On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:05:02 -0400, Don Wiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/
>042000hth-nutrition-fiber.html
>
>(Not reading the list, so replies will not be seen.)

Interesting reading with facts about fiber in nutrition.

That professor thinks to have found evidence of
fiber not protecting from colon cancer.

But - as the article notes - this study examined only a very limited
very "conventional" approach of including fiber into the diet.

First, only people were included which already *had* a colon polyp -
the first stage of cancer to emerge. This is a hint for a year long
very unhealthy colon composition. It was supposed to be healed by the fiber.
But fiber rather protects than heals over the years.

Then what's conventional: what the 2nd control group got:
*Adding* wheat bran to the diet. What a weak approach. Letting everything
as is was, just adding fibers....
And wheat bran - as we know - is a rather problematic item.
It includes nearly all the vitamins, protein and fiber of wheat grains.
... and all the antinutrients, esp. phytin , lectins, gluten *without*
a chance of proper germinating or processing.
For the fruit/fat free approach to few details are mentioned to judge.

As you can learn in most books about paleolithicum, fibers were very
abundant in humans and humaniods diet.
From much more fibers old age versions of the fruit and roots for example.
This big fiber part is for me a main health advantage of a paleo-oriented
approach of nutrition. Many millions of years of fruit eating,
and two millions of years in a savannah environment speak a
clear language.
Adding wheat bran on top of the conventional nutrition won't heal
onsetting cancer. Better not to expect that.
But a diet naturally high in fiber.. is naturally paleolithic.

regards
Amadeus

cc don