The Protein Decade

Protein spent roughly a decade as the nutrient everything got built around: protein bars, protein water, protein-added bread, protein powder in categories that had nothing to do with it a few years earlier. It became a marketing shorthand as much as a nutritional one, attached to products where the actual protein content was a footnote next to the label claim. By the end of that run, "high protein" had been applied to such a wide range of products that the claim itself carried less information than it once did: a high-protein snack and a high-protein breakfast cereal could have very different amounts of actual protein in them, both legitimately wearing the same label.

That pattern, a nutrient becoming a marketing category faster than it became a genuinely useful shorthand, is part of what "fibre is the new protein" is warning about as much as predicting.

What the Actual Gap Data Shows

The awkward part of the protein story is that most Australian adults already meet NHMRC's protein recommendations without trying. The nutrient that got the marketing attention wasn't, for most people, the nutrient with the biggest gap to close.

Fibre is the opposite case. Most Australian adults don't meet NHMRC's Adequate Intake for fibre, let alone the higher Suggested Dietary Target, and that gap has been documented in national survey data for well over a decade without anywhere near the same level of product development or marketing attention protein received.

Why Attention Doesn't Always Follow Need

There's no single reason protein got the bigger push first. Part of it is simplicity: "more protein" is an easy claim to put on a label and a straightforward one for a shopper to understand. Part of it is that protein as an ingredient is easy to add to a wide range of products without changing them much. Fibre is a harder sell in some ways, it's a less familiar story, the ingredient names are less recognisable, and some fibre ingredients change texture more noticeably than a protein isolate does. A manufacturer adding whey or pea protein to a drink has a shorter list of things to solve for than one adding resistant dextrin or psyllium, where solubility, mouthfeel and dose all behave differently depending on the specific ingredient chosen.

None of that reflects which nutrient Australians were actually shorter on. It reflects which nutrient was easier to build a product category around, which is a different question with a different answer.

What "Fibre Is the New Protein" Gets Right

The comparison is right about the direction of travel: more products now carry a fibre claim, more media coverage discusses fibre specifically rather than "healthy eating" in general terms, and the gap itself is large enough and well-enough documented that the attention has somewhere real to land. Unlike protein's rise, fibre's current moment is arriving pointed at an actual, measurable shortfall rather than a marketing opportunity in search of a problem.

What It Gets Wrong

The risk in borrowing protein's playbook wholesale is borrowing its excesses too: a nutrient added everywhere regardless of whether it fits, badged onto products where the amount added is a footnote, treated as something to maximise rather than something to simply get enough of. Fibre has its own version of this already in motion, see our look at fibremaxxing, where the underlying advice (eat more fibre) is sound and the extreme version (as much as possible, as fast as possible) isn't.

There's also a simpler risk worth naming: a "high fibre" claim can mean very different things depending on how much fibre is actually in a serve, the same way "high protein" ended up meaning different things across different products. A specific gram figure per serve, checked against NHMRC's benchmarks, tells you more than the claim on its own.

What This Means for How You Eat

The practical takeaway doesn't depend on whether fibre ever matches protein's marketing budget. NHMRC's benchmarks (30g a day for men, 25g for women) haven't changed, and closing the gap to them doesn't require buying into a trend, just a handful of specific, sustained changes to what's already on the plate.

Sources

Related reading

The next question