Information and discussion on the need for dietary fibre


See here for a collection of information and associated discussion on the necessity of dietary fibre.
Personally I am already tending towards a relatively low-fibre soylent due to the effect on the texture and thickness of including large amounts.

To sum up the arguments in the page I linked above: some people seem to need fibre for bowel movement regularity, others do better without, find what works for you. While many epidemiological studies (weak evidence) seem to correlate high-fibre diets with health, intervention studies (better evidence) has failed to replicate this.


First reply in the link you posted:

The history is interesting: those studying public health needed a way to explain why primitive populations were healthy and then became diseased once they ate the foods of civilization. Of course the answer was mostly that white flour and sugar are devastating to health, but that wasn’t politically popular.

I thought we had never been as healthy as we are now? And that “primitive” people lived to be 35 at most? And were significantly smaller than we are?


If you’ve heard 35 as a life expectancy figure I would suggest that that is a mean not a median, and in either case includes infant mortality. Many did live to old age. The issue is rather that while some aspects of medicine have made great advances, diseases like Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer seem to be becoming more prevalent over time.

There was a recent news article regarding increase in average height over the last hundred years, I think it was suggested that it was simply due to increased availability of food compensating for prior malnutrition (a lack of adequate energy or protein rather than a presence of an anti-growth agent.)


Yes, Alzheimer’s and cancer are old people’s diseases. They’re more prevalent now because we’ve never lived this long. Diabetes is because we eat poorly - but a lot.

This seems pretty obvious to me. No clue where you’d get the anti-growth agent.


This thread seems relevant, given a certain recent nearly-fiasco. This is merely a request for information, not a criticism or anything.
What is the justification behind the 40g fibre requirement in Rob’s latest recommendation? This is 12g more than the US DRI. @rob, has fibre been an area of experiment in the official Soylent recipe?


[quote=“Smaug, post:5, topic:5104”]
This is 12g more than the US DRI.[/quote]
But the DRI table shows 38g.
Where is everybody seeing 14g per 1000 calories?
No idea where Rob got 40g.


I was looking at the DRI table at the DIY page… maybe a typo?


If he’d just said 28g instead of 38g, then maybe a typo. But then in the notes on that profile, he actually says 14g per 1000 calories. I’ve seen that mentioned in a couple other posts here, so I thought maybe it’s actually listed somewhere else, but I don’t find it anywhere else.

Lack of research into danger of Fiber. Is the RDA excessive?


Moar fibor inconsistencies? :open_mouth:

Lack of research into danger of Fiber. Is the RDA excessive?

I think the word ‘recommendation’ in the DIY site’s title of Robs latest recipe is a bit of a misnomer. In his blog he said he greatly underestimated the amount of fiber he required and that he was now using 40g. It’s what he’s using in his recipe but he didn’t specifically endorse it as the nutritionally correct amount.

I can think of a few reasons might have chosen 40g though.
The first being that the DRI is 38g/day and recommendations of 28g or 14g/1000calories are either based on different findings, from a different medical authority, the information is outdated or is simply wrong.
Second is that perhaps 28g is right (I’ve seen it both ways in various places) and he went from 16g lower than the DRI (he was using 12g/day previously) to 14g too high, either to level out his fiber deficiencies or to take himself from one extreme to the other as a personal test (seems unlikely because we end with an impression that it’s the correct amount when these can only occur when its actually wrong)
The last is that he just picked 40g because he needed more fiber while he found a correct number and 40 was enough to fix the problems caused by his lack of fiber. Hell, maybe his fiber supplement comes in 20g capsules.


Perhaps because the american fiber fascination has already demolished his colon, and he subjectively “requires” more for “normal” operation now?


So he’s addicted to fiber? He can no longer get his high from the RDA so he needs more and more? What’s next, crack fiber?


With respect, none of these potential reasons are even remotely convincing except the first.


I know, I started with the most likely and worked down. Maybe I should have kept it simple :stuck_out_tongue:


In this analogy, “crack fibre” would be fibre supplementation using psyllium husk or something. So yes, the analogy seems pretty good, if we go under the assumption that fibre causes problems.