Getting fat on fruits.

[SeleucusNicator]

I have eaten Durian before. I find it far too sweet for my taste in fruit.

 

[El Sop]

It must depend on which fruits. My gf is on a diet right now and it seems that advocados, bananas but also grapes are strictly forbidden. Oranges and grapefruit are in the grey zone I think. Apples, pears and peaches are ok though.

 

[The Last Conformist]

By the way, Conformist, one tip about fruit, if you are going to eat it, do it on an empty stomache. Many people make the mistake of eating fruit for dessert. The problem with that is that most meals (especially meat/startch combinations) take about 4-8 hours to fully digest whereas fruit takes about 1 hour, so if you put fruit on top of a meal it will ferment in your gut and you won't feel so hot. Best to eat it for breakfast and maybe lunch and then eat whatever you want for dinner. You will probably lose weight this way for sure (if that's what you want).

That's bad news, I guess; I'm definitely not gonna exchange any normal meals for fruit (hey, I've got difficulties enough keeping my weight on high-fat cereals for breakfast and steaks for lunch!), so the idea was substituting fruits for sandwiches and snacks between meals.

 

[Renata]

Ok Im not a nutritionist, but my understanding is that the main benefit of consuming natural sugars in fruits is that they come along with other vital minerals, fibers and vitamins, while processed sugar is just sugar without any of the accompanying things I mentioned above. Is that incorrect?

Not entirely, but it's not the whole story.

Sugar comes in many molecular forms that are similar but not exactly the same. Most "processed sugar" comes either from corn (corn syrup), sugar beets or sugar cane. The latter two sugar sources yield the disaccharide sucrose, which is a molecule consisting of two simpler sugars -- the monosaccharides glucose and fructose -- linked together. Corn syrup contains both sucrose and fructose on its own. Most fruits and vegetables are sweetened primarily by fructose, IIRC. There also many other sugars found in foods, both simple (monosaccharides) and more complex (disaccharides), such as lactose, galactose, etcetera.

Of all of these, glucose is the most basic to the body. Glucose is the molecule that cells use both for immediate energy and for energy storage in the form of fat. All other nutrient molecules must first be converted to glucose before they can be used. I'm not a biochemist, but I think it's for this reason that sucrose causes a much more rapid spike in blood sugar than fructose does -- the glucose in the molecule is available easily with just the snip of a single molecular bond, while fructose has to be substantially altered chemically before the body can use it. The body has to do more work.

There are other factors to the relationship between sugar intake and health than just how fast the sugar causes the blood sugar level to rise, though. Fructose may be useful to diabetics, but it's not necessarily any better than sucrose when in comes to overall health. Both molecules, consumed in excess, can contribute to the aging process and to heart disease. I've seen some sites that discuss research that fructose may actually be worse, although I haven't seen the research itself.

In any case, I am very dubious of distinctions made between "processed sugar" and "natural sugar". Both sucrose and fructose, the main components of "processed sugars", are found naturally in fruits and vegetables -- they're not artificial in any way. People just eat too much of them in consuming diets with lots of pre-packaged foods and junk food. Human beings don't need that much sugar, and it's bad for our health to eat so much. And of course, as you point out, a diet of Twinkies instead of tomatoes leaves you a bit lacking in other ways.

/infodump off

Renata

 

[Narz]

Narz suggested eating proteins and starches separately. This can also cause a blood sugar spike. Protein and fat take longer to digest than sugars and starches so they help keep blood sugar levels steady if you mix them at a meal.

Well the good news about fruit is that it genrally effects blood sugar levels less than refined carbohydrates (white bread) etc. because of the fiber content. Certain very hybridized fruit will definitely screw with blood sugar levels though, like seedless grapes in my experience.

It is also worthy to note every single person will react differently.

For sure. I would never suggest listening to any advice blindly (especially if someone is trying to sell a product, double especially if they claim their product is a "superfood"). Personal experimentation is the only way you can know for sure if something is true.

That's bad news, I guess; I'm definitely not gonna exchange any normal meals for fruit (hey, I've got difficulties enough keeping my weight on high-fat cereals for breakfast and steaks for lunch!), so the idea was substituting fruits for sandwiches and snacks between meals.

Yeah, if you substitue all of your meals you probably will lose weight (I went from about 160 to 120). The good news is if you work out you'll put it all back on again as muscle as your body gets more efficient (I'm back to 155 now, eventually looking to reach my "fighting weight" at about 170).

But anyway, yeah, fruit is definitely better than sandwhiches. White bread is argueably one of the lowest energy foods on the planet.

Peace,
Narz

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Did you feel ill after eating the beef? I ask since I've often heard that consuming red meat after a long duration (over several months) of abstinence can send your body reeling in agony. Maybe it's just Fruitopian propaganda

I dont remember feeling sick afterwards. Maybe I got sleepy if anything, but I dont recall exactly. One thing I do remember is how wonderful it was to be a carnivore again

The question is, when do you want your number to be? Many people accept ageing, slow decline and death as inevitable. Along with heart problems, weak joints, foggy memory, limited mobility, impotence and a plethera of other ailments. These do not appeal to me. I plan to be a virile old 120 year old, frolicking with women 4 times younger than me.

If its working for you, go for it. I could never do it though. But I dont care how many nuts and berries you eat, if you manage to make it to 120, those 4 younger women youre 'frolicking' with will actually be your nurses who are just trying to flip you over so you dont get bed sores

edit: renata, thanks for that info dump! We should all refer to it next time an argument about sugar breaks out

 

[Narz]

If its working for you, go for it. I could never do it though. But I dont care how many nuts and berries you eat, if you manage to make it to 120, those 4 younger women youre 'frolicking' with will actually be your nurses who are just trying to flip you over so you dont get bed sores

Only time will tell.

My goal is not longevity for longevities sake. The day I start to lose my physical and mental freedom is the day I lay down and prepare to die. I just don't want to fall into mental, physical and emotionally decline and become helpless like so many old people. Personally I'm not one to argue that diet and lifestyle alone will save anyone. Mentality and attitude are probably vastly more important. If someone with the flu sneezed in my face I would wager $100 that I wouldn't get sick because I don't believe in contagion theory of disease (even Pasteur said "The microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything" but that's a whole nother thread). Also, the attitude of depravation will never lead to health. If you feel horribly deprived not eating cheeseburgers than you are probably better off eating them (not karmicly of course but again that's for another thread). Feeling like you are depriving yourself of a pleasure leads to resentment and resentment leads to supression of the immune system with leads to the decay of health and vitality.

- Narz

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Feeling like you are depriving yourself of a pleasure leads to resentment and resentment leads to supression of the immune system with leads to the decay of health and vitality.

That is soooo true. Depriving yourself of a whole range of things that you enjoy creates alot of stress, and stress leads to all sorts of health problems. Food isnt something that I consume mechanically just to keep my body going, to me food is one of the great sensual pleasures we have as humans, its right up there with sex. Restricting myself to bland, raw 'healthy' foods would be akin to castrating myself and would most likely drive me insane eventually if I had to stick with the 'healthy' diet. So I'll die at 75 and not 80, who cares? In the grand scheme of things, it wont make one bit of difference if the worms get me 5 years later, but at least while I was here I indulged myself in all the pleasures available to me

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yeah, if you substitue all of your meals you probably will lose weight (I went from about 160 to 120). The good news is if you work out you'll put it all back on again as muscle as your body gets more efficient (I'm back to 155 now, eventually looking to reach my "fighting weight" at about 170).

Thing is, I don't have any excess weight to lose - I've already got less fat on my body than I should. Any increase in physical activity (not that there's a big risk of me starting to work out) would have to be accompanied by a hike in caloric intake.