38 Comments

Top Comments

  1. FrankG
    OK... let's back up and actually read the article posted in this blog post.
    Note the first two words, Added Fructose

    Who (other than $hit stirring CG) has suggested anything about a total ban on fruit as part of an healthy diet?

    Read Dr Andreas'About LCHF page for advice on how to include fruit depending on your own personal preferences and make-up.

    As for excluding diabetics from this discussion: again look to the posted link.

    Read more →
  2. FrankG
    See, the problem here is that fruit is not an issue per se, heck not even added sugar is an issue per se...

    The problem is the quantity and quality of these "foods" in the western industrial diet. As I often remind my son at Univeristy, "it's OK to have an occasional pizza, or a couple of beers... it's what we eat everyday that really matters"

    The problem is jacka$$e$ like CG who take a reasonable recognition that many of us need to reduce the amount of ADDED fructose in our daily diets, as somehow an admonition to rid your life of all fruit at all costs! You can pry my banana out of my cold dead hands!"

    You see, even I include some frozen, local, wild blueberries in what I eat... usualy with plenty of heavy cream and/or plain yoghurt BUT I recognise that for me, in my individual situation, eating 30 bananas a day is not a recipe for an healthly long life. No matter what you may quote, out of context, from Dr Lustig!

    ---

    Once agan erdoke I urge you to read the actual article. This was not about fruit until CG starting striring the pot. The article comes out in favour of fruit but against ADDED fructose.

    Reply: #26
    Read more →

All Comments

  1. Pete`
    It's a bit weird using a photo of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's family to illustrate this post.
    Reply: #10
  2. Charles Grashow
    From the link

    "While fructose is found naturally in some whole foods like fruits and vegetables, consuming these foods poses no problem for human health. Indeed, consuming fruits and vegetables is likely protective against diabetes and broader cardiometabolic dysfunction, explained DiNicolantonio and colleagues. The authors propose that dietary guidelines should be modified to encourage individuals to replace processed foods, laden with added sugars and fructose, with whole foods like fruits and vegetables. "Most existing guidelines fall short of this mark at the potential cost of worsening rates of diabetes and related cardiovascular and other consequences," they wrote."

    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00040-3/abstract

    "Data from animal experiments and human studies implicate added sugars (eg, sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup) in the development of diabetes mellitus and related metabolic derangements that raise cardiovascular (CV) risk. Added fructose in particular (eg, as a constituent of added sucrose or as the main component of high-fructose sweeteners) may pose the greatest problem for incident diabetes, diabetes-related metabolic abnormalities, and CV risk. Conversely, whole foods that contain fructose (eg, fruits and vegetables) pose no problem for health and are likely protective against diabetes and adverse CV outcomes."

  3. Charles Grashow
  4. Cameron Hidalgo
    I wish studies like this could keep numbers accurate. They start by saying that 1 in 10 people have diabetes, then state that the total number doubled in a 30 year period. Which implies that the number used to be around 1 in 20. However because the total world population increased by over 2 billion people during that same time period, the actual ratio of people was closer to 1 in 12.

    While I am sure these numbers do not effect any of the actual research, being simply used as background information, I do feel like a lack of accuracy in the very first sentence (after the abstract ) casts a negative light on the entire paper.

  5. erdoke
    It's been clear for quite a while that fructose promotes insulin resistance. It is also known that fibers and organic acids reduce insulin response. On top of fructose content that's the main difference between most fruits and added sugar/HFCS. Put it together, add the zero satiety effect to liquid sugary beverages and there you have the most urgent tasks.
  6. Boundless
    This means that lethal nonsense like the following, and the toxic "diabetic" and "low carb" products that rely on it, need to vanish now. The paper could have said that, but didn't.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.fructose.org/q_and_a.html
    Q. Can people with diabetes consume fructose?

    A. Yes. Fructose has a low glycemic index and does not lead to the same spikes in blood sugar or insulin that result from glucose consumption. In addition, the excellent sweetness of fructose means that less of it is required to sweeten foods or beverages and this can translate to fewer calories consumed.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    "... this can translate to fewer calories consumed" is flat out false, due zero triggering of satiety.

    Replies: #7, #22
  7. FrankG
    "Fructose has a low glycemic index and does not lead to the same spikes in blood sugar or insulin that result from glucose consumption."

    Nonsense indeed! Of course "Fructose" has a "low Glycemic [i.e. Glucose] index"... you may as well say "Glucose has a low Fructose index" It's just a meaningless statement!

    BUT Fructose is an isomer of Glucose... so it can be stored as Glycogen then later released as Glucose. In effect, and especially for a diabetic, it may not have an immediate impact on your Blood Glucose (BG) level (other than the fact that in nature, it is most often bound with Glucose) BUT it has added to your total Glucose load which may, for example, exhibit as an higher fasting BG the next morning.

    Reply: #8
  8. erdoke
    Well, it seems to be the rare case where the advice "moderation" actually has some merit. This paper is almost 13 years old, but still a good summary of fructose metabolism and insulin resistance caused by the sweetest sugar.
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/5/911.full
    As you see, in low amounts it might indeed have beneficial effects on BG. I guess this is when some fruits are consumed, but no added sugar.
  9. bill
    Oh boy! I can haz pineapple for dessert
    every day!

    Nonsense.

    Replies: #11, #24
  10. bill
    Pete:

    Probably only someone from your country would know that.

    Does the one child have down syndrome?

    The only things I recognize on that table are carbs. Not
    much nutrition there.

    Reply: #14
  11. Charles Grashow
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/learning-to-cut-the-sugar/?_r=0
    Dr. Robert Lustig became widely known as “the anti-sugar guy” after a lecture of his called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” was posted on YouTube and gained widespread attention.

    Q.A lot of the recipes in your book use fruit to add sweet flavors. Was this a way to limit refined sugar?

    A.Exactly. People always say to me, “What about fruit? It has sugar.” But I have nothing against fruit, because it comes with its inherent fiber, and fiber mitigates the negative effects. The way God made it, however much sugar is in a piece of fruit, there’s an equal amount of fiber to offset it.

    There’s only one notable exception: grapes. Grapes are just little bags of sugar. They don’t have enough fiber for the amount of sugar that’s in them. But I have nothing against real food, and that includes real fruit. Eat all the fruit you want. It’s only when you turn it into juice that I have a problem with it, because then it loses its fiber.

    SO - Lustig says - eat ALL the fruit you want!!

    SO - haz your pineapple for desert!!

    Reply: #16
  12. FrankG
    So because Dr Lustig said that, I can safely ignore the dangerously high readings my Blood Glucose meter shows me when I eat fruit?
  13. FrankG
    Oh and he is also wrong about "God" making fruit :-P

    Unless maybe we don't mindlessly just take everything he says literally...

  14. Pete
    Cameron's first child had cerebral palsy and died aged six. Whilst checking this, it turns out the photo is from earlier this year when Samantha Cameron hosted a charity breakfast at Downing Street. The pictured children have CP and Down's. According to reports, their breakfast consisted of toast, crumpets, Lurpak Spreadable (butter and vegetable oil), Marmite, jam, honey and orange juice.
    Reply: #15
  15. bill
    Thanks for that. What a crappy meal to feed them.
  16. bill
    Charles:

    Really?......Really? You're gonna bring up Lustig to me?

    Don't make me quote page 69 in his book Fat Chance.

    He's clueless.

    Reply: #17
  17. Charles Grashow
    Is he "clueless" because he now says fruit is okay to eat?

    Quote me page 69 in his book.

  18. Charles Grashow
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scien...

    SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF ROBERT LUSTIG’S FAT CHANCE
    MARK KERN, PHD, RD, CSSD,
    PROFESSOR OF EXERCISE AND NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

    Reply: #38
  19. Connie
    Fruit is nature's candy. Not necessarily for a healthy diet, especially if your diabetic. Berries in small quantities is usually acceptable. Of course, if you want to take diabetic meds the rest of your life, continue to eat fruit. I would rather stay off the meds.
  20. Connie
    Don't get me wrong, if your not a diabetic, fruit is definitely an option.
    Reply: #36
  21. Cameron Hidalgo
    Diabetics, even though they now making up 10% of the population, should not be taken into consideration when discussing a healthy diet. That is like ruling out nuts or shellfish because some people are allergic.
  22. Apicius
    Good post Boundless....can't believe fructose has an org on the internet. It's like the devil himself running the show.

    I think the sneaky BS that they alluded to on the fructose.org site is that fructose is metabolized differently (goes to the liver first, unlike glucose that goes directly into the blood). But then they don't continue this misguided logic...where the liver gets damaged, and still creates metabolic derangement.

  23. FrankG
    OK... let's back up and actually read the article posted in this blog post.
    Note the first two words, Added Fructose

    Who (other than $hit stirring CG) has suggested anything about a total ban on fruit as part of an healthy diet?

    Read Dr Andreas'About LCHF page for advice on how to include fruit depending on your own personal preferences and make-up.

    As for excluding diabetics from this discussion: again look to the posted link.

  24. erdoke
    If you have perfectly healthy metabolism without any signs of insulin resistance you probably could have pineapple for dessert after every meal. Assuming of course that meal means some real food.
    When we talk about insulin resistant and/or diabetic people, the whole story is different. Also, to fix, or if it is not possible to fully cure, to remedy a certain degree of metabolic derailment, much more strict intervention is necessary than just to maintain health.
    Do not forget that these forums are full of people looking for or being through such a dietary intervention. We tend to identify the whole world as subject to this intervention which has obviously brought success and relief in our lives. This is not necessarily the case.
  25. FrankG
    See, the problem here is that fruit is not an issue per se, heck not even added sugar is an issue per se...

    The problem is the quantity and quality of these "foods" in the western industrial diet. As I often remind my son at Univeristy, "it's OK to have an occasional pizza, or a couple of beers... it's what we eat everyday that really matters"

    The problem is jacka$$e$ like CG who take a reasonable recognition that many of us need to reduce the amount of ADDED fructose in our daily diets, as somehow an admonition to rid your life of all fruit at all costs! You can pry my banana out of my cold dead hands!"

    You see, even I include some frozen, local, wild blueberries in what I eat... usualy with plenty of heavy cream and/or plain yoghurt BUT I recognise that for me, in my individual situation, eating 30 bananas a day is not a recipe for an healthly long life. No matter what you may quote, out of context, from Dr Lustig!

    ---

    Once agan erdoke I urge you to read the actual article. This was not about fruit until CG starting striring the pot. The article comes out in favour of fruit but against ADDED fructose.

    Reply: #26
  26. erdoke
    I believe I read that article back when it came out. I see no discrepancy in our opinions.
    Just as a side note, there are always wierd experiments. For example this is just out and look at the conclusions they draw. All this based on cell cultures and obviously without proper understanding of insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and T2DM.
    http://www.jnutbio.com/article/S0955-2863(14)00208-3/pdf
  27. Eddie Mitchell
  28. Eddie Mitchell
  29. Murray
    I'd cut grains before fruit. Actually, I did. The only regular fruit I eat now are unprocessed cranberries (not the dried ones covered with sugar and oxidized vegetable oil) and wild blueberries, about 30 grams total per day, which is just a couple of grams of sugar. (Cranberries I understand have tocotrienols, so I eat them daily.) Maybe some other berry that is not that sweet: blackberry, raspberry, Saskatoon berry, etc. All other fruits are condiments. I get the flavour without the sugar buzz.

    As to fruit generally, toxicity is in the dose. It also depends if you want to be keto.

    The fibre explanation for fruit being benign is bunk. If you eat added sugar with a heap of fiber it will be no better than eating the sugar alone. What matters is whether the sugar is acellular--processed to be outside the cells, whether by refinement or by making a smoothie. The glycemic index of a smoothie is far higher than eating the same fruit unprocessed. Also, sugar outside cells feeds biofilms in the upper gut, which is not a good thing. It appears something about the cells resists the biofilm bacteria, so eating unprocessed fruit (unlike refined sugar, processed fruit and acellular starch) does not contribute to biofilm issues. Since fruit shoots up blood sugar in typical quantity, it might well be the gut issues from acellular sugar that are the main health issue and not simply the effect on blood sugar. There seems to be a lot of conjecture on all sides here.

    Reply: #31
  30. Eddie Mitchell
    Over the years I have lost count of the arguments on forums and blogs, and read so many anti low carb propaganda articles in the media. Just about every dietitian and paid for nutrition expert on the payroll (and many are) kicks low carb in the head at every opportunity. But this is all total and utter nonsense. Check out the average low carbers meal plate, and do you know what I am seeing? I am seeing fresh home cooked food (via the shop) straight from the farm ! The big question is, how could these junk peddling dietitians and junk food shills kick a ‘Fresh Food Diet’ or what I called The ‘Clean Food Diet’ years ago. Are the junk food floggers ever going to win an argument by telling us processed food from a factory, loaded with chemicals, using techniques more akin to a petro/chem plant is a healthy way to live ? not in a million years !

    So, the bottom line here is, if you think about it, other than a few starchy vegetables and some fruits, pretty much all fresh food is low carb. Meat, fish, eggs, dairy and most vegetables, nuts, seeds and some fruits are all low in carbohydrates. Think about it, ! It’s the non fresh foods made in factories, much of it from junk, that are the high carb foods.

    So, the message from so many dietitians, and so called food and nutrition experts is, eat high carb junk. Just what their paymaster in junk food want. The real earner kicks in when people eat the non fresh food junk, they become ill, and big pharma is there to dole out the junk medication. Money for old rope eh. So many make a lot of money out of telling you lies, feeding you food that will make you ill, and you can become a slave to ill health and medication for the rest of your life. That’s the big plan folks, and it has worked wonderfully for years, BUT !

    All over the world people are waking up, big time. From ordinary people, to informed Doctors and Dietitians, who put their patients health first, before money. So many now realise they have been sold a complete crock. Many people are seeing a remarkable turnaround in their health, by dropping the junk and eating fresh food. Often big improvements are seen in days or weeks, not months or years.

    My friend Franziska a low carb dietitian in the US, has voiced her concerns for the future, regarding her departure from the mainstream dietary dogma, could this lead to trouble in the future? What could be her crime? telling her clients to eat fresh home cooked food, drink less alcohol, stop smoking, get a good nights sleep and exercise more? If that advice ever leads to a court case, count me in on making a financial contribution.

  31. erdoke
    In healthy (= insulin sensitive) people blood sugar increase within normal range is not a problem. BG goes up, insulin goes up, BG goes down, insulin drops. This is perfectly normal and occasional spikes of either BG or insulin represent no serious health risks until insulin sensitivity is retained. Continuously elevated insulin, as a result of insulin resistance, is the real problem. I have not heard about people who became insulin resistant only (or mainly) from incorporating fruits into an otherwise healthy diet. Again, reversing a condition that has been developed over years or decades of derailed nutrition is a completely different story.
    Reply: #32
  32. FrankG
    Your not having heard of something is not exactly evidence for anything, one way or another, is it?

    And I'm not sure how many people would still fit your "perfectly" metabolically healthy model these days..?

    But in any case, do you really think this blog post and/or discussion is about "incorporating fruits into an otherwise healthy diet" ..?

    In the context of the western industrial diet -- which is already overburdening too many with ADDED fructose -- eating fruit, or not, is probably of little consequence one way or the other, except for adding still more to that already toxic load.

    Everyone seems to think they are "perfectly healthy"... until they are not anymore.

  33. erdoke
    I only talked about insulin sensitive people and there are still plenty of them out there.
    On the other hand I do not really understand what we argue about anymore. I told you that I saw no big discrepancies in our views of the fructose topic.
    Although this beating around the bush is probably good for the site, bringing clicks... :)
  34. Jim
    The nice thing about fruit is antioxidants. Antioxidants are anti-inflammatory, and as such are effective against insulin resistance.

    Of course, the balance of antioxidants and sugar is crucial. That is why berries (in moderation) are fine: Low in sugar, high in antioxidants.

    I suppose you cannot become insulin resistant from eating whole fruit. First, you hardly can eat enough fruit to overload your (then still healthy!) metabolism. Second, there's no inflammation.

    But from isolated sugar/starch (or grains; where are their antioxidants?) one can acquire insulin resistance.

    Once you *are* insulin resistant, you cannot any more eat fruit as much as you want. You'd have to get rid of fat deposits and inflammation first. Which already was shown to be possible - but does not involve eating fruit (or sugar).

  35. eric
    Yes fructose is a problem small doses once a year are the historical normal.

    Grains gave bad teeth and shorter people.

    Hunter-gatherers had almost no malocclusion and dental crowding, and the condition first became common among the world's earliest farmers some 12,000 years ago in Southwest Asia, according to findings published (04 Feb 2015) in the journal PLOS ONE.

    By analysing the lower jaws and teeth crown dimensions of 292 archaeological skeletons from the Levant, Anatolia and Europe, from between 28,000-6,000 years ago, an international team of scientists have discovered a clear separation between European hunter-gatherers, Near Eastern/Anatolian semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers and transitional farmers, and European farmers, based on the form and structure of their jawbones.

    "Our analysis shows that the lower jaws of the world's earliest farmers in the Levant, are not simply smaller versions of those of the predecessor hunter-gatherers, but that the lower jaw underwent a complex series of shape changes commensurate with the transition to agriculture," says Professor Ron Pinhasi from the School of Archaeology and Earth Institute, University College Dublin, the lead author on the study.

    "Our findings show that the hunter gatherer populations have an almost "perfect harmony" between their lower jaws and teeth," he explains. "But this harmony begins to fade when you examine the lower jaws and teeth of the earliest farmers".

    In the case of hunter-gatherers, the scientists from University College Dublin, Israel Antiquity Authority, and the State University of New York, Buffalo, found a correlation between inter-individual jawbones and dental distances, suggesting an almost "perfect" state of equilibrium between the two. While in the case of semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers and farming groups, they found no such correlation, suggesting that the harmony between the teeth and the jawbone was disrupted with the shift towards agricultural practices and sedentism in the region. This, the international team of scientists say, may be linked to the dietary changes among the different populations.

    The diet of the hunter-gatherer was based on "hard" foods like wild uncooked vegetables and meat, while the staple diet of the sedentary farmer is based on "soft" cooked or processed foods like cereals and legumes. With soft cooked foods there is less of a requirement for chewing which in turn lessens the size of the jaws but without a corresponding reduction in the dimensions of the teeth, there is no adequate space in the jaws and this often results in malocclusion and dental crowding.

    The link between chewing, diet, and related dental wear patterns is well known in the scientific literature. Today, malocclusion and dental crowding affects around one in five people in modern-world populations. The condition has been described as the "malady of civilization".

    ###

    The international scientific team who conducted the study included: Professor Ron Pinhasi, School of Archaeology, University College Dublin; Dr Vered Eshed, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem; and Dr Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

    Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

    Media Contact

    Dominic Martella
    dominic.martella@ucd.ie
    003-538-729-59118

    @ucddublin

    http://www.ucd.ie
    More on this News Release
    Malocclusion and dental crowding arose 12,000 years ago with earliest farmers

    University College Dublin

    Journal
    PLOS ONE
    Funder
    European Research Council

    Keywords

    ANTHROPOLOGY
    ARCHAEOLOGY
    OLD WORLD

    More in Archaeology

    In a crisis, the bigger your social network, the better University of Arizona
    Malocclusion and dental crowding arose 12,000 years ago with earliest farmers University College Dublin
    Giant rodent used incisors like tusks University of York
    York academics reveal fishy cooking habits of North American hunter-gatherers University of York

    View all Archaeology news
    Trending Science News

    Hubble captures rare triple-moon conjunction NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
    Malocclusion and dental crowding arose 12,000 years ago with earliest farmers University College Dublin
    High efficiency concentrating solar cells move to the rooftop Penn State
    Turing also present at the nanoscale Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences

    View all latest news
    EurekAlert! The Global Source for Science NewsAAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Science

    Copyright © 2015 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

    Breaking News RSS Feed
    All EurekAlert! RSS Feeds
    @EurekAlertAAAS
    facebook.com/EurekAlert

    Help / FAQ
    Disclaimer
    Privacy Policy
    Terms & Conditions
    Contact EurekAlert!

    Ad by ShopperMaster | Close
    Ad by ShopperMaster | Close

  36. BobM
    I'm insulin resistant, and for me fruit (other than the occasional berry or a few berries) is not an option. Fruit causes my blood sugar to rise too much. To maintain my weight, I need to eat very few carbohydrates a day, basically just meat, eggs, vegetables, and a little cheese/cream.
  37. Hazel
    BobM: Me too Bob; I haven't had fruit for over 5 years (more for whoever wants my portions!) and no longer have any interest in it. I've lost 27% of my original body weight (fat) and feel great at 5 months into my 7th decade.
  38. Lisa
    Charles Grashow,

    Mark Kern, PHD, RD, CSSD, Professor of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences at San Diego State University is paid by the Corn Refiners Association for writing articles in support of their products, which would make Lustig a target because he strongly discourages consumers from eating foods that contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)...

    http://sweetenerstudies.com/about

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts