fiber

rated by 0 users
This post has 15 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Female
Posts 27
Nancy Posted: Fri, Jan 2 2009 12:55 PM

Do you do 30 grams of fiber a day?  Do you include things from a jar or pill form of fiber?  I eat 1/2 cup of blueberries, 1Tbs flax seed, 1/2 cup organic oatmeal, 2 Tbsp nuts. plus some vegetables. I do not eat a lot of bread. Nancy

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Ron AKA replied on Fri, Jan 2 2009 1:25 PM

I try to get 40 grams of fiber per day, and ideally a high percentage that is soluble fiber. Oatmeal, fresh ground flax, beans, fruits like grapefruit, some cereals, and Metamucil are my main sources.

Ron

Not a med prof. Just diabetic type 2 on Prandin, Levemir, ramipril, bisoprolol, & Crestor. Diag. Feb/01.

"I have not failed. I have just found 10,000 ways that don't work." - Thomas Edison

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 172
Madman replied on Fri, Jan 2 2009 2:10 PM

I do not keep track of my fiber intake.  I used to take supplements, but now I just try to be sure to get 5-6 servings of veggies each day and at least one piece of fruit.

Top 10 Contributor
Female
Posts 251
Spirit replied on Fri, Jan 2 2009 6:51 PM

I try to eat as much fiber as I can because I have found that it is a wonderful aid in managing my glucose levels. Like exercise, it is the "magic" wand that controls my blood glucose levels.

 For breakfast alone I scarf down almost 18 grams, so that gives me a real head start on the day as far as fiber allotment is concerned.  For breakfast I eat:

Fiber One multigrain English muffin (26 grams carbs, 9 grams fiber for a total carb intake of 15 grams plus great taste!)

V-8 High Fiber juice (I drink only 4 oz., 7 grams carbs, 2.5 grams fiber for a total carb intake of 4.5- 5 grams)

I add a teaspoon of FibreSure to my coffee plus a packet of Splenda with fiber for a total of 6 gams fiber.  FibreSure doesn't add taste or texture to food. 

This doesn't count whatever fruit I eat along with breakfast (that changes depending on the season). 

I also eat a container of Dannon Light & Fit  yogurt, 3 grams of carbs (no fiber).

So, my breakfast contains about 30-35 grams of total carbs and 17.5-19 grams of fiber (depending on the fruit).  My plates are full and I am full.  I have healthy fats (I use Smart Balance margarine on my muffin) and no transfats and some protein from the muffin.  I have eaten dairy and grains and fruits and even a small amount of vegetables in the juice.  My postprandial readings are terrific.  And, best of all, I have eaten a wonderfully tasty meal to start my day.  What could be better????

Adding fiber to my other meals/snacks is easy.  I shop for foods that are highest in fiber.  So, lunch on a high fiber bread choice with some raw fruits and veggies either inside or alongside is tasty and simple.  Almonds and raisins make a great snack (4 grams fiber there). 

Dinner is a little trickier since it is for the whole family.  But there are ways to work in fiber there. too.  Whole wheat noodles and pasta taste great and lots of veggies can be worked into most meals. 

So, long answer to short question...yes, I eat AT LEAST 30 grams of fiber per day. 

 

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 133
nomorecarbs replied on Fri, Jan 2 2009 9:54 PM

I'm preternaturally lazy.  Thus, I don't count calories, carbs, fiber, fat grams or anything else.  Since I eat mainly animal foods, I consume little fiber, often zero grams a day.  The only way I can drive my blood sugar north of 100, is to eat carb containing foods.  Now it's true, that foods with a lot of fiber will not spike my blood sugar as greatly, as fiber is undigestible carbohydrate.

Certainly, I don't doubt that one can find some studies suggesting that fiber is beneficial.  The reason should be obvious.  If one is eating plant derived foods, fiber is most commonly found in natural, whole foods, and is lacking in artificial, processed foods.  I would certainly agree that eating whole foods is vastly superior to eating processed foods.

The plant foods that I find most useful on my diet are nuts (almonds, walnuts, and pecans) and berries.   I suspect that in both cases, the fiber content of these foods helps prevent blood sugar spikes (provided you don't eat too many or too fast).

I've been eating primarily animal foods for the past seven years, not only have I normalized my blood sugar levels, I've stopped my previous experiencing of colds and allergies.  At 63, I am now at my life expectancy for a male born in 1945.  Most people assume I'm younger, and feel that my good health is due to the fact that I exercise outdoors, hiking, running, biking, kayaking, swimming or sailing almost every day of the year.  I know that my exercise is possible only due to my diet, not the other way around.

 

 

Top 75 Contributor
Female
Posts 11
VOW replied on Sun, Jan 18 2009 10:17 PM

To NMC:

 

I hope a low-to-no fiber diet continues to work for you.  I am glad that it's a viable tool you can use to control your BG.

 

I have been Vegetarian for however-many years now, and before I embarked on that diet, I researched it thoroughly.  And I found enough information to support  the premise that our digestive tracts are more similar to the herbivores than the carnivores found in nature.

 

Why is this important?  Well, a meat-heavy diet takes a long time to travel through the digestive tract, and it leaves very little residue.  The body doesn't like that.  Your bowels need the bulk of fiber to function properly, and without that fiber you are suseptible to such fun problems such as diverticulosis, polyps, hemmorhoids, and chronic constipation.

 

I am particularly observant of bowel topics, because my Father recently died from a massive bowel blockage.  He did not focus on a meat-only diet; he was 84 years old and I'm sure his body was just TIRED.

 

I saw what he went through, though, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  When movement stops in the digestive tract, it STOPS.  This is called "ischemic bowel."  And it's like a massive traffic jam, only with incredible pain.  It got to the point in the Emergency Room, that if they hadn't run a naso-gastric tube down to his stomach and hooked it up to suction, he would have died from the pressure on his lungs suffocating him.  He actually became unresponsive right while I was standing next to him.

 

The results from the CAT scan showed that 80% of his small bowel was necrotic.  If you aren't fluent in medicalese, that means the tissue was DEAD.  His only option was surgery, and yet the surgeon told us right up front: it's not survivable.

 

And it wasn't.  He came through the surgery better than expected, but by then all the systems in his body started to shut down.

 

Why did I burden you with this story?  To emphasize that the human body absolutely needs a well-functioning digestive tract, and in order for that to happen, it MUST have plenty of fiber and the accompanying water.

 

There are plenty of fiber supplements available these days, NMC.  Stay on your meat diet if it pleases you and works for your BG control.  But I would recommend you get some fiber in your diet by any means possible, to keep the innards doing what they gotta do.

 

If they stop doing what they gotta do, it's not a pretty picture.

 

~VOW

"I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it."
Klaatu, "The Day The Earth Stood Still"

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 133

Hi Vow,

Well, we'll have to disagree for the time being.  I don't think fiber is essential.  I do get some most days, from nuts, also I eat berries and salads from time to time.  On the other hand, if I was worried about my health, I'll go for days on a zero carb diet, zero fiber diet.

Twenty years ago, I was a vegetarian, so I'm familiar with most of the arguments.  The first diet book I read was not Atkins or Bernstein, but Dr. John McDougall.  I believe man is neither carnivore nor herbivore but an omnivore.  However, for many of our ancestors, the diet was more carnivorous than herbivourous until the development of agriculture, which was relatively recent for many cultures.  I believe meat had to be important for early man simply for the reason that something had to be found to power that energy hogging brain we carry in our heads.  Most herbivores eat constantly almost all day, where was the extra energy going to come from?   I think language, bipedalism, the opposable thumb are all a result of our leaving the trees and becoming scavengers of meat, and later hunters.  We weren't able to eat large amounts of grain until recent times, so how do you get enough calories eating celery all day?

Various peoples can be found around the globe that do not eat large amounts of fiber, or any, and they seem to fare just well.  I've flipped 180 degrees, and largely eat animal foods, for the past 8 years, I haven't experienced any ill effects from it.  I don't know for how many months now, but I have also begun to practice intermittent fasting, that is, I normally don't eat until the afternoon or evening, sometimes going for 1-3 days as well without eating.  Since doing this, my blood sugars have become ridiculously low, frequently in the 60s and 70s, never above 90.  If that sounds odd, look at *** fed infants (this board seems to edit this, if so, I am referring to infants that feed from their mother rather than formula), they also run unusually low blood sugar levels.  The reason normally given, is that they are powered by ketones (from the fat in the milk).  Since I am largely powered by ketones as well, it makes sense to me that my blood sugar levels don't need to be as high as the average person.  Is that an advantage for a diabetic?  Ask me in 20 years, I'm not sure of anything today.  I think we all wind up doing what works for us today, tomorrow may present different challenges.  As for me, I feel as good today at 63, as I ever have.  Diabetes doesn't impair my life in any way.  That may not be true tomorrow, but I 'm positive and hopeful.

 

 

 

Top 10 Contributor
Female
Posts 140
shortie replied on Mon, Jan 19 2009 8:08 AM

Like Madman and others here, I do not count carbs ( after years of being diabetic you kinda know the amount to ingest) , do not count calories ( simply cut back when I feel like I am gaining or getting puffy), do not count fiber ( eating a healthy food plan contains many servings of veggies and fresh fruits and if ingesting grain products diabetics chosing  100% whole grain,right?)...............I find that doing this makes me "normal" and less likely to get off the wagon.  It is the norm and I do not have to count anything except my Halc which has been below 7 for quite a few years.....6.2 this summer and 6.4 in Dec.  I get on a craze sometimes mainly when on vacation on my island which will happen in a few weeks or in the Spring and Summer on our lake---when I cut carbs drastically then I  thin down 8-10 pounds but my cravings take over eventually and I end up winterizing my bod with a few pounds.  But I think that is natural.  Perhap that will change when I put on a few more years------but I feel healthy.  Remember issues for men and women in these areas are different......

 

shortie

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 111
Jorgie replied on Mon, Jan 19 2009 7:35 PM

I don't really count anything, but maybe I should. When we buy things at the grocery store we ussually don't buy high carb stuff. I have never paid much attention to fiber.

jorgie

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 111
Jorgie replied on Tue, Jan 20 2009 9:01 AM

Ok, at least you ggot me thinking. (that's a firstStick out tongue)

I had a bowl of Ralston cereal a glass of oj, and a piece of muffin bread toast for breakfast. Only the Ralston contributed fiber, and that was 5 mg.

 

jorgie

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 172
Madman replied on Tue, Jan 20 2009 10:40 AM

and oj has a ton of sugar.

Might I suggest having an orange rather than the OJ.  The fiber in the orange will help slow down the absorption of the sugar in the fruit, where as OJ is basically a straight shot of sugar (at least for me).

Top 75 Contributor
Female
Posts 11
VOW replied on Tue, Jan 20 2009 1:01 PM

To NMC:

You said "If that sounds odd, look at *** fed infants (this board seems to edit this, if so, I am referring to infants that feed from their mother rather than formula), they also run unusually low blood sugar levels.  The reason normally given, is that they are powered by ketones (from the fat in the milk). "

 

I question your reasoning and/or your information.  According to the USDA Nutritional Database, I compare one cup of human milk to one cup of whole cow's milk:

 

Human: 172 calories, 2.5 g protein, 10.8 g fat, 17.0 g carbohydrate

Cow: 146 calories, 7.9 g protein, 7.9 g fat, 11.0 g carbohydrate.

 

I don't know how you can declare that an infant (if indeed your data are correct) is in ketosis with this diet.

 

Keep in mind, too, that human infants, if they are not bottlefed, are typically fed on demand, in a schedule that can require feedings up to every two hours.  Human milk production is a supply-and-demand arrangement.  The mother manufactures the milk in increasing quantities only by allowing the baby to nurse frequently.

 

 

~VOW

~VOW

"I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it."
Klaatu, "The Day The Earth Stood Still"

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 133

Vow,

 

I'ts not my reasoning, but a statement of fact.  You could easily verfiy this for yourself by googling the subject, but you would then probably decide it doesn't really mean anything.  Your analysis of the formula ignores the fact that infants aren't miniature adults, ketosis comes much easier for them than it does for adults.

Here's just one link referring to ketone production by infants.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kKNpHN3dDaUC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=infants+lower+blood+sugar+adults+higher+ketones&source=web&ots=g4lIaMKf8-&sig=ND0D4t_cG692gjSdwnzILRy5eAQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

There are a number of links referring to the fact that *** fed infants have lower blood sugar levels and higher ketone levels than bottle fed infants.  Unfortunately, they all appear to require subscriptions or professional status.

 

 

 

Top 75 Contributor
Female
Posts 11
VOW replied on Tue, Jan 20 2009 4:36 PM

Eh eh eh, NMC, don't put words in my mouth.

 

Since I have the Band, I have to be really choosy in my food selections.  I have to pick my bites with the most nutritional impact, and I've found that words are pretty....well...empty.  So cliché, yet so true.

 

If infants do, as you say, behave differently with their metabolism, then you reallly cannot use them as a point of comparison with adults.  Ketosis in an infant is not the same "ketosis" in an adult, by your own admission.  The fact that infants do run ketosis while consuming an obviously HIGH carbohydrate food kinda kicks your whole theory in the behind!

 

Let's keep the apples with the apples, and the oranges with the oranges, okay?

~VOW

"I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it."
Klaatu, "The Day The Earth Stood Still"

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 133

vow,

 

I didn't put any words in your mouth.  You questioned my credibility about statements of infants using ketones as a fuel.  You could easily have fact checked this yourself.  As I predicted, when I provided a link, your attitude was 'so what, it doesn't really matter', then you threw in an apples and oranges statement.  My original post concerning infantile ketonic powering was in questioning whether my very low blood sugars on a ketogenic diet were equivalent to that of infants having low blood sugars.  This is oranges and oranges.  I can't say it as a fact, and was only expressing a curiosity.  But on reflection, I think it may be more likely than unlikely.

 

 

Page 1 of 2 (16 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS