With regard to the book THE PALEOLITHIC PRESCRIPTION, Don Wiss wrote:

>My understanding from people that have read it is the authors tempered
>their recommendations to fit in with the popularity of carbs when they
>wrote the book. I do remember there was a period in the 80's when there was
>a big push for fiber, and an emphasis on whole wheat bread to get it.
>Possibly this also influenced them on the subject of fiber.

I'm truly amazed that you would publicly second guess both the content and
intent of a work based solely on second hand information. Although PP is a
lay book, the primary author, S. Boyd Eaton, has published a number of
works on Paleolithic issues. This includes a specific paper on the issue of
fibre:

Eaton, S; Fibre intake in prehistoric times. In: Dietary Fibre
Perspectives. Reviews and Bibliography. Vol 2 (Leeds, A.R. ed), pp 27-40.
John Libbey, London, UK.

Also:

Eaton SB , et al (85) N Engl J Med 312:283-289.
"Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current
implications"

Eaton SB (90)[letter; comment] Nutr Rev, 1990 May
"What did our late paleolithic (preagricultural) ancestors eat?"

Eaton, SB (91) Am. J. Clon. Nutr. 54: 281S-287S.
"Calcium in evolutionary perspective"

Eaton, SB (92) Lipids 27: 814-820.
"Humans, lipids, and evolution"

Eaton et al (96) J Nutr. 126: 1732-1740.
"An Evolutionary Perspective Enhances Understanding of Human Nutritional
Requirements"

I cite these only to show that Eaton seems to be getting an audience in
reputable peer-reviewed journals and isn't likely to be pandering to the
public just to help his book. As near as I can tell, the last article
(which I have read) contains essentially the same message on fibre as PP
(which I have also read). At least he seem to be consistent. If he's
significantly off base in some way (as you seem to imply), it should be
relatively easy to demonstrate this with specific criticism or better
information.

Gary