Soluble Fiber Causes Liver Cancer, Insoluble And Antibiotics Prevent/stop It

[Mito]

In contrast, the mainstream medical and nutrition industry recommends the exact opposite - i.e. eating 6-7 servings daily of resistant (fermentable) starches and supplementing with plenty of other fibers such as pectin whenever possible. Why? Because soluble fibers lower cholesterol. Well, the FDA already reversed its stance on cholesterol, but the ads for soluble fiber became even more intense after that.

The FDA only reversed their stance on dietary cholesterol because they admitted that the amount of cholesterol that gets absorbed in the diet is small compared to the amount of cholesterol the body makes endogenously. I don’t think they are anywhere close to saying serum cholesterol does not have a role in causing CVD or is a risk factor for the disease.

 

[General Orange]

good list/chart...thanks!

Thank you very much GO, very useful.

aah love it. You're welcome @pauljacob @bzmazu

I think the more sanitary we attempt to be, the more vulnerable we become even to the weakest of bacteria.

I find that true. Especially the home should not be germ free. not good for immunity building for kids it appears.
But definitely the food preparation and bathroom sanitary should be very well done and I would very appreciate it to see it way more cleaner at work and public restrooms also of course. are there public restroom hygiene inspectors by the way? shouldn't there be certification mark of hygiene on the restrooms ? hard to implement more germ-free restrooms against spread of gut dysbiosis? lets hire homeless or broke people to keep restrooms more clean? I vote yes.

 

[managing]

Not all fruit. I think many ripe fruits are OK, including cherries, grapes, oranges, mangos, pears, even pineapple (in moderation due to its serotonin content). The more important aspect is the ratio of insoluble to soluble fiber, not so much the absolute amount of soluble fiber (as long as it is below the 2.5% they found was the minimum level which started to cause issues). Similar to the SFA/PUFA ratio.

What do you think of an insoluble fiber supplement such as cellulose powder?

Let me just get this out of the way before anybody bothers: I am a lazy idiot. I should use whole foods for insoluble fiber. I deserve to be unhealthy.

Or, sometimes it isn't possible/convenient and I want an alternative.

 

[haidut]

What do you think of an insoluble fiber supplement such as cellulose powder?

Let me just get this out of the way before anybody bothers: I am a lazy idiot. I should use whole foods for insoluble fiber. I deserve to be unhealthy.

Or, sometimes it isn't possible/convenient and I want an alternative.

If it is clear and does not have heavy metal toxicities, acid or other crap leftover from some industrial process then it should be fine.

 

[haidut]

The FDA only reversed their stance on dietary cholesterol because they admitted that the amount of cholesterol that gets absorbed in the diet is small compared to the amount of cholesterol the body makes endogenously. I don’t think they are anywhere close to saying serum cholesterol does not have a role in causing CVD or is a risk factor for the disease.

Just before the public announcement, there was in interview with the lead scientists of the study which FDA used to base its decisions on. He said that neither dietary-driven cholesterol, nor serum cholesterol have been tied to CVD conclusively. And people get most of their cholesterol from food, mostly through the direct ingestion of cholesterol but also from precursors like sugar, fats, acetate, etc. So, if dietary elevations of cholesterol are irrelevant for CVD then that does not leave much else. That same study also talks about SFA not being an issue and having even less evidence than cholesterol for CVD. But author said in the interview that he does not think the public is ready for such a message because it would loose faith in the FDA for such drastic reversals on 2 things that FDA crusaded against for decades. I will find it and post it here, it was quite a read.

 

[Kartoffel]

This is great but can somebody please list some examples of what foods constitute soluble and insoluble fiber? Whenever I do a google search it seems that a lot of foods contain both.

I hope someone understands how much effort I go to to find these useful lists for you, and then others come along and post their own My charts are with sources !
Should help making it more easy to discard bad food high in soluble fibers.
and of course the food listed of insoluble fiber should be looked at through Peat's glasses.

Properties of soluble /insoluble fiber: Too be more clear. Here is a comparison:
View attachment 11068



Therefore the ratio of insoluble /soluble of the infamous raw carrot is 7:3 or 2.3 : 1
Finally, I can sleep peacefully tonight!

I don't think so. I assume the 10:1 ratio given in the other paper is much closer to the truth.

 

[dannibo]

Not all fruit. I think many ripe fruits are OK, including cherries, grapes, oranges, mangos, pears, even pineapple (in moderation due to its serotonin content). The more important aspect is the ratio of insoluble to soluble fiber, not so much the absolute amount of soluble fiber (as long as it is below the 2.5% they found was the minimum level which started to cause issues). Similar to the SFA/PUFA ratio.

I didn't realize that pineapples had serotonin . That's a revelation to me. Can you suggest any research I can look at for various other amino acids in food, I'd love to research that. Thank you.

 

[Kartoffel]

I didn't realize that pineapples had serotonin . That's a revelation to me. Can you suggest any research I can look at for various other amino acids in food, I'd love to research that. Thank you.

Both bananas and pineapples are high serotonin fruits, but I think ripe pineapples are much butter than bananas. Bananas irritate me pretty reliably, while ripe pineapples don't, even in larger amounts. Could of course be about something else, who knows. In terms of serotonin, wallnuts are the worst, eventhough they come with lots of healthy ω-3 fatty acids.

Feldman, JM., and Lee, EM. (1985): Serotonin content of foods: effect on urinary excretion of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 42, Issue 4, 639-643.​

 

[General Orange]

I modified this list to more Peat friendly, what you think? thanks @Mufasa
removed legumes, nuts with high PUFA, fruit high in serotonin, gluten grains, anti-thyroids

Insoluble/Soluble ratio
Wheat Bran (Arrowhead Mills) 11.5 (should be processed / cooked to reduce phytic acid that bind calcium)
Mushrooms, cooked fresh 10.3 (should be cooked for 1-3 hours to reduce toxins)
Tomato, raw 9 (nightshade toxins, should be cooked)
Blueberries 8.8 (high tannin binds to and reduces mineral absorption)
Pineapple 8.5 (high serotonin should be ripened longer to reduce it)
Raspberries 8.3
Coconut, fresh 8.15
Persimmon 6.6 (high tannin binds to and reduces mineral absorption)
Tortilla, corn 6.0 (assumed nixtamilized)
Spinach, cooked 5.83 (should be organic grown coz of nitrates absorbing, contains oxalates that bind calcium)
Cocoa powder, unsweetened 5.0 (assumed dutched, else high in tannin binds to and reduces mineral absorption)
Dates 5.1
Rice, white, regular cooking, cooked 5.0 (with lots of butter)
Guava 4.93
Blackberries 4.4
Tomato paste 4.1 (nightshade toxins, should be cooked)
Bread, whole wheat 4.0 (if then should be sourdough)
Squash, summer (green or yellow) cooked 4.0 (should be well cooked to reduce starch with lots of butter)
Macadamia 3.8 (low in phytic acid, low PUFA)
Kiwi 3.3 (contain moderately-high serotonin)
Spinach, raw 3.0 (should be organic grown, contains oxalates that bind calcium)
Cranberries 3.0
Strawberries 2.67
Bamboo shoots 2.6 (cooked)
Apple 2.4 (should be cooked, pealed contains pectin)
Cherries 2.3
Nectarine 1.8
Grapes 1.7
Pear 1.63 (should be cooked, pealed contains pectin)
Mango 1.5
Oatmeal, dry 1.2 (should be processed / cooked to reduce phytic acid that bind calcium)
Carrots, raw 1.1 / 2.3 or more According to other sources (contain carotene therefore should not be cooked)
Figs 0.9
Potato, boiled, without skin 0.8 (boiled for 40 min to reduce starches with lots of butter)
Orange 0.7 (pure juice is best)

-All fruit should be plucked (almost) ripened.
Source: Fiber Content Of Foods | Insoluble & Soluble Food Chart

 

[managing]

If it is clear and does not have heavy metal toxicities, acid or other crap leftover from some industrial process then it should be fine.

Does anybody have any thoughts on the purity of cellulose and/or any potential for it irritating the gut?

Se for example:
https://smile.amazon.com/Nutricolog...540742087&sr=8-1-fkmrnull&ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1

And then, if it is taken with a meal, is it likely to adsorb nutrients? Its known for absorbing enviornmental heavy metals. So it seems likely to adsorb earth metals like magnesium? Some of its inorganic forms have (cat)ion exchange capability as well.

Anybody know of/have experience with an insoluble fiber supplement they'd recommend?

 

[Kartoffel]

I modified this list to more Peat friendly, what you think? thanks @Mufasa
removed legumes, nuts with high PUFA, fruit with serotonin, gluten grains, anti-thyroids

Insoluble/Soluble ratio
Wheat Bran (Arrowhead Mills) 11.5 (should be processed / cooked to reduce phytic acid that bind calcium)
Mushrooms, cooked fresh 10.3 (should be cooked for 1-3 hours to reduce toxins)
Tomato, raw 9 (nightshade toxins, should be cooked)
Blueberries 8.8 (high tannin binds to and reduces mineral absorption)
Raspberries 8.3
Coconut, fresh 8.15
Persimmon 6.6 (high tannin binds to and reduces mineral absorption)
Tortilla, corn 6.0 (assumed nixtamilized)
Spinach, cooked 5.83 (should be organic grown coz of nitrates absorbing, contains oxalates that bind calcium)
Cocoa powder, unsweetened 5.0 (assumed dutched, else high in tannin binds to and reduces mineral absorption)
Dates 5.1
Rice, white, regular cooking, cooked 5.0 (with lots of butter)
Guava 4.93
Blackberries 4.4
Tomato paste 4.1 (nightshade toxins, should be cooked)
Bread, whole wheat 4.0 (if then should be sourdough)
Squash, summer (green or yellow) cooked 4.0 (should be well cooked to reduce starch with lots of butter)
Macadamia 3.8 (low in phytic acid, low PUFA)
Kiwi 3.3 (contain moderately-high serotonin)
Spinach, raw 3.0 (should be organic grown, contains oxalates that bind calcium)
Cranberries 3.0
Strawberries 2.67
Bamboo shoots 2.6 (cooked)
Apple 2.4 (should be cooked, pealed contains pectin)
Cherries 2.3
Nectarine 1.8
Grapes 1.7
Pear 1.63 (should be cooked, pealed contains pectin)
Mango 1.5
Oatmeal, dry 1.2 (should be processed / cooked to reduce phytic acid that bind calcium)
Carrots, raw 1.1 (contain carotene therefore should not be cooked)
Figs 0.9
Potato, boiled, without skin 0.8 (boiled for 40 min to reduce starches with lots of butter)
Orange 0.7 (pure juice is best)

-All fruit should be plucked (almost) ripened.
Source: Fiber Content Of Foods | Insoluble & Soluble Food Chart

What's the point of copying that stupid list? The website doesn't provide any reference, and lots of these values seem to be simply made up. Carrots don't have a 1:1 ratio of insoluble: soluble fiber. You even said so yourself a few posts ago.

 

[General Orange]

What's the point of copying that stupid list? The website doesn't provide any reference, and lots of these values seem to be simply made up. Carrots don't have a 1:1 ratio of insoluble: soluble fiber. You even said so yourself a few posts ago.

The point is that it gives a good indication of what is Peat friendly fiber, although it may be not "super correct". Even fiber measurements between different sources are not similar. So who cares what is more correct list it is more important the food indeed has a positive insoluble fiber content plus is Peat friendly. Don't you agree ?

 

[Kartoffel]

Well, if "not super correct" refers to data that is off by a factor of 5-10 (in the case of carrots), how helpful can it be? And what are you going to do with the information that wheat bran has a very high ratio? It will still give you colon cancer. The ratio alone won't give you a good idea of what might constitute a beneficial fiber.

 

[General Orange]

Well, if "not super correct" refers to data that is off by a factor of 5-10 (in the case of carrots), how helpful can it be? And what are you going to do with the information that wheat bran has a very high ratio? It will still give you colon cancer. The ratio alone won't give you a good idea of what might constitute a beneficial fiber.

Well, if that is so, and you have that useful information why don't you nicely add it to the discussion so we can all use it to make an even better list?

 

[Kartoffel]

Well, if that is so, and you have that useful information why don't you nicely add it to the discussion so we can all use it to make an even better list?

Cancer Res. 1983 Sep;43(9):4057-61.
Enhancement of rat colon carcinogenesis by wheat bran consumption during the stage of 1,2-dimethylhydrazine administration.
Jacobs LR.
These results demonstrate that dietary wheat bran, a fiber which produces a hyperproliferative response in the colon, significantly increases colon carcinogenesis when fed to rats during the stage of carcinogen administration. This effect appears to be further enhanced when the wheat bran is totally removed from the diet following the stage of carcinogen administration. These data indicate that the hyperproliferative effects of wheat bran appear to outweigh any preventive actions that bran may have on colon carcinogenesis by altering the bulk of intestinal contents and their transit time through the bowel.

Nutr Cancer. 1984;6(2):77-85.
Enhancement of 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-induced large bowel tumorigenesis in Balb/c mice by corn, soybean, and wheat brans.
Clapp NK, Henke MA, London JF, Shock TL.
This study was designed to determine the effects of four well-characterized dietary brans on large bowel tumorigenesis induced in mice with 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (DMH). Eight-week-old barrier-derived male Balb/c mice were fed a semisynthetic diet with 20% bran added (either corn, soybean, soft winter wheat, or hard spring wheat) or a no-fiber-added control diet. Half of each group was given DMH (20 mg/kg body weight/week, subcutaneously for 10 weeks) beginning at 11 weeks of age. Surviving mice were killed 40 weeks after the first DMH injection. Tumors were not found in mice not subjected to DMH. In DMH-treated mice, tumors were found almost exclusively in the distal colon. Tumor incidences were as follows: controls, 11%; soybean group, 44%; soft winter wheat group, 48%; hard spring wheat group, 58%; and corn group, 72%. Tumors per tumor-bearing mouse ranged from 1.4 to 1.6, except in the corn group, which had 2.1. A positive correlation was found between percentage of neutral detergent fiber in the brans and tumor incidences but not between the individual components of cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin. The enhancement of DMH-induced large bowel tumorigenesis by all four bran types may reflect a species and/or mouse strain effect that is bran-source related. These data emphasize the importance of using well-defined bran in all “fiber” studies.

 

[General Orange]

Cancer Res. 1983 Sep;43(9):4057-61.
Enhancement of rat colon carcinogenesis by wheat bran consumption during the stage of 1,2-dimethylhydrazine administration.
Jacobs LR.
These results demonstrate that dietary wheat bran, a fiber which produces a hyperproliferative response in the colon, significantly increases colon carcinogenesis when fed to rats during the stage of carcinogen administration. This effect appears to be further enhanced when the wheat bran is totally removed from the diet following the stage of carcinogen administration. These data indicate that the hyperproliferative effects of wheat bran appear to outweigh any preventive actions that bran may have on colon carcinogenesis by altering the bulk of intestinal contents and their transit time through the bowel.

Nutr Cancer. 1984;6(2):77-85.
Enhancement of 1,2-dimethylhydrazine-induced large bowel tumorigenesis in Balb/c mice by corn, soybean, and wheat brans.
Clapp NK, Henke MA, London JF, Shock TL.
This study was designed to determine the effects of four well-characterized dietary brans on large bowel tumorigenesis induced in mice with 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (DMH). Eight-week-old barrier-derived male Balb/c mice were fed a semisynthetic diet with 20% bran added (either corn, soybean, soft winter wheat, or hard spring wheat) or a no-fiber-added control diet. Half of each group was given DMH (20 mg/kg body weight/week, subcutaneously for 10 weeks) beginning at 11 weeks of age. Surviving mice were killed 40 weeks after the first DMH injection. Tumors were not found in mice not subjected to DMH. In DMH-treated mice, tumors were found almost exclusively in the distal colon. Tumor incidences were as follows: controls, 11%; soybean group, 44%; soft winter wheat group, 48%; hard spring wheat group, 58%; and corn group, 72%. Tumors per tumor-bearing mouse ranged from 1.4 to 1.6, except in the corn group, which had 2.1. A positive correlation was found between percentage of neutral detergent fiber in the brans and tumor incidences but not between the individual components of cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin. The enhancement of DMH-induced large bowel tumorigenesis by all four bran types may reflect a species and/or mouse strain effect that is bran-source related. These data emphasize the importance of using well-defined bran in all “fiber” studies.

In the first study they first give rats cancer to show that the 20% wheat bran fibers diet enhance the cancer. which is abnormally high fibers. more than 10 times beyond the 2.5 percent limit from Haidut's study.

In the second they again use 20% bran of diet to mice with carcinogen exposure and is showing fibers can enhance cancer, but they use Balb/c mice that is an immunodeficient strain that are TH2 dominant and are known to develop cancer later in life.

How can you see these as valid studies to conclude wheat bran products or supplements enhance cancer in human with normal use ?
Half a cup (29 grams) of wheat bran provides almost 13 grams of dietary fiber.
Dont think anybody can eat a whole cups of wheat bran in a day to meet 20% fiber diet, do you ?

 

[Kartoffel]

Dont think anybody can eat a whole cups of wheat bran in a day to meet 20% fiber diet, do you ?

I don't think anybody should eat any wheat bran because it is a horrible food in just every way.

 

[Amazoniac]

?

 

[General Orange]

yeah there we have it:

"Wheat bran can also stimulate colon
carcinogenesis when fed only during carcinogen exposure. Oat bran and corn bran
may stimulate colon carcinogenesis by increasing fecal bile acid excretion, a
feature of many soluble fibers, while the acidification of large bowel contents
is associated with an increased frequency of chemically induced colonic cancers."

Experiments in laboratory animals, using chemical induction of
large bowel cancer, have in general shown a protective effect with supplements of
poorly fermentable fibers such as wheat bran or cellulose. In contrast, a number
of fermentable fiber supplements including pectin, corn bran, oat bran,
undegraded carageenan, agar, psyllium, guar gum, and alfalfa have been shown to
enhance tumor development.

"Pectin and guar provided the greatest stimulus to cell
proliferation. A lower luminal pH was associated with a higher tumor yield and
increased epithelial cell proliferation. Thus, acidification of colonic contents
by high fiber diets failed to inhibit rat colon carcinogenesis, while the
consumption of soluble fibers, such as oat bran, pectin, and guar, was associated
with enhancement of proximal colon carcinogenesis."
...

thanks @Amazoniac

 

[dreamcatcher]

Thanks. I have been taking AC every day lately with no visible results on my very bloated gut. I am starting to think antibiotics is my only option or going on a fairly strict high insoluble fiber to soluble fiber ratio for a while. I think like many other things (like the SFA/PUFA) ratio the more unhealthy you are the more you have to be strict on the ratios (higher) so I can't afford to cheat at all on either PUFA or soluble fiber that much it seems whereas someone who is healthy can get away with more PUFA and soluble fibers probably. How would I even convince a Dr. to prescribe me antibiotics? I'm guessing the average Dr. wouldn't do so "just because I think it will help my bloated belly"?

Either that or try taking thyroid. I have been trying to fix myself as best as I can through diet alone, but maybe that's just not possible.

Diet alone wasn't enough for me either, I'm very happy since supplementing thyroid.