I get into disagreements sometimes with people over the “nutritional” benefits of fiber. My understanding is that fiber aids in the “throughput” of digestion, but there is no nutrition in it since it’s the stuff that you’re body can’t process–unlike vitamins, minerals, fats, carbs, proteins, etc.
I get the feeling I’m either nitpicking or just wrong.
Which one???
I think your right but nickpicking. You’d have to get a stripped down form of fiber for it to contain no other nutritional elements. Sawdust? I prefer broccoli myself, a good source of fiber, vitamins minerals and a hell of a lot more appealing on a plate.
an excerpt from Spontaneous Healing by Andrew Weil, M.D.:
Adequate fiber in the diet promotes digestive health, allowing us to have regular bowel movements and improving the biochemical environment of the large bowel. Some forms of fiber also benefit the cardiovascular system by helping the body eliminate cholesterol. Populations that have very low intakes of fiber have high rates of colon cancer and vice-versa. If you do not eat enough fiber, your digestive system will not function at peak efficiency, which can compromise healing ability in several ways.
Nitpicking? Perhaps. You could substitute the phrase “health benefits” for “nutritional benefits” to be more accurate.
fiber is undigestable, therefore it has no nutritional value. if broccoli has nutritional value, it is from other components than the fiber.
I think you’re neither nipicking nor wrong, but in fact just plain correct. “Nutritional” is one of those vague words thrown around by Ron Popeil in order to sell the Ronco Rotisserie, that’s part of the problem. I vote for robinh’s answer - health benefits.
Fiber is certainly healthy, but does it have caloric value? From the ancient days of ye olde Health Class, I recall that 1 g Fat = 9 Cal, 1 g Carb = 4 Cal, 1 g Protien = 4 Cal, right?
So, grabbing the only thing with a nutritional label in my office (a bag of Reeses miniature peanut-butter cups… hey, it’s Halloween!) I read that it has:
210 Calories
12 g Fat
22 g Carb (19 g sugar, 1 g fiber)
4 g Protien
But, when we do the math:
(12 x 9) + (22 x 4) + (4 x 4) = 212 Cal
A 2 g discrepancy with the label. Does this mean that fiber has fewer calories than “regular” carbohydrate because it is only partially digested?
And aren’t there two basic types of fiber: one that your body simply passes (insoluble) and one that your body absorbs (soluble)?
You first must know that there are two kinds of fiber: soluble and insoluble, as Weil hinted at but did not say. Insoluble fiber is nothing but roughage; however, it does help your digestive tract in eliminating waste solids. So it is beneficial.
Soluble fiber, however, is digested, leading to the cardiovascular benefits that Weil mentioned. I can’t tell you offhand what foods contain which, and some contain both. I know stuff like wheatgerm contains just insoluble fiber, but apples contain soluble fiber and may also contain the insoluble type. Without researching it, I can’t say. I just eat plenty of stuff that I know contains fiber and that way I know I get both kinds. I eat fruit and vegetables (which I know contain at least soluble fiber, grains, and I sprinkle wheatgerm on my salads and mix it in my pancake batter.
Rounding errors from listing all values in whole calories.