Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Dec-08-17, 03:41
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,258
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default Australia Health Policy urging more fibre

Nov 30, the Assistant Minister of Health issued a statement based entirely on a report funded by Kellogg's, that Increasing Australia’s grain fibre intake could save the economy $3.3 billion a year. It has been gathering negative push-back since it’s release.

Quote:
We’ve got a corker to dissect this week.
The title of this note was the verbatim title of a press release issued on the back of a study commissioned by Kellogg’s – yes – that well known producer of cereals/grain fibre.

The Australian government’s press release, on the same topic, was entitled “Tackle chronic disease by eating more fibre“. The full document, which inspired these headlines, can be seen here.

The first sentence of the report states “Kellogg Australia commissioned Nutrition Research Australia to conduct this research.” I bet they did!

Where the claim comes from The Executive Summary of the report (p10) states the following [CVD is cardiovascular disease and T2D is type 2 diabetes]: “This research demonstrates that if Australian adults use grain fibre to increase their intake of dietary fibre to target intake levels for chronic disease risk reduction (28g for women, 38g for men):
• The potential healthcare expenditure savings would be approximately $1 billion for CVD and over $285 million for T2D in 2015–16. The savings for CVD would represent approximately 0.6% of total Australian health expenditure and savings for T2D would be around 0.2% of health expenditure.
• The potential productivity cost savings were estimated to be approximately $600 million for CVD and $1.4 billion for T2D. The savings for CVD represent approximately 0.04% of gross domestic product (GDP) and for T2D, approximately 0.08% of GDP.
The total combined economic savings could potentially reach $3.3 billion.” That’s where the claimed $3.3 billion comes from. (Please note that the terms grain fibre and cereal fibre are often used interchangeably)....Continues


Dr Zoe Harcombe's analysis: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/12/...-billion-a-year

Dr MaryAnne Demasi, Long article with Twitter links and videos, response to this "report". https://www.michaelwest.com.au/kell...-health-policy/

Quote:
"It's just madness and lazy politics to allow a cereal company to fund a health study and promote it as government advice” … “This means that the main evidence relied upon for the Australian Kellogg’s report is another Kellogg’s report”.

Investigation by Dr Maryanne Demasi

Recently, I challenged the conventional dietary advice recommended to people with Type-2 diabetes, saying it was likely to worsen the disease. Specifically, I was critical of health authorities recommending a ‘low fat diet’ based on carbohydrate-rich foods like whole grains, breads, pasta and cereals. These foods are marketed on the benefits of high fibre and therefore inherit a ‘health halo’ but in reality, foods like whole grain cereals and bread are simply broken down to ‘glucose’, making it virtually impossible for diabetics to control their blood glucose levels without medications.

Suffice to say, it was disappointing to see the Assistant Minister for Health, David Gillespie release a statement last week, encouraging people to eat more “grain” fibre to reduce their risk of type-2 diabetes and heart disease, claiming a new study showed it could save “the economy almost $3.3 billion in healthcare and lost productivity costs”. ....Continues


https://www.michaelwest.com.au/kell...-health-policy/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Dec-08-17, 04:48
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,001
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

This is such a blatant conflict of interest you have to wonder how the people in government who authorized this report can be so blind to its glaring faults. I used to be skeptical of all the people saying "follow the money" but I've become over time a big believer. Money has so corrupted nutritional science that hardly any of it is to be believed. Money interests have infiltrated both government and academia. There is little one can trust when it comes to the "science".

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Dec-09-17, 07:53
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,416
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

I love Dr. Mike Eades, of Protein Power, in his classic take on fiber:

Quote:
Before we get to the fiber, let’s engage in a sort of thought experiment. Let’s assume that way back in the early days of medicine doctors always wanted to see us cough up mucus from our lungs. Since mucus is a kind of breeding ground for all kinds of nasty bacteria, it would make sense in the olden, pre-antibiotic days to want patients to hack up as much of this stuff as possible to get it out of the body where the bacteria could no longer wreak their havoc.

Let’s assume that doctors of old–who didn’t realize that the excess mucus was the body’s way of ridding itself of something foreign, i.e., the bacteria or viruses causing the infection–started equating coughing up ‘healthy’ amounts of mucus with good health. It’s not too far a leap to 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. Druggists might come up with concoctions that would cause people to cough, even if they didn’t need to.

https://proteinpower.com/drmike/200...y-a-good-thing/


Read the whole thing: it's great.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Dec-09-17, 10:31
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,685
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

There's some evidence for benefit of fermentable fibers. Add pure inulin or resistant starch to rodent chow, good chance they'll do better. The insoluble fiber in most grains? Not so much. It's commonly used as a stock fiber source in lab chows.

There's a study done a few years back when ketogenic studies were just starting to kick off again. In mice, they had to restart when the mice were all dying off at six months. They switched to wheat bran instead of cellulose as a fiber source, and mice were then able to survive long enough to be useful. Benefits of wheat fiber? Hardly. Maybe it was a benefit of everything in the wheat bran that wasn't fiber, or at least wasn't cellulose.


Another study looked at longevity in mice on 25 different diets, high or low in protein, fat, carbohydrate, all sorts of different ratios. Also high in energy density or low in energy density. Energy density was controlled by altering cellulose content, the low energy, high fiber animals didn't fare well for lifespan. Seven groups were in the lowest energy/highest fiber category, six of these were in the bottom six for maximum lifespan, also sucked for median lifespan, those same six are in the bottom seven for that. So of course the main claim made by the authors is;

Quote:
Low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets are associated with the longest lifespans


Cellulose kills looks way more consistent in that study than protein to carb ratio meaning much of anything.

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism...14)00065-5#app2
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:29.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.