and this is where observational studies fail. So if you take someone with a lot of bad habits and supplement fibre, they'll have better cholesterol control, glycemic benefits, and of course regularity benefits, but it won't measurably move the needle on colon cancer rates.
This is all just conversational, but the current consensus is that fibre, or lack thereof, is not a contributor behind the rise in colon cancer among younger subjects. There are many suspected causes, all moving the needle enough that incidence rates jump.
As far as I know the only RCT that fits that description is one looking at people who had already developed adenomas and then tested for reoccurrence.
An RCT actually designed to answer the question would need to last decades and just isn’t feasible.
There are a large multitude of studies that show a negative correlation between CRC and fiber intake even when adjusting for diet, exercise, BMI, income, alcohol consumption etc…
> but the current consensus is that fibre, or lack thereof, is not a contributor behind the rise in colon cancer among younger subjects.
There’s not good evidence to say it’s the sole or primary factor, but saying there’s consensus that is not a contributor is way too strong.
In most cause hypotheses, fibre just doesn't rank at all. I mean, of course everyone should eat more fibre so that's good, but it isn't a credible cause for the rise of colon cancer rates among the young.
Most destructive to the fibre hypothesis is that fibre intake has actually increased over the past few decades, at the same time that youth colon cancer rates crept up[1]. I don't know what notion people have about common Western food practices decades ago, but in the 1980s, for instance, fibre was basically non-existent in the common diet: No one ate multigrain anything. Everything was loaded with sugar, trans fats and simple carbs (we literally considered that healthy, with hilarious products like Snackwells).
[1] Twice as many young people, per capita, are facing colon cancer now than in the 80s. Overall colon cancer rates are down significantly now, however this is most certainly due to the massive reduction in smoking and other behavioural issues that catch up to you after many decades, but kids today are in no way eating less fibre than kids in the 1980s.
> There are a large multitude of studies that show a negative correlation between CRC and fiber intake even when adjusting for diet, exercise, BMI, income, alcohol consumption etc…
Not really. Take any behaviour or practice that is common among the healthier cohort and it's easy meat for bullshit study results. It's why the nutrition field in particular is full of contradictory studies because "adjusting for" is carrying a lot of unmerited credibility.
You’re the one that said that when studies adjust for these differences they no longer show a correlation.
That is just flat wrong. You used that exact phrase “adjust for”. You can move the goalpost if you want to “I don’t think they are correctly adjusting for all differences” but that’s a very different argument than the one you presented.
The preponderance of the evidence is that fiber has a protective effect against colon cancer and there are multiple plausible explanatory mechanisms.
“I don't know what notion people have about common Western food practices decades ago, but in the 1980s, for instance, fibre was basically non-existent in the common diet”
This is misleading.
1. There is a single gram per thousand calorie difference in aggregate between 1980 and today, so if it was non existent then, it’s non-existent now.
2. Percentage of ultra processed food and food away from home has gone up drastically since 1980, so the types of fiber consumed on average have changed drastically as well.
3. “Fiber” is now a much broader category than it used to be. Resistant starches can now be labeled fiber. If a tiny fraction of the population eats the equivalent a single low carb tortilla with 30g of resistant starch per day that’s enough to completely throw off the aggregate fiber stats. There is much less evidence that resistant starch is protective against colon cancer.
4. Stability in the aggregate doesn’t preclude changes in sub populations. Changes in the way we eat leading to a larger sub population with very little fiber intake.
We know that there have been changes in sub populations. For instance one study that found fiber consumption was stable overall between 1999-2017 found that it dropped among White adults, but the aggregate was stable because it rose among Black and Hispanic adults.
A large number of studies that fully adjust for lifestyle differences have found no meaningful difference in colon cancer rates. It is basically debunked.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4250613/
This cynical piece covers quite a few of them. The evidence that fibre prevents colon cancer is akin to the evidence that red wine keeps you healthy. It disappears when properly analyzed.
> This is misleading.
The mean fibre intake in the 1980s was ~11 grams per day. Today the fibre intake is ~15g. A 36% increase in fibre, and youth colon cancer rates have more than doubled. The math isn't mathing.
I grew up in the 1980s, friend. I suspect you didn't, because anyone heralding those good old days of food quality is clearly simply clueless. A good diet was captain crunch (actually an entire aisle was just whatever cartoons or characters were big having their own cereal that was all coloured flour + sugar), miracle bread, bagged chips and an endless series of full-sugar products.
On the eating out thing: Food made by McDonalds or any other org is in no way empirically worse for you than similar foods eaten at home. Like I get far more veggies and fibre from a Wendy's burger than when I make the burger at home. This is one of those lazy correlation hand-wavy things people use to invent data where there is none. The one real change with eating out is higher sodium is more prevalent, but otherwise it isn't really illustrative of much at all.
Here is a list of 10 widely respected health organizations who state that a high fiber diet likely reduces the risk of colon cancer
World Cancer Research Fund
American Institute for Cancer Research
American Cancer Society
Cancer Research UK
National Health Service
Bowel Cancer UK
British Dietetic Association
American Gastroenterological Association
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Cleveland Clinic
Here is a list of 5 very large meta reviews that show a correlation between low fiber diet and colon cancer even after adjusting for diet, lifestyle etc… All published after your editorial in top tier journals.
https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6617
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30638909/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31495339/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34854791/
>fiber in the 80s
The mean fiber intake in 1989 was ~14g per day according to the USDA https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/pub...
I definitely remember the 80s. We eat healthier than my family did in the 80s. But my parents were working class and we’re upper-middle class.
Sample bias and confirmation bias are the reason that you can’t rely on memory and personal experience. If you look at the data we know that people consume far more of their calories from ultra processed foods than they used to. And we know they eat out far more often. We also know that the average restraint meal is lower in fiber than the average meal at home.
The USDA survey does show a minor increase in total fiber consumed, but there are large differences in sample methodology and as I said previously resistant starches are now labeled as fiber. It is common for low carb breads, tortillas and similar to contain 20-30g of “fiber” in the form of resistant starches.
>no way empirically worse for you than similar foods eaten at home. Like I get far more veggies and fibre from a Wendy's burger than when I make the burger at home. This is one of those lazy correlation hand-wavy things people use to invent data where there is none.
Here is a study from the USDA showing that the average at home meal has 30% more fiber per calorie than the average fast food meal. And the previous survey I posted shows a similar difference in the 80s.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013/february/americans...
If you eat hamburgers and French fries for every meal, then yes replacing that with fast food isn’t any different.
But according to the USDA that’s not what people are eating for every home cooked meal.
Away from home meals are higher in fat, higher in sodium, have less fiber, fewer vegetables, are more calorie dense, and are served in larger portions.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/pub...
They're simply recapping various other studies, and attacking the messengers is pretty telling. In fact, every single one of the "studies" that you cited are meta analyses that simply take the already flawed data and outcomes of other observational studies, run them through magical Excel formulas, and then Dan Ariely the desired outcome. You're pretending there is a difference here that there isn't.
Regardless, from your very first meta study-
> It is possible that the weak inverse associations between dietary fibre or whole grain intake and risk of colorectal cancer could result from unmeasured or residual confounding by other dietary or lifestyle factors. Higher intakes of dietary fibre and whole grain are typically associated with other health behaviours, such as higher intakes of calcium and folate; higher levels of physical activity; lower prevalence of smoking, overweight, or obesity; and lower intakes of alcohol and red and processed meat.22 27 63 Many but not all of the studies adjusted for potential confounding factors, although not all potential confounders were adjusted for in every study. In analyses stratified by adjustment for confounding factors
This is junk nutrition science, and the field is rife with it (every week someone does this junk and you get another "super food XYZ protects against ABC"). A very weak correlation is found between a healthy practice and an outcome that tends to come from healthy living. Story at 11.
The funny thing is that I heavily lean towards fibre options, and ultimately have almost all ideal, healthy practices. Fibre is good for everyone. But the narrative around fibre and the rise in youth colon cancer is such a ridiculous non-starter, for virtually every reason, that it's just a gigantic distraction.
It was a review or meta analysis. There was no criteria for acceptance. It’s just 2 random doctors cherry picking studies. The authors refer to it as an editorial and not a meta analysis for that reason. The language even sounds like a newspaper editorial. They make far too many unsupported assertions for an academic paper.
It’s also 20 years out of date. And we’ve had 2 decades of additional research.
>It is possible…
Of course it’s possible there’s a hidden confounder. That’s possible with literally every single observational study.
A sufficient RCT in this case is essentially impossible and likely unethical.
But you failed to read the conclusion that
> Our results indicate a 10% reduction in risk of colorectal cancer for each 10 g/day intake of total dietary fibre and cereal fibre and a about a 20% reduction for each three servings (90 g/day) of whole grain daily, and further reductions with higher intake. These findings thus have important public health implications. Our results provide further support for public health recommendations to increase the intake of dietary fibre in the prevention of colorectal cancer.
Despite the fact that it may be wrong.
Read the other 4 very large meta studies.
Read the statements from essentially every relevant heath authority.
Read the theoretical science.
Of course it’s possible that there are hidden confounders. But the preponderance of the evidence is that high fiber == less colon cancer.
Specifically:
1. We don’t know for sure what the relationship between fiber and CRC is, and we likely can’t.
2. The majority of studies that correct for lifestyle and diet still show a correlation.
3. There are plausible explanatory mechanisms.
4. The most likely explanation is that there is some protective effect.
There is broad consensus among Doctors, health agencies, and researchers that the above are true.
Ah-ha! At last, a niche I can squirm myself into in our brave new world.
Every 10g per day is correlated with a 10% reduction in all cause mortality (up to 30g). Mostly from a reduction in cardiac and cancer deaths.
Just something I randomly found in a search.
I think eating hard-to-digest, crappy proteins(like all the protein added to shakes, bars, etc)... paired with fermentable bulk fiber... is actually the recipe for inflammation, irritation and colon cancer.
There's a christian cult with a strong bias for vegetarianism that does a lot of medical science publishing. Some of their studies provide useful information, but some of them exist just to create a headline and push a message. Don't be duped.
I once did the calculation for my daily fiber intake and it was well beyond the daily recommended minimum.
What are people eating (or not eating) that leads to a fiber deficiency?
presumably is what you allude to?
Not true? It becomes fat if you are above your caloric intake.
Fiber on the other is just undigestible, so you always expel it, though I agree that too much fiber will cause issues.
Uh what? No. LOL.
I eat crazy amounts of protein, it's almost all of my diet outside of fibre and I've lost 120 pounds and now sit in the bottom of my BMI bracket.
Compare the human digestive system of a human being to a wolf (carnivore), a pig (omnivore) and a gorilla (herbivorous hindgut fermenter). The human gut by proportions sits somewhere between wolf and pig.
Look up the actual studies on fiber rather than pop science articles, and examine them critically. They'll do things like assume that pooping more often and having a greater volume of poop is healthier, with no basis. Things like how easy it is to poop or feelings of being bloated are harder to quantify, so they're typically ignored.
Or you get the extrapolating cancer risk based on some vaguely understood biomarker, which is one step below "in mice" as far as science goes.
If you're feeling good, looking healthy and your body does what you need it to then I'd have to agree that whatever you're doing is working for you, numbers or theory be damned.
I know people are big on the whole fiber fad, but the bulk of benefits which come from eating more fiber are from eating fewer calories. If you're eating high fiber you physically cannot shovel as many calories into your belly. It is a viable strategy since most americans eat way too much every day, but fiber simply isn't essential to health or weight loss. If you like, explain to me a theory on why fiber is somehow essential.
Indigestible carbohydrate is a much broader category than fiber: -Soluble fiber -Insoluble fiber -Sugar alcohols like sorbitol -Resistant starch (though I'm unsure what the practical difference is between this and soluble fiber)
Insoluble fiber adds bulk to your stool, which I don't think there's a lot of evidence this is healthy. It's probably the main culprit in fiber-induced constipation.
Soluble fiber and resistant starches are probably fine if you're not overdoing it, and if you're on a low-meat diet it's probably how you get short chain fatty acids. It's worth noting that if you're not used to eating these molecules you won't have the bacteria so it'll take some weeks of gas before your system adapts.
Sugar alcohols of the right sort will certainly help your body clear out your gut. Xylitol is interesting for its dental health properties.
To your point: in much of the plant food we grow, there's a matrix of these carbs and digestible carbs. Eating a plum is probably fine. Eating purified sugar, even from plums, is generally bad for you. Eating purified sorbitol from plums won't make you feel good. Why should it be any different eating a bunch of fiber in the form of supplements? The human body is adapted/tuned to digest these molecules in the context of others.
Stop substituting and finding short cuts. Just eat a balanced meal with vegetables.
A single bowl of oatmeal with chia seeds gets you about halfway there. 2-3 tbsp of chia seeds has ~10-15g of fiber, mostly soluble fiber. Soluble is what you want for lowering cholesterol because it binds to bile acid, which means your liver has to use cholesterol from your body to make more bile. The oatmeal adds another ~4-5g and is largely soluble too.
After that you don't have far to go. Besides lentils and many beans, whole grains are really fiber dense, e.g., having wheat bread on a sandwich can get you another +6 just from the bread. Brown rice instead of white gets you 3-4 more. Weird grains like barley and bulgur have a bunch and go well in things like casseroles, chilis, etc. You'll also get at least some from whatever fruits/veggies you were going to eat anyway.
It is a lot compared to what most people take, but it’s not hard. Banana, orange, some broccoli, and you are close. Lentils, beans (lupini is great because it also has protein) here and there, oats, an extra fruit (pear is nice), berries, avocado, so many options.
But you need to be conscious. Most people need less starch and sugar and fat.
I poop 2-4 times a day. I know some people have a real problem going to the bathroom once a day… just eat more fiber folks.
I wouldn't sweat it - just focus on eating unprocessed food fiber or not
People are always looking for shortcuts and gotchas. Just learn to eat a varied and balanced diet of mostly fruit/veg/nuts/plant based protein. It isnt that hard. We let ourselves be convinced it is, or given excuses for why in our special circumstance it is harder, but it really isnt that hard.
No, I'm not being dismissive. I just don't buy into the mantra that food is hard. It isnt. We have every single day of our lives to figure this out and people are more interested in being part of an alt-food lifestyle than just eating a varied diet.
the FDA allows it to be called fiber, but it acts differently in the body to the soluble and insoluble fiber that most people are familiar with
IMO, it's a mistake to treat fiber as a single, fungible food component, rather than as a family of different substances with different health effects
if you're looking for "easy fiber intake", there is much more and stronger evidence for psyllium-based soluble fiber, widely available in cheap and convenient drinks like metamucil (I prefer formulations without the dye and maltodextrin, but that's getting into the weeds)
So basically toss a shovel of potato starch into your protein shake and be done with it. It's flavored so strongly to make whey protein palatable that you won't even notice.
The main reason protein is highly sought after is that it's an ego/prestige thing associated with excessive self care.
Our diets are very heavily connected to our social status. Being able to consume that level of protein is all about excessive self care.
Fiber is cheap and viewed as a poor person thing. Nobody is holding up their expensive grass fed fiber to brag about the environmental toll it takes, like folks do with their meat and whatnot.
A lot of the protein fad can be traced back to dairy farmers pushing whey into every product they can.
I grew up in beef and dairy country in the western US. I remember dairy farmers talking about this as it was happening. It was a revenue stream from what was a waste product they often dumped in rivers.
Not saying all the others didn't play a huge part, but dairy farmers pushed for it big time.