{"id":9148,"date":"2022-10-03T11:30:51","date_gmt":"2022-10-03T10:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zoeharcombe.com\/?p=9148"},"modified":"2022-10-10T08:54:17","modified_gmt":"2022-10-10T07:54:17","slug":"fibre-ask-why-not-how","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zoeharcombe.com\/2022\/10\/fibre-ask-why-not-how\/","title":{"rendered":"Fibre \u2013 ask why, not how"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Executive summary<\/strong><\/p>\n

* This week's note is about fibre. A recently published paper assumed that there is an optimal fibre intake (25-30g daily) and it investigated how people can be encouraged to consume this.\n<\/p>\n

* The evidence presented in the paper, to make the claims about optimal levels of fibre intake, came from population studies. \n <\/p>\n

* Cereals were singled out as especially beneficial for health. The lead author of the paper had a number of conflicts with cereal companies. \n <\/p>\n

* The authors reported that only 7.4% of US adults consume adequate fibre intake. The authors concluded that this was because people are ignorant. Their recommendations were patronising in consequence.\n <\/p>\n

* There is no robust, quality, evidence to support the authors’ starting point \u2013 that 25-30g fibre daily is required. The epidemiological studies, upon which they rely, have fundamental flaws. There is a large, long randomised controlled trial on this research question, but the authors ignored it.\n <\/p>\n

* When it comes to fibre, we should be asking why, not how.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

The rest of this article is available to site subscribers, who get access to all articles plus a weekly newsletter.
\nTo continue reading, please login below or sign up for a subscription<\/a>. Thank you.<\/em><\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n <\/div>\n