From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 11:28:04 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Mike, you may have missed the way that Brian and gts
> "reinterpreted" the studies to say the opposite of what the
> original authors said.
I believe Mike was referencing other studies mentioned in addition to the
one Brian mentioned.
In any case please read our words again, Harvey. Brian was pointing out that
the authors gave no reason to believe fiber from grains is superior to any
other kind of plant fiber. I was merely agreeing with Brian. Neither of us
were reinterpreting the study to "say the opposite of what the original
authors said." Brian and I were merely recognizing that the study helps to
confirm the paleodiet principle that one should eat a diet rich in plant
fiber.
> The original studies advocated a lot
> of grains in the diet.
No, here it is you who are reinterpreting the study. The authors are not
recommending a "high-grain" diet, per se. They are recommending a
*high-fiber* diet rich in plant fiber from three known sources: grains,
fruits and vegetables. They make no distinction between the three sources of
fiber, nor should they.
And as I stated in my follow-up message to Brian, other studies show that
diets rich in fiber from nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables (not from
grain) give protection against cancer and heart disease. This suggests
further that there is nothing unique about grain fiber vs. fiber from
fruits/veggies. One might just as well obtain all of one's fiber from
nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables rather than from high-calorie,
high-carb, low-nutrient-density grain products.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 11:39:51 MDT