Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hanna on November 15, 2011, 02:40:00 am
-
I just googled and found this article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880)
BACKGROUND: The glycemic response to dietary fructose is low, which may improve concentrations of glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c), a marker of dysglycemia). Meanwhile, adverse effects on plasma triacylglycerol (a marker of dyslipidemia) and body weight have been questioned. Such effects are reported inconsistently.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of fructose on these health markers, particularly examining treatment dose and duration, and level of glycemic control.
DESIGN: A literature search was conducted for relevant randomized and controlled intervention studies of crystalline or pure fructose (excluding high-fructose corn syrup), data extraction, meta-analyses, and modeling using meta-regression. (...)
CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis shows that fructose intakes from 0 to >or=90 g/d have a beneficial effect on HbA(1c). Significant effects on postprandial triacylglycerols are not evident unless >50 g fructose/d is consumed, and no significant effects are seen for fasting triacylglycerol or body weight with intakes of <or=100 g fructose/d in adults.
So it seems that up to 50 g fructose (which corresponds to about 700 g bananas: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/what-are-you-eating-right-now/msg79692/#msg79692 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/what-are-you-eating-right-now/msg79692/#msg79692) http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/what-are-you-eating-right-now/msg79752/#msg79752 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/what-are-you-eating-right-now/msg79752/#msg79752)) is perfectly safe and does not accelerate aging. Right?
I also found this:
...some researchers consider small levels of fructose, say 25-50 grams/day, actually a good thing. In spite of all of its very dangerous properties, fructose can decrease HbA(1c) [prediabetic] levels, improve hypoglycemia effects [5] and potentially assist athletic performance and fueling. [4] (...) What I have found is that most experts consider about 50 grams/day of fructose to be completely safe.
http://www.peaktestosterone.com/Fructose_Levels.aspx (http://www.peaktestosterone.com/Fructose_Levels.aspx)
-
Different people have different limits after which it's not good for them.
I believe it depends on conditioning, how healthy they are and of course the source.
-
Phooey. Go by instinct, and trust your experience. We all may have different needs, anyway. My body's loving massive amount of fruit right now. I get very high-quality tropical fruit... for some reason I only love tropical fruit. I can eat a pear, but it's not the same; it's a funny thing. Melons in the summer are an exception, but otherwise I only eat tropical. Well, maybe dates don't count as tropical, I don't know. They're desert fruit. But not standard western fruits like apples and citrus...
-
I'm curious, too. I know that studies have shown that fructose is detrimental to health, but they were probably done using refined fructose or HFCS, right? Raw fruit would have a different effect I would think...
hopefully! ;-) Cuz its yummy!
-
They have absolutely no relationship. I ate thirty pounds of persimmons over the past two to three weeks, and I feel better than ever.
-
I haven't eaten a teaspoon of refined fructose for the last 30 years, only raw fruit. Fruits injury isn't overnight. It's over time, as in insulin resistance, and spikes in blood sugar, and associated effects. But then it is in relation to moderation, which for the most part I didn't have, for so many years I wanted fruit to be king. Just check out anyone who has tried to live mostly on it,,,and eventually Durianrider. When I first tried Wai diet and 80/20 I thought I had found it. But over time, well, that's when you notice. But a small amount included in diet is fine for me. But pay attention to how you feel hours after eating fruit in terms of blood sugar levels, like, an hour or two after eating fruit, has your blood sugar level dropped (or the feeling) and do you Have to eat something right away. That can be clue for you. I find I do best if I eat fruit after exercising. I think to simply wake up in the morning and eat fruit without any real activity is a real slap in the face for my blood sugar levels. Anyone living in past times eating lots of fruit, including primates, would have had to exercise heavily just to get the fruit. I believe that's what protected Doug Graham for so long, and is currently saving Durianrider.
-
In my recent personal experience there are honeys that will poison me and honeys that do not. A few days ago I had a client so I had the social brewed coffee and some raw wild honey in the hot coffee. Then blam it hit me like a truck. I had hypoglycemic symptoms. Damn.
-
In my recent personal experience there are honeys that will poison me and honeys that do not. A few days ago I had a client so I had the social brewed coffee and some raw wild honey in the hot coffee. Then blam it hit me like a truck. I had hypoglycemic symptoms. Damn.
It could be due to the different types of plants the bees feed on.
-
I'm experimenting right now if it was the COFFEE or the HONEY.
My preliminary result shows it's the COFFEE.
Will experiment more.
-
Surely honey in hot coffee = heated honey?
-
Coffee is extreme poison, so you'll have no way of knowing if the honey was bad, really. Incidentally, I've thought that it was weird that lots of you eat straight raw honey, especially with the mixed feelings towards fruit on this board. But I decided to give it a shot last time I went food shopping... bought a local raw honey, and four or five spoonfuls really hit the spot, actually. I haven't wanted it since, though. Seems like a power once-in-a-while food to me.
No doubt that the extreme near-fruitarian crowd is only managing to function because of their exercise obsession. Obviously, they do *nothing else in life* besides obsess over fruit and exercise.
I think it's pretty simple re how much fruit- it should taste insanely delicious every time you eat it. If it tastes anything short of insanely delicious it's not time for fruit. Sometimes I go overboard and then need a day off from fruit. Today may be such a day....
-
No doubt that the extreme near-fruitarian crowd is only managing to function because of their exercise obsession. Obviously, they do *nothing else in life* besides obsess over fruit and exercise.
Don't forget trolling online, and lying about how good their health is. DR must have worked off quite a few calories over the years, trolling here and rawfoods.com, etc..
ROFL
-
Oh, a very good point- that internet trolling is like a fucking full-time job. Who knows how they even have time for their sugar bingeing and running around in circles all day. No, seriously, what is usually the reality with these types of people is that they believe their own lies; the lie takes on this epic character, and there's just no turning back at a certain point. But you also know you're lying at some deeper level, so for smug self-comfort you try to bring more people into your lie- this is called socio-pathology. They are *sick* fucking people, and I mean that in every sense of the term.
I think spiritual growth is all about wide open exploration, admitting you were wrong and changing and acknowledging how little you know the more you know... but the irony is the people who know the least are often the loudest, dragging all sorts of innocents into their ignorant fold with their hyper-activism.
-
for what its worth..
too much of anything can be disruptive to bodily homeostasis, and too much for one person may not be enough for another, so the question is what is too much?
fortunately the body 'talks'.
-
I think spiritual growth is all about wide open exploration, admitting you were wrong and changing and acknowledging how little you know the more you know... but the irony is the people who know the least are often the loudest, dragging all sorts of innocents into their ignorant fold with their hyper-activism.
Yup. I've noticed there also seems even amongst good-hearted and grounded people the need to 'save' others on the internet. Although I guess 9/10 thats some kind of way to self-confirm one's own beliefs as well.
---
I was on DG's vegsource fruit board 6 years ago. He always came across like George's dad on the "Serenity Now" episode of Seinfeld. Like you could see over the internet his temple was throbbing while attempting to hold back mega-ego smugness and unbalanced explosion. Its odd now that the guy seems like a saint compared to the clowns that have come after. I remember he even said it was ok to eat some sushi.
I guess when you come from near perfect health it may take a few decades to trash your health completely eating tons of fruit. I don't personally think it matters what else is in the diet. People actually do seem to do better on diets with other sugars/starches even when they arn't trying to be healthy. People put effort into removing toxins and eating what they think is healthy and just age way faster and develop issues with hormones an a variety of other problems that can be avoided with a shift in perspective. Perhaps if someone is really balancing their profile like on R.Peat diet (and not therefore eating more than half their calories from fruit) that may buffer things somewhat or even be beneficial to eat more fruit, but I'm not particularly convinced. If one does actual research into how the body works, I don't think raw muscle meats and fats or veg 'cut it' for balance, and limiting fructose may indeed be more of an issue on these type of diets.
IMO, most people that eat tons of fruit have the same pathology to fruit eating vegans/veg in regards to emotional sensitivities and other even physical traits. Other-non-fruit heavy eating veg/vegans sometimes do not have these qualities despite eating less natural/more toxic crap.
-
For most people I don't personally think the issue with fruit is fructose, but I do have a strong guess that fresh fruits can in fact be worse than pure fructose,sucrose,starch and other sugars that are not as fementable/fibrous or raw. Its how the things are digested (or not) and issues of bacteria/yeasts/molds and NOT the numeric amount of sugar/fructose etc..in fruit. This of course is always going to come up in a textbook as less toxic/less damaging/lower GI , more natural etc..than that of other sugars and starches, but what is happening in reality?
These issues likely wern't a problem in nature and healthy people with truly healthy/fresh/ripe fruits. On the other hand, some of the other factors with sugars (BG spike etc..) still would be there, and there are likely a variety of reasons why traditional people in the tropics don't eat more fruits as the bulk of their diet even when abundant. Or we evolved in areas where such was seasonal and it was an advantage to have these temporary effects on insulin etc...
-
I'd agree with KD that a percentage of people just can't digest that much fruit.
I remember the case of a patient I cured of deathly pneumonia for 10 days living with him.
He was not a fruit person.
I first gave him fruits, but he wasn't digesting them.
So I shifted him onto a majority raw meat paleo diet.
And that healed him of pneumonia.
-
IMO, most people that eat tons of fruit have the same pathology to fruit eating vegans/veg in regards to emotional sensitivities...
Yes, the extreme sensitivity is one of the most insidious aspects, because it's easy to start believing that the sensitivity could maybe be helping you, by keeping you extra-aware of possible dangers. There is, of course, never any PROOF that it is helping you, but it's possible to start believing it, instead of requiring direct proof.
Then idiots like DG tell you that meat eaters are burying their emotional issues with food, and that fruit forces you to deal with those problems, and then you start to believe that you need the sensitivity to help heal your emotional problems.
It's just a fucking mess.
-
These issues likely wern't a problem in nature and healthy people with truly healthy/fresh/ripe fruits.
The more beef fat and/or lamb fat I eat the less I'm able to handle fruit. My raw beef zero carb experiments caused fructose malabsorption. Whereas raw coconut milk and raw olive oil improve my fructose digestion.
So, the question for me is: Is it natural to be unable to eat fruit? Sounds illogical, even if I would never recommend a high fruit diet.
I think that many other people get fructose malabsorption problems like me, via animal fats, whereas cooked animal fats are worse.
Löwenherz
-
I should add the notion that raw WILD animal foods of ANY kind never caused digestive problems with fruits. I have never seen really fatty meat from a wild animal so far. The only exception is wild boar, but that fat is very different. And wild boars usually feast on corn fields.
Löwenherz
-
I think I have some useful information to add to this discussion.
I have been very sick for a very long time due to many weird food intolerances. My full history is much to long to go into at this time. However, I almost died about 7 years ago. By accident I discovered I could eat goat milk yogurt and raspberries. I ate only these two foods 5 times a day for 2 entire years. Then my body got tired of this and didn't want it anymore. I experienced enough improvement in my digestive capacity that I was able to switch over to raw beef, olive oil, and leafy greens. I ate this 3 times a day for the next 2 years.
However, I did not like eating animals, and I found Doug Graham's book on 80/10/10 RV and decided to give it a try. I knew from past experience that most all fruit did not make me feel particularly well (the raspberries were an exception), but I thought maybe it was because I always ate a pretty high fat diet, and maybe this was interfering with my body's ability to process the sugar in fruit (as Graham claims). I proceeded to eat the 80/10/10 way for the next 1.5 years, before coming to the conclusion that it was making me really sick and that low fat did not change my body's response to the sugar in fruit.
I became friends with a few other struggling 80/10/10-ers as we tried to figure out why the heck we felt so darn awful on that diet. Recently, one of these people found a book called The Sugar Fix by Dr. Richard Johnson (available through Amazon). This book is full of science and very eye-opening. I highly recommend it. The author explains that fructose metabolism created uric acid as a breakdown by-product. How much uric is created depends on how many fructokinase enzymes a pperson produces. The more fructokinase enzymes produced, the more uric acid that is created. Uric acid is directly linked to all of the Syndrome X illnesses (high blood pressure, high HDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, insulin resistence, and obesity).
There seems to be a subset of the population (30%?) that is much more fructose sensitive than others and it is most like due to the fact that they produce higher amounts of fructokinase enzymes than others. Glucose does NOT cause these problems. However, if you are fructose sensitive and develop insulin resistance, then your body will have difficulty removing all sugars from your blood stream and you will want to avoid glucose as well, until you things back in normal working order.
Okay, so honey is extremely high in fructose with very little glucose, therefore not recommended as a regular thing. Most fruit is 50/50 fructose/glucose; however, some fruits have much more fructose than glucose and this is not a good thing for people who are sensitive to fructose.
I could never figure out why certain fruit, like watermelon and pears, always made me feel super duper extra bad, and now I know: they have much higher levels of fructose than glucose. I have also recently discovered two disorders that prevent proper fructose metabolism.
The first is: Fructose Malabsorption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorption)
The second is: Hereditary Fructose Intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_fructose_intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_fructose_intolerance)
FM is believed to affect as much as 30% of the population to one degree or another; HFI, however is much more rare and is believed to occur in 1 of 20,000 people. After reading everything I can about all of these different "fructose" problems, I have come to the conclusion that my symptoms have a very close fit to HFI.
I share many similarities with others (whom I have met through another on-line forum dedicated to people with HFI) who have this illness, which are too numerous to explain here. I have not yet been tested (saving my money), but I have taken the step to remove as much fructose from my diet as I possibly can (it is not as easy as one might think especially if one wants to be a vegan!, since almost all vegies have some small amount of frucose as well as fruits), and I feel much better all ready.
In retrospect, I now realize that my two successful periods with yogurt/raspberries and meat/oil/green were most likely due to the extremely low fructose content of those foods. My point in offering you all of this information is to show that, yes, different people do react very differently to fruit and other sources of fructose in the diet than others, and we need to respect our individual differences. If anyone has any questions about this please feel free to ask here or email me privately.
Esmée :)
-
Here is a GOOGLE document I put together listing everything I know to date about the potential problems with fructose metabolism:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yxI9yxYEpDolB1X9JVxOObb_FCRfmj-u1SCiZ7O01j4/edit?hl=en_US# (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yxI9yxYEpDolB1X9JVxOObb_FCRfmj-u1SCiZ7O01j4/edit?hl=en_US#)
-
So which raw paleo diet food sources have lots of the desired GLUCOSE (instead of fructose)?
-
all fruits are basically 50/50 fructose/glucose. the only source of glucose is from starches: potatoes, other tubers, and grains mostly (which all require cooking), so there really isn't any raw source that I am aware of. sugar of any kind is really not part of a raw paleo diet.
-
. sugar of any kind is really not part of a raw paleo diet.
different people do react very differently to fruit and other sources of fructose in the diet than others, and we need to respect our individual differences.
You do realize these two statements are somewhat contradictory, right?
Some people do just fine with large amounts of fruit. Some people do better with none at all. Some people's tolerance for fruit changes over time.
Our ancestors probably did eat fruit in Africa from time to time. It's Africa, it's tropical, it has fruit.
However, the low-Brix fruit that is mostly what's sold these days is not worth eating. The quality of the fruit makes as much of a difference as your individual tolerance of fruit, I think. They're both important, though.
-
in my studies of the hunting and gathering diets, i do not recall any group i studied as eating a lot of fruit. it is possbile that some hunters and gathers did eat some, but it was never the main part of their diet. the Yanamamo indians in the amazon eat lots of plantains, but they are not hunter-gatherers--they are slash-and-burn agriculturalists. please let me know if you come across a group of hunter-gatherers that relied largely on fruit. Every group of hunter-gatherers I read about ate wild game, tubers, legumes, and nuts, with occassional seasonal fruit, like the watermelon eaten by the Kung! in the Kalahari desert of Africa.
We were pushed out of the jungle before we became modern human beings and that was quite a long time ago, so I don't think we have had access to fruit year-round or any other sugar until very recently in our history. Some people can handle the change better than others, but since over 1/3 of all Americans are now classed as obese, I would say that quite a few of us are not genetically adapted for a diet high in fructose, whether from fruit or otherwise. My mother went on a LFRV with me for a year, and her HDL dropped to 14, her LDL went up to 145 (total cholesterol 189), triglycerides 179, and liver enzymes were in very bad shape with GGT at 210, ASAT at 91, and ALAT at 106! None of this good.
There is no modern society that eats a diet based on fruit and this is probably because it is not a sustainable diet for the majority of any human population. This does not mean some people cannot do so (as witnessed by Anne Osborne, Julie Suiter, and Kveta Martinec) and still be healthy, but it is very unlikely that the majority of people could.
I hope this helps to help clarify what I am trying to say. I really don't care what you, or anyone else, eat(s) as an individual, as long as you feel good doing it. That is all that really matters. I posted the above information for those who may not feel best on fruit and wonder why.
-
Thank you Esmee, you have taught me something new. I never knew about the uric acid from breakdown of frucose and that we differ in our fructokinase levels. I had intuitively figured out that lots of fruit in the diet wasn't working for me but now I understand a little more why that is. I will check out that book by Richard Johnson. I think a small about of high-quality fruit is useful in the diet as a source of micronutrients but the evidence does seem to point to fruit not being a huge proportion of the paleo diet. Paleo people would have made dietary choices based on factors such as availability and satiety. Fruits are available for a limited time and when ripe are difficult to collect and transport. They also have a short period of ripeness, lack the fat which causes satiety, contain sugars which create hunger pangs, and are protein deficient. That is probably why they do not seem to be a major part of the diets of modern hunter-gathers.
-
Great info Esmee! I like your name. Being someone with problematic reactions to sugar I'm totally on board but I'm not advanced enough to know how the different sugars play a role in health. I've come at it more from a practical, in the strict sense of the word, than scientific approach. I knew something I was eating was causing my infections and other issues but took me a long time to narrow it down to sugar. I still don't do well with the stuff but can tolerate a lot more now that I'm RVAF. Thanks for sharing, will be reading in to it more!
-
You are welcome. Glad it was helpful to you both. I just received my copy of Fructose Exposed by Dr. Lyons and it already looks like a keeper. He says no more than 15 gms of fructose a day, while Dr. Johnson says no more than 30 gms a day.
I think that berries are one of the best choices in the fruit department fro atting phytonutrients without getting too much fructose.
-
Yeah, I have been thinking of switching most of my fruit over to berries...unfortuently the best ones this time of year are all frozen. But I think they are individually quick frozen or something like that (Stahlbush Island Farms brand--they are SO much tastier than most frozen berries. I should Brix-test them and see if they really are as good as they taste), so I imagine that will preserve a good amount of the nutrients. I think vitamin C (and probably some enzymes and bacteria) are the main things that are depleted by freezing.
Berries do just seem to have the best sugar/fructose to nutrition ratio! :-)
-
yes, Stahlbush are the best in my opinion and I actually think they are better than most fresh i have tried because they can be pick RIPE without having to be shipped to market. I lived off nothing but goat milk yogurt and frozen raspberries for 2 whole years. it saved my life. i think frozen berries still have alot of integrity.
-
Well thank you for that anecdote, Esmee! That does make me feel better about frozen berries. I think that fresh meat is a lot more important than fresh berries/fruits. Obviously no frozen veggies, since they are mostly blanched (cooked), but those aren't TOO hard to find around here in the winter--unfortuently nothing locally grown though.
-
I don't know if this has been mentioned but Aajonus' opinion is 1 serving of fruit a day is the limit he recommends.
Maybe coconut milk he does not count as fruit.
-
Yeah, I don't think he counts coconut as a fruit--I think its technically a nut, right? I would eat coconut, but I can't find a source of any good ones around here, as I live VERY far from anywhere that they can grow! :-(
What are your feelings regarding frozen berries/fruit, GS? I'm sure you never have to resort to such things yourself (lucky!!!) but I was wondering what you thought about it.
-
We don't get much berries like you do in your part of the world. I don't usually like buying imported stuff. We have some strawberries from the commercial mountain area, but they are sprayed, not organic.
This morning I was walking around our village and came upon an aratilis tree with some ripe aratilis berries, I got 4 i think.
There aren't enough berries in my part of the world to treat as staple food.
-
A dose of fructose induces oxidative stress during endurance and strength exercise.
Fernández JM, Da Silva-Grigoletto ME, Gómez-Puerto JR, Viana-Montaner BH, Tasset-Cuevas I, Túnez I, López-Miranda J, Pérez-Jiménez F.
Source
Lipids and Atherosclerosis Research Unit, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Córdoba, CIBER Fisiopatologia de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBEROBN), Spain. juf_nutryinves@yahoo.com
Abstract
This study sought to compare the time course changes in oxidative state and glycemic behavior when glucose or glucose plus fructose are consumed before endurance and strength exercise. After two weeks on a controlled diet, 20 physically trained males ingested an oral dose of glucose or glucose plus fructose, 15 min before starting a moderate-intensity 30-min session of endurance or strength exercise. The combination resulted in four randomized interventions: glucose or glucose plus fructose + endurance exercise and glucose or glucose plus fructose + strength exercise, which were implemented consecutively in random order at 1-week intervals. Plasma concentration of lipoperoxides, oxidized LDL, reduced glutathione, catalase and glycemia were determined at baseline, during exercise and acute recovery. Following the ingestion of glucose plus fructose, lipoperoxides, catalase and reduced glutathione depletion were significantly higher than following consumption of glucose, for both endurance and strength exercise (P < 0.05). Oxidized LDL-c was higher after glucose plus fructose than after glucose alone in endurance exercise (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the glycemic peak between glucose plus fructose and glucose ingestion in endurance exercise trials. In strength exercise, the post-absorptive glycemic peak was less when the participants ingested glucose plus fructose than glucose (P < 0.05), and a second peak was found in the recovery phase of this group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the addition of fructose to a pre-exercise glucose supplement triggers oxidative stress.
-
Maybe ambient temperature affects fructose metabolism?
I tolerate fruit much better in the summer and tolerate meat much better in the winter.
-
I tolerate fruit much better in the summer and tolerate meat much better in the winter.
[/quote]
Ditto. I find a significant difference. But I live up north.
-
Probably because we're usually more active (more carb use) in the summer?
-
A dose of fructose induces oxidative stress during endurance and strength exercise.
Interesting.. as far as I know for endurance training glucose and fructose are recommended in 1:1 ratio for fastest glycogen repletion, since they are metabolized via different metabolic pathways. Here's a recent paper which shows that fructose+glucose is likely superior for performance:
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2010/12000/Fructose_Addition_to_a_Glucose_Supplement_Modifies.19.aspx (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2010/12000/Fructose_Addition_to_a_Glucose_Supplement_Modifies.19.aspx)
I would take these studies with a grain of salt though, usually they are performed using pure glucose/fructose which may not translate perfectly to real life.
-
Dr. Robert Lustig in his lecture (viewable on YouTube) called Sugar: The Bitter Truth says that the only people who really benefit from fructose are ehdurance and high-intensity athletes because it does improve (re)hydration of the cells. So, you are correct about that. But that level of exercise may not be particularly natural, at least not on a daily basis, and it, too, has been shown to cause increased oxidative damage. Doug Graham has been eating a high-fructose diet and running long distances for years and, in my opinion, looks older than many others who do not eat a high-fructose diet or run marathons. Not that longevity is the be all and end all of life though; it is far more important to have fun and do what you love even if that entails a bit more oxidative stress than the average person.
-
People in the blogosphere didn't learn the lesson from the demonization of all meats based on questionable assumptions and shoddy studies on saturated fats and are now ramping up the demonization of all fruits based on multi-heated and refined high fructose corn syrup. There are some voices of reason in the Wilderness:
"It's pretty clear that unless you cross the line of 50 grams of fructose daily (Staffan Lindeberg kept quoting the figure of 5 pineapples, which seems like nearly a physically impossible amount of sweet fruit for a non-fruitarian), your liver is well able to handle the amount in most fruit. Going nutty with the dried fruit and fruit juice is a different story. I think folks who have sugar-related emotional eating might to better getting rid of fruit for a time, or maybe forever, but for most it is a healthy part of the diet." -Emily Deans, PhD, http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2012/03/reviews-of-escape-diet-trap-eat-like.html (http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2012/03/reviews-of-escape-diet-trap-eat-like.html)
-
According to Cron-O-Meter, 1 pineapple has 20 gms of free fructose and 25 gms of fructose bound to glucose (to form a sucrose molecule), so it looks like 1 pineapple would give a person close to the 50 gms you are referencing. However, several very reputable researchers in this field are recommending no more than 15-30 gms a day. The main thing is to watch your own body, as fructose will cause uric acid levels to rise. However, one person may only be able to eat 10 gms while another may be able to eat 50 gms with no problem, depending on each persons ability to process fructose. I personally know someone who gets gout with the inclusion of a very small amount of fruit in their diet. So, it is not just the HFCS that is the problem.
-
Although not all wild fruits are as big and sweet as our modern cultivars, at least some are, and certain varieties even surpass our deliberately-bred fruits in size and flavor. Nature—especially with selection pressure from other fruit-eating creatures—is perfectly capable of producing sweet (and sometimes massive) fruits without human intervention. It seems unlikely that early humans only ever encountered berries or other “small, bitter” fruits, and avoiding sweeter fruits on the basis of evolutionary history may be misguided.
Based on the limited research we have, wild fruits aren’t considerably different from cultivated fruit in terms of carbohydrate content, fructose content, or fiber content. Both wild and cultivated fruit seem to average around 90% of calories from carbohydrates, and have a sugar composition that yields roughly equal parts glucose and fructose. And both wild and cultivated fruit can be relatively high or low in fiber.
Although berries are often lauded as being lower in fructose compared to other fruits, from a calorie/energy standpoint, this just ain’t true!
Early humans may very well have had access to fruit for most or even all of the year. The fruiting seasons we witness in cooler climates—with most fruit appearing in the summer—doesn’t necessarily apply to our evolutionary homeland closer to the equator.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/ (http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/)
So there had been lots of big sweety wild fruits in ancient and paleo times. On average - 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Those fruits had been the main source of carbohydrates for humans.
It's also not true that they were only a few months a year - the vegetation was all year round
-
Interestingly, Staffan Lindeberg reported in Food and Western Disease: Health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective that his research found that wild fruits actually contain more fructose on average than domesticated fruits, not less.
He also said this on p. 115: "When fruits replace cereal grains, as will be the case for most Westerners with diabetes, The amount of fructose in 500 g of fruit is approximately 25 g (88), while available evidence suggests that a fructose intake below 60 g is safe. (1568, 1857)"
However, I didn't check his cited sources.
There's also this research review that found that crystalline or pure fructose (excluding high-fructose corn syrup, which apparently was correlated with harm--I don't know why it would be worse than crystalline fructose) in low amounts was correlated with benefit, rather than harm:
Fructose consumption and consequences for glycation, plasma triacylglycerol, and body weight: meta-analyses and meta-regression models of intervention studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880)
However, I didn't read the full study report, which is not available at the link, so maybe someone with access to it can poke holes in it.
-
iv been eating a lot less meat and a lot more whole fruit and juiced veges since its gotten really hot out here. Iv been feeling uncomfortable when iv tried to go against it due to my beliefs about diet but now that im just following my instinct I feel a lot better. I think its mainly the factors of personal need combined with season.