Having no fruit and lowering/regulating your insulin and changing to fat for what your body primarily runs off of, has been a health discovery, but what is the definition of no fruit/no sugar, and if one were primal, you'd probably be eating a lot of fruit, right?
If I go no fruit/sweets, after about three days I start to feel really bad and is resolved by eating fruit. How much do I trust my instinctual wanting for fruit?
asked bypaleohacks (78467)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on May 25, 2011
at 11:14 PM
I eat blueberries, strawberries, raspberries...in small amounts. A handful in the morning. If I am craving ice cream, I put a handful( 1/4 cup) in a bowl and pour a couple tablespoons of heavy cream on them,.
on May 26, 2011
at 10:18 AM
Rud, you might find your questions answered in reading Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. The phrase "instinctual need for fruit" could be based in what your blood sugar does.
Dr. Bernstein explains a great deal about food, how the different kinds of carbohydrate raise blood sugar, how high, how quickly, and how to eat to have normal, stable blood sugars.
Many of us have found that avoiding anything that tastes sweet takes away the desire to eat sweets. Fruit is not necessary. Eating sweet fruits is the same as eating cakes, candy, cookies, etc.
Here are parts of Dr. Bernstein's book online.
Again, fruit is not necessary. Normal blood sugar is necessary.
Dr. Richard Bernstein's book, Diabetes Solution, explains this far better than I could.
Reading his book gave me the courage to stop eating fruits, and inspired me to keep a really clean food plan, for life.
Dr. Kurt Harris recommends reading Dr. Bernstein's book. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Harris, so I read Dr. Bernstein's book. Dr. Bernstein's own story, how he came to control his own blood sugar, as a type I diabetic, his way of achieving normal blood sugars, how he has helped thousands of people achieve normal blood sugars, all of it, inspired me so much. It was one of those rare books that changed my life.
There is a nice interview of Dr. Bernstein here. An audio interview:
Here is one of his telecasts. Hope it is still online:
Dr. Bernstein's broadcast of yesterday evening:
Here is Dr. Michael Eades blog article, A Spoonful of Sugar, on how much carbohydrate is needed to maintain a normal blood sugar and what eating too many carbs does to your blood sugar:
Whenever I give a talk and make the statement that a normal blood sugar represents less than one teaspoon of sugar dissolved in the blood, I???m often met with scepticism. It really is true, however.
Let???s go through the calculations so we can see exactly how this plays out. First, we need some basic measures. one liter (l)= 10 deciliters (dl) one gram (gm) = 1000 milligrams (mg) one teaspoon = 5 grams
According to the American Diabetes Association the line between a healthy fasting blood sugar and a pre-diabetic fasting blood sugar is set at 100 mg/dl (pronounced 100 milligrams per deci-liter). A fasting blood sugar of between 100 mg/dl and 125 mg/dl earns a diagnosis of pre-diabetes, and a fasting blood sugar of over 125 mg/dl is diabetic.
So how much sugar is 99 mg/dl, the highest fasting blood sugar you can have and not be diagnosed as pre-diabetic? Let???s figure it out. We know that a typical human has about 5 liters of blood, so we need to figure out how much sugar dissolved into this 5 liters of blood will give us a reading of 99 mg/dl.
Since one liter contains 10 deciliters we multiply 99 mg/dl by 10, which gives us 990 mg, the amount of sugar in one liter. Multiply the 990 mg in one liter times 5, the number of liters of blood in the human body, and we have 4950 mg of sugar. If we divide the 4950 by 1000, the number of mg in a gram, we get 4.95 grams of sugar.
Since one teaspoon contains 5 grams, the 4.95 grams of sugar in the blood of a person just short of being pre-diabetic equals a little less than one teaspoon. If you run all these calculations for a blood sugar of 80 mg/dl, which is a much healthier blood sugar than the 99 mg/dl one that is knocking on the door of pre-diabetes, it turns out to be about 4/5 of a teaspoon.
If you run the calculations for 126 mg/dl, the amount of sugar in the blood of someone just over the line into the diagnosis of diabetes, you find out that it is 6.25 grams, or 1 1/4 teaspoon. So, the difference between having a normal blood sugar and a diabetic blood sugar is about a quarter of a teaspoon of sugar.
What really gets kind of scary is when you look at the amount of carbohydrate in, say, a medium order of McDonald???s fries compared to the sugar in your blood. Remember, it is the job of your digestive tract to breakdown the starch and other complex carbohydrates, which are nothing more than chains of sugar molecules, into their component sugars so that they can be absorbed into the blood. An order of medium fries at McDonald???s contains 47 grams of carbohydrate. 47 grams of carbohydrate converts to about 47 grams of sugar, which is almost 10 teaspoons. So, when you eat these fries you put 10 times more sugar into your blood than that required to maintain a normal blood sugar level. If you figure, as we did above, that one quarter of a teaspoon is all the difference between a normal blood sugar and a diabetic blood sugar, the 10 full teaspoons would be 40 times that amount.
Since your metabolic system has to work very hard indeed to deal with the sugar load from an order of fries, imagine what it has to do when you add a large soft drink, a hamburger bun, and maybe an apple turnover for dessert. When you see the long lines of cars in the at the drive-through window and the long lines of customers at the counter inside, you can see why the incidence of type II diabetes is skyrocketing?
Hope this helps some. All the best to you. :)
on May 26, 2011
at 12:08 AM
If you're wondering about fruit consumption while on paleo, for a refreshingly different perspective, check out this ongoing paleo trial:
on May 25, 2011
at 11:24 PM
According to the book Lights Out: Sleep Sugar and Survival fruit is seasonal. What this means is that humans can eat much more fruit in the summer but should cut it back to a bare minimum in the winter. The book also theorizes that we need less sleep in the summer but more in the winter.
on May 25, 2011
at 10:41 PM
The problem is that the fruits our paleo ancestors ate no longer exist. While they had mostly bitter fruit, we've bred ours over the past 200 years to be extremely sweet and sugary. It's thus become something akin to candy plus a mediocre multivitamin.
Also, ours is picked early, genetically modified, and covered in pesticides. That makes it structurally different and significantly more toxic. Plus, our fruit growing capabilities allow us to eat fruit in a non-seasonal manner, which might be a bad thing, though to my knowledge its never been studied systematically.
on May 26, 2011
at 03:19 PM
This is sadly one example how people lead themself in total confusion. There are fruit beside the equator.
Actually fruit is a botanical name of a part of a plant.
Fruits are everywhere. If you say fruit is bad. Honestly you couldnt eat anything anymore cause a lot things are fruits.
After the flower bloom there comes the fruit. Even cauliflower and brokolli have fruits.
Tomato is a fruti, pumkin,zuchinni, squash,
on May 26, 2011
at 12:36 AM
"Fruit" is an all-too-general food monolith that doesn't really say much. The important factor is the quantity of fructose present in the particular fruit/serving. If you boil it down, the particular damaging effect of fructose is hyperuricemia. Most of the insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, obesity, gout etc. that results from an excessive fructose intake starts our with elevated levels of uric acid in the blood. Naturally, you can reverse/prevent most of this simply by cutting out any obvious fructose-dense beverages, candies etc, that you eat.
If you eat a paleo-ish diet, you're left with honey and fruit as dense sources of fructose. I've seen studies where honey is compared to similar quantities of fructose in a synthesized form, and the honey has far less damaging of an effect on the health of the participants. Clearly there are other compounds in it that changes the way it is metabolized, though it still has free-floating fructose molecules, which are the ones that have the greatest potential for overloading your liver. This is why HFCS is so much worse than sucrose (though sucrose should by no means be consumed anyway). With sucrose, the glucose and fructose molecules are weakly bound to each other, which slows absorption and dulls the negative effects. With HFCS, despite what the corn refiners association might tell you, the fructose molecules are unbound, so you're hit with a sledgehammer of fructose in a short period of time.
Now, as far as the increase in urate in response to fructose intake goes, the negative effects are mitigated by an increase in ascorbate. Urate and ascorbate have overlapping roles as antioxidants, so the presence of ascorbate causes an increase in urate excretion. So, when deciding on which fruit to eat, the best choices are those that have the least fructose and the most vitamin C. We must keep in mind that the extent to which the fruit has ripened influences these levels. More ripe tends to mean more fructose and less vitamin C. As such, the best fruits tend to come in berry form. A fruit that is high in fructose but low in vitamin C, such as a ripe banana, would be the worst choice. I used to eat a lot of bananas and also happened to have severe reactive hypoglycemia issues. When I stopped eating them, the symptoms vanished. While it's theoretically possible that vitamin C supplementation could counteract the effects of fructose intake, I don't see a point in going down that road.
Fructose under certain circumstances, while still toxic, is less damaging. Since fructose can only be processed by the liver, it can only replete liver glycogen. If your liver glycogen is low, then an amount that fits into that void will be far less damaging than an amount that exceeds it. I think we use something like 5g of liver glycogen per hour, but it's repleted with glucose as well, so it's difficult to really have an idea of how much you can handle. Safe to err on the side of caution and consume as little as possible. If you simply must consume it, doing so upon waking is safest as your liver glycogen is likely lowest due to the fact that you've been sleeping instead of eating.
Fructose is a completely nonessential molecule that is at best neutral under certain circumstances. If eating fruit makes you feel better than not eating it, you're likely eating too little starch. If you replace fruit with starchy tubers, you will be repleting your glycogen stores without forcing your liver to process fructose.
I consume fairly large amounts of sweet potato and rice but also eat raspberries and/or blackberries every day.
on May 26, 2011
at 02:06 PM
Get out into the wilderness and try and find some fruit. I've trekked different wilderness' all over the world, and if you're not near the equator you need to a lot of luck to find fruit out in the wild.
on May 25, 2011
at 11:17 PM
If you are trying to lose weight by keeping your carbs and therefore your insulin response controlled then tough it out for a few days. There is a point where you have no energy, can't think clearly, and feel like a bag of mashed crap... then once you are past it, adapted to it, burning fat for energy, ...it's like rocket fuel and you don't need the sugar any more.
Then once you've reached your goals, add a small, reasonable amount of fruit back in and don't overdo it. In fact, once enough time has passed, much of our modern "altered" fruit will be entirely too sweet for you.
Think old timey canning pears vs the stuff you get in the store now. The old fashioned less sweet ones will taste much better to you.
on May 25, 2011
at 10:43 PM
Keep eating it if it's not causing you any issues. I don't eat fruit. I'd rather get my carbs from starchy things, makes me happier.
The fruit issue comes up a lot I think because there are a lot of folks here who want to lose weight.
I maintain that eating fruit, even the overly sweet stuff of today, is fine for metabolically un-deranged. For fat people they'd make more progress without it most likely.