Soluble fibre
reduces absorption of carbs, thus reduces levels of blood glucose & insulin. So basically fibre reduced both glucose and insulin spikes, despite consuming exactly the same amount of carbs. fibre is actually known as an anti nutrient which is quite interesting.
Nearly all plant-based foods in their unrefined state (i.e. not processed, and just natural) contains fibre - from research it seems that this is "natures" way of protecting us from detrimental effects of certain foods.
Unfortunately in modern society and processing of foods both fibre and fat (which are key important ingredients) are removed in that processing. Generally, fibre is removed to change texture and enhance/change the tastes. Also almost always, natural fats (i.e. good fats) are removed. This is done generally to preserve the food as fats tend to go off / rancid over time.
As an example of modern processing, white flour nowadays has virtually all the natural fibre and fat removed. This leads us to have a "naked" carb, this in turn causes those high insulin spikes. So carbs of that kind ingested without the fibre or fat which act as a protective effect.
Whilst unprocessed and "whole" carbs almost always contain decent levels of dietary fibre, dietary proteins and fats contain almost no fibre. We have evolved to digest protein-based and fatty foods without the need for fibre.
Each specific component of the food isn't the problem these days, but generally is the overall balance of the foods we eat.
Imagine we buy a cake (mmm cake
), generally it will contain butter, eggs, flour and sugar (and chocolate dammit,... it needs chocolate!!).
Okay, we have our cake... Now if we were to remove the flour and double the number of eggs instead... I can assure you that the cake won't be a cake, and probably won't be nice (unless it has chocolate).
We all know that eggs are not bad, and that flour is not necessarily good, but, what has happened here is that the balance is off (whether natural or not - but I believe there's a reason why these balances exist). My point is, that this point holds true for carbs. The whole combination of unrefined carbs, carbs, fat, protein
with fibre, is not necessarily bad. However removing everything except the carbs may **** up the balance and IMO could make it harmful to health, or at least potentially not as good as eating a normal cake vs all this **** that is sold nowadays.
Another reason for people getting fat, overeating etc... is the removal of protein and fats in many foods. There are studies to suggest that this may lead to overconsumption.
For a bit of science, we have satiety hormones (called, peptptide YY, cholecystokin (? can't remember the spelling)) these are triggered in response to fats and protein. So eating pure carbohydrate shouldn't trigger these hormone releases and could lead to overeating.
A glass of orange juice needs around 4-5 oranges at a guess (oranges are healthy right?). However, have you tried to to eat 4-5 oranges? If you try to eat 4-5 oranges with all the fibreous material, pulp etc, you'd struggle or at least feel fuller than you would drinking 4-5 oranges. By drinking the juice you're only drinking the carb part of it, thus discarding the rest. So in one hit, you're likely over consuming that carb without even realising. This can lead to another problem. Pure carbs result your digestion being accelerated. This in turn leads to a rapid rise in blood glucose which leads to a rapid rise in insulin.
The food is not to blame but the processing of the foods. This is why fibreous foods are so important to balance out a modern western diet.
Too many people base their foods on their macronutrient content. A lot of this hides potential oversight of the dangers of highly refined foods. The problem lies where things like whole grains, vegetables for example are classed as carbs, which is where sugar is classified. Processed/refined and unrefined carbohydrates are not equal.
