The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I think we probably all would be better off with less of the carbs that we're typically served, but most of us, and probably the vast majority of us would be better off by consuming a lot more carbs that were complex, that we're microbiotic-accessible.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
If the carbohydrates that were in our diet were complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and we like to refer to the subset of dietary fiber that the microbiota can actually access as microbiota-accessible carbohydrates. And the reason that we like that term is it has the word carbohydrate in it. And it's to point out that not all carbs are bad, it's just, there are bad carbs or carbs, or carbs that are bad if you consume them in too high quantity, things like table sugar and simple starches, but there are good carbs as well. And these microbiota-accessible carbohydrates are the complex ones that we can't digest, and fuel our got microbiota, our gut microbiota can ferment them.