Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Eagle

If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?

Recommended Posts

Since this question has been brought up repeatedly in various threads and various people here argued that eating fruit is as bad as industrial fructose, here is the definitive answer:

TLDR: Enjoy your fruit without any worries, it's very healthy for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this question has been brought up repeatedly in various threads and various people here argued that eating fruit is as bad as industrial fructose, here is the definitive answer:

TLDR: Enjoy your fruit without any worries, it's very healthy for you!

Fructose is a mono sacharide, Sucrose, what we call plain"sugar" is a di sacharide, which is harder to digest. Not sure I can remember much organic chemistry now. Scrumping for apples never killed me yet! Although I am getting a bit too old for it! It;'s probably the other "bits" in the fruit that make it good for you.

Now for your next homework... :huh:

Have a look at

1) trans and cis isomers

2) chiral enantiomers

3) racemic mix

BTW I think fruit is good for you, and it is available naturally! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beware of vegans giving nutritional advice.

Yes, they look ill! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beware of vegans giving nutritional advice.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. :unsure:

In the video a doctor presents a series of scientific studies on the subject, what have vegans got to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally the men in suits, the makers of processed and chemically engineered foods will say natural foods are bad for you, buy our product, it's safer, healthier etc.

Much better than natures' millions of years of evolution. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well quite. It should hardly be a surprise that an abundant and highly complex food stuff that tastes good to us, and has likely co-evolved with us over millions of years is better for us than something first isolated in lab less than 200 years ago?

I rather like the adage that if you great-great grandmother wouldn't recognise it as food, don't eat it. Can't say I always stick to it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well quite. It should hardly be a surprise that an abundant and highly complex food stuff that tastes good to us, and has likely co-evolved with us over millions of years is better for us than something first isolated in lab less than 200 years ago?

I rather like the adage that if you great-great grandmother wouldn't recognise it as food, don't eat it. Can't say I always stick to it though.

Most fruit has been domesticated fairly recently.

Also, natural things arent always good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most fruit has been domesticated fairly recently.

Also, natural things arent always good for you.

Good job our staple is blackberries, still got one and a half draws full in the freezer...most definitely wild and non domesticated complete with the odd grub. Would be totally reprehensible for a HPCer not to fill his boots with free stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most fruit has been domesticated fairly recently.

Also, natural things arent always good for you.

Did it piss up walls and scratch sofa's before recently?

I agree though, we live in an age where 'fresh' fruit isn't what it used to be. Same for meat and veg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally the men in suits, the makers of processed and chemically engineered foods will say natural foods are bad for you, buy our product, it's safer, healthier etc.

Much better than natures' millions of years of evolution. :lol:

I'll take the processed fabrics covering my body than relying on just my body alone. I'll take medical intervention over leaving my body to sort itself out if I get more than a very minor injury. There are reasons to be suspicious of heavily processed and artificial foods but "millions of years of evolution" isn't a good argument against them (on the other hand "everything new is a godawful mess" probably is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did it piss up walls and scratch sofa's before recently?

I agree though, we live in an age where 'fresh' fruit isn't what it used to be. Same for meat and veg.

For example the domestic apple (Malus domestica) is only a few thousand years old, while Homo sapiens are 250,000 to 400,000 years old.

We certainly did not evolve with apples as a food source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example the domestic apple (Malus domestica) is only a few thousand years old, while Homo sapiens are 250,000 to 400,000 years old.

We certainly did not evolve with apples as a food source.

people who advocate Paleo diet ideas often claim we haven't been eating high starch foods like grains and tubers long enough to have evolved to deal with them properly. However, human populations worldwide have fairly uniform levels of amylase in their saliva and at about 8 times the amount in chimps or bonobos.

How long does evolution take to adapt for foods that have deleterious effects that generally impact individuals well after prime child rearing age, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most fruit has been domesticated fairly recently.

Also, natural things arent always good for you.

Sure, but berries? I suspect we've been eating those for millions of years. Plus I suspect most domesticated fruit are simply more productive wild types that were eaten previously. See also livestock. The sheep of today bears very little resemblance to wild ones from prehistoric times. It bears little resemblance to pre-1700s actually.

The debate, of course, is whether we have evolved in the last 10K years or so as we began farming and domestication of crops and animals. I'd argue that we likely have hence a greater tolerance for dairy products in populations that have traditionally eaten them for at least the past 1,000 years. Are some individuals intolerant of dairy or gluten? - of course they are. Might others perform better without them (though still be able to reproduce)? Of course, but we are moving up Maslow's hierarchy of needs here, not looking at natural selection and evolution. To me it looks like we have very few people who will not be able to successfully reproduce as a result of gluten or dairy intolerance today. That's probably because most of those who did didn't get to reproduce.

Regarding your second sentence. Traditionally, most natural things would likely kill you. But we discovered which ones were good to eat, which needed preparation, which were OK to eat in a pinch but might upset the stomachs of some and which were poisonous whatever you did. I don't see (m)any attempts to domesticate and eat the poisonous - because why would you bother? We simply taught our young to stay well clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its do to with quantities and rate of absorption.

Detrimental effects of fructose come from the rate of absorption in combination with the amount. Too much overloads the metabolic pathways in the liver and this stimulates the de novo lipogenesis pathway. This creates fatty acids and these accumulate in tissues. Fats in tissues causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and insulin resistance.

Fruits has a high water and fibre content. The former dilutes the fructose, the latter slows the rate of absorption. This decreases the flux through the de novo lipogenesis pathway and instead results in more glucose synthesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people who advocate Paleo diet ideas often claim we haven't been eating high starch foods like grains and tubers long enough to have evolved to deal with them properly. However, human populations worldwide have fairly uniform levels of amylase in their saliva and at about 8 times the amount in chimps or bonobos.

How long does evolution take to adapt for foods that have deleterious effects that generally impact individuals well after prime child rearing age, anyway?

What I'm trying to say is that its nonsense to advocate for dismiss any food on the basis of evolution.

We domesticated foods to be tasty and nutritious fairly recently in our history.

Paleoites who say you shouldn't eat apples then also should abstain from cabbage, cauliflower, brocolli, leaks, onions etc. All of which are artificially selected and don't occur in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that its nonsense to advocate for dismiss any food on the basis of evolution.

We domesticated foods to be tasty and nutritious fairly recently in our history.

Paleoites who say you shouldn't eat apples then also should abstain from cabbage, cauliflower, brocolli, leaks, onions etc. All of which are artificially selected and don't occur in nature.

Are you saying we should eat fruit and nuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that its nonsense to advocate for dismiss any food on the basis of evolution.

We domesticated foods to be tasty and nutritious fairly recently in our history.

Paleoites who say you shouldn't eat apples then also should abstain from cabbage, cauliflower, brocolli, leaks, onions etc. All of which are artificially selected and don't occur in nature.

The big problem with "Paleo" arguments is that no-one really knows what early Homo sapiens were eating. Probably wildly different diets in different areas.

It seems to me our digestive system actually really versatile. Apples probably aren't so wildly divergent from fruits encountered in pre-history, and obesity rates probably aren't highly correlated to changes in prevalence of different fruit strains in local horticulture. I think it's safe to assume that sticky toffee puddings and Coca Cola are significantly further from humans ancestral diet, yet we can consume them for many years as a significant part of our diets with only minor negative effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can easily eat 2000 calories of chocolate or cake in a day (about 400g)

I could probably force myself to drink 2000 calories of orange juice (3 or 4 litres)

I would fail by a large amount, if I tried to eat 2000 calories of fruit (30 to 40 apples, bananas or oranges)

Fruit is in my good books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beware of vegans giving nutritional advice.

Michael Greger who runs that site is a doctor who reads and interprets the results of the actual research papers. He is not a quack in my opinion.

As others have said, fruit comes with fibre and other goodies, so fruit is good. I'd be a bit more wary about jucing lots and lots of fruit and just drinking the juice, but a few bits of fruit a day is healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.