Talk:Dietary fiber/Archive 1

Question
Question? As my comment/question may attest, I am not an expert in this field. I am confused about several statements that to me seem to be contradictory. The first sentence of the article states that fiber is the indigestible portion of plant food. Subsequently, inulin is identified as a fiber that has the nutritional value of carbohydrates. Can something that is indigestible actually have the nutritional value of a carbohydrate? (awo) 173.73.139.220 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Inulin is a polysaccharide (a carbohydrate polymer) used by plants to store energy, but it cannot be broken down by human digestive enzymes. It generally travels intact through the digestive system to the colon, where it is metabolized by native gut flora.  Consider adding a clarify template to specific places in the article you find confusing. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Flaxseed
I think Flax Seed should also be included in this article. I've read it may be better than Psyllium Husk for regularity and clean colon.

I still haven't figured out if this is supposed to a joke. 141.157.118.70 03:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No joke...except on people.

My pain, your gain. It works, and there is alot of honest research out there to confirm it. (Kellogs now promtes it too) Problem is psyllium is cheap. Too effective.

My observation is that much of todays 'scientific' research is by pharamaceutical supported research to find a patented drug that works. Psyllium is natural and cheap. Where is the profit there ?

Research is profit directed, through the back door. The pharmaceuticals take over or control the research.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And about the flaxseed, it is an esstential oil that lubricates the trac, and other things as well...too simple, too cheap...!

Being in the "business' for some 25 years, I could not accept these worked, and even when having the problems could not believe such simple things would work. Why was "the system" not reserching them, accepting them...?

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tone
The "Choosing your supplement" and "other recommendations" sections need to be rewritten to avoid the imperative and second person. (I don't have time at the moment; I'll do it when I can, but if someone else gets to it first, that's great.) Chuck 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
I rewrote the section on fiber supplements per the cleanup tags. Most of the existing text was advice on taking the supplements, rather than info on the different types. Two important notes: As always, I welcome comments or corrections. | MrDarcy talk 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of Ex-Lax. As far as I can tell, Ex-Lax contains no fiber. It contains a stimulant laxative derived from the Senna (herb) plant.
 * I also removed the mention of pectin fiber supplements, as I couldn't find any such brand, and this huge list of laxative types doesn't mention pectin supplements (but mentions the other kinds).

This entry, on dietary fiber, appears to be riddled with errors and misunderstandings. For example, why is there a section of fatty acids, which are not fiber? Elsewhere the article says that carbohydrates "are a good source" of fiber. It's true that some carbohydrates are fiber, but most are not. And carbohydrates in general, the kind most people think of--pasta or donuts--are NOT a good source of fiber. It's certainly false to say generally that carbohydrates are a good source of fiber. Eperotao 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in first sentence: broadly defines dietary fiber as "indigestible", but then describes the digestion process of soluble fiber. --Oceans and oceans (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the chart of expected fiber content: "exact amount"?! - by it's very nature, the chart is a rough guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.37.203 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Geographic tag
I strongly disagree with this tag's placement on this page, and I've removed it. Fiber is fiber wherever it is consumed in the world. Its natural sources are not geographically dependent, and its effects ... that's just plain silly. There's one US-centric point, and that is the recommendations from the ADA, a major source of nutrition guidelines worldwide. I supplemented that with the BNF's recommendations. It doesn't appear that many countries issue such guidelines, which is the reason that the ADA's recommendations stood alone. | MrDarcy talk 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Psyllium
I've cut this section from the top of the discussion page and moved it to this new section for psyllium discussions if warranted. --Paul144 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"One of the most versatile sources of dietary fiber is the husk (hull) of seeds from psyllium grain (Plantago ovata), a fiber source with clinically demonstrated properties of lowering blood cholesterol when chronically included in human diets. Psyllium seed husk is 34% insoluble fiber and 66% soluble fiber, providing an optimal division of both types that make it a valuable food additive."

Perhaps this should be removed -- or at least toned down, scientifically qualified, and cited. jrk 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cholesterol and obesity
The article mentions these two but provides no references. A quick google dug up this meta-analysis of 67 previous studies, which seems to show the cholesterol-lowering effect is real but almost negligible in practical terms.

As for obesity, I found this and this as examples. The first one notes a correlation between high-fibre (specifically wholegrain) diet and a generally healthy lifestyle, which of course is then correlated with lowered obesity (note no suggestion of causation). The second one promotes the use of high-fibre diet for weight loss in diabetics but notably points out that this is not scientifically proven: "there are no persuasive clinical studies documenting that diets providing generous amounts of fiber-rich foods are more effective in promoting weight-loss than equi-caloric diets restricted in high-fiber foods."

It would be handy if someone more qualified than myself could pad out this aspect of the article - many people reading are going to be wondering whether the specific claims are backed up with solid research. As it stands, brief mentions without qualification are likely to be misleading. (apologies for the quality of these 2 links: they were the first I could find with research info amongst the mass of more fluffy general-public pages)

The following was cut from the fiber article. It presume it mostly duplicates info that is in this article, but someone may want to see if there is anything salvagalble here. ike9898 23:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fiber is essential for maintaining a healthy digestive system.
Dietary fiber, which is obtained solely from foods of plant origin, plays a vital role in the digestive process. These are two types of dietary fiber: solube fiber, which can dissolve in water; and insoluble fiber, which does not have the ability to dissolve in water.

Soluble fiber
The inclusion of soluble fiber in the diet slows the breakdown of complex carbohydrates, such as starch, into simple sugars, such as glucose, thereby slowing the absorption of sugar and possibly leading to reduced levels of sugar in the blood. During digestion, soluble fiber forms a gel-like mass that binds cholesterol to the stool; if eating in sufficient quantities, soluble fiber can also help reduce the levels of cholesterol in your blood. Good sources of soluble fiber include grains, such as oats, barley and rye, vegetables, fruits, and legumes.

Insoluble fiber
This type of fiber occurs naturally in brown rice, whole-wheat breads and cereals, seeds, legumes, and in the skins of fruits and vegetables. It is not easily dissolved in water and is not digested or absorbed by the body. However, insoluble fiber's inclusion in the diet helps keep the gastrointestinal tract clean and promotes regular bowel movements. It does this by drawing water into the stools, making them larger; softer and easier to pass.

The benefits of fiber
Foods that are high in dietary fiber often take longer to eat, and they increase the feeling of fullness after a meal because they slow down the passage of food through the intestine. This improves the body's blood-sugar response because fiber slows the rate at which glucose is released from food. This, in turn, slows the rise of blood-sugar levels so that less insulin is released into the bloodstream. In addition, because fiber-rich foods increase the feeling of fullness, they can help with weight control.

Fighting disease
By promoting bowel regularity and keeping the gastrointestinal tract clean, inclusion of insoluble fiber in the diet may also reduce the risk of developing conditions such as diverticular disease and constipation. Studies have also shown that a high-fiber diet helps prevent diabetes and as a result of the activity of gut flora, reduces the risk of developing colorectal cancer. This cancer is rare in countries where the traditional diet consists mainly of cereals, fruits and vegetables.

How much fiber do I need?
According to the latest government guidelines, your total fiber intake should be 20g-40g per day, depending on your age and gender. Most adults in North America, however, get less than 20g of fiber each day. In order to ensure an adequate intake of both soluble and insolube fiber, you should include a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in your daily diet.

Condense
There's a lot of redundant content here. The article needs to be condensed.

Here are two proposals for a layout:

1:


 * Types of fiber
 * Soluble and insoluble fibers
 * Sources
 * Fermentable fiber
 * Sources
 * Short-chain fatty acids
 * Sources
 * Guidelines on fiber intake
 * See also
 * Further reading
 * References
 * External links

2:


 * Types of fiber
 * Soluble and insoluble fibers
 * Fermentable fiber
 * Short-chain fatty acids
 * Guidelines on fiber intake
 * Sources of fiber
 * See also
 * Further reading
 * References
 * External links

Depending on how the sources intersect with the different types, one might be better than the other. Also, are the different types really different, or is it more like this:


 * Soluble fibers
 * Insoluble fibers
 * Fermentable fiber
 * Short-chain fatty acids

— Omegatron 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Calories
"Methylcellulose ... is undigestible and doesn't have calories that humans can use." Is this true of other types of fiber? Boris B 11:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a section on this. --Unicorn of Wisdom (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Research
Commercial or non-commercial sites ?

I am wanting to bring to the attention of Wikipedia, the problem with so called 'non-commercial' research, ie University Research.

It appears that Commercial organizations are 'buying' their way into research by 'donating' large sum of money into teaching/research hospitals, diverting the focus away from simple, non-patenable treatments.

There is a financial dis-incentive for many research faciliites to focus on non-patentable site.

Here in Thunder Bay with the building of a teaching research center, a major pharmaceutical donated a large sum of money. Why ?

A word of caution.

By the way, the reference to fiber in a 'commercial site' identifies 'fiber'...well fiber can be bought anywhere even in its natural form' Anti-biotics, cannot !

Caesar J.B. Squitti

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Boom-boom?
"Additionally, soluble fiber undergoes active metabolic processing via fermentation, yielding end-products with broad, significant health effects." Is this a scientific way of saying poopy? what end product are we talking about? -Taco325i 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Short-chain fatty acids are the important end-product -- see article. --Paul144 13:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole article has very much a pep-talk tone for dietary fiber. It needs to be mentioned that these oligosaccharides are the components in beans and other vegetables that cause digestive problems. This is mentioned in the article on inulin. If someone tries, say, jerusalem artichokes, and finds they feel slightly poisoned for a day or so, and the whole house smells unclean due to "music from the back-side", they will never eat them again. As far as I know, this is intrinsic to any process of fermentation. Do all these wonderful fibers have the same effects? Puddik at (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Parisi refrence
The Vegtable Gum section had a refrence to a study by Parisi with a verification needed tag.

I added a refrence to the journal article in question. An abstract is here, and seems to verfiy the statement marked with that tag.

The abstract is here:. I think the verification needed tag can be removed, but I'll leave it for now in case anyone disagrees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.23.177.38 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Micronutrient Information Center has been mis-quoted on "the five most fiber-rich plant foods"
Information at the Micronutrient Information Center

( http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/fiber/ )

is not given as percentage,

each food is listed with its unit —

e.g. Nuts and Seeds – grammes per ounce

the true percentage dietary fiber (USDA National Nutrient Database)
( http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl )


 * Almonds – 11.8
 * Asian Pear – 3.6

Haim Berman 12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

what about chitosan???
what kind of fiber is that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.153.174 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cancer and Fiber???
The fiber link to cancer is no longer a given. Several large studies failed to show any link between fiber and colon cancer. See http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber.html Anthon01 (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Studies of a dietary agent(s) successfully intervening against a complex disease like colorectal cancer are notoriously difficult to construct, control, analyze and interpret due to innumerable factors affecting human eating behavior and bowel physiology. There are studies and experts still promoting the benefits of a fiber-rich diet, such as these, indicating to some (me, for one) that enough evidence -- and enough physiological justification -- exist to continue supporting the anti-cancer story of dietary fiber.


 * Even without the clinical trial evidence, one could ask: why wait for the long process of clinical studies to prove an anti-cancer effect? There are enough other benefits and plain physiological sense (as discussed in the article) to justify a high-fiber diet. --Paul144 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

-- In the newest editions of medical textbooks, including Harrison's, they specifically state that fiber does not impact colorectal cancer rates.

"Contrary to prior beliefs, the results of randomized trials and case-controlled studies have failed to show any value for dietary fiber or diets high in fruits and vegetables in preventing the recurrence of colorectal adenomas or the development of colorectal cancer. The weight of epidemiologic evidence, however, implicates diet as being the major etiologic factor for colorectal cancer, particularly diets high in animal fat and in calories." Mayer Robert J, "Chapter 87. Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer". Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 17e.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9895396 - Dietary fiber and the risk of colorectal cancer and adenoma in women. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770979 - Lack of effect of a low-fat, high-fiber diet on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group.

These are randomized trials, and now it appears that we know that fiber is not protective against colorectal cancer. Ryan Pedigo (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) --

Possible copyvio
A few quick copy and pastes of the text from this article into Google yields multiple results beyond Wikipedia. Many statements in this article can be found verbatim elsewhere on the Internet. One is clearly copying from the other, but I don't know which one. Someone more well-versed in the subject than I can make the appropriate determination. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions
This section needs more rigorous phrasing. While the first sentence begins "Fiber does not bind to minerals and vitamins and therefore does not restrict their absorption" may be literally true for fiber as a whole, it contradicts the abstract of its own cite. The citation states that insoluble dietary fiber does indeed bind to minerals and vitamins, but that the presence of soluble fiber creates a mechanism by which this effect is somewhat mitigated overall. Even though the article as a whole is discussing two different types of fiber, it should still not conflate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellsop (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul144, what is unusable about the reference?
HMGB1 is increasingly being recognized as important in inflammatory responses. If this research helps someone to decide to increase soluable fiber in the diet it is worth it.--68.35.158.218 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul144, you seem to make up your excuses ad hoc. If you don't know, you should, that the rat is an important laboratory test animal because if shares many genes with humans. Scientists are not doing this research because they are concerned about sepsis in the rat, but because they know butyrate is an inhibitor of HMGB1, and want to test it in an animal model of the disease.--68.35.158.218 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing convincing about HMGB1 being related to fiber intake and a human health benefit. The reference you provided indicates an isolated effect of butyrate in rats studied in a model of severe pathology, not yet confirmed as applicable to humans. If the finding has only been shown so far in rats, then it is out of place in the section where you inserted it, as those effects of fiber and SCFA all have solid evidence as applicable to human physiology.--Paul144 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you continue you policy of revert first and discuss later. This reference discusses the significance of these results, the full text of this article discusses the role of HBGB1 in these conditions in humans., the other items in the list that you CLAIM have solid evidence, do not have citations, or haven't you noticed?--68.35.158.218 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are interesting quotes from references 6 and 7 of the section at issue "evidence from human studies remains inconsistent" and "The results are more prominent in animal models, where more studies have been performed, than in human studies, where experimental conditions are more difficult to control."


 * So these other benefits don't have direct human evidence either. Why are you so insistent upon removing evidence that may elucidate a mechanism that gives credence to this and and the other benefits?--68.35.158.218 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As you are emotionally involved in this subject, why not take it to the butyric acid page where it seems more direct and appropriate to include?

The dietary fiber article is under-referenced, but that doesn't mean a) there is insufficient literature for human mechanisms or b) that I am responsible for inserting all appropriate references. Much of the science for what this article discusses has already been vetted through regulatory agencies and expert advisory organizations.

If dietary fiber is a topic important to you, you could contribute to the effort of inputting background references and maybe establish a case for including HMGB1 as it relates to intake of fiber sources and human processing of dietary fiber. --Paul144 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the provided reference that states there is insufficient evidence for the benefits in humans. You are the emotional one, defensive about your original reversions that were destructive of information, even though you objections have been overcome or shown not to be exclusive to the particular piece of information that I have I added, vis'a'vis the other information in the article.  If you wanted to be constructive rather than destructive, you could take it to the butyrate article yourself.  One of the strengths of wikipedia is just the kind of enlightening arcania you are seeking to delete.--68.35.158.218 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ONLY REDUCING THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE is vetted by the FDA, and that particular risk is not even covered in the section at issue. Hopefully my new language satisfies your unrigorous criticism.--68.35.158.218 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have reached WP:3RR so any further edits or reverts should be reported to an administrator for dispute resolution. Wikipedia encourages disputes to be debated here on the Talk page to build consensus under WP:CON, which I'm willing to do, but remain unconvinced from the exchange with user 68.35.158.218 over the past 2 days that HMGB1 has anything to do with physiological mechanisms stimulated by short-chain fatty acids, butyrate especially, after fermentation of soluble fiber.
 * The entry removed states: * Inhibits high-mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1), among anti-inflammatory and other benefits it may preventing the lethality of severe sepsis, as demonstrated by studies in rats.
 * This statement provides no concept directly related to the physiological effects of dietary fiber (indirect relation via butyric acid), is written in a way that relates it to sepsis (unrelated to the physiological effects of dietary fiber), and once again the reference is unusable since it links to a login page. A search of PubMed literature reveals no connection related to dietary fiber between search statements "HMGB1 and fiber" or "HMGB1 and butyric acid". Although the reference links butyric acid and HMGB1, it is not in the context of the physiological effects of dietary fiber -- the objective and content of the section entitled "Short-chain fatty acids".
 * User 68.35.158.218 has failed to provide a convincing case about how HMBG1 relates in any physiological way to production of short-chain fatty acids and their physiological benefits as described in the section.--Paul144 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't know that link was login dependent, you were rather uncommunicative. Here is another link: .  You know full well that soluable fiber increases blood levels of butyrate and other short chain fatty acids.  You also know that applying your standard to the section would require removable of the other benefits, or else providing of references for them directly relating to humans.  This study fills in the gap, the link to HMGB1 suggests the mechanism by which soluable fibre has its other benefits, such as anti-inflammatory.--68.35.158.218 (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiber vs. Fibers
The article seems to go back and forth between the usage of the word 'fiber' and 'fibers.'

Which is the correct plural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.35.70.75 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Insoluble fiber
Does insoluble fiber contain many/some of the health benefits of soluble fiber? If not, why is it considered dietary fiber? If so, what's the difference (in terms of health benefits) between soluble or insoluble fiber? If a breakfast cereal is "high in fiber", does it make a significant difference if it's high in soluble vs. insoluble fiber, for example? The Jade Knight (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some good sources that describe soluble vs. insoluble fiber:


 * MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Fiber
 * University of MD Medical Center Encyclopedia entry for fiber


 * > Does insoluble fiber contain many/some of the health benefits of soluble fiber?
 * > If so, what's the difference (in terms of health benefits) between soluble or insoluble fiber?


 * See the table, below, in answer to your two questions, above:

Table legend
Color coding of table entries
 * Both Applies to both soluble & insoluble fiber
 * Soluble Applies to soluble fiber only
 * Insoluble Applies to insoluble fiber only

Dietary fiber functions & benefits

 * Perhaps this table, or one like it, would add value to the article?


 * > If a breakfast cereal is "high in fiber", does it make a significant difference if it's high in soluble vs. insoluble fiber, for example?


 * See below:

"Most dietitians say your ratio of insoluble vs. soluble fiber should be 75% to 25%, or 3 parts insoluble to every 1 part soluble. As most high-fiber containing foods usually have both types, it should not be necessary to be too careful about diving them up. Oat, oat brans, psyllium husk and flax seed are rich in both types of fibers. In other words, your focus should be on fiber intake in general, rather than what type of fiber. If you consume 25g of fiber each day you should meet your daily requirements. Ideally, you should consume 5 servings of fruit and vegetables, as well as some servings of whole grain products, each day."

- Medical News Today


 * Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great answers, many thanks. A table like that (outlining what soluble and insoluble fiber do) would indeed be great in the article.  The Jade Knight (talk)

21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've added a new section that includes the table. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of slowing digestion? The Jade Knight (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent question - I'll update the table in the article to expand the text. Soluble fiber traps carbohydrates, slowing their digestion and adsorption. This lead to slower adsorption of glucose, and hence lessens changes in blood sugar.

I changed the last cell in the "benefits" column. It formerly said "Stimulates intestinal fermentation production of short-chain fatty acids that may reduce risk of colorectal cancer[29]" -- it now says "May reduce risk of colorectal cancer" (since that's the benefit). I want to transfer the deleted information into the "functions" column, but I'm not familiar enough with the science (or the method of implementing Wikipedia footnotes) to do this accurately. Would someone please implement this? thanks Agradman (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Functions: Increases food volume without increasing caloric content, providing satiety. Benefits: May reduce appetite

First of all, what does it mean that dietary fiber has a function? Wait, what? It's an inanimate substance without any programming and it wasn't made with humans in mind. It has no "function". You can eat it if you want, and yeah, it effects your body (as eating anything does) but to say it's the "function" of fiber makes no sense. I could say that the "function" of dietary rocks is to rough up the walls of your stomach. Secondly, how is "Reducing your appetite" supposed to be a benefit? Yeah, if you have weight issues it's a benefit, but a lot of us don't. Also, people looking for energy, fighting a sickness, etc. wouldn't "benefit" from a reduction of appetite. Excuse me if I'm a bit politically incorrect here, but since when is Wikipedia's target audience people trying to loose weight? And in general framing effects as "benefits" is simply a cultural interpretation. If I want to be constipated, alleviating me of constipation is not a benefit. If I want to die from a heart attack, how is lowering my chance of heart disease a benefit? Let's not create wikipedia as a website for the normalization of value and interpretation.

How about this instead:

Torvum (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Items for deletion?
"Rubus fruits such as raspberry (8 grams of fiber per serving) and blackberry (7.4 grams of fiber per serving) are exceptional sources of fiber.[7]" This is a lot less than in the preceeding list of items, so they are not "exceptional" sources of fibre. I think this is a plug for the linked website.

In the "Fiber and calories" section it says: "This energy can be used immediately, for example allowing the body to move during exercise, or to make the heart beat. Energy that is not used immediately is stored as sugars in the short term and later converted to fats, which act as energy reserves." Not relevant for the article. The rest of the section would be equally understandable with it removed. I suggest deletion. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

'/*==Please help with list and organization'==*/

First, let me say that I don't understand how Wikipedia editing works, so please forgive me and bear (or bare) with me. I hare read the how-tos, but am still struggling.

I was and am looking for an article that easily explains the categories of dietary fiber, and then lists each type with sources, features and benefits of each. I did find this listing elsewhere on the www, but still struggle with features, benefits, and sources of each. Among foods such as lipids, amino acids, starches, sugars, and fibers, fibers seem to be the least documented Here is the list I found:  Water-insoluble, including cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin; and Water-soluble, including pectin, gums, and mucilage. Water-soluble fiber is considered the most health-benefiting type of fiber, especially mucilage fiber.

I hope someone can help. Anotherviewkhh (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please include citation
In the last line under the introductory section, the disadvantage of consuming excess dietary fibers has been mentioned. but no reference(s) has been quoted. Please do so and if possible quote an established research article because i am unable to find any. Garg.ashutosh (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fiber contents in food
The table in section "Fiber contents in food" lists "whole grains" twice with different fiber values. Perhaps one of them should read refined grains? I'd correct this myself but the source is not online. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone, please fix this! The error in "whole grains" is serious, but beyond my ability to fix. My guess is, the lower number is for refined grains, but that's just a guess. I did find the following data from USDA's Foodapedia (sorry, I can't get the ref to work): 1 cup of brown rice, cooked w/o anything else, compare with 1 cup of white rice, ditto: brown, 4 g dietary fiber, in a serving with 215 cal, 44 g carbohydrate, 5 g protein, 2 g fat; white, 1 g dietary fiber, in a serving with 204 cal, 44 g carbohydrate, 4 g protein, 0 g fat. Oaklandguy (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaklandguy (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Oaklandguy (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think it would look much better, if the units used are consistent (not mixing cups and gram) but just use one of the systems. (I would prefer the metric-, not the imperial system, as I have not even a clue, how much '1 cup' is). Or giving something like "g/100g" or similar in addition to "g per serving" ? Crotha 09:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that in the two tables listing soluble and insoluble fiber sources that rye, oats and barley are listed in both categories. They are under "lignans" in the insoluble fiber, which includes rye, oats and barley. This should probably be clarified as I was confused as to which type of fiber these grains actually are...unless they are both. - Anonymous User, January 14, 2013


 * I've just tried to update the list with data from http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/list, but I have a hard time finding these exact food groups at all. There's no catch-all "fruit", for instance. Neither is there a single "whole grains" entry. And I agree the cups, thirds of ounces, furlongs per hogshead, and other bizarre units need to go. --Brindt (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

U.K. English and U.S. English names
The beginning of the article just says "dietary fiber or dietary fibre". Shouldn't it add some clarification and distinction here, stating that "dietary fiber" would be the U.S. English name, whereas "dietary fibre" would be the U.K. English name? I feel pretty certain I have got that the correct way round! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fiber contents in food
Since “Soluble fibre” redirects to this page, it would be helpful if columns for insoluble and soluble fiber could be added to the table in this section. Sorry I can’t do it myself Dinoceras (talk)

Units / Cups
Cups are a weird unit of measurement only used inside the US. I'd like to see it replaced with something more standardized. Also comparing the grams of fiber in .5 cups of food mixes systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.156.193 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the "rate" of a fiber?
"Lignin, a major dietary insoluble fiber source, may alter the rate and metabolism of soluble fibers."

Something is obviously missing from this sentence, but I don't know what was/is intended.

Samuel Webster (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Move
User: Batreeqah you moved the page without discussion. WP:ENGVAR issues are inevitably controversial and you should have initiated a move discussion. I have moved it back. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dietary fiber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913162939/http://www.wjgnet.com:80/1007-9327/12/5941.asp to http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/12/5941.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/DocumentSet/nda_op_drv_carbohydrates_draft_en_released%20for%20consultation,0.pdf?ssbinary=true
 * Added tag to http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1715-5312&volume=33&issue=1&startPage=118
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090928071003/http://www.wjgnet.com:80/1007-9327/14/6453.asp to http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/14/6453.asp
 * Added tag to http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10395614

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dietary fiber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619034946/http://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients/dietary-fibre to http://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients/dietary-fibre
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040750/http://www.aaccnet.org/DietaryFiber/pdfs/dietfiber.pdf to http://www.aaccnet.org/DietaryFiber/pdfs/dietfiber.pdf
 * Added tag to http://webdev.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/7F1901F3-743E-4C1A-8A3A-38473B8A1037/0/crfsfsv01n3p073077ms20001598.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412090421/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/2lg-xc.html to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/2lg-xc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601040856/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=77ed7da9463357d9a09892213e5c74db&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21%3A2.0.1.1.2.5.1.12&idno=21 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=77ed7da9463357d9a09892213e5c74db&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21%3A2.0.1.1.2.5.1.12&idno=21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dietary fiber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821193742/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Dietary fiber is found in insects, too.
It is not only found in plants. Per 30g, house crickets can contain up to 6g of dietary fiber. Shickorbob (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The "fiber" in "dietary fiber" is somewhat of a misnomer
Contrary to popular belief, dietary fiber is not necessarily made up of fibers. We should add this information to the article. Sources: -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * http://midwestpoultry.com/wp-content/uploads/Jacob-Jacquie-Dietary-Fiber-The-Good-The-Bad-The-Ugly.pdf
 * https://www.worldofmolecules.com/supplements/dietary-fiber/what-is-dietary-fiber.html
 * https://blog.kilter.in/how-fibre-works-part-one-e4f19d53c45b
 * The term dietary fiber is and has been in use worldwide in the fields of nutrition and food science for decades, with no sign by reputable sources used in the article Definition section that it will be redefined. The sources you show above are not reliable, not peer-reviewed, not published in a high-quality journal relevant to nutrition science, not promoted by a WP:MEDREV review, not adopted by any major food science organization, and not constructive for an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that "dietary fiber" isn't a well-recognized term, nor that we should campaign to "correct" the term. It's just interesting (and factual) that the definition of "dietary fiber" has nothing to do with whether the material in question is fibrous, and I think it would be valuable to add this information to the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Provide a WP:MEDREV review for this impression. Personally, it doesn't come to mind at all. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)