Jump to content
Greg Scott

hazards and benefits of a fruitarian on CR

Recommended Posts

Fruit-lovers everywhere will rejoice after reading this post about a 2012 study (PMID 23245604) that I just stumbled across showing low fruit consumption was the #1 dietary factor contributing to worldwide mortality between 1990 and 2010, resulting in an excess of 4.9 million deaths per year worldwide. Eating more fruit would be more beneficial for reducing worldwide mortality than eating more nuts, vegetables, whole grains or legumes.

Read it and weep, fruit-bashers... ☺



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm upping this thread, since it contains lots of interesting material, compliments of Dean, about the fruit controversy.


To tell the truth, the fact that fruit is good for health to me has always been a Bayiesian prior (a known fact). All the literature on natural lyfestye, holistic medicine and even Yoga nutrition has underlined the benefits of fresh fruit (the healthiest, most sattvic food). Not to mention that, in my n=1 experiments of over 4 decades, fruit has never showed to be deleterious, barring extreme overindulgence.


So, we have a bayesian prior wich underlines the overall benefits of fruit

We have now a bayesian likelyhood (data) which provides evidence of the benefits touted by the holistic school

The posterior bayiesian is a more robust statement like: fruit is an absolutely healthy food in most healthy people.


The fact that fruit has been demonized by the recent dietary trends, is but a testament to the craziness of such trends.


Of course such trends (the ketogenic diet for example) may be beneficial to some individuals in specific conditions or with specific mindsets. Those are individual cases though, often limited, not to be generalized.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about excess glycation caused by fructose? Fructose causes glycation as much as 10 times higher than glucose and possibly accelerates aging. Some of this effect could be reduced by polyphenols and vitamin C from fruit though.






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

While some argue that even some HFCS isn't so bad ( good debate here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/) a softer position is that fructose is fine provided it is derived rather than from HFCS comes instead from of a Whole Foods diet with reasonable amounts of fruit.


The citations above are either basic science mechanisms ( NB, yes per fructose concentration fructose yields more AGE than glucose, but it NET yields far less fructose than either glucose or normal metabolism because the in vivo concentration of fructose is much lower than glucose: https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016/06/10/start-here-for-glycation-and-ages/), or ( esp animal models) pure fructose intake ( as opposed to Whole Foods) - these tend to be less reliable than interventional studies in people with real food in realistic portions - none of which to my knowledge have demonstrated deleterious effects above and beyond increased calories.


No red flags at least for the short term variables assessed here consuming mountains of fruit ( along with a ton of vegetables too): https://www.crsociety.org/topic/11672-near-perfect-diet-study/.


The blue zones seventh day adventists were not geographically isolated yet 27% of calories from fruit ( two other blue zones 16% and 9% which is also not too shabby for Ikaria Greece & Nicoya CR) -- https://www.crsociety.org/topic/12341-recent-paper-on-cr . I think we can get carried away with basic science findings, and certainly individuals can vary in susceptibility, but the proof is in the pudding for real human populations in realistic Whole Foods settings.


I would stay away form HFCS, & added sweeteners esp. concentrated sources like Aguave nectar though.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't seem to get link to work but Al just posted this timely publication ( which may go too far the other direction, but time will tell): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28592611/


The accompanying commentary "Fructose: back to the future?" notes that:


"There is an important biological plausibility that supports a glycemic benefit of fructose. In addition to having a very low GI, emerging evidence also shows that low-dose fructose (#10 g/meal) may improve glycemic control through a “catalytic” effect on hepatic glucose metabolism by inducing glucokinase activity."


As usual, the dose makes the poison... or medicine, and the fundamental question is whether the range of fructose in reasonable fruit-derived diets is harmful, helpful or neutral and as usual I'm sure it depends on what you substitute it with/for & in what person ( genetics/epigenetics) and under what state of previous health or disease : in Okinawa they did just fine with virtually no fruit, just as the seventh day adventists did just fine with lots of it.


The argument here though is that while not required, it is unlikely to hurt much in the form of fruit, save perhaps with a few exceptions in the domain of metabolic individual genetic and health status circumstances.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean Pomerleau:  If there is too much fructose in circulation for the liver to handle, it can get converted to lipids and stored in the form of triglycerides, which are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome...

* * * * *

So the bottom line appears to be fruit is beneficial, rather than detrimental, when it comes to one of the main concern people have about it, namely that the fructose it contains will raise your triglycerides.



Cf. Effect of Fructose on Established Lipid Targets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials





Fructose had no effect on LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, or HDL-C in isocaloric trials. However, in hypercaloric trials, fructose increased apolipoprotein B (n=2 trials; mean difference = 0.18 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.30; P=0.005) and triglycerides (n=8 trials; mean difference = 0.26 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.41; P<0.001).

Pooled analyses showed that fructose only had an adverse effect on established lipid targets when added to existing diets so as to provide excess calories (+21% to 35% energy). When isocalorically exchanged for other carbohydrates, fructose had no adverse effects on blood lipids.[...]




Fructose might contribute to the hypoglycemic effect of honey







Honey is a natural substance with many medicinal properties, including antibacterial, hepatoprotective, hypoglycemic, antioxidant and antihypertensive effects. It reduces hyperglycemia in diabetic rats and humans. However, the mechanism(s) of its hypoglycemic effect remain(s) unknown. Honey comprises many constituents, making it difficult to ascertain which component(s) contribute(s) to its hypoglycemic effect. Nevertheless, available evidence indicates that honey consists of predominantly fructose and glucose. The objective of this review is to summarize findings which indicate that fructose exerts a hypoglycemic effect. The data show that glucose and fructose exert a synergistic effect in the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas. This synergistic effect might enhance intestinal fructose absorption and/or stimulate insulin secretion.


The results indicate that fructose enhances hepatic glucose uptake and glycogen synthesis and storage via activation of hepatic glucokinase and glycogen synthase, respectively. The data also demonstrate the beneficial effects of fructose on glycemic control, glucose- and appetite-regulating hormones, body weight, food intake, oxidation of carbohydrate and energy expenditure. In view of the similarities of these effects of fructose with those of honey, the evidence may support the role of fructose in honey in mediating the hypoglycemic effect of honey.

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article on honey is very interesting. I've always been an avid consumer of it, I'm going shopping for domestic and exotic honeys with renevwed eagerness!


I also wonder about tualang malaysian honey, cited at the end of the article, but apparently very expensive.


But I'm probably going to try it once in my lifetime...


Dark black Tualang honey sounds promising, a little crazy though at US$ 110 oper kilo (and plastic jar)... 133 US$ with shipping.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now