5

votes

Potatoes Vs. Fruit for Carb Intake??

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 03, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Would the fructose/glucose combo from fruit be much more insulin stimulating/liver irritating than the glucose from potatoes? Has anyone tried one over the other and seen a difference??

I ask cause after a LC stint I added back blueberries (a cup a day) and I'm right back into the carb addiction/suffering mode and just feel outa control sometimes...sigh.

Thanks!

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 04, 2012
at 05:53 PM

I read the evolvinghealthscience interview and think that it was very balanced and supportive of the idea that "the dose makes the poison". The author asserts that the evidence points to "excess energy" as the culprit rather than fructose itself, although he acknowledges that this is hard to confirm. I think it would be interesting to conduct a study with comparisons between equivalent amounts of glucose and fructose with all other factors remaining equal.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:15 PM

@Wisper, the blog post says "therefore she may in fact suffer some of the adverse effects of excess fructose that only emerge in a hypercaloric context (fat gain, insulin resistance, hypertension, etc.)" I suppose this is open to interpretation that there are perhaps _other_ adverse effects of excess fructose that emerge in a non-hypercaloric context, but that's not how I read it.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:25 AM

My guess is that fructose comes out of the asses of unicorns, and therefore makes people fat due to fairytale conversion of unicorn excrement to fat. Negged.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:23 AM

No. Neither the blog post or the original interview it's based on make such claims. If you read the actual interview, there are no such claims present: "Fructose wasn't having an effect beyond energy" ... "The bodyweight increase we saw was predicted by the energy was consumed [not fructose consumption per se]." Negged.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:12 AM

This interview confirms it, and also says that animals have fundamentally different fructose metabolism, which makes such studies either invalid or at least difficult to convert for human results: http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.nl/2012/05/fate-of-fructose-interview-with-dr-john.html

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:04 AM

There's no link to an actual study. My understanding is that those fructose studies feed animals fructose in outrageous amounts, relative amounts which would (or even could) not be consumed in human diets.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on June 04, 2012
at 06:18 AM

@Karen Durianrider, Freelea and Danny Roddy are not that young, and Ray Peat is almost 80. There are plenty of lean old vegans. *"durianrider and Freelea are both young and have been incredibly active for a long time. Their level of activity burns off a lot of carbs."* I agree with Taubes take on this : *"they're not lean because they are athletes, they are athletes because they are lean"*. Freelea lost weight by eating tons of fructose. So did Danny Roddy (http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011/11/14/lets-drop-acid-smoke-fructose.html).

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on June 04, 2012
at 06:15 AM

@FED (1) HFCS is not just fructose http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/24/1_MeetingAbstracts/562.1 (2) I think there are more than enough cases of people downing lots of sugar and fructose without being obese. Just look around you, I've got tons of coke-bingeing friends close to a six pack. (3) I just don't like how you present fructose as a toxic while it has still not been proven it makes everyone fat.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 05:13 AM

Oh sorry, you are actually speculating, you said so yourself. But I still think my answer is more plausible. (And I am of course completely unbiased :p)

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 05:06 AM

@FED, I reallllllly think you're speculating about the fruit stuff here. I mean, it could just as easily be the case that fruit promotes the generational health of its consumers, because by doing so, it is ensuring itself a healthy population of seed-dispersers for generations to come.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on June 04, 2012
at 03:07 AM

Good point. Almost anything could be bad if eaten in the context of energy excess.

Cbc1f37f2b79b079b0de479d5365a231

(605)

on June 04, 2012
at 01:45 AM

I would try potatoes. Check out Richard's post about food reward theory and his experience with adding potatoes back into his diet: http://freetheanimal.com/2012/02/synthesis-low-carb-and-food-rewardpalatability-and-why-calories-count.html

7fc82eebafd44badc73c520f44660150

(3275)

on June 04, 2012
at 01:30 AM

Excellent!!!!!!!

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:28 AM

then so be it, as long as there are new customers to exploit. The tuber, on the other hand, was never intended to be eaten by animals and is not safe, BUT that's where technology has come into the picture. Humans are able to exploit the tuber (rather than it being the other way around) and by cooking, processing, etc. we can render out the nutrients we want while neutralizing much of what we don't. As a result, tuber consumption could be considered a "nature hack" discovered by early humans.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:24 AM

@Mike, I see where you're coming from and I agree, it looks counter-intuitive at first glance. However, it isn't that fruits want us to eat them and are therefore dangerous. It's that fruits want us to eat them and they don't really give a crap about what happens to us after that (as long as their seeds get where they need to go.) Its like an evolutionary version of food marketing. A marketer wants customers to buy the product and will push the customer to buy as much as it can. If this means individual customers go broke (or become sick and obese)..

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:11 AM

@FED also, it seems to be a bit of a counter-intuitive argument. fruits wants us to eat them so they're dangerous and tubers don't want us to eat them so they're safe. ironic at least.

07c86972a3bea0b0dc17752e9d2f5642

(3162)

on June 03, 2012
at 11:30 PM

Have you tried just eating as many carbs as you want? When I was LC I always felt out of control with cravings and hunger, but allowing myself to eat whatever I wanted did the opposite of what I feared. My appetite lessened a great deal. I hardly ever feel like eating more than twice a day and I can take or leave anything. No more obsessive thoughts about chocolate, cheese and nuts like when I was LC. Food shouldn't make you suffer.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 03, 2012
at 11:02 PM

@Korion, durianrider and Freelea are both young and have been incredibly active for a long time. Their level of activity burns off a lot of carbs. No way of knowing what their livers look like. Not sure who the other two are, but you can't prove or disprove anything by four people out of the world population.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:49 PM

@Korion, individual cases may be compelling but are not sufficient for scientific purposes. Many modern agriculturalists and HG tribes subsist off of starchy staples without any apparent negative health effects. Contrast this to the US where fructose consumption seems to be tied to a host of metabolic derangements. I do not think high fructose corn syrup = fructose from fruit by virtue of the vast array of micronutrients lacking in HFCS, but ultimately, fructose is fructose.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:46 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:45 PM

Also, I think that the animal seed distributors did learn to favor plants that promote long-term survival and thus 10 out of 10 global "staple" crops are those that provide most of their energy in the form of starch.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:42 PM

@Mike - I think we often conflate survival of the individual (i.e. you and me) with the survival of the species or even more specifically, of the genes. I think that human technology (in this case food preparation) typically slants the odds towards the "individual" whereas nature typically favors "the group".

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:16 PM

Couldn't you argue that over hundreds/thousands of generations, the animal "seed distributors" would learn (instinct, culture, etc) to favor fruits that promote long-term survival and therefore plants would have some "evolutionary incentive" to favor it as well?

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:55 PM

Come on, durianrider, Freelea, Ray Peat, Danny Roddy, ... are all lean. Did they work with HFCS or fructose? Cuz that article doesn't have any references...

14e1dbdd25db00d2c9db36d6a695f6cb

(159)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:53 PM

Holy cow, yes, indeed. Thanks so much and for the link to the article.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:41 PM

Wow that's an amazing answer.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:37 PM

Terrific answer.

  • 14e1dbdd25db00d2c9db36d6a695f6cb

    asked by

    (159)
  • Views
    4.8K
  • Last Activity
    1426D AGO
Frontpage book

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

6 Answers

15
Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:32 PM

I'm not "anti-fruit" by any means, but I do think that a given quantity of fructose is more damaging metabolically than the same quantity of glucose.

From Medical News Today...

"If you feed fructose to animals they rapidly become obese, with all features of the metabolic syndrome, so there is this strong causal link," Johnson said, "And a high-fructose intake has been shown to induce certain features of the metabolic syndrome pretty rapidly in people."

(Read the full article HERE -> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/34669.php)

I'd also like to offer the following conjecture from an evolutionary perspective:

Fruit is a means by which plants entice animals to disperse their seeds. Therefore, the evolutionary pressure for the plant is to product the most enticing fruit possible that justifies it's resource investment. However, this does not imply any evolutionary pressure for the plant to produce a fruit that ensures the long-term survival of its animal "seed distributor". As long as the seeds are effectively propagated, it is immaterial to the plant whether this was done by one animal or several generations of animals.

Tubers, on the other hand, represent an underground energetic storage device that, for the plant, is better off never eaten. For this reason, they are typically located underground (out of sight out of mind) and possess compounds in their skin that dissuade predation by microbes, insects, etc. However, with the advent of cooking and other techniques (fermentation, pickling, etc.) humans have discovered ways to neutralize the toxic compounds present in many starchy tubers (for ex. solanine in potatoes). Heat also gelatinizes starch, making it more digestible and "open" for enzymatic action. Ultimately, this starch is metabolized into glucose which is the primary fuel source for mammalian cells. In glucose (as opposed to fructose) we would expect evolutionary pressure for tolerance as it is constantly present in the body.

That's my theory at least.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:41 PM

Wow that's an amazing answer.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 05:06 AM

@FED, I reallllllly think you're speculating about the fruit stuff here. I mean, it could just as easily be the case that fruit promotes the generational health of its consumers, because by doing so, it is ensuring itself a healthy population of seed-dispersers for generations to come.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:16 PM

Couldn't you argue that over hundreds/thousands of generations, the animal "seed distributors" would learn (instinct, culture, etc) to favor fruits that promote long-term survival and therefore plants would have some "evolutionary incentive" to favor it as well?

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on June 04, 2012
at 06:15 AM

@FED (1) HFCS is not just fructose http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/24/1_MeetingAbstracts/562.1 (2) I think there are more than enough cases of people downing lots of sugar and fructose without being obese. Just look around you, I've got tons of coke-bingeing friends close to a six pack. (3) I just don't like how you present fructose as a toxic while it has still not been proven it makes everyone fat.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:11 AM

@FED also, it seems to be a bit of a counter-intuitive argument. fruits wants us to eat them so they're dangerous and tubers don't want us to eat them so they're safe. ironic at least.

B43eab49eb3a97793630ce6e45592c23

(20)

on June 04, 2012
at 05:13 AM

Oh sorry, you are actually speculating, you said so yourself. But I still think my answer is more plausible. (And I am of course completely unbiased :p)

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:55 PM

Come on, durianrider, Freelea, Ray Peat, Danny Roddy, ... are all lean. Did they work with HFCS or fructose? Cuz that article doesn't have any references...

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:46 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:04 AM

There's no link to an actual study. My understanding is that those fructose studies feed animals fructose in outrageous amounts, relative amounts which would (or even could) not be consumed in human diets.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:37 PM

Terrific answer.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:24 AM

@Mike, I see where you're coming from and I agree, it looks counter-intuitive at first glance. However, it isn't that fruits want us to eat them and are therefore dangerous. It's that fruits want us to eat them and they don't really give a crap about what happens to us after that (as long as their seeds get where they need to go.) Its like an evolutionary version of food marketing. A marketer wants customers to buy the product and will push the customer to buy as much as it can. If this means individual customers go broke (or become sick and obese)..

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:45 PM

Also, I think that the animal seed distributors did learn to favor plants that promote long-term survival and thus 10 out of 10 global "staple" crops are those that provide most of their energy in the form of starch.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on June 04, 2012
at 06:18 AM

@Karen Durianrider, Freelea and Danny Roddy are not that young, and Ray Peat is almost 80. There are plenty of lean old vegans. *"durianrider and Freelea are both young and have been incredibly active for a long time. Their level of activity burns off a lot of carbs."* I agree with Taubes take on this : *"they're not lean because they are athletes, they are athletes because they are lean"*. Freelea lost weight by eating tons of fructose. So did Danny Roddy (http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011/11/14/lets-drop-acid-smoke-fructose.html).

14e1dbdd25db00d2c9db36d6a695f6cb

(159)

on June 03, 2012
at 08:53 PM

Holy cow, yes, indeed. Thanks so much and for the link to the article.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:49 PM

@Korion, individual cases may be compelling but are not sufficient for scientific purposes. Many modern agriculturalists and HG tribes subsist off of starchy staples without any apparent negative health effects. Contrast this to the US where fructose consumption seems to be tied to a host of metabolic derangements. I do not think high fructose corn syrup = fructose from fruit by virtue of the vast array of micronutrients lacking in HFCS, but ultimately, fructose is fructose.

5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 03, 2012
at 11:02 PM

@Korion, durianrider and Freelea are both young and have been incredibly active for a long time. Their level of activity burns off a lot of carbs. No way of knowing what their livers look like. Not sure who the other two are, but you can't prove or disprove anything by four people out of the world population.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:12 AM

This interview confirms it, and also says that animals have fundamentally different fructose metabolism, which makes such studies either invalid or at least difficult to convert for human results: http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.nl/2012/05/fate-of-fructose-interview-with-dr-john.html

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:42 PM

@Mike - I think we often conflate survival of the individual (i.e. you and me) with the survival of the species or even more specifically, of the genes. I think that human technology (in this case food preparation) typically slants the odds towards the "individual" whereas nature typically favors "the group".

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:28 AM

then so be it, as long as there are new customers to exploit. The tuber, on the other hand, was never intended to be eaten by animals and is not safe, BUT that's where technology has come into the picture. Humans are able to exploit the tuber (rather than it being the other way around) and by cooking, processing, etc. we can render out the nutrients we want while neutralizing much of what we don't. As a result, tuber consumption could be considered a "nature hack" discovered by early humans.

7fc82eebafd44badc73c520f44660150

(3275)

on June 04, 2012
at 01:30 AM

Excellent!!!!!!!

Medium avatar

(19479)

on June 04, 2012
at 05:53 PM

I read the evolvinghealthscience interview and think that it was very balanced and supportive of the idea that "the dose makes the poison". The author asserts that the evidence points to "excess energy" as the culprit rather than fructose itself, although he acknowledges that this is hard to confirm. I think it would be interesting to conduct a study with comparisons between equivalent amounts of glucose and fructose with all other factors remaining equal.

3
Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 03, 2012
at 10:13 PM

Stephan just put up a new posting about fructose:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-bad-is-fructose-david-despain.html

My understanding of his understanding of the research is that fructose is more dangerous than glucose only when the fructose is providing energy excess.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on June 04, 2012
at 03:07 AM

Good point. Almost anything could be bad if eaten in the context of energy excess.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:23 AM

No. Neither the blog post or the original interview it's based on make such claims. If you read the actual interview, there are no such claims present: "Fructose wasn't having an effect beyond energy" ... "The bodyweight increase we saw was predicted by the energy was consumed [not fructose consumption per se]." Negged.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on June 04, 2012
at 12:15 PM

@Wisper, the blog post says "therefore she may in fact suffer some of the adverse effects of excess fructose that only emerge in a hypercaloric context (fat gain, insulin resistance, hypertension, etc.)" I suppose this is open to interpretation that there are perhaps _other_ adverse effects of excess fructose that emerge in a non-hypercaloric context, but that's not how I read it.

1
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on June 03, 2012
at 08:09 PM

For staying lean, I prefer potatoes, but I like fruit so I still eat it. For me, ceteris paribus, potatoes > fruit. Potatoes are the perfect food, IMHO.

0
7e1433afbb06c318c4d90860d493c49d

(5959)

on June 04, 2012
at 02:11 PM

From what I've read, different people react differently. Some folks do better with starch, and others do better with fruit. For me, consuming starch of any type on a regular basis increases my appetite and drives me to overeat. And, even reasonable quantities of starch, like the bowl of rice that might come with a sashimi platter, can crash my blood sugar and put me to sleep. Whereas, the fruits I do eat (apples, berries, citrus, cherries, and stone fruits) don't have any of those effects.

0
Fb1acc37c066271cd4addf494f02861e

on June 04, 2012
at 02:58 AM

how about sugar from multifloral pollen [ie, pollen from various flowers] ? it's like 60pc sugar, the rest being proteins. I favour this over fruits personally if I want fructose and glucose. I believe good pollen has got more glucose, but it needs checking.

0
5ccb98f6ae42ce87e206cf3f6a86039f

(11581)

on June 03, 2012
at 11:07 PM

My guess is that fructose in fruit (esp berries) or sweet potatoes are not harmful if you are active enough to use the carbs, or if the quantities are small enough. Berries and SP are so nutritious that they are worth the fructose IMO. I manage to fit them into a LC diet, especially the berries. MMMMmmmmm strawberries.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on June 04, 2012
at 08:25 AM

My guess is that fructose comes out of the asses of unicorns, and therefore makes people fat due to fairytale conversion of unicorn excrement to fat. Negged.

Answer Question


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