Do the antioxidants in fruits/berries "cancel out" the increased glycation+inflammation caused by the sugar they have in them?

[InquilineKea]

BOTH in diabetics and non-diabetics

Someone floated the theory.

Edited April 20 by InquilineKea

[mccoy]

No, probably they are not correlated, fruit does have its health benefits, actually is one of the healthiest foods, but those benefits can be diminished by sugar intolerance or some unwanted effects of fructose, which can increase uric acid among other things. It is wrong to demonize fruit, but individual situations may dictate moderation.

The above comes from a formerly huge fan of fruit, former eater of ample amounts of it.

The antioxidants and active phytochemicals are often mainly contained in the skin apparently, so by eating only the skin, in theory the benefits could be reaped without the potential deleteriousness (which is related to individual situations and to quantity, actually).

 

The main benefit of fruit that I am aware of is that it can be eaten before or while exercising heavily, providing quick energy. It can constitute a whole portable meal which is very easily digested. 

[Todd Allen]

8 hours ago, mccoy said:

It is wrong to demonize fruit, but individual situations may dictate moderation.

I agree.  I believe berries are healthier than refined sugar for their anti-oxidants and many other properties.  But as someone who has experienced significant health improvement after achieving good blood glucose numbers I think the idea that anti-oxidants are sufficient to counter the damage of elevated volatile blood glucose is ridiculous.   I regularly consume berries but with restraint to not exceed my blood glucose limits.  I expect there are a significant number of people who incorrectly assume they have no blood sugar issues and misjudge their personal health tradeoffs of fruit consumption.