This line of discussion rather proves the original point. We don't know if unbounded fruit consumption is bad. Of course unbounded simple sugar consumption is (we think) but some evidence has shown that for whatever reason, sugars directly from fruit enter the blood stream slower. Maybe. :-)
I appreciate your answer, but I feel the need to point out that the original question still stands unanswered. Is there any evidence, weak as it may be, that FRUIT consumption is harmful in any way? (note: not that FRUCTOSE consumption is harmful. I'm aware of that. I'm looking specifically for FRUIT consumption).
> the difference between wild apples, cherries and strawberries and the ones you can buy in the supermarket.
Anecdotal, of course, but while I haven't had a chance to pick wild apples or cherries, I did have a chance to pick wile strawberries, raspberries and blackberries - and they were just as sweet and perhaps even sweeter than those I buy at the supermarket. They _were_ much smaller and not as nice looking, but were extremely sweet. Similarly for grapes.
I know for sure that e.g. industrially grown tomatoes have been optimized for size and looks at the EXPENSE of sugar (and other nutriet) content. This might also be true for other fruits and vegetables.
> NaCl is salt so it is chemically quite inert
That's exactly my point. It's possible that fruit is "inert" in its sugar effect - studies about pure fructose consumption are potentially irrelevant.
> But if you are a person with the metabolic syndrome, high insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes you just cannot assume that a diet of only bananas, ultra sweet apples, pomelo, peaches etc will do you much good.
Of course, but that's begging the question. If you are a person who suffers from hypertension, than you cannot assume that regular salt intake is good for you! But it is, for 80% of the cases - the remaining 20% being the salt-sensitive hypertension people.
You cannot assume that such a fruit diet will do much bad either. Doing so is blind faith. And that's exactly pron's point.
> Ask someone with great knowledge about human metabolism specifically for your case.
I've been looking for someone like that, but it seems that there are non to be found. Specifically, everything about my metabolism falls outside accepted wisdom; You'd expect the experts to want to look at evidence contradicting their predictions to learn to improve their predictions - but after talking to 30 or so "experts", I have not found one who has such an interest.
The more refined the source the faster it enters your bloodstream. That said, You should eat the fruit rather than consuming a juice.
At any rate the glucose uptake is generally lower with fruits, even if juiced (but whole fruits with fiber still intact are best). The rate at which simple sugars enter the blood is considered one of the primary problems, as this leads to a number of metabolic problems and higher generalized oxidation of body tissue.
Unlike added sugars fruits also have antioxidants and a number of other compounds and nutrients that do a swell job at negating these effects and even providing benefits (i suppose because a lot of fruit has surplus of Anti-Oxidant to Sugar Burn.
Everyone says this but it misses the point. Fruit in it's natural state is a complete package of nutrients, fiber, and unrefined sugar. It has less of an impact on blood sugar than processed food with the same amount of sugar.
> Juicing fruit makes it much easier to overconsume fruit sugar.
It's worse than simply making it easier to consume large quantities of fruit. Even if you consume only the same amount of fruit as you would be willing to eat unprocessed juicing it makes the sugars more available so that you over consume even without appearing to consume a lot.
It is a double edged sword though, because a LOT of people, including many health-conscious people, think of fruit and fruit juices as equivalent when they very much are not. You can drink down 4-7 apples/oranges/etc worth of nutrient-rich sugar juice in a matter of minutes, with only a fraction (or effectively zero) fiber. Quite terrible for the kinds of insulin and leptin resistance, ATP disrupting effects discussed in the paper. It's also worth remembering that many types of modern fruits are extremely sugary and tend to be relatively less fibrous and nutrient dense than historical, wild, and heirloom varieties.
"Eat whole fruits regularly and in moderation" is much better advice overall. Simple, to the point, and cuts out problematic ambiguities.
> From a combination of drinking fruit juices and [other stuff] ...
Yes! Juices and smoothies are bad for you. Eat fruit in solid form only, to make your digestive system work harder (as designed), and slow down your rate of calorie ingestion.
It's getting harder and harder to find fruit that hasn't been bred to maximised sugar content, though.
That's not really a concern as long as it's just fruit, not juice or processed fruit. There's so much fiber and water in fresh fruit, it's difficult to consume enough at a fast enough rate for the sugar intake to be problematic.
That's not a very good analogy, given that the only reason fruit is healthy is because of all the fiber that slows down sugar absorption. If you drank the same amount of sugar in a moderate amount of fruit as juice it would be unhealthy.
I'm actually curious about what this says about consuming fruits in large amounts ... since they are pretty much all fructose.
Some folks I know (I did for a bit) consume fruits with gusto, erroneously thinking they don't have effects close to what refined sugars have on the body
> I do want to mention that eating an apple is different from drinking juice made from that apple. The fruit itself contains fiber, which will slow the absorption of sugar and will mitigate some effects of it. When you press a fruit into juice you tend to lose the fiber.
Hmm. Potentially an argument for smoothies over juice?
It is and for a simple reason that we've known about for a long time: glycaemic index. If the sugars (fructose) are locked in a matrix of cellulose (AKA dietary fibre) they're released gradually as your body digests the bulk matter. If you plot the blood sugar concentration of the person consuming a solid piece of fruit you see a nice curve where the levels rise, peak, and non-violently fall.
Now when you process the fruit you're effectively pre-digesting it - the sugars are free of the cellulose matrix (the bulk of the fruit) and when you plot the blood sugar concentration after consumption of juice, because no work needs to be done to digest it, the blood sugar level quickly spikes. This provides a rush, then your insulin response peaks, sending your blood sugar levels crashing. This happens much faster than the curve in blood sugar from eating unprocessed fruit.
The only argument I'll accept from people who drink juice: They like it. That's OK. You're allowed to like things. I like beer, which acts similarly to juice with regards to blood sugar concentration.
Maybe, but I thought it has been relatively known for a decent while now that fruit juices weren't great for you due to the rate you ingest sugar from it. Maybe we'll learn they are more bad, but it's not like we didn't already know you should limit your sugary drinks.
I'm wondering why you're flagged. Yes, fruits have sugar (fructose), but when you're eating the fruit whole your comment is on point. The fiber in the fruit makes the sugar absorption slower.
Of course if you're drinking 2L of juice a day you're gonna have a problem, as you would going ham on any kind of food. (ANY)
reply