Eat Fiber-Forward
More whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruit: one way to carry out what the review summary this entry was written from reports: that dietary guidelines converge on a plant-forward pattern in which fibre-rich whole foods are protective.
IBS or GI conditions may need tailored fiber guidance
- Signs of disordered eating (food/weight preoccupation, restriction, bingeing, purging, compulsive exercise): see a qualified eating-disorder professional
- Diagnosed medical condition (diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, GI disease): see a registered dietitian or physician
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding: see a prenatal provider or registered dietitian
- Unintentional weight loss, difficulty swallowing, or persistent GI symptoms: seek medical evaluation
- Persistent bloating/pain or GI diagnosis: see a dietitian for tailored fiber plan
How to do it
What the evidence says
This practice is one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry (phys.nutrition.added-sugar-and-sugary-drinks) studied: the convergence of dietary guidelines on a plant-forward pattern built from fibre-rich whole foods. Cara 2022 (meta-epidemiological review of 88 guidelines) reports vegetables (74%), fruit (71%), whole grains (59%) and legumes (46%) as the foods most often advised for daily intake; Micha 2017 (meta-analysis) identifies fiber, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes among the protective dietary factors for cardiometabolic disease and glycemic load among the harmful ones; Hu 2002 (systematic review) reports a diet high in fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains and low in refined grains among the strategies it finds effectively prevent coronary heart disease; Reedy 2008 reports that three major food guides share the message to eat more fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (phys.nutrition.added-sugar-and-sugary-drinks).
- 'Only bran cereal has fiber.' Legumes, fruit, vegetables, and whole grains all count.
- Do not claim any food, diet, or supplement cures, treats, or prevents any disease
- Do not diagnose nutrient deficiencies or medical conditions
- Do not promise specific weight-loss amounts or timelines
- Do not deliver individualized medical nutrition therapy or replace clinical care
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 11 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (11)
- What it measured
- Diet and physical activity recommendations for cancer prevention
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What it measured
- Dietary recommendations to promote health and prevent chronic disease
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What it measured
- Commonalities among dietary recommendations across clinical practice guidelines
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-epidemiological study (systematic review; guidelines as unit of analysis)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 88 guidelines included (preliminary results from 82); 2,435 records screened
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- AHA dietary guidelines (revision 2000) for reducing cardiovascular disease risk
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Comparison of food-based recommendations and nutrient values of USDA MyPyramid, NHLBI DASH Eating Plan, and Harvard Healthy Eating Pyramid
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Consistency of MyPyramid recommendations with population-based recommendations for controlling chronic diseases
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Etiologic effects of dietary factors on cardiometabolic disease and optimal population intake levels
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Effective dietary strategies for preventing coronary heart disease
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review (of metabolic, epidemiologic, and clinical trial evidence)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 147 original investigations and reviews selected
- What it measured
- AHA Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations (2006 revision)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer prevention
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.