Thought-provoking article

avatiach
avatiach Posts: 298 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I thought this article in the Washington Post, which basically says that fiber-rich foods make it more likely you will lose weight (for the same calories that are not fiber-rich), was very thought provoking:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/06/13/weight-loss-calories-fiber-microbiome/

Here's the original article, if you prefer: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38778-x

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,221 Member
    edited June 2023
    When ultra processed foods are replaced with whole foods good things happen, here they focus on fiber which is what you get with whole foods and look, fibers a proxy for weight loss. Cheers.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,225 Member
    Fiber isn’t absorbed in the body.
  • junebugjen31
    junebugjen31 Posts: 1 Member
    You could check out a book called Fiber Fueled. Very interesting and goes in depth about how important gut health is.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,755 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    When ultra processed foods are replaced with whole foods good things happen, here they focus on fiber which is what you get with whole foods and look, fibers a proxy for weight loss. Cheers.

    Exactly. Whole foods are pretty much always going to show a benefit over processed.
  • cyn_love
    cyn_love Posts: 94 Member
    Very interesting! Definitely made me consider changes I should make.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,839 Member
    edited June 2023
    If I'm reading this correctly, the study lasted 8 days and they only measured the calories in fecal matter. So that it would lead to weight loss if all other things are equal is a presumption?

    The participants were all young, healthy and weigh-stable, within the healthy to overweight BMI range.

    Also surprised that they say:
    "Here we show that, compared to the WD, the MBD leads to an additional 116 ± 56 kcals (P < 0.0001) lost in feces daily and thus, lower metabolizable energy for the host (89.5 ± 0.73%; range 84.2-96.1% on the MBD vs. 95.4 ± 0.21%; range 94.1-97.0% on the WD; P < 0.0001) without changes in energy expenditure, hunger/satiety or food intake (P > 0.05).
    Isn't that contrary to what is mentioned a lot here on the boards, that more fiber and whole foods makes you feel fuller?

    I'd be interested to see the concrete meals they were given in both groups (currently only access via phone, not easy to consult all the supplements of the study).
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,755 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    If I'm reading this correctly, the study lasted 8 days and they only measured the calories in fecal matter. So that it would lead to weight loss if all other things are equal is a presumption?

    The participants were all young, healthy and weigh-stable, within the healthy to overweight BMI range.

    Also surprised that they say:
    "Here we show that, compared to the WD, the MBD leads to an additional 116 ± 56 kcals (P < 0.0001) lost in feces daily and thus, lower metabolizable energy for the host (89.5 ± 0.73%; range 84.2-96.1% on the MBD vs. 95.4 ± 0.21%; range 94.1-97.0% on the WD; P < 0.0001) without changes in energy expenditure, hunger/satiety or food intake (P > 0.05).
    Isn't that contrary to what is mentioned a lot here on the boards, that more fiber and whole foods makes you feel fuller?

    I'd be interested to see the concrete meals they were given in both groups (currently only access via phone, not easy to consult all the supplements of the study).

    I think they're saying that with a high fiber diet (the MBD diet) participants felt less hungry and digested fewer calories (more calories were pooped out without being digested). This is good if you're trying to lose weight. The western diet (WD) left people did not poop out as many calories, which means they digested more of the calories they ate.... which for weight loss is a bad thing.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,839 Member
    Yeah, I understood the pooping thing, but I don't see where you're getting improved satiety from, since it says 'without changes in hunger/satiety'?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,093 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »
    If I'm reading this correctly, the study lasted 8 days and they only measured the calories in fecal matter. So that it would lead to weight loss if all other things are equal is a presumption?

    The participants were all young, healthy and weigh-stable, within the healthy to overweight BMI range.

    Also surprised that they say:
    "Here we show that, compared to the WD, the MBD leads to an additional 116 ± 56 kcals (P < 0.0001) lost in feces daily and thus, lower metabolizable energy for the host (89.5 ± 0.73%; range 84.2-96.1% on the MBD vs. 95.4 ± 0.21%; range 94.1-97.0% on the WD; P < 0.0001) without changes in energy expenditure, hunger/satiety or food intake (P > 0.05).
    Isn't that contrary to what is mentioned a lot here on the boards, that more fiber and whole foods makes you feel fuller?

    I'd be interested to see the concrete meals they were given in both groups (currently only access via phone, not easy to consult all the supplements of the study).

    I think they're saying that with a high fiber diet (the MBD diet) participants felt less hungry and digested fewer calories (more calories were pooped out without being digested). This is good if you're trying to lose weight. The western diet (WD) left people did not poop out as many calories, which means they digested more of the calories they ate.... which for weight loss is a bad thing.

    It says outright no changes in hunger/satiety, so I don't see how we can interpret that as participants feeling less hungry.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,221 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »
    If I'm reading this correctly, the study lasted 8 days and they only measured the calories in fecal matter. So that it would lead to weight loss if all other things are equal is a presumption?

    The participants were all young, hehttps://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865420301307?via%3Dihubalthy and weigh-stable, within the healthy to overweight BMI range.

    Also surprised that they say:
    "Here we show that, compared to the WD, the MBD leads to an additional 116 ± 56 kcals (P < 0.0001) lost in feces daily and thus, lower metabolizable energy for the host (89.5 ± 0.73%; range 84.2-96.1% on the MBD vs. 95.4 ± 0.21%; range 94.1-97.0% on the WD; P < 0.0001) without changes in energy expenditure, hunger/satiety or food intake (P > 0.05).
    Isn't that contrary to what is mentioned a lot here on the boards, that more fiber and whole foods makes you feel fuller?

    I'd be interested to see the concrete meals they were given in both groups (currently only access via phone, not easy to consult all the supplements of the study).

    I think they're saying that with a high fiber diet (the MBD diet) participants felt less hungry and digested fewer calories (more calories were pooped out without being digested). This is good if you're trying to lose weight. The western diet (WD) left people did not poop out as many calories, which means they digested more of the calories they ate.... which for weight loss is a bad thing.

    It says outright no changes in hunger/satiety, so I don't see how we can interpret that as participants feeling less hungry.

    The food was exactly formulated to be of similar calories for both arms of the trial. Basically it's going to be difficult to assess whether someone might eat less or more in ad libitum conditions over 8 days when they are required to eat exactly the same calories for both arms and the sample size was basically tiny. Inconclusive really and there's a lot, hundreds of studies that show increased fiber increases satiety, which fiber is just part of the matrix we call whole foods, and for all intents and purposes it's about the difference in a whole food diet and one that is basically refined, powdery, and processed. PhD's are a funny bunch as far as I can tell. Cheers

    Here's a the link to the study design and goes into greater detail.

    https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865420301307?via%3Dihub

  • avatiach
    avatiach Posts: 298 Member
    Well, and then I saw this story, and again it's a relatively small group, but... I think my overall takeaway is to try and focus on fiber in addition to protein.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/11/08/microbiome-fiber-immunotherapy-cancer/

    Which maybe is obvious for some people, but I can only focus on a couple of things at once...
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,221 Member
    edited June 2023
    avatiach wrote: »
    Well, and then I saw this story, and again it's a relatively small group, but... I think my overall takeaway is to try and focus on fiber in addition to protein.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/11/08/microbiome-fiber-immunotherapy-cancer/

    Which maybe is obvious for some people, but I can only focus on a couple of things at once...

    The focus should be on a whole food diet, which is where the fiber actually exists and higher protein can help nutritionally. Obesity and diabetic people are susceptible to increases in some types of cancers and overall lower mortality, so yeah, eating healthier with a whole food diet would be beneficial, and yep, our microbiome likes fiber as well, go figure. Cheers
  • Jamesever
    Jamesever Posts: 54 Member
    Impressive degree of detailed reading required to sift through the actual scientific study, which the journalist deftly summarizes.

    So far, I feel great eating high-fiber foods (80+ total grams a day) after spending years feasting on Pizza Hut, Burger King, and hot wings, and oh, McDonald's 🍟 fries.

    The male boobs dropped away and a flat chest returned after slimming down around twenty pounds (several years ago).

    Breakfast still remains the biggest meal of the day (1000+ calories).

    Good article!

Categories