16

votes

What evidence that moderate fructose intake is bad for the healthy?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created January 16, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I have no problem with the concept that excessive fructose intake is probably bad for you and that those with blood sugar problems need to avoid fructose, glucose, starch, etc. But is there any evidence that moderate fructose consumption by a healthy person in the form of whole foods is bad for their health? Should your kid be allowed to eat an apple or an orange at lunch and then later eat a banana? Or is this bad. What evidence do we have on this subject? After all, we do have a metabolic pathway to process fructose so it seems to me that we are designed to process fructose to some extent. Perhaps the problem occurs when that metabolic pathway is overwhelmed by excessive intake? (We are not talking about sodas and candybars here, just whole healthy food intake that also contains fructose).

{Note that this question is different than other similar because I am asking for specific EVIDENCE that MODERATE intake is bad for the HEALTHY. It's a specific set of parameters I am interested in.}

535633b57c4a4940d1e913e7a12ee791

(1013)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

How much fruit you eat has to be a major consideration. How much fructose is their in a handful or blueberries or an apple? I can't believe small amounts like that would have any negative affect on healthy people.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 10, 2012
at 05:36 PM

"Most paleo sugar sources would have had fructose. It's obvious we are designed to want and use fructose." -- Asserted without evidence. You don't get to demand proof and then not support your own statements with it.

1e36119906da54831601a7c23674f581

(698)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:40 AM

lol. I eat more fruit in a day than most paleo people eat in a month. I leaned out somehow despite this.. And my skin is clearing up without regressing for once. Fructose must be... the devil?

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:37 AM

I reckon about half of our 30% carb intake used to be fruit in te early paleo era.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:35 AM

And the baobab fruit in north east africa (a tree fruit) is very very sugary. I tend to side with the original questioner, that fructose is just fine until you overdo it by consuming refined sugars.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:29 AM

But all those 30 bananas a day folks are skinny as a rake....!

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:06 AM

Yup, fructose is a signal that tells us, it's late summer, we're eating lots of ripe fruit, it's time to store calories for winter when there'll be little food around. Likely since we only are capable of processing small amounts of fructose vs glucose, it means the fruits we evolved to eat did not contain huge amounts of fructose vs glucose and vs fiber, so no matter how much we binged our livers could handle it. Modern SAD sources of fructose overwhelm our liver's ability to process it and leads to fatty liver disease, similar to what alcohol does in huge amounts.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 05, 2011
at 10:37 PM

You rock grok! Totally agree. I watch my kids and other healthy eater kids and they simply don't over eat or eat disproportionately when given food choices. I seriously laughes so damn loud at the cat example. Holy hell!

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 03, 2011
at 04:40 AM

Not sure what you mean, fructose doesn't stimulate insulin. IMO the insulin=fat theory is bunk and there are a lot more factors to fat gain.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 16, 2011
at 08:46 AM

LMAO. I'm not laughing at you Eva (not in the slightest). I'm laughing at the fact that we've gotten to the point where questions like this need to asked at all. Feed your kids all the apples, oranges and bananas they could ever want, whenever they want. They'll moderate their own intake. "We are not talking about sodas and candybars here" Exactly! See, you already know the answer :) Give you kids real food. They'll take whatever they need. They know what they need. They haven't been brainwashed by B.S. science, Gov guidelines, or talk show experts for the last 20-50 years.

8a8129d053df7365c6529b0c2ac95efb

(284)

on May 16, 2011
at 04:08 AM

Wonderful answer!

E0b0d94cebef8ed2371d02ec2ecb5461

(94)

on May 15, 2011
at 10:55 PM

we are not designed...

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 18, 2011
at 12:15 PM

This is not solely me Eva, this is one person after another. And even now, where my metabolism is "healed" I can't eat fruit without the cravings etc... I can't test weight loss on myself anymore since I have nothing left to lose... But the # of others reporting the exact same thing is quite large...if I didn't see evidence on a near daily basis, then I'd assume it was all just me.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 07:05 AM

I think factor 4 should be level of damage already done to metabolism.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 07:04 AM

I think it happened because your metabolism is already rather damaged, hence the weight gain in the first place. Or could be epigenetics. Many things are like that, better for some than for others. Just because you got to a state where fruit harms you does not mean it harms everyone under the sun and that everyone should run screaming from it. However, it may mean that you personally should run screaming from it.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 07:01 AM

The studies on alcohol are covered in a diff thread, but basically all I saw are epidemiological and possibly flawed. Anyway, there is no well known obvious benefit to alcohol metabolically. Whereas fructose provides an energy source and replenishes glycogen. Some can live on fruit for many a month and still feel good. If you are starving and near death, fruit can save your life. Alcohol won't. I am not saying eat only fruit, but alcohol is not closely comparable to fruit as to healthfulness.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 06:55 AM

Pets lower blood pressure, or so they say. Could be true the cat is secretly planning to assasinate me in my sleep. Prob is, he knows he doesn't yet know my PIN code to my bank account, so thus I am yet safe. For now. As for metabolic pathway through the liver, toxins are simply removed and excreted whereas fructose is utilized as fuel and to replenish glycogen. Big difference. Plus the human taste receptors are designed for us to seek sugar, not shun it. Most paleo sugar sources would have had fructose. It's obvious we are designed to want and use fructose.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 05:07 PM

Yup, like all toxins, healthy humans can handle it. Alcohol is a prime example of the exact same thing. In fact there are studies showing health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption compared to none or little. But theirs money in studying alcohol and no money studying fruit, hence our studies are limited

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 05:03 PM

Health is a permanent goal. Weight is a side effect and a good visible indicator(skinny is not healthy either , lookat vegans)

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on January 17, 2011
at 05:01 PM

Stephen who said fat-loss is a permanent goal? I understand your n=1 tells you that you do not lose weight having fruits, fine, my n=1 says the opposite but mostly why would weight-loss be a permanent goal? I do not get it...

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 09:39 AM

All the moderate intake I find lumps fruit with veggies and not fruit alone...

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 09:36 AM

There's tons of evidence for your cat EVA ;) http://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/live-longer-with-a-pet.htm/printable

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 09:35 AM

Ignacio you have proof that we ate fruit daily for millions of years and it CAUSED optimal health? No one is implying fruit will kill you dead if you consume it. We can filter toxins. That's why we evolved with livers.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 09:33 AM

Metabolic pathway thru the LIVER which filters TOXINs is a ba argument. We have a metabolic pathway for alcohol too, doesn't make it good. AGEs are still a side effect. There are essential proteins, essential fats but no essential carbs. That argument only works if our bodies clearly need it for something that we can't get elsewhere.(I apologize if this sound like an attack, it's. Devils advocate/love to actually learn why it's useful)

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on January 17, 2011
at 04:05 AM

Fruit has been consumed by men for millions of years. To change that you would need rock solid evidence of the supposed negative effects of fruit. Unlike the cases of grains or beans, there is no such negative evidence against fruit, then the reasonable thing to do, is to keep having fruit, based on personal preferences.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 17, 2011
at 02:41 AM

I don't have evidence that owning a cat if good for me. But I still have one. However, I think the mere fact that we have a metabolic pathway for fructose suggests we were specifically designed for some level of intake. The question is how much is 'some'

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11478)

on January 17, 2011
at 02:39 AM

@Andrew, even though sucrose and HFCS contain similar amounts of fructose (50% vs. 55%), the fructose in HFCS is mostly "free fructose" which is supposedly a lot worse than the disaccharide form.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on January 17, 2011
at 01:48 AM

As Lustig says, sugar is sugar. I'm pretty sure the fear of HFCS is unwarranted NOt that HFCS is good or even neutral for you but it's processed biochemically the same as sucrose. I don't think its the fructose glucose combo that makes fructose bad. It's more of the dosage makes the poison. A health liver can process some fructose without missing a beat. But when that's amount becomes 50+ pounds annually, you're in some serious trouble.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on January 17, 2011
at 01:47 AM

As Lustig says, sugar is sugar. I'm pretty sure the fear of HFCS is unwarranted NOt that HFCS is good or even neutral for you but it's processed biochemically the same as sucrose. I don't think its the fructose glucose combo that makes fructose bad. It's more of the dosage makes the poison. A health liver can process some fructose without missing a beat. But when that's amount become 100+ pounds annually, you're in some serious trouble.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 01:31 AM

We have a malabsorption thread here on PH.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 16, 2011
at 11:17 PM

Still releases AGEs to use in liver glycogen...

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 16, 2011
at 11:16 PM

We don't have evidence that it's good either....

  • 62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

    asked by

    (20807)
  • Views
    2.9K
  • Last Activity
    1426D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

14 Answers

best answer

3
9722850c9a1c47b79edf7c4233040248

(1276)

on January 17, 2011
at 04:44 PM

Check out Kurt Harris' new Jimmy Moore interview; he talks briefly about this, saying that HEALTHY humans are meant to be able to deal with a certain amount of fructose. He gives an off-hand amount of sugar that a healthy adult might be able to process per day, I think it was 50 g sucrose? He didn't provide references at the time, being a spoken interview, but maybe if you go over to his website and raise the question he or someone else who knows can elaborate.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 05:07 PM

Yup, like all toxins, healthy humans can handle it. Alcohol is a prime example of the exact same thing. In fact there are studies showing health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption compared to none or little. But theirs money in studying alcohol and no money studying fruit, hence our studies are limited

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 07:01 AM

The studies on alcohol are covered in a diff thread, but basically all I saw are epidemiological and possibly flawed. Anyway, there is no well known obvious benefit to alcohol metabolically. Whereas fructose provides an energy source and replenishes glycogen. Some can live on fruit for many a month and still feel good. If you are starving and near death, fruit can save your life. Alcohol won't. I am not saying eat only fruit, but alcohol is not closely comparable to fruit as to healthfulness.

10
4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

on January 17, 2011
at 10:44 AM

Fruit stalls fatloss, we have tons of evidence, even on PH alone, we have N=1 over and over and over, people getting over loss when stopping fruit intake, and people stalling out by eating it. If 1 piece of fruit (arguably below defined moderate by most people) can take an otherwise great flowing plan and stall it out, theres more going on than simple glycogen restoration.

I lost the majority of my weight as Low Carb, restored my insulin sensitivity etc etc. my liver glycogen was CLEARLY not capped, yet fruit (or alcohol) stalled me out faster than anything. I add alcohol in there, because it seemed to have the same exact effect. When I ate 1 piece of fruit, my metabolism altered, my body stopped burning fat. If fructose is a healthy way to restore liver glycogen, why does that happen? Not N=1

When I ate 1 piece, my hunger cravings would go from none, Zero, to Raving Relentless Beast... I had to eat shortly afterwords... if nothing else is going on, why do my cravings for food suddenly skyrocket? Again, not N=1. Fructose has been shown to impede Insulin and Leptin, and not trigger Ghrelin... which explains this scientifically. Yes the intial testing may have been on HFCS, but the Empirical data with fruit definitely corroborates.

In a healthy individual, with a healthy liver, we can tolerate toxins. Tolerated is not Optimal. Regardless, our liver is required to process fruit. our body cannot process Fructose without it. and barring immediate storage after conversion... cannot use it. In addition, Advanced Glycation End Products(AGEs) are formed thru this conversion... these dont go away. These are known to at least contribute or be highly related to aging. If even minimal fructose is OPTIMAL, why would we produce a permanent TOXIN as a byproduct of storing? not N=1. The science supports this at any level of intake. The argument here is that AGEs happen from alot of other pathways as well(stress?). and small amounts of fructose produce small amounts of AGEs that may be very minimal in the big picture, and its the copious amounts eating by SAD that induce the (noticable)life shortening amounts.

A significant amount of the large classification of "Fruit" is anything but. Inbred, Crossbred Fructose bombs does not a Fruit our ancestors would have recognized make. Some of todays fruits are so laden with excess sugar, that arguing their health benefits is silly. I think that we have a secondary issue with these arguments, because, in my opinion, Dates, Raisins, Figs and other high Fructose load super sweet fruits are bastards. Berries or Avocado on the other hand are a great example of super low fructose(and low sugar) fruits that I believe the positives may outweigh the negatives. While I dont believe that strawberries are optimal for my health, I sure do enjoy them in "moderation". I have a healthy liver and no desire to lose more fat, and enjoy them enough to give up minutes at the end of my life if it comes down to it.

High Fruit intake affects teeth. Not going to argue about sugar and tooth decay. Brush your teeth after eating any sugars.

We already tell people their refined sugar is bad, if we tell them their "healthy" sugar is bad too, we will have a revolt. You'd never get a fruit based study funded. In addition, similar to if you want to test LONG term effect on moderate intake, youre hoping for empirical surveys at best.

So what we have right now, is scientific proof that fructose separated from fruit is undeniably bad. thats proven over and over again. Then we have Empirical evidence, that fruit seems to cause the same things that the separated fructose did.

Thats the best we can go on until we are given evidence to the contrary.

My personal recommendation is Minimal(not zero) rather than Moderate after your Liver and Weight are healthy.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 18, 2011
at 12:15 PM

This is not solely me Eva, this is one person after another. And even now, where my metabolism is "healed" I can't eat fruit without the cravings etc... I can't test weight loss on myself anymore since I have nothing left to lose... But the # of others reporting the exact same thing is quite large...if I didn't see evidence on a near daily basis, then I'd assume it was all just me.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 07:04 AM

I think it happened because your metabolism is already rather damaged, hence the weight gain in the first place. Or could be epigenetics. Many things are like that, better for some than for others. Just because you got to a state where fruit harms you does not mean it harms everyone under the sun and that everyone should run screaming from it. However, it may mean that you personally should run screaming from it.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 05:03 PM

Health is a permanent goal. Weight is a side effect and a good visible indicator(skinny is not healthy either , lookat vegans)

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on January 17, 2011
at 05:01 PM

Stephen who said fat-loss is a permanent goal? I understand your n=1 tells you that you do not lose weight having fruits, fine, my n=1 says the opposite but mostly why would weight-loss be a permanent goal? I do not get it...

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:35 AM

And the baobab fruit in north east africa (a tree fruit) is very very sugary. I tend to side with the original questioner, that fructose is just fine until you overdo it by consuming refined sugars.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:29 AM

But all those 30 bananas a day folks are skinny as a rake....!

6
Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

on January 16, 2011
at 07:44 PM

There is some degree of semantic confusion about the word fructose. The negative studies that I have seen refer to HFCS "high fructose corn syrup" a synthetic derivative of corn that is NOT present in any fruit. http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/component/content/article/64-feature-writer-article/4486&Itemid=8 HFCS normally contains between 42% and 55% of fructose, plus glucose and polyssacharides and several studies show that a large intake of HFSC (not fructose per se!) is dangerous. Again this is about large consumptions of a derivative product that contains fructose together with GLUCOSE and other sugars. Fructose "per se" as contained in apples or bananas is a rather neutral sugar, and I am not aware of any study showing negative effects from the consumption of fructose per se and much less of any study showing negative effects of fruit consumption. So go ahead, have your apple, your banana and your orange, as long as you stay away from industrial HFCS!

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11478)

on January 17, 2011
at 02:39 AM

@Andrew, even though sucrose and HFCS contain similar amounts of fructose (50% vs. 55%), the fructose in HFCS is mostly "free fructose" which is supposedly a lot worse than the disaccharide form.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on January 17, 2011
at 01:48 AM

As Lustig says, sugar is sugar. I'm pretty sure the fear of HFCS is unwarranted NOt that HFCS is good or even neutral for you but it's processed biochemically the same as sucrose. I don't think its the fructose glucose combo that makes fructose bad. It's more of the dosage makes the poison. A health liver can process some fructose without missing a beat. But when that's amount becomes 50+ pounds annually, you're in some serious trouble.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on January 17, 2011
at 01:47 AM

As Lustig says, sugar is sugar. I'm pretty sure the fear of HFCS is unwarranted NOt that HFCS is good or even neutral for you but it's processed biochemically the same as sucrose. I don't think its the fructose glucose combo that makes fructose bad. It's more of the dosage makes the poison. A health liver can process some fructose without missing a beat. But when that's amount become 100+ pounds annually, you're in some serious trouble.

8a8129d053df7365c6529b0c2ac95efb

(284)

on May 16, 2011
at 04:08 AM

Wonderful answer!

3
674576ff6bff66c5c7d2e6f07886ec0b

on July 05, 2011
at 04:35 PM

I have had gout for years, and tried just about everything without success.I reduced meat to, minimum once a week, stopped alcohol altogether.I was having LOTS of fruit and vegetables and my gout was worsening. Finally I have read something about Excessive fructose increasing uric acid.I experimented reducing my fruit intake to 2 a day, and bingo within days I saw a dramatic improvement.Cherries are the only exception. I eat a lot of them when in season,with no ill effects.

3
8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c

(2581)

on January 16, 2011
at 08:24 PM

The liver can use fructose to replenish glycogen. So fructose is possibly only an issue in people with sedentary/over-eating habits, and that's when they're consuming loads of HFCS in soft drinks. Not relevant to people who eat healthy natural foods containing fructose like fruit and vegetables.

http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/06/fructose-in-fruits-is-good-for-you.html

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 16, 2011
at 11:17 PM

Still releases AGEs to use in liver glycogen...

2
5672b2d190891342389e764cc4056ca9

(1304)

on January 17, 2011
at 12:47 AM

Fructose malabsorption seems to be a fairly common problem, which mostly causes digestive distress like bloating and mood disturbances. Most people using this site probably don't consume HFCS, but what about fruit? Fruit may cause problems too. The severity of a person's response depends on (at least) three variables:

  1. Individual sensitivity

  2. Total amount of fructose consumed

  3. Ratio of fructose to glucose (the higher the glucose, the easier the absorption). So, a fruit with high fructose content can still be easier to process if the glucose content is high too (for example, bananas). Water melon, apples, pears, are among the worst offenders. See this: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/nutritional_tools/fruits_table.html

Sorry that I'm not providing more websites for this info, I read it a while ago, but lost all the sites when my computer passed away. Google "fructose malabsorption".

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 01:31 AM

We have a malabsorption thread here on PH.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on January 18, 2011
at 07:05 AM

I think factor 4 should be level of damage already done to metabolism.

2
5e36f73c3f95eb4ea13a009f4936449f

(8280)

on January 16, 2011
at 07:23 PM

I've not seen any research on "moderate" intake. As far as I know, it's not really an issue for healthy people (we're not keeling over from eating an apple for example). The stuff I see pretty much says it's good to have "moderate" intake, not for the fructose, but because of the other nutrients in the food...

The real issue is that fructose is in a ton of things in the Standard American Diet in the form of High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's "only" 55% Fructose (compared to 50% in regular table sugar) and that 5% adds up fast. Plus, it's ONLY metabolised in the liver (glucose is throughout the body).

I'd recommend watching Dr Lustig's presentation "Sugar the Bitter Truth":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22913)

on January 17, 2011
at 09:39 AM

All the moderate intake I find lumps fruit with veggies and not fruit alone...

1
11b7b7ba720a5cd43c74a0ef99a16adb

(3448)

on September 10, 2012
at 05:32 PM

Define moderate.

Most people define moderate in relation to the current trends. Because HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) has become ubiquitous, 20% of the typical American's daily calories come from HFCS And, since HFS is 50% furctose, that means 10% of their daily calories are fructose from HFCS.

Plus, you need to add in the fructose calories consumed from other sources like fruit and honey. For this example, let's say that's 5%.

So, 15% of the typical American's calories come from fructose.

200 years ago I'd wager no more than 5% of calories came from fructose (as fruit was seasonal and sugar of any type was in short supply--and both were expensive).

So what's moderate? 12%, 10%, 8%, 5%? By today's standard maybe, but not by 1800 standards.

1
1e36119906da54831601a7c23674f581

(698)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:35 AM

You people are ridiculous..

I've been doing my high-fruit, high-tuber, meat, eggs, coconut, some veggies, etc paleo diet model for months now. I eat LOTS of fruit every day, and continue to feel amazing in every way.

Almost like a Kitavian, perhaps?

1
350bbbf48293b8d86b47839ab33477fa

on August 21, 2012
at 09:15 AM

About 40% of people have fructose intolerance. This suggests that majority of the people are not adequately adapted to higher intake of fructose. The best natural (paleo) source of fructose is honoey. Negative metabolic effects of fructose in honey and some fruits can be compensated by various healthy components in these food sources.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:06 AM

Yup, fructose is a signal that tells us, it's late summer, we're eating lots of ripe fruit, it's time to store calories for winter when there'll be little food around. Likely since we only are capable of processing small amounts of fructose vs glucose, it means the fruits we evolved to eat did not contain huge amounts of fructose vs glucose and vs fiber, so no matter how much we binged our livers could handle it. Modern SAD sources of fructose overwhelm our liver's ability to process it and leads to fatty liver disease, similar to what alcohol does in huge amounts.

1
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 05, 2011
at 04:59 PM

I take the TS Wiley approach, even though I'm not a fan of some of her other ideas. In Lights Out! she says that Vitamin D and increased activity during warmer months probably counteracts any negative effects of eating fruit. I lost all the weight I wanted to and fruit has certainly never made me gain weight.

The thing is, there isn't much evidence either way. We have some n=1 from some people who seem to have a tendency to gain weight because of previous metabolic damage. We have some reductionist folks like Lustig, but even he says fruit is OK! We have some population-level ideas from societies like the Kitavans, who eat fruit and are quite healthy. The idea that fruit is bad is a fringe idea.

1
535633b57c4a4940d1e913e7a12ee791

(1013)

on May 15, 2011
at 08:05 PM

Knowing what Paleos understand about insulin I think we can all agree that sugar and fructose should be a very "careful" and minor addition to the diet.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 03, 2011
at 04:40 AM

Not sure what you mean, fructose doesn't stimulate insulin. IMO the insulin=fat theory is bunk and there are a lot more factors to fat gain.

1e36119906da54831601a7c23674f581

(698)

on August 21, 2012
at 10:40 AM

lol. I eat more fruit in a day than most paleo people eat in a month. I leaned out somehow despite this.. And my skin is clearing up without regressing for once. Fructose must be... the devil?

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 10, 2012
at 05:44 PM

Firstly, if you want to stuff your face with fruit just go do it and shut up about it. This whole "prove I can't" is ridiculous. The whole tone shows that no matter how good the evidence you aren't going to change so why pretend?

I prefer commonsense because, frankly, studies are often too myopic to give a global view of what is healthy. Except for a few places in the tropics no one was going to have sweet fruit 365 days a year. We've never had a time when we could eat pure sugar everyday for the bulk of our calories and so to conclude that we are probably poorly adapted to this is reasonable. When combined with the sugar-guzzling of the obese and the fact that Paleos who live off super-high sugar diets are, by and large, sub-optimal in body comp and performance I don't see any way to justify eating 30 bananas a day, even if you eat a steak too. If you wanna, do it but don't pretend.

0
75e8ceee00e2459860ea38220a3a8118

on September 10, 2012
at 05:10 PM

Really enjoying this thread. Something Chris Masterjohn said re AGEs is niggling in the back of my mind... off to see if I can find it...

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!