I once heard about the idea that fiber was first pushed as good-for-you by industry since bran was primarily waste at that time, and lots of it too. What better way to solve that problem but to make people eat it. I mean, we already eat bread, it's a small leap to eat bran too. On this forum we're quite aware that bread ain't actually food for us, it makes us sick and fat. So, it's only a small leap to be aware of bran in the same way too, even though it may not make us sick or fat, it certainly ain't food either.

Maybe that idea about fiber/industry/waste ain't true, but let's see where it goes anyways.

Next, we get another idea tacked on that says fiber slows down digestion, BG spike is lower, good-for-you again. Then, we get another idea tacked on, says fiber fills you up, eat less, won't grow fat, good-for-you yet again. Somewhere in there, another idea pops up, whole wheat, whole grain, good-for-you again. Maybe it's all bogus, but at least it pushed out the first idea about fiber/industry/waste in a sort of fake-genuine kinda thing. Oh no, that first idea ain't true, it's this new idea that's true. See? It's just more scientific-y and more truth-y and more wholesome-y and more good-for-you-y. Maybe.

Next, we get this brand new idea about a different kind of fiber - resistant starch. Gut bugs, gut health, good bacteria, butyrate, colon cancer, metabolic effects, etc. Good-for-you yet again. That's a whole lotta scientific-y stuff right there, Bob, it must be true or at least true-ish.

But now there's a problem. We're all discussing fiber and resistant starch and all that jazz as if we fully accepted at face value the premise of good-for-you, or at least the premise of scientific-y-ness. Even I, arguably the most cynical of us on this forum, sometimes catch myself arguing the pros and cons of fiber and resistant starch.

I mean, come on, do we have to call up Gary and ask him to write a book on fiber too? He's done a great job with carbs and fat. It just occurs to me that's not a bad idea, not bad at all. I'm guessing there's not enough material on fiber to do a whole book. But an article for the NYT, you bet. Ima suggest that to him. Not that we're friends or anything, anybody can talk to the guy, he's quite open to that kind of thing.

OK, so what was my point again? Ah, yes, fiber and resistant starch is most probably by all measures 100% pure unadulterated genuine BS. I've debunked it at length in other threads already, with for example the butyrate thing where oxygen is required to metabolize it, and oxygen is supplied by the blood, and BHB (which is basically butyrate) is produced by the liver and sent down the bloodstream right along with the oxygen from the lungs, all of which reach all the cells in the colon just fine, so any claimed benefit from resistant starch in that regard is literally of exactly zero value to anybody at any time from now to the end of universe, ever. Ever. Or for example the fiber thing where bran specifically doesn't give us any kind of nutrition whatsoever (therefore ain't food), and instead has the ability to take out certain minerals like calcium by binding to phytic acid contained in the bran, thereby making any claim about its benefit entirely false, to the end of the universe and yada yada. But that's just my take on it.